Hated it

[ihno]

They did it with doctor who last year, when they celebrated the 50 year anniversary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Adventure_in_Space_and_Time

This movie is about the produciton of doctor who in early days. A nice idea though mostly interesting only for fans.

The same goes for Star Trek. Only hardcore fans know names like Fontana, Justman and even Roddenberry. It could be nice as a television thing but nobody would consider that for the big screen.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I didn't know about the Dr. Who thing (seeing as how I've never even seen it )

As far as the characters go, it'd be no different than any movie, where you are, in due course, introduced to the characters. No difference. Anyone who plops down in a seat will find out.

Though upon further reflection, "my" movie would've come out in 2009, so it would've beaten Dr. Who to the punch!

 

[ihno]

If it wasn't about doctor who I would have never watched it. Of course they had a twist: it was a character-drama about the aging main actor who at one point became to ill to continue to play the role and had to let go.

I think you need something like that. Just showing how the a tv show was produced may be not enough to carry 90 minutes.

What would be the TOS-twist?

 

[M'Sharak]

One thing that occured to me in the past, and I still think about on occasion, is: what if they had made a Star Trek movie not as an in-universe story, but as a story about the creation of Star Trek, the television series?

Think about it for a moment. What if Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, etc. were playing William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, during the days of the mid-late 60's, working on the series? Gene Roddenberry, Bob Justman, D.C. Fontana, Matt Jeffries and and the rest would all be there too. There's certainly been enough info gathered from those days to construct ideas for a story. I'm not a writer, and have not the skills to construct a story narrative for this, but I'm sure someone could.

If nothing else, it's fun to think about! Who would play Roddenberry, for example? What would the story be like? I think it could have been a fascinating film to watch. I can very much envision a Mad Men sort of texture to it, and being a fan of period pieces, I'd certainly check it out!

One wouldn't even need to be a Star Trek fan at all to enjoy it. I could envision scenes like, say, the actors playing the Pike/Vina picnic scene from the point of view beyond the fourth wall (or pick scenes, any scenes), which wouldn't even need to have been seen by someone in the theater. It wouldn't matter: it's just a random scene to them. Anyone at all could watch this movie, and that's a pretty big potential audience!

I'd love to get some feedback/ideas on this.

I've seen examples of that sort of thing done well—one for the 1960s Batman TV series and one for The Three Stooges come to mind—and I've seen many more done not so well. All of them, however, were produced on a modest budget as TV movies. I can't think of one which was given a theatrical movie treatment. It might have been possible to do such a biopic/"making of" movie with Pine, Quinto, Saldana, et al a few years ago, but now? They'd surely have to recast to have any chance of getting it made on a TV budget.

Might be interesting to see what one of the fan-film crews with already-existing sets could do with that idea, though.

 

[BigJake]

Only hardcore fans know names like Fontana, Justman and even Roddenberry.

Well, Fontana and Justman, yeah. I think a fair few people might be familiar with the name "Roddenberry."

 

[Ovation]

Only hardcore fans know names like Fontana, Justman and even Roddenberry.

Well, Fontana and Justman, yeah. I think a fair few people might be familiar with the name "Roddenberry."

More than those who appear to seriously dislike him would think, but probably quite a bit fewer than Treks fans more generally would imagine.

Fans of anything (a band, TV show, sports team, etc.), even casual ones, tend to overestimate the general public's familiarity with even the most well-known aspects of their particular object of affection (worship, devotion, obsession, etc. ).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Only hardcore fans know names like Fontana, Justman and even Roddenberry.

Well, Fontana and Justman, yeah. I think a fair few people might be familiar with the name "Roddenberry."

More than those who appear to seriously dislike him would think, but probably quite a bit fewer than Treks fans more generally would imagine.

Fans of anything (a band, TV show, sports team, etc.), even casual ones, tend to overestimate the general public's familiarity with even the most well-known aspects of their particular object of affection (worship, devotion, obsession, etc. ).

People might recognize the Beatles or even John Paul George and Ringo, but George Martin and Brian Epstein would get a "who?" reaction.

 

[Ovation]

Precisely.

 

[BigJake]

Only hardcore fans know names like Fontana, Justman and even Roddenberry.

Well, Fontana and Justman, yeah. I think a fair few people might be familiar with the name "Roddenberry."

More than those who appear to seriously dislike him would think, but probably quite a bit fewer than Treks fans more generally would imagine.

Just so. Even accounting for the latter, one would expect Roddenberry to have a titch more name-recognition than D.C. Fontana.

 

[Set Harth]

Kirk should have been like, "Okaaay, so you're 'Khan'....What does that mean to me?

Isn't his reaction ( or lack thereof ) in the film essentially consistent with that thought?

 

[Ovation]

Well, Fontana and Justman, yeah. I think a fair few people might be familiar with the name "Roddenberry."

More than those who appear to seriously dislike him would think, but probably quite a bit fewer than Treks fans more generally would imagine.

Just so. Even accounting for the latter, one would expect Roddenberry to have a titch more name-recognition than D.C. Fontana.

Sure. BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY. EVERYONE KNOWS THE PEOPLE WHO DESERVE THE REAL CREDIT FOR TREK'S SUCCESS ARE NEVER MENTIONED WHILE RODDENPOOPY HOGS ALL THE CREDIT!!!!11!!11!!1!

 

[BigJake]

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Who is Khan, and why is he John Harrison? Well, he's John Harrison because Marcus and Section 31 figured out that he's probably still a wanted war criminal as Khan, and so he was disguised as a white man and given a new name. If you really want to find out more about his beckstory, read Star Trek: Khan, which gives a good (though probably not canon) account of how he came to be.

Well, I shouldn't have to do homework to understand the movie...or the backstory. The movie should stand on it's own.

Also, they never explained what Section 31 is in this alternate timeline. The name was just thrown in there while confusing exposition was given. For example, was Section 31 headed by Admiral Marcus? Is it Starfleet Intelligence? Is it an office in a 'section' of Starfleet that has secret files? (If so, what are sections 1 - 30?)

Kirk should have been like, "Okaaay, so you're 'Khan'....What does that mean to me?

Isn't his reaction ( or lack thereof ) in the film essentially consistent with that thought?

Nah...

While Lindendorf can be blamed for not fleshing out STID and it's details, I have to also blame Abrams for that direction. I didn't notice Kirk giving Spock and/or Bones a questionable look....or even a close-up showing confusion on either officer's face. Mixed in with the lack of explanation of who Khan is, we get a pretty poor scene that I - as the audience - was saying, "Huh?"

Not too mention, Cumberbatch is reciting his lines in a very over-dramatic manner, basically trying to get sympathy from the characters (and the audience) but it ain't workin' since we are not given much on the character.

 

[Maurice]

star trek 2009 is widly considered by critics and audience as one of the best origins story of all time. i just can believe how they messed up so badliy in the sequel.

'Fraid I'm going to have to ask you to back that statement up.

 

[ihno]

the vision of Roddenberry, the vision of D.C. Fontana... I prefer to leave all names away, I only speak of "the vision".

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I've seen examples of that sort of thing done well—one for the 1960s Batman TV series and one for The Three Stooges come to mind—and I've seen many more done not so well. All of them, however, were produced on a modest budget as TV movies. I can't think of one which was given a theatrical movie treatment. It might have been possible to do such a biopic/"making of" movie with Pine, Quinto, Saldana, et al a few years ago, but now? They'd surely have to recast to have any chance of getting it made on a TV budget.

Like I said (I think I did, anyway ), it's something I thought about at the time of the new movie. I wasn't suggesting it be done now.

But I think some of you folks are over-thinking the 'no one will know (or care) who these people are' stuff. Think of any other movie. When you went to see When Harry Met Sally, the creators were thoughtful enough to introduce us to Harry and Sally. Same with any historical-type film. Even if you know nothing of World war II, a movie (hopefully!) set in that war will introduce you to Hitler, Patton, Eva Braun, Churchill, or anyone else involved in the story...that's what the story is about!

 

[Greg Cox]

There's been a handful of TV-movies detailing the "true, untold story" behind some popular vintage TV show: Charlie's Angels, Saved by the Bell, etc. But the emphasis is usually on the badkstage gossip and back-biting. Is that something Trekkies really want to see on screen?

And, yeah, sounds like TV-movie fare, not a theatrical release.

 

[BigJake]

But the emphasis is usually on the badkstage gossip and back-biting. Is that something Trekkies really want to see on screen?

After all, we already have Galaxy Quest.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

There's been a handful of TV-movies detailing the "true, untold story" behind some popular vintage TV show: Charlie's Angels, Saved by the Bell, etc. But the emphasis is usually on the badkstage gossip and back-biting. Is that something Trekkies really want to see on screen?

That's a good point, Greg, and I wouldn't be clamoring for that story myself. I hope I didn't imply that approach...gossip definitely doesn't float my boat.

And, yeah, sounds like TV-movie fare, not a theatrical release.

You could be right, but I remember Man on the Moon and its recreations of the set of Taxi. It was actually interesting to see, even though I cared nothing for the movie itself. I do believe a period tone, if properly and creatively done, could be very interesting to see.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's been a handful of TV-movies detailing the "true, untold story" behind some popular vintage TV show: Charlie's Angels, Saved by the Bell, etc. But the emphasis is usually on the badkstage gossip and back-biting. Is that something Trekkies really want to see on screen?

That's a good point, Greg, and I wouldn't be clamoring for that story myself. I hope I didn't imply that approach...gossip definitely doesn't float my boat.

And, yeah, sounds like TV-movie fare, not a theatrical release.

You could be right, but I remember Man on the Moon and its recreations of the set of Taxi. It was actually interesting to see, even though I cared nothing for the movie itself. I do believe a period tone, if properly and creatively done, could be very interesting to see.

But that was just part of a larger story, like the The Green Hornet segment in the Bruce Lee biopic. Ditto the brief recreations of scenes from Ed Wood's movies in Ed Wood, but I'm trying to think of a feature film that was all about the making of another movie or TV show . . .

Maybe that TV-movie about the making of Citizen Kane?

Or that recent theatrical movie about the making of Psycho?