New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

[skep155]

New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/25/...equel-on-the-red-carpet-of-the-saturn-awards/

He was asked about Orci and Kurtzmans idea of using the unknown and nature itself as somehow being the villain. The idea seems quite popular on here, especially with a minor bad guy thrown in, and although Abrams said he was open to any idea, im worried that he'll reject any such storyline after he said something like "Well you have to kind of personify what your up against, its tricky to fugre out how to like, fight evil wind".

Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message, they want cookie cutter evil villains. For that reason, i think they will go with a good guy vs bad guy storyline to make more money.

 

[Cheapjack]

I thought that the Star Trek philosophy was that we live in a universe that can be used for man's good, though it can be hostile? It's what you do with it, perhaps? I think JJ should be allowed to get on with it. Batman has gone through many changes in 70 years - comedy and gothic. Maybe someone will come along after JJ and make ST futuristic and thoughtful and philosophical again.

 

[Franklin]

Well, I think Abrams is right to an extent. You do have to personify the antagonist in some way. Even in TMP, the plotline required Ilia to "become" V-Ger in order to communicate with Kirk and carry the conflict onto the Enterprise.

I would just hope they can break the "let's blow up the evil guy at the end of the movie" formula. Let's see, that was TWOK, TSFS, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, and ST09. Getting old. So old.

 

[indranee]

why does Star Trek need a villain?

 

[SonicRanger]

Moore and Braga made a similar choice with First Contact. They started out with an idea of doing a Borg movie much like Aliens and having the crew battle the hordes of nameless monsters that are more like a force of nature. But they felt they needed to personify the threat in the Borg Queen. Of course, the makers of Aliens ended up making about the same choice.

 

[indranee]

do you think it's necessary?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For the kind of film that can compete as a Summer blockbuster? Pretty much, yeah.

Doesn't mean that the villain has to be a simplistic character, though.

ST:TMP is an example of a Trek movie with no personified villain, and it's a bad movie. Even "The Voyage Home" needed, at the climax, to personify the threat to the mission - that's what releasing George and Gracie into the wild so that they could be threatened with death by Bad Men With Harpoons was about.

There are very few first-rate TOS episodes that don't pit Kirk against an adversary - not necessarily an evil character, but often an intransigient and powerful one - who walks and talks and wears trousers. "City On The Edge Of Forever" is a really fine exception; to some extent so is "The Doomsday Machine" although Decker very nearly fills the boots of the main enemy.

 

[Cakes488]

do you think it's necessary?

I agree with Dennis...yes it's unfortunatly necessary and it's a proven formula that works time after time...and it's also very easy for the writers as well.

 

[SonicRanger]

Dennis raises a very good point: Who/what is the "villain" in The Doomsday Machine? The same could be asked of Devil in the Dark: is it the Horta or the mob of miners?

TVH didn't have a "villain" per se (the Whale Probe was more of a plot device, and the whalers don't count), but it did have "the race against time," which can serve the role of a villain as something that must be beaten.

 

[barnaclelapse]

See, to me, the sequel has even more at stake than the first movie. Not only does it have to be a good sequel (a daunting task) but it has the added obstacle of maintaining the renewed health and interest in one of the most enduring and recognizable franchises in popular culture.

Until I see some stronger details nailed down, I'm going to be a little more nervous about this than I was about the first movie.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/25/...equel-on-the-red-carpet-of-the-saturn-awards/

He was asked about Orci and Kurtzmans idea of using the unknown and nature itself as somehow being the villain. The idea seems quite popular on here, especially with a minor bad guy thrown in, and although Abrams said he was open to any idea, im worried that he'll reject any such storyline after he said something like "Well you have to kind of personify what your up against, its tricky to fugre out how to like, fight evil wind".

"Evil wind".... as images of The Happening trickle through my brain....
no, we sure don't want that!

 

[Jod]

I'm also kinda nervous about the next movie, its got alot to live upto.

I also quite like the idea of the "race against time" as the villain for the next movie,

 

[diftorhehsmusma]

seems to me like abrams is overlooking the fact that the human mind tends to personify everything - be it wind, animals, what have you. a villain, so to speak, does not need to evil, just opposed to the actions of the protagonist. and will become personified, whether it was intended to or not. i don't think the writers would have to work too hard in that respect.

 

[Corran Horn]

Flint might make an interesting villain in the next film. Or maybe Trelane.

 

[RobertScorpio]

New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/25/...equel-on-the-red-carpet-of-the-saturn-awards/

He was asked about Orci and Kurtzmans idea of using the unknown and nature itself as somehow being the villain. The idea seems quite popular on here, especially with a minor bad guy thrown in, and although Abrams said he was open to any idea, im worried that he'll reject any such storyline after he said something like "Well you have to kind of personify what your up against, its tricky to fugre out how to like, fight evil wind".

Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message, they want cookie cutter evil villains. For that reason, i think they will go with a good guy vs bad guy storyline to make more money.

And more kissing of my feet will be required since I have been predicting KHAN since day one...

I for one dont care to see an AL GORE inspired movie about "nature" going crazy. They did that movie last year, the happening, and it sucked. The moment this movie series strays off course and starts putting out uber scifi-goober inspired plots is the day it will die.

The most important factor has to be that it is FUN to see and is HIP. Which means more of Uhura's underwear...more of Kirk being a TOP GUN kind of guy..and more of SPock being spock.

And as for "Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message"...what is wrong with a movie that entertains and doesn't strive to have a message? Escapism is what these things are about...I can only hope Paramount reads this thread of yours and tells JJ "Don't you dare turn this into a political soap box or message boring movie...we did that..it was called TNG"

Rob

Oh..I have removed my socks.

 

[DaveyNY]

Flint might make an interesting villain in the next film. Or maybe Trelane.

Or perhaps one that personifies the combined attributes of both those characters...

An exceedingly smart character who plays the fool so as too more engage/confuse Our Hero's...

(...kinda like what Q's character was meant to be, but only achieved marginally on occasion...)

 

[VulcanJedi]

New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/25/...equel-on-the-red-carpet-of-the-saturn-awards/

He was asked about Orci and Kurtzmans idea of using the unknown and nature itself as somehow being the villain. The idea seems quite popular on here, especially with a minor bad guy thrown in, and although Abrams said he was open to any idea, im worried that he'll reject any such storyline after he said something like "Well you have to kind of personify what your up against, its tricky to fugre out how to like, fight evil wind".

Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message, they want cookie cutter evil villains. For that reason, i think they will go with a good guy vs bad guy storyline to make more money.

I'm glad they're not doing "shades of gray." That's been the problem with recent Trek.

I can't blame the mainstream public for wanting clear delineations between right and wrong. It sounds nice in theory, but in reality, how many criminals are behind bars for shades of grey?

 

[DaveyNY]

New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/25/...equel-on-the-red-carpet-of-the-saturn-awards/

He was asked about Orci and Kurtzmans idea of using the unknown and nature itself as somehow being the villain. The idea seems quite popular on here, especially with a minor bad guy thrown in, and although Abrams said he was open to any idea, im worried that he'll reject any such storyline after he said something like "Well you have to kind of personify what your up against, its tricky to fugre out how to like, fight evil wind".

Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message, they want cookie cutter evil villains. For that reason, i think they will go with a good guy vs bad guy storyline to make more money.

I'm glad they're not doing "shades of gray." That's been the problem with recent Trek.

I can't blame the mainstream public for wanting clear delineations between right and wrong. It sounds nice in theory, but in reality, how many criminals are behind bars for shades of grey?

According to THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEHIND BARS... almost all of them...

(...oh wow..., I became a Commode two posts ago...)

 

[indranee]

See, to me, the sequel has even more at stake than the first movie. Not only does it have to be a good sequel (a daunting task) but it has the added obstacle of maintaining the renewed health and interest in one of the most enduring and recognizable franchises in popular culture.

Until I see some stronger details nailed down, I'm going to be a little more nervous about this than I was about the first movie.

oh, I'm very nervous. it's a lot of pressure. this one has proved that there is a large market for THIS cast in Trek. play it right, and we can easily envisage a 500 million return. that means a major, MAJOR hit.

play it wrong, and it'll go back down to the 200-250 million range. i.e., good by Trek standards, but a minor hit.

whomever's in charge of the writing -- Orci et al or whomever... better be getting ready.

 

[Praetor]

I would just hope they can break the "let's blow up the evil guy at the end of the movie" formula. Let's see, that was TWOK, TSFS, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, and ST09. Getting old. So old.

I agree.