Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN

[Ovation]

Irishman said:
By the same token, there's no inherent flaw with explaining Klingon ridges.

I love the way ENT did it.

Just re-watched those two episodes last night and I concur. It didn't NEED to be done, but it was done in a way that was, frankly, far more creative than I thought it would be, once I'd heard they were going to do it. The only thing I didn't like about those episodes was most of Reed's whining (but I don't want to digress too far off topic).

No NEED to do anything like that in the film, of course, but it is possible to integrate a "fix" into a story line smoothly if so desired. Same would apply to any number of "problems" raised by a prequel/reboot. Again, though, let's just let them make the bloody film already. JJ Abrams doesn't need my advice on film-making any more than I need his on how to teach early North American history.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

UWC Defiance said:

RookieBatman said:
Didn't Sylvester Stallone do the first draft of Rocky in like four days?

Yes, he did. He's since said that it was terrible, and that he rewrote it almost entirely over time, but that he found it much more productive for him as an individual to write fast and rewrite than to struggle with every sentence the first time through. I think there's a great deal to be said for that approach.

It is better to have a bunch of pages to work with then nothing at all. This tends to be my approach, which constantly puts me at odds with my MFA professor.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Star Trek is very unique. Lots of people can't do it - John logan. It's very specialized sci-fi.

No its not! Lets just dispose of this notion right now, it links right back to what has been constricting Star Trek for years and keeping it in a creative rut: The notion Trek is "specialized scifi" is just plain wrong. Not one thing about how it tells stories in particularly unique to it alone. Its a tv drama first and foremost and this notion fogs that up.

I can't tell you how much I would blow a gasket when I would read an interview when Rick Bermen would say stuff like this: "There's only a special way to tell a Trek show..." no there isn't the rules of drama still apply be it in a scifi or a western trek is no different.

Logan's problem was he didn't write a *good story*, Star Trek isn't special when it comes to the basics of telling a story.

What inside information could Braga have ? He worked on star Trek for 15 years, written over a hundred decent episodes, seen thousands of scripts and pitches.

None of which is likely relevant to THIS movie. Most of the saner people have moved on... more still TNG isn't part of this film. If you think a consultant is needed its no one who worked on any of the "modern era Treks" to be sure... just so you know there isn't a need for a consultant.

Uh, what have Orci and the other writer done ?

Well for starters writing a hit movie for Spielberg and Micheal Bay...

at least see what the man has to say. Geez.

No he's had his day on Trek its over. There's no pressing need for his involvement and no indication he wants to be involved or needs to be.

So why's Braga your new GR?

Sharr

 

[Balthier the Great]

Sharr Khan said:

Star Trek is very unique. Lots of people can't do it - John logan. It's very specialized sci-fi.

No its not! Lets just dispose of this notion right now, it links right back to what has been constricting Star Trek for years and keeping it in a creative rut: The notion Trek is "specialized scifi" is just plain wrong. Not one thing about how it tells stories in particularly unique to it alone. Its a tv drama first and foremost and this notion fogs that up.

I can't tell you how much I would blow a gasket when I would read an interview when Rick Bermen would say stuff like this: "There's only a special way to tell a Trek show..." no there isn't the rules of drama still apply be it in a scifi or a western trek is no different.

I think it's become "special", just not in a good way. It's become the McSciFi -- it does everything the traditional way, and that means telling safe stories that no one could possibly be offended by. It's full of rituals and superstitions -- they don't know why a certain part of trek worked, so they simply dump it into the next version without changing it. Formulas build up until the entire thing is a formula. It doesn't work once people know the formulas -- by that point a person can watch the first ten minutes and pretty much know the ending.

The thing trek needs to do is go beyond the fomulae and tell stories. The backdrop is great, most of the aliens are pretty interesting. They just can't get past the "A human,a creature wanting to be human, a vulcan and a moralist" approach to casting. Or the standard solutions to problems. At this point, ground breaking means "reversing the polarity" actually failed.

 

[xortex]

I thought Star Trek was an action adventure. Now all of a sudden it's a drama. I don't consider any of the new ST to be anywhere near as good as TOS in conception and execution but you can't say they didn't tell some good stories just by the sheer number of them told. I think if you want a great story, several writers should have been considered, that's all.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
I thought Star Trek was an action adventure. Now all of a sudden it's a drama. I don't consider any of the new ST to be anywhere near as good as TOS in conception and execution but you can't say they didn't tell some good stories just by the sheer number of them told. I think if you want a great story, several writers should have been considered, that's all.

But the thing is, these are the writers JJ picked to choose the story he wanted to tell. Once again this wasn't Paramount laying a dragnet looking for a Trek script the project originated with JJ.

And Trek can and has been an action-adventure/drama all depending on what story it was telling.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

Oh, so J.J. wrote the story. Didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Sharr Khan]

xortex said:
Oh, so J.J. wrote the story. Didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind.

"Conceived of" would be the proper way to put it - at least as far as all the reporting on it has indicated... unless somehow I'm misunderstanding things... ?

Sharr

 

[xortex]

Misunderstanding things ? I'll keep that in mind too.

 

[3D Master]

Franklin said:
For what it's worth, in FC I can see the advantage for the Borg in preventing humans from achieving warp drive.

But why the hell would some Romulans (or Klingons or whoever, doesn't matter) think that preventing Kirk from being born is a slam dunk good thing for their future? What a stupid premise.

Especially the Romulans. Exactly what did Kirk ever do against them? So he stopped one test incursion; some other captain would be present. So he, stole a cloaking device... big deal. Help stop the Klingons and Federation go to war, idea, perhaps... but then, there's no real saying how that would pan out. Could be good for the Romulans, could just as easily be very, very bad, if the conflict spills over to to other governments, theirs including.

No, the Romulans don't have much to do with Kirk.

Picard though... I can see the Romulans royally not like him.

It would actually be interesting if the Romulans arrive in the mid-23rd century and try and kill Picard's grandfather while he's still in diapers, and the Enterprise-crew of the time have to stop them from making sure the great captain of the 24th century never gets born.

 

[Saul]

Sharr Khan said:
No its not! Lets just dispose of this notion right now, it links right back to what has been constricting Star Trek for years and keeping it in a creative rut: The notion Trek is "specialized scifi" is just plain wrong. Not one thing about how it tells stories in particularly unique to it alone. Its a tv drama first and foremost and this notion fogs that up.

But yet earlier in this topic you said this film wouldn't be made if it wasn't for JJs creative talent and vision and he is the only one that could bring it back....

 

[xortex]

I'm hoping and think he will bring it back. There was something about TOS that made like nothing - no other t.v. show since, not even Twilight Zone captured one man's vision like that. It was gravity is down to point eight all the way. It had a very unique production value - almost surreal and too bright, and overly dramatic. I just hope if there is talk it is philosophical and if there is action it is good hard core sci-fi.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Twilight Zone" was far more reflective of Rod Serling as a writer/creator than "Star Trek" was of Roddenberry.

"Star Trek" was enormously collaborative. Its production values and designs are the work of people like Jefferies and Theiss; its characters and storytelling the contributions of writers like Sturgeon, Ellison, Schneider, Coon, Fontana, Bixby, Sohl, Spinrad, Gerrold and many others. Roddenberry was among the least imaginative of the folks who wrote for the show, and his episodes among the least interesting.

"Twilight Zone" is defined by Serling's writing.

People have an outsized notion of the importance of GR's "vision" to "Star Trek" simply because he was loathe to publicly give others the enormous credit they deserved for creating so much of it - sometimes in spite of him.

 

[Katrine]

What if it's the "birth" of the alternate timeline that has been visited so often. Consider the possiblities there. Think of the personslity changes in some of the characters. Maybe it's their way of "rebooting". I'm not saying it's a good idea, just an idea.

 

[Sharr Khan]

saul said:

Sharr Khan said:
No its not! Lets just dispose of this notion right now, it links right back to what has been constricting Star Trek for years and keeping it in a creative rut: The notion Trek is "specialized scifi" is just plain wrong. Not one thing about how it tells stories in particularly unique to it alone. Its a tv drama first and foremost and this notion fogs that up.

But yet earlier in this topic you said this film wouldn't be made if it wasn't for JJs creative talent and vision and he is the only one that could bring it back....

Ah... I don't think you understood the point I was making...

The fact JJ *wanted to make a Trek movie*, and pressed Paramount to do so has nothing to do with *the dramatic nature of Trek itself* its no different then any other tv show or fiction.

The point I was making which you seem not to have understood had nothing to do with Abrams particular "Talent", only the *existence* of this project as he wanted to make a Trek movie, and this project wasn't simply born out of the notion Paramount itself was looking to make Trek - not the same thing.

If JJ wasn't at Paramount we wouldn't be having a Trek movie to debate over. Let me put it clearer: If Abrams was working at United Artists rather then Paramount, there wouldn't be a vacuum for a Trek director to be filled since there would be no Star Trek project. Do you think had Abrams not been at Paramount there would still be a Trek XI argue over? I don't the history of how this project came to be speaks agianst the idea.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

So J.J. always wanted to make a Star Trek movie. Didn't know that. Will keep it in mind. Lost does seem like some kind of twilight zone Star Trek soap opera attempt.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I dunno about lost -- it always looked like X-Files crossed with Gillagan's Island. Lost is actually one of the reasons that I have misgivings about JJ Abrams. Nothing personal, I just don't like the show.

 

[JBElliott]

Yeah, cause Lost hasn't done well in the ratings or with the critics at all.

 

[ancient]

JBElliott said:
Yeah, cause Lost hasn't done well in the ratings or with the critics at all.

That's really not the point of BTG's post though is it? You're talking critical response, not personal taste.

 

[Saul]

Sharr Khan said:
If JJ wasn't at Paramount we wouldn't be having a Trek movie to debate over. Let me put it clearer: If Abrams was working at United Artists rather then Paramount, there wouldn't be a vacuum for a Trek director to be filled since there would be no Star Trek project. Do you think had Abrams not been at Paramount there would still be a Trek XI argue over?
Sharr

Absolutly. If Paramount thought it's time to make a new Star Trek film nothing is going to stand in it's way. Abrams was in the right place at the right time. He came off the success of MI3 and looked like a safe bet.

xortex said:
So J.J. always wanted to make a Star Trek movie. Didn't know that. Will keep it in mind.

Actually, as Abrams has seemed to stress often he would rather Direct a Star Wars movie since he says he is a bigger fan of that than Star Trek.