Nicholas Meyer Chimes in About Into Darkness

[Kruezerman]

From TrekMovie.

TrekMovie: Have you see seen the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movies and do you have an opinion on them? Nicholas Meyer: Yes, I have. My biggest opinion is that I am having a hard time understanding them. I may be too old to understand them. But I don’t understand Spock going around slugging people. That doesn’t seem in character with Spock. And I sometimes don’t understand what they are about – what the theme is – other than making another Star Trek movie.
TrekMovie: How did you feel about the death scene between your ‘Wrath of Khan’ and the one in ‘Into Darkness?’ Some fans felt it was a bit of a rip-off of the scene in Star Trek II. Did you see it as an homage to Star Trek II? Did you feel privileged that the scene was recreated in such a way?
Nicholas Meyer: Well, you have to be flattered that somebody wants to sort of try and make your movie again. But the difference is between a rip-off and an homage is that you are supposed to add something.

 

[Tosk]

He elaborates a little in a previous interview...

"...I have nothing but respect for what [JJ] does. But it’s so different from… I don't see Spock as a guy that goes around slugging people and just sort of hitting them again and again and again. None of these people seem to be the same characters that I was asked to deal with. I know what II is about. II is about friendship, old age and death. I know what IV is about. It’s about extinction. It’s about taking care, ecologically, of the only home that we have. I understand what VI is about. It’s about the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it’s about change and fear of change and “Have we reached the end of history?” as Francis Fukuyama wrote when the wall came down. Those are the themes and the ideas of those three movies on which I worked. I don't know what the ideas are in the new Star Trek movies. I understand that they’re rebooting them, but that’s a mechanic chore, that’s a technical chore."

http://www.startrek.com/article/exclusive-interview-part-iii-nicholas-meyer-on-todays-trek

And an Orci reply:

"Theme is parable on war on terror. Most crtitcs pointed this out. Spock punching people is exactly the point. Fear and hate can lead our “logical” side to act vengefully, when we should be more above it. Agree or disagree, there’s the plot theme. The character theme is the opposite of WOK, Or a parallel, shall we say. In the brilliant WOK, you are seeing the end off a friendship. In Darkness, you are seeing the beginning, in reverse. That, right or wrong,is what we were adding "

 

[Pauln6]

I thought the plot arcs and character arcs in NuTrek were ok and STID did try to take on board criticisms and reign in some of the worst excesses of the first movie as Kirk journeys to becoming a better leader.

However, in other ways the TWoK scene was so ludicrously faithful to the original that it was almost a spoof. Very few death scenes will ever be as good as Spock's death from TWoK so you have to work around that and go for something different IMO.

Also, Spock's death was logical - he was qualified to make the repair and his Vulcan physiology would allow him to function longer than a human. Kirk's death was illogical - he's not an engineer but of course ordering someone else to his death would make Kirk look like a b*stard so he has to go himself even though he lacks the expertise and is physiologically more likely to collapse before literally kicking the ship back into shape. Because the scene looks more contrived and we've already seen the get out of jail free tribble, the death didn't really work for me. Serenity did its death scenes much better IMO.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But I don’t understand Spock going around slugging people. That doesn’t seem in character with Spock.

I tend to view that this still pre-TOS Spock has yet to become the more mature TOS-era Spock that we've had nearly 50 years to know, but that he's also experienced a great deal more pain and personal loss as well.

Vulcans suppress their emotions, but they do have them. If pushed too far, a young half-Vulcan who has yet to fully master suppressing them can go medieval on somebody.

 

[JWPlatt]

I suspect an original series war on terror theme with Meyer would stay true to the characters. Things being in reverse almost sounds like Orci is defending a Mirror Universe tale. That's more extreme that an alternate timeline. Further, there were decades of story before Kirk and Spock had to deal with death. Beginning a friendship with death seems like a regretful rationalization for allowing Lindelof to convince them all to do a Kahn remake.

 

[xavier]

You know what, I was not the biggest fan of STID and I have been a critic of the kirk death scene but I think many of us all have overreacted and I feel so bad for orci and co when they get huge criticism for the scene.

Believe me , it is diffucilt when another director slams your work. I feel bad for Orci but I do want people to remember that Khan was not orci's idea. Lindelof was the one that wanted Khan, it was not orci. I have been following the comments on trekmovie and the blame is heavily on orci which is so unfair. the guy already seem insecure about trek due to some of the fans who have been so vocal with their hate for the new trek. Orci does not need another director given him a back handed compliment about his work.

good luck orci. in trek 3.

Meyer gets it wrong to me a bit. Nu Spock has gone through something so tragic at a young age. the loss of his world and mum. that changes a person. vulcan or not. it changed Spock's dad so why not Spock.

 

[JWPlatt]

I think Orci might tell you that they're all grown up and can handle it, expect it. What Trek movie hasn't had its large share of criticism at some point?

Spock handled the destruction of his entire home planet with more grace than his "Kahhhhnn!!!" All things considered with the character, that makes the writing suspect.

 

[xavier]

I think Orci might tell you that they're all grown up and can handle it, expect it. What Trek movie hasn't had its large share of criticism at some point?

Spock handled the destruction of his entire home planet with more grace than his "Kahhhhnn!!!" All things considered with the character, that makes the writing suspect.

I agree. I even started a thread asking people if they laughed when he yelled kahn. many said they did. no doubt it was not Spock's finest moment and yes I loved his grace when vulcan got blown up.he held it very together and he lost it at the right time. no one talks shit about his mother whether she is dead or alive. the vulcan kids and kirk found out the hard way.

I am all for Spock's showing emotions but I do not want him to act so ooc about it.

When sarek told him he loved Amanda, that was very emotional but yet I could still get a sense of sarek's vulcan demeanor and this is what was lacking in spock's reaction to kirk's death and the khan yell is proof of it.

 

[Lance]

See this is the thing: the word 'spoof', as opposed to 'homage'.

The whole death scene, but in particular Spock's shouting of "Khaaan!!!", are the sorts of things that a parody of Star Trek would feature in it.

It comes across like a comedy sketch, like something from Galaxy Quest (or maybe even more accurately, like something from an episode of Futurama). I can see them spit-balling ideas in a writer's room, and somebody said "Hey guys, wouldn't it be funny if the scene ended with Spock taking off Kirk's famous Khaaaaaan shout?". And because everybody started laughing, it went in the script.

I blame internet culture slightly too. Things like Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan have been taken out of context and parodied in Youtube Poop and in Dismotivational Posters and the like. It became an internet meme, which then meant it was an 'essential' for the checklist of things to include in STID.

I love the movie, but let's just say I wouldn't be sorry if that scene wasn't in it.

 

[Alex1939]

And an Orci reply:

"Theme is parable on war on terror. Most crtitcs pointed this out. Spock punching people is exactly the point. Fear and hate can lead our “logical” side to act vengefully, when we should be more above it. Agree or disagree, there’s the plot theme. The character theme is the opposite of WOK, Or a parallel, shall we say. In the brilliant WOK, you are seeing the end off a friendship. In Darkness, you are seeing the beginning, in reverse. That, right or wrong,is what we were adding "

I shudder at this reply. I hope Orci is being controlled on the next film. And then his involvement in Trek is eliminated.

 

[Lance]

Meyer's critiques are interesting. He understands that movies need to be 'about' something for the lead characters. As he demonstrated, all three of the movies he was personally involved in had strong arcs for the lead characters.

I think the guest leads in STID (Khan and Marcus) got more out of the character development than anybody in the main cast did. A friend of mine described STID as "feeling like it's a satellite of the 2009 film, rather than a story in it's own right" and to some extent that seems true. Kirk shows growth from the situation, he shows perhaps a greater sense of maturity in his dealing with Khan as a prisoner than he did during the planet-side scenes at the start of the movie, but one wonders how deeply affected he really was by the loss of his mentor Captain Pike, because the script struggles to convey that sense of character growth. It just kind of 'happens'. On some level, STID simply serves to affirm the character development that was already taking place by the end of the previous film, instead of taking things to the 'next level'.

I wonder if what is lacking is a sense of betrayal about Marcus manipulating things. It doesn't feel like we get enough time for it to really sink in just what Marcus has done, nor to feel the consequences, because no sooner do we get the reveal of what's really been happening than we get Khan removing Marcus from the picture entirely. In hindsight, it might've been more interesting if Marcus had been the only baddie in the movie, to explore just how Kirk feels about having been used by his superiors for nefarious means. As it is, we don't really get any of that. Marcus gets head-squished, and then the rest of the movie is just about the crew running around trying to stop Khan. It's all incident but very little reward for the audience.

 

[Melakon]

I liked ID better than ST2009, because it just dropped us into the story instead of wasting an hour putting the crew together. There are a lot of individual character scenes in both films, but they don't seem to be affecting growth and changes in the main characters. McCoy's had no character growth at all in the two films, but maybe they don't consider him a main character anymore. Despite individual character moments, Spock still seems like a hothead, and Kirk is still a smartass, despite undergoing a resurrection that should have had profound personal introspection.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Isn't Meyer JJ Abrams' godfather?

I'm not sure "parable" means what Orci thinks it means. To be fair to Abrams and Orci though, Spock did punch a guy in the face early on TOS.

 

[Commishsleer]

So is what Orci's saying is that America/Spock should be better than this : torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay/punching people?

That American's/Spock's actions are explained by the World trade Centre destruction/his Mother's and Vulcans demise but not justified.

Is that really what Orci meant to say?
I wish he'd spelled it out more clearly. Actually I just wished he hadn't changed the characters so much to tell his story. so Spock now represents the 'Man' while in TOS he represented the outsider, the oppressed.

I also think the story of the World Trade Centre is still to raw to make judgement - is he trying to express his view as a 9/11 denier that the American Government was responsible for the destruction of 9/11? And that America/Marcus did it to gain power in the Middle East/War with the Klingons.?

Meyer did the Cold War analogy thing in STVI and he did a little bit of character assassination himself with the racism shown there. And I didn't like it there either. But in the end everyone learnt a lesson and redeemed themselves.
I'm hoping that Kirk and Spock also do that in the 3rd movie. but I'm now thinking I better read up what Orci's into now to find out if thats going to happen.

 

[fireproof78]

I have the utmost respect of Meyer and his work in film and writing, so I can understand where he is coming from with regards to ID, and the death scene thing.

Personally, I know that Abrams Trek is not for everyone. I get that, so I can get why Meyer says that he may not get them. To be fair, I think Meyer is honest in his appraisal and I would ask for nothing less.

Personally, I think that Abrams Trek is deeper than it is given credit for. ID worked for me so well because it was a culmination of factors, both personal, and larger, in the whole world. As much as I enjoy Trek, one aspect is the fact that some things never mattered in terms of the larger world.

In Abrams Trek, actions feel like they have more consequences. Nero invades, the Federation is afraid, to the point of paranoia, of another attack. Starfleet takes on a different role, and there are moral questions to be asking.

Kirk is not the leader that he should be-far from it, and we see that. The loss of Pike is a shell shock moment, a moment when he takes it in and then decides he must act. That is what Kirk does-he acts, and in this case he acts rashly. He's a cowboy and it shows, as strongly as whenever prime Kirk decided to take on a room full of guards.

As much as the death scene is an annoyance, I like the flow of Kirk's character. He goes from bragging that he hasn't lost anyone to making the ultimate sacrifice himself. He doesn't ask another person to do the suicide job-he does it. IN that moment, Kirk is right because he recognized that sacrifice is not a bad thing.

Spock's character is not the same outsider that he began on TOS, and that, to me, is a good thing. Spock, in TOS, was there to be the outsider and to remind us that we are in the future and in space. Well, that role has changed to less of his external analysis of humanity, to a more internal, and personal journey for Spock as he comes to grip with the more human side of himself.

I mentioned this in another thread (Does nuSpock scare you, I think) that I empathize far more with nuSpock than I did with Prime Spock. I like Prime Spock, and sometimes admire him in way but I don't identify with him in the same way. NuSpock, for me, is such a fascinating (pun indented ) character in the death and loss that he has faced, and that he still does his duty. At some point, when is the limit in his capacity to carry that burden reached?

While I appreciate Meyer's sentiment, I understand Orci's point. Spock's reaction to Kirk's death is the recognition that he lost a friend, someone who was loyal to him and not willing to let him die, twice. While the homage might be a bit much, I think that the ID death scene does add something, even if it is minor.

 

[Tosk]

nuSpock needs people to die before he can understand that they are friends. You don't wanna know what Uhura had to do before they got hot and heavy.

Honestly, I don't even see Kirk and Spock as friends in the JJ films. Old Spock said they would become friends, and that's pretty much it. If there's character material that shows why or how or when these guys are friends, I missed it. Maybe it happened in the year between cadet Kirk becoming a captain and his little Lost Ark adventure on Niburu?

 

[2takesfrakes]

So is what Orci's saying is that America/Spock should be better than this : torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay/punching people?

That American's/Spock's actions are explained by the World trade Centre destruction/his Mother's and Vulcans demise but not justified.

- - -

so Spock now represents the 'Man' while in TOS he represented the outsider, the oppressed.

Hollywood is so well-known for its pretentiousness and we're seeing it again, here. Meyer has some of that, but he's fairly straightforward about what he's done and you can see that in his STAR TREK movies. "I'm basing Khan himself on Ahab in Mobey Dick," and there's the book, in Khan's cabin. The references to the Soviet Union during the Cold War in The Undiscovered Country are unmistakable.

With the reboot, they don't want Spock to be cold and logical, because when he freaked out in The Original Series, for any reason, that made him more fun. And the fun Spock is who they feel like writing for. So, they kill 2 birds with 1 stone by blowing up Vulcan, so we don't get to see much of how they're supposed to be, and piss Spock off at the same time. But maybe that's not enough, Spock's stoicism could maybe handle that - not personal enough. OK, we'll kill his mum, too. Alright, now, we're getting to the fun Spock. And instead of just coming clean about their motivations, we get these weird and pretentious comparisons to 9/11 and the turbulant relationship betwixt the Beatles frontmen.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Also, Spock's death was logical - he was qualified to make the repair and his Vulcan physiology would allow him to function longer than a human. Kirk's death was illogical - he's not an engineer but of course ordering someone else to his death would make Kirk look like a b*stard so he has to go himself even though he lacks the expertise and is physiologically more likely to collapse before literally kicking the ship back into shape. Because the scene looks more contrived and we've already seen the get out of jail free tribble, the death didn't really work for me. Serenity did its death scenes much better IMO.

I feel the exact opposite. Spock's death in WoK never made much sense to me - in a room full of engineers in full radiation suits, Spock grabs just some oven mitts and wades into the radiation chamber. I seriously doubt Vulcan physiology is tougher than a full suit. The film didn't seem to build to it - he just gets up and does it.

Wheras Kirk, he kept himself together while the ship was going to hell, and he'd already shown himself more than capable of reaching the inner core in his journey through the falling, tumbling Enterprise. The film builds to his sacrifice from the start with the recurring question, how far would he go to save the people important to him? Tom Harewood, Khan and Admiral Marcus are willing to kill; Kirk is willing to die for his people.

I would imagine Kirk and Spock are both trained in engineering repair work, even though neither showed it prior to their sacrifice. We never knew what Spock was doing inside that pipe, but Kirk's repair was straightforward and he sees on the monitor and is told by Scotty exactly what needs to be done just before going in.

 

[Commishsleer]

Also, Spock's death was logical - he was qualified to make the repair and his Vulcan physiology would allow him to function longer than a human. Kirk's death was illogical - he's not an engineer but of course ordering someone else to his death would make Kirk look like a b*stard so he has to go himself even though he lacks the expertise and is physiologically more likely to collapse before literally kicking the ship back into shape. Because the scene looks more contrived and we've already seen the get out of jail free tribble, the death didn't really work for me. Serenity did its death scenes much better IMO.

I feel the exact opposite. Spock's death in WoK never made much sense to me - in a room full of engineers in full radiation suits, Spock grabs just some oven mitts and wades into the radiation chamber. I seriously doubt Vulcan physiology is tougher than a full suit. The film didn't seem to build to it - he just gets up and does it.

Wheras Kirk, he kept himself together while the ship was going to hell, and he'd already shown himself more than capable of reaching the inner core in his journey through the falling, tumbling Enterprise. The film builds to his sacrifice from the start with the recurring question, how far would he go to save the people important to him? Tom Harewood, Khan and Admiral Marcus are willing to kill; Kirk is willing to die for his people.

I would imagine Kirk and Spock are both trained in engineering repair work, even though neither showed it prior to their sacrifice. We never knew what Spock was doing inside that pipe, but Kirk's repair was straightforward and he sees on the monitor and is told by Scotty exactly what needs to be done just before going in.

Saw both Kirk and Spock do engineering stuff in TOS.
There weren't heaps of qualified engineers in TWOK. the Enterprise was manned by trainees. Kirk said it several times during the movie.

And I can't see that either the TWOK or STID situation was more simple. Spock didn't look like he was doing heaps of Engineering calculations in TWOK.
Also PrimeSpock had 20 years experience in helping fix up the Enterprise in TWOK, nuKirk had 6 months if that.

 

[Set Harth]

I'm not sure "parable" means what Orci thinks it means.