What minor changes could have made Star Trek XI better?

[Dar70]

Still though the alternate timeline does not explain the differences in the characters. I can live with things not looking the same and whatnot but the characters themselves arent the same...

Sure it does. The characters, especially those born after the timeline change, aren't necessary the exact same people seen in TOS. Spock's life experiences could have been difference if Sarek's diplomatic experiences were different as a results of the Kelvin destruction and the Federation's subsequent knowledge of and contact with the Romulans. Chekov's parents decided to have a kid two or three years earlier than the original timeline but still used their favorite name for their son. Uhura was inspired to study languages instead of taking classes in communication systems technology because of officers who know Romulan are in demand now. Scotty was on a different career path due to Starfleet's interest in data collected on the Narada by the Kelvin crew. And so on...

I understand that. (Though I thought Chekov was 17 so his age is about right.) BUT they deviated to far from the orginal characters IMO. Why would old Spock even assume there will be a friendship between Kirk and Spock if alternate universes caused by one ship getting destroyed changes things right down to the basic attitudes of people. Again I still thik it was a poor plot device and really dont relish the fact that we will now be watching a universe, manufactered by Spock and Nero, for the forseeable future. I would much rather have seen a new but familiar take on the franchise with a clean slate. No ties at all to the other series and films except inconcept. No need to spend half the story with a plot device to shoehorn all that came before to try to appease some fans.

 

[Python Trek]

They could've left the lens cap on. That'd help.

_Mike

Best BBS line evah!

 

[RobertScorpio]

Still though the alternate timeline does not explain the differences in the characters. I can live with things not looking the same and whatnot but the characters themselves arent the same...

Sure it does. The characters, especially those born after the timeline change, aren't necessary the exact same people seen in TOS. Spock's life experiences could have been difference if Sarek's diplomatic experiences were different as a results of the Kelvin destruction and the Federation's subsequent knowledge of and contact with the Romulans. Chekov's parents decided to have a kid two or three years earlier than the original timeline but still used their favorite name for their son. Uhura was inspired to study languages instead of taking classes in communication systems technology because of officers who know Romulan are in demand now. Scotty was on a different career path due to Starfleet's interest in data collected on the Narada by the Kelvin crew. And so on...

I understand that. (Though I thought Chekov was 17 so his age is about right.) BUT they deviated to far from the orginal characters IMO. Why would old Spock even assume there will be a friendship between Kirk and Spock if alternate universes caused by one ship getting destroyed changes things right down to the basic attitudes of people. Again I still thik it was a poor plot device and really dont relish the fact that we will now be watching a universe, manufactered by Spock and Nero, for the forseeable future. I would much rather have seen a new but familiar take on the franchise with a clean slate. No ties at all to the other series and films except inconcept. No need to spend half the story with a plot device to shoehorn all that came before to try to appease some fans.

I like your idea...but there is no way Paramount would greenlight a movie like that. The fact this one got made (after the flops of Insurrection--Nemesis) was a miracle....

I am not sure if you noticed, but the movie was fun. And, as I keep saying, it was fun for non-fans; which was the whole point of doing a TREK movie this time.

They got it right...IMO. The movie did good..or hadn't you noticed.

Rob

 

[Sector 7]

Honestly, for what the movie had to accomplish, I really can't think of any minor changes. It's the sequel I'm more interested in at this point, obviously, and I also think that any changes I would have personally made would have been fairly large ones to suit my own weird nitpicky tastes.

While being the only truly honest reply... this is the TrekBBS: and your behavior is unacceptable.

The minor changes I would make are:
-lose the hostess station and make-up lights on the bridge;
-put Spock on a satellite (or moon, if it has one) of Vulcan so he really could see its destruction without a telescope; -either make Keenser sentient or non-existent;
-after Kirk's award ceremony, put a "4 years later" banner up while fading to Kirk's actual captaincy of Enterprise

 

[RobertScorpio]

Honestly, for what the movie had to accomplish, I really can't think of any minor changes. It's the sequel I'm more interested in at this point, obviously, and I also think that any changes I would have personally made would have been fairly large ones to suit my own weird nitpicky tastes.

While being the only truly honest reply... this is the TrekBBS: and your behavior is unacceptable.

The minor changes I would make are:
-lose the hostess station and make-up lights on the bridge;
-put Spock on a satellite (or moon, if it has one) of Vulcan so he really could see its destruction without a telescope; -either make Keenser sentient or non-existent;
-after Kirk's award ceremony, put a "4 years later" banner up while fading to Kirk's actual captaincy of Enterprise

Im not sure what you mean in your last one. The reason it took three is because he said he would do it in three...and the way he took command, confronting Spock as he did, and all that building up to that moment, was one of the best parts of this highly successful, audience entertaining box-office hit....

Rob

 

[bullethead]

Honestly, for what the movie had to accomplish, I really can't think of any minor changes. It's the sequel I'm more interested in at this point, obviously, and I also think that any changes I would have personally made would have been fairly large ones to suit my own weird nitpicky tastes.

While being the only truly honest reply... this is the TrekBBS: and your behavior is unacceptable.

The minor changes I would make are:
-lose the hostess station and make-up lights on the bridge;
-put Spock on a satellite (or moon, if it has one) of Vulcan so he really could see its destruction without a telescope; -either make Keenser sentient or non-existent;
-after Kirk's award ceremony, put a "4 years later" banner up while fading to Kirk's actual captaincy of Enterprise

Im not sure what you mean in your last one. The reason it took three is because he said he would do it in three...and the way he took command, confronting Spock as he did, and all that building up to that moment, was one of the best parts of this highly successful, audience entertaining box-office hit....

Rob

Your thinking of Kirk graduating from the Academy, which is what he said he would do in three years. barnaclelapse is talking about having a caption saying four years have passed since Kirk got a medal for saving Earth and showing him as Captain of the Enterprise.

 

[DevilEyes]

Still though the alternate timeline does not explain the differences in the characters. I can live with things not looking the same and whatnot but the characters themselves arent the same...

Sure it does. The characters, especially those born after the timeline change, aren't necessary the exact same people seen in TOS. Spock's life experiences could have been difference if Sarek's diplomatic experiences were different as a results of the Kelvin destruction and the Federation's subsequent knowledge of and contact with the Romulans. Chekov's parents decided to have a kid two or three years earlier than the original timeline but still used their favorite name for their son. Uhura was inspired to study languages instead of taking classes in communication systems technology because of officers who know Romulan are in demand now. Scotty was on a different career path due to Starfleet's interest in data collected on the Narada by the Kelvin crew. And so on...

What makes you think that Uhura was not a linguist in the prime timeline?
Because she was a communications officer in the prime timeline? She is a communications officer in the alternate timeline, too.

According to Nichelle Nichols and her book Beyond Uhura, that's exactly what Uhura was supposed to be, according to the backstory that she and Roddenberry originally created for her.

""Gene and I agreed that she would be a citizen of the United States of Africa. And her name, Uhura, is derived from Uhuru, which is Swahili for "freedom". According to the biography Gene and I developed for my character, Uhura was far more than an intergalactic phone operator. As head of Communications, she commanded the corps of largely unseen communications technicians, linguistis, and other specialists who worked in the bowels of Enterprise, in the "comm-center". A linguistic scholar and a top graduate of Starfleet Academy, she was a protege of Mr. Spock, whom she admired for his daring, his intelligence, his stoicism, and especially his logic. We even had outlined exactly where Uhura had grown up, who her parents were, and why she had been chosen over other candidates for the Enterprise's five-year mission."

- Nichelle Nichols, Beyond Uhura - Star Trek and Other Memories, p. 144-145


True, they didn't show it on screen, but they never said she wasn't a linguist, either, did they? The only thing that contradicts it is the stupid scene that they included for laughs in TUC.

 

[DevilEyes]

- Make Kirk likable.

Why? And anyway, different people have different ideas of "likeable". Some people think he already is.

Personally, I liked him better than TOS Kirk, probably because he wasn't supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype.

- More relevant female characters.

Agreed, I want that, too.

- No pointless hero/villain confrontation.

Yes, it would be refreshing to have something different.

- Why mini-skirts?

Why not?

What is your problem with mini skirts?

 

[RobertScorpio]

- Make Kirk likable.

I think most of the non-fans see him as a rebel anyway. This movie's Kirk was great. Whether or not it violated established norm is, well, not important. Making him fun was.

- More relevant female characters.

I liked Uhura. I liked her with spock. As for more female characters? As long as they are cute I am all for it. (Underwear scenes will be good too)

- No pointless hero/villain confrontation.

Not me...I like villains, and I like villains like Khan. He will be in the next movie! (socks removed from my feet for kissing)

- Why mini-skirts?

Ummmmm...because they are sexy. Who's to say miniskirt would not be in fashion in the future? These things go in cycles.



Rob

 

[Kane_Steel]

- Fix Kirk's hair

- Have the doctor that got killed be named "Piper"

- Have the Chief Engineer be named "Kelso"

- Have Pike ask Sulu where "Lieutenant Tyler" is


- Have Kirk get a field commission of Commander or Lieutenant Commander in the end, not Captain


I'd keep Chekov, he was a hit with general audiences.

 

[polyharmonic]

Nothing..this movie was expertly 'formulated' by JJ to do exactly what it did; appeal to non-fans. From Scotty's little friend, to Uhura/Spock, to Kirk being an outcast...all of it..ALL OF IT...was calculated and done for a reason and it worked. In fact it worked better than any other Star Trek movie. It is the movie that the rest of the world (not us) has defined as the movie that IS Star Trek...

Success!!! JJ did it..and IMO, not one part of this movie needs to fixed...

Rob

How would making small fixes that addresses complaints of the flaws of the movie suddenly cause the film to no longer appeal to non-fans?

For instance, instead of fast forwarding three years after the academy with Kirk in his last year as a cadet, fast forward five years with Kirk already a LT. For a lot of people this change would have made the film better because having Kirk go from suspended Cadet to captain of the flagship defied common sense. But for non-fans, I don't see how this change would have made it WORSE for them.

And have Kirk go to Delta Vega due to a distress call by Spock Prime. Then no more complaints about meeting Spock Prime being so coincidental. Again I think for most people this would have been an improvement. I can't imagine this change would have been considered WORSE by these so-called non-fans.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Nothing..this movie was expertly 'formulated' by JJ to do exactly what it did; appeal to non-fans. From Scotty's little friend, to Uhura/Spock, to Kirk being an outcast...all of it..ALL OF IT...was calculated and done for a reason and it worked. In fact it worked better than any other Star Trek movie. It is the movie that the rest of the world (not us) has defined as the movie that IS Star Trek...

Success!!! JJ did it..and IMO, not one part of this movie needs to fixed...

Rob

How would making small fixes that addresses complaints of the flaws of the movie suddenly cause the film to no longer appeal to non-fans?

For instance, instead of fast forwarding three years after the academy with Kirk in his last year as a cadet, fast forward five years with Kirk already a LT. For a lot of people this change would have made the film better because having Kirk go from suspended Cadet to captain of the flagship defied common sense. But for non-fans, I don't see how this change would have made it WORSE for them.

And have Kirk go to Delta Vega due to a distress call by Spock Prime. Then no more complaints about meeting Spock Prime being so coincidental. Again I think for most people this would have been an improvement. I can't imagine this change would have been considered WORSE by these so-called non-fans.

Because the movie was long enough as it is. You start adding this and that and the next thing you know you're cutting this or cutting that. I have seen the movie (16 times) enough to know, IMO, they got it right. They got the hipness right (Uhura/Spock being a BIG part of this)..they got the "Kirk takes command at a young age" part right..they even got Keenser right (for the little kids)

All of these corrections you are mentioning, IMO, are really not that important. JJ did good..the movie was a big hit, and it was FUN.

So far none of these corrections would have made enough of a difference, in my opinion, to have made the movie better for the average Joe who saw this movie. Maybe for us (we star trek fans)..but wasn't it made painfully clear to you (because it was to me) that this movie wasn't meant for us?

JJ did good. (rapping my gavel on the table) Case closed.

Rob

 

[Anticitizen]

So far none of these corrections would have made enough of a difference, in my opinion, to have made the movie better for the average Joe who saw this movie.

The changes could've made it possible to please both 'average joe' and the fans.

JJ did good. (rapping my gavel on the table) Case closed.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not in charge.

 

[RobertScorpio]

So far none of these corrections would have made enough of a difference, in my opinion, to have made the movie better for the average Joe who saw this movie.

The changes could've made it possible to please both 'average joe' and the fans.

JJ did good. (rapping my gavel on the table) Case closed.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not in charge.

That is contempt..well in my mind.

As for your answer? Im looking at this from JJ's perspective. I am quite sure as they were breaking down their story some of these questions were bantered about. But for whatever reason JJ went with what he went with.

My point? We don't know how some of your suggestions would have gone over. IN your mind they are good fixes. In my mind the movie is perfect the way it is.

Nemesis? Insurrection? yeah, those movies needed a lot of help. But not this one...no way. This movie....flew!

Rob

 

[Sabataage]

Kirk crash-landing within stone-throwing distance of Spock's cave, for instance, and beaming him light-years back to the Enterprise, all because they wanted Kirk to meet Spock Prime when nobody else was around. You could easily come up with a story that resembles the one we got, but stitches it together more soundly.

This. Would have been SO easy to make this plausible. As it is, it really sticks in my craw.

I was actually thinking about how they could have improved this at work. It would make a lot more sense to leave out the so-called "ice planet of coincidences" and just put Scotty and Keenser in a Daedalus-style waste management/ scavenger ship. Its dinky, its dirty as hell, it only goes up to warp two and its almost completly self-automated with just the pair running the thing. As a reference to Trouble with Tribbles Scotty says of the garbage scow: "By the way, if you ask me, this ship should be hauled *as* garbage." They're there because they were nearby and responded to the distress call from Vulcan, wanting to help. They rescue Spock first --off camera, who (in a nod to TMP) is floating through the debris field wearing only a space suit after being jettisoned by Nero. They pick up Kirk after that in the escape pod. The conversation and mind-meld scene would happen here instead. Because the ship is so rundown and slow moving they would still have to use "trans warp beaming" to get back to Enterprise. So, basically both scenes would play the same way, only this time it would make more sense that the three of them would find each other since one of them (Scotty) was actively looking for other people.

 

[polyharmonic]

...I am quite sure as they were breaking down their story some of these questions were bantered about. But for whatever reason JJ went with what he went with...

It is more likely that JJ and the writers went with what they went with simply because it was "good enough for the average joe" and lack of these changes wouldn't have made the casual non-fan moviegoer not see it. It had all the elements needed to be a summer blockbuster and that's enough. Or more likely that they simply lack the talent to do better.

But there's no question they could have made the film better while still attracting casual non-fans.

Think of X2 vs The Last Stand. X2 is far and away the much better written and directed movie and still did really well. OTOH, TLS was IMO and many others to be poorly written and directed and was just a mindless action blockbuster movie. It did well but it could have been A LOT BETTER. To me the ST writers and director made the equivalent of TLS when they could have made X2 all the while attracting casual fans nonetheless.

 

[Sci]

-either make Keenser sentient or non-existent;

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Keenser was very clearly sentient. Heck, he's a Starfleet officer!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Sci said:
Exactly.

The point of Kirk cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test was never to get away with it. That would be dishonest. The point that Kirk described himself as making in TWOK was that he didn't believe in no-win scenarios, and that a starship captain had to think outside the box and change the rules in real crises in order to ensure victory. The Cadet Kirk that was described in TOS and in TWOK would never try to actually get away with his cheat -- he'd WANT to be caught so as to make his point to the Academy.

The Kirk of ST09 might have been a little bit of a jerk about it (eating an apple and whatnot), but the part about him making no effort to hide the fact that he'd reprogramed the simulation is perfectly in-character.

It's not a question of whether or not Kirk wanted to hide that he cheated. There would be no way to hide it. As soon as he successfully rescued the Kobayashi Maru it would be obvious he cheated - and he would know this. Besides cheating is by nature dishonest, so I don't think Kirk was particularly worried about that either.

The problem with the way this was handled in XI was that it was hit-you-over-the-head obvious, with lights going down, and Kirk overtly behaving like a cocky jerkoff in the midst of it all.

- Make Kirk likable.

Why? And anyway, different people have different ideas of "likeable". Some people think he already is.

Personally, I liked him better than TOS Kirk, probably because he wasn't supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype.

TOS Kirk was not supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype. While he occasionally fit into this mold, he also routinely displayed traits directly counter to the 50s/60s Masculine Perfection Stereotype. He advocated mercy to one's enemies, compassion, and acceptance of radical difference (feminine, even maternal traits). His entire command style is routinely seen to rely on intuition, as opposed to logic, in contrast to Spock (logic is traditionally a masculine thought mode - intuition usually defined as a feminine thought mode). He is also defined as a character by his intense emotion, primarily in relation to his friendship with Spock, which is hardly in line with the no-emotions-allowed stereotype of masculinity in our culture. He cries, obviously, at the death of his friend. In The Enemy Within, a lot of this is made quite explicit - we see Kirk split into a Jungian dichotomy of Ego and Shadow and it is revealed that his Ego is gentle, compassionate and rational, while his Shadow is violent, self-centered and irrational - quite a muddled brew in terms of stereotypical ideas of masculinity and femininity, and Kirk as a whole character encompasses them all. Granted that in popular culture he has been reduced to an interstellar lothario gunslinger with a starship rather than a six gun on his belt - but that's an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the actual writing.

...I am quite sure as they were breaking down their story some of these questions were bantered about. But for whatever reason JJ went with what he went with...

It is more likely that JJ and the writers went with what they went with simply because it was "good enough for the average joe" and lack of these changes wouldn't have made the casual non-fan moviegoer not see it. It had all the elements needed to be a summer blockbuster and that's enough. Or more likely that they simply lack the talent to do better.

But there's no question they could have made the film better while still attracting casual non-fans.

Think of X2 vs The Last Stand. X2 is far and away the much better written and directed movie and still did really well. OTOH, TLS was IMO and many others to be poorly written and directed and was just a mindless action blockbuster movie. It did well but it could have been A LOT BETTER. To me the ST writers and director made the equivalent of TLS when they could have made X2 all the while attracting casual fans nonetheless.

Agreed - it's a giant copout to say it's okay that XI was nonsensical because that is what made it appealing to nonfans. What made it appealing to nonfans was it's quick pace, funny lines and hot young actors - none of which would have had to be sacrificed in order to make it 25% smarter. Plenty of adventure movies have broad appeal without having wildly contrived events and giant plot holes. Plenty of adventure movies do have wildly contrived events and giant plot holes - but it's not required for people to like a movie. You can make War of the Worlds (one of 2005's most popular adventure movies) or you can make Raiders of the Lost Ark (one of 1981's most popular adventure movies). Neither one is deep or anything, but one has a plot that makes sense and one doesn't.

 

[Anticitizen]

Kirk crash-landing within stone-throwing distance of Spock's cave, for instance, and beaming him light-years back to the Enterprise, all because they wanted Kirk to meet Spock Prime when nobody else was around. You could easily come up with a story that resembles the one we got, but stitches it together more soundly.

This. Would have been SO easy to make this plausible. As it is, it really sticks in my craw.

I was actually thinking about how they could have improved this at work. It would make a lot more sense to leave out the so-called "ice planet of coincidences" and just put Scotty and Keenser in a Daedalus-style waste management/ scavenger ship. Its dinky, its dirty as hell, it only goes up to warp two and its almost completly self-automated with just the pair running the thing. As a reference to Trouble with Tribbles Scotty says of the garbage scow: "By the way, if you ask me, this ship should be hauled *as* garbage." They're there because they were nearby and responded to the distress call from Vulcan, wanting to help. They rescue Spock first --off camera, who (in a nod to TMP) is floating through the debris field wearing only a space suit after being jettisoned by Nero. They pick up Kirk after that in the escape pod. The conversation and mind-meld scene would happen here instead. Because the ship is so rundown and slow moving they would still have to use "trans warp beaming" to get back to Enterprise. So, basically both scenes would play the same way, only this time it would make more sense that the three of them would find each other since one of them (Scotty) was actively looking for other people.

Bravo!! I like that very much. Kirk could be jettisoned out with Spock saying, 'we'll signal to one of the Vulcan evacuation ships to pick him up', so he doesn't come across as so much of a dick as he did in the movie.

I especially like the idea of Old Spock being stuck in a spacesuit and forced to watch the destruction of Vulcan (with the intention by Nero that he'd eventually run out of air and die) rather than being stuck on a random ice planet.

Good job!

I'd ditch the transwarp beaming, however, and have Old Spock show Scotty how to increase the warp speed of the scavenger/waste ship in order to catch up with Enterprise. Then maybe a trick about beaming through the Enterprise's shields, which could lead to the same Spock/Kirk confrontation ('how did you manage to beam through our shields?' 'don't answer that' etc).

 

[DevilEyes]

Why? And anyway, different people have different ideas of "likeable". Some people think he already is.

Personally, I liked him better than TOS Kirk, probably because he wasn't supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype.

TOS Kirk was not supposed to be the Masculine Perfection Stereotype. While he occasionally fit into this mold, he also routinely displayed traits directly counter to the 50s/60s Masculine Perfection Stereotype. He advocated mercy to one's enemies, compassion, and acceptance of radical difference (feminine, even maternal traits). His entire command style is routinely seen to rely on intuition, as opposed to logic, in contrast to Spock (logic is traditionally a masculine thought mode - intuition usually defined as a feminine thought mode). He is also defined as a character by his intense emotion, primarily in relation to his friendship with Spock, which is hardly in line with the no-emotions-allowed stereotype of masculinity in our culture. He cries, obviously, at the death of his friend. In The Enemy Within, a lot of this is made quite explicit - we see Kirk split into a Jungian dichotomy of Ego and Shadow and it is revealed that his Ego is gentle, compassionate and rational, while his Shadow is violent, self-centered and irrational - quite a muddled brew in terms of stereotypical ideas of masculinity and femininity, and Kirk as a whole character encompasses them all. Granted that in popular culture he has been reduced to an interstellar lothario gunslinger with a starship rather than a six gun on his belt - but that's an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the actual writing.

You're not making a case here. Classic male heroes in American pop culture have never been presented as logical and rational - a trait Hollywood traditionally associated with Europeans (and yes, the traditional European masculine stereotype is closely linked with rationality); they have always been presented as driven by instinct and raw emotion. Coldness, rationality and supression of emotion has always been more of the domain of classic Hollywood villains rather than heroes (Spock is a good guy who has many of the characteristics of a Hollywood villain). The classic Hollywood hero (not to be confused with the darker, edgier [anti]heroes that became popular in 1970s with Clint Eastwood and vigilante movies) is action-oriented, but also warm, extroverted, with a sense of humour, loyal, caring about his people. Of course, he also can fight incredibly well (and gets into physical fights all the time even though it is not realistic at all for a captain to keep leaving the ship...), is irresistible to women and knows how to charm them. And that is not a masculine stereotype? Kirk was obviously meant to represent the Ideal Man, captain, adventurer and explorer. Spock and McCoy were meant to represent Logic and Emotions, respectively, but Kirk was supposed to be the one who always makes the right decisions.