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

[OneBuckFilms]

This:

So since a lot of people doing alternate ideas for this movie still seem on about killing one of Kirk's parents, would people consider it more dramatic to kill off his mother or his father?

There is no "Right" answer to this one. In JJ Abrams movie, his father provides a path for Kirk to follow, in a sense.

His Mother being killed would have presented more issues, such as the fact that Jim Kirk would have to have been born prior, necessitating spending more time on her death and Kirk's birth that could be better spent establishing Kirk as a character.

 

[Disillusioned]

For some it wouldn't matter, but most are aware of The Enterprise and Kirk and Spock, though they often get their idea of what Star Trek is from SNL scetches and The Onion.

But I still don't see a reason to dismiss the idea out of hand.

Also, for Star Trek fans who see the movie, most of THEM want to see Kirk and crew on the Bridge pretty much as they were in TOS.

And you base this on?

Also, by not having this, are we not cheating non-fans out of a true representation of the premise of TOS, if we do not provide that kind of ending?

No, not really.

In the end, if the movie is an origins movie, it should not be a partial origins movie, it should show how they got from A to Z, without making the dangerous assumption that there will be further films to complete the story.

And if you try to cram things in that will mean the pacing will be off and the movie will be crap.

There is no "Right" answer to this one. In JJ Abrams movie, his father provides a path for Kirk to follow, in a sense.

His Mother being killed would have presented more issues, such as the fact that Jim Kirk would have to have been born prior, necessitating spending more time on her death and Kirk's birth that could be better spent establishing Kirk as a character.

He'd be a teen when this happens, since there's nothing binding me to anything this movie did.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

For some it wouldn't matter, but most are aware of The Enterprise and Kirk and Spock, though they often get their idea of what Star Trek is from SNL scetches and The Onion.

But I still don't see a reason to dismiss the idea out of hand.

Actually, it the idea should be dismissed for the reason I just gave.

Also, for Star Trek fans who see the movie, most of THEM want to see Kirk and crew on the Bridge pretty much as they were in TOS.

And you base this on?

Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

Also, by not having this, are we not cheating non-fans out of a true representation of the premise of TOS, if we do not provide that kind of ending?

No, not really.

They you are being intellectually dishonest here. The Enterprise is ABSOLUTELY a part of the Star Trek format per TOS, and not having the crew as seen in TOS at the end of the movie is simply wrong.

In the end, if the movie is an origins movie, it should not be a partial origins movie, it should show how they got from A to Z, without making the dangerous assumption that there will be further films to complete the story.

And if you try to cram things in that will mean the pacing will be off and the movie will be crap.

That's why the Alternate Reality was necessary.

There is no "Right" answer to this one. In JJ Abrams movie, his father provides a path for Kirk to follow, in a sense.

His Mother being killed would have presented more issues, such as the fact that Jim Kirk would have to have been born prior, necessitating spending more time on her death and Kirk's birth that could be better spent establishing Kirk as a character.

He'd be a teen when this happens, since there's nothing binding me to anything this movie did.

Not quite as economical. It would still take too much time to tell that part of the story.

It strikes me that you simply are missing some of the basics of what people other than yourself see as Star Trek.

It appears to be YOUR Star Trek above anyone else, to the point that the USS Enterprise, a cornerstone of the Original Series, is not given it's due.

In short, you are too close to your idea of Star Trek, that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

Absolute adherence to Canon as you see it, and an overly-serious take on it, would effectively destroy the property.

I doubt that your version of the film would be taken up and actually be made.

The Layman who barely knows Star Trek's format even knows the central role the USS Enterprise plays, and a story should have a satisfying resolution.

Congratulations on killing Star Trek with kindness.

 

[Disillusioned]

Actually, it the idea should be dismissed for the reason I just gave.

Since your reasoning basically comes down to "just because," I'm going to disagree.

Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

So nothing, really.

They you are being intellectually dishonest here. The Enterprise is ABSOLUTELY a part of the Star Trek format per TOS, and not having the crew as seen in TOS at the end of the movie is simply wrong.

According to you. But Star Trek has always been about the characters, and I would never restrict myself based on someone's conception of what stupid people might think. After all, we already established that a movie doesn't have to take place on Enterprise in order to be popular with mainstream audiences.

That's why the Alternate Reality was necessary.

Actually there being an AU didn't help anything when it came to pacing or being contrived enough to promote a cadet to captain of the Federation's newest starship.

Not quite as economical. It would still take too much time to tell that part of the story.

Again, you don't even have anything to base this on. It also strikes me as hypocritical because the Abrams movie jumped around and spent all kinds of time just introducing us to the characters Abrams turned Kirk and Spock into.

It strikes me that you simply are missing some of the basics of what people other than yourself see as Star Trek.

No, I just don't place artificial restrictions on myself based on misconceptions, or base my story on what I figure to be the lowest common denominator.

It appears to be YOUR Star Trek above anyone else, to the point that the USS Enterprise, a cornerstone of the Original Series, is not given it's due.

In short, you are too close to your idea of Star Trek, that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

Absolute adherence to Canon as you see it, and an overly-serious take on it, would effectively destroy the property.

I doubt that your version of the film would be taken up and actually be made.

The Layman who barely knows Star Trek's format even knows the central role the USS Enterprise plays, and a story should have a satisfying resolution.

Congratulations on killing Star Trek with kindness.

You haven't even seen what my idea is and you're already rejecting it out of hand. So much for approaching things with an open mind.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Actually, it the idea should be dismissed for the reason I just gave.

Since your reasoning basically comes down to "just because," I'm going to disagree.

Show me evidence that the Enterprise should NOT be in the movie, and that it is NOT a central part of the TOS iconography.

Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

So nothing, really.

Actually: Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

According to you. But Star Trek has always been about the characters, and I would never restrict myself based on someone's conception of what stupid people might think. After all, we already established that a movie doesn't have to take place on Enterprise in order to be popular with mainstream audiences.

Watch TOS. Show me an episode of TOS where Kirk and crew ere not on the Enterprise.

The simply fact is, to not have the crew on the Bridge with Kirk as Captain tells me that the origin story of how they got there is then incomplete.

We have not told the origins of Kirk and crew in any complete form.

Actually there being an AU didn't help anything when it came to pacing or being contrived enough to promote a cadet to captain of the Federation's newest starship.

I strongly disagree. It allowed the story to fit inside 2 hours, it allowed the story to be changed while still adhering to established continuity, and thus allowed the film to be more economical in how the story is told. Ergo: it was faster, with fewer scenes needed to tell the story, and it allowed for changes otherwise not possible.

Again, you don't even have anything to base this on. It also strikes me as hypocritical because the Abrams movie jumped around and spent all kinds of time just introducing us to the characters Abrams turned Kirk and Spock into.

Instinct, common sense.

No, I just don't place artificial restrictions on myself based on misconceptions, or base my story on what I figure to be the lowest common denominator.

A general audience that knows little about Star Trek are not that low. And Trek fans and non-fans alike want to be entertained, not sent to sleep.

It appears to be YOUR Star Trek above anyone else, to the point that the USS Enterprise, a cornerstone of the Original Series, is not given it's due.

In short, you are too close to your idea of Star Trek, that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

Absolute adherence to Canon as you see it, and an overly-serious take on it, would effectively destroy the property.

I doubt that your version of the film would be taken up and actually be made.

The Layman who barely knows Star Trek's format even knows the central role the USS Enterprise plays, and a story should have a satisfying resolution.

Congratulations on killing Star Trek with kindness.

You haven't even seen what my idea is and you're already rejecting it out of hand. So much for approaching things with an open mind.

Sorry, wrong guy. I was up late last night. Please ignore the quoted paragraphs.

 

[Disillusioned]

Show me evidence that the Enterprise should NOT be in the movie, and that it is NOT a central part of the TOS iconography.

"Star Trek IZ: The Voyage Home." Plus it would just be taking a risk, and as Kirk himself said, "risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair."

Actually: Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

Since you wanted to play it like that: prove it.

Watch TOS. Show me an episode of TOS where Kirk and crew ere not on the Enterprise.

It's ironic you should bring up TOS considering that when asked about it Roddenberry himself was the one who said that Star Trek is about the characters and not the ship.

The simply fact is, to not have the crew on the Bridge with Kirk as Captain tells me that the origin story of how they got there is then incomplete.

Which is why I'd split it up into at least two movies so I could have a more natural time gap. If I was forced to I suppose I could cheat by revealing at the end that the entire movie was a flashback, but that would be as lame as what Abrams ended up doing with his version by cramming so much into it and promoting cadets to the same rank and position they had on TOS.

I strongly disagree. It allowed the story to fit inside 2 hours, it allowed the story to be changed while still adhering to established continuity, and thus allowed the film to be more economical in how the story is told. Ergo: it was faster, with fewer scenes needed to tell the story, and it allowed for changes otherwise not possible.

No, it was just really contrived and didn't make sense at all.

Instinct, common sense.

Nothing.

A general audience that knows little about Star Trek are not that low. And Trek fans and non-fans alike want to be entertained, not sent to sleep.

And you for whatever reason assume that anything I came up with would do that, even without seeing it. If you're so convinced that the way Abrams did it was the only possible way, why did you start this thread?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Show me evidence that the Enterprise should NOT be in the movie, and that it is NOT a central part of the TOS iconography.

"Star Trek IZ: The Voyage Home." Plus it would just be taking a risk, and as Kirk himself said, "risk is part of the game if you want to sit in that chair."

Invalid argument. USS Enterprise wrap-up-scene, and nostalgic re-introduction of the Enterprise was present (Enterprise A, but Still the Enterprise).

As mentioned before, the movie also builds on two prior installments with the Enterprise, with the Enterprise being destroyed in the film just prior.

Also the Prologue if TVH got audiences up to speed.

Actually: Common sense observation, and my own instincts.

Since you wanted to play it like that: prove it.

Fact: The Enterprise is one of the most recognizable images associated with Star Trek.
Fact: Every episode of TOS has had the Enterprise within the Story.

No further evidence is needed to establish that the Enterprise is a central part of the Star Trek: Original Series framework, and thus essential to the format.

From the opening Monologue: "These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise."

It's ironic you should bring up TOS considering that when asked about it Roddenberry himself was the one who said that Star Trek is about the characters and not the ship.

And yet he saw fit to re-incarnate the enterprise for TNG.

Which is why I'd split it up into at least two movies so I could have a more natural time gap. If I was forced to I suppose I could cheat by revealing at the end that the entire movie was a flashback, but that would be as lame as what Abrams ended up doing with his version by cramming so much into it and promoting cadets to the same rank and position they had on TOS.

Abrams had good reason for doing what he did, as I have pointed out.

No, it was just really contrived and didn't make sense at all.

It's what I would call a necessary dramatic conceit.

Instinct, common sense.

Nothing.

If they are nothing, I assume you don't have any. Regarding the Enterprise's role in Star Trek's iconography, at least.

A general audience that knows little about Star Trek are not that low. And Trek fans and non-fans alike want to be entertained, not sent to sleep.

And you for whatever reason assume that anything I came up with would do that, even without seeing it. If you're so convinced that the way Abrams did it was the only possible way, why did you start this thread?

To see if someone could come up with something BETTER. To make a point.

Maybe someone COULD have done it better? Who really knows?

But I am reading criticisms that simply could not be realistically addressed, as far as I can tell.

Splitting into 3 movies would be unreasonable for any studio to fund, so the movie simply HAD to be made without that guarantee.

The movie had to reach as large an audience as possible, which meant it had to complete the story in one film.

Existing Canon would mean that the story would need to be told in too fragmented a fashion to work, or have to be split (not reasonable, especially considering Insurrection and Nemesis), or made into a TV Movie (meaning CBS, and not Paramount).

The movie really could only be done in a similar manner to the way it was.

 

[Disillusioned]

Invalid argument. USS Enterprise wrap-up-scene, and nostalgic re-introduction of the Enterprise was present (Enterprise A, but Still the Enterprise).

And yet it didn't take place on the Enterprise, which was not central to the plot at all.

As mentioned before, the movie also builds on two prior installments with the Enterprise, with the Enterprise being destroyed in the film just prior.

Also the Prologue if TVH got audiences up to speed.

Exactly, you don't need to watch the previous two movies to enjoy or understand TVH.

Fact: The Enterprise is one of the most recognizable images associated with Star Trek.

Which I'm sure is why JJ Abrams changed it so radically.

Fact: Every episode of TOS has had the Enterprise within the Story.

Which doesn't mean squat as far as a movie being both good and successful without having the Enterprise within the story.

And yet he saw fit to re-incarnate the enterprise for TNG.

And you'll notice it wasn't the same ship. So he just made a new show about a new set of characters, which didn't do bad at all.

Abrams had good reason for doing what he did, as I have pointed out.

Not really. I wouldn't say there were any "good" reasons anyway.

It's what I would call a necessary dramatic conceit.

It's what I call contrived and unbelievable.

If they are nothing, I assume you don't have any. Regarding the Enterprise's role in Star Trek's iconography, at least.

Apparently I have better common sense and instinct that JJ Abrams when it comes to visual design and constructing a story that isn't full of cliches and plot holes.

To see if someone could come up with something BETTER. To make a point.

Right, I'm sure the point was "JJ Abrams did it the only way possible," which isn't a point, really.

Maybe someone COULD have done it better? Who really knows?

I totally know, because it could have been done better.

But I am reading criticisms that simply could not be realistically addressed, as far as I can tell.

They could be, it's just that no one who liked this movie wants to address them. It's easier to just build straw man arguments about "wrong font" and "JJ raped my childhood!"

Splitting into 3 movies would be unreasonable for any studio to fund, so the movie simply HAD to be made without that guarantee.

Good thing New Line didn't see it that way. Unless you think LotR would have been awesome as a 2 hour long movie instead of the epic 12 hour long trilogy we got.

The movie had to reach as large an audience as possible, which meant it had to complete the story in one film.

No it doesn't, it just has to be interesting enough and have characters they can relate to.

Existing Canon would mean that the story would need to be told in too fragmented a fashion to work, or have to be split (not reasonable, especially considering Insurrection and Nemesis), or made into a TV Movie (meaning CBS, and not Paramount).

Not really, no. No more fragmented than the movie JJ Abrams made, anyway.

The movie really could only be done in a similar manner to the way it was.

No, it could have been done better. Just because you liked it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done better.

 

[The Wormhole]

First and foremost, it should have been an honest-to-fuck reboot. None of this alternate timeline bullshit with time-travelling Romulans and Nimoy Spock. Maybe you risk alienating the old fans, but that's a risk you have to take. Roll the hard six.

Second, remove the idiotic attempts at "comedy." There was not one single funny moment in the movie.

Then the characters. Do them some justice. Don't present the stereotypes this movie did. Like:

-Scotty was nothing more than comic relief. No disrepect towards Simon Pegg, who I know is a capable actor. The problem seemed to be with writing. Everyone remembers a funny Scotty moment, and now that defines him as a comedic character. When in fact Scotty was a serious character who just happened to be a funny as well.

-The movie also got hung up on Chekov pronouncing V as W and W as V. Every line of his involved words with V or W. While this did go on in TOS, it was never focused on, until Trek IV which is why the "Nuclear Wessel" line is so memorable. But of course, "Nuclear Wessel" sticks out so now that defines the character, even though in TOS he was defined by his mistaken belief that Russia invented everything of importance. In fact, the movie could have actually been funny if they focused on that rather than V and W.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

First and foremost, it should have been an honest-to-fuck reboot. None of this alternate timeline bullshit with time-travelling Romulans and Nimoy Spock. Maybe you risk alienating the old fans, but that's a risk you have to take. Roll the hard six.

They did what they did in an attempt NOT to do precisely that.

Second, remove the idiotic attempts at "comedy." There was not one single funny moment in the movie.

I laughed at some of it. Scotty in the pipes was unnecessary.

Then the characters. Do them some justice. Don't present the stereotypes this movie did. Like:

-Scotty was nothing more than comic relief. No disrepect towards Simon Pegg, who I know is a capable actor. The problem seemed to be with writing. Everyone remembers a funny Scotty moment, and now that defines him as a comedic character. When in fact Scotty was a serious character who just happened to be a funny as well.

Perhaps we should see him in a more serious role in the next movie. He also got to show his Engineering capabilities, including his capabilities with the Transporter.

-The movie also got hung up on Chekov pronouncing V as W and W as V. Every line of his involved words with V or W. While this did go on in TOS, it was never focused on, until Trek IV which is why the "Nuclear Wessel" is so memorable. But of course, "Nuclear Wessel" sticks out" so now that defines the character, even though in TOS he was defined by his mistaken belief that Russia invented everything of importance. In fact, the movie could have actually been funny if they focused on that rather than V and W.

Can't argue with that, but I loved it. We also saw him working on issues from a tactical perspective, and coming up with the idea for hiding in Saturn and Titan's magnetic fields so they could get close enough to get Kirk and Spokc on board to rescure Pike.

I'm not sure if these are Stereotypes in the traditional sense, but I get what you mean.

I see why these choices were made, mostly to get the energy levels up, and to keep the entertainment level up, while remaining fairly true to the TOS characters, but these are issues that could be addressed in the next movie.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Invalid argument. USS Enterprise wrap-up-scene, and nostalgic re-introduction of the Enterprise was present (Enterprise A, but Still the Enterprise).

And yet it didn't take place on the Enterprise, which was not central to the plot at all.

It was also not an Origin story about how TOS came together. It had the task of following on from past installments, and had the luxury of having something to build from that had been seen a couple of years prior.

As mentioned before, the movie also builds on two prior installments with the Enterprise, with the Enterprise being destroyed in the film just prior.

Also the Prologue if TVH got audiences up to speed.

Exactly, you don't need to watch the previous two movies to enjoy or understand TVH.

Which I'm sure is why JJ Abrams changed it so radically.

The CONCEPT was there.

Which doesn't mean squat as far as a movie being both good and successful without having the Enterprise within the story.

Actually it does. It illustrates the obvious truth that the Enterprise is a part of the Star Trek format per TOS, and NOT to have that would IN FACT have left the story incomplete.

If the brief is "how the crew of the Enterprise came together", then they have to show the crew of the ENTERPRISE TOGETHER. Logic.

And you'll notice it wasn't the same ship. So he just made a new show about a new set of characters, which didn't do bad at all.

It was in format and concept. Actually, it was a "reboot" of Star Trek, using an in-continuity explanation for the changes (80 years in the future).

Not really. I wouldn't say there were any "good" reasons anyway.

Tell my WHY they were not good reasons. Results aside, why are they bad reasons?

It's what I call contrived and unbelievable.

Like the Genesis Device, like Harry Mudd's pills, like the Transporter. Define believable.

Apparently I have better common sense and instinct that JJ Abrams when it comes to visual design and constructing a story that isn't full of cliches and plot holes.

Orci and Kurtzman actually wrote the story, and I'd love to hear what the actual Plot Holes are, and what are the Cliches.

Right, I'm sure the point was "JJ Abrams did it the only way possible," which isn't a point, really.

Actually, it is central in many ways. What YOU may consider the correct way to go ahead may not work as well as you think with regards to the goals of the movie.

I totally know, because it could have been done better.

Show me. DO it better in treatment form. CONVINCE me.

They could be, it's just that no one who liked this movie wants to address them. It's easier to just build straw man arguments about "wrong font" and "JJ raped my childhood!"

I have yet to see solutions that would actually work in this thread, aside from a very recent post. I'm not going for the Straw Man arguments you state.

Good thing New Line didn't see it that way. Unless you think LotR would have been awesome as a 2 hour long movie instead of the epic 12 hour long trilogy we got.

New Line almost bankrupted itself to make Lord of the Rings, and considering the enormous risks they took, it is pretty much rediculous to expect Paramount to do the same. Star Trek was not expected to get that level of returns, and Fellowship had a specific 3 part story to tell.

Star Trek doesn't have 3 complex books behind it to justify the Lord of the Rings approach, and Paramount simply cannot justifiably tripple their costs to $450m for a property that has waned recently.

No it doesn't, it just has to be interesting enough and have characters they can relate to.

If it did not reach a target audience to pay it's way, Star Trek would be dead and a proven failure.

Existing Canon would mean that the story would need to be told in too fragmented a fashion to work, or have to be split (not reasonable, especially considering Insurrection and Nemesis), or made into a TV Movie (meaning CBS, and not Paramount).

Not really, no. No more fragmented than the movie JJ Abrams made, anyway.

Then show me how, in one movie, it could be done and still have been profitable for the studio. What is your idea?

The movie really could only be done in a similar manner to the way it was.

No, it could have been done better. Just because you liked it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done better.

I was speaking generally. I've stated elsewhere things that could be improved, but the ideas I've seen here are really NOT going to improve upon it.

If it can be done better, do it better. Show me better.

We all have nitpicks, but I want to see what is considered a better way to make it that meets all of the demands, and addresses ALL of the concerns being raised, and the criticisms levied against the movie.

I cannot, and will not claim the film to be perfect, but those who think it is a BAD MOVIE have yet to give me an alternative approach that would be a GOOD or GREAT movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

If it can be done better, do it better. Show me better.

Oh no, not again.

Give him the number of someone who's going to give him 150 million to realize his script if he writes one.

 

[M'Sharak]

If it can be done better, do it better. Show me better.

Oh no, not again.

Give him the number of someone who's going to give him 150 million to realize his script if he writes one.

We're not dredging up that business again, are we? (Hint: No, we are not.)

"How would you have made it better" is the stated premise of this thread, and the truth is that no one is likely to be handing out $150 million or even $150 thousand to someone who hasn't shown evidence of an ability to come up with workable (and marketable) ideas -- the industry just doesn't work that way. That's what this is: a "show your idea" thread; it's an exercise -- one by which people can offer their ideas about how they think any part of the movie (or the whole) could have been done better.


On another subject, I will say here that reading Disillusioned's sentence-by-sentence fisking is becoming really hard on the eyes, and OneBuckFilms' doing more or less the same thing by responding in boldface within the quoted passage is even worse. Do you guys think you could at least go paragraph-by-paragraph instead, and use quote tags instead of boldface to set off responses from what's being responded to?

The eyeballs you save could be mine.

 

[Disillusioned]

It was also not an Origin story about how TOS came together. It had the task of following on from past installments, and had the luxury of having something to build from that had been seen a couple of years prior.

So? You still haven't given a reason why a movie about characters would need a ship of a particular name to be successful. All the same, by this point if I ever did anything I'd put some kind of lame reference to the NX-01 in it just as a way of thumbing my nose at the attitude that the movie would need a ship named Enterprise in it, because then technically it would.

The CONCEPT was there.

More like a parody.

Actually it does. It illustrates the obvious truth that the Enterprise is a part of the Star Trek format per TOS, and NOT to have that would IN FACT have left the story incomplete.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't actually make any sense, let alone make it true.

If the brief is "how the crew of the Enterprise came together", then they have to show the crew of the ENTERPRISE TOGETHER. Logic.

Logic would be never saying something like that to begin with, because that would be writing yourself into the corner.

It was in format and concept. Actually, it was a "reboot" of Star Trek, using an in-continuity explanation for the changes (80 years in the future).

Kind of like what Abrams could have done and probably would have went over just as well.

Tell my WHY they were not good reasons. Results aside, why are they bad reasons?

When something is contrived, that takes me out of the story, which is a bad thing. I'm supposed to be able to suspend my disbelief for the purpose of the movie, so when something contrived comes along, I can't. Most of the time what does that for me is when something is way to convenient, like say people just happening to meet each other or characters coming up with theories out of no where and everyone else just accepting it without much thought or a brand new ship being manned mostly by cadets and those same cadets all ending up with exactly the same rank and positions as they did on the show the movie is trying so desperately to take the place of.

Like the Genesis Device, like Harry Mudd's pills, like the Transporter. Define believable.

See just above. I don't like when things are contrived. The sci fi elements I can accept for the most part because they are supposed to simply be elements of the story being told. Something like an equation being the key to "transwarp" beaming tends to get an eye roll though simply because I know too much about engineering concepts (range of the transporter really ought to be limited by the physical equipment, not some equation you can just plug into a computer) and because I know too much about what's been established in the Star Trek universe (transwarp being a form of propulsion certain types of ships use). If I hadn't known anything about it, it probably just would have sounded like the technobabble it was to me and I still would have rolled my eyes at its use.

Orci and Kurtzman actually wrote the story,

And JJ Abrams set the direction of both the story and the visual design.

and I'd love to hear what the actual Plot Holes are, and what are the Cliches.

That would take a really long time to list, and since I'm not fond of repeating myself I'll just say that I've mentioned most of the major examples already. Ones I haven't mentioned, like Scotty being turned into comedy relief, Chekov being reduced to a funny accent, and the redshirt who was written to be too stupid to live have been mentioned by others.

Actually, it is central in many ways. What YOU may consider the correct way to go ahead may not work as well as you think with regards to the goals of the movie.

No. You think it works because you liked it, so in your mind that apparently means that was the only way for the movie to "work." That really is all fine and good, but if you're going to start a thread about alternative methods it would probably help to not be so utterly convinced of that to the point that it's made you narrow-minded.

Show me. DO it better in treatment form. CONVINCE me.

Right. I've mentioned all of two things from what I would do and you rejected them out of hand. I'm totally going to do a detailed write-up and share it here now. Or not.

I have yet to see solutions that would actually work in this thread, aside from a very recent post.

And you've already established that you're hardly unbiased, so that statement doesn't hold a lot of weight.

I'm not going for the Straw Man arguments you state.

Seeing as a straw man argument is an oversimplification of an opponent's argument or even something that has little or nothing to do with an opponent's argument I can honestly say that I have never made one here.

New Line almost bankrupted itself to make Lord of the Rings, and considering the enormous risks they took, it is pretty much rediculous to expect Paramount to do the same. Star Trek was not expected to get that level of returns, and Fellowship had a specific 3 part story to tell.

Again, it's a pretty good thing New Line didn't think the way you apparently do, or we wouldn't have had those really good movies.

Star Trek doesn't have 3 complex books behind it to justify the Lord of the Rings approach, and Paramount simply cannot justifiably tripple their costs to $450m for a property that has waned recently.

And yet none of that really means all that much in terms of creating successful movies. Money definitely helps, especially with a sci-fi, and this movie was definitely not lacking in budget.

If it did not reach a target audience to pay it's way, Star Trek would be dead and a proven failure.

You basically just repeated my argument here but you're taking it from the negative side. I just said that as long as the movie has a good story with interesting characters that audiences can relate to, and the movie is marketed well, it will reach its audience and be successful.

No, it could have been done better. Just because you liked it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done better.

I was speaking generally. I've stated elsewhere things that could be improved, but the ideas I've seen here are really NOT going to improve upon it.

"The movie really could only have been done in a similar manner to the way it was." That is not a generalized statement; you are literally saying that the movie only could have worked if it was done the way it was.

If it can be done better, do it better. Show me better.

I'm under the impression here that you are simply impossible to please because of your established bias on the matter. So I'll make my own suggestion: why don't you tell us how the movie could have been improved? You seem to have all these impossible standards, so it might benefit anyone who's actually interested in trying to impress you to know exactly what they are.

We all have nitpicks, but I want to see what is considered a better way to make it that meets all of the demands, and addresses ALL of the concerns being raised, and the criticisms levied against the movie.

Tell us the demands.

I cannot, and will not claim the film to be perfect, but those who think it is a BAD MOVIE have yet to give me an alternative approach that would be a GOOD or GREAT movie.

And just because someone knows something is bad doesn't mean they have to know how to do better in order to prove that it's bad. They don't need to prove anything, they simply saw a movie and it was bad.

Oh no, not again.

Give him the number of someone who's going to give him 150 million to realize his script if he writes one.

There's that, too. Even if I did some detailed write-up for him to pick apart and tell me why Abrams did better it's not like I can actually make a movie and put it out there to see how it would actually do.

 

[Disillusioned]

On another subject, I will say here that reading Disillusioned's sentence-by-sentence fisking is becoming really hard on the eyes,

I'm afraid I don't really know how else to respond, then. I understand if people find it annoying because they can get rather long, but at the same time no one is making them read it. As a moderator I suppose that isn't really an option for you, but I can't really think of any alternative methods other than to simply not respond. Of course then I would come off as trolling because I'd be making a statement and then acting as if I'd run off someplace else.

 

[Admiral_Young]

If I was going for a non reboot Star Trek movie that still shared the premise of "Star Trek" then this is how I would do it. The opening shot is of Romulus where we get the view of the capital city and it's surroundings much like the shot from Nemeis and subsequent Enterprise episodes. Cut to Ambassador Spock who has been narrating in voice over events that have taken place since the conclusion of Star Trek Nemesis. Progress has been made between the Federation and Romulus and we're on the eve of a peace summit. Tel'Aura has assumed the role of Preator and rebuilt the Romulan Senate (most of this continuity splits from the established Novel and Star Trek Online continuity) and thanks to Commander Donatra's efforts in helping Titan and the task force Riker mentioned at the end of Nemesis he would be part of things polically have moved forward. This is a satisfiying moment for Spock who as we all know has been working towards Reunification between Vulcan and Romulus, and a peace treaty between the Empire and Federation is the first step. Spock has been standing on some kind of observational balcony looking out at the vastness of the capital and reveals he has been reminincing. He remembers a very different universe and realizes that the Empire and Federation have both come a long way. Spock recollects becoming involved in galactic politics, working on the Gorkon Inititive and helping to secure peace between the Klingons and Federation and his role in involving Jim Kirk and the Enterprise and the still possessed regret. This then shifts his memory to when he first met James Kirk and then also his first adventure with the Enterprise crew.


The rest of the movie would involve Spock's memories of meeting Jim Kirk at the Academy during his last year and Kirk's first or second year and then meeting him aboard the Enterprise under Captain Christorpher Pike as Kirk assumes the role of first officer.

 

[Cyke101]

Not to dig up the past too much, but misconceptions and mis-labeling always bug me!

I don't see fighting with a gladius or a long sword as fencing either, really.

Because fighting with the gladius or a long sword isn't fencing, whereas Kendo really *is* fencing. There are countless books that list Kendo among the world's fencing styles; even the Encyclopedia Brittanica defines Kendo as a form of fencing.

Now, whether or not the fight on screen accurately reflected Kendo and Katana wielding, I'll leave that up to someone else. It should be noted that 99% of the time, films will show us inaccurate versions of martial arts, and I can't imagine Trek (in any incarnation) being any different.

 

[Icemizer]

Less comedy.

 

[Disillusioned]

Not to dig up the past too much, but misconceptions and mis-labeling always bug me!

I don't see fighting with a gladius or a long sword as fencing either, really.

Because fighting with the gladius or a long sword isn't fencing, whereas Kendo really *is* fencing. There are countless books that list Kendo among the world's fencing styles; even the Encyclopedia Brittanica defines Kendo as a form of fencing.

Now, whether or not the fight on screen accurately reflected Kendo and Katana wielding, I'll leave that up to someone else. It should be noted that 99% of the time, films will show us inaccurate versions of martial arts, and I can't imagine Trek (in any incarnation) being any different.

I'm always entertained when I see Hollywood use a Gladius in ways that would have broken a real one. Of course that still has nothing to do with the stereotype of giving Sulu a katana and having him jump around with it like he's in a stereotypical anime.

 

[suarezguy]

No reboot.
Story ideas for post-Nemesis upheaval:
-A planet or group of planets is considering seceding from the Federation
-The Federation wants a "benevolently theocratic" planet to join the organization or partner in an operation
-A starship captain/crew must work with Section 31 to stop a planet from causing a scandal/starting a war; perhaps the origins of the conflict are actions Section 31 itself performed, perhaps the conflict has no legitimate basis.

I'm not an expert in popular tastes, but I think allegorical stories could create buzz. The pacing would be more contemplative, though there could be action in the investigation and climax of a S31 story.


If it had to be a prequel to the original series,
-Spock is, I think the more interesting character in personally rejecting Sarek but wanting to be a "super-Vulcan" to compensate for his human side, yet not wanting to totally lose his human side. Explore these contradictions and how Chapel and Kirk, as he slowly informs them, are understanding, try to help, while McCoy, not very informed, is more combative.
-Kirk's story would be how, before command, he learned to manipulate women without getting attached and/or how he learned the importance of the Prime Directive, even though following it is difficult, after Pike or another captain broke it with disastrous results that Kirk comes across a long time later (action could come if the planet became more militant); this could be what makes Number One leave or be killed, leading to Kirk have command and wrestle with the decision, eventually deciding strict non-interference.

Another theme is that Kirk could feel unsure of his career, feeling he's just following in his father's footsteps and having friends outside of Starfleet, until the PD issue makes him realize what the value of his service.

Like Abrams, I'd re-interpret the basics of the Enterprise rather than stick to the '60s version.