Orci: ‘Star Trek’ is two movies in one | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci: ‘Star Trek’ is two movies in one July 1, 2007

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,STXI Plot , trackback

In yet another interview (this time with Latino Review) screenwriter Roberto Orci talks about how the new Trek is being made to appeal to fans of the franchise as well as those unfamiliar with it. He also draws a distinction with Tranformers which had a smaller fanbase, saying: 

‘Transformers’ is gonna get us nice and ready for the fans on ‘Star Trek.’ We’ve learned a lot, actually, from that.  Again we, we’re diligent about, with J.J. Abrams, and with Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, agreeing what we all wanted to see first.  And then this one, on ‘Star Trek,’ for example we don’t have the advantage or the luxury of the fact no one has ever seen it.  People know what ‘Star Trek’ is. We don’t have the advantage of the fact (that Transformers has) the giant robots or something.


So we are more protective of that story because the intellectual property that is, the surprises of that story are, in a way, the spectacle of it.  And so we are a little bit more worried about that getting out.  But we feel pretty confident, you know. I was a diehard fan.  Damon and I are crazy fans, J.J. and Alex are like mid-level fans and then Bryan Burk doesn’t know anything about it.  So it pleases all of us, I think, what we’re doing, and hopefully that’s going to be the litmus test that it’s going to prevail.

Orci also had this exchange on who the film is for and if it is a prequel or not:

Latino Review:  What do you want to bring to ‘Star Trek’ that say, like my kids for example, who don’t know ‘Star Trek’…
Orci:  That’s exactly what I want to bring.  I want it to be an introduction to that world and I want to take it for granted.  I don’t want it to, no colons on the ‘Star Trek, Five and a Half.’ It fits in between this and that, you know, it’s ‘Star Trek.’  If you’ve never seen ‘Star Trek’ or anything about ‘Star Trek,’ this is for you.  And if you’re a fan, you’re going to see a different movie because you’re absolutely going to see references and you’re absolutely going to see a different movie if you’re a fan.  It’s actually very interesting to us, and I can’t wait for that to come out because it literally is two movies in one.
Latino Review:  So is it more like a prequel or not?
Orci:  Sort of.

It slices, it dices!
I know the word parsers are going to go nuts on this so here is my view. Orci is saying that the film is a prequel for us fans and an introduction for others. In a technical sense the film is undeniably a prequel because it takes place before TOS and includes known characters from that universe. However, it is important for Paramount (and for the budget that the producers want) to be able to sell the movie (both internally and externally) as a film you do not need to know about Trek to enjoy. This may be hard for some Trek fans to deal with, but it is an economic reality. However as he mentions here and as I reported from my conversations with him last week there is plenty in the script for the fans…you just don’t need to be a fan to enjoy the film. Of course the same could be said of other Trek films as well, especially STII, STIV and to some extend STFC.  

 

Read the full interview at Latino Review

Comments

1. OneBuckFilms - July 1, 2007

Ahem, First.

Encouraging.

2. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 1, 2007

More of the same. Nothing new.

3. ObiWanCon - July 1, 2007

Everything I read makes me all warm and fuzzy inside it just keeps getting better and better.

BRING ON STAR TREK

4. Still Kirok - July 1, 2007

Two movies in one would be perfect if there is a good chunk for older and younger Kirk.

5. trekmaster - July 1, 2007

Remember the 4 movie posters from last year? If this film was going to be an introduction of star trek, it’s logical that characters from all the series will be starring in. And I bet that Kirk is the center of the story. Maybe we`ll see the real Kirk (old Shatner) traveling inside the nexus through time and space to see what was and what will be….think of the lost scenes from st7:generations that we only could read in the novel!! That’s what we are going to see!! The many little stories or connections between Kirk’s first adventure, meeting spock, the time on the 1701, 1701-A, his death and beyond….maybe it’s a kind of documentary style – an introduction to star trek!

6. RandyYeoman - July 1, 2007

huh ? 4 posters? there is only one.

and logical to assume this is a crossover movie from all series? did you read the above article?

Does a movie with Janeway, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, etc, etc sound like something that would work with a wide audience. I am sorry but what you descibe there sounds like it would be boring even to trek fans. It would certainly be box office poison

7. slappy - July 1, 2007

Maybe there’s some information I have overlooked, but this sounds to me more like a re-imagining of Star Trek than a real prequel. Not a total reboot, of course, but you’ve got new actors playing old roles and, potentially (if there are sequels to this film yet to come), continuing in those roles until way past the events of TOS season 1. For that reason, this whole project strikes me as a fresh start with established plot points to steer by…not unlike Batman Begins or Casino Royale.

8. Craig - July 1, 2007

Isn’t this the same thing that they tried with Enterprise? They wanted new fans with Enterprise and Enterprise failed. Just curious.

9. Still Kirok - July 1, 2007

Enterprise was put together by a couple of no talent hacks.

I recommend reading a book called Enterprise: The First Adventure, by Vonda McIntyre. Solid story which shows a possible first story of how Kirk took command.

http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-First-Adventure-Star-Trek/dp/0586073213/ref=sr_1_1/102-4056656-1401750?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183330207&sr=8-1

Basically a similar idea to this movie, though I’m sure a much different story.

The point is that done well, a prequel CAN work.

Enterprise was not a prequel done well.

10. Craig - July 1, 2007

I guess even non Trek fans know about Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise.

11. trekmaster - July 1, 2007

There have been 4 posters!! :-) Only one – the first – revealed!

http://www.trekmaster.com/index.php/2006/07/30/star-trek-xi-700-jahre-trek-history/

FOR ME these posters are more than fakes…as presumed before!

12. trekmaster - July 1, 2007

“Eventually” the posters are fakes, BUT the idea behind might be true…

13. Noleuser - July 1, 2007

I just want to say you guys have done a great job with this site, it has really become the forefront of trek news on the web. It’s definitely helping me with my withdrawls of what 2 years now!

14. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 1, 2007

“And if you’re a fan, you’re going to see a different movie because you’re absolutely going to see references and you’re absolutely going to see a different movie if you’re a fan.”

What does the above mean?

15. Ian Watson - July 1, 2007

Seen the Sixth Sense?

The second time you see the movie, you’re essentially watching a different movie than you were the first time. It works on both levels.

So will this.

16. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2007

RE: 14…i think Ian has an interesting analogy. But imagine if you will watching the movie and there is a scene where Kirk meets some guy named Chris Pike. To the audience that is just a character, but every Trekkie will get a little continuity rush. That will happen throughout the fim. You will have these little ‘easter eggs’…and on a larger level you will see how this all leads to TOS

but what the film makers are also doing is making a movie that does not require you to know TOS…so they have the challenge to make the film more than just comfort food for Trekkies, but an exciting film for regular folk.

and Noleuser …hey thanks…Matt myself and the other contributors always appreciate it. TrekMovie.com is the site we knew Star Trek needed…if anything it is for us as much as it is for you all.

17. Spud - July 1, 2007

If you really want to get a very good idea of how this movie will be then you need to start watching LOST. Its that simple. LOST = J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk = flashback 101 classes. In the nexus time has no meaning. So you can go back or forward. Also In the nexus people have an eco of themselves even when there not there. :) And then you have the Q factor. He could grant Spock one last wish. Spock standing over the grave of Kirk. Q could pop in for a good debate with Spock regarding Mankind , Death and friendship and so forth. The simplest way to get past Kirks death in Generations would be to get Spock into the nexus. My bet is anything to do with time travel is out! Again watching LOST is the key flashback 101.

18. Shadow6283 - July 1, 2007

Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP – July 1, 2007
“And if you’re a fan, you’re going to see a different movie because you’re absolutely going to see references and you’re absolutely going to see a different movie if you’re a fan.”

What does the above mean?

R-E-B-O-O-T.

19. Joel - July 1, 2007

To all naysayers. Despite all the cryptic interviews that have been given, I say we just give them time. The only visualization for this film we have seen was a teaser poster, which most fans seemed to love. Of course when we hear or think prequel we’re going to think of Enterprise, which, well, needed some work. We have a fresh crew on board this time, as in film crew, so we honestly should give them a chance. Hardcore fans don’t like their show/film messed with, but this could be different. If it weren’t for this, Star Trek would simply live on as a collection of 10 films and 5 television series. As a fan of Star Trek, let’s give them a chance. We have apparent major announcements coming this month via Comic Con and more to come as production gets going this fall. Once something more solid than another interview with the writers, who obviously don’t want to give much away, let’s not all jump to rash conclusions.

20. Kyle Nin - July 1, 2007

#9: “Enterprise was not a prequel done well.”

But it WAS a prequel.

#9: “Enterprise was put together by a couple of no talent hacks.”

I can’t argue with that. I’m just glad that they chose to take a “back seat” during the last season, even though it was a little late.

#8: “They wanted new fans with Enterprise and Enterprise failed.”

After four seasons. As I recall, TOS only lasted for THREE.

21. Xai - July 1, 2007

#18 Shadow6283

If you know something more than this site reports that factually says a reboot, I’ll let you say “I told you so”.
Otherwise, In My Opinion…you are throwing gasoline around in here again.

X

22. Xai - July 1, 2007

#17 Spud

It’s your opinion, but don’t you think that’s a little too obvious?

X

23. Xai - July 1, 2007

Star Trek: The Wrath of the Doublemint Twins might be two, two, two movies in one… but that doesn’t mean we need two Kirks.

24. Cygnus-X1 - July 1, 2007

The Makers are certainly saying all of the right things. I have the feeling of being successfully wooed.

The casting will be the next big news. And, the next test of their competence.

(By the way, I agree with Anthony about “First” having grown tiresome, especially when the first post is little more than a triumphant declaration of having been the first person to post a trite non-commentary, which is, then, followed by several, posted, failed attempts at the aforementioned greatness.)

25. Anthony Pascale - July 1, 2007

you know when the writers say is ST08 a ‘reboot’ they say ‘it is in they eye of the beholder’ and that is certainly true. that is because there is no single definition of the word. ST08 is certainly a ‘reboot’ in the way that it is trying to breath life into the franchise and bring more people into it. Is it ‘reboot’ in terms of throwing out the old continuity. According to the writers and others i have talked to about the film…no it is not.

26. VOODOO - July 1, 2007

At this point I agree with Anthony.

I think you will see updated sets/special effects and the film will deal with current topics rather than the hot button issues of the 1960,s.

As well as obviously have new actors playing the TOS characters,but I think they will stay with the old continuity.

If this is the case I think it’s the best way to go.

PS: Just from a fan’s perspective I hope they did indeed find a way to write Shatner + Nimoy in as they mentioned this week. We should know fairly soon.

27. Florian - July 1, 2007

I think they dont want to do a reboot and they wont. But the studio wants a reboot so they call it reboot even if it isn’t.

28. Tino - July 2, 2007

I have to wonder about this whole “it’s for the fans and it’s for newcomers as well”. Many Star Trek-films have claimed this to be the case and it never happened. Pardon me for saying but with a 40-year-franchise, it’s hard for newcomers not to be intimidated. I know a lot of people that think one has to have that knowledge in order to enjoy Star Trek.

29. spsblue - July 2, 2007

9: Enterprise: The First Adventure
Personally, that book just reads as wrong, they knew what happened in the pilot – Pike etc. but chose to ignore it. Where was Mitchell? How did Dr MacCoy get there so early?

Too many holes…. and what is with the winged horses!

30. Jeffrey S. Nelson - July 2, 2007

If Shatner appears as Kirk, I doubt very much that the Nexus will receive much focus in explaining why he’s not dead, especially if “new” audiences aren’t to be baffled.

31. Al - July 2, 2007

There will be no Nexus, no Q, nothing that a newbie audience would go Huh? to. Simple story will prevail and if Shatner is in it, it will as likely be playing his grandad down on the farm. Has to be. No other way.

32. Stanky (The Anti-Fake Kirk) McFibberich - July 2, 2007

Bang. Bang. Bang.

What’s that noise?

It’s my head against the wall trying to drown out the comments of those who think they have figured out what the movie will be like from the few non-informational comments that have been dished out so far.

Bang. Bang. Bang.

There. That’s better.

33. trekmaster - July 2, 2007

@Al
What did Roddenberry always try to say? The audience IS NOT DUMB! So please, Moore and Braga were not able to present us a dangerous borg collectice because that would have been to complicated. I ask you, where is the spirit of “star trek: the motion picture”? The nexus is too complicated? Hey, please! We’re talking about STAR TREK and not about Pokemon etc.!!! With that kind of thinking Kubrick’s “2001” would never have been made.

34. Spud - July 2, 2007

It’s your opinion, but don’t you think that’s a little too obvious?

No I don’t. If we are to see any kind of older Kirk post Generations. It will be in the form of what if. JJ will not simple ignore Generations and Kirks death. JJ cannot afford to simply ignore the fans that will make up about 1/2 of the revenue brought in. JJ cant cheat the fans regarding Kirks death. William Shatner will only appear as Kirk IMO. So will Leonard Nimoy only appear as Spock IMO. Perhaps this is why Leonard Nimoy was singed on already. Its easer to do the flash back with Spock as he is still alive. The core of this movie will deal with a young Kirk and Spock. Two movies in one? If you build it “right” they will come.

35. Shadow6283 - July 2, 2007

#21. Xai – July 1, 2007
#18 Shadow6283

If you know something more than this site reports that factually says a reboot, I’ll let you say “I told you so”.

Otherwise, In My Opinion…you are throwing gasoline around in here again.

Don’t you mean antimatter?

I’m throwing something around here that, as typified by your response, is sorely lacking: Common sense, and you’d better get used to it or else you’re really going to be unnerved come 2008 when that movie finally comes out.

Star Trek: Apocalypse

36. Spud - July 2, 2007

J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk have been handed the rains to the Star Trek franchise. They have been given a budget that doubles all the previous movies. Its about 100 Million. They are beining asked to save it. Now if you are in there seats how do you fill the theater seats? The fans make up about 1/2 to 1/3 the revenue stream. So you need to bring in new fans and yes old ones back as well. Old school baby boomers that grew up in the 60’s. This is why they need Shatner and Nimoy. Baby boomers will come out in droves to see one last ride just from them two. Even if its a small but meaningful part. Then they will also need to target the LOST and MI3 fans as well. So 1. You need a very good story with lots of action, adventure and drama. 2. You go back to what worked best 40 years ago. 3.You respect the franchise and perhaps just do a mild reboot meaning younger actors with some of the mannerisms the original actors had. What better consultants to have for input then Shatner and Nimoy. And some small upgrades like the movies did as well. My bet is this will be the best Star Trek movie made.

37. Kyle Nin - July 2, 2007

#25: “There is no single definition of the word reboot.”

That’s a lie. Check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(continuity)

It states: “Reboot, in serial fiction, means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew. Effectively, all previously-known history is declared by the writer to be null and void and the series starts over from the beginning.”

I think that’s a pretty clear definition.

38. StillKirok - July 2, 2007

#20, you cannot possibly judge Enterprise as more successful than TOS because of # seasons. Enterprise survived because of the lousy network, combined with the ridiculous belief that fans will keep coming back despite the poor quality. It was the Star Trek name that kept the show on the air for so long. On a real network, it wouldn’t have survived half a season.

Enterprise had a fraction of the audience TOS had.

As for Shatner playing a granddad of Kirk, that’s just a stupid idea. It’s so stupid, I would expect it from Berman or Braga. It’s not something I would expect out of this team.

39. Kyle Nin - July 2, 2007

#38:

I still think Enterprise (and TNG and DS9) is better than TOS. There’s not really any amount of convincing that will make me change my mind. Sorry.

40. trekmaster - July 2, 2007

The question, will TOS be TNGised while its represented in our time? Is the TNGisation a must we can’t get away from?

41. Kyle Nin - July 2, 2007

#40:

Star Trek 6 wasn’t released THAT long ago. Unless the 90’s is considered a long long time ago.

42. Richard Gere - July 2, 2007

When he said two movies in one, I took it as a movie for Star Trek fans and not fans also.

43. snake - July 2, 2007

It’ll be a reboot in terms of ‘slightly’ updating the uniforms, ships, sets, SFX, actors etc (therefore in a similar way to TMP being a reboot of TOS and TWOK being a reboot of TMP)

and they probably won’t deviate too much from what they were…(Abrams teaser poster)

other than that its a prequel to TOS

Theres plenty to use – both TOS and Star Trek II had heaps of backstory they can use (USS Farragut, Pike, Gary Mitchell, Kirks family from Operation Omlette, the Kobiashi Maru, Carol Marus, Sarek etc etc…theres so much)

I think that it”l draw on Wrath quite a lot too as they KNOW its fucking EVERYONEs fave film and the only trek film that can be realistically be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Star Wars (originals), Blade Runner , Alien etc

so i think thats what that writer meant when he said its gonna be like Wrath in the other article – not a crummy obvious recreation (like Nemesis) but a prequel to it – drawing on the backstory hinted at in that wonderful film….

I have a suspicion that Abrams and Co WONT use Shatner as Kirk as that would require flash fowards taking into account silly Generations ..nexus…Kirk falling off a bridge etc ..or an X3 cgi make over to set it pre Generations etc blah blah blah …yeah right they are sure to go to any of that trouble…

i think Shats will be Kirks pops

And Nimoy? – maybe a cameo as…Sarek?…a vulcan elder?….or maybe he WILL be Spock in old age (yeah post TNG even) – recountuing the story of how it (‘It’ being TOS) all began to the audience like some wise old Vulcan…..

Yes i like the sound of that….that way Nimoy would be Spock again and Shats Kirks pops – everyones appy!

44. Kyle Nin - July 2, 2007

#42:

I thought that’s what they said it was. A fan sees the movie differently than a non-fan sees the movie.

45. snake - July 2, 2007

Imagine if this new film is released and its so amazingly brilliant and it becomes so critically revered that it actually breaks out of the trek niche and movie goers love it (as do the trek fans) and it ends up doing about 400 million worldwide…

46. trekmaster - July 2, 2007

@#43
That would get along with the information we got from the last interview but maybe also it has a deaper meaning…

47. Spud - July 2, 2007

IMHO Shatner and Nimoy would not take part in any kind of major reboot that simply wipes out all of the work and story line put in to the first six movies and even parts of Generations. IMO when Nimoy says it has to be meaningful. He’s not just referring to a big pay day now folks. This is not just another Priceline commercial having fun. Nimoy has a good reputation. Shatner as much as I love him he would sell his tush to the devil for the right price. IMHO Shatner would love to undo his death Generations. IMO He knows that it was a big mistake and has had 13 years to think about it. IMO the reboot comes in the form of the younger crew. Kirks first mission with Spock. A movie in a movie. Flashback LOST style.

48. Kyle Nin - July 2, 2007

#43: “It’ll be a reboot in terms of ’slightly’ updating the uniforms, ships, sets, SFX, actors etc.”

That’s not a reboot. That’s “tweeking the aesthetics”. If they don’t ignore the established STORY, then it is not a reboot.

(See Post #37)

49. snake - July 2, 2007

ok its a tweek then

50. Harry Ballz - July 2, 2007

Here a tweek, there a tweek, everywhere a tweek tweek!!!

51. Spud - July 2, 2007

#43: “It’ll be a reboot in terms of ’slightly’ updating the uniforms, ships, sets, SFX, actors etc.”

That’s not a reboot. That’s “tweeking the aesthetics”. If they don’t ignore the established STORY, then it is not a reboot.

I agree. All this talk of reboot is making me horny. I need one of them classic girls in green…….. Some of the posters on this board seem to think they just give out a 100 million dollar budget to anyone clown now days. My bet is we see Shatner and Nimoy in the movie. Yes as an older Kirk and Spock only! No father grand father BS garbage. And my bet is JJ will find a vary fast and easy way to side step Generations if need be. I also bet JJ hits the two million dollar mark for revenue as well. Setting up a few more movies with the new crew. Other wise it just bombs and Star Trek will be dead!!!!!!!!!!! My money is on JJ.

52. Shadow6283 - July 2, 2007

Kyle Nin – July 2, 2007
#38:

I still think Enterprise (and TNG and DS9) is better than TOS. There’s not really any amount of convincing that will make me change my mind. Sorry.

Speaking solely for myself, who’s trying to convince you of anything? Watch whatever you want. Who cares? Go watch it and quit wasting your time in places where folks who are trying to change your mind about [FILL IN THE BLANK] and you won’t have to be bothered with it or them.

TPTB have the final say in the matter, not you, me or anyone else around here. They want Star Trek, no bloody A, B, C, D, E or G. That’s it. Cut and dried. If you don’t like it, too bad. Go watch G4 or Spike TV, because I’ll guarantee you this…Those are the only places where you’re going to see what you want for a long, long, long, long time.

53. Spud - July 2, 2007

38

Enterprise had a fraction of the audience TOS had.

As for Shatner playing a granddad of Kirk, that’s just a stupid idea. It’s so stupid, I would expect it from Berman or Braga. It’s not something I would expect out of this team.

I agree. You cant expect people like Kyle Nin who love DS9 to always look at the numbers. But the big boys at Paramount do. And don’t worry Kyle Nin will go and see the movie no matter what he says on this board. And if its good he will see it a few more times like all the rest of us Trek fans will. Enterprise was never more successful in anyway than TOS was. Even the Borg know this for a fact. The good news is Paramount knows this as well. Thank God! GO JJ…….

54. Al - July 2, 2007

There is NO way Shatner can credibly be in it except playing a relative. The popcorn audience which the film needs to appeal to have no knowledge of “the nexus” – half of them were in grade school when that film came out – and it is too difficult a concept to simply flash forward to (it would take too much time and too much money.)

I would not be surprised in the least if Nimoy played Spock’s grandfather and Shatner Kirk’s, dropping the kids off at the academy for their first semester in some sort of first act prequel. I’d be really really interested if Nimoy played Sarek (possible?)

That’s about all that can be done – age wise, story wise, practicality wise and money wise.

55. Xai (waiting for the facts, before judging) - July 2, 2007

#32 Stanky McFibberich, The King of Sanity, I bow to you….

Bud, you know I repect you and your opinion, even if it generally differs from mine… but I never figured I’d be rowing in the same boat as you.

Bang, bang bang…..

56. Xai (waiting for the facts, before judging) - July 2, 2007

35. Shadow6283 – July 2, 2007
So, in answer to my question…
No, you know nothing more than we do and are assuming things.
And I meant gasoline… as in flames.

Check back with me when something real comes across your desk.

X

57. Spud - July 2, 2007

54. Al – July 2, 2007

There is NO way Shatner can credibly be in it except playing a relative. The popcorn audience which the film needs to appeal to have no knowledge of “the nexus” – half of them were in grade school when that film came out – and it is too difficult a concept to simply flash forward to (it would take too much time and too much money.)

Al aren’t you the guy that said that no way JJ would use ILM. Bad news as ILM is on board with JJ. Never say no way or its too difficult a concept with JJ. Do your home work and watch LOST. You should also read up a little bit on this guy Nimoy as well. Again he will only play Spock in any Star Trek movie made. No Sarek. Remember the name Spud when my call is right! Don’t run and hide now. row row row your boat.

ILM To Provide Effects For ‘Star Trek’ – Enterprise To Appear In Film

58. Al - July 2, 2007

Nope, not me. Are you really named after a potato?

59. Aphelion - July 2, 2007

Has anyone at Paramount ever stopped to consider that the reason the last couple of films haven’t been successful is that they’re tailored for fans and non-fans? Why can’t we just get a Trek film that’s tailored *for fans*. Give us what we want, and we’ll come back for more. Idiots.

60. Thorny - July 2, 2007

Enterprise was a prequel, but its lackadaisical attention to canon made it more and more difficult to fit in with established Trek, and its casting was bad (Bakula just didn’t work) and the writing was even worse. But there was nothing inherent with the prequel concept that means Trek 11 must also fail. It was the execution of Enterprise that was severely mishandled, not the setting. Hopefully, Paramount learned its lesson and will put the resources into Trek 11 to prevent another disaster. By throwing Berman & Co. out the corporate airlock, they’ve taken the first step in that direction.

I’m a little worried about how the Enterprise will look on the big screen. If it isn’t a reboot, the movie will have to use an Enterprise very much like the TOS ship, but that ship doesn’t work well on the big screen, hence the redesigned Big E for the movies. Some amalgam of the Original and Movie Enterprises will be needed, but will fans accept it?

61. RandyYeoman - July 2, 2007

Aphelion

um…..bzzzzzzzzzzzzt…WRONG
The last two movies were in no way for anyone but the fans. Brent Spiner himself said so. From the look to the budget to the marketing to the stories….very very much targeted at the the ‘core’….and it is clear from the last two movies and the ratings of ENT that the core is not enough anymore. Making yet another movie of the same ol same ol is sure to be a bomb

remember
Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!

62. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 2, 2007

61. RandyYeoman – July 2, 2007

“….very very much targeted at the the ‘core’….and it is clear from the last two movies and the ratings of ENT that the core is not enough anymore. Making yet another movie of the same ol same ol is sure to be a bomb”

Is is possible, that maybe the product was disappointing. I liked “Enterprise,” but many fans didn’t. Instead of uniting the fan base, it seems that a product kept coming out that further divided them.

This next film will only succeed is if does the following…

1) Unites the fan base, to do that it will have to be “fresh” yet traditional. It has to be “revolutionary,” yet “status quo.” Can it be done? Yes, ST:TWOK and ST:TUC did it by linking to the past of TREK (Kahn in the former and Kirk versus the Klingons in the latter)

2) Provides a story compelling enough to attract non-trekers. You all, of course, should realize that there is a vast segment that will not…I say again…will not watch it because it simply is a “TREK movie!” These are the “action movie” fans and “chick flick” types with, upon seeing the poster for it, even after all other shows are sold out, will go bowling.

I suspect that these are the so called “new fan base,” an dgroup you will never get.

The trick will be in having a good story…one that the younger brother or sister of the “ANTI-TREKKER” can say…go, “you’ll like it.”

3) Create a balance in the above. If you produce a product that fans find…unpalitable…and that new people will find no interest in due to techno-bable or some other thing, then the film will always loose money.

Approach it like a “period film,” several of these films have been gems. One doesn’t need to know the in and outs of the “American Civil War” (War between the States) to understand and enjoy the film “Glory” or have all the knowledge of the Second World War to like “Saving Private Ryan.” Yet, both of these films are true to their era down to the most “canonical,” historical detail.

Why can we not have that in Star Trek?

63. CW - July 3, 2007

And Dorci says:
“‘Transformers’ is gonna get us nice and ready for the fans on ‘Star Trek.’ We’ve learned a lot, actually, from that. Again we, we’re diligent about, with J.J. Abrams, and with Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, agreeing what we all wanted to see first. And then this one, on ‘Star Trek,’ for example we don’t have the advantage or the luxury of the fact no one has ever seen it. People know what ‘Star Trek’ is. We don’t have the advantage of the fact (that Transformers has) the giant robots or something.”

Balony. If the Transformers fanbase was so small, then we wouldn’y have so many critics and defenders crawling out of the woodwork.
Apparently he hasn’t learned a darn thing.

64. CW - July 3, 2007

#8: “They wanted new fans with Enterprise and Enterprise failed.”

#20: After four seasons. As I recall, TOS only lasted for THREE.

Yeah, 3 seasons, 6 films and 4 spin-offs…

65. J. Parker - July 3, 2007

People, I think Harry’s review of Transformers doesn’t bode well for this project (unless it’s Michael Bay’s fault); Harry writes (URL below):

Bay’s TRANSFORMERS puts so much moving stuff on-screen that it literally wore my eyes out. On a single viewing, I was utterly exhausted. The images of Robot carnage and destruction are just awesome. ILM moved a shitload of pretty pixels in the making of this thing.

That said… as awesome as all of that is… I just can’t help, but notice how shabbily the Transformers were treated as characters. All of their dialogue felt as though it were an after-thought. Peter Cullen’s Optimus’ narration – as awesome as it was – felt like shabbily handled exposition. That said, this isn’t anything new. TRANSFORMERS as a story-telling epic, never really blew me away. And here, this isn’t a TRANSFORMERS story, it’s a human story involving Transformers. We’re introduced to them through characters that are too numerable.

66. Vifx Twokey - July 5, 2007

Let’s not beat arounf the bush. The script for Transformers was GODAWFUL. I’m still psyched that J.J. is doing Trek but after seeing their Orci and Kurtzman’s work on Transformers, my expectations for Trek have now taken a massive nose-dive. Please, please, please don’t blow this…

67. Jerrad Hermann - July 5, 2007

If the script for the new Star Trek movie is as full of plot holes and ridiculous crapola (even for a movie about giant transforming robots) as Transformers, then I have absolutely no faith in this project being worthwhile.

I love mindless summer action flicks as much as the next guy, but I spent most of the movie just laughing and shaking my head in disbelief at how insanely poorly thought out most of it was.

68. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 5, 2007

66. Vifx Twokey – July 5, 2007

67. Jerrad Hermann – July 5, 2007

Yikes?!? I have not seen TRANSFORMERS yet. Y’all are making me worry. I gre up watching the TRANFORMERS…am I to assume the “plot” has been raped and I might be offended or insulted as a fan?

And am I to expect the same for Star Trek?

This is not good news…

69. stspringfield - July 5, 2007

has there been any speculation that the script could parallel the novel

STAR TREK ENTERPRISE: THE FIRST ADVENTURE
by Vonda N. McIntyre

sorry if this has been brought up before..

70. stspringfield - July 5, 2007

apologize…saw number 9

71. Tom - July 5, 2007

Sounds like Superman Returns all over again.

72. Major Joe Ely Carrales, CAP - July 5, 2007

I will be seeing Transformers later today…or tomorrow ( my birthday and all), I will report with an open mind.

However, I have seen so many “reimaginings” in the last five years that…as a STAR TREK fan…I am concerned.

Let’s have a recap shall we…

“Planet of the Apes” I was disappointed that this franchise bought the bullet especially after that film series with Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter did so well. Mark Wahlberg’s movie was notthing close.

“Car 54″ Excellent 1950’s era police comedy, CRAPPED upon…I bet none of you saw it…outside of the venders giving them away in Progresso or Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

“Lost in Space” way off the mark, might have made a better BSG Television series. Mostly forgotten…no revitialization of the franchise.

“The Honeymooners” Jackie Gleason must have become airborne from spinning in his coffin.

“War of the World” Gene Barry’s verson had depth, and even a spin off Television show in the 1980s. Even there, that series’ first season was great…then they “rebooted” the second season (which was suppose to be this cool “Boy and His Dog” post WWIII sort of world) and is SUCKED!!! (If you ever see the last episode of it…have a barf bag)

There are many more, but the point is made.

73. J. Parker - July 5, 2007

More on Transformers from Ain’t It Cool News; is it really all Michael Bay’s fault? Is it just me, or does anyone else think this Trek flick will be a lot of noise and lights and not too well written? Pretty scary, but hey, maybe they can hire J. Michael Straczynski to do a re-write!

:(

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33228

For a movie produced by Spielberg it’s surprisingly low on awe. People are supposed to be surprised to see robots, but they always turn it into jokes. There’s not one second in the movie where you believe people are really reacting to seeing robots. In JURASSIC PARK or in WAR OF THE WORLDS or many other Spielberg movies, you believed these people really were having their minds blown by what was standing right in front of them. In TRANSFORMERS they say things like “It’s a robot. You know, like a super advanced robot. It’s probably Japanese,” and you’re supposed to laugh.

And half the time nobody even notices the robots. I should mention there is one other robot in this part of the movie, a little bad guy robot who makes wacky troll noises while hacking into the Pentagon computer. I think he’s supposed to be the cute comic relief character, a bad idea since there is no drama or tension to relieve. He crawls around, over and through hundreds of humans waving his many limbs all over and making loud grunts and power tool noises without ever once being detected. Either these robots are invisible or the people in charge of our national security are even more incompetent than anyone ever imagined.

74. Stanky McFibberich - July 5, 2007

73. J. Parker
“Is it just me, or does anyone else think this Trek flick will be a lot of noise and lights”

I am assuming that will be what it is, regardless of whatever bull has been dished out thus far by the makers. It’s amazing how many people are willing to just take these writers and producers, etc. at their word. Naturally they are going to say whatever they think people want to hear. They may even believe what they say, but when it comes down to it, the proof will be on what shows up on the screen.

Action movies in general bore me unless the action is just a logical extension of the plot. Explosions and speed and fights and whatnot just for the sake of action interest me not.

75. Xai - July 5, 2007

I am amazed that anyone can judge a film based upon nothing.. no script, no cast (announced as of July5) no information (other than Iceland and ILM information.) and no title.

Someone thinks it’ll suck because Transformers seems to be a “marginal”film.

Someone thinks that there will be multiple flashback scenes because that’s the way Abrams structures “Lost”

Someone assumes the movie will suck because Shatner is in it / not in it.

My Opinion.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.