Any Trek authors pitched a post Romulus story to Pocketbooks yet?

[Nerys Myk]

Faceless villains/threats dont seem to resonate with the audience. I think they want it to be personal and not just saving the universe from some "thing".

Where does that "fact" even come from?

In the TNG movies, there had the misguided idea that the audience wants Star Trek to be an action movie. Same thing happened in the reboot. But how do they even get these impressions?


And is it just me or a movies today mostly conceived like "I want an action movie for young audiences, think of something." and back in the past it was something like "We want them to search for Spock" or "We want to do a Cold War parallel" and whether it then became an action, suspense, comedy, etc... movie for youngsters or adults was depending on the story?

It comes from me and my observations. Its not a fact or even a "fact", its an opinion.

Blame "Wrath of Khan" for the idea that the audience wants an "action movie"

So which came first? The chicken or the egg? I'm pretty sure that in the case of ST09, the idea of the origin came first and the action movie for a young audience came second. ( a split second to be sure) From TWOK on any Star Trek was going to be an "action movie" and the stories were going to be structured around action. No matter what the "heavy plot element" was, ships were going to blow up, some fisticuffs were going to ensue and there would be some daring do.

Then how come the third-most popular Trek movie (after '09 and TWOK) is The Voyage Home -- a movie with no real villain at all?

You can't judge the effectiveness of a work by broad categories. A story in any category can be great or lousy depending on its execution.

TVH is a different type of Trek film. Its a fish out of water light comedy. ( A popular theme) The threat is pretty much secondary and only serves as a bookend/catalyst for the rest of the film. Sadly the only lesson that film makers took from that film was "comedy". Which resulted in more than a few lame sight gags. (ST09 is guilty of this too)

I agree its all in the execution. Which is why I tend to roll my eyes when someone comes out of the gate bashing a reboot, remake or familiar sounding plot before they see the final product.

Still, I think audiences like a villian they can hate and one that has a grudge against the hero they love.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you only look at what made the most money at the box office to find out what might or might not resonate with the audience, then the next Star Trek should include pirates, wizards, a batman and should be animated.

Uh, they dont always try to be that specific. All three would seem to be "action adventure".

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think it's feasable Nero found out during those missing 25 years. Even if he was in jail for most of them - in the deleted scenes there's Mr. Foureyes failing to smuggle papers to him, so he had some links to the outside.

That's why it's not a good idea to look at the plot too closely. Pick at one thread it soon you've unravelled half the movie.

Based on the scenes that were written but not filmed and those that were filmed but deleted from the final film, it could have held together a lot more than it does. But, it's a non-stop action flick. Many of them don't hold up to scrutiny.

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

 

[kkozoriz1]

Nero was pretty much just a plot device. A character that we're told has a reason for doing what he's doing but we don't really get to see it except on a brief flashback.

Imagine if the movie had started in the Prime universe with Spock and Nero. We'd see that they were supposedly friends (per the comic). We'd see Spock telling the Romulans about Hobus. We'd see him fail. We'd see Spcok and Nero disappear into the black hole.

Roll the opening credits.

The rest of the movie then plays out pretty much as it did. We'd know why Nero is so angry and wanting to destroy Spock, Vulcan and the rest of the Federation.

 

[Christopher]

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Then there's the cavalier attitude toward time travel (both achieving it and preserving history) in TVH, pretty much everything about TFF, the instantaneous speed of light and gravity in GEN and the inconsistency of how hard it is to get into the Nexus, the question of how the Borg in FC got time travel and why they never used it again, the whole "fountain of youth radiation" nonsense of INS, the thalaron nonsense of NEM... honestly, the credibility of the new movie is pretty much par for the course as Trek movies go.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I think it's feasable Nero found out during those missing 25 years. Even if he was in jail for most of them - in the deleted scenes there's Mr. Foureyes failing to smuggle papers to him, so he had some links to the outside.

That's why it's not a good idea to look at the plot too closely. Pick at one thread it soon you've unravelled half the movie.

Based on the scenes that were written but not filmed and those that were filmed but deleted from the final film, it could have held together a lot more than it does. But, it's a non-stop action flick. Many of them don't hold up to scrutiny.

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Saying that "everyone else has done it" is hardly the best defense. When you've got a budget that's pretty close to all the other movies in the series combined I expect a bit more from it.

 

[BillJ]

...and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Thought that was explained pretty well in the conversation between Kirk and Sarek.

SAREK: One alive, one not. Yet both in pain.
KIRK: What must I do?
SAREK: You must bring them to Mount Seleya, ...on Vulcan. Only there can both find peace.
KIRK: What you ask ...is difficult.
SAREK: You will find a way, Kirk. ...If you honour them both, you must.
KIRK: I will. I swear.

 

[Nerys Myk]

True, but Nero doesn't know that. His beef is with Spock.

Nero liked to rub it in though

(Kirk finds Nero)
KIRK: Nero order your men to disable the drill or I will--
(Ayel knocks Kirk down)
NERO: I know your face, from Earth's history.
(a fight between Nero and Kirk ensues, with Nero gaining the upper hand)
NERO: James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man. He went on to captain the USS Enterprise, but that was another life. A life I will deprive you of, just like I did your father.
(Elsewhere, Spock destroys the drill platform)
ROMULAN OFFICER: (on comm) Captain Nero, the Vulcan ship has been taken, the drill has been destroyed.
NERO: Spock! Spooockk!
(Nero runs off, leaving Kirk and Ayel)

I always wondered how Nero found out that he killed Jim Kirk's father. He didn't introduce himself to Nero at any point, and even if he did, Nero could only have been lucky that they weren't two unrelated Kirks. Unless when he studied Earth's history, he happened to remember the name of Jim Kirk's parents. But then we still have the problem of how he found out that he killed George Kirk.

He's a Kirk fanboy.

And he actually said he studied Earth's history and knows Kirk's face and reputation. Its right there in the quote. I dont think its too much of a stretch to assume the fact Kirk's parents served onboard the Kelvin was included in what ever history Nero read.

 

[Nerys Myk]

...and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Thought that was explained pretty well in the conversation between Kirk and Sarek.

SAREK: One alive, one not. Yet both in pain.
KIRK: What must I do?
SAREK: You must bring them to Mount Seleya, ...on Vulcan. Only there can both find peace.
KIRK: What you ask ...is difficult.
SAREK: You will find a way, Kirk. ...If you honour them both, you must.
KIRK: I will. I swear.

I think the "them" is McCoy and Spock. Thats why he says both can find peace.

How would Kirk even know there was a body on Genesis? It should have burnt up upon entry to the planet's atmosphere.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero was pretty much just a plot device. A character that we're told has a reason for doing what he's doing but we don't really get to see it except on a brief flashback.

Imagine if the movie had started in the Prime universe with Spock and Nero. We'd see that they were supposedly friends (per the comic). We'd see Spock telling the Romulans about Hobus. We'd see him fail. We'd see Spcok and Nero disappear into the black hole.

Roll the opening credits.

The rest of the movie then plays out pretty much as it did. We'd know why Nero is so angry and wanting to destroy Spock, Vulcan and the rest of the Federation.

It wasn't an accident that we didn't find out what Nero's problem was until later in the film. We saw the film from the POV of Kirk and (young) Spock, and thus we found out Nero's motivations when one of them did. "Why is Nero on a rampage?" is a much better hook than "Watch Nero act out his plan from act one"

 

[kkozoriz1]

However, IX was primarily an origin movie. Bringing these characters together got the most screen time. Nero is almost a subplot. Do one or the other as your main plot. When you're playing the whole mystery villain angle you need a better payoff than a brief flashback showing his motivation. Let the origin be your main plot, let us know from the get-go what Nero's motivation is and let us watch the two plots collide.

Nero could have been an interesting villain if more of the plot was devoted to him. Let us see why he's so PO'd at Spock. As it is he's mad because Spcok is the only one who even tried to save Romulus and he failed. Nero's pissed at the only person who tried to help him. Having your main villain insane with grief and lashing out doesn't evoke any sympathy without giving us a reason why. He's just a wild animal attacking the campers at random. We don't see any connection between Spock and Nero that would allow us to feel Nero's sense of betrayal.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's why it's not a good idea to look at the plot too closely. Pick at one thread it soon you've unravelled half the movie.

Based on the scenes that were written but not filmed and those that were filmed but deleted from the final film, it could have held together a lot more than it does. But, it's a non-stop action flick. Many of them don't hold up to scrutiny.

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Saying that "everyone else has done it" is hardly the best defense. When you've got a budget that's pretty close to all the other movies in the series combined I expect a bit more from it.

Moreover, KingDaniel and Christopher were comparing the flaw in a character's personal motivation or a hole in the plot's internal logic you cited mostly to technobabble McGuffins of the previous movies. Yet you didn't say anything about Red Matter, did you?




An interesting twist to Nero's motivation would have been that Prime Spock was indeed responsible for the destruction of Romulus (for example if his intervention made things worse).

 

[kkozoriz1]

Red matter's the maguffin, just like Genesis or the whale probe. It's a silly plot device that's just there to drive the plot. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for that in most cases.

I was speaking more of characterization and plot. You can have your one plot device.

Shouldn't we expect more from our films than what's come before?

 

[Nerys Myk]

That's why it's not a good idea to look at the plot too closely. Pick at one thread it soon you've unravelled half the movie.

Based on the scenes that were written but not filmed and those that were filmed but deleted from the final film, it could have held together a lot more than it does. But, it's a non-stop action flick. Many of them don't hold up to scrutiny.

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Saying that "everyone else has done it" is hardly the best defense. When you've got a budget that's pretty close to all the other movies in the series combined I expect a bit more from it.

What does the size of the budget really have to do with this? If budget had an impact on storytelling then Titanic and Avatar would be the most original and flawless stories ever told.

 

[JarodRussell]

This is true of most, if not all, Trek films. STVI falls apart in the first act with an impossible shockwave. TMP fails because there are no other ships in the vacnity of Earth. TWoK's Genesis is pure magic, and SFS really doesn't make sense at all (why are they risking everything going to Genesis when they shouldn't know Spock's alive yet?)

Saying that "everyone else has done it" is hardly the best defense. When you've got a budget that's pretty close to all the other movies in the series combined I expect a bit more from it.

What does the size of the budget really have to do with this? If budget had an impact on storytelling then Titanic and Avatar would be the most original and flawless stories ever told.

Yeah, Titanic is pretty flawed. I still don't understand why the Captain said she's unsinkable when at the end the ship sank. So was that character wrong or did the writers make a mistake? And what's up with that they didn't have enough rescue boats for all of them? The creators of the movie clearly had no idea of ship design.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Saying that "everyone else has done it" is hardly the best defense. When you've got a budget that's pretty close to all the other movies in the series combined I expect a bit more from it.

What does the size of the budget really have to do with this? If budget had an impact on storytelling then Titanic and Avatar would be the most original and flawless stories ever told.

Yeah, Titanic is pretty flawed. I still don't understand why the Captain said she's unsinkable when at the end the ship sank. So was that character wrong or did the writers make a mistake? And what's up with that they didn't have enough rescue boats for all of them? The creators of the movie clearly had no idea of ship design.

Yes, I'm refering to the historical elements and not the entirely fictional, overly familar romance plot with stock characters straight out of a Harlequin novel that was the focus of most of the film.

 

[kkozoriz1]

What does the size of the budget really have to do with this? If budget had an impact on storytelling then Titanic and Avatar would be the most original and flawless stories ever told.

When you're given more money, you have a responsibility to give it your best. Rising movie budgets lead to higher ticket prices. You have a responsibility to ensure that the product you're asking a higher price for give the customer a good value for their money.

IX got a bit of a pass as it's a reboot in all but name. People were interested in seeing what was new. Shouldn't the writers & producers make sure that they're giving the best possible product?

Taking inflation into account TWOK would cost $24.5 million in 2009. Was IX really six times better?

TWOK's gross was seven times it's budget. Did IX make a billion?

Anyway, we've once again strayed from the topic.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Having your main villain insane with grief and lashing out doesn't evoke any sympathy without giving us a reason why

You're confusing your opinion of the movie with solid fact. You didn't see the link between Spock and Nero. You didn't find Nero sympathetic. Some, myself incuded, did. At the start Nero was a crazy Romulan with an unbeatable war machine but once I saw Old Spock's explanation to Kirk and Nero's talk with Pike about his wife I pitied Nero - what he was trying to do was make the universe safe (or or least what he percieved as safe) for his wife, unborn son and planet at any cost. Family is very important to me and so it's something I can very much understand. I thought the story was better having that revealed halfway through rather than at the start.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What does the size of the budget really have to do with this? If budget had an impact on storytelling then Titanic and Avatar would be the most original and flawless stories ever told.

When you're given more money, you have a responsibility to give it your best. Rising movie budgets lead to higher ticket prices. You have a responsibility to ensure that the product you're asking a higher price for give the customer a good value for their money.

IX got a bit of a pass as it's a reboot in all but name. People were interested in seeing what was new. Shouldn't the writers & producers make sure that they're giving the best possible product?

Taking inflation into account TWOK would cost $24.5 million in 2009. Was IX really six times better?

TWOK's gross was seven times it's budget. Did IX make a billion?

Anyway, we've once again strayed from the topic.

Whether they gave their "best" is pretty subjective. As is what value the consumer got out of the movie. And I would hope that they and any film maker, artist or writer would always give their best no matter what the budget or paycheck. Would you come here and tell the various authors that their motivation to do good work is the cost of a paperback and what ever budget Pocket assigns to the Star Trek franchise rather than doing the best work they can because its their job? I dont think you can quantify quality and cost that way.

I lack the knowledge to determine if big budgets have a significant impact on the cost of a ticket. I would guess that other factors might play a more significant role, such as payroll costs, utilities and the rising cost of candy, popcorn and soda. When I worked in a video store we raised our prices when our distributors raised theirs.

 

[Christopher]

I think the "them" is McCoy and Spock. Thats why he says both can find peace.

Exactly. "One alive, one not, yet both in pain" refers to McCoy carrying Spock's mind within his own. It's got nothing to do with Spock's body.

How would Kirk even know there was a body on Genesis? It should have burnt up upon entry to the planet's atmosphere.

This made more sense in the original script, where the Grissom scenes featuring the discovery of Spock's soft-landed torpedo tube came before the Enterprise scene. They reordered the scenes in editing to start with the familiar ship and crew. The log-entry line that in the final film was "The death of Spock is like an open wound" was scripted as "The news of Spock's tube is like an open wound."

In the movie as it stands, we can assume that at some point off-camera, the Grissom sent a report of their initial findings to Starfleet and Kirk learned about the discovery.

Which still doesn't explain why Kirk felt he had to break regulations and go to Genesis to retrieve what he thought was a corpse. After all, they didn't find out Spock had been resurrected until they got to Genesis, so they couldn't have known in advance that the fal tor pan was possible. I've always assumed it was just out of respect for the family's wishes -- Sarek wanted to bury Spock's body back on Vulcan and was upset that Kirk had failed to honor that request. (Maybe that's how Vonda McIntyre rationalized it in the novel and that's what I'm remembering.) But it seems an awful lot of trouble to go to just for a proper burial.

Maybe you could surmise that somehow Spock's corpse would be needed in order to perform the transfer of his katra out of McCoy's mind into a katric ark, so that it was necessary to retrieve the body from Genesis in order to save McCoy's life and Spock's "soul." But it's hard to see why that would be the case, and ENT's Vulcan trilogy established that a katra can be transferred through a meld without needing the original body.