Dear Mr Orci and Mr. Kurtzman,
Apparently the media is trying to portray Trekkers as being dissatisfied and whiny towards the new movie, when the general public loves it. The Onion did a funny, but I feel somewhat disingenuous piece about it. Yes, the opinions in general boards are way more positive about the film than in Trekker ones. They're positively giddy, with (previously) non fans saying "I can't believe what I just witnessed in theaters!" and other such stuff. This reminds me of how when "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" came and was such a phenomenon in the US, people in Asia thought that the movie was a big fat "meh." Why? Because they had seen it all before.
The new movie's great, but it has very big problems. And these problems are nothing new to the franchise, specially in Spin-off Star Trek. As you get ready to write the next movie, please think of this: the great Star Trek movie is still waiting to be made.
1) The first hour or so is perfect, just incredible filmmaking and completely engrossing. Realize that a big part of this is due to watching these iconic characters meet for the first time, and seeing Kirk and Spock grow up. After the movie gets to the actual plot and threat of the movie, the film really stumbles and makes it to the end on the fumes of the good will from the first half of the film. YOU WILL NOT HAVE THIS LUXURY ON THE NEXT FILM. Your story is going to need to carry the sequel.
2) Avoid the "TV episode on a big scale" mentality of the TNG films. At the end, the film felt more like a TV pilot than the first in a series of FILMS. You don't need to tidy everything up at the end. Kirk didn't need to become the official Captain of the Enterprise in this movie. That could've been handled in the next film. One of the great strengths of the Original Crew Star Trek films in general, and Treks II-IV in particular, is how different they felt than the TV show, and not just visually. They weren't just missions, these were personal stories that dealt with change and growth: Kirk retiring, Spock dying, the Enterprise destroyed, the crew as renegades from Starfleet using a Klingon Bird-of-Prey... they were serialized, grand yet personal, and as different from "mission of the week" of TV mentality as you could get. The fact that you felt the need to tidy it up so much at the end as to have Kirk be promoted directly from cadet to Captain made it feel like an episode at the end. It raised concern about future movies just starting with the Enterprise in space, being called on a mission, and then warping off at the end. TNG already did this in all their films, and even the best (First Contact) felt like an expensive episode instead of a film, something that the Original Crew films never felt like, except for yours.
3) Technobabble, and Convoluted Plot. Again, this has been the crutch of Spin-off Star Trek (not the original), as fans of TNG, your story exhibited it in spades. TOS used technology only in the most simple of terms: Sensors, Transporters, Communicators. Compare the plot of Nemesis or even First Contact with the one for Wrath of Khan or Voyage Home. Straight vs Convoluted. Yours was convoluted. And your solution was a technobabble solution, with the red-whatever substance and the black hole and the ejecting cores -- all TNG stuff. This is same-old, same-old Star Trek spin-off crap that has ran this franchise into the ground in the past, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SERIES.
4) Weak villains. Nero joins the long list of boring black-hat villains in Star Trek films (Kruge, Klaa, Soran, Ru'afo, Shinzon), and the even more pathetic, short list of boring black hat villains that make no sense and/or have cryptic motivations (Shinzon). These people are miners? How did they immediately get this amazing weaponry that destroys several starships and Klingon vessels? How intimately involved could they be with the project by Spock to save their world then? Not at all! So how can they can so singlemindedly blame him later, to the point where they all want to destroy several entire worlds to have vengeance upon him? They attack him immediately? An immediately after are sucked to the past and commit to pursue this genocide? Wouldn't their first thought be: "Hey! We're in the past! How about we go to Romulus and tell everyone about this star that will go supernova in 90 years so that the catastrophe is avoided?" It's just convoluted, improbable, and takes the audience out of the film. Now, the thing is, TOS never, ever, had a black hat villain. Not once, not even Khan. In that sense, Star Trek The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home are the closest in spirit to the series. They have no villain. Maybe that could be a greater challenge for a sequel. Either that, or spend time creating and showing the audience a formidable villain, and keep him/her around for several films, like X-Men. But enough with the disposable, forgettable villains.
5) Daring (or lack thereof). Star Trek 2009 is fun and exciting, but feels made by committee with a look at demographics. And I don't blame them, with the amount of money being spent. And there lies the problem. It seems unlikely that further projects will take any chances. They won't dare make something completely different like, say, what The Voyage Home was at the time. With the larger budget comes a larger scope, but also greater aversion to risk. I fear for a future of films like the second half of this one, just carbon copies of mindless, souless popcorn fare.
6) Sense of gravitas and heart (or lack thereof). The movie felt fluffy and inconsequential. The best Star Trek movies -hell the best genre films - have a sense of momentum, of weight and heart, of a story building. Think of Wrath of Khan, Aliens, Terminator 2. Do you see the difference? In the Original Crew films, think of how the destruction of the Enterprise was handled in Star Trek III. The flight of the Bird of Prey into Vulcan. The entire ending of Star Trek II, from the moment that Khan activates the Genesis device. Now think of how the destruction of Vulcan was handled. It just kinda happened, the film didn't make you feel much for it. The story of how Kirk comes into his own, from drifting drop-out to Captain, didn't have any sense of drama or heart, of a man finding his best destiny, like the third trailer made us believe.
You made a movie that could've been, not only the best Star Trek movie ever, but one of the best films of the year, a homerun. You ended up with a solid double. But you get another chance at bat, how great is that?
Alex
Apparently the media is trying to portray Trekkers as being dissatisfied and whiny towards the new movie, when the general public loves it. The Onion did a funny, but I feel somewhat disingenuous piece about it. Yes, the opinions in general boards are way more positive about the film than in Trekker ones. They're positively giddy, with (previously) non fans saying "I can't believe what I just witnessed in theaters!" and other such stuff. This reminds me of how when "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" came and was such a phenomenon in the US, people in Asia thought that the movie was a big fat "meh." Why? Because they had seen it all before.
The new movie's great, but it has very big problems. And these problems are nothing new to the franchise, specially in Spin-off Star Trek. As you get ready to write the next movie, please think of this: the great Star Trek movie is still waiting to be made.
1) The first hour or so is perfect, just incredible filmmaking and completely engrossing. Realize that a big part of this is due to watching these iconic characters meet for the first time, and seeing Kirk and Spock grow up. After the movie gets to the actual plot and threat of the movie, the film really stumbles and makes it to the end on the fumes of the good will from the first half of the film. YOU WILL NOT HAVE THIS LUXURY ON THE NEXT FILM. Your story is going to need to carry the sequel.
2) Avoid the "TV episode on a big scale" mentality of the TNG films. At the end, the film felt more like a TV pilot than the first in a series of FILMS. You don't need to tidy everything up at the end. Kirk didn't need to become the official Captain of the Enterprise in this movie. That could've been handled in the next film. One of the great strengths of the Original Crew Star Trek films in general, and Treks II-IV in particular, is how different they felt than the TV show, and not just visually. They weren't just missions, these were personal stories that dealt with change and growth: Kirk retiring, Spock dying, the Enterprise destroyed, the crew as renegades from Starfleet using a Klingon Bird-of-Prey... they were serialized, grand yet personal, and as different from "mission of the week" of TV mentality as you could get. The fact that you felt the need to tidy it up so much at the end as to have Kirk be promoted directly from cadet to Captain made it feel like an episode at the end. It raised concern about future movies just starting with the Enterprise in space, being called on a mission, and then warping off at the end. TNG already did this in all their films, and even the best (First Contact) felt like an expensive episode instead of a film, something that the Original Crew films never felt like, except for yours.
3) Technobabble, and Convoluted Plot. Again, this has been the crutch of Spin-off Star Trek (not the original), as fans of TNG, your story exhibited it in spades. TOS used technology only in the most simple of terms: Sensors, Transporters, Communicators. Compare the plot of Nemesis or even First Contact with the one for Wrath of Khan or Voyage Home. Straight vs Convoluted. Yours was convoluted. And your solution was a technobabble solution, with the red-whatever substance and the black hole and the ejecting cores -- all TNG stuff. This is same-old, same-old Star Trek spin-off crap that has ran this franchise into the ground in the past, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL SERIES.
4) Weak villains. Nero joins the long list of boring black-hat villains in Star Trek films (Kruge, Klaa, Soran, Ru'afo, Shinzon), and the even more pathetic, short list of boring black hat villains that make no sense and/or have cryptic motivations (Shinzon). These people are miners? How did they immediately get this amazing weaponry that destroys several starships and Klingon vessels? How intimately involved could they be with the project by Spock to save their world then? Not at all! So how can they can so singlemindedly blame him later, to the point where they all want to destroy several entire worlds to have vengeance upon him? They attack him immediately? An immediately after are sucked to the past and commit to pursue this genocide? Wouldn't their first thought be: "Hey! We're in the past! How about we go to Romulus and tell everyone about this star that will go supernova in 90 years so that the catastrophe is avoided?" It's just convoluted, improbable, and takes the audience out of the film. Now, the thing is, TOS never, ever, had a black hat villain. Not once, not even Khan. In that sense, Star Trek The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home are the closest in spirit to the series. They have no villain. Maybe that could be a greater challenge for a sequel. Either that, or spend time creating and showing the audience a formidable villain, and keep him/her around for several films, like X-Men. But enough with the disposable, forgettable villains.
5) Daring (or lack thereof). Star Trek 2009 is fun and exciting, but feels made by committee with a look at demographics. And I don't blame them, with the amount of money being spent. And there lies the problem. It seems unlikely that further projects will take any chances. They won't dare make something completely different like, say, what The Voyage Home was at the time. With the larger budget comes a larger scope, but also greater aversion to risk. I fear for a future of films like the second half of this one, just carbon copies of mindless, souless popcorn fare.
6) Sense of gravitas and heart (or lack thereof). The movie felt fluffy and inconsequential. The best Star Trek movies -hell the best genre films - have a sense of momentum, of weight and heart, of a story building. Think of Wrath of Khan, Aliens, Terminator 2. Do you see the difference? In the Original Crew films, think of how the destruction of the Enterprise was handled in Star Trek III. The flight of the Bird of Prey into Vulcan. The entire ending of Star Trek II, from the moment that Khan activates the Genesis device. Now think of how the destruction of Vulcan was handled. It just kinda happened, the film didn't make you feel much for it. The story of how Kirk comes into his own, from drifting drop-out to Captain, didn't have any sense of drama or heart, of a man finding his best destiny, like the third trailer made us believe.
You made a movie that could've been, not only the best Star Trek movie ever, but one of the best films of the year, a homerun. You ended up with a solid double. But you get another chance at bat, how great is that?
Alex
