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

[Ultimo_Posto]

Jeyl, thank you I am glad that someone else actually points out that the shaky camera and lens flare was annoying.

Shaky cam is in almost everything now. I think the theory is that in action movies, it puts an extra load on the visual perception of the viewer and raises the stress level - an extra adrenalin pump. It just makes me feel like a lab rat.

As for lens flares, I think they're an attempt to add a layer of imperfection to CG imagery that has become just too perfect. I think we'll see more of that in future, not less.

If you're going to make a new Star Trek movie, you use modern filming techniques. Those elements are therefore not so much issues with Star Trek 2009 as much as issues with all movies made today.

I didn't like the "This isn't your daddy's Star Trek" stuff

That seemed to be a conscious attempt to distance the movie from a franchise that had become stale in the eyes of the public. I don't want to take that too personally.

 

[The Castellan]

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.

The car bit did not even make any sence to begin with.
Also, I would have no "Cupcakes".

 

[Traveller]

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.

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

Why? They showed him as a repeat offender and expected everyone to assume that it was the result of his father's death (no good male role model around, whatever). Kirk asked Spock on the ice planet if his alternate self knew his father, just to drive home the point that his absence in this timeline had done some psychological damage.

You just need some poignant scenes, the audience will fill in the rest. I mean, look at this board, that's all we're doing!

 

[Ultimo_Posto]

I wonder - should a writer start with themes and paint his characters around them, or just make sure the scenes are good and let the audience worry about what it all means?

 

[Jeyl]

No, that would be too depressing. Trek is about hope and optimism, not relentless blood and guts and destruction and death.

Do you have any idea what you just said? "not relentless blood and guts and destruction and death"? That's all this Trek movie had!

 

[Shazam!]

The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?

It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.

No, it's only that they didn't write a script that your snobby uber-Trekfan self could stand.

Oh, stop being so bloody insecure. The idea that not everybody liked Trek XI is perfectly reasonable. Calling anyone with the audacity to say so "snobby" isn't.

 

[ChristopherPike]

I would have given Kirk some other impetus to join Starfleet, from an earlier age. More geeky perhaps, but to me there's nothing wrong with just having some passion for space exploration in your blood. Showing him go from having no direction then learning to respect his father and inheriting his interests. More the intellectual action hero of the Original Series, this would be a Kirk who goes onto have his fair share of hero worship for past pioneers.

The Kirk of the Abramsverse doesn't seem to have any of that, or else instead of being a barfly he'd have been an astromoner or have pursued whatever the next best thing is to actually being there.

From all the novels and backstory (fanon or onscreen hints) I've come across, James Kirk just followed in George's footsteps. So perhaps the angle I would've gone for, is an accident which cripples his father and ends his career sometime around the 2245 launch of the U.S.S. Enterprise under Robert April. Essentially similar to the Generations opening, this would be a disaster which leaves George Kirk scarred and immobile, instead of dead. A very young Jim is along for ride because it's just a ceremonial test run with some VIPs on aboard (Admiral Archer being one of them as per that In A Mirror, Darkly computer record). During the opening scene, the young son is powerless to help his Dad, an Tactical officer aboard that first voyage. Yet in the scenes in which we see Kirk grow into his teenage years, his father continues to enthuse about space exploration even on his death bed and urges his wayward son to follow him.

This first event in the movie was a set back which results in Robert April's tenure going down in history as a failure. Lessons are learned enough for when Christopher Pike tries again in 2250 with a retooled NCC-1701. There is scope here for making April the villain and giving him some motivation to turn against Starfleet. Even for a twenty-something Kirk to confront him at the climax, if it is discovered he was part of a conspiracy to derail the Constitution program and is implicated in what happened to George Kirk.

Spock's origin story (what little there was) seemed pretty much perfect. But in my version without a vengeful Nero around, obviously we would still have his Mother and Vulcan too, to fit into a traditional prequel movie... connecting dots in the Prime Timeline.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?

It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.

They wrote a script that most people liked. This led to a movie that most people liked.

Looking at the suggestions, I'm seeing a lot of good suggestions, and each and evey one has it's own problems. Just like the movie.

It isn't as easy as it looks, is it?

Orci and Kurtzman were tasked wit creating a new Star Trek, and within that framework, had to make compromizes.

It is obvious that Kirk's rapid rise through the ranks was ridiculous on it's face, but IMHO, to make the kind of movie that would appeal to the greater masses, they had to tell the complete story in one film, necessitating this dramatic conceit.

The Alternate Reality and the destruction of Vulcan were to remove predictability.

 

[Traveller]

It is obvious that Kirk's rapid rise through the ranks was ridiculous on it's face, but IMHO, to make the kind of movie that would appeal to the greater masses, they had to tell the complete story in one film, necessitating this dramatic conceit.

It wouldn't have been quite that glaring if they hadn't insisted on showing him still being in the Academy. They could have started with him on the Farragut (or any other ship - but IIRC, there was some heroic thing or other he did on that ship that got him promoted to Captain, so it would have been a good tie-in). He could have met the rest of the crew on the Enterprise, just as he did in TOS.

 

[ncc-1017-e]

Joking aside, from a visual perspective I would have preferred what they did in "In A Mirror Darkly" 1 and 2, keeping the original TOS look but enhancing it to be on par with modern standards. So, we have 1701 digitally remastered outside and inside, "modern" warp effect, add more phaser banks ( blue!) and visible torpedo launchers. Uniforms are the same as in XI. More TOS looking ship classes. I'll consider characters and plot later.

yep this sounds like a good start to me!

 

[startrekrcks]

Why do you want to change Trek XI in my opinion it is brilliant the way it is the film but I understand you don't agree

 

[Shazam!]

The question is, can these people write a great script that everybody likes, or just a script that only Trekkers like yourself like?

It's not like Orci and Kurtzman wrote a script that everybody liked.

They wrote a script that most people liked. This led to a movie that most people liked....

But we weren't talking about 'most' people. He said 'everybody' and as a matter of actual fact not 'everybody' liked the new flick.

How many people did like it was irrelevant to that particular quote and response.

 

[Ultimo_Posto]

Uniforms are the same as in XI. More TOS looking ship classes. I'll consider characters and plot later.

yep this sounds like a good start to me!

Isn't picking out details such as the appearance of the ships, etc. before you have a plot rather a waste of time? Illustration: you spend $20,000 making ship models or flying between New York and Los Angeles in technical meetings, only to find a script on your doorstep that sets the movie in 2999 or prehistoric Earth. Not a likely scenario, but my point is that if you design the look and feel before anything else, you are in a creative cul-de-sac because you've already put constraints on the plot.

 

[Jeyl]

Ya. Here's another thing I'd do different.

1. The Enterprise would NOT be the flagship of the Federation. I understand that it's the Enterprise, but I don't see a reason why it has to be given top billing. It's almost like when they made Anakin/Vader the 'chosen one'. Why? What was the point?

2. There should be numerous other Constitution Class ships in the fleet. That's how it was in the Original Series, and why make only one good ship? I doubt movie audiences are that stupid in figuring out that there are in fact more ships that resemble the Enterprise.

It's just one of those things that's always bothered me in every series following the Star Trek movies that they would never show a Constitution Class vessel but EVERY OTHER CLASS.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

Just a minor point, I'd remove the "0" from the USS Kelvin's registry number. I don't know why, but the "0" being there bugs me, especially as I read it was there to let the audience know it was an older ship then Enterprise. If you can't tell the difference between 514 and 1701 in large, black bold letters on a white hull without the "0" I worry...

 

[JarodRussell]

Ya. Here's another thing I'd do different.

1. The Enterprise would NOT be the flagship of the Federation. I understand that it's the Enterprise, but I don't see a reason why it has to be given top billing. It's almost like when they made Anakin/Vader the 'chosen one'. Why? What was the point?

Well, when Kirk is the chosen one, he also needs the best uber-ship in the fleet. It's his destiny. I wonder why they didn't give him the ship and rank right after his birth.

 

[bullethead]

2. There should be numerous other Constitution Class ships in the fleet. That's how it was in the Original Series, and why make only one good ship? I doubt movie audiences are that stupid in figuring out that there are in fact more ships that resemble the Enterprise.

It's just one of those things that's always bothered me in every series following the Star Trek movies that they would never show a Constitution Class vessel but EVERY OTHER CLASS.

That works if you've got this movie set a bit later in the Trek timeline than ST09 was, but it has to be done carefully to prevent audience confusion between the Enterprise and some other Constitution class ship.

 

[The Wormhole]

1. The Enterprise would NOT be the flagship of the Federation. I understand that it's the Enterprise, but I don't see a reason why it has to be given top billing. It's almost like when they made Anakin/Vader the 'chosen one'. Why? What was the point?

I agree, but for a different reason. You see, never in TOS was the Enterprise established to be, or even suggested as being the flagship of Starfleet. In fact, the idea that ships named Enterprise were Starfleet's flagship didn't come about until TNG. I would have preferred they stay true to the spirit of TOS and left the Enterprise as just another ship, not the flagship.

Just a minor point, I'd remove the "0" from the USS Kelvin's registry number. I don't know why, but the "0" being there bugs me, especially as I read it was there to let the audience know it was an older ship then Enterprise. If you can't tell the difference between 514 and 1701 in large, black bold letters on a white hull without the "0" I worry...

Thank you. It is so nice when someone else agrees with me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Y The Enterprise would NOT be the flagship of the Federation.

Indeed, there shouldn't be ANY "flagship of the Federation", as that phrase makes no logical sense. A flagship is that which is used by a specific Admiral of a fleet. It's wherever his or her 'flag' is. THAT is what the word 'flagship' means. It's high time Trek started using it that way.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

1. The Enterprise would NOT be the flagship of the Federation. I understand that it's the Enterprise, but I don't see a reason why it has to be given top billing. It's almost like when they made Anakin/Vader the 'chosen one'. Why? What was the point?

I agree, but for a different reason. You see, never in TOS was the Enterprise established to be, or even suggested as being the flagship of Starfleet. In fact, the idea that ships named Enterprise were Starfleet's flagship didn't come about until TNG. I would have preferred they stay true to the spirit of TOS and left the Enterprise as just another ship, not the flagship.

Just a minor point, I'd remove the "0" from the USS Kelvin's registry number. I don't know why, but the "0" being there bugs me, especially as I read it was there to let the audience know it was an older ship then Enterprise. If you can't tell the difference between 514 and 1701 in large, black bold letters on a white hull without the "0" I worry...

Thank you. It is so nice when someone else agrees with me.

Funny enough, I was thinking something similar when I stumbled upon a post of yours in a different topic, and noticed your signature, avatar and location.