Kurtzman: The Purpose of a Sequel
- Thread starter TrekToday
- Start date
I see nothing here that suggests they are planning for anything other than a strong box office performance.
A highly sought after and gainfully employed person, especially under contract with another studio, may take slightly longer.
Why do that when the writers were already signed on? That would have been beyond silly to do. Paramount was going along with whatever J.J./Bad Robot wanted to do, not a couple of impatient a fans on a message board.
Yminale wrote:
That was my understanding. The time that they initially started writing the film J.J. was busy doing Super 8. Once Super 8 was done that was when J.J. got to work on the new film (and began filming in a matter of months.)
They never said that to Berman, unfortunately.
If the stories are true, they went from considering Benicio del Toro to getting Benedict Cucumberbitch in a very short timeframe. Two completely different types of actors, two completely different types of performances. So I guess the bad guy, at least on script, could be played by anyone in any shape and form, and they found out who and what they were looking for only during the casting process.
Not really. It's a manner of speaking, not to be taken literally. If they'd said 'This villain is going to kick ass', I wouldn't assume that the movie will feature a scene of him planting his boots into Spock's buttocks. Though it might be cool if he did.
Either that or Paramount dictated they pick someone familiar to European audiences in an attempt to pump up overseas box office totals.
"Whoooooooooooooooooooooooowww!"
Vs.
"Wattttttttttttttttttsooooooooooooon!"
Why can't we have both?
. . .
What!?
I'm Bi.
Geez.
Vs.
"Wattttttttttttttttttsooooooooooooon!"
Why can't we have both?
. . .
What!?
I'm Bi.
Geez.
Except for this part:
Maybe an obvious sentiment, but it does indicate that we might get further character development for Spock and Kirk, which for me is the fundamental thing the movie needs to do. Whoever the antagonist is, and whatever his story is, is not nearly as important to me.
Yes. And that contradicts the notion of putting main characters to the test, in any significant way. Trying to cram character development for Kirk and Spock (and maybe other characters) into a movie and also do justice to a new bad guy's story and also have the movie be half action (pretty much mandatory for a popcorn flick) sounds like an extremely tall order. They're going to need to make some choices of what their priorities really are.
Nope. He is right. Look at the first Superman movie with Christopher Reeve. The first movie was about him becoming Superman. The second movie had more of a focus on the bad guys. I can go on but if you look at many trilogies ..even Star Trek II...the bad guy becomes more central to the story. In TMP a big part of the movie was getting the crew back together.
The problem is, Kirk has yet to become Kirk, so it's not the same as Superman, who became Superman within just one movie.
The upcoming movie needs to actually sell us on the idea that some cocky punk kid deserves that captain's chair. He doesn't yet, but that's okay, by the end of the second movie they can solve that problem.
Throw a villain at Kirk that humbles him and makes him realize some kind of grownup lesson like, "teamwork is good" or some such. Then Kirk comes roaring back to win, but having been humbled, the skeptics in the audience will hate him less.
And Superman also never had an important secondary character like Spock, who has a character arc of his own. They can't just sweep the destruction of Vulcan under a rug, it's far too big of a deal. It needs to be justified by being a catalyst for Spock's arc.
With all that stuff needing to get into the script, the villain isn't going to have much breathing room to have a big, complicated backstory or a substantial character arc of his own. He can, however, be the crucial catalyst who propels both Kirk and Spock's arcs forward.
The good news is that the first movie set up so much great material. But that does mean the writers need to continue what they've started (and conclude it in the third movie, which can also be the final one.)
The upcoming movie needs to actually sell us on the idea that some cocky punk kid deserves that captain's chair. He doesn't yet, but that's okay, by the end of the second movie they can solve that problem.
Throw a villain at Kirk that humbles him and makes him realize some kind of grownup lesson like, "teamwork is good" or some such. Then Kirk comes roaring back to win, but having been humbled, the skeptics in the audience will hate him less.
And Superman also never had an important secondary character like Spock, who has a character arc of his own. They can't just sweep the destruction of Vulcan under a rug, it's far too big of a deal. It needs to be justified by being a catalyst for Spock's arc.
With all that stuff needing to get into the script, the villain isn't going to have much breathing room to have a big, complicated backstory or a substantial character arc of his own. He can, however, be the crucial catalyst who propels both Kirk and Spock's arcs forward.
The good news is that the first movie set up so much great material. But that does mean the writers need to continue what they've started (and conclude it in the third movie, which can also be the final one.)
Only 3 movies ?
What a waste ! I prefere 5 at least
ANd I hope they drop the Khan story Its too much of cliche on Star Trek success. Trek can bring up an orignal story rather than rehash reycycled stories that we had with the others
Four years is fine. Five years is fine, as long as the movie's as good as the first one. How much more Star Trek do you need, for chrissakes?
5 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, dammit
Yea, however long it takes is fine, just get it right, and make it good. No sense in rushing a movie out every two years if they're gonna be crap
5 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, dammit
Yea, however long it takes is fine, just get it right, and make it good. No sense in rushing a movie out every two years if they're gonna be crap
Wasn't it four years between the last two TNG movies? And they both turned out like shit.
And the scheduling conflict meant that Paramount accepted that there would be a delay in making the ST sequel. It sounds like, contractually, Bad Robot could have been held to a particular starting/finishing date, and the writers and producers could have complied with that, but not without compromising the result in several other ways.
How do you get from the interview that "simple honesty" is somehow absent?
Similar threads
