ST XI Screenwriters Speak

[ClayinCA]

I haven't seen this listed anywhere around here, but Fox Movie Channel's series Life After Film School has a segment interviewing Star Trek screenwriters Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman (they were interviewed about the FOX series Fringe, but they do talk a bit about their Trek work).

The interview (which is short) can be found here.

 

[M'Sharak]

Cool. That was good.

 

[Roshi]

Whut? Fox is actually promoting Fringe? Whoa!

 

[gastrof]

Whut? Fox is actually promoting Fringe? Whoa!

Shhh!

Don't tell anyone.

 

[MisterPL]

See what I mean? They're really skirting around the issue of whether or not this is a reboot. They don't want to call it a prequel, even though if it maintains the existing canon it would have to be. And they don't want to call it a reboot because they're probably afraid of the backlash from fans. Can't have the built-in audience condemning the film for a year before it even gets a decent trailer.

Sneaky sneaky.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

Pretty brave of them seeing how unforgiving Trek fans are of failure. I'd have waited to pop my head up after the movie was a success.

"You liked it? Yeah I wrote that."

 

[TeutonicNights]

They are literally laughing at canon.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

See what I mean? They're really skirting around the issue of whether or not this is a reboot. They don't want to call it a prequel, even though if it maintains the existing canon it would have to be. And they don't want to call it a reboot because they're probably afraid of the backlash from fans. Can't have the built-in audience condemning the film for a year before it even gets a decent trailer.

Sneaky sneaky.

Nah, they're just hamming it up and having fun with the secrecy.

It's a prequel, but with a lot of new design and visual work.

 

[FalTorPan]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=64803They don't want to call it a prequel, even though if it maintains the existing canon it would have to be.

Why?

 

[MattJC]

If it were a prequel to TOS, then it should stick to what was established in TOS.
Don't reimagine anything and expect me to believe it's supposed to be set before TOS.
It's like saying Casino Royale is a prequel to Dr. No.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Don't reimagine anything and expect me to believe it's supposed to be set before TOS.

Actually, we don't "expect" you to like anything about it.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

See what I mean? They're really skirting around the issue of whether or not this is a reboot. They don't want to call it a prequel, even though if it maintains the existing canon it would have to be. And they don't want to call it a reboot because they're probably afraid of the backlash from fans. Can't have the built-in audience condemning the film for a year before it even gets a decent trailer.

Sneaky sneaky.

Perhaps that's because is isn't JUST a prequel, since it is rumored to start in the post-Nemesis 24th century.

Granted, this will primarily be a story that takes place prior to TOS -- so, yeah, it IS a prequel; however it's not a "traditional" prequel, due to the Nimoy factor.

Obviously, if another film is made after this it most likely will NOT start in the 24th century, but rather in the 23rd -- however, even a potential "ST:XII" may not be a traditional prequel because it could possibly take place during or even immediately following TOS.

If it were a prequel to TOS, then it should stick to what was established in TOS.
Don't reimagine anything and expect me to believe it's supposed to be set before TOS.
It's like saying Casino Royale is a prequel to Dr. No.

So are you saying if they DO stick to the facts established in TOS, then you would NOT consider this a reimagining? Or are you concerned with the way it looks?

To expand on your example: if Casino Royale was made in 2006, but took place in 1961 (and is historically consistent with a pre-Dr. No James Bond), but with a different-looking Bond, a different-looking set design, Judi Dench as M (M is a title, not a name) and Jeffery Wright as Felix Leiter (Felix was played by a different actor in every film, so who cares what he looks like)...if all these differences were present in the 2006 version of Casino Royale BUT it was consistent with a pre-Dr. No Bond, would you still consider it was a reimagining?

That's the difference here: Casino Royale OBVIOUSLY took place circa 2006 while Dr. No OBVIOUSLY took place circa 1962. But Abrams' Star Trek is perhaps going to abide by ST 'historical' facts that will OBVIOUSLY place it in a pre-TOS timeframe, no matter what it looks like.

 

[ClayinCA]

They are literally laughing at canon.

No, they're not, but if they were, who cares?

 

[DrTaylor]

They are literally laughing at canon.

They are literally laughing at how important canon is, which sometimes, so do I.

 

[Baldus885]

They are literally laughing at canon.

I frequently laugh at canon too, given how laughable the concept is when applied to Star Trek. But then I'm not a movie screenwriter.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

They are literally laughing at canon.

They are literally laughing at how important canon is, which sometimes, so do I.

I agree with you -- True, they did get a chuckle out of the "40-year puzzle" that IS Star Trek canon, but don't we all get a chuckle out of that (at least we should). However, I did not see it as a "condescending laugh", but rather one that says "the idiosyncratic concept that is canon is an issue we need to address -- for better or for worse -- but we WILL still be addressing it."

The fact they ARE making this film with an eye toward canon is what's important here, not the fact that they had a little laugh over their task at hand. They even went out of their way to say that the 5000 hours of Star Trek that created these canonical facts did very little to address the origins of these characters, and they feel that they SHOULD in fact add the characters' origins to the canon.

I see that as reverence for canon more than contempt for it.

 

[Sector 7]

I laugh at canon (when it is laughable)... I also laugh at those who take every opportunity to hate a film they have never seen. The same ones who look at every word in an interview only to find fault or complain.
If Star Trek is that dead to them, why are they even here?

 

[M'Sharak]

They are literally laughing at canon.

They are literally laughing at how important canon is, which sometimes, so do I.

I agree with you -- True, they did get a chuckle out of the "40-year puzzle" that IS Star Trek canon, but don't we all get a chuckle out of that (at least we should). However, I did not see it as a "condescending laugh", but rather one that says "the idiosyncratic concept that is canon is an issue we need to address -- for better or for worse -- but we WILL still be addressing it."

The fact they ARE making this film with an eye toward canon is what's important here, not the fact that they had a little laugh over their task at hand. They even went out of their way to say that the 5000 hours of Star Trek that created these canonical facts did very little to address the origins of these characters, and they feel that they SHOULD in fact add the characters' origins to the canon.

I see that as reverence for canon more than contempt for it.

What I think is that they were laughing not at canon, but at the fact that they were not only aware of the near-impossibility of making a movie in the Star Trek universe while remaining faithful to the body of canon as a whole, and even more so at the fact that -- after their initial trepidation about taking on all of that history and all of the weight that that implied -- they decided they were just crazy enough to go ahead and try to do it anyway.

That was the impression I had when I posted in this thread the first time, and that is the impression I still have.

 

[gastrof]

I just want to see this film and see what's what.

It'll be a TREK film, and whether a true prequel or a parallel universe to the TREK universe we've known up until now, we have to SEE it first to find out.

And I want to see a new TREK film. (Admittedly, as a "change nothing!" person, I'd prefer a true prequel, but I still want to see it. Very much.)

 

[MattJC]

So are you saying if they DO stick to the facts established in TOS, then you would NOT consider this a reimagining? Or are you concerned with the way it looks?

It's hard for me to swallow that this thing:
http://goneelsewhere.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/star-trek-uss-enterprise-full.jpg
is the same Enterprise seen in TOS.
So yeah, I am concerned about the way it looks.
It's why I think it's and I want them to just come out and admit it.