Didn't like the movie? How would YOU have made it?

[OneBuckFilms]

Well, I'd equate that to what was done in "Batman Begins," for example. How long was it before we saw Bruce Wayne in the batsuit? And yet, I think this worked much better.

Batman Begins was more introverted in nature, and was all about one character being explored in depth.

A very different beast, and not as much based on an Action-Adventure frame.

It was also aimed more as a psychological crime drama, a very different thing in both execution and idea.

The story I see is primarily a Kirk/Spock film, with two major supporting characters. Too many characters with major roles in a 2-hour movie and, inevitably, you either dilute the story or you underserve the characters.

This is good as a general focus.

So I focus, almost exclusively, on Kirk and Spock, and merely "introduce" other characters. I try to give them introductions that the audience will like, without seeming "pandering." But Kirk and Spock, they need a lot of depth here, as the heart of the movie is really about the two of them.

I think as the heart of Star Trek, that is true, though TOS has always been an ensemble.

The the "childhood" stuff would run for a bit longer than we saw in ST'09 (roughly the same as if they hadn't removed the deleted scenes, really). The Academy stuff would run roughly twice as long as what we saw in ST'09, but we'd lose the "hangar scenes" and so forth, so we're probably really only talking something like 150% of the ST'09 "Academy screen time" shots. My main purpose was to make these scenes more "personal" in nature... more about the characters than I felt that they were in this film.

This is something I like. But there isn't as much of the Adventure side, and for general viewers, it runs the risk of taking itself a little too seriously, and may feel a little too slow.

This is because I really, truly believe that the character development in this film was its major failing. I really didn't find myself caring about these characters... and considering that I DO care about the characters I've know for all 44 years of my life, well, that's actually a fairly significant thing to say.

I found myself caring about Kirk and Spock in this personally, but a greater depth is still a good thing. I think our disagreement is on percieved effectiveness and balance.

No, not really. It's just my desire to treat the situation as something more realistic. I HATE the idea that everything from TOS sort of "falls into place" in the space of a few hours, and then stays that way forever after. REAL LIFE is all about change and growth. I specifically structured things as I did to emphasize that everything doesn't magically happen all at once.

Star Trek simply is not Real Life. Real Life is often dull for a movie, especially an Action-Adventure film.

One would NEED to guarantee 2 or 3 movies to do what you require, and if the characters are not interesting immediately, people start looking at watches.

Anyone going to a Star Trek movie with a big budget is not looking for Last of the Mohicans or 2001, they are looking for an Adventure. We love the characters, and see the details because we already know them by now.

Star Trek, ultimately, is about people and about ideas. "The Human Adventure" and all that. That may seem pretentious to some folks, but to me, well, that why I love Star Trek, and that's what I miss when it's absent.

You're not wrong, but Adventure is a bigger part of Star Trek's legacy than your story provides.

So, I wanted to make it more about people, and for it to be about REAL people (or rather, people we can believe could be real), these people need to have lives that make sense. Change is a part of real life, and I want to see change occur in this venue as well. That makes it more real... and thus makes it easier to make myself "willingly suspend my disbelief" and become involved in what I'm watching.

Long term, that is an admirable goal. But people generally go to see a Drama if they was just drama, and the (I'll say it again) adventure was more than something exciting between scenes of drama.

It always served to tell the story, not provide a setting for dialog.

The three movies I listed need not all be made, obviously. Each would have had a different, and largely independent, theme.

• Kirk becomes the man we know
• Kirk gets command of the Enterprise
• The Adventures Begin...

To me, these really are different things - different events, different adventures - which would, in "real life," occur at different times.

This film is a character study, with action thrown in? There is no real mystery to be solved, nothing DRIVING the plot here.

Simply scenes chronicaling the loves of Kirk and Spock, in many ways like a biopic.

The Adventure side of things has been relegated to a B plot, and our crew don't face anything. They simply respond to a generic, vague threat, and show some skills.

Do we really need to have the second and third "events" covered in order for the first one to be relevant? Not at all? Do we really ned the first and third for the second to be relevant, or the first and second for the third to be relevant? Nope. I just think that the three should not have occurred simultaneously. That's not believable to me.

This level of believability is not conducive to a 2 hour movie.

Well, obviously, I'm playing with ideas, not writing a script. I've never been very good at writing dialog, so I normally don't bother to try.

If the framework is there, I suspect dialog could always be worked on later. I'm actually enjoying some of the ideas you're presenting here.

There are lots of people who are very good at this (Roddenberry was an expert at it, for example), but I'm not among them.

This is only a treatment anyway. To see if we can narrow down to a good basic outline.

I think that, halfway through the film, when the audience first sees Kirk leading a rescue party aboard the liner, and Kirk encounters the makeshift triage area... and then we see Urban walk in, covered with blood, with the "shellshocked but hard at work" thing Kelley did so well (and which was what made latter-day MASH shows so effective as well) would have been amazing.

THIS would make a GREAT intro, but Kirk and McCoy need time to form a friendship.

The audience would have had an introduction to McCoy that would have shown us his humanity... and passion for saving lives... in a way that the movie we actually got didn't so much as hint at.

Good stuff.

In my outline, McCoy would be a constant participant in the plans to rescue everyone... because he'd be the one bringing up "and how do you propose that we get my three hundred unconscious wounded patients to climb six decks of ladders, you green-blooded hobgoblin!" and so forth.

I think having him confront Spock on some things would work well.

Meanwhile, Scotty would also be a major participant, as he would be the only reason that the liner was still in one piece. And I'm certain that he would be the one to come up with the technical recommendation on how to use resources from both wrecks to allow everyone to survive. He'd be a major player. I just didn't bother to write the specifics...I hope you understand how much I LOVE the Enterprise... that is, the original ship, as seen on TOS. I don't leave it out lightly.

That actually comes across in the way you describe the gray lady.

But, all that aside, the Enterprise is NOT a character. It's not. It's a "setting." It's a work of art. It's a machine. But it's not a character.

Well, she doesn't have dialog or anything, but she is very much a character in a way.

Can you imagine TOS without the Enterprise? Star Wars without the Millenium Falcon?

The Enterprise, in many ways, is part of the reason the crew is there, together.

She's part of the Legend, if you will. Part of the soul of Star Trek.

The Enterprise, under the command of Captain Scott Ferguson and first officer Mike Dubois, wouldn't be a central part of Star Trek as we know it. Any more than the house you may have grown up in is still "your house" if you've lived elsewhere for 20 years, and three other families have lived there after you did.

She's been there since the beginning. Part of the fabric. Part of the basic premise of Star Trek.

The Enterprise is significant for three reasons:

• 1) It's the plot-device for TOS which explains how our characters get from adventure to adventure, and how they deal with each adventure.
• 2) It's a distinctive visual design which, through what I consider to be some pretty masterful design, simultaneously brings to mind modern naval vessels and historical "tall ships," with all of the grace and beauty associated with them.
• 3) It holds a special place in the heart of two major characters... Kirk and Scott, both of whom fall in love with the ship and, because we see the ship through their eyes, make us care about the Enterprise.

She's also more than the sum of her parts.

I disagree, almost entirely.


"General audiences" don't care one bit about the "Star Trek Family." They want exciting entertainment about characters who they can, in the course of a couple of hours of entertainment, come to relate to and empathize with.

This is true.

This is why "ensemble" movies usually don't do well. The audience can really only be made to empathize with one, two, or SOMETIMES, three characters in that period of time. The more characters you "focus on," the less "focus" any individual character will get, and the less the audience will be able to "connect" to that character.

Star Trek is an ensemble piece that focuses primarily on Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

It's mainly the Star Trek FANS who want to see "everyone all together at once," not the "general audiences." So, as I see it, what I've proposed actually would better meet the "wants" of the general audience. You may not agree, of course, but I do, and I did what I did intentionally, and for that very reason.

I'll continue later.

 

[bullethead]

Here's a semi-canon compliant idea:
-The movie starts with Kirk on a transport to somewhere, having flashbacks to his last mission, where he beat some Orion raiders that were attacking his ship.
-Bones shows up and jars him out of the flashback as they prepare to disembark with Gary Mitchell.
-Kirk gets command of the Enterprise from Pike
-The Enterprise has to escort some freighters carrying some valuable stuff (military supplies, but Kirk isn't told that) to a colony before it can go off exploring
-En route, the Enterprise and the freighters get disabled by a ship (let's call it the Marauder) disguised as a surplus Starfleet ship. Guys from the enemy board the freighters, steal the military gear and beam off.
-Meanwhile, some bad guys beam aboard the Enterprise and download classified info. Kirk hears about this and flashes back to the previous battle with the Orions and orders the security teams to mobilize. They get into a gun fight with the bad guys and both sides take losses before the bad dudes beam out.
-Aboard the Marauder, a Klingon passenger watches the action from a control room full of screens. It turns out he's behind this, having contracted the Marauder's crew through an Orion pirate.
-The Marauder heads to an Orion base, where the Klingon will get a ride into Klingon space after he pays the Marauder's crew.
-Once the Enterprise gets up and running, Kirk's first instinct is to go after the Marauder, but Spock reminds him that they have to protect the freighters. Mitchell and Spock start arguing over that, so Kirk decides to go on with escorting the freighters, but as soon as that's done, they'll go after the Marauder.
-Once the Enterprise gets to the colony, Kirk finds out what was in the cargo that was stolen and that Starfleet intelligence found a suspected Orion base in a nearby system's asteroid belt, so they sent the Constellation and a few other ships to the colony a few months before.
-Decker tells Kirk that they're going to take out the Orion base, which is a hollowed out asteroid, and lays out a battle plan that includes getting people inside the base to free any captives.
-On the Enterprise, Kirk assigns Gary Mitchell to command the ground team; Sulu volunteers to fly them down there and Kirk approves.
-The Starfleet flotilla arrives before the Marauder or the Klingon can get away. The Starfleet ships pick off the base's defenses before launching the shuttles, while the Orions launch as many ships and shuttles as they can to stop them.
-As the battle rages, Sulu's shuttle gets hit and crashes into a structure on the surface of the asteroid. Mitchell leads the security guys inside and they face off with the Orions. Sulu takes out a couple with a rapier or katana as they move through the base.
-The Marauder explodes out of a hanger in the asteroid and starts running for it. Decker tells Kirk to intercept it; as the Enterprise pursues the Marauder, it launches huge salvos of missiles from launchers disguised as asteroids.
-After the missile swarms manage to bloody up the Enterprise, the Marauder jumps to warp and launches some decoys and loses the Enterprise by pretending to be a decoy. Once the Enterprise passes by, the Marauder heads off to the Klingon border.
-Once Kirk realizes that he's been fooled, he heads back to the Orion base, knowing that pursuing the Marauder is impossible.
-The Marauder rendezvous with a D7 and transfers the Klingon, the stolen supplies, and the data. Both ships part, and the Klingon decides to look at the data from the Enterprise. This sets off a booby trap in the supplies that obliterates the D7.
-Back on the Enterprise, Decker tells Kirk that stuff like that happens and wishes him success on his mission of exploration. As the Enterprise leaves, Kirk wonders about the Marauder and how easily it beat the Enterprise the first time, leading him to the possibility that someone in Starfleet was involved.
-The Marauder's bridge is shown for the first time and it is revealed to be a Starfleet ship, working for some covert agency bent on getting Starfleet to militarize.

As for production design, the uniforms would be similar to STXI's, except the women wear pants; the phasers would actually have sights and trigger guards and look more like the ST6 assault phasers; I'd keep as much of the interior design as possible and just detail the exterior of the ship. If I have have to redesign it, I'd go with the smooth version of the Koernerprise:

 

[Trekker4747]

Hard double returns are your friend.

Koernerprise:

Couldn't work on the big-screen my ass! Using that version would've been prefect.

 

[Cyke101]

Hard double returns are your friend.

Koernerprise:

Couldn't work on the big-screen my ass! Using that version would've been prefect.

The only complaint I could see with that version is that it's almost too busy. Most Enterprises are usually simple and accessible in their design, with an appropriate amount of sleekness... I've seen videos of Gabe's design flying around space and it seems to have almost too many points of articulation (far more complicated than seeing only one side from that above photo).

HOWEVER, when there was the Internet ruse that Gabe's design was going to be the JJprise, I nearly wet my pants as the design really truly is awesome.

 

[Disillusioned]

I still hate that design, even if it has been modified to resemble the original better.

 

[C.E. Evans]

As an exercise, and for the fun of it, I though it would be interesting to see how a Star Trek movie would be made by those who were not pleased with JJ Abram's approach.

As a framework, lets assume that you have full creative control, and $150m to spend on the movie.

Some things to consider:
- How would the story break down, beginning to end?
- How would you hook a non-Trek audience into the Star Trek property?
- Do you create a ground-up reboot, or something within continuity?
- What kind of pacing or character interactions would you choose?
- How close, and in what fashion, would you adhere to TOS in terms of design or style?

In short, what would be the RIGHT way to do it, from your perspective?

I don't think it would have been the RIGHT way to do it, but what I would have done is set the movie 85 years after Nemesis and have the cast play all-new characters, with Pine and Quinto playing the descendants of Kirk and Spock (yeah, yeah, you can hate me later). The tone and pacing of the movie would have been the same, but the look would have been 25th-Century. In the end, we still would have had a young Captain Kirk back in command of the Enterprise (albeit a future version) with a snotty Vulcan first officer. It would have been called Star Trek: Full Circle. There would be no time travel or alternate universe, but Nero being a pissed-off Romulan wanting to take revenge on a very old Ambassador Spock and the Federation for the fall of the Romulan Empire.

It's just what I personally would have wished, but otherwise I liked Star Trek XI just as it was...

 

[startrekrcks]

I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something

 

[AnyStar]

I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something

Star Trek's fan-longevity has mainly to do with one thing, its history and continutity remains the same throughout every series (i'm obviously ommiting Enterprise series, as it was a complete failure to fit into the bigger picture)

So many of us hate the new film because to break it down simply:

If your going to make a Trek film, then make a TREK film, not some ambitious directors idea of what he can make Trek INTO..

 

[AnyStar]

I don't think it would have been the RIGHT way to do it, but what I would have done is set the movie 85 years after Nemesis and have the cast play all-new characters, with Pine and Quinto playing the descendants of Kirk and Spock (yeah, yeah, you can hate me later). The tone and pacing of the movie would have been the same, but the look would have been 25th-Century. In the end, we still would have had a young Captain Kirk back in command of the Enterprise (albeit a future version) with a snotty Vulcan first officer. It would have been called Star Trek: Full Circle. There would be no time travel or alternate universe, but Nero being a pissed-off Romulan wanting to take revenge on a very old Ambassador Spock and the Federation for the fall of the Romulan Empire.

It's just what I personally would have wished, but otherwise I liked Star Trek XI just as it was...

i would think that would have been IMMENSELY better than the prequel-dimensional garbage

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I don't really know why so many fans hate this movie has JJ ruined your childhood or something

I believe that line qualifies as a "troll." However, since it's on the "pro-movie" side of the debate, I'm sure it will pass without comment.

"Ruined your childhood" is such an overused comment in this light that it has, itself, become effectively a parody of those who use it. It serves only one purpose... to mock and diminish those who don't like the movie, attempting to couch all of their arguments as though they are just childishness... effectively, its use is a cheap attempt to portray the people towards whom it's directed in the same light as the adult who still plays with his teddy bear.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Thanks. That really clears a few things up. I know that somewhere around this forum people were using Savik's rank of Lt. during the Kobayashi Maru test to support the idea of cadets being full lieutenants during their final years and upon immediate graduation thus giving more support to the "Kirk is a lieutenant and not a cadet" idea. Although, there is a screen cap posted in one thread that clearly shows Kirk as a Lt., along with Sulu in the falling/no transporter lock scene.

This would have been clearer, still, had the "Peter Preston" stuff in ST-II not been trimmed down.

See, while Saavik was a Lieutenant, Preston was still a cadet. A naval cadet is usually referred to as a "midshipman." Here's the definition for that:

A student training to be a commissioned naval officer, especially a student at a naval academy.

So, the one other character in ST-II who has lines, and who is clearly younger and less experienced, has a rank which is entirely consistent with modern-day naval rank structures.

Peter Preston was a "trainee," a "cadet," a "midshipman." As were the overwhelming majority of those who were aboard Enterprise during ST-II. They wore different uniforms. Only one Academy student aboard Enterprise wore an officer's uniform, and that was Saavik. Because she was already an officer.

 

[ST-One]

If your going to make a Trek film, then make a TREK film, not some ambitious directors idea of what he can make Trek INTO..

Get yourself a time-machine and tell that to Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer.
A movie, any movie, will always reflect the ambitions and ideas of a director.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Well, I'd equate that to what was done in "Batman Begins," for example. How long was it before we saw Bruce Wayne in the batsuit? And yet, I think this worked much better.

Batman Begins was more introverted in nature, and was all about one character being explored in depth.

A very different beast, and not as much based on an Action-Adventure frame.

It was also aimed more as a psychological crime drama, a very different thing in both execution and idea.

I disagree.

First off, "Batman Begins" was not "all about one character." While there was one primary character, this film (correctly) treated Jim Gordon as the "co-star" character. Which is the way he really should be treated. Other characters (Rachael, Alfred, Dr. Crane, Ra'as) were "major supporting characters," but as far as I'm concerned, Jim Gordon, in "Batman Begins," hold the same level of importance that Spock would have held in the story I'm suggesting. And in "The Dark Knight" they took this even a step closer to parity... it was as much about Gordon as it was about Wayne. As it should be!

And I also disagree about your description of "genres." A genre is only, again, a setting. Of course, I particularly dislike the concept of Star Trek being treated as an "action/adventure" movie. As I've said many times, the Star Trek I grew up with, have lived my entire life with, and love is NOT an "action/adventure" thing.

"Die Hard" is action/adventure. It's about gunfights, and big explosions, and wise-ass lines. I enjoy that sort of movie, don't get me wrong. But that's not what Star Trek has ever been... until this movie, that is.

When we choose "genre definitions" like you did, though, you're really putting the movie into a box. There have been some Star Trek episodes or films which had significant "elements of action/adventure." And in some cases, that worked, as part of a greater whole, very nicely. But in no case did a Trek movie fall entirely into that category. And off the top of my head, I can't think of a single episode which did... though possibly, because such hollow "action/adventure" episodes would have left me underwhelmed.

There were very clear "action/adventure" elements to "Batman Begins," of course. LOTS of them. The reason that this movie captured the imagination of the audience, whereas the prior couple of "Batman" movies did not, was that it treated the characters as realistically as possible, and focused on the PERSONAL, rather than on the "big 'splosions and kewl stuff" which the prior Batman flicks had done... and because it treated the source material with a level of respect which was almost "reverence."

So I focus, almost exclusively, on Kirk and Spock, and merely "introduce" other characters. I try to give them introductions that the audience will like, without seeming "pandering." But Kirk and Spock, they need a lot of depth here, as the heart of the movie is really about the two of them.

I think as the heart of Star Trek, that is true, though TOS has always been an ensemble.

Well, it's far easier to do an ensemble on TV, where you have 20-30 episodes per season.

When movie-Trek tried to be too much of an "ensemble," it usually failed. Shatner tried, way too hard, to do this in ST-V. The result of trying to give "every character something interesting" resulted in nothing good. Had this movie left the supporting characters in simple "supporting character" roles, and focused much more on the "troika" (and really, mainly on Kirk and Spock... McCoy in this films didn't have much to do in the script that got shot, did he?) I think that the film could have been quite a bit better.

The the "childhood" stuff would run for a bit longer than we saw in ST'09 (roughly the same as if they hadn't removed the deleted scenes, really). The Academy stuff would run roughly twice as long as what we saw in ST'09, but we'd lose the "hangar scenes" and so forth, so we're probably really only talking something like 150% of the ST'09 "Academy screen time" shots. My main purpose was to make these scenes more "personal" in nature... more about the characters than I felt that they were in this film.

This is something I like. But there isn't as much of the Adventure side, and for general viewers, it runs the risk of taking itself a little too seriously, and may feel a little too slow.

And this is really back to the point... where this movie was treated primarily as an "action/adventure" film, whereas Star Trek, at its best, has never been that at all.

Star Trek has occasionally "lightened up" ("The Trouble with Tribbles," "A Piece of the Action") but those were, while fun, actually fairly hard to swallow as part of a "real" Star Trek world, weren't they? I enjoy those episodes... don't get me wrong... but viewed objectively, I think that they almost don't "fit."

The BEST Trek, IMHO (and according to most audience-surveys, I think most folks agree with me) were the ones that were (a) most character-driven, and (b) most serious.

"City on the Edge of Forever" is probably the single best example of this. Not a LICK of "action/adventure" in that episode, really. It took itself TREMENDOUSLY seriously. It was all about characters. It didn't so much as touch on the "big picture" - Kirk and Spock didn't go undercover, to Washington, to play spy and try to put things back as they were supposed to be. They stayed with Edith Keeler, and looked for McCoy... and that's all they did.

And it's widely accepted as the single best Star Trek episode ever.

Now, for a movie, you may well argue that you need some action... some danger, some tangible physical risk. I think I gave that (space is a very dangerous place, after all, and the passengers and crews of two "shipwrecks" trying to somehow survive a disaster has LOTS of dramatic tension!), but I did so INTENTIONALLY without introducing a "villain," or a "big climactic battle sequence." Those are overdone cliches, and while it's OK to have them occasionally, I really prefer focusing on the characters, not the "big kewl 'splosions." I hope you agree.

No, not really. It's just my desire to treat the situation as something more realistic. I HATE the idea that everything from TOS sort of "falls into place" in the space of a few hours, and then stays that way forever after. REAL LIFE is all about change and growth. I specifically structured things as I did to emphasize that everything doesn't magically happen all at once

Star Trek simply is not Real Life. Real Life is often dull for a movie, especially an Action-Adventure film.

I see this as a false distinction.

For an example, look at "Band of Brothers." ENTIRELY "real life." Not "dull" at all.

I, personally, find "action for the sake of action" in a movie to be far, far more "dull." Your mileage may vary.

One would NEED to guarantee 2 or 3 movies to do what you require, and if the characters are not interesting immediately, people start looking at watches.

"Need?" I disagree. Each of the three "concepts" I toss out there are entirely independent. Each has its own premise, with a distinct beginning and a distinct resolution.

I'm afraid that you've latched onto that. So... just put it aside entirely. Ignore the "movies #2 and #3" I suggested, and treat the "treatment" I gave as a complete, STAND-ALONE concept.

The complaint may then be "well, it doesn't put Kirk on to the Enterprise, and does put the whole crew together."

In which case, my response would be "so what?" Why does the GENERAL AUDIENCE care about that? I really don't think that they do. AT ALL. They want an exciting story involving character that can care about and identify with. While it may be a "surprise" the casual moviegoer that you don't have Kirk on the Enterprise, at all, during this film, I doubt that they'd be remotely upset about that. Only the "geeks" would care, and among them, only a small subset, I think.

Anyone going to a Star Trek movie with a big budget is not looking for Last of the Mohicans or 2001, they are looking for an Adventure. We love the characters, and see the details because we already know them by now.

That argument only holds if you assume that the only people going to this movie are long-time, dedicated Star Trek fans.

This is another false assumption which has been made over the years by people on both sides of the argument... that somehow, "fans want something different from what general audiences want." I disagree. We weren't BORN "Star Trek Fans." We came to love it because it was great storytelling about characters we could care about.

I first debated this particular point several years ago... and I still see it as a false argument. Fans want the same thing that everyone else does... we just want a little bit more beyond that.

You keep saying "the audience wants an adventure." Well, how, exactly, do you describe "adventure." See, to me, "Last of the Mohicans" is very much an adventure, but clearly that is not what you mean when you use the term.

To me, every meaningful story... every story worth telling... which involves a hero having to overcome a major problem... is an adventure. The problem which must be overcome doesn't have to be "Mustache-twirling villain who plans to blow up the world." It just has to be something that is VERY PERSONAL to the characters we're watching, and which must require those characters to reach beyond their "comfort zone."

(to be continued due to BBS length limitations!)

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Star Trek, ultimately, is about people and about ideas. "The Human Adventure" and all that. That may seem pretentious to some folks, but to me, well, that why I love Star Trek, and that's what I miss when it's absent.

You're not wrong, but Adventure is a bigger part of Star Trek's legacy than your story provides.

To me, a character overcoming massive psychological baggage is pretty damned dramatic, and the whole "crew facing their own death plus the deaths of over a thousand innocent civilian" gives a tremendous sense of danger.

Have you ever seen the old movie "The Poseidon Adventure?" That was undeniably an "adventure," wasn't it? And yet, there was no "mustache-twirling baddie" or any "threat to destroy the universe" in that. What I was proposing more closely resembles THAT sort of an adventure than what I think you're getting at.

So, I wanted to make it more about people, and for it to be about REAL people (or rather, people we can believe could be real), these people need to have lives that make sense. Change is a part of real life, and I want to see change occur in this venue as well. That makes it more real... and thus makes it easier to make myself "willingly suspend my disbelief" and become involved in what I'm watching.

Long term, that is an admirable goal. But people generally go to see a Drama if they was just drama, and the (I'll say it again) adventure was more than something exciting between scenes of drama.

It always served to tell the story, not provide a setting for dialog.

I think you're prejudiced in your comments here. Most of the best, and most popular, dramatic fiction (whether prose or film) has involved a blending of both. I think your comments indicate that you want "action/adventure" to be the central aspect of the film, with "character and substance" to be tacked on. Your earlier comment about "we already know these characters" is significant in this regard.

But as "Dukhat" mentioned in an other post elsewhere on this BBS, these aren't really the same characters at all. As he points out, this Kirk is essentially not the same man, AT ALL, as the TOS Kirk was.

This means that these characters MUST be treated as new characters, and the audience must be made to care about them, entirely, in the course of this movie. The fact that they have a few traits in common with some other character we already know is irrelevant... they aren't the same characters, nor are they intended to be.

If the characters are not fully developed in the course of this film, it is (as many people have said) just "kewl 'splosions." Which may meet the requirements of "action/adventure" but that's not what Star Trek, in the past, ever was. And that's why many people see this movie as not having had what, to them, was at the core of what made Star Trek worthwhile.

The three movies I listed need not all be made, obviously. Each would have had a different, and largely independent, theme.

• Kirk becomes the man we know
• Kirk gets command of the Enterprise
• The Adventures Begin...

To me, these really are different things - different events, different adventures - which would, in "real life," occur at different times.

This film is a character study, with action thrown in? There is no real mystery to be solved, nothing DRIVING the plot here.

Did I say that? That's a perjorative comment. I don't know... did you miss the" lives of thousands lie in the balance" bit?

You seem to have a very shallow sense of what constitutes a plot. If there's not a villain with, with a big climactic battle sequence... if there's not a "mystery to be solved" with some sudden revelation of the villain's evil scheme... then, according to you, there's "nothing driving the plot?" Is that what you're saying?

THE AUDIENCE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE BIG EVIL SCHEME. THE AUDIENCE CARES ABOUT WATCHING CHARACTERS WHO THEY CAN RELATE TO WORK THROUGH A CRISIS. The exact nature of the crisis isn't as relevant as the fact that our characters are experiencing it.

Don't believe me? Go back and watch "Battle Beyond The Stars" as a great example of how to have a big "plot-driving element" and yet give no reason for the audience to actually give a damn.

Simply scenes chronicaling the loves of Kirk and Spock, in many ways like a biopic.

Nonsense. And again, "chronicaling the loves of Kirk and Spock?" Very much a perjorative comment, having absolutely NOTHING in common with what I described. (The only "love" element tossed in came from the "Gary Mitchell" line about the unidentified blonde lab tech, after all!)

There is a crisis. A major, dramatic life-and-death situation that our characters are in. It's simply (and INTENTIONALLY) not one involving a "mustache-twirling baddie.

The Adventure side of things has been relegated to a B plot, and our crew don't face anything. They simply respond to a generic, vague threat, and show some skills.

NONSENSE.

You really seem to draw a disconnect between "adventure" and "character" as if these are two entirely separate and independent things. I think it's completely obvious that this is untrue.

A film that plays the "adventure" aspects without the character aspects ends up as "Battle Beyond the Stars." A film that plays up the "character" aspects without the "adventure" aspects ends up as "Sex, Lies and Videotape." Neither of the above is remotely like Star Trek, historically, has been... though it's worth noting that "Battle" was a complete and total financial and critical flop, while "Sex" was a financial and critical success.

But no, Trek is neither of those things... or rather, SHOULD be neither of those things. Trek should be about characters, and how those characters experience and deal with various crises.

The "crises" need not always be "mustache-twirling villain blows up the world." Sometimes, they can be... but that should be fairly rare, I think.

Do you remember "The Samaritan Snare" from TNG? This was a GREAT episode... with a lot of dramatic tension and a very real threat. And yet, no "bad guy with a plot" at all. That's the sort of "threat" that this movie would have.

The story's relevance comes down to the fact that characters we care about have to deal with something that goes beyond their comfort zone, and has dramatic consequences for failure.

In a TV show, they aren't allowed to be significantly changed by their experience, which somewhat reduces the dramatic potential. We all know that Geordi and Picard and the gang will be back the next episode, same as before.

In this proposal, we know that the characters would survive... but we get to watch them change as a result of their experiences. That adds additional dramatic potential to the storytelling idea.

Do we really need to have the second and third "events" covered in order for the first one to be relevant? Not at all? Do we really ned the first and third for the second to be relevant, or the first and second for the third to be relevant? Nope. I just think that the three should not have occurred simultaneously. That's not believable to me.

This level of believability is not conducive to a 2 hour movie.

Again, nonsense. There have been MANY 2-hour movies that have easily met this standard.

Your statement only holds if you insist that "everything must be in the state we remember by the end of the two hour movie."

I not only do not "insist" on that, but I actively REJECT that. I do not want to see "everything in place" at the end of that movie. I want a realistic, believable PROGRESSION, with this movie being one step in that progression. We know the starting point, we know the ending point, and we get to see one stage of the journey in-between.

I think that, halfway through the film, when the audience first sees Kirk leading a rescue party aboard the liner, and Kirk encounters the makeshift triage area... and then we see Urban walk in, covered with blood, with the "shellshocked but hard at work" thing Kelley did so well (and which was what made latter-day MASH shows so effective as well) would have been amazing.

THIS would make a GREAT intro, but Kirk and McCoy need time to form a friendship.

These things happen over time, not instantly, as we all know from real life.

This movie would give us the SEED of that friendship... it would establish mutual respect and admiration, and we'd be able to see where that friendship would grow from over time. It need not be "finished" at the end of the film, however.

In my outline, McCoy would be a constant participant in the plans to rescue everyone... because he'd be the one bringing up "and how do you propose that we get my three hundred unconscious wounded patients to climb six decks of ladders, you green-blooded hobgoblin!" and so forth.

I think having him confront Spock on some things would work well.

I see the beginning of the McCoy/Spock feud starting here... Spock would argue that it would be impossible to save everyone, and thus, logically, they should strive to save as many as possible in as safe of a fashion as possible. McCoy would object, strenuously, to the idea of allowing even one person to die. EGO versus ID. And Kirk, being "superego," would make the judgement that, in the end, would meet the requirements of BOTH... and would impress both. (And, of course, Scotty would be the one who would figure out HOW to do it!)

That actually comes across in the way you describe the gray lady.

But, all that aside, the Enterprise is NOT a character. It's not. It's a "setting." It's a work of art. It's a machine. But it's not a character.

Well, she doesn't have dialog or anything, but she is very much a character in a way.

Really, no, the Enterprise is not. It is a sculpture, or a machine... at most, it's the Maltese Falcon... a plot device. But it's NOT a character. Its relevance comes ENTIRELY from the attitude of the REAL characters towards it. And only two characters are truly passionate about it... Kirk and Scott.

Can you imagine TOS without the Enterprise?

Yes, I can, in fact. As much as I loved the Enterprise, I was prepared for Kirk, post-TWOK, to take command of the Excelsior. It would never be his "first love," but that change in dynamic is the sort of thing that gives these characters the chance to grow and remain interesting as characters.

Star Wars without the Millenium Falcon?

Yes, easily. The Falcon is another ship which is relevant not because of itself, but because of the attitude of a REAL character towards it.

The way you may feel about the Millenium Falcon is really "the way you feel about how Han Solo feels about the Millenium Falcon," isn't it?

Had the falcon been destroyed in "Return of the Jedi" (which was originally planned), it would have given us a lot of potential for future storytelling involving Han Solo which was not used.

Of course, the death of Chewbacca in the novels has been used in very much the same way, except Chewbacca really WAS a character. The stories have not focused on Chewbacca, but rather on Han's reaction to Chewbacca's death. And this gave plenty of opportunity for worthwhile storytelling.

The Enterprise, in many ways, is part of the reason the crew is there, together.

So, if Kirk had been given command of the Yorktown rather than the Enterprise... if only the NAME had been different... the show would not have been the same?

It's just a machine. A beautiful, sensible machine, but just a machine. The only "life" in it is that imparted to it by those characters who care about it.

Unfortunately, in ST'09, we didn't get the Enterprise, anyway. We got another ship called Enterprise, largely unrelated to the Enterprise we're discussing.

But that's another topic, isn't it?

She's been there since the beginning. Part of the fabric. Part of the basic premise of Star Trek.

As a PLOT DEVICE... as I describe below. The relevance of the ship itself, as far as "being there from the beginning" is concerned, is only my "point 1."

The Enterprise is significant for three reasons:

• 1) It's the plot-device for TOS which explains how our characters get from adventure to adventure, and how they deal with each adventure.
• 2) It's a distinctive visual design which, through what I consider to be some pretty masterful design, simultaneously brings to mind modern naval vessels and historical "tall ships," with all of the grace and beauty associated with them.
• 3) It holds a special place in the heart of two major characters... Kirk and Scott, both of whom fall in love with the ship and, because we see the ship through their eyes, make us care about the Enterprise.

She's also more than the sum of her parts.

According to whom? According to the "general audience?

To the "general audience" it's just a "cool looking" (hopefully) spaceship.

VERY few people... including Star Trek fans... including ones like myself who've spent inordinate amounts of time developing the design into something as real as possible... think of it as though it's a person. I LOVE that design, but I don't think of it as a character. This movie didn't use that design anyway, so all we got in this film was the NAME "Enterprise." It lacked the physical appearance of the original (and, IMHO, lost most of the "beauty" of that classic design). And there was no "love for the ship" from Kirk or Scott, both of whom were the original characters who thought of the ship almost as being alive. Kirk just wanted to sit in the command chair, and Scott just "liked this ship." Neither was really "connected" in any way, other than "wow, aren't I great for being on this cool ship."

(By the way, if you want to see just how seriously I DO take this design... check out this thread: http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=89810 )

 

[AnyStar]

Get yourself a time-machine and tell that to Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer.
A movie, any movie, will always reflect the ambitions and ideas of a director.

of course it will, thats not what i said. the most important part of the statement was the last 6 words.

what he can make Trek INTO..

 

[startrekrcks]

I am not being harsh but give the movie a chance sure what's wrong with taking both.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Okay, since when has TOS NOT had Kirk as Captain, and the Enterprise as a central part of the framework?

If this movie is meant ot be a Star Trek 101, leaving out the Enterprise, and Kirk being Captain is cheating the viewers out of the basic idea of what Star Trek had as a framework.

If the action scenes are simply events in the characters lives, then the action in any form really becomes pointless.

When something attacks a starship, an audience, ANY audience, wants to know more about it. What is it? Why is it attacking?

Although ST:TMP does not have a Bad Guy, it does have a mystery to be solved.

There is an overall, standalone Plot, a clear idea that can be latched onto.

With Batman Begins, we had an adversary that wanted to destroy Gotham for being Corrupt, there was a clear idea there.

There was also the Scarecrow, with his gas, that provided a direct challenge during the length of the movie.

Star Trek IV had the Whale Probe. Not a "heavy", but a threat that spawned the Adventure (yes, that again) of going back in time.

Star Trek as a series has always been an action-adventure show, though not every week was an adventure or action story.

Kirk fighting the Gorn?
The Enterprise in a cat-and-mouse game with a Romulan commander?
An espionage story with the Kirk working covertly to steal the Romulan Cloaking Device?

What is the overall, basic idea in your movie? A movie has to work isolated from the mythos, while introducing the basic premise. Star Trek 101: This is the crew, this is who they are.

In SEQUELS, once the introduction is done, we THEN get deeper into characters, and start telling other kinds of stories.

We know the crew, where will they take us next episode?

 

[Trekker4747]

Cary, you like making long-assed double posts, don't you?

 

[JarodRussell]

Cary, you like making long-assed double posts, don't you?

I think a message has a word limit here, so he's forced to double post.

 

[Trekker4747]

Cary, you like making long-assed double posts, don't you?

I think a message has a word limit here, so he's forced to double post.

Which should be a clue that the post is too long.