Didn't like the movie? How would YOU have made it?
- Thread starter OneBuckFilms
- Start date
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?
The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?
That sort of thinking tends to dive into the realm of lazy logic. Priority on making a story that everyone is supposed to like is a very arrogant way of looking at things. Remember how Bragga talked about how "These are the Voyages" was going to be a special treat for Star Trek fans? They literally said they made that episode for trekkies. Now, how many trekkies actually liked that episode? I'm a huge Trekkie and I thought the episode was horrible!
I really think the idea of making Trek for everyone is a flawed concept because you CAN'T make a movie for everyone. Even making a Trek for the fans is flawed because you're only gearing towards elements that only serve to 'remind' the fans of what they already know instead of giving them new material they can grow to appreciate. I'm not saying that reusing already done ideas is a bad one, you just got to make it work somehow. Do I know how to make it work? Not really, but I'd sure like to try and see what you think.
Didn't like the movie? How would YOU have made it?
- Continue the story. Ron Moore can whine and complain about how much lore and canon Star Trek has drowned itself in all he wants, but that's the sort of attitude I would expect from a student taking a history class and saying 'there's too much' so he shouldn't have to study for it. Star Trek shouldn't be focused on just Kirk and Spock. Even though they are without a doubt signature characters to the franchise, the universe should be a lot bigger than that.
Plus this would be a nice way to please all those hypocritical fans who scream "NO KHAN!" or "DO SOMETHING NEW!". Seriously folks, Spock and Spock are nothing new.
- ALIEN looking aliens! I'm sorry, but if District 9 can make some of the most photo-realistic looking Aliens ever to grace the screen on a production budget of 30 million dollars, I should at least expect a movie with 150 million dollars to show something incredible. Instead the most we get is a human lady with CGI enhanced eyes that only look bigger and make some other human character's face look really long. Heck, they even humanized the freaking GORN!
- Likable characters. Everyone in this new Trek movie was an a**hole. Kirk, Spock, Uhura, McCoy. All they did was get into each other's faces and argue. These aren't characters I want to root for, these are idiots who I want to slap and tell them to shut up. Bob and Alex have always talked about how The Wrath of Khan was the basis of what makes a good Trek movie, but at least Khan didn't have our characters constantly shouting at each other. Heck, even Uhura shouts "MOVE!" to a guy pushing a crate who is in no way slowing her down or in the way.
- Destroy EARTH!!! Why is Star Trek always using Earth as the 'end all' of Star Trek's existence? I not only welcome the destruction of Earth, I outright demand it's destruction. Having an Earth to always go back to and protect always takes the 'Trek' out of the show because we always end up going back instead of journeying out. Even the original series never dealt with their modern day Earth at all. If Earth was to be shown at all, it would either be an illusion or taking place in the past.
Think about it, if Earth was destroyed, wouldn't that put more emphasis on what we as a species have to do in Space? That would put a lot more emphasis in befriending new civilizations and cultures. Heck, I think it'd be kind of cool to see Vulcans and a lot of other species come to the human's aid.
EARTH NEEDS TO GO.
- Expand on the classics. Seeing wickedly cool Aliens on Star Trek is cool, but seeing them only once is another. I would love it if we got to know more about the Gorns, Tholians, and other aliens we've barely scratched the surface with. How much more of the Klingons do we really need? Not saying they should be left out, but I would like a little more familiar variety.
- Women are capable of doing great things to. Say what you want on how inferior Deep Space Nine was. At least that show had very capable female characters who could make the tough choices that the men can. There should be more of an equal role for both genders in Trek instead of the '1 out of 7' ratio that Star Trek will now have to live with for the next 10 years or so.
Voyager was good in giving us a female captain, but that was more evolutionary step than a revolutionary landmark. She is by no means the best captain of the franchise and never once made any consistent judgement other than being an unlikable a**hole. If only they had better writers for the show she could have left a much better impression on the franchise, but we have to settle with 7 of 9 being the most recognizable element of the show.
- A lot less shaky cameras, zooms and lens flares. I don't like shaky camera footage. It's not my thing. Most of the shots in Star Trek that are shaky didn't even warrant that technique since a lot of what was shaking wasn't even action oriented. What's the point? I don't want a documentary feel to it.
- Continue the story. Ron Moore can whine and complain about how much lore and canon Star Trek has drowned itself in all he wants, but that's the sort of attitude I would expect from a student taking a history class and saying 'there's too much' so he shouldn't have to study for it. Star Trek shouldn't be focused on just Kirk and Spock. Even though they are without a doubt signature characters to the franchise, the universe should be a lot bigger than that.
Plus this would be a nice way to please all those hypocritical fans who scream "NO KHAN!" or "DO SOMETHING NEW!". Seriously folks, Spock and Spock are nothing new.
- ALIEN looking aliens! I'm sorry, but if District 9 can make some of the most photo-realistic looking Aliens ever to grace the screen on a production budget of 30 million dollars, I should at least expect a movie with 150 million dollars to show something incredible. Instead the most we get is a human lady with CGI enhanced eyes that only look bigger and make some other human character's face look really long. Heck, they even humanized the freaking GORN!
- Likable characters. Everyone in this new Trek movie was an a**hole. Kirk, Spock, Uhura, McCoy. All they did was get into each other's faces and argue. These aren't characters I want to root for, these are idiots who I want to slap and tell them to shut up. Bob and Alex have always talked about how The Wrath of Khan was the basis of what makes a good Trek movie, but at least Khan didn't have our characters constantly shouting at each other. Heck, even Uhura shouts "MOVE!" to a guy pushing a crate who is in no way slowing her down or in the way.
- Destroy EARTH!!! Why is Star Trek always using Earth as the 'end all' of Star Trek's existence? I not only welcome the destruction of Earth, I outright demand it's destruction. Having an Earth to always go back to and protect always takes the 'Trek' out of the show because we always end up going back instead of journeying out. Even the original series never dealt with their modern day Earth at all. If Earth was to be shown at all, it would either be an illusion or taking place in the past.
Think about it, if Earth was destroyed, wouldn't that put more emphasis on what we as a species have to do in Space? That would put a lot more emphasis in befriending new civilizations and cultures. Heck, I think it'd be kind of cool to see Vulcans and a lot of other species come to the human's aid.
EARTH NEEDS TO GO.
- Expand on the classics. Seeing wickedly cool Aliens on Star Trek is cool, but seeing them only once is another. I would love it if we got to know more about the Gorns, Tholians, and other aliens we've barely scratched the surface with. How much more of the Klingons do we really need? Not saying they should be left out, but I would like a little more familiar variety.
- Women are capable of doing great things to. Say what you want on how inferior Deep Space Nine was. At least that show had very capable female characters who could make the tough choices that the men can. There should be more of an equal role for both genders in Trek instead of the '1 out of 7' ratio that Star Trek will now have to live with for the next 10 years or so.
Voyager was good in giving us a female captain, but that was more evolutionary step than a revolutionary landmark. She is by no means the best captain of the franchise and never once made any consistent judgement other than being an unlikable a**hole. If only they had better writers for the show she could have left a much better impression on the franchise, but we have to settle with 7 of 9 being the most recognizable element of the show.
- A lot less shaky cameras, zooms and lens flares. I don't like shaky camera footage. It's not my thing. Most of the shots in Star Trek that are shaky didn't even warrant that technique since a lot of what was shaking wasn't even action oriented. What's the point? I don't want a documentary feel to it.
No, that would be too depressing. Trek is about hope and optimism, not relentless blood and guts and destruction and death. We've already got plenty of shows that deal with that. Plus, as you admitted, TOS hardly ever showed Earth, so its existence really wasn't a factor in storytelling. Indeed, Earth was rarely visited in *any* trek series, I think ENT was the most times they ever visited Earth, but of course that's understandable since at that time the Federation had not yet been formed.
This is a stimulating challenge. How would I have made a different movie? I would start by recognizing the following constraints:
1. It has already been decided that the purpose of the movie is to introduce new actors as the principal characters from TOS.
2. Star Trek is about Kirk, Spock and Bones teaming up to solve problems, and Kirk is the primary mover of events.
3. The movie is 2 hours long, such that Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu are supporting characters who shouldn't have big scenes (or be included at all) if this in any way detracts from the time needed to develop the main characters and their dynamic.
4. Action/adventure is the not the only type of space movie that the audience can relate to. Star Trek at its best isn’t Star Trek anyway: Kirk was Horatio Hornblower; Khan Noonian Singh was Captain Ahab; Balance of Terror was Run Silent, Run Deep.
5. Trek clichés should be avoided, such as the vengeful supervillain, discovering that a bunch of cadets are the only available crew for a suddenly important mission, and blowing up planets for the sake of character development (okay, that one is a Star Wars cliché).
6. Special effects serve the story and not vice versa, so no room for ice monsters.
7. Star Trek breaks with its own “canon” constantly, and fans love to fit it all back together again afterwards, but I would question that Spock’s public displays of romantic affection broke several rules of his character, whereas his fist fighting was merely his internal rage unsuppressed.
Now I want to include the following themes and concepts:
1. The genesis of the partnership of Kirk, Spock and Bones and how their talents mesh so that they become more than the sum of their parts.
2. The emergence of the Federation as a galactic power in the face of oppression, most likely Klingon. At the beginning, the Federation is a disparate affiliation of squabbling planetary states with conflicting agendas; at the end, it becomes a body united in opposition of Klingon imperialism and brutal military rule. Kirk’s motivation, for example, could come from the Klingon’s murdering of his father. This is not the saccharin Federation that held galactic peace talks and saved the whale. This is the Federation that saved Tasha Yar from rape gangs, the light of hope in a galaxy of dysfunction and despair, the Fedaration that prompted Picard to warn Gul Macet,”We’ll be watching!”
3. Thus, the overriding theme of the movie is “strength in unity”, and we clearly see the parallel between the unity of Kirk, Spock and Bones and the unity of the Federation itself. In the story, we witness Kirk and co. coming of age to play pivotal roles in establishing a Federation foothold in the galaxy and winning the reluctant respect of the Klingons and their assorted lackeys.
4. The Enterprise itself should be established as the flagship, but Kirk should be taunted by a posting to a subordinate ship, all the while reciting to himself, “One day, Enterprise will be mine.” (At the very end of the movie, he receives the transfer order he has wanted all along.)
Now for the problems. The first obstacle I’ve found is, frankly, rank. Since we’re seeing Kirk’s early career, he has little clout in Starfleet. He is the hero of the movie, yet he has no means to speak to power. Abrams’ solution was for Kirk to be taken under Pike’s wing and then to receive roughly three promotions in the duration of a single mission. We can avoid the promotion route by simply jumping in time to a later point in Kirk’s career, but that has the effect of making his Academy scenes meaningless to the plot, and Kirk must always drive the story or his character fails. So, we are left with Kirk remaining an ensign but somehow still managing to drive the action, including the action on the bridge if we go there. Does that merely make him a more dynamic version of Wesley Crusher?
I’m stuck here. Abrams, I’ll see you in hell ;-P
1. It has already been decided that the purpose of the movie is to introduce new actors as the principal characters from TOS.
2. Star Trek is about Kirk, Spock and Bones teaming up to solve problems, and Kirk is the primary mover of events.
3. The movie is 2 hours long, such that Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu are supporting characters who shouldn't have big scenes (or be included at all) if this in any way detracts from the time needed to develop the main characters and their dynamic.
4. Action/adventure is the not the only type of space movie that the audience can relate to. Star Trek at its best isn’t Star Trek anyway: Kirk was Horatio Hornblower; Khan Noonian Singh was Captain Ahab; Balance of Terror was Run Silent, Run Deep.
5. Trek clichés should be avoided, such as the vengeful supervillain, discovering that a bunch of cadets are the only available crew for a suddenly important mission, and blowing up planets for the sake of character development (okay, that one is a Star Wars cliché).
6. Special effects serve the story and not vice versa, so no room for ice monsters.
7. Star Trek breaks with its own “canon” constantly, and fans love to fit it all back together again afterwards, but I would question that Spock’s public displays of romantic affection broke several rules of his character, whereas his fist fighting was merely his internal rage unsuppressed.
Now I want to include the following themes and concepts:
1. The genesis of the partnership of Kirk, Spock and Bones and how their talents mesh so that they become more than the sum of their parts.
2. The emergence of the Federation as a galactic power in the face of oppression, most likely Klingon. At the beginning, the Federation is a disparate affiliation of squabbling planetary states with conflicting agendas; at the end, it becomes a body united in opposition of Klingon imperialism and brutal military rule. Kirk’s motivation, for example, could come from the Klingon’s murdering of his father. This is not the saccharin Federation that held galactic peace talks and saved the whale. This is the Federation that saved Tasha Yar from rape gangs, the light of hope in a galaxy of dysfunction and despair, the Fedaration that prompted Picard to warn Gul Macet,”We’ll be watching!”
3. Thus, the overriding theme of the movie is “strength in unity”, and we clearly see the parallel between the unity of Kirk, Spock and Bones and the unity of the Federation itself. In the story, we witness Kirk and co. coming of age to play pivotal roles in establishing a Federation foothold in the galaxy and winning the reluctant respect of the Klingons and their assorted lackeys.
4. The Enterprise itself should be established as the flagship, but Kirk should be taunted by a posting to a subordinate ship, all the while reciting to himself, “One day, Enterprise will be mine.” (At the very end of the movie, he receives the transfer order he has wanted all along.)
Now for the problems. The first obstacle I’ve found is, frankly, rank. Since we’re seeing Kirk’s early career, he has little clout in Starfleet. He is the hero of the movie, yet he has no means to speak to power. Abrams’ solution was for Kirk to be taken under Pike’s wing and then to receive roughly three promotions in the duration of a single mission. We can avoid the promotion route by simply jumping in time to a later point in Kirk’s career, but that has the effect of making his Academy scenes meaningless to the plot, and Kirk must always drive the story or his character fails. So, we are left with Kirk remaining an ensign but somehow still managing to drive the action, including the action on the bridge if we go there. Does that merely make him a more dynamic version of Wesley Crusher?
I’m stuck here. Abrams, I’ll see you in hell ;-P
Things I’d keep:
The Romulan hotties
Time travel (because otherwise you’d be forced to slavishly follow the old timeline event by event – boring!)
The Spock/Uhura relationship (hell, if Sarek – a full-blooded Vulcan – could fall in love with a human woman, there’s no reason for Spock to stay celibate as in the old series; which begs the question how he dealt with his numerous Pon Farrs...)
Things I’d change:
Have Nero capture Spock’s ship before they fall into/through the black hole.
Destroy the Kelvin in a fit of rage, yes – but instead of trying to destroy the Federation single-handedly, the Romulan thing to do is to return to the Empire, upgrade the Fleet with 24th century technology (this would nicely fill the 25 year-gap) and then destroy Vulcan with the red matter as an example: surrender or else.
Begin with Kirk serving on the Farragut (as was established in TOS) and forget the whole Academy stuff! Also, this Kirk should be much more grim and determined to kill the bastard who murdered his father: so we’d have two men, each on his personal vendetta, having lost their family. It would be much more interesting if the fact they had this in common were more pronounced.
Also, in order to stand a chance against the advanced technology of the Romulan fleet, we could have a Federation-Klingon alliance at a much earlier date than Undiscovered Country. And the Klingons would be equal partners instead of having to be saved by the Feds (“poor Klingons – your moon exploded? Here, let us make it all better.” Gah!)
So in order to reach at least a standstill, the mission would be to get their hands on the red matter (so we can threaten back – and since nobody wants to litter known space with black holes, we would end with a cold war scenario). If they discover and free Spock Prime, all the better.
Have them not defeat the Romulans – that was the thing that made them so fascinating in TOS: they were to cunning to be conquered or swayed to our side, they had always their own agenda, they were never “just evil”, their ambitions were only at odds with our own interests.
And yeah, no ice monsters or little alien sidekicks.
The Romulan hotties
Time travel (because otherwise you’d be forced to slavishly follow the old timeline event by event – boring!)
The Spock/Uhura relationship (hell, if Sarek – a full-blooded Vulcan – could fall in love with a human woman, there’s no reason for Spock to stay celibate as in the old series; which begs the question how he dealt with his numerous Pon Farrs...)
Things I’d change:
Have Nero capture Spock’s ship before they fall into/through the black hole.
Destroy the Kelvin in a fit of rage, yes – but instead of trying to destroy the Federation single-handedly, the Romulan thing to do is to return to the Empire, upgrade the Fleet with 24th century technology (this would nicely fill the 25 year-gap) and then destroy Vulcan with the red matter as an example: surrender or else.
Begin with Kirk serving on the Farragut (as was established in TOS) and forget the whole Academy stuff! Also, this Kirk should be much more grim and determined to kill the bastard who murdered his father: so we’d have two men, each on his personal vendetta, having lost their family. It would be much more interesting if the fact they had this in common were more pronounced.
Also, in order to stand a chance against the advanced technology of the Romulan fleet, we could have a Federation-Klingon alliance at a much earlier date than Undiscovered Country. And the Klingons would be equal partners instead of having to be saved by the Feds (“poor Klingons – your moon exploded? Here, let us make it all better.” Gah!)
So in order to reach at least a standstill, the mission would be to get their hands on the red matter (so we can threaten back – and since nobody wants to litter known space with black holes, we would end with a cold war scenario). If they discover and free Spock Prime, all the better.
Have them not defeat the Romulans – that was the thing that made them so fascinating in TOS: they were to cunning to be conquered or swayed to our side, they had always their own agenda, they were never “just evil”, their ambitions were only at odds with our own interests.
And yeah, no ice monsters or little alien sidekicks.
Last edited:
You do know that no competent leader would fail to exploit that kind of advantage, right? Sure, they would let Nero destroy Vulcan, but they're gonna use their upgraded fleet and beat the crap out of their enemies ASAP.
My main problem with that is that it has been established that relationships are intensely personal and private to Vulcans. If they kept it a secret, now that would be interesting, and also imply that they kept it alive throughout the Five Year Mission.
That would certainly avoid the problem of having to promote him unrealistically fast. Perhaps we could show some of the Academy in flashback.
I think we shouldn't have a vengeful Kirk because it isn't noble. Instead, I would show that his father's death was the reason that Jim Kirk joined Starfleet, in order to continue his father's work and give his life and death meaning.
Less shaky fight scenes and violence.
I think it would be more efficient to have them surrender without a costly war. And having a technology that is so far ahead of anything your enemy has should be a strong incentive to them to surrender without putting up a fight.
Of course, then you wouldn't have a story, so they would fight, and being our heroes, pull of the impossible
They set up Spock differently in the movie - as someone who wasn't all that sure he wanted to be a perfect Vulcan. I find that more interesting.
No, it isn't noble - that's the point: you could have him develop and grow, instead of starting off with him already being perfect. And it would set him apart from his enemy: Nero never got over his vengefulness - that's why he is the villain. Kirk would start out with a strong desire for revenge, and I think it is a motivation for joining Starfleet that would make the most sense from his POV.
It would also partly explain how he could rise so quickly through the ranks - his single-minded determination didn't leave room for anything else but his career, and he wouldn't be able to tolerate anything less that winning every single time.
Showing how the crew of the Enterprise - McCoy with his strong sense of ethics, Spock who despite having every right to thirst for revenge after the destruction of his homeworld, would not succumb to base emotions, to name but two - would manage to wedge Kirk out of his killer mode - now that's something I'd have liked to see.
It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?
No, it's only that they didn't write a script that your snobby uber-Trekfan self could stand.
In that case, while certainly believable, you'd have to spend more time than the movie did on the effect his dad's loss had on his life. I was thinking of starting him as an adolescent who's comfortable with the status quo and doesn't want to make waves, yet doesn't have any firm direction in his life and is a little bored for that. Damnit. I just painted Luke Skywalker
It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?
No, it's only that they didn't write a script that your snobby uber-Trekfan self could stand.
So what you're saying is that everyone who didn't like the movie is a snobby uber-Trekfan?
Jeyl, thank you I am glad that someone else actually points out that the shaky camera and lens flare was annoying. I have no idea why people like that so much, me,if I were making a movie, there's no freaking way would I want the flare, hell recorded flare would mean refilming the scene(s) in question. When I watch a movie, I do not want a "You are there, documentary" feel to it, if I am not actually watching a documentary, or if...well, I am not actually there.
As for what I would change? First and foremost, probably the time travel aspect of the movie. Connecting the continuities is a cool idea in someways, but it just doesn't set with me for some reason. Nero also needed some back story, he seemed to out for revenge type, and not what he saw as Justice. The next is probably some of the marketing campaign, I didn't like the "This isn't your daddy's Star Trek" stuff.
In general though, I thought it was a pretty good movie and a decent attempt to expand the lives of people on Earth and Vulcan instead of occasional glimpses and references. I probably also would remove the car part, a lot of people I know find that really cool for some reason, but I found it just...bleh.
As for what I would change? First and foremost, probably the time travel aspect of the movie. Connecting the continuities is a cool idea in someways, but it just doesn't set with me for some reason. Nero also needed some back story, he seemed to out for revenge type, and not what he saw as Justice. The next is probably some of the marketing campaign, I didn't like the "This isn't your daddy's Star Trek" stuff.
In general though, I thought it was a pretty good movie and a decent attempt to expand the lives of people on Earth and Vulcan instead of occasional glimpses and references. I probably also would remove the car part, a lot of people I know find that really cool for some reason, but I found it just...bleh.
Similar threads
