Be kind when writing about Orci/Kurtzman -- especially Orci (the Trek fan) -- I think he posts here and has been for years. I'm not sure what name he posts under but I've got it narrowed down to either that Polaris fellow, or his arch-nemisis Cogley, or SalvorHardin, or PKTrekGirl, or Data's_Cat_Spot, or Captain Robert April or Plumster or Kirk1980 or J. Allen or Scourged or.....
The Even-Handed STXI Preview
- Thread starter Kirk1980
- Start date
Be kind when writing about Orci/Kurtzman -- especially Orci (the Trek fan) -- I think he posts here and has been for years. I'm not sure what name he posts under but I've got it narrowed down to either that Polaris fellow, or his arch-nemisis Cogley, or SalvorHardin, or PKTrekGirl, or Data's_Cat_Spot, or Captain Robert April or Plumster or Kirk1980 or J. Allen or Scourged or.....
Berman and Braga used time travel so much, I'll be happy to never see another time travel tv show or movie again. I even have trouble popping in a Terminator DVD...
That said, if they want to reboot the franchise, roll back a couple centuries so they are dealing with reasonable tech limitations to add drama and reduce technobabble, tell new stories and not be constrained by where so many men have gone before, then a reboot with a time travel reset is the easiest thing to do, it shuts us all up if things don't match up in the future, and we can see our old heroes with new faces and new stories. I can live with it.
Other than that I agree with all the OP pros and cons.
That said, if they want to reboot the franchise, roll back a couple centuries so they are dealing with reasonable tech limitations to add drama and reduce technobabble, tell new stories and not be constrained by where so many men have gone before, then a reboot with a time travel reset is the easiest thing to do, it shuts us all up if things don't match up in the future, and we can see our old heroes with new faces and new stories. I can live with it.
Other than that I agree with all the OP pros and cons.
I think you have to suspend disbelief for most movies. The spy can't be that perfect, the detective that clever, the romantic lead that foolish. Plus there is a difference between "hard" science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke's style for example, and science fiction like Star Trek that is more theme and character driven. The scientific explanation can simply be the word "TECH" in a script and the science gets made up later.
Hell, Star Trek relies heavily on transporters and warp drive, two ideas which if you try and figure out the real science that would make them work, you quickly run out of energy and/or hardware. As far as our knowledge of science goes, both are impossible.
Mostly favorable. I like the concept, casting and style. But some of the execution seems not from a Trek of which I'm familiar.
Star Trek is based pretty wholly on tropes from old science fiction stories, not science - that they consulted with scientists on the details of the show (and then, in instance after instance, ignored what was offered because it was "undramatic" in one fashion or another) doesn't make it any more "science-based" than Tom Corbett. With rare exceptions Trek is "science once removed" or technological and cosmological speculation filtered through Astounding Science Fiction and Amazing Stories.
Nothing about Orci and Kurtzman's previous work suggests that they're not "up" to Star Trek.
Nothing about Orci and Kurtzman's previous work suggests that they're not "up" to Star Trek.
Plumster, when Kirk1980 said these things:
...I'm pretty sure that posts like yours above (there is a proper place to appeal a mod action and this is assuredly not it) and yours below:
Then, we are agreed.
Zealots to be binned for the new creative and commercial force that is JJ Abrams version of Star Trek.
All hail to Abrams.
...are not what he had in mind. If you cannot post without dragging things like this in, perhaps it would be better simply to refrain from posting in the thread at all.
I'm not suggesting they're not up to Star Trek's level of 'science' in the science fiction. I recognize there's a difference between dramatic and hard sci-fi.
My assessment of them is based on their ability to write an interesting plot and interesting characters...more so on the interesting characters. I really hope it was largely Michael Bay's influence which created such banal characters in Transformers and not Orci/Kurtzman. But they got the writing credit so that has me a little worried.
And as for TOS using 'tropes' and all that...sure, they did but they hired a few of the writers who did those 'tropes' best and wrote good characters.
The only thing I remotely like are the uniforms thats it period!
Now, is this really necessary?
Come on...you've been here long enough to know that this sort of remark doesn't make the grade here.
Wow, tough crowd.
Kirk1980, I must say that item for item you seem to feel exactly like I do. I'm still pretty optimistic about it overall, and giving it the benefit of the doubt.
I honestly think that while I'm sure I will end up nitpicking the film to death, I will at least enjoy it.
I honestly think that while I'm sure I will end up nitpicking the film to death, I will at least enjoy it.
A
Amaris
Guest
^ Hey, when you nitpick AND enjoy a movie, you get the best of both worlds. 
J.
J.
Yeah, I mean, would I be hugely disappointed if it's just a fun movie and no thinking was involved like Transformers? Eh, maybe down the road I would be but if it's enough random good crap to be at least watchable then I'd hold out hope further series would upgrade the sophistication level. Bring the rest of the audience along slowly
And thanks to those of you who have treated this topic with a thoughtful tone. Positive or negative, I think that's what makes Trek fans pretty cool. We like to think... a lot
And thanks to those of you who have treated this topic with a thoughtful tone. Positive or negative, I think that's what makes Trek fans pretty cool. We like to think... a lot
I am just damn excited about the movie coming out. No further scanning necessary.
Yeah, I mean, would I be hugely disappointed if it's just a fun movie and no thinking was involved like Transformers? Eh, maybe down the road I would be but if it's enough random good crap to be at least watchable then I'd hold out hope further series would upgrade the sophistication level. Bring the rest of the audience along slowly
And thanks to those of you who have treated this topic with a thoughtful tone. Positive or negative, I think that's what makes Trek fans pretty cool. We like to think... a lot
Well said. I agree.
Hey, you call junk when you see it. In the vein of Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore, who always called themselves out if they felt they wrote something badly, it's called owning up.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Aside from the pros and cons already listed, I'm not too fond of the SFX shots already shown (and not just the design of the "new" Enterprise). It looks simultaneously dark, grainy, and washed out. Nor am I fond of the new transporter FX (just "ugh") and the new warp FX (Adams needed to stop rewatching Star Wars and watch a few Treks).
Deal breakers? No, but definitely not on my list of "pros" either.
Deal breakers? No, but definitely not on my list of "pros" either.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The transporter effect looks to be a joke, possibly the most cartoony looking one they've done in all these years. I've always thought a transporter done as a quick&dirty version of Jessup breaking down in ALTERED STATES would be close to ideal, yet they've never done anything remotely like that. (I probably like the TOS one best, with the TWOK one okay as well.)
The rest of the vfx ... probably okay to very good, based on the snippets, but design and style (read: lots of lens guck) might weigh down how successful the execution plays.
The rest of the vfx ... probably okay to very good, based on the snippets, but design and style (read: lots of lens guck) might weigh down how successful the execution plays.
Rii
Rear Admiral
They should've done away with the transporter entirely, it's a universal "get out of jail free" card that has to regularly be made nonfunctional for some arbitrary reason or another (curse that ionic interference!) in order to maintain dramatic tension. Certainly the original rationale of saving on the production budget doesn't hold much weight in this film.
So which troll will storm in here to say he hates all the pros listed but likes all the cons listed?
"Keep your lousy jack!"
Similar threads
