Orci & Kurtzman: We Were Called To Duty For Star Trek August 27, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
This Sunday, Star Trek writers and exec. producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman will be the guests on Life After Film School on the Fox Movie channel, a show where Hollywood big shots like Bob and Alex talk to real film school students. Fox has released a clip of the show, where the pair talk about what it was like taking on Star Trek and all of that canon.
CLIP from "Life After Film School"
click to view (Opens new window)
transcript
Student: You guys wrote the script for the upcoming Star Trek film, which takes place before The Original Series era. This means it is almost a prequel to the original Star Trek show. Were there any challenges laying the foundations to something with such a heavy structure to it already in place, with such a canon?
Orci: Our version of Star Trek is not exactly a prequel. It is in some ways and you will have to see it to label it exactly. Canon, that is a word that was invented for Star Trek, meaning, does it fall within the continuity of this forty-year puzzle. But it was amazing when we went back to look at Star Trek, no one had ever done the story about how the original crew came together.
Kurtzman: [laughs] how is this possible?
Orci: Yeah, there’s five thousand hours of Star Trek and no one ever covered how they all met [laughs]. So in a way that was liberating in that no one had stated how that happened exactly. And because we had been fans truly–who knew all those years sitting in front of the TV watching Transformers and Star Trek that we weren’t wasting our time. It was all tax deductible. It was daunting, but we thought, if we can’t do it, the no one can! No, not exactly. But it was like we had been called to duty and it woudl have felt cowardly to back away just because ‘it has been forty years, what can we do?’
Kurtzman: I think also, as daunting as it was, because it has such a die-hard fan base. And it has forty years of rules that you can’t re-write…
Orci: Or can you?
Kurtzman: [laughs]…the thing that compelled us to do it, it is very very rare to be handed a franchise that you love as a kid. Are you kidding me, you want to give us Star Trek, like are you insane? First we were scared, not because we didn’t think it was worthy, but because we didn’t think we were worthy of it. So it became about thinking if we were going to do this, what did we love about it, what inspired us when we were kids? And how do we get back to that feeling? And what was that feeling about for us? And ultimately it was very much about Kirk and Spock and that Bridge crew. So what got us through the fear–the excitement of that opportunity–was probably comes once in a lifetime.
——————-
The Orci/Kurtzman episode of Life After Film School airs on the Fox Movie Channel on Sunday August 31st at 7:30 PM ET and 4:30 PT. For more on the show visit foxmoviechannel.com.
Loading ...
Comments»
I love their approach.
Of course you’re worthy! :)
I want their jobs. Can I have their Jobs? They sound like they have REALLY good jobs.
I need a job. :-P
I would of asked the million doller question,,, Is Shanter in this movie ?
:-D
Glad these two kids are respectful and intelligent with a sense of humor. Will be very surprised if they don’t deliver big time.
OK, I hope they were speaking facetiously & don’t REALLY think that the word “canon” was invented for Trek.
And at least two people have tackled the question of how the original crew met… Mike W. Barr & Vonda McIntyre.
I hope these kids can steer.
That was nice. How great would it be to have a job where you get to work on things you love like that?! (Transformers and Trek)
#4—”Shanter” is definitely not in the film…
If that was really worth a million dollars, please make the check out to…me.
“Or can you?”
Mmmm… wonder what he meant by that?
#7 Great comment! Who gave them a special pass to the candy store? I was watchin’ Trek looong before they were e’er in diapers.
This is all great and all, lots of people from the film saying great things about it. Almost every single day we read something good said about the film from the crew, the actors, people who have “seen” it, and so on and so forth. And we sit here read it, and I’m actually getting more depressed with each thing I read because I keep realizing I won’t be seeing it three months from now. I’ll be seeing it SEVEN months from now.
Of course, I expect to be excited again, like when the trailer comes out, and in the month before the move opens, but in the time in between that what? I’ll keep reading how GREAT this movie is from other people. I’ll be reading the nth Zachary Quinto interview about being Spock and the nth Simon Pegg interview about Scotty and his Trek fandom, and the nth JJ Abrams interview about his Trek being faithful, etc. etc.
It’s like we’re dogs being dangled a bone, hanging from a fishing rod attached to our bodies. And we keep running after it, getting hungry with each passing moment, and we’re just.not.reaching.it.
Uh… sorry about that. Woke up on the frustrating side of the bed. Excuse me. I’ll go watch some Chuck Norris movie now.
“I hope these kids can steer.”
*applause*
6. John Trumbull – August 27, 2008
“And at least two people have tackled the question of how the original crew met… Mike W. Barr & Vonda McIntyre.”
Yeah but those weren’t….canon!
“Or can you?”
That comes closer to confirming the rumors that this will create an alternate timeline loophole yada yada yada for the movie and continuing movies.
So basically it’s their way of doing a remake while still throwing some scraps at all the die hard fans that stuck with the show(s)/ movies for so long.
Essentially the same thing DC has done with their timeline over and over again. One of the reasons I don’t bother to follow DC comic books.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, when it comes to anything, excitement inevitably leads to disappointment. I grow pessimistic already.
No wonder he’s been ignoring me. I’ve been calling him the ORKster. When its more like ORSter as in Worcestershire.
I’m confused.
THE WOMEN!!
=h=
Some how I feel that Star Trek is in good hands not only because of the writers but the cast as well. Simon Pegg and others have such a deep love for Star Trek it comes out everytime they talk about it.
John Trumbull – August 27, 2008
OK, I hope they were speaking facetiously & don’t REALLY think that the word “canon” was invented for Trek.
A: Naturally… meant it in the vein of “Michael Jordan was born to play basketball…”
Roberto and Alex rule!!! Nice to hear from the other half of the writing team!
Alex don’t be a stranger.
Love Roberto’s sotto voice- ‘or can you?’
… the adventure continues….
I love the way Boborci can whip out the Vulcan salute without any effort – the sign of a true blue trekkie. So can I, thanks to practicing since I was a kid.
Note to Boborci – I think you’re gaining a little too much weight. Time to ease off the doritos, dude.
always nice when you visit, Bob
#4
More like a $2.00 question.
I like these guys. They are alright.
Thanks, gentlemen.
They look like Trey Parker and Matt Stone 5 years in the future
#9 re #4.
No, no, wait a minute – maybe a tam o’shanter *IS* in the film. Scotty wears one, for all we know.
And which canon? The one in 1812 overture? That’s the one that was invented for Sar Trek?
#20. lay off Bob O. I think we all have to calm down a little when it comes to people’s physical appearances.
#25. Note to self: Be sure not to misspell something when I’m busy mocking someone else for misspelling something. Karmic.
That’s STAR Trek, of course. Not SAR Trek.
WHAT ABOUT SHATNER!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Janice – August 27, 2008
I love the way Boborci can whip out the Vulcan salute without any effort – the sign of a true blue trekkie. So can I, thanks to practicing since I was a kid.
Note to Boborci – I think you’re gaining a little too much weight. Time to ease off the doritos, dude.
A: I know, it’s true. Hanging around sets makes you fat. I’ve lost ten pounds since that interview!
Boborci – Good to see you guys on video.
I have to say, I’m really looking to see the movie that you and Alex wrote.
Hearing good stuff so far ;-)
Thanks for visiting these humble forums and actually speaking to the fan community.
#15—”That comes closer to confirming the rumors that this will create an alternate timeline loophole yada yada yada for the movie and continuing movies.
So basically it’s their way of doing a remake…”
Or Bob is just being Bob…(”bobbing” and weaving)
#17—Yeah, Urban gives me the same kind of feeling. But ever since Pegg sparred with that jacka$$ from that L.A. rag paper (who went out of his way to denegrate Star Trek fans), he earned a bigtime fan of his own right then and there…me.
#22—lol.
Hi, Bob! Nice to see you posting again, and I hope our various speculations have proven entertaining. (You lucky guys already know, while we still have to wonder for another 8.5 months! ;) )
I know this must be part of the plan, but I wish the whole discussion weren’t so confusing on whether this film is part of the rest of Trek, or not. Mr. Pegg and Ms. Saldana seemed pretty explicit that it is, while Mr. Quinto’s comments were taken to be less certain, and so forth.
Realizing, of course, that there have been reports of various alternate time tracks seen in the film, and all that, and also of course realizing that there have to be some visual evolutions, I just hope that the “origin story” part still dovetails with the rest of Trek, in terms of storytelling. If you guys could just tell me that it does, I could so breathe easy and be ready to go for whatever the rest of the ride will be.
I know you probably won’t, and I guess that’s my cross to bear, but still… :)
“can you do the Vulcan hand salute?” Then the kid does it WRONG!!! puh-lease!
Will a trailer be out this fall? Maybe with Eagle Eye?
Janice#20- The “doritos” comment was totally berefit of class, especially since you know Mr. Bob comes here to read.
why doesn’t Alex ever Comment here?……oh Denise # 34, you may have just answered that.
“a show where Hollywood big shots like Bob and Alex”
LOLOLOL!
I dont think that they think of themselves that way! Clint Eastwood, etc. are big shots! Writers have never been respected like they should be. But, everyone is just doing their job in the entertainment world, and that is what no one gets!
Well, Bob and Alex are pretty big. They did write Transformers which was huge, so don’t underestimate the writers.
I’ve made a command decision absent a response in the affirmative. I must defer to nostalgia. Nostalgia dictates THE ORCSTER, without further contest or correctals. SO it shall be.
THE WOMEN!!!
=h=
Bob,
Are you just going insane trying to dance around the big question like “Is it a prequel? Is it a reboot?”. Movie is about 9 months away, and you must be dying to talk about it.
The Star Trek universe in novel form is spotty, at best, in terms of quality. I don’t care if the origins of the Enterprise crew are covered in book form; it needs to be on screen to count.
Oh yeah, one more thing: screw Shatner.
Not the actor; just all of this repetitive, annoying talk about him. (And not necessarily in this thread, either.)
I am once again reminded of how enthused I am about the casting :)
- This movie should be a good movie..i never saw before a movie produced into an interactive way …and i’m really happy to see mr. Boborci keeping the contact with the fans…
I think he will, from what I understand the Transformers fans are kept well in the loop too.
And once it’s announced that he and Kurtzman will be writing the Superman reboot, I hope he’ll do the same for Superman fans….
I envy these guys so much, I think everyone has an idea or a Star Trek story up their sleaves, I mean we’ve heard so many ideas about how to Bring Back Kirk for example, but to actually get the opportunity to sit down and write a Star Trek movie…. wow
I really hope they come up with the goods as im sure they will, and Bob, your interaction with the fans on this site only heightens my respect for you and my faith in this new film… kudos
Bob Orci,
Get busy on writing a story which includes “The Return Of Captain Kirk”.
Snag Shatner and Nimoy while time is still on their side.
You will be remembered with love and honor for crafting such a story/movie among Trekkers.
You cannot create chemistry with the new cast no matter what has been said or written about. It comes with aging and familiarity. Like an old pair of worn and soft loafers.
That is what I fear about this new movie the most. Forced chemistry seems shallow.
#45 “You cannot create chemistry with the new cast no matter what has been said or written about.”
While I agree, chemistry is important, TOS was magic in that that chemistry DID exist from day one. The first episode filmed was Corbomite Maneuver and the crew feels like they have been together for 10 years. It’s that rare magic that happens once in a blue moon. Whether or not the new cast has that “connection” has yet to be seen but one thing is for certain, it can’t be manufactured. Lets hope they screen tested each actor against one another, partuclarly Pine, Quinto and Urban and witnessed a little of that magic before they signed the dotted line.
#7 – “I hope these kids can steer.”
Excellent.
Lets face it, whilst this movie will throw a lot out for the fans, the nostalgic bits and pieces like the sound effects of the doors and the look of the uniforms and the look of the Enterprise – this film won’t be for the fans that cant accept change. This is very much a film that will chart a different course for Star Trek – i hope it doesn’t rely too much on an “alternate universe” because if Abrams want’s to make it as real as possible – the idea or an alternate universe is just a little far fetched. I can see the problem being that they have focused on their favorite episodes (Balance of Terror and Yesterday’s Enterprise) and made a film relating to that kind of story telling – when in fact they should have looked at the entire Original Series – sorted the worst episodes from the bad and came up with a NEW story about what Roddenberry set out to do in the first place – inform people about the world they lived in within this sci-fi concept of a wagon train to the stars. in essence they should have created a western in space rather than a complex alternate timeline story to excuse the fact that they DO want to take this franchise into uncharted regions.
i have a feeling although this film will be good – they’ve taken too many steps to ensure they don’t mess with what has gone before, they’ve listened to the smallest percentage of the fan base that speaks out but forgotten about the silent majority who would just love to see Kirk take on the Gorn again or to see Kirk fight a Klingon or figure out how to destroy the doomsday machine.
I hope this movie isn’t just about an alternate timeline excuse to get away from the 40 year back story it has, i hope they are bold enough to suggest that an audience should forget about the last 40 years because our Star Trek is better – in perhaps a way that maybe elder Spock has to re-write history to save the future – in essence i hope that it acknowledges the past 40 years but through the story – wipes the slate clean.
The majority of fans will love it as long as it’s a good ride that is in the vein of how Roddenberry told his TOS stories.
The comment about being able to classify it once it is seen is fascinating.
Is old Spock on a holodeck, or having his memories sifted? Is Star Trek 2009 taking a page from the nasty Star Trek: Enterprise Valentine? Or are we in a post-Katra situation where Nimoy is revisiting a la Surak? Or is he having an Inner Light experience? Or is it inside out, and everything we’ve seen is the Inner Light? I have a Twilight Zone feeling from such comments. However in spite of that sense, it is somehow… reassuring.
A peculiar note: other than Star Trek: Enterprise… the character of Spock has been alive during the timeframe of TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY. Could Nimoy’s Spock be ‘not as we know it’? Could he be “old Quinto”?
The 8.5 month mystery we have to endure is severe, but if necessary, I am prepared to airlift as many bags of Doritos[tm] into the Writers Zone to ensure the production of the next movies after ST’09…
Long live the Supremes!
49 – i believe he uses a time-ship to go back and stop the Romulans from killing kirk but… does he succeed or does he have to change history so that he saves the future of humanity… re-setting the timeline and re-setting how Kirk and crew all met and went off on their 5 year mission – thus making it easier to write future movies without having to worry about what had gone before – ala Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
#50 It seems less likely though from what has been said. It seems there is not a reset button with this: more of a ‘things are not exactly what they seem to be’. And they wouldn’t have made the “every apparent canon violation with have a canon explanation” comment previously if they were planning on an “overstrike”. I think it’s more of an Insert key still.
replace ‘with’ with ‘will’
#30 “But ever since Pegg sparred with that jacka$$ from that L.A. rag paper (who went out of his way to denegrate Star Trek fans), he earned a bigtime fan of his own right then and there…me.”
Agreed, Closet! Pegg has really endeared himself to me, and I look forward to seeing his interpretation of Starfleet’s greatest engineer. And I also agree with what someone said in another thread – Pegg at a convention would be the best!
#25–u compounded ur error by misspelling cannon…in star trek its canon…in 1812 overture its CANNON…as in the CANNONS FIRED THEIR ROUNDS OFF AT MIDNIGHT… :S
and everyone stop obsessing iver whether the new film’s CANON or not; in truth the multiple realities of star trek make it so every onair, film, novel, comic book, and ‘fanon’ story is all official canon since star trek utilizes the concept of infinite possible realities LOL
so i suppose even star trek V and nemesis must be ruled CANON then… {wishes Q would turn rick berman and the shat into a couple of pieces of bacon for the travesties that were V and X (how ironically funny that the roman numerals of The Final Frontier and Nemesis spell out VX–one of the most deadly biotoxins known to man) (LMFAO)}
#54. I know, I know! I intended to misspell “cannon” as “canon.” I was makin’ a funny. Sheesh.
#55. I also meant to add: Since we’re on the subject of the 1812 Overture, is Napoleon in this movie? I heard he was offered a cameo and turned it down. Personally, I’m certain he’ll be in an easter egg at the end of the credits.
Sorry. In a non sequitur kind of mood today.
Oh yeh, where the F is Gary Mitchell? He was a significant character of the original crew, we get Chekov instead? Mitchell was a pretty interesting character; seems they could have done a lot with him. Doesn’t seem like Mitchell will be there, or if he is, it will be very minor…
I wish these guys would answer the Mitchell question.
#20: aaaggghhhh!
Isn’t it nice how some people can say the most inappropriate things to a total stranger while hiding behind the internet screen where no one can see who you are?
Thank goodness William Shatner wasn’t on too.. she might have asked if he was wearing a toupee…
Wouldn’t we all like to be called to such duty…
I can’t imagine that the Star Trek franchise is going to be changed all that much, in the same way neither the Batman or Bond franchises have really changed much… and yet, both of those have been refreshed and energized enough to bring people to the theater. I expect much the same with Star Trek. It will be re-energized, it may look a bit different, but it won’t be altered to the point that it isn’t Star Trek anymore (altered time-lines and all that – unless they propose that Kirk’s death was part of the altered time-line, and Spock is setting it right again). In fact, I have a feeling this movie is going to be more of what Star Trek was during TOS, more so than any other version of Trek. I clearly remember the look, the mood, the feel of WNMHGB when it first aired. By the time Star Trek was having kids and dogs in space, that feeling was gone (for me, anyway). I’m hoping this film will “bring back that Star Trek feeling, whoa that Star Trek feeling….”
#57—”Oh yeh, where the F is Gary Mitchell?”
Well, he wouldn’t be in any Academy scenes depicting Kirk as a cadet, since Lt. Kirk was an instructor in one of Mitchell’s classes there.
If Ens. Chekov is depicted at the navigator’s console on the bridge of the Enterprise under Kirk’s command, then presumably the events on Delta Vega have already passed at that point, and Lt. Cmdr Mitchell is already buried.
Still, Paul McGillion’s “mystery character” may indeed be Gary Mitchell.
#50—”I believe he uses a time-ship to go back and stop the Romulans from killing kirk ”
Why would Romulans want to kill Kirk? It seems to me that they would have much more reason to kill a young Spock (if assasination is their objective at all). Spock is responsible for fanning the flames of political change on Romulus, and there is the added possibility of vengeance sought over his seduction and betrayal of the Romulan Commander in “The Enterprise Incident” (not to mention any potential “consequences” of that encounter).
I can think of no reason that the rogue Romulans would have any personal agenda involving the assasination of James Kirk. This story is obviously somewhat “Spock-centric”, it seems, so wouldn’t a beef with Spock make much more sense?
Bob,
if you ever visit Toronto, Id love to have a coffee and chat. My buddies and I are always having these huge discussions about it at Tim Horton’s. I’d buy you a coffee, would love to hear some of your thoughts on some of the later shows as well as the original.
Get Kevin Smith in here we need to grill that monkey!!!
#57 -Balock
” where the F is Gary Mitchell? He was a significant character of the original crew, we get Chekov instead? ”
Gary Mitchell was NOT a significant character, he was in one episode and mentioned he knew Kirk at the academy. We may never see him in this movie, perhaps only as a cameo mention as he was NOT significant.
Chekov, on the otherhand, was in most of the original series… had episodes where he was key and was in all the the original cast movies. Why would you even say he wasn’t significant? Get your facts straight.
#60 – Closettrekker also makes a good point on this.
Roberto & Alex,
Using song as a spring board, how would you describe your Star Trek movie?
Watching the ‘American Idol’ Beatles week with my kids a couple of things occurred to me. The Beatles and Star Trek are actually pretty similar. Both are icons of the 20th century that have lived beyond their 1960’s roots. Both are ingrained into the minds of those of us over 40. We know those original Beatles songs so well that any time we hear a cover of one it almost invariably falls way short of the original classic by John, Paul, George & Ringo. Same with Star Trek, we all knows those original episodes so well that any attempt at a cover version would almost invariably fall way short of the original, ‘The Naked Now’ anyone??
While Star Trek has had four TV show spin-offs and 10 movies, no one has gone back and done a ‘cover’ of the original. The new Star Trek movie is really the first time anyone has gone back and tried to take classic Trek and re-done it.
Using the Beatles song analogy look at four different types of how an artist re-records a song,
the cover version,
the samples version,
the magnified version,
the re-interpretation.
The cover version. ‘No Doubt’ did a cover version of the song ’It’s my life’ by Talk Talk. They did nothing to enhance the song, it was a carbon copy with updated instruments and production values but still the exact same song. To me this is a wasted effort. Why not just play the original? No Doubt’s version was just a rip off . There are sadly many many further examples of this ‘cover’ approach
The Sampled version. Here a musician will use a riff, chorus or part of the original song and build up from there to create a totally different song often with a completely different message, tempo or idea.
“Set Adrift On Memory Bliss” (Richie Rich MIx) by P.M. Dawn Is one such example. Attrell & Jarett Cordes sampled a riff from ‘True’ by the group Spandau Ballet. P.M. Dawn’s song was a totally different song than Spandau Ballet in tone, beat and meaning and yet the basic underlying track from ‘True’ was obviously present in the finish song. This is a perfect example of taking a piece of something and creating a totally different end product. The original piece is still present but it has no relation to its origin and only serves to create a completely different experience.
This takes much more talent and imagination that a mere cover version. It does not however bring anything new to the original and as a result diminishes the original however slightly.
The Magnification version. Magnification is more than a cover of the original, but less than a reinvention. it is as the name implies, a multiplication of what is there to begin with. Whatever the original elements are they are multiplied making a richer, fuller and more powerful experience but still completely recognizable to the original.
A perfect example of this is the Spiderman theme. The 1967 cartoon’s theme song is a classic. 27 years later Michael Buble did a cover for the Spiderman 2 movie. It was everything the original was – only more. More horns, more beats, more power, more overblown, it was a movie version of the TV version and a home run in terms of redoing the song.
Lastly is the re-interpretation of an original. Some thing that takes the basic elements and keeping them in tune with their original meaning but presents it in a fashion that is new and fresh. Watching the American Idol singers trying to cover something as iconic as the Beatles really drove home this point. The most successful was Chjkezie’s version of ‘She’s a Woman’. It was presented in a totally new fashion and style but was still completely recognizable. It made a song I have heard 1000 times new and fresh. This is the riskiest because if the re-invention is off, then you miss big time but if you hit it than it is a totally new experience.
So which version do you think this new Star Trek is?
The 40 year old in me hopes it will be a Magnification, taking the 1960’s TV show and make it epic in scope and content. The kid in me hopes it will be something more daring though, the re-invention. Taking something I have seen 1000 times and presenting it in a new way, where the original is still recognizable but fresh.
Thanks Guys! Really looking forward to the new movie
Cover -
“It’s My Life” Talk Talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvAVJTQeFiQ
“It’s My Life” Gwen Stefani, No Doubt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEAzxDMYrWU
Sample -
“True” Spandau Ballet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYb83KM4at4
“Set Adrift On Memory Bliss” (Richie Rich MIx) – P.M. Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMpmW68VnaE
Magnification
Spiderman Theme – original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o29VoxtsFk
Spiderman Theme – Michael Buble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1AuWZFGng4
Re-Interpretation –
“She’s A Woman” – The Beatles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s70eUqZIbP8&feature=related
“She’s a Woman” – Chikezie (American Idol)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7P3fEnDZs&feature=related
#48 – I don’t think the people who want this to be part of the rest of Trek are the smallest anything. :)
I think what people are willing to accept are that production values have evolved and we can’t ignore that fact. That’s perfectly fine. But if you start saying that the last 40 years are no longer relevant? That’s gonna be a problem, and not a small one, IMHO. What this film should be is a fresh stylistic take that doesn’t pretend the rest of it “didn’t happen”, and doesn’t use cheap dodges like alternate universes to run away from that history. That would be among the worst forms of betrayal.
#65—”But if you start saying that the last 40 years are no longer relevant? That’s gonna be a problem, and not a small one, IMHO. What this film should be is a fresh stylistic take that doesn’t pretend the rest of it “didn’t happen”, and doesn’t use cheap dodges like alternate universes to run away from that history. That would be among the worst forms of betrayal.”
I once asked Bob Orci how seeing this movie would affect my future viewings of TOS reruns, hinting at the inquiry of whether it was going to make what happened in TOS irrelevant.
His answer to me was that he hoped it would “enhance the experience” of watching TOS.
While that is Bob being Bob, and not really giving up a clear answer, I interpreted that to mean that any changes in the timeline would be subtle, and not really affecting the outcomes of “future” events as we know it.
I do not believe at this point that STXI will “wipe the slate clean”. I think Pegg is probably correct in suggesting that it will add to the Star Trek mythology–not subtract from it.
Bob made another comment in response to a poster’s question. He said that “anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”.
That means to me that there will indeed be some alterations to the timeline we know. That could mean only asthetic appearances of things like the Enterprise, the uniforms, etc.. Who knows?
My belief is that Spock (Nimoy) is only partially successful in preventing the Romulan villains from achieving their goal of changing history (to whatever end that may be), but successful enough to protect the outcomes of important events (like TOS episodes), yet not successful enough to prevent things from appearing just a little bit different.
They have made clear (to me) that they are not running away from Star Trek history. They simply wish to tell the origin story of the iconic TOS-era characters which was never before told in 79 (or 80, counting Spock’s appearance in “The Cage”) live-action episodes or 6 films.
I think that Orci and Kurtzman want their story to fit within that canon…not replace it.
I have faith in these guys. I think they will do a good job.
Though his statement that canon was invented because of Trek is a little odd.
I think a reboot may not be that bad of an idea. Being boxed in by canon, continuity, and having to make everything fit together within so many different incarnations of Trek makes for stale script writing. It is hard to keep the audience in suspense when they will have an idea of what the future holds for our characters. A reboot would save Trek from becoming stale, repetitious and predictable. Trek is supposed to be about exploration of the unknown, sometimes dangerous and mysterious. Canon and continuity are often very opposed to the “unknown” quality Trek is supposed to have.
#66 – All rhetoric aside, that’s pretty much my interpretation, as well. Excepting a few comments that seem to be thrown in just to stir the pot, the consistent position of just about everybody connected with the film is that, in the end, it’s supposed to be the origin story that leads in to all the rest, even if the visualization of that story is a bit different than what could be put on a TV screen in 1966.
There’s still just this little paranoid part of me that worries that they really have drunk the Moore-ian Kool-Aid and just want to be subtle about it until it’s too late. ;) I could, of course, be worrying needlessly, but there really aren’t words to describe how much better they’d make me feel if they’d just tell me that I am.
non sequitor here: I don’t recall reading this here on any of the threads before, but I just discovered who Chris Pine’s dad is… Actor Rober Pine from the old TV series CHIPs (sorry I never watched it… it was just too cheesy for my tastes).
I looked him up online and you can definitely see a familial father-son resemblance.
AND
There’s a TREK link here too, as the elder Pine put in guest appearances on both Star Trek – Voyager and on Star Trek – Enterprise. way cool!
oooh, who says there’s so such thing as seven degrees of separation (smile), especially in Hollywood?
#68 – “A reboot would save Trek from becoming stale, repetitious and predictable.”
No it wouldn’t. Not in the least. In fact, it gives license to just do many of the same things over again, because then there’s no reason to check and see that, sure, it’s already been done, let’s try something else.
I don’t think a consistent continuity is in any way at all contrary to challenges and creativity. In fact, I think it supports them better than any reboot possibly could.
Just MHO, of course, but it comes from 20 years of my own writing in the Trekverse. :)
Montreal Paul
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve always been confused by the multitude of people around here who seem to think that Gary Mitchell is a significant Star Trek character. Like you said, he was in one episode and he frakkin’ died. Hell, why not put Harry Mudd in the flick. At least he was in TWO episodes.
By the same logic they should put Ben Finney, Finnegan, and all of Kirk’s former girlfriends that appeared in one episode. Can you imagine the utterly bloated and confusing mess of a crapfest we would bear witness to in May?
David R
you have made that post before, reposting things in multiple threads can be seen as spamming, especially something so large with so many links, it was flagged by the system as possible spam but I hit the ‘approve’ button again, but I think twice was enough for that tome
BobOrci
welcome again, those crafts services tables can be a bitch. How was the one for Star Trek vs the one for Transformers, Eagle Eye, Fring, etc?
I imagine Michael Bay demands his food to be ‘awesome’ but was it better than TREK?
#75
I hear that JJ demands the food be “Amazing.”
Thanks Anthony!
I know it went before – enough already- but was hoping the guys would respond to it.
Dave
#75 Henceforth, we must always send bags of Doritos for our Trek Supreme Court. ;)
Jericho fans sent nuts, we’ll send Doritos in some future year. Mark that down. :)
Dave R, I’d seen your post in the other thread, but it fits better here as it turns out. Your hope for a ‘magnification’ actually fits some of the Supreme Court’s previous statements… something along the lines that if watching TOS was like listening to some old 78’s and 45’s, then seeing Trek 2009 will be like listening to the same music in high quality digital Surroundsound.
I have likened it before to watching TOS without my glasses on (well, I didn’t have glasses when TOS first aired!) and thus the blurry nearsighted view will be ‘corrected’ as I watch 2009 Trek.
I also like the 1995 to 1996 Ford Taurus analogy. ‘Yeah, it may look like a flying jellybean, but it’s still the same crappy Ford on the inside.’ YMMV.
I’m just hoping things we’ve previously seen as ’static’ on TOS, such as displays and gumdrops and glowing marbles and objects-stuck-to-the-walls are suddenly dynamic…
It’s solely my opinion, but I never really needed an origin story for the TOS crew. “How did the crew come together?” Someone behind a desk at Command assigned them to Enterprise. :P
Like others, I’m thinking there has to be some kind of different timeline/multiverse thing going on. Otherwise, it would seem difficult to create a sense of peril in the story, because we would always know that everything turns out fine in the end and the crew is together and safe for the next 25 years.
love the music analogy paradigm.
I guess I’d say that I view the movie as an album, and as such, it has tracks that are covers, and other tracks that are magnification, etc…
#79—-An interesting point, but consider this.
If the story is based upon Nimoy’s Spock travelling back in time to “prevent” the Romulan villains from changing the “past”, then isn’t the jeopardy in the story whether Nimoy’s Spock can succeed in his mission? If he fails, all will not be well, right?
My guess is, that question is not answered until the end of the fim, or possibly (however unlikely), until the end of a trilogy.
Also, did we really believe (during the run of TOS) that Kirk, Spock, or McCoy were actually going to be killed in one of those episodes? Come on, there really was no sense that could happen in the first place. The Big 3 were never going to die in a TOS episode.
The stories were interesting because we didn’t know HOW the conflicts and problems would be resolved within the confines of that individual episode.
Dies Michael Bey’s craft table blow up a lot?
79, 81 – For me, the joy is not so much the outcome, but how we get there.
It may be that in trying to prevent the Romulans from interfering in the past, the older Spock plays a key role in getting the crew together.
#83—”For me, the joy is not so much the outcome, but how we get there”
I think we never had any doubt as to there being a positive outcome in a TOS episode (meaning the primary and even second-tier characters would survive).
The question was never, “Are they going to get out of this one?”
The question was always, “How are they going to get out of this one?”
STXI should be no different.
#64, et al… my facts are very straight and obviously better than yours.
Mitchell was a very significant character, I can cite many reasons, the fact that he was in only one episode doesn’t diminish this. But hey, we can debate more after seeing the movie…
by the way, I would be curious to hear a definite yes or no on whether Michell is in the movie. I know these guys occasionally peruse this site…
I suppose Old Spock will still be hiding out on Romulas, and he hears about Nero.
#85—Mitchell was a student while Lt. Kirk was an instructor at SFA.
He also, at one point, saved Kirk’s life.
He served aboard the Enterprise briefly under JTK’s command, and Kirk even considered him a friend.
None of that necessarily warrants his appearance in STXI, however.
It may be that the only events depicted at SFA are when Kirk was a cadet (Mitchell would not be there yet).
We may not see JTK in command of the Enterprise until after the events on Delta Vega. Chekov’s presence on the bridge would seem to support that.
However, Mitchell may indeed be Paul McGillion’s “mystery character”. That would certainly be a nugget to the fans. All indications are that there will be plenty of those.
#85
Please refrain from that “obviously my facts are better than yours” garbage. Why is it so obvious?
Fact: Mitchell was in one episode. As were other characters who could be associated with Kirk’s Academy/early Starfleet days, like Finney and Finnegan.
My opinion is that if you weigh the story down with every bit of hinted at or shown once onscreen piece of backstory, you’ll end up with an unwieldy piece of junk film.
Unless your last name is Roddenbery, don’t come around here waving your fan-flag like we are below you.
I don’t give a darn if Gary Mitchell’s in it. He always annoyed the crap out of me, anyway.
Oops. Did I just express a heresy?
#79 Good points, as well. It’s the journey, not the destination kind of thing. I agree, but I would think storytellers would always like to have that small uncertainty out there nevertheless.
But wouldn’t Spock have had to have succeeded to have ever gone back to prevent the Romulans to begin with? Kirk dies (I’m assuming that’s what Nero’s trying to do, but who knows), Spock never met him, so never had to go save him. But if Nero made his changes then the future was how he wanted it, so he never would have needed to go back, either. But if he did, can he go back to the future? Would there be two of him, the Nero who grew up and existed in the altered future, and the past changer. Or would the past changer cease to exist, which leads us back to how did he go back in time to begin with…
I’ve got too much free time. :)
Hey #89, I’m only responding to someone that told me that I don’t have my facts straight, no need for you to make this personal. Anyway, I suppose Sam Peeples would have a different opinion, since the whole academy/cadet thing started with him and was revisited with his contribution to ST:WOK
Of course you are worthy guys!!! You’re damn good!!! I’m a fan of yours since The Island and my admiration for you has grown so far…..Mission Impossible 3, Transformers…..only came to prove what you can do with a established fan base…..but now in a very large scope.
Live Long and Prosper guys…..keep on giving us great movies!!
#79
Not only do we know everything turns out fine in the end, we know where these guys are headed. We know that Kirk will get promoted at the end of the 5 year mission – so any story in which he endangers his career (Amok Time for example) wouldn’t make us fear for him. We know exactly where and when he dies, so any movie in which his life is endangered won’ worry us as much. We know Spock will never make-up with his father, we know he quits Star Fleet and goes diplomatic. Too much definition, too little unknown.
I think the future needs to be altered slightly to keep everyone guessing. The only reason we are guessing now is because Old Spock’s destiny is still unknown. Anything can happen at this point – but a straight prequel, without time travel of the Old Spock would lack the element of uncertainty and true peril IMO.
Wouldn’t it be fun to do a new 5 year mission with the original characters in their prime, but sent off to a different quadrant to explore with new, different worlds yet to be explored — and we all can write our own new episodes.
#92
When et al. is used in a judgment against defendants, it means that the quoted words are applicable to all the defendants.
Star Trek is a work of fiction. One can consider story information canon, but it is not appropriate or correct to consider them facts.
Such as, it is a fact that I would like to shoot myself in the head with a canon (sic) when it comes to including too much from Trek’s past. That is my opinion.
94 – ‘Fraid not. Changing the established Trek Universe is not my idea of fun. Sorry, not interested. Not even a little tiny bit.
Play in it? Yup. Explore all the vastness it has to offer? Absolutely. Change it? No way, no how.
I’m not at all worried about the fact that, obviously, our heroes will survive and go on to do all those cool things we saw in TOS. If one wants to not have that, create a new situation and new characters whose fates remain unknown. Since they chose to use the existing characters, whose fates *are* known, the fun, as others have said, is not in seeing *if* they overcome the situation, but *how* they overcome the situation, and how they learn and grow from it.
#96
Been done. They created several new characters whose fates were unknown called VOY, TNG, ENT & DS9. Were not as fun, inspiring or compelling IMO. Since we did that, why not try something new?
As long as the something new doesn’t include throwing out what’s already established, I’m fine with that. :)
As for me, I have enjoyed, all along, the new sets of characters and new situations. I love expanding the world of Trek. Heck, “ST: Vanguard” is fast becoming my favorite Trek series! But I really don’t think going back, taking established characters, and saying, “Oh, all that other stuff that was done with them? Forget it” is fun at all. It’s one reason my interest in comic book heroes waned while I was still a kid; the constant retconning and re-doing, even then, made it all seem hollow and pointless to me. I would *hate* to see that done to Star Trek.
Thanks Guys, really looking forward to the new movie.
Thanks again Anthony for letting me posting it …again
Who is to say that all the stories of the five year mission were told? I don’t necessarily have to have the crews lives be threatened to make a story compelling. And I can suspend disbelief long enough to get wrapped up in a story where a part of my mind realizes that the characters live on, but their lives are in jeopardy in the context of what is being told.
It’s like pretending.
Dear Bob,
I bet you’ve been going through a lot of ear plugs being on the set of both Transformers and Star Trek! Which one has had the loudest explosions?
““Oh, all that other stuff that was done with them? Forget it”
You don’t have to forget it — you’ll always have the old but, the old happened BEFORE the Romulans managed to alter the past creating a new future and the new adventures of Kirk & Co. Creating a reboot doesn’t eliminate the old. All the various incarnations of Trek didn’t eliminate each other but many of us found TOS to be the most fun, enduring, and alluring so we would love to have more along with the sense of it being of unknown, mysterious, and still undefined.
I found TOS the most fun, enduring, and alluring, too (not until “Vanguard” did any of the others really challenge it), which is *why* I oppose a reboot in the strongest possible terms. :) I want more stories of those characters, as well. But I don’t think telling those stories against the backdrop of the established continuity takes away from them in any way.
If what happened before is no longer relevant to the “new universe”, and if the “new universe” means that the old is no longer explored or supported by TPTB going forward, then it’s the same thing as saying, “Forget it.” Let’s say that the new film really is a continuity-busting reboot. Does that mean they’ll go back to the prior Trekverse for the next one? Not likely. It’ll all be the new continuity going forward. That looks like, “Either accept this new world or you’re not invited for the ride.”
Sorry, that strategy is a bad one, in my book. It does not, never has, and never will have my support. That it’s utterly unnecessary in any way would only add to the slap in the face.
Bob O., if you’re still reading :) , I am still trusting that you’re not planning to slap those of us who’ve stood by Trek for multiple decades in the face. I sure hope that trust is not misplaced!
Alex,
I just think that too much continuity kills creativity by limiting options. I am somewhat different than you in that I do not consider supporting ST as some type of grand cause or worthy of my unwavering loyalty. Its entertainment. If it stops being entertaining I’ll find something else. TOS was extremely entertaining – while the other incarnations not as much so I flipped the channel. No big deal.
My worry is simply that if confined in their story writing options by canon, continuity, a restrictive format (like TNG box-like Utopia), a known future, etc the stories might not be as exciting or entertaining. You might want to revisit this thread:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-on-breaking-out-of-the-box/
Moore agrees about the problems continuity creates. Don’t foget TOS violated its own canon all the time yet produced some fantastic stories. It is not that I want to forget everything that happened after a reboot – for it will always be available in movies, TOS DVD’s, novels etc. I just want to keep Trek as creative, exciting, adventurous, riveting, unpredictable, captivating — entertaining as possible. A reboot gives the writers more freedom to create better stories instead of writing within an already established story line.
ByGeorge, I think it may simply come down to us just having very different views of continuity. I do not see it as limiting. Rather, I see it as a springboard to more and more options, as each new story creates the potentials for more. I see it as the opposite of restrictive; I see it as empowering.
I read Ron Moore’s piece in the article you mentioned. I think he’s wrong, too. I miss the Ron Moore of DS9, and the Ron Moore who was willing to close production on the Pern series rather than let it be turned into something other than true to the original material. The Ron Moore who said the the universe of BSG had to be thrown away is not the Ron Moore I respected and admired for many years and I am truly sorry he took the course he did. But holding up Ron Moore pretty much reinforces why I feel the way I do. IMNSHO, his treatment of BSG is the exemplar of everything that’s wrong with reboots, and I absolutely shudder to imagine that kind of disaster befalling Trek.
I’ll freely admit, for me a great deal of the magic of Trek is precisely that all these series, and all these stories, take place in what was at least ostensibly the same world. I express my fandom, not by focusing on one series, or one set of characters, but very much on the whole Trek Universe, and I admit that I am very protective of it. But it’s not just Trek. I do that in every world I embrace, from BSG TOS to Pern to Babylon 5, and so on. The power and versatility of Trek’s world has been proven by the thousands of stories that could be told, with more coming every day, *in that world*. I cannot support the idea that that should be abandoned. I don’t think doing so gives the writers any more freedom than the sheer scale of Trek’s world already gives them, and I have to admit, I just can’t comprehend the thinking that it would. [shrug]
In the end, it may be a difference in fundamental axioms. But there we are.
#91—”But wouldn’t Spock have had to have succeeded to have ever gone back to prevent the Romulans to begin with?”
Not necessarily. Presumably, Spock is still on Romulus, since that is where we last saw him. This is just conjecture, but I am guessing that Nero and his cohorts are members of a disenchanted faction of Romulans who are unhappy with the changing political climate on Romulus, which Spock has been helping to facilitate with his substantial influence among Romulan dissidents. I am guessing that the Romulan people have begun to embrace that dissident movement, which has in turn caused the Senate and perhaps even the Praetor to pay attention.
I think that Nero and his followers are a rogue group of Romulan military/Tal Shiar officers who are unwilling to accept any change to the Spartan-like culture of the RSE.
If Spock were to discover their plan, and take action either pre-emptively or simultaneously (ala FC), he would be able to go back before Nero can be successful in affecting any changes in the timeline.
I am not one who subscribes to the theory that Nero intends to assasinate Kirk. Why would he? It is much more likely to me that if he were targeting any one of the TOS-era characters, it would be a young Spock. At least then there would be a somewhat justifiable cause (possible more than one, lol).
#94—”Not only do we know everything turns out fine in the end, we know where these guys are headed. We know that Kirk will get promoted at the end of the 5 year mission – so any story in which he endangers his career (Amok Time for example) wouldn’t make us fear for him. We know exactly where and when he dies, so any movie in which his life is endangered won’ worry us as much. We know Spock will never make-up with his father, we know he quits Star Fleet and goes diplomatic. Too much definition, too little unknown.
I think the future needs to be altered…”
I think you overestimate the impact of our knowledge of their futures. First of all, it would be no different than the thousands of fans who were first “introduced” to Trek in the height of the film era (the 1980’s). They saw the movies, then commenced to enjoying the TOS reruns every bit as much as we enjoyed them before the movies. It did not adversely affect their first viewing of “The Doomsday Machine” to know for certain (as if anyone really thought it would happen during the first run) already that Kirk would be beamed out in time and survive.
I know that Spock will be resurrected eventually every time I see the engine room scene in TWOK. It doesn’t matter. the scene is every it as powerful as it was for me in the theater in 1982.
I knew that Vito Corleone eventually dies an old man in his tomato garden before the first time I saw the Godfather, Part II. I still find that De Niro’s Oscar-winning scenes as a young Vito are the best in that trilogy, and having knowledge of his (Vito’s) future did not make those scenes less entertaining.
I know that G.S. Patton dies in (of all things) a jeep accident. George C. Scott still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up in his own Oscar-winning performance.
Jeopardy is overrated. However, I do believe that it will be the timeline which is in jeopardy during this story. I don’t think we’ll know until the end that Spock was at least successful enough to prevent any “major” changes to the timeline, thus protecting the outcomes of important events (like TOS stories).
I don’t think that Bob Orci would spend his entire childhood and adult life thusfar as a Star Trek fan, just to grow up to be the guy who hit the reset button on Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Bones. I refuse to believe that…And there is nothing (as of yet) to prove me wrong…
#105—”Don’t foget TOS violated its own canon all the time yet produced some fantastic stories. ”
True. No one cared about canon at all until about halfway through the first season, according to Dorothy Fontana. It did not become obssessive for so many fans until long after the series was cancelled. Now, after 4 decades of Star Trek, it has goten out of hand to some degree for sure, IMO.
However, there is a big difference to me between throwing out a minor detail or two and erasing the entire 5-year mission altogether. I don’t see how that could “enhance my TOS viewing experience”, as Bob Orci told me he hoped seeing STXI would.
That was meant as a response to #104, not #105. Sorry.
#107 – “However, there is a big difference to me between throwing out a minor detail or two and erasing the entire 5-year mission altogether.”
A salient point! I think we can all point to the instances where an odd little detail here or there just seems strange, or maybe it worked a few decades ago but doesn’t now. Janice Lester seemed to think women shouldn’t be starship captains, but nobody batted an eye when TPTB ignored that to give us female captains from Erica Hernandez to Nechama Rabin to Tryla Scott. Tom Paris once said “Faster than light, no left or right”, referring to traveling at warp. Well, taht was patently silly, and most folks ignore that as an obvious goof. We know full-well that very early TOS was a period where they were still figuring out what to even call stuff, e.g., lasers vs. phasers or StarFleet vs. UESPA (though in that last example, it did provide a springboard to a neat idea in ENT, that the Earth StarFleet was an outgrowth of UESPA).
As we know, TPTB on the new film have had to make some choices among the conflicting bits of info from early TOS, and no one begrudges them their right to do so, in the interests of getting the story told. But I agree, that’s a very different thing than saying, “Okay, for the purposes of going forward, all the tales you’ve watched for 40 years are no longer relevant. have a nice day.” I remain hopeful that we’ll still be seeing a beginning to the stories that TOS told, a beginning never told before on film, not an alleged begining that has no connection to the rest of Star Trek.
I think that, ironically, for all the whining about continuity, it’s TOS that is best positioned to allow the telling of new stories without disrupting continuity. The episodic nature of TOS allows lots of tales to be told that could fall within and among the various episodes of TOS, and the stories of big events, like the coming together of the characters or the end of Kirk’s 5-year mission, were never told on film, perfect fodder for movies without having to give up on the overall Trekverse.
I had to comment on the Star Trek/Beatles analogy mentioned earlier, cos I’ve often thought the same thing. They are quite similar.. including the sometimes shoddy way they were treated by their parent companies.
But I do think the new film embraces the GET BACK idea the Beatles tried to accomplish, after a lenghty period of experimentation and heavy production.. wanting to get back to the roots, the basics (which is what they seem to be up to). Star Trek grew into an over-blown, experimented-out “band,” too, IMO. Now, the Beatles couldn’t “Get Back” cos it was still the same cast. The new Trek film will have a cast that has never worked together (?), so we shouldn’t see any signs of wear and tear… Anyway, I imagine Star Trek and the Beatles will still be around in 40 more years, in some injectable form…
I guess I don’t understand why rebooting equals “erasing the entire 5-year mission altogether”. My focus is to keep Trek as entertaining as possible. If old Trek entertains, it is relevant and will be watched and loved for many generations. If a reboot gives a better chance for entertaining in the future it will also be watched and loved for many generations. People will attach to and love both missions – pre reboot and post reboot if they are good.
Our discussion then boils down to whether you think future Trek will be more entertaining with a reboot or not. IMO a reboot gives future Trek a greater chance of entertaining me better because it will have greater potential for the unknown, the undefined, unpredictable plot twists, unfamiliarity, greater uncertainty, more peril and less predictability. These elements often are what keeps us glued to the TV and perhaps why TOS, which contains lots of these characteristics keeps on entertaining. I’m not afraid that the original 5-year mission will ever die. After newcomers see a few good episodes they will still get addicted to TOS. A reboot simply gives us potential for another 5-year mission. Two are better than one!!
i miss the day when TOS was written by writers who came out of 50s live television drama and not the 3rd 4th or 5th comic book rehash toy franchise something-or-other.
#111—It is great stories involving the iconic TOS characters which will keep Star Trek entertaining. There is plenty of room for telling more of those stories without rebooting the entire 5 year mission. Knowing what eventually happens to the characters would be no different from seeing one of the films and later watching a TOS episode for the first time.
It always remains entertaining. It is not a question of “will they survive?”, rather, it is a question of “how will they survive?”.
#112—You are defining the writers by what projects the studio have commissioned them to do. What they have to work with in Star Trek is a lot more than what they had to work with in Transformers, and the two have nothing in common.
I like Robert Wise as a director, and I am one of the people who believes the Director’s Edition of TMP is fantastic everytime I watch it. However, you couldn’t pay me enough to sit through “The Sound Of Music” again. It’s just not my thing. That being the case, not liking TSOM did not cause me to develop any preconceived notion about TMP—and Wise wasn’t even a Trek fan!
If they (Orci, Kurtzman, Abrams, and Lindelof) can make a film based upon a toy and a cheesy 1980’s cartoon entertaining for so many people and as financially successful as it is, imagine what they can do for Star Trek.
The 1950’s-60’s way of doing things has been over for a long time, but these writers are paying homage to the work of the likes of Dorothy Fontana and company by bringing the characters they helped to develop back to life.
The important thing is that these guys are fans who obviously care about the franchise (something never before the case with the writing in a Star Trek movie involving the original characters). You have no idea what they are capable of doing with a Star Trek story, and you can hardly ignore the fact that they wrote a script for Transformers which ultimately entertained many kids and made a lot of money…and that’s what it was supposed to do. My kids wanted to see it, and I took them. Surprisingly, I was actually mildly entertained, and that doesn’t usually happen for me in a kids movie. They are primed for the sequel.
Leonard Nimoy thought what they ended up writing in STXI was worthy of coming out of retirement, and Paramount thought that it warranted a budget of enormous proportions under the direction of one of Hollywood’s hottest names. It has been 30 years since anyone has had so much confidence in Star Trek.
I don’t get the basis of your negative feelings toward a film you haven’t seen. As much as you claim to love TOS, I find it difficult to understand why you seem to feel threatened by the revival of Star Trek’s greatest ever heroes on the big screen.
#67: re: altering the timeline or canon.
Here’s a thought.
What if Spock (Nimoy) going back in time alters the timeline and things we know (and have known for the past 42 years) become as a result of that meddling (kinda like the episode where Sam Beckett changes the timeline saving Jackie Kennedy because apparently in the original timeline she died along with Jack)?
Wouldn’t that be freaky?
#64: “Gary Mitchell was NOT a significant character, he was in one episode and mentioned he knew Kirk at the academy. We may never see him in this movie, perhaps only as a cameo mention as he was NOT significant.”
I so disagree!!! Insignificant? Gary Mitchell more than just knew Jim Kirk during their academy days.
If you listen to every word said in WNMHGB, you would know they were best of friends. Kirk specifically asked for Mitchell on his command of the Enterprise.
Incidentally, we have no evidence filmed thus far (aside from the upcoming movie) that Kirk and Spock even knew each other prior to serving together aboard the Enterprise.
Going back to your statement that Mitchell was only on one episode making him insiginificant is completely ill-conceived. By using that logic, Khan, the Organians, the Metrons, Miramanee, Sam, Peter or Arelia Kirk, tribbles or especially Edith Keeler, who were on only one episode each, are insignficant. As Spock might say, you must think things through to their logical conclusion.
I hope Gary Mitchell does make an appearance.
To explore STRANGE NEW worlds – NOT ones we have already know and have already explored.
To seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations – NOT looking back on how we met them decades ago or what happened to them since our last encounter.
To boldly go where no man has gone before – NOT going back to places we visited before already knowing whats there and simply following up.
If you want the original crew back, most of their adventures seem to have already been written. A reboot eliminates this while bringing back the unexplored, the unexplained, the unknown and the unpredictable.
#112
You don’t think there were any poor projects being produced back in the 50’s? Because those are some mighty fine rose-tinted glasses you’ve got on if that’s the case.
#111 – “Our discussion then boils down to whether you think future Trek will be more entertaining with a reboot or not. ”
On that you may be right.
“IMO a reboot gives future Trek a greater chance of entertaining me better because it will have greater potential for the unknown, the undefined, unpredictable plot twists, unfamiliarity, greater uncertainty, more peril and less predictability.”
I don’t see a reboot as doing any of those things more than continuing with new stories in an existing continuity, and I see no value in saying, “Everything we’ve built so far no longer matters for our continued storytelling.” Really, if one wants to no longer be constrained by what’s established, don’t use a pre-existing property. Build a new one. I continue to play with Star Trek because I love Star Trek’s world. Something else with the same name? Meh. No point to it for me, nor does it strike me as a fun or beneficial way to spend my time.
“A reboot simply gives us potential for another 5-year mission. Two are better than one!!”
Not when one is simply retreading over the old one, saying, “Yeah, we’re not gonna pay any attention to that, so we can make it *new and exciting*!” If you want new, then don’t go back over the old ground. Do something *new*! New characters, new situations, no proconceived notions at all. And if one feels constrained by an existing universe, go invent a new property that can be built from scratch.
For me, it really is that simple.
#113 – “It is great stories involving the iconic TOS characters which will keep Star Trek entertaining. There is plenty of room for telling more of those stories without rebooting the entire 5 year mission. Knowing what eventually happens to the characters would be no different from seeing one of the films and later watching a TOS episode for the first time.
It always remains entertaining. It is not a question of “will they survive?”, rather, it is a question of “how will they survive?”.”
Exactly! I continue to read stories set in the TOS era and elsewhere not because I am worrying about whether they live or not. I know when Spock dies (and is reborn), and I know when Kirk dies. So what? I read those stories because they themselves are entertaining, and because I love to journey with those characters as they deal with a situation or solve a problem or figure out a mystery or what-have-you. A reboot would change none of that, and yet would take away the big-picture stuff that I love so much. For me, at least, it’s a losing proposition.
#116 – “To explore STRANGE NEW worlds – NOT ones we have already know and have already explored.
To seek out NEW life and NEW civilizations – NOT looking back on how we met them decades ago or what happened to them since our last encounter.
To boldly go where no man has gone before – NOT going back to places we visited before already knowing whats there and simply following up.”
A reboot is not required for any of that. In fact, a reboot offers the temptation to “let’s look at that old situation again, but do it *differently* this time!” Again, not a winning combination for me.
“If you want the original crew back, most of their adventures seem to have already been written.”
Ahh, there may be the interpretive issue… I don’t see that as the case at all. After all, if one doesn’t count the books and such, big, important parts of the lives of the original crew have never been touched on, like, I dunno…how they all came together (’til the new film, of course :) ). Or the end of the 5-year mission. Or how many years between the other movies? Lots! Over 15 years, at least.
“A reboot eliminates this while bringing back the unexplored, the unexplained, the unknown and the unpredictable.”
All I need for the unexplored, the unexplained, the unknown and the unpredictable is a story that doesn’t have any hooks to previous stories. See, some of the problem the continuity-opponents have is they seem to think that continuity requires every story to reference what came before, or be a sequel or prequel or spinoff of something else. And, yes, staying in one world offers the *opportunity* for all those things (which is a good thing!). But it does NOT require them, nor–as we have seen many times in many stories–is it intrinsic.
Once again, for me at least, the reboot argument fails because it assumes things as automatic that there’s no basis to assume.
#115—”If you listen to every word said in WNMHGB, you would know they were best of friends”
I disagree. What the dialogue tells us in WNMHGB is this :
1) Lt. Kirk was an instructor in one of Gary Mitchell’s classes at SFA
2) Mitchell served aboard the Enterprise under JTK’s command during the early days of the 5 year mission
3) Mitchell save Kirk’s life at one point on an alien planet
4) Kirk considers him a friend
5) Unbeknownst to Kirk, Cadet Mitchell at one point “aimed that little blond lab technician” at him, and Kirk almost married her
The notion that they were “best friends” is one invented by fans, and not actually ever supported in the dialogue.
Since Mitchell is at the Academy when Kirk is already a Lt., he should not be in any of the Academy scenes.
Since Chekov is at the navigator station on the bridge when Kirk is depicted as Captain of the Enterprise, then presumably, the events on Delta Vega have already passed at that point.
Unless Kirk is depicted in command prior to Chekov’s appearance as the ship’s primary navigator, Gary Mitchell’s depiction in this film would likely not even make sense.
#119 … Closet, if you add up points 1-5 you listed above, it pretty much equals = best friend. (Drat! Now you’ve got me using math here!)
It seems perfectly logical to me that Kirk & Mitchell would be best friends at that time in their lives. Both were similar personality types with similar views and goals. Obviously they bonded in a way that made them seek each other out once their days at the Academy were done. They were involved in each other’s social and personal lives, and they served together, risking their necks for one another. Certainly sounds like best friends to me, especially since no other friend of Kirk’s from that time period was ever depicted.
I’ve always liked the notion that Jim lost Gary, but gained Spock & Bones as best friends. On the old VHS box for WNMHGB, it used to read on the back cover, “As one friendship ends, another is just beginning.” Nice.
Why would you even argue such a benign point as Jim & Gary being best friends? You’re splitting Tribble hairs again.
>>They did write Transformers which was huge, so don’t underestimate the writers.
I went to see Transformers and expected to be bored for 2 hours. I ended up really enjoying it. I thought it had some very clever bits script-wise.
#120—”…especially since no other friend of Kirk’s from that time period was ever depicted.”
Actually, Ben Finney was depicted as being a friend of Kirk’s (to the point that he actually knew Finney’s daughter) from the early portion of his career. Of course, that friendship would become strained to the point of obsessive vengeance on Finney’s part…but nevertheless.
For that matter, Kirk seemed to be friends with just about every Starfleet officer of his age or older the crew encountered in TOS, whether they be fellow starship captains, starbase commanders, or whatever.
I would never suggest that Mitchell and Kirk are not friends…that much is clear from the dialogue. Best friends? I don’t know if that is quite so clear. I had many similar experiences of bonding with fellow Marines who, to this day, I consider friends. However, my “best friend” is still a guy I have known since the 8th grade. I don’t discount the possibility at all, but the notion has always been more “fanon” than “canon”.
My point was simply to dispell the notion that Mitchell was so important in Jim Kirk’s life that he HAS to be depicted in this film. I do not feel that is the case.
Once again, since Mitchell is at the Academy when Kirk is already a Lt., he should not be in any of the Academy scenes when Kirk is a cadet.
Since Chekov is at the navigator station on the bridge when Kirk is depicted as Captain of the Enterprise, then presumably, the events on Delta Vega have already passed at that point and Gary is already dead (or at least buried).
Unless Kirk is depicted in command prior to Chekov’s appearance as the ship’s primary navigator, Gary Mitchell’s depiction in this film would likely not even make sense.
Despite all of that, I still believe that (as a nugget to the fans) Paul McGillion’s “mystery character” will indeed be Gary Mitchell. I just hope his appearance is in a time period which makes sense (like the Pike-to-Kirk change of command ceremony perhaps).
112. Decius is Stonn, Stonn is Decius – August 28, 2008
“i miss the day when TOS was written by writers who came out of 50s live television drama and not the 3rd 4th or 5th comic book rehash toy franchise something-or-other.”
I believe most of the people you refer to are dead or in a care facility.
There’s no pleasing you regarding these writers, directors and actors, and that’s too bad.
#118
I read the descriptions of Trek games here at:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/08/30/cryptic-begins-outline-for-future-history-of-star-trek-online-answers-game-questions/
If this is the future of Trek – its doomed. Too big of a world, too many differing groups and aliens at war with each other, too much history, too much continuance, too much politics, too little science, too much fantasy – not enough exploration. Its become a soap opera, fantasy novel in outer space instead of science fiction adventure story where they explore the unknown. It will be extremely hard hooking anyone but hard core Trek fans with that description of Trek’s future. As I read that my desire for a reboot became larger.
I could never get my kids into Trek
And (no real surprise ;) ) I really liked that they were making an honest effort at tracking with the material already established for taht period.
But I don’t see how you can take a very, very broad description of just a couple of years of history of the whole known galaxy and translate that into no exploration. See, exploration happens on a much smaller scale, typically on the ship level, not at the level of galactic politics, and there isn’t a darn thing that suggests that it couldn’t be happening all during the events and situations as described. In fact, we know from the events of “Star Trek: Titan” that it *is*. :)
Heck, we know that the big-picture stuff was going on all over the place during TOS, too, but before the movies started making the Enterprise the focal point of half the conflicts in the region, back while it was still being portrayed as just one ship among many, it was going along on its merry way, doing its missions, and building the series that you and I both agree is still the best of Trek.
I think the individual players’ ships in the game will be doing much the same thing. This is just the high-level overview.
(Heck, even in reality, there are hundreds, thousands, even millions of day-to-day situations that the people of Earth live through, all while the big-picture politics is going on in the background.)
My suggestion would be to see if the setting of the game itself works, rather than dismissing it because you’re frustrated by the fact that that description you referenced focused on the background stuff.
Again… the reboot argument fails, this time for confusing a very broad description of the grand political picture with an inability to allow for exploration and adventure.
I’m aware about this already, but still there was clearly several useful pieces that completed the image for me, thank you!