Will they ever "boldly go" again?

[Franklin]

I think if the scripts start asking the audience to give a fuck about nonsense like the politics or survival of "the Federation" then the movies will tank. This is the sort of nonsense that diminished viewership for the modern Trek shows.

Yes but already the questions being asked on Trekmovie involve "The survival of Vulcans and their culture", "Who has Surak's katra", "Will Spock marry Uhura", "Will an alliance between the remaining Vulcans and Romulans happen".

Those of us who hang out here and there and fuss over such things don't drive the box office success of the movies. Let 'em ask away.

Well, to be fair, those are logical questions raised by the story Orci and Kurtzman created. Doesn't mean they all should, or have to be addressed, but they are out there. Some, like Vulcan refugees or the direction of the relationship between Spock and Uhura may be legitimate loose ends.

Still, the political stuff. Eh. Best not go there. It starts adding baggage. Much better, as Roykirk said above, that the story is a nice small but serious conflict that engages the characters in a new and interesting way. It's those seven, and what happens to them aboard the Enterprise, that we (should) care about the most.

 

[perigee]

I'd love to see it - it all comes down to JJ & Company. Considering his other work -and what he did with this one that so engaged or enraged portions of our population here - he has the cojones to not make the obvious choices.

I think a whole lot comes down to whether or not he's grown any respect for the past series since he was drawn into this Trekkie miasma. He has the brainpan to "get it" - but I wonder about the desire. Cloverfield. MI3. Armageddon. Our best hope is that megatrekkies Orci and Kurtzman - who DO get it - can spread some wings now that the hard part - selling the new crew - is over. I am cautiously optimistic, and doubt there's a better writing team out there to walk the necessary tightrope.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, to be fair, those are logical questions raised by the story Orci and Kurtzman created. Doesn't mean they all should, or have to be addressed, but they are out there. Some, like Vulcan refugees or the direction of the relationship between Spock and Uhura may be legitimate loose ends.

It doesn't matter, unless those things can be made part of a big, big exciting adventure story that a whole great lot of people will pay money to see on the opening weekend.

Much better, as Roykirk said above, that the story is a nice small but serious conflict that engages the characters in a new and interesting way. It's those seven, and what happens to them aboard the Enterprise, that we (should) care about the most.

Exactly.

 

[flemm]

I think if the scripts start asking the audience to give a fuck about nonsense like the politics or survival of "the Federation" then the movies will tank. This is the sort of nonsense that diminished viewership for the modern Trek shows.

Only if the Federation and its politics seem divorced from reality. As long as the link between our world and the fictional world is perceptible to the audience, the story will work. DS9, BSG, the 4400... just to name a few recent shows that have had political and social themes and were successful. As for movies with a political subtext in an imaginary universe we need look no further than TDK.

I think its obvious the movie should not be a dissertation on the political structure of the Federation. That said, it's equally silly to assert that the film needs to stay clear of anything remotely political to succeed.

 

[John Picard]

I would rather they "Boldly Go" rather than "Carefully Tread".

 

[RisenStar]

While it is a legitimate category of conflict, I was thinking about this the other day as well. Comic book movies have (imo) especially advanced man v. man as the only "interesting" way to tell a story to a mainstream audience. Frankly, it's the easiest one to pull off.

But in literature, other categories of conflict work quite well. I'm just not sure how they'd work on a big screen with limited time and limited audience attention span.

So, here's hoping we'll see more interesting categories of conflict in Trek in the future. Man vs himself, Man vs society, Man vs circumstances, even a less basic telling of man vs man would be nice. But, it's a movie, and very hard to do right.

 

[Franklin]

I think if the scripts start asking the audience to give a fuck about nonsense like the politics or survival of "the Federation" then the movies will tank. This is the sort of nonsense that diminished viewership for the modern Trek shows.

Only if the Federation and its politics seem divorced from reality. As long as the link between our world and the fictional world is perceptible to the audience, the story will work. DS9, BSG, the 4400... just to name a few recent shows that have had political and social themes and were successful. As for movies with a political subtext in an imaginary universe we need look no further than TDK.

I think its obvious the movie should not be a dissertation on the political structure of the Federation. That said, it's equally silly to assert that the film needs to stay clear of anything remotely political to succeed.

If I may respond, I see what you mean, but at least in my opinion, TOS tended to deal better with broad questions of individual behavior, character, and morality (think "The Ultimate Computer" or "Conscience of the King" or "Obsession") than they did when they took up broad social or political questions (think "The Omega Glory" or "Patterns of Force" or even TUC).

 

[perigee]

If I may respond, I see what you mean, but at least in my opinion, TOS tended to deal better with broad questions of individual behavior, character, and morality (think "The Ultimate Computer" or "Conscience of the King" or "Obsession") than they did when they took up broad social or political questions (think "The Omega Glory" or "Patterns of Force" or even TUC).

Wooo! I LIKE the way you think!! Kudos!

 

[chrisspringob]

I'd like to see a movie that is truly in the vein of a TOS episode.....but updated for the 2010s, and on a bigger scale. Have the Enterprise go to a planet, and something interesting happens there. The characters get involved in a big adventure. But that's it. No single villain, no huge threats to the Federation. Just, the Enterprise goes to a planet, and a cool story unfolds.....just like a good episode of TOS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think if the scripts start asking the audience to give a fuck about nonsense like the politics or survival of "the Federation" then the movies will tank. This is the sort of nonsense that diminished viewership for the modern Trek shows.

Only if the Federation and its politics seem divorced from reality.[

They are divorced from reality. The political issues and maneuverings of the Silver Spring city council are more nuanced and passionately contested than those of the Federation...and not many people in Silver Spring give a fuck about that either.

As long as the link between our world and the fictional world is perceptible to the audience, the story will work.

It didn't work on TV. Absorption in the paper-thin fictional "Star Trek Universe" - the small-town peculiarities of its people and institutions - did as much to diminish the numbers of people who watched it as anything else did. I get that a lot of Trek fans liked DS9, but the plain fact is that every week fewer and fewer people watched the show, and the reasons for that were in the content - specifically, boredom with the content.

These are adventure movies. No other format will sustain the cost of production and promotion.

 

[Peter the Younger]

The easiest way to mix exploration and adventure, I think, is to take a page from TNG (sorry maryh) and add a "race for the prize" element to it, as in "The Chase", "Gambit", or DS9's "To the Death." Not that they necessarily have to go the archeological route, as that was pretty distinctively Picard's turf. Simple? Yes, on the surface, but most high concept movies are; you can easily weave subplots into that framework (the aftermath of the loss of Vulcan, Kirk tested as the young Captain, the further development of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, and so on.)

 

[Franklin]

While it is a legitimate category of conflict, I was thinking about this the other day as well. Comic book movies have (imo) especially advanced man v. man as the only "interesting" way to tell a story to a mainstream audience. Frankly, it's the easiest one to pull off.

But in literature, other categories of conflict work quite well. I'm just not sure how they'd work on a big screen with limited time and limited audience attention span.

So, here's hoping we'll see more interesting categories of conflict in Trek in the future. Man vs himself, Man vs society, Man vs circumstances, even a less basic telling of man vs man would be nice. But, it's a movie, and very hard to do right.

Agreed. In TWOK, TSFS, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, ST09 (nine of the eleven movies) the basic template is one main villain to counter our captain (Kirk or Picard) and carry out an evil plan, and the villain's plan is thwarted and he or she is finally dispatched (dead) at the end. It's getting silly.
Were there even nine TOS episodes that were like that?

 

[theFirebottle]

A TV series is a better format than film for handling complex, long-term political intrigues. If we get a TV series, I would love to see the political and diplomatic fallout of the destruction of Vulcan and the diaspora of the Vulcan people. Realistically portrayed, it would be an interesting, absorbing discussion of of genocide, the disruption of the balance of power in the universe when a major political player gets wiped off the map, and the dynamics of interplanetary peace and warfare.

Having a planet and six billion people destroyed in the blink of an eye by a rogue nutjob from another universe with some industrial equipment should make every spacefaring civilization in the galaxy sit bolt upright in bed screaming.

 

[BriGuy]

I blame it on the success of Khan. After that, except for TVH, the movies were Kirk v. "the villain." It was even Picard v. "the villain" in the TNG movies. Now, it was Nero. It's getting old. It's a rut. "City" had no villain at all. Even in "Balance of Terror", it's hard to call the Romulan commander a true villain. The "evil villain" cycle has to be broken.

It scares me that Abrams even thinks for a fleeting minute about using Khan. Of course, I don't doubt for a minute that Abrams and his gang could come up with an even more vile villain than Khan if that's the type of story they want to tell. But, it's becoming a shopworn premise.

Break the rut, Mr. Abrams. The slate is blank, so let's see some real creativity in the next story. Seek out new life and new civilizations. Pay that credo more than lipservice. Take us on an adventure like we've never been on before. If it can't be done, then maybe Trek wasn't worth bringing back.

What about the rest of you? Are you with me? Or agin' me? Either way, thanks for the rant.

Agreed.

It reminded me of when I read this on the front page:

As reported by Newsarama, Star Trek XI offers hopefulness and family togetherness. "When we sat down to ask ourselves what Star Trek is about, at the end of the day, it was about the spirit of the family and the promise of optimism," explained Kurtzman. "The bridge crew is a surrogate family and the idea we were out there working with other alien species to explore new worlds was just a very hopeful notion. At least it feels to me, especially based on last week's New York Times, that there is something about the spirit of optimism and the idea of coming together that our country is hungry for right now."

I mean, it was a good movie, but WTF? Hopefulness? Family togetherness? Spirit of the family? Optimism? Explore new worlds? Hopeful notions? Coming together?

I mean, I liked the movie, but I didn't see ANY of those things in this movie. It was a flat-out action flick. Yes, these are the things Gene said Trek was about, and what he wanted to do and explore (reference the intro he had on the The Cage pilot*), but I don't see any of that being part of this movie.

I would like to see the next Trek have no typical villain.

* Here it is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gl9u-owPA

 

[perigee]

A TV series is a better format than film for handling complex, long-term political intrigues. If we get a TV series, I would love to see the political and diplomatic fallout of the destruction of Vulcan and the diaspora of the Vulcan people. Realistically portrayed, it would be an interesting, absorbing discussion of of genocide, the disruption of the balance of power in the universe when a major political player gets wiped off the map, and the dynamics of interplanetary peace and warfare.

Personally, I'd hope not. That whole "Story Arc" thing drove me nuts during the newer Trek series, and almost every time I catch Voyager or Enterprise on TV nowadays, they're in the middle of some damn grand thing that makes no sense when you're not in sequence. "Captain's log: after 783 days in the expanse, and our recent encounter with the Boogawoogas, we have received a map and a compass.."

Oy.

One show hit-and-runs please, if we ever get on the tube in any form again. My time shifting future self thanks you. Before fighting nazis in a temporal cold war in area 51 with section 37...

 

[Ovation]

Arcs are pretty standard in genre shows these days, though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[buzzknox]

The easiest way to mix exploration and adventure, I think, is to take a page from TNG (sorry maryh) and add a "race for the prize" element to it, as in "The Chase", "Gambit", or DS9's "To the Death." Not that they necessarily have to go the archeological route, as that was pretty distinctively Picard's turf. Simple? Yes, on the surface, but most high concept movies are; you can easily weave subplots into that framework (the aftermath of the loss of Vulcan, Kirk tested as the young Captain, the further development of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, and so on.)

There's a lot of value in this. Perhaps they could pick up the mystery of the Preservers that was never resolved in TOS. They get intel that an adversary has found an "abandoned" Preserver base and head there to 1) explore it, 2) claim it and 3) prevent the adversary from doing likewise. They arrive to find that said adversary has kicked over a hornet nest and now they have to figure out how to resolve the situation.

 

[pookha]

you had political stuff in tos but it was part of the back ground fabric.

and the only thing that kept a good part of tos being about the klingon federation war was the organians pretty much creating a cold war with the organian peace treaty.

most of the klingon episodes had it in the background.
the race to develop shermans planet in tribbles.
the interference of the klingons in the natuaral developement of a planet by giving them guns and iencouraging warfare in violation of the treaty in a private little war.
the klingons scheming in the background of the very political elaan of troyius .

but yeah i would like to see some more boldy going exploration.

 

[Praetor]

I'm with the OP on this one. Break that frakking mold already!

I would rather they "Boldly Go" rather than "Carefully Tread".

We reach.

The easiest way to mix exploration and adventure, I think, is to take a page from TNG (sorry maryh) and add a "race for the prize" element to it, as in "The Chase", "Gambit", or DS9's "To the Death." Not that they necessarily have to go the archeological route, as that was pretty distinctively Picard's turf. Simple? Yes, on the surface, but most high concept movies are; you can easily weave subplots into that framework (the aftermath of the loss of Vulcan, Kirk tested as the young Captain, the further development of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, and so on.)

There's a lot of value in this. Perhaps they could pick up the mystery of the Preservers that was never resolved in TOS. They get intel that an adversary has found an "abandoned" Preserver base and head there to 1) explore it, 2) claim it and 3) prevent the adversary from doing likewise. They arrive to find that said adversary has kicked over a hornet nest and now they have to figure out how to resolve the situation.

Straczynski will be pissed.

 

[perigee]

Arcs are pretty standard in genre shows these days, though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeah.. I know. I guess it's an offshoot of everybody buying the DVD sets. But it still bugs me, especially the second/third/fourth time around; all the "House" arcs really mess with the main story when you're just hopping on for some bored Thursday night. Hopefully the fad will pass before we get on the tube again.