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."

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.

A debate like you wrote almost certainly happened before they tried their cock-eyed plan. It's nice dialogue, but in a 120 minute movie, time is precious, and if you can establish that moral ambivalence about what they're doing while shooting the action, all the better (especially since as we listen to the debate know they're going to decide to do it, anyway).

We find out from Spock in the volcano that regulations really don't permit what they are doing. Kirk believes they're simply skirting them by not being seen (which he must've convinced Spock is OK because Spock is in the volcano). We establish Kirk's feeling that "in the face of death, laws fall silent" when he tells Spock in the transporter room that it's no big deal that they were seen.

To me, it doesn't need fixing. The moral quandary of what they were doing wasn't even what was important. Kirk would've done it as a 45 or 55 year-old (albeit in a slightly less convoluted and stupid way). What needed to be established was how recklessly and carelessly they were going about their business. It set the tone for the movie and the Spock and Kirk story arcs: that Spock may have harbored a death wish; and that over the year he's been captain of the Enterprise Kirk has been reckless, egotistical, is full of hubris, and doesn't know luck from skill. We know after that scene that he is going to have to own up to, face, and then overcome all those weaknesses somewhere in the story.

 

[Phantom]

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

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.

A debate like you wrote almost certainly happened before they tried their cock-eyed plan. It's nice dialogue, but in a 120 minute movie, time is precious, and if you can establish that moral ambivalence about what they're doing while shooting the action, all the better (especially since as we listen to the debate know they're going to decide to do it, anyway).

We find out from Spock in the volcano that regulations really don't permit what they are doing. Kirk believes they're simply skirting them by not being seen (which he must've convinced Spock is OK because Spock is in the volcano). We establish Kirk's feeling that "in the face of death, laws fall silent" when he tells Spock in the transporter room that it's no big deal that they were seen.

To me, it doesn't need fixing. The moral quandary of what they were doing wasn't even what was important. Kirk would've done it as a 45 or 55 year-old (albeit in a slightly less convoluted and stupid way). What needed to be established was how recklessly and carelessly they were going about their business. It set the tone for the movie and the Spock and Kirk story arcs: that Spock may have harbored a death wish; and that over the year he's been captain of the Enterprise Kirk has been reckless, egotistical, is full of hubris, and doesn't know luck from skill. We know after that scene that he is going to have to own up to, face, and then overcome all those weaknesses somewhere in the story.

I'll stipulate that what you said is true. That being said, the experience of the film is so badly tilted in favor of the "high points" or "beats" or whatever you want to call them that it's like reading the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story. Covers the same material, but in a bare bones manner that ultimately is less satisfying.

 

[Campe]

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

The scene where Kirk and Bones run into the bridge and the moral quandary is addressed.

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.

In my opinion, it's handled well. Spock is going to die. He's in the middle of the volcano that's about to erupt. Do they really have time to handle it more in a superficial manner? Pike also addresses the issue a little later and in a little more depth. It's my take that the issue is discussed on the ship, probably very much like your take on the scene suggests it does. But, again, it's not a very exciting way to draw your audience in. If this was a TV show, sure. I'd love for it to happen. If it were later in the film, absolutely. But at the beginning? When you're trying to get to the action and get the audience in the moment? A conference room scene is not the best place to start. That's all I'm saying.

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.

I firmly disagree that it hasn't done much to deepen the support of the Trek franchise brand. I went to go see the 2009 Star Trek performed with a live orchestra a few months ago with my girlfriend. The place was packed. If it wasn't? They probably wouldn't be doing these shows around the country. Are they doing them with Prime Trek movies? No. But they sure are with the two JJ films.

As for the pissing off "large sections" (I firmly still don't believe it's large sections but we aren't discussing that here), again, I'm sorry. But that's their problem. Not mine. I enjoy the films. They are far from perfect. But they are fun. And they've done well. And they've converted people I know into Star Trek fans. Some have gone back and watched the Prime universe for it. Seems like a win to me.

And, it's a good thing JJ is just producing Beyond. Maybe you'll appreciate Justin Lin's take on Trek more.

 

[Franklin]

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

If establishing that the morality of what they were doing was equally as important to the story moving forward as establishing how they did it was extremely dangerous (Spock is basically on a suicide mission) and stupid (Kirk risks his own death and McCoy's trying to distract the natives -- and what if they had been caught alive?), then OK.

You would simply have to justify the cost of a scene discussing what to do before doing it in money and minutes, and if there's a payoff for it later in the story that makes the money and time spent on it worthwhile.

Besides, Kirk gives most of his justification for it to Pike after the fact, and Pike chews him out for it. That's the debate scene on the morality of it versus duty and regulations.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

And I thought the scene AS FILMED did it better.

That's the difference between film and literature. Written works can be realistic, subtle, nuanced and expository. Films can only do this at the expense of entertainment value.

I'll stipulate that what you said is true. That being said, the experience of the film is so badly tilted in favor of the "high points" or "beats" or whatever you want to call them that it's like reading the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story.

Or like watching a movie based on a much more elaborate book.

2001: A Space Odyssey does very much the same thing, except in a far less entertaining way.

 

[martok2112]

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.

I love Star Trek The Motion Picture (especially the Director's Cut). When I was ten (which actually would've made me thriteen in '82), I loved ST TMP, and knew it was not going to be an all out space battle fest. The opening moments with the Klingon battle certainly satiated me at that point. But I did know it was largely going to be some kind of exploration/adventure film, and I did not leave dissatisfied. I got to see the Enterprise, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and all the gang on the big screen.

Wrath of Khan was marketed much differently. Its focus in the commercials was the space battles (which actually are more like snipes rather than slugfests). But as is the case with trailers, they make the space battles look much more exciting than they actually are. (witness First Contact). So that's why, as a thirteen year old (again, if I had actually gotten to see TWOK in the theaters instead of that POS I was forced to watch known as ET The Extra Terrestrial), I guarantee I would've been sitting on pins and needles waiting for the big space battles.

Star Trek II I am sure got some repeat viewings on the big screen by those who could afford to do so. I don't know that TMP got so many repeat big screen attendees. But I agree with you. If all the movies were done with the grace that TMP had, yes, they would be great to see on the big screen.....once.

Whenever someone makes a movie, I am sure that there is the hope in the back of their minds that somehow the movie compels folk to go to repeat viewings. It doesn't always work. Clearly, with ST09 and STID, it did. I saw ST09 five times on the big screen, and STID only twice...largely because of time constraints.

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

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.

A debate like you wrote almost certainly happened before they tried their cock-eyed plan. It's nice dialogue, but in a 120 minute movie, time is precious, and if you can establish that moral ambivalence about what they're doing while shooting the action, all the better (especially since as we listen to the debate know they're going to decide to do it, anyway).

We find out from Spock in the volcano that regulations really don't permit what they are doing. Kirk believes they're simply skirting them by not being seen (which he must've convinced Spock is OK because Spock is in the volcano). We establish Kirk's feeling that "in the face of death, laws fall silent" when he tells Spock in the transporter room that it's no big deal that they were seen.

To me, it doesn't need fixing. The moral quandary of what they were doing wasn't even what was important. Kirk would've done it as a 45 or 55 year-old (albeit in a slightly less convoluted and stupid way). What needed to be established was how recklessly and carelessly they were going about their business. It set the tone for the movie and the Spock and Kirk story arcs: that Spock may have harbored a death wish; and that over the year he's been captain of the Enterprise Kirk has been reckless, egotistical, is full of hubris, and doesn't know luck from skill. We know after that scene that he is going to have to own up to, face, and then overcome all those weaknesses somewhere in the story.

I'll stipulate that what you said is true. That being said, the experience of the film is so badly tilted in favor of the "high points" or "beats" or whatever you want to call them that it's like reading the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story. Covers the same material, but in a bare bones manner that ultimately is less satisfying.

I remember one time doing a direct interpretation of an excerpt from the novel of The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty. (Done with iClone 4.3 at the time). It was a good lesson in why screenwriters do adaptations the way they do.

The scene I refer to is Father Karras' second meeting with the possessed Regan. That scene, if it were played out like the book, ran ten minutes. The scene as portrayed in the movie was probably half that.

When doing a movie that is meant to be fast paced (as ST09 and STID were), you don't want to bog down with a lot of dialogue and debate. Even though Phantom and I felt that we had struck a good balance, clearly, that is not the perception of everyone else who has read our take....and I accept that perception with no ill feelings whatsoever. I will always prefer the movies as offered up by JJ and Bad Robot.

Still, it was a fun, and enlightening exercise, and I heartily thank Phantom for his participation and collaboration in it.

I am hoping to get a new computer soon, with iClone 6 Pro, Hit Film 3, and 3DExchange 6 Pro, as well as the latest version of Blender. Reason: I did my own tribute film called "Star Trek: Captain's Logs Declassified" which was basically a big space battle between the refit Enterprise (story is set between TMP and TWOK) and a Klingon K't'inga battlecruiser. Not only do I want to do a redux of the visuals in the battle, but I actually want to put in a character driven story so that it comes across more like a missing episode or movie, rather than just starship porn with Kirk's narrative voice over. I'm working on the script now.

NOTE: You might notice a quotation frack up in this post....I sincerely apologize. If I miscredited the quote, I am very sorry.

 

[BillJ]

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

Besides, the image of Kirk and McCoy being chased through an alien jungle by a bunch of spear-throwing aliens... That is more quintessentially "Star Trek" than anything you could do on the bridge.

 

[Campe]

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.

BTW, so no one thinks I'm purely an action over substance kind of guy, as I've been reading Return to Tomorrow, I've grown a lot more appreciation for TMP. So much so, it's been making it's way up the ranks in my Prime movies ratings pretty quickly. Plus, it is a pretty fascinating movie.

But, nuTrek isn't that. Everything that came before or after wasn't that. And that's okay. It's okay for TMP to be its own thing. It's also okay for nuTrek to be its own thing. And it's okay not to like it. But I don't think its as superficial as some make it out to be.

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

Besides, the image of Kirk and McCoy being chased through an alien jungle by a bunch of spear-throwing aliens... That is more quintessentially "Star Trek" than anything you could do on the bridge.

I was giddy in my seat when I saw the Nibiru sequence in STID in theaters for the first time and turned to the friend I was with whispering, "Holy shit! Now this is Star Trek!"

 

[Franklin]

That's the difference between film and literature. Written works can be realistic, subtle, nuanced and expository. Films can only do this at the expense of entertainment value.

That's it!

 

[Franklin]

Phantom, I'm misquoted in one of your posts, and martok2112 has now requoted it.

No big deal, it's just an accidentally an extra or lost set of brackets somewhere. I'm only pointing it out to clarify going forward that's not my quote. What I wrote follows that.

 

[Campe]

When doing a movie that is meant to be fast paced (as ST09 and STID were), you don't want to bog down with a lot of dialogue and debate. Even though Phantom and I felt that we had struck a good balance, clearly, that is not the perception of everyone else who has read our take....and I accept that perception with no ill feelings whatsoever. I will always prefer the movies as offered up by JJ and Bad Robot.

Still, it was a fun, and enlightening exercise, and I heartily thank Phantom for his participation and collaboration in it.

Phantom and martok, please don't think for a moment we don't appreciate the effort. It was well-done, but I think the general consensus is -- it's just not right for this particular film. Still, thank you!

 

[Trekkin]

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

And I thought the scene AS FILMED did it better.

That's the difference between film and literature. Written works can be realistic, subtle, nuanced and expository. Films can only do this at the expense of entertainment value.

I'll stipulate that what you said is true. That being said, the experience of the film is so badly tilted in favor of the "high points" or "beats" or whatever you want to call them that it's like reading the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story.

Or like watching a movie based on a much more elaborate book.

2001: A Space Odyssey does very much the same thing, except in a far less entertaining way.

I think Nemesis did a good job of showing what happens when you stop the action purely for long bouts exposition. In scenes where they were trying to ratchet up the tension and hammer in that time was of the essence, the characters would take a 10 minute break to gab about things we could have figured out for ourselves. Not only was it dull and clunky, it shatters the suspension of disbelief.

Wasn't it the TOS bible that said the writers should either exposit during the action or through the action?

 

[martok2112]

Phantom, I'm misquoted in one of your posts, and martok2112 has now requoted it.

No big deal, it's just an accidentally an extra or lost set of brackets somewhere. I'm only pointing it out to clarify going forward that's not my quote. What I wrote follows that.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what happened on that. Again, my apologies.

 

[martok2112]

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

Besides, the image of Kirk and McCoy being chased through an alien jungle by a bunch of spear-throwing aliens... That is more quintessentially "Star Trek" than anything you could do on the bridge.

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.

BTW, so no one thinks I'm purely an action over substance kind of guy, as I've been reading Return to Tomorrow, I've grown a lot more appreciation for TMP. So much so, it's been making it's way up the ranks in my Prime movies ratings pretty quickly. Plus, it is a pretty fascinating movie.

But, nuTrek isn't that. Everything that came before or after wasn't that. And that's okay. It's okay for TMP to be its own thing. It's also okay for nuTrek to be its own thing. And it's okay not to like it. But I don't think its as superficial as some make it out to be.

I've read the rewrite three times and don't see any changes there that I would want in the film. Why would I want to watch people sit around and talk when the same information can be (and was) conveyed without stopping everything around it?

Besides, the image of Kirk and McCoy being chased through an alien jungle by a bunch of spear-throwing aliens... That is more quintessentially "Star Trek" than anything you could do on the bridge.

I was giddy in my seat when I saw the Nibiru sequence in STID in theaters for the first time and turned to the friend I was with whispering, "Holy shit! Now this is Star Trek!"

When doing a movie that is meant to be fast paced (as ST09 and STID were), you don't want to bog down with a lot of dialogue and debate. Even though Phantom and I felt that we had struck a good balance, clearly, that is not the perception of everyone else who has read our take....and I accept that perception with no ill feelings whatsoever. I will always prefer the movies as offered up by JJ and Bad Robot.

Still, it was a fun, and enlightening exercise, and I heartily thank Phantom for his participation and collaboration in it.

Phantom and martok, please don't think for a moment we don't appreciate the effort. It was well-done, but I think the general consensus is -- it's just not right for this particular film. Still, thank you!

On all points above, I am in complete agreement!
And thanks, Campe. It was a fun endeavor.

 

[M'Sharak]

[ ... ]

NOTE: You might notice a quotation frack up in this post....I sincerely apologize. If I miscredited the quote, I am very sorry.

Phantom, I'm misquoted in one of your posts, and martok2112 has now requoted it.

No big deal, it's just an accidentally an extra or lost set of brackets somewhere. I'm only pointing it out to clarify going forward that's not my quote. What I wrote follows that.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what happened on that. Again, my apologies.

I think I've got it fixed now. Let me know if anything still doesn't look right.

 

[martok2112]

Thanks, M'Sharak.

 

[Phantom]

Phantom, I'm misquoted in one of your posts, and martok2112 has now requoted it.

No big deal, it's just an accidentally an extra or lost set of brackets somewhere. I'm only pointing it out to clarify going forward that's not my quote. What I wrote follows that.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what happened on that. Again, my apologies.

So do I need to go back and reconstruct the post to fix something, or what exactly is going on? I'm confused.

In the meantime, I'll simply agree (since I bound myself to the "be constructive" rule) to move on from defending the collaboration and discussing possible fixes for the JJ movies.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does it have to be all one way or all the other though?

That was part of what was being attempted: presenting a "middle ground" interpretation with the better features of both visions of Trek. I thought martokand I did a good job of achieving that.

And I thought the scene AS FILMED did it better.

That's the difference between film and literature. Written works can be realistic, subtle, nuanced and expository. Films can only do this at the expense of entertainment value.

I'll stipulate that what you said is true. That being said, the experience of the film is so badly tilted in favor of the "high points" or "beats" or whatever you want to call them that it's like reading the "Cliff's Notes" version of the story.

Or like watching a movie based on a much more elaborate book.

2001: A Space Odyssey does very much the same thing, except in a far less entertaining way.

I think Nemesis did a good job of showing what happens when you stop the action purely for long bouts exposition. In scenes where they were trying to ratchet up the tension and hammer in that time was of the essence, the characters would take a 10 minute break to gab about things we could have figured out for ourselves. Not only was it dull and clunky, it shatters the suspension of disbelief.

Wasn't it the TOS bible that said the writers should either exposit during the action or through the action?

It was, and this is the principle that various actors and producers have called "theatrics"

TOS Style: everyone in the room jumps out of their chair because all of their controls are suddenly red hot.

TNG/Voyager Style: Ensign Kim stares at an Okudragram and announces that his controls are no longer responding.

We could stand to see a lot more of the former and a lot less of the latter IMO.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what happened on that. Again, my apologies.

So do I need to go back and reconstruct the post to fix something, or what exactly is going on? I'm confused.

No, you shouldn't need to do anything now.

A QUOTE tag had been omitted in this post (the one for your remark beginning "The bolded part is exactly...") and it was looking like words you wrote had been posted instead by Franklin. I put the QUOTE tag back where it was supposed to be, and now everyone's names line up again with what they said.