Star Trek 3: Classic Trek or original story?
- Thread starter ralph
- Start date
Just say no to the Borg! And my preference is to have a completely new story and villain. I am fine with Easter Eggs and references to TOS, but would like to see uncharted territory. But if they are set on recycling...here's my opinion:
Actually, before ST ID came out, there was a rumor that the villain was going to be Gary Mitchell. I think if they wanted to have a classic story updated, that would be a good one to do. It could explore humanity and what happens to someone who becomes god-like or Q-like. I'm thinking sort of in the same vain as Dr. Manhattan...someone evolving to the point humanity, to Mitchell, is insignificant and insect-like, and even becomes a pest to be squashed. And Kirk having to deal with taking him out somehow...make it a classic trek morality tale!
Actually, before ST ID came out, there was a rumor that the villain was going to be Gary Mitchell. I think if they wanted to have a classic story updated, that would be a good one to do. It could explore humanity and what happens to someone who becomes god-like or Q-like. I'm thinking sort of in the same vain as Dr. Manhattan...someone evolving to the point humanity, to Mitchell, is insignificant and insect-like, and even becomes a pest to be squashed. And Kirk having to deal with taking him out somehow...make it a classic trek morality tale!
By Orci's own admission, he has freedom when writing the ST scripts. Paramount gives him market statistics for his consideration.
I agree! Into Darkness set this up, and it would be great to see it played out. No Dreadnoughts... no time travel...no muddled script that is laden with plot holes... Just a great epic story involving the Klingons. That would be nice...
Love this idea, and think that it would be the most likely scenario to happen from the current producers/directors/writers.
Most likely, he has to pay attention to said statistics somewhat when writing so that the script doesn't become a fan service wank, but appeals to everybody else beyond the fandom of Star Trek that also goes to the movie theater to see these movies.
Last edited:
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
If the next one is written as well as the last two it will be immensely entertaining and a very likely big success. So here's hoping.
+1
If the next one is written as well as the last two it will be immensely entertaining and a very likely big success. So here's hoping.
+1
+2
If the next one is written as well as the last two it will be immensely entertaining and a very likely big success. So here's hoping.
+1
+2
And one more makes 3.
I have to be 'that guy.'
-1 (or can it be -3)
Granted Paramount is looking at marketing, but all studios do that. That 's the reason "Twilight" films, "Transformers" sequels, and "Resident Evil" pictures are still being produced. (In the case of the "Twilight" films, were produced).
I look at the tentative "Star Trek 3" like any movie I would have to pay for with money or my time: It should give me something different, or a real clever turn on something we've already seen.
The marketing for the first film - as we all know - was 'the slate has been wiped clean' so I would expect to not only be entertained, but 'wowed' with fresh stories and characters with depth.
-1 (or can it be -3)
Granted Paramount is looking at marketing, but all studios do that. That 's the reason "Twilight" films, "Transformers" sequels, and "Resident Evil" pictures are still being produced. (In the case of the "Twilight" films, were produced).
I look at the tentative "Star Trek 3" like any movie I would have to pay for with money or my time: It should give me something different, or a real clever turn on something we've already seen.
The marketing for the first film - as we all know - was 'the slate has been wiped clean' so I would expect to not only be entertained, but 'wowed' with fresh stories and characters with depth.
Last edited:
And yet despite that, STID was crammed with fan service wanks (which was part of the problem with it IMO).
Orci and Paramount are afraid to produce an original script. They think an ST film without a bunch of rehashes and fanboy service will lose the established Trek fanbase.
Okay, I'll have to see the movie again, but which were the fan wanks that they did have in the movie, just as a refresher?
Off the top of my head:
*Klingons. They served no real purpose in the plot, and could have been jettisoned.
*The man who would be Khan. He could have remained John Harrison, and possibly would have made an even bigger impact as an original character.
*Carol Marcus. If she does play a bigger part in the next film, her insertion in this film could serve as an introduction. Otherwise, she was just put in STID for fanservice....in more ways than one...
*Spock saying, "Khaaaaaan!" Even casual fans of Trek (or those with casual familiarity with Trek films) know of that particular yell. Here, it comes off gimmicky and awkward...and a bit unoriginal rather than clever.
*Kirk sacrificing himself in place of Spock from the previous Star Trek II.
*A tribble showing up as a deus ex machina...or 'tribble ex machina.'
In addition to those, Leonard Nimoy was in the movie as old Spock which made no sense at all in the context of the story.
The entire last 3rd of the movie was like watching a bizarre mashup of Star Trek internet memes or something.
To be fair, I actually did enjoy some of the subtle references to ST past that were sprinkled though out the film.
The entire last 3rd of the movie was like watching a bizarre mashup of Star Trek internet memes or something.
To be fair, I actually did enjoy some of the subtle references to ST past that were sprinkled though out the film.
^ That statement makes no sense at all.
^^
I think I understand (and agree) with johnjm22.
Basically, classic Spock's story was 'done' in the previous film and his insertion in said 2009 film was integral to the story. However, with the 2013 film, the cameo felt forced, and classic Spock shouldn't have known off the bat who 'Khan' was in this new universe.
That's not logical.
For all classic Spock knew, 'Khan' could have been 'Kublai Khan' reborn in the Kirk-era.
(For me, nuSpock, following his classic version's thoroughness from the series, would have done some research and found out about this John Harrison and his - Harrison's - motives were and what makes him tick, his history...i.e. character development).
Now that I think about it, an idea of having John Harrison - similar to what was in "Batman Returns" with the a Ra's al Ghul character - where someone else is the actual 'Khan' would have been interesting. That could have tied into why we saw Ricardo Montalban's character as 'Khan' as well.
I think I understand (and agree) with johnjm22.
Basically, classic Spock's story was 'done' in the previous film and his insertion in said 2009 film was integral to the story. However, with the 2013 film, the cameo felt forced, and classic Spock shouldn't have known off the bat who 'Khan' was in this new universe.
That's not logical.
For all classic Spock knew, 'Khan' could have been 'Kublai Khan' reborn in the Kirk-era.
(For me, nuSpock, following his classic version's thoroughness from the series, would have done some research and found out about this John Harrison and his - Harrison's - motives were and what makes him tick, his history...i.e. character development).
Now that I think about it, an idea of having John Harrison - similar to what was in "Batman Returns" with the a Ra's al Ghul character - where someone else is the actual 'Khan' would have been interesting. That could have tied into why we saw Ricardo Montalban's character as 'Khan' as well.
