Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[BillJ]

See, I like to give credit to writers who actually try to justify why these ridiculous things happen, but I'm not going to give STID's writing trio credit for stuff they didn't even bother to put into the movie. Speculate all you want, but if there's nothing in the film that confirms your speculations, I'm going to conclude that they didn't put much thought into it.

By that standard every Star Trek movie needs to be seven hours long and every episode three.

I'm just wondering when some Star Trek fans started needing everything spoon fed to them?

If Marcus actually had that much hidden influence to stop anyone from interfering with his secret business even when he's making a show if it in front of Earth, why does he need to worry about anything at all? Why not let Kirk bring Khan back to Earth and tell his followers to kill them the moment they arrive on Earth? Why is he in such a hurry to destroy the Enterprise when he can sit back and let his loyal officers deal with Kirk and Khan?

Because once you get back to Earth, you actually have other factors to deal with like the Earth government, the media and so on. By destroying the Enterprise before she ever makes it to Earth, he can control the flow of information. He was going to destroy them near the Neutral Zone, but they took off before that could happen.

 

[Jeyl]

Vengance's class, or at least the project that led to her, was probably not secret. What the ship could really do or was meant to do probably was.

If it wasn't secret, why does Scotty, a character who happens to know about the Enterprise even before her first mission is so shocked at the sight of it? If the Vengeance isn't secret, why is it being built at a secret location around Jupiter? And if the ship was built years ago, why does Khan say he designed it and that it's designated as a Dreadnaught class as though it was the first time the ship was ever brought up? If it's not a secret ship, shouldn't someone be able to pull up the schematics of it like Spock Prime did with the NuEnterprise schematics onboard that torn up shuttle on Delta Vega?

 

[SeerSGB]

Marcus could have given them orders to stay out of the fight cause Kirk had some super weapon that only Marcus and his ship could deal with.

See, I like to give credit to writers who actually try to justify why these ridiculous things happen, but I'm not going to give STID's writing trio credit for stuff they didn't even bother to put into the movie. Speculate all you want, but if there's nothing in the film that confirms your speculations, I'm going to conclude that they didn't put much thought into it. Marcus tells everyone to stay out of the fight? I'm not buying it. He's in a bigger, more powerful ship shooting at the flag ship of the Federation that isn't even fighting back. How can anyone look at that and not think "that ain't right". He needs to kill Kirk because he's allied with a terrorist? Well, why not try to arrest him? I doubt that every single member of his +1,000 crew are all in on it and deserve a swift execution.

the problem is that you just don't know how many allies Admiral Marcus has sprinkled throughout the upper echelons of Starfleet Command and how many loyal Captains and other officers are around.

If Marcus actually had that much hidden influence to stop anyone from interfering with his secret business even when he's making a show if it in front of Earth, why does he need to worry about anything at all? Why not let Kirk bring Khan back to Earth and tell his followers to kill them the moment they arrive on Earth? Why is he in such a hurry to destroy the Enterprise when he can sit back and let his loyal officers deal with Kirk and Khan?

Why did Leyton order the Defiant destroyed on the way to Earth just cause they had captured one his spies? He seem to have had plenty of support within Starfleet to stage his take over?

Cause you don't let the truth get out--support or not. You don't want, and--if you can help it-- you don't allow people to ask questions--supporter or not. Plus, even his supporters might have balked at Marcus using Khan or trying to start a deliberate war with the Klingons. Build up for a possible war? Fine. Actually start the war? Different story. Use an Augment, the most diabolical and superior of the bunch? Hell no.

Vengance's class, or at least the project that led to her, was probably not secret. What the ship could really do or was meant to do probably was.

If it wasn't secret, why does Scotty, a character who happens to know about the Enterprise even before her first mission is so shocked at the sight of it? If the Vengeance isn't secret, why is it being built at a secret location around Jupiter? And if the ship was built years ago, why does Khan say he designed it and that it's designated as a Dreadnaught class as though it was the first time the ship was ever brought up? If it's not a secret ship, shouldn't someone be able to pull up the schematics of it like Spock Prime did with the NuEnterprise schematics onboard that torn up shuttle on Delta Vega?

- Scotty wasn't expecting to find a secret spacedock where he did, much less one with a Starfleet ship being built. As for why build it secret: Cause it's black ops. Officially: Hide it from the Klingons; unofficially keep it off the "official" record.

- Vengeance could have started it's life as an off-the-shelf build and between Khan and Marcus the ship became something different than the official specs. The modifications probably aren't in the official record.

- Khan probably revised and dialed in a lot of the changes. But most of what he did was probably get the ship to the specs he wanted.

 

[BillJ]

Whose to say Scotty didn't know about the Vengeance program prior to its subversion by Marcus? Seeing something on paper and up-close and in person are two distinct things. Plus, since the Vengeance wasn't yet in service, its schematics may require security clearances that our crew simply don't have.

So much of this stuff is common sense I'm not sure why anyone would need it spelled out in the movie itself?

 

[Kemaiku]

There is likely a USS Dreadnought looking rather more normal in terms of the hull colouring and with full legit markings being built with less weapons at the Utopia Plantia, or another facility.

Vengeance, unmarked and stealth toned, with large blister weapon sets, was going to look very 'off' to Scotty when he saw it.

The Dreadnought might even be further behind in construction with the Vengeance being given priority by Marcus. Everyone else would be expecting the class to role out months or even a year or more away.

Heck, we could see Dreadnought in the next movie.

 

[SeerSGB]

Whose to say Scotty didn't know about the Vengeance program prior to its subversion by Marcus? Seeing something on paper and up-close and in person are two distinct things. Plus, since the Vengeance wasn't yet in service, its schematics may require security clearances that our crew simply don't have.

So much of this stuff is common sense I'm not sure why anyone would need it spelled out in the movie itself?

And we're forgetting: Carol knew the basics of what Marcus was developing, that he had been designing a super ship.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It wouldn't need to take seven hours just to explain why Starfleet didn't do anything when two ships were combating on their front lawn, especially when it became clear both the Enterprise and Vengeance had become crippled to the point of being pulled into the Earth's atmosphere.

"Don't bother, Marcus obviously has everything under control. We'll just see how things play out."

*Vengeance crashes into San Fransisco*

"Oh."

I think a simple "I informed Starfleet that you're a terrorist that needs to be taken out for blah blah blah" would have sufficed. Quick, simple, informative and puts aside any questions for those who are taken aback by the events. Heck, at least that would have been something. Resorting to "it's just common sense" comes off like saying "no no, there's nothing wrong with the film, there's something wrong with YOU for not figuring it out." I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting to be spoon fed every information, but that doesn't seem to apply here since there's little info to go by beyond "he's a top admiral, look over there, a rabbit!". Go ahead and buy what hacks like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof sell, I'm not.

 

[BillJ]

I think a simple "I informed Starfleet that you're a terrorist that needs to be taken out for blah blah blah" would have sufficed.

But he does explain exactly his reasoning for destroying the Enterprise. Does it really take that huge of a leap to think that he was already in contact with Starfleet?

The writing of the film suffers in two areas for me: the transition from John Harrison to Khan and the explanation for the torpedoes is really rough and both could've used more time in the writers' room.

 

[SeerSGB]

It wouldn't need to take seven hours just to explain why Starfleet didn't do anything when two ships were combating on their front lawn, especially when it became clear both the Enterprise and Vengeance had become crippled to the point of being pulled into the Earth's atmosphere.

"Don't bother, Marcus obviously has everything under control. We'll just see how things play out."

*Vengeance crashes into San Fransisco*

"Oh."

I think a simple "I informed Starfleet that you're a terrorist that needs to be taken out for blah blah blah" would have sufficed. Quick, simple, informative and puts aside any questions for those who are taken aback by the events. Heck, at least that would have been something. Resorting to "it's just common sense" comes off like saying "no no, there's nothing wrong with the film, there's something wrong with YOU for not figuring it out." I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting to be spoon fed every information, but that doesn't seem to apply here since there's little info to go by beyond "he's a top admiral, look over there, a rabbit!". Go ahead and buy what hacks like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof sell, I'm not.

Then I guess every Trek writer that employed the same trope is a hack?

I think a simple "I informed Starfleet that you're a terrorist that needs to be taken out for blah blah blah" would have sufficed.

But he does explain exactly his reasoning for destroying the Enterprise. Does it really take that huge of a leap to think that he was already in contact with Starfleet?

The writing of the film suffers in two areas for me: the transition from John Harrison to Khan and the explanation for the torpedoes is really rough and both could've used more time in the writers' room.

Yeah, he's pretty formal and sounds on the record when he gives that order.

John Harrison: I wouldn't have made him Khan. But, I don't know what the word from on high was in regards to what and who had to be in the movie storywise.

Torpedoes: I would have kept the torps, but taken out Khan's people and loaded them onto the Vengeance in cryo, with Marcus using them as a human shield in case Khan got loose. Same disclaimer as above: If I had to have Khan, I would have moved the reveal to when he's captured the Vengance.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

But he does explain exactly his reasoning for destroying the Enterprise. Does it really take that huge of a leap to think that he was already in contact with Starfleet?

You could make that assumption, but that's all it would be, and having a throwaway line like the one I suggest wouldn't be time consuming and would at least temper the absurdity of the whole affair.

The writing of the film suffers in two areas for me: the transition from John Harrison to Khan and the explanation for the torpedoes is really rough and both could've used more time in the writers' room.

It's too bad four years wasn't enough for these geniuses.

It wouldn't need to take seven hours just to explain why Starfleet didn't do anything when two ships were combating on their front lawn, especially when it became clear both the Enterprise and Vengeance had become crippled to the point of being pulled into the Earth's atmosphere.

"Don't bother, Marcus obviously has everything under control. We'll just see how things play out."

*Vengeance crashes into San Fransisco*

"Oh."

I think a simple "I informed Starfleet that you're a terrorist that needs to be taken out for blah blah blah" would have sufficed. Quick, simple, informative and puts aside any questions for those who are taken aback by the events. Heck, at least that would have been something. Resorting to "it's just common sense" comes off like saying "no no, there's nothing wrong with the film, there's something wrong with YOU for not figuring it out." I do agree with the sentiment of not wanting to be spoon fed every information, but that doesn't seem to apply here since there's little info to go by beyond "he's a top admiral, look over there, a rabbit!". Go ahead and buy what hacks like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof sell, I'm not.

Then I guess every Trek writer that employed the same trope is a hack?

Please, just because writers made mistakes in the past doesn't mean I'm gonna give them a pass. At least with Leyton it backfired because people started to see the holes in his scheme. Unless Starfleet was run exclusively by robots, it's hard to believe all of what happened in the climax would have happened without someone getting wise, especially once the Vengeance and Enterprise started falling towards Earth. That should have immediately called for some kind of response.

John Harrison: I wouldn't have made him Khan. But, I don't know what the word from on high was in regards to what and who had to be in the movie storywise.

Lindelof took credit for pushing his "Khan must be used, he's The Joker of the Star Trek franchise", so it's him deserves that credit (blame).

 

[Jeyl]

By that standard every Star Trek movie needs to be seven hours long and every episode three.

One could argue that by trying to justify everything that happens in a movie that doesn't make sense is the same as choosing to ignore the apparent flaws in the actual writing. I realize that some would prefer to go into movies with their brain turned off, and for movies that are made that way it's fine. But when a movie like STID literally gives you details about things and than subsequently shifts gears without any explanation or reason, I'm going to call your writing bad.

 

[BillJ]

It's too bad four years wasn't enough for these geniuses.

That kind of works under the assumption they worked on the screenplay for four years (which they didn't since it was only four years between the two films) and that the studio and Abrams accepted the script exactly as they turned it in with no changes.

I don't need to insult anyone involved in the production, either the movie works for me or it doesn't. If it doesn't I go on to something else I enjoy.

 

[Cara007]

Radom guy found this post from trekmovie:

Roberto Orci . Filmography ( Abrams movies not included)

As writer

Legend of zorro. 26% in rottentomatoes
The island 40%
Transformers 57%
Transformers 2 20%
Cowboy and aliens 57%

As producer

Now you see me 50%
Eagle eye 26%
Ender 60%
And right now, Orci is the main writer producer for ST 2016.

So, a good anniversary trek movie is a fool dream, if trek has not a new producers and writers , and it has not.
===============================================

I can not agree more with this random user. Now that JJ is gone. We all should be worried and like most people have pointed out . A trek film can not survive at the box office with poor ratings. It is not Star Wars or The Hobbit.

 

[Kemaiku]

Which has nothing to actually do with the discussion, but then you never intended to have one.

 

[SeerSGB]

But he does explain exactly his reasoning for destroying the Enterprise. Does it really take that huge of a leap to think that he was already in contact with Starfleet?

You could make that assumption, but that's all it would be, and having a throwaway line like the one I suggest wouldn't be time consuming and would at least temper the absurdity of the whole affair.

The writing of the film suffers in two areas for me: the transition from John Harrison to Khan and the explanation for the torpedoes is really rough and both could've used more time in the writers' room.

It's too bad four years wasn't enough for these geniuses.

Then I guess every Trek writer that employed the same trope is a hack?

Please, just because writers made mistakes in the past doesn't mean I'm gonna give them a pass. At least with Leyton it backfired because people started to see the holes in his scheme. Unless Starfleet was run exclusively by robots, it's hard to believe all of what happened in the climax would have happened without someone getting wise, especially once the Vengeance and Enterprise started falling towards Earth. That should have immediately called for some kind of response.

John Harrison: I wouldn't have made him Khan. But, I don't know what the word from on high was in regards to what and who had to be in the movie storywise.

Lindelof took credit for pushing his "Khan must be used, he's The Joker of the Star Trek franchise", so it's him deserves that credit (blame).

Historically (in terms of the franchise's writing), Starfleet hasn't been the brightest bulbs in the box when it comes their Admirals turning out to be bastards. Nor seeming to care if they are. It always boils down to our hero being the lone voice of reason and dissent and standing up against the desk jockeys.

The trope is the trope for a reason: Cause Trek has a habit of putting the needs of the plot and action over the need for a realistic outcome. Either's it's a problem every time Trek has done it, or it's just a problem this time cause you don't like the writing staff.

At it's worse, STID is a very average, typical, by the numbers Star Trek movie. Its sins not greater or newer that what's come before.

It's too bad four years wasn't enough for these geniuses.

That kind of works under the assumption they worked on the screenplay for four years (which they didn't since it was only four years between the two films) and that the studio and Abrams accepted the script exactly as they turned it in with no changes.

I don't need to insult anyone involved in the production, either the movie works for me or it doesn't. If it doesn't I go on to something else I enjoy.

I'd actually be interested in seeing the screenplay evolution for this one. From 1st to shooting. From about the 3rd act on, it seems like two movies were written, and then blended together. Meaning, it feels like they had a sequel in mind or was developing, and then cored and compressed to make the final act of STID.

 

[BillJ]

I can not agree more with this random user. Now that JJ is gone. We all should be worried and like most people have pointed out . A trek film can not survive at the box office with poor ratings. It is not Star Wars or The Hobbit.

What poor ratings? According to Rotten Tomatoes, 89% liked Star Trek 2009 and 90% liked Star Trek Into Darkness.

Everyone acts like Orci and Kurtzman are responsible for every flaw in this film. But if they are responsible for every flaw then they also had a huge hand in its success.

 

[Sindatur]

The trope is the trope for a reason: Cause Trek has a habit of putting the needs of the plot and action over the need for a realistic outcome. Either's it's a problem every time Trek has done it, or it's just a problem this time cause you don't like the writing staff.

At it's worse, STID is a very average, typical, by the numbers Star Trek movie. Its sins not greater or newer that what's come before.

But...JarJar and The Binkses

Yea, funny how some folks will tell you you're apologist for stating that or say "just because every ST movie has done that, doesn't excuse Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman doing it, and then go right on droning on and on about stuff every single Trek movie has done, as if Abrams Trek is the first time.

 

[Cara007]

I can not agree more with this random user. Now that JJ is gone. We all should be worried and like most people have pointed out . A trek film can not survive at the box office with poor ratings. It is not Star Wars or The Hobbit.

What poor ratings? According to Rotten Tomatoes, 89% liked Star Trek 2009 and 90% liked Star Trek Into Darkness.

Everyone acts like Orci and Kurtzman are responsible for every flaw in this film. But if they are responsible for every flaw then they also had a huge hand in its success.

I always had this feeling in my heart that the main reason why the trek films scored so high with critics was because of JJ Abrams. Now that he is gone, I do think trouble is ahead.

Bob and his friends films have never done well with critics whenever JJ is not the director of their films. I always knew this is my heart and now a trek follower has confirmed my long going suspicions. This is one of the main reasons why I do not want Bob and his friends to return if JJ is not retuning as the director.

 

[BillJ]

I always had this feeling in my heart that the main reason why the trek films scored so high with critics was because of JJ Abrams. Now that he is gone, I do think trouble is ahead.

Those weren't critic scores, those were audience scores.

Plus, Abrams will still be involved in the next film as he is already signed to produce and he isn't going to let a shitty Trek film get to the public from his Bad Robot production company.

 

[SeerSGB]

The trope is the trope for a reason: Cause Trek has a habit of putting the needs of the plot and action over the need for a realistic outcome. Either's it's a problem every time Trek has done it, or it's just a problem this time cause you don't like the writing staff.

At it's worse, STID is a very average, typical, by the numbers Star Trek movie. Its sins not greater or newer that what's come before.

But...JarJar and The Binkses

Yea, funny how some folks will tell you you're apologist for stating that or say "just because every ST movie has done that, doesn't excuse Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman doing it, and then go right on droning on and on about stuff every single Trek movie has done, as if Abrams Trek is the first time.

My biggest complaint with both of the new movies is that once you strip away the visuals and acting, just get to the brass tacks of the scripts and stories: They're standard issue Trek movies. They're very typical for what Trek movies are. It's a good thing and bad thing.

It's good cause they're staying true to the tone and feel of the franchise: these movies are Star Trek; just Star Trek made by a new generation with their own style and look driven by their pop-culture, their life experiences. In the way that TOS reflected the experiences and culture of the 1960s, the new Star Trek reflects the 21st century.

Bad cause it would be nice for them to say "fuck you" (no pun) and really do a balls to the wall wholesale slaughter and reboot of the franchise.