Fixing the Films (JJ edition).

[Franklin]

^^Campe, please read the last part of my edited post above. I'll ask the same question: is it action you want or drama?

Trek has always used action to serve drama, not as a substitute for it.

Roddenberry always wanted writers to get to the point. Action was drama. In the TOS writers' guide, he made that point very clear. "Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anesthetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and discusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it."

Roddenberry wanted scripts to get into the action as quickly as possible. A strong teaser was essential.

 

[Campe]

^Exactly this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There are two things in each movie that needs to be fixed, either of which would make both films even more awesome.

STXI:
The original script has Enterprise actually firing on the Narada when they first encounter it over Vulcan. The brief exchange of fire is cut short when Nero realizes what ship is attacking them. That would have been nice to see.

Also, the original script has Enterprise dropping out of warp basically right behind the Narada and then following it to Earth; thereafter, Enterprise hangs out in a "blind spot" in Narada's engine exhaust where it won't be detected easily. I can understand they substituted this for the Titan scene, because it just looked so much cooler, but finding a way to put Enterprise back in that blind spot (say, warping from Titan to a final position right behind the Narada) would have been interesting too.


STID:
Approaching Kronos
Spock: "Scanners show that Kronos' largest moon is in the process of disintegrating, Captain."
Kirk: "No wonder Harrison's hiding out here. The whole planet's probably in chaos."
Spock: "Could Harrison have caused the breakup himself?"
Kirk: "I wouldn't put it past him."

Lastly. After Kirk and Khan board the Vengeance, having Chekov report partial impulse power is available and have Enterprise head for Earth at best possible speed. Afterwards, when Khan takes over the Vengeance we have the ship chasing after Enterprise, with the "give me back my crew" negotiation taking place in a background of Khan closing to weapons range. Spock has the crew beamed aboard and Khan attacks them anyway; the torpedoes explode as Vengeance passes, and the close-range detonation disables the impulse engines (again) and puts both ships into a decaying orbit.


Most of this is pretty much how I interpret the movie when I watch it anyway, but that would be cool to actually SEE.

 

[Campe]

STID:
Approaching Kronos
Spock: "Scanners show that Kronos' largest moon is in the process of disintegrating, Captain."
Kirk: "No wonder Harrison's hiding out here. The whole planet's probably in chaos."
Spock: "Could Harrison have caused the breakup himself?"
Kirk: "I wouldn't put it past him."

I always liked the idea that this is Praxis, and the incident with the Narada destroying all of those Klingon ships caused them to overproduce a lot faster causing the destruction of the moon. Of course, militarization on both sides caused the Khitomer Accords not to occur on either side at that time. It leaves in question what happens to Kronos after all of that.

 

[Jedi_Master]

If there was anything I would change it would be transwarp beaming. There had to be some other way to get the heroes to the ship - a one off techno babble solution, a special experimental device that melts after one use, something, anything other than some universe changing formula that is never mentioned ever again.

 

[BillJ]

^^Campe, please read the last part of my edited post above. I'll ask the same question: is it action you want or drama?

Trek has always used action to serve drama, not as a substitute for it.

Roddenberry always wanted writers to get to the point. Action was drama. In the TOS writers' guide, he made that point very clear. "Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anesthetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and discusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it."

Roddenberry wanted scripts to get into the action as quickly as possible. A strong teaser was essential.

+1

The worst way to open up an action movie is having people standing around talking.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As I've said many times, transwarp beaming isn't at all universe-changing. It doesn't even seem to be all that difficult to do, considering the Ferengi independently developed the same technology in the late 24th century without the benefit of Scotty's genius.

And then there's this asshole:

You suppose Sloan just happened to be hiding out within a few hours' travel of Deep Space Nine waiting for Doctor Bashir to "discover" a cure for Odo's disease? Or is it more likely that he actually BEAMED into Bashir's quarters directly from his office on Earth?

And given what the Tal Shiar or the Obsidian order could do with that sort of technology, transwarp beaming would likely be the most closely guarded secret in Federation history; Daimon Bok and his associates probably "disappeared" after Picard thwarted him, and whoever he bought the device from was likely found dead shortly thereafter.

STID:
Approaching Kronos
Spock: "Scanners show that Kronos' largest moon is in the process of disintegrating, Captain."
Kirk: "No wonder Harrison's hiding out here. The whole planet's probably in chaos."
Spock: "Could Harrison have caused the breakup himself?"
Kirk: "I wouldn't put it past him."

I always liked the idea that this is Praxis, and the incident with the Narada destroying all of those Klingon ships caused them to overproduce a lot faster causing the destruction of the moon. Of course, militarization on both sides caused the Khitomer Accords not to occur on either side at that time. It leaves in question what happens to Kronos after all of that.

If you go by the IDW comics, the Klingons start reverse-engineering the Narada's weapons and technology, which causes the Romulans to team up with Section 31 to launch a preemptive strike. Khitomer gets glassed, Kronos gets bombed back into the stoneage, the bulk of the Romulan AND Klingon fleets are decimated and Section 31 ends up with a chunk of red matter the size of a golf ball for "deterrent purposes."

 

[Phantom]

You can have both action and drama.

Good drama is not purely based on dialogue and good action is not necessarily dialogue free.

Oh, I agree. That's why I added the shuttle material back. It was appropriate action in service of the drama. The Enterprise-in-the-ocean scene was purely about "WOW! What a cool shot!" Didn't make a bit of sense other than it being a "cool shot".

Maurice's Fan Film Writer's primer thread has discussed the need to carefully insert exposition and dialogue. Clunky and overly detailed exposition tends to be a sign of badly written fan fiction. Its like the storyteller can't bear to allow the audience to fill in the details, so he has to explain every single little thing before moving on.

Conversely, the scene as shown in theaters has virtually NO explanation whatsoever. It reduces the moral question of the PD and whether or not to let the Nibiruans die to Kirk and McCoy running through red trees and jumping off a cliff while Spock gets dropped into a volcano.

Never mind that they have technology that can beam something down from 10,000+ kilometers away...

^^Campe, please read the last part of my edited post above. I'll ask the same question: is it action you want or drama?

Trek has always used action to serve drama, not as a substitute for it.

Roddenberry always wanted writers to get to the point. Action was drama. In the TOS writers' guide, he made that point very clear. "Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anesthetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and discusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it."

The bolded part is exactly why showing the policy debate between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is the stronger presentation. The version we came up with in the OP is about the people and the moral question.

JJ's version is about the cool gadget, running through the trees, and Enterprise on the bottom of an ocean.

 

[BillJ]

The Enterprise-in-the-ocean scene was purely about "WOW! What a cool shot!" Didn't make a bit of sense other than it being a "cool shot".

Sometimes I enjoy something simply being cool. There is nothing you could add in to get me to give up the Enterprise rising out of the ocean.

 

[martok2112]

This is good discussion.

I will say that I personally enjoy the high action aspects of the two recent Star Trek films. For me, they were the movies I'd waited 40 years for as far as Trek went.

No, you do not want to start off a high action movie with a dialogue heavy scene. As Campe mentioned before, you don't start a James Bond movie with Bond getting a lengthy briefing from M. He's right in the action...or at least in the moments which lead almost immediately to the action. And sometimes, said actions are somehow connected to the movie that follows.

I've always said that when most folks go to the movie to see blockbuster films, they want bang for their bucks. ST09 and STID delivered them in spades. In both cases, audiences were treated to very WOW factor opening sequences, and there was plenty enough drama in between other action beats to satisfy most movie goers who were looking for story, and for most Trek fans and lovers of Trek. The previous films did serviceable box office, but not stunning box office.

Campe, I completely agree. The opening of First Contact was really a lot lower key than I'd hoped for. We only get to see about two minutes (at best) of what should be an epic, eye-popping, mind blowing space battle between the assembled Starfleet and the one Borg cube. Worse than that, I felt that the movie had blown its wad in those first moments. Any and all other action scenes after that in the film just felt like aftershocks. I didn't feel a real payoff. I had always heard that the space battle in FC was supposed to run quite a bit longer than it did on screen. Sadly, we got what we got, and as usual, it played off more like an episode of TNG than it did a big-screen epic.

I mean, that's what Star Trek was on TV whenever there was space action.... in a five minute space battle, four and a half minutes of it was descriptive dialogue ("Shields down to 52 percent." "Incoming weapons fire.", "Brace for impact!".....Insurrection was pointedly guilty of this.) and bridge shudder shots with a few panels exploding, and maybe a crewman or two getting thrown about. The other thirty seconds, if we were lucky, actually had space battle footage.

Action and drama are not mutually exclusive and can serve each other well. I thought this was done exceptionally in ST09 and STID.

When I undertook the quickie project to try and see if I could strike a balance between what some old school Trek fans wanted to see, and still try and satisfy those who were much more invested in the JJ Abrams' takes, believe me, it was wholehearted (as much as my limited time would allow). But, I still prefer ST09 and STID as they are. There's a reason that those guys have jobs in film, and I don't.

Jedi Master, the Edited for Goats version of STID will be strictly for bleating hearts. (Oh, boy, I'm liable to be lambasted for that one, so I'll stop before I rack up too many goat/lamb/sheep puns.)

 

[Phantom]

(referring to Bill on the previous page) "Cool shots" without grounding in good storytelling are essentially cinematic junk food. Tastes good, but ultimately unsatisfying. Not to mention bad for the audience, which becomes conditioned to thinking that spectacle is a replacement for good drama.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Enterprise-in-the-ocean scene was purely about "WOW! What a cool shot!" Didn't make a bit of sense other than it being a "cool shot".

Sometimes I enjoy something simply being cool. There is nothing you could add in to get me to give up the Enterprise rising out of the ocean.

Rule of cool.

You could fill a hundred encyclopedias with all the technical and narrative inaccuracies; two dimensional space, clear contradictions in the standard operating procedures of Starfleet, glaringly inefficient ship designs, unrealistic scale of space, unrealistic equipment, convoluted timeline of events, the list is infinite. However....when Trek fires on all warp nacelles, NOBODY gives a damn.

Enterprise rises out of the ocean, flies over a volcano and beams Spock out of it just before it explodes (sort of) and then speeds off into the sunset like a jet fighter.

I don't honestly care if that makes scientific sense or not. It's fucking awesome.

"Cool shots" without grounding in good storytelling are essentially cinematic junk food. Tastes good, but ultimately unsatisfying.

MOVIES IN GENERAL are intellectual junk food. Some are (slightly) more nourishing than others.

But if I want my intellect stimulated, I go and read Asimov or Clarke or Heinlien. If I want stimulation with a high entertainment value, I read The Expanse novels or Rendezvous with Rama. If I want a slightly more talky and intellectual Star Trek I dive into the novelverse.

Sometimes, though, I want to see Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise do something awesome. When that urge hits me, I watch the Doomsday Machine or Balance of Terror or the Enterprise Incident or Elaan of Troyus. I'd watch TMP or Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock or Undiscovered Country.

Now since about 2009, I watch STXI and STID. Because Star Trek isn't supposed to be a homework assignment; it's supposed to be FUN.

And bear in mind that ALL of those movies and episodes are absolute nonsense scientifically, but they nevertheless remain some of my all-time favorite Trek moments. Spectacle goes hand in hand with good drama in ways that scientific accuracy and/or intelligence just doesn't.

 

[martok2112]

The Enterprise-in-the-ocean scene was purely about "WOW! What a cool shot!" Didn't make a bit of sense other than it being a "cool shot".

Sometimes I enjoy something simply being cool. There is nothing you could add in to get me to give up the Enterprise rising out of the ocean.

Rule of cool.

You could fill a hundred encyclopedias with all the technical and narrative inaccuracies; two dimensional space, clear contradictions in the standard operating procedures of Starfleet, glaringly inefficient ship designs, unrealistic scale of space, unrealistic equipment, convoluted timeline of events, the list is infinite. However....when Trek fires on all warp nacelles, NOBODY gives a damn.

Enterprise rises out of the ocean, flies over a volcano and beams Spock out of it just before it explodes (sort of) and then speeds off into the sunset like a jet fighter.

I don't honestly care if that makes scientific sense or not. It's fucking awesome.

Amen, Bi-La Kaifa, and +1!

 

[Phantom]

But you can't sustain a movie entirely on "Rule of Cool". Down that road lies Transformers.

A good film achieves balance. I contend that the OP collaborative effort does that.

 

[Karzak]

Uh... ...


Nope.

+1

 

[Campe]

If everything had to make sense in Star Trek, Phantom, it would all be really boring. But your commentary that those points are what the opening sequence are about are completely and totally superficial. Watch the link from 6:16. Tell me the moral dilemma isn't addressed. The key to all of Star TreK: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." They do it quickly, but it's in the moment. If you're just a fan of spectacle, you have the ooh factor. If you're a Trek fan, you have the moral quandary.

Yeah, Kirk breaks that rule. That's the point of the movie. Not just action and pew-pew. I'm really sorry that you see it that way, but I feel you've missed the character arc. Maybe that's the film's fault. That it is too busy in points. I'll concede that possibility. I think there's a lot of dramatic nuance. I also think there's a lot of "Bonk! Bonk on the head!" moments. Maybe you should watch it again under the auspices of trying to look at it from a perspective of not expecting Berman-era Trek and seeing it as a film trying to serve two masters: the general moviegoer and the Star Trek fan. Maybe you can appreciate it more.

ETA: Transporters, the warp drive, Data. Do they actually make sense? No. You have to suspend your disbelief. Why is the Enterprise on the ocean floor any different?

 

[Phantom]

Karzak and Clegg: "Nope" to what, exactly? Not a particularly informative post...

Campe: Vimeo sucks at playback, which exact moment are you referring to @ 6:16?

I'm not saying that the moral question isn't touched on in the opening as presented. I'm saying that it is touched on in a shallow and superficial way. It's not presented as the result of careful thought and deliberation by the crew, but rather as a "jump in and hope for the best" manner that makes the crew look like a bunch of hot-headed, unprofessional goobers rather than enlightened, intelligent officers who may understand and respect the PD are willing to say that the way it is being "honored" is wrong.

I do think you've touched on a good point by saying that JJ is trying to serve two masters that may not be ultimately serve-able at the same time. I think JJ puts far more effort into serving the General Audience than he does the Trek audience, and that's a shame because while it may make a lot of money from the former, it winds up pissing off large sections of the later, and really doesn't do much to deepen the support of the Trek franchise brand.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But you can't sustain a movie entirely on "Rule of Cool". Down that road lies "Transformers".

... which was cool as fuck. And I say this as a guy who once staged some pretty epic battles between Megatron and the USS Enterprise (seriously: an alien race of living machines that transform into copies of Earth vehicles? That's a "Star Trek" story waiting to happen).

But Star Trek is a lot more character centered than the transformers franchise, which is why it is necessary to have cool characters. That's where Kirk comes into the picture: is there any REAL reason for the Captain to go down on away missions to the planet surface? No there isn't. Even M5 knows this: there's no reason for the Captain or the Medical Officer to be included in an away team.

So why does Kirk bother to go? Because it's cool. And because he never turns down an opportunity to do something cool.

 

[martok2112]

Phantom, amigo, ST09 and STID were not sustained totally on "rule of cool" though.
There were good stories for both, and plenty of drama to balance out the wows of the action beats.

As you can see by our efforts, most of the folk here who have chimed in still prefer (as do I) the STID opening as it was.

I have to agree with the Crazed one known as Eddie. Star Trek is supposed to be fun, not homework. I can guarantee that as a twelve year old, if I had gotten to see The Wrath of Khan in the theaters, I would be almost squirming in my seat waiting for the big bad space battles to take place. (Enough talk! Start shooting something!) In my latter years, I appreciated the story.

As an adult, I've come to appreciate balance. I thought the two recent Star Trek films struck that balance just fine. Opens up with an attention getter, moves on to some story, kicks into an action beat that serves the film, progresses with more story and dialogue, advances into the next major action beat, a bit of peril and sacrifice, the big epic climax, and a serene resolution. That resonated as a good Star Trek film to me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I can guarantee that as a twelve year old, if I had gotten to see The Wrath of Khan in the theaters, I would be almost squirming in my seat waiting for the big bad space battles to take place. (Enough talk! Start shooting something!) In my latter years, I appreciated the story.

That's pretty much how TMP usurped Wrath of Khan as my favorite Star Trek movie. Spent my entire childhood through teenage years thinking Wrath of Khan was the best of them all (and TUC was a close second) while thinking TMP was boring as hell.

Then the Directors Cut came out and I watched it out of nostalgia and I realized "Holy shit, this is a GOOD MOVIE!"

And why? Because TMP was PURE spectacle. A HELL OF A LOT OF IT, it turns out. The gratuitous starship porn in the flyby scene, the Klingon fleet battle, the enormous scale of V'ger's cloud and V'ger itself. Spectacle of a more subtle variety at a slower pace, delivered in a long softcore dose instead of the rapid-fire servings of STXI. And the final spectacle of the reveal of what V'ger really was: a real world space probe evolved into a superbeing.

TMP is the gold-standard for what Phantom is talking about: spectacle delivered with subtlety and intelligence. And yet, TMP is a very hard movie to like, and you have to really be in the right frame of mind to even watch it, let alone enjoy it. If all Star Trek movies followed that pattern, the quality of Star Trek as a franchise would improve by a thousand percent... and nobody would ever watch it again.