Orci & Kurtzman Talk Trek v Transformers & Future Prime Universe + more June 29, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Sci-Fi, Star Trek (2009 film), Star Trek sequel (2012) , trackback
In yet another interview for Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, Star Trek scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman opine on the differences between working on Trek and Transformers fans and what could be next in the Star Trek sequel. We have excerpts below, plus details on a new project for Bob and Alex. .
Bob and Alex on Trek v Transformers & Trek’s Prime universe
Excerpts from AMC.com
AMC: Do you write a screenplay differently for a director like Michael Bay than you would for J.J. Abrams?
Alex Kurtzman: Absolutely.Bob Orci: It’s half that, and half you’re writing to what the franchise is. We’re not writing big because it’s Michael Bay; Michael Bay is right for Transformers.
Alex Kurtzman: With a director like Michael, who’s extremely specific about what he does and does not like to do, our job is to backstop him to a large degree and keep on him about plot and logic and emotion. We very rarely get resistance on that. He has such an innate understanding of what audiences want to see — where he’ll push back is if he thinks logic is somehow overriding the fun for the audience.
Bob Orci: You’ve gotta have a pretty damn good reason to tell him why he’s gotta lose one of his awesome sequences.
AMC: Did you learn anything from writing Transformers 2 that’s been helpful in formulating Trek 2?
Alex Kurtzman: They’re so different. You’re putting on a different hat. And the choices that you make in Transformers with Michael as the director versus Star Trek with J.J. couldn’t be more 180 degrees in the opposite direction. So I don’t know that for me there’s a natural corollary between them.
On going back into the prime universe for Trek
AMC: Would you ever again want to draw characters from the "Prime" universe in the sequel, like you did for Spock?
Bob Orci: We can’t be done with it completely. But I would start with what’s happening to the crew now, and if that became a great thing organic to the momentum of where the first movie is going, then maybe. Anything is possible right now. That’s really the juice and the curse of this path.
More on Trek, Transformers and Fringe from Bob and Alex at AMCtv.com.
Orci and Kurtzman now have a ‘License to Steal’
Looks like we can add another high profile Paramount project to the Orci and Kurtzman plate. Variety reports that the pair have inked a deal to produce "License to Steal", an action-comedy based on a recent Salon.com article about high end repo men. The script will be written by Shane Salerno (AVPR).
Transformers 2 = ginormous global hit
Speaking of Bob and Alex and business, their latest movie, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is making money faster than any film since The Dark Knight. Based on estimates, the film did $112M domestically this weekend, with even more overseas. Variety and Box Office Mojo estimate Transformers 2 five-day global total sales at $387.3M. By contrast, Star Trek just hit around $370M this weekend (Star Trek still had a good hold for the weekend, estimated to come in at 8th place). When the final numbers come in we will have more analysis of Star Trek’s eighth weekend. But bottom line is that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is on track to be even bigger than its predecessor (Transformers, which made over $700M worldwide in 2007).
Loading ...
Comments»
They should leave the Prime universe out of it really.
They’ve got a fresh new crew and an awesome new universe to work with, don’t be bogged down too much.
Interesting.
I wonder how far they have gotten with sequel-talk. It’s probably just a bunch of “what-if” discussions. I hope the loss of Vulcan is a big presence in the new movie.
When I saw the headline I thought “oh no, crossover!!!!”
My relief is immense…
Imo, Transformers 2 is actually a good movie. Funny and entertaining. A movie for kids based on toys, so I was not expecting another 2001 ;)
Mr. Orci and Kurtzmann: Please God, do NOT do Trek 2 like Transformers 2. Trek — beautiful. Perfect balance between action and eggheadedness. ROTF: Oh God. Please no.
I went into Transformers 1 expecting not much in the way of story: “It’s a movie based on a goddamn cartoon designed to sell Japanese toys,” I thought, and Iwas thrilled by the result. Transformers 1 was great, mindless entertainment, I went into Transformers 2 with similiar expectations…
Transformers 2 was like being forced to watch 2 hours of someone else play an Xbox game on a theater screenm while a 5-year-old banged pots and pans around my head and shrieked out his favorite one-liners from Junior’s First Book Of Jokes. It is an unbelievably awful movie, and I look forward to the Rifftrax version if only to lessen the agony of having sat through it. Congratulations, you successfully underestimated the intelligence of the moviegoing public.
I have faith, however. You know how to write a good movie. I forgive you for ROTF. Just please, do not do that to Trek and we can still be friends. OK?
#4
A movie for kids with a body count well into the ten-thousands…
Great.
Dear scribes Skid and Mudflap,
Leave the Prime Universe Alone.
You already have a shiny new universe to play with. The prime universe is for the trekkers only. Leave it be! because we all know you are going to screw it up somehow.
#6
Any kid dumb enough to not feel personally insulted by that movie probably lacks the mental capacity to count beyond ten, let alone ten thousand. Don’t worry about it.
For a while, I genuinely felt like I was watching a Team America-style parody of the first movie.
Syd Hughs @ #5 – excellent review sir!
#9: YOU’RE BACK!
It’s strange how I can the plot in star trek so much, and hate it so much in the transformers movies. They (for the most part) come from the same people!
Interesting, re-visiting the Prime Universe, of course, this dynamic is very intriguing. It would be great to explore the dynamics of both, how do each affect the other? And to what extent.
Excellent….
@ #11
Just think of them both as “Poets” skilled in multiple languages!!!
It is amazing how the synergy works, isn’t it?
#11: You accidentally the whole Prime Universe?
#13: That’s much how I look at it — Trek XI was gloriously well-written, and ROTF was well, um… well.
A good chef (or pair of chefs) should be able to serve up a cheeseburger as well as a steak.
#15
Syd, I love your analogy. Exactly my thoughts, writing just one type of screenplay would make you a “Captain Dunsel,” would it not?
The director makes the movie.
I know they have to write dumber for Micahel Bay, but I still hope that their scritp for Trek XII (Its not Star Trek II, Star Trek II is a classic film called Wrath of Khan) is a lot stronger than the recent Trek movie.
Trek XI was stronger on character (except Nero) than it was on story. Trek XI had one of the thinest plots ever for a Trek movie but they got most of the characters right. I believe they had to dumb Trek down a little to make it appeal to the non fans, which is a shame. Cause like Gene I like to think that the audience has intelligence and not just go to the cinema to see things blow up.
Star Trek was always the meat and potatoes compared to Star Wars which was the popcorn.
Well as long as Michael Bay does not get his hands on Trek then Trek should prosper. I guess that despite ending up liking the new movie I feel sad that part of the Trek I love has gone.
I dont think these writers are as skilled as D C Fontana, Micael Piller, Ronald D Moore, Brannon Braga and Manny Coto, etc.
At least Trek XI had character moments in the midst which I was happy with but Transformers had no character development, no plot, it was just Bay wanting to blow up half of Egypt.
I loved the new movie, I just dont see it as a perfect movie and it was by no menas my favourite Trek movie, TWOK, FC and TUC anre much better films.
Remember I rated Trek XI 8 out of 10
(sigh) The real winner this summer is Star Trek. Hands down. Star Trek was written off as a dead franchise, the word of mouth was incredible, the critical reception was the best any Trek film has ever gotten… suck it, Transformers! LOL.
Something new on TV or DVD set in the Prime Universe for me.
There won’t be any more Prime Universe…. there’s no point because there’s an unlimited potential for new story-telling in the new universe. The Prime Universe is too well known and predictable.
18. captain_neill – June 29, 2009
” …………. Cause like Gene I like to think that the audience has intelligence and not just go to the cinema to see things blow up……”
The sad reality is that Transformers has already made almost as much money in 1 weekend (300+ million) as Star Trek has made in 8 weekends. Proves that the movie-going public really does prefer mindless action and cartoon-quality plots. In order to survive in this environment Star Trek must have a lots of action and top-calibre special effects. I hope that Paramount understands this basic fact of survival and provides the ST sequel with enough cash to compete with monsters like the Transformers franchise. These days, $150 million is the absolute minimum investment required.
23 – I agree it is sad and it is why I have become more cynical of Hollywood cinema theese days. They dumb down films so much that it is an insult to people’s intelligence.
It is a sad reality
I would hate to see Star Trek go down this route. if Star Trek is more dumbed down than it was in the latest film I am not going to be happy.
Its why, although I enjoyed the new movie, I strongly feel that the Trek I loved has gone.
The new movie captured the spirit of Trek but it kinda glazed over the philosophy of it..
Why do the audience prefer mindless action?
Are we that intellectually deficient these days?
Yeah i think they gotta leave the prime universe out of it really and focus on this new universe and these characters.
I thought Transformers was some great summer popcorn movie with very little in the way of story but overloaded (maybe a little too much) with set pieces but i mean what did you want from a franchise based on toys. Great movie.
Star Trek though will be considered by many in the industry and outside the industry as one of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time, certainly the best movie of 2009.
I just hope JJ Abrams stays with the project 100% and if he has to give up directing duties, he gives it to someone like “Cloverfield’s” Matt Reeves or someone who gets Star Trek, who has an understanding that Trek is more than just spectacular visuals.
I’m done with the ‘Prime Universe’ (Prime Universe is a silly term anyway, because the new movie’s universe is arguably the ‘prime’ one as it’s the main one in use.)
The new film never specifically stated whether the timeline was a separate reality or an overwrite of the original (in spite of what the writers say outside of the film.) As far as most people in the cinema-going audience are concerned, ST09 is a restart for Trek.
Fans can believe whatever they want, with fancy charts and novels. But, for most of us, we’ve got a shiny new Star Trek and all the old shows on DVD (and all of TOS and the movies on Blu-ray imminently).
A return to the original universe (given the new quantum aspect to time travel, it’s debatable that there is a single coherent previous universe anyway) would be a backward step and would only lead to ‘brand confusion’!
The prime universe is Phase II now!
27
the new movie will always be an alternate universe to me.
The past 5 shows and 10 movies are all Prime and established lore.
The new movie starts new canon, apart from elder Spock and Nero it has no links to our Trek. It was respectful to our universe but it is different and this will never be the prime universe
#25 “Why do the audience prefer mindless action? Are we that intellectually deficient these days?”
My father, back in the 70s, when I was a kid, used to tell me that his 1950 black and white movies were far better than my 1970 sci-fi. It’s the same story, repeating itself from generation to generation.
Only that he is right about the 50s scifi movies being better than 1970s scifi.
I’ve just seen the new Star Trek movie for the second time (perhaps I would have seen it again sooner, or more times, but my underemployment from the current economic turndown has rendered my wallet quite thin) and I still believe while it is a somewhat interesting and pretty okay movie, it’s NOT Star Trek by any stretch of the imagination.
@captain_neill, 24 &25:
Sadly, moviegoers on the whole ARE INDEED that intellectually deficient these days. The plotless, orgy of violence that is the modern action film (not to mention the pointless, orgy-for-the-eyes that is an “actor” like Megan Fox) MUST be bereft of any and all dependence upon thinking by the audience, because the audience is no longer content with and/or capable of making that leap of logic and cogent thought.
Should the sequel–Star Trek: The Search for More Money (Thanks, Mel!)–end up being even as smart as the first I believe would be its downfall, as modern audiences just aren’t interested in ’smart’ in their ‘entertainment.’
If you want ’smart’ in your Star Trek, read the books, and re-watch the old movies & the old series–including Enterprise, because even it was smarter than the current offering–but don’t look for films going forward to capture any of the spark that keeps some of the original stories so engaging, some even after 40+ years.
Be further disquieted by this: after seeing the film “Idiocracy,” I am personally convinced that it won’t take 500 years for some future Star Trek film to be a long series of Jim Kirk kicking someone in the balls.
By the way, no, I don’t think we are intellectually deficient. Blockbuster movies have to appeal masses, big masses, huge masses. Kids, boys, men, women, everyone. You have to go to the lowest common denominator.
For some more brain, you have to narrow down your audience or use other media like books, TV series and so on. It’s a simple, understandable rule.
#32
Good for you. You’re another stubborn trekkie that doesn’t like anything new and cool, until it becomes old, and stereotyped as lame. Every time something new happens in Star Trek then someone always says this isn’t Star Trek just because it’s different. But something tells me this will become a classic like Star Wars 4, 5, and 6.
29. Hear, hear.
29. captain_neill: ‘the new movie will always be an alternate universe to me. The past 5 shows and 10 movies are all Prime and established lore.’
To you maybe, but most people pick and choose what they consider ‘proper’ Trek. Personally, I’m perfectly happy to consider all of TOS, TAS, TWOK to TVH, TUC and ST09 as my personal ‘proper’ Star Trek. I look on TMP and TFF as ‘deuterocanon’ – interesting tales using the characters but too different from anything else to fit in (face, it, TMP and TFF have never been mentioned in any subsequent Trek for good reasons!)
TNG to ENT exist in a separate universe for me. If the the wonderful universe of TOS, which I’m currently rewatching on Blu-ray, really ended up as TNG, I’d be profoundly disappointed. ENT mostly feels like a prequel to TNG, not TOS. TNG used the name and surface level details of Star Trek, but it and its stablemates had nothing else to do with the original Star Trek. At best, its a different TV show disguised as Star Trek; at worst it’s a perversion of everything Star Trek was about!
As far as I’m concerned ‘proper’ Star Trek begins with Kirk and Spock playing chess in Where No Man has Gone Before and ends with the crew sailing off into history at the end of TUC. It then restarts in ST09 with Spock from the future travelling back in time! All that garbage about the Nexus and Kirk dying on Veridian III is just an alternate universe.
That’s just my opinion. You’ll find hundreds of contradictory ones out there!
‘The new movie starts new canon, apart from elder Spock and Nero it has no links to our Trek. It was respectful to our universe but it is different and this will never be the prime universe’
No it won’t be. But for me it’s like I lived in a wonderful place once (TOS) that kept on getting new bits added to it and populated by people I didn’t like and didn’t care about until it fell into burnt-out ruins (TNG-ENT.) Then someone built me a new place to live based on how things were at the beginning. When I look at ST09, I feel like I’ve come home!
The best thing about the quantum mechanics being added to ST09 is that there is no longer any possibility of a single canon.
24. captain_neill: ‘I agree it is sad and it is why I have become more cynical of Hollywood cinema theese days. They dumb down films so much that it is an insult to people’s intelligence.’
Precisely why so much of my film collection comes from Japan, Thailand, China and South Korea!
@34:
Untrue! I’m not stubborn at all, and I most assuredly like new and cool. I just prefer my new & cool to also be SMART.
Also, I never said the new film wasn’t Star Trek because IT’S DIFFERENT; I said that it wasn’t Star Trek to me, without a qualifier. I personally believe that it’s not smart enough to be Star Trek, but feel free to infer what you will.
And finally, it IS good for me. Just like your opinion is good for you.
would a crossover be so bad. the enterprise finding cybertron. maybe in this universe they are the machine planet that built vger. of course it
would change first contact
#36: Um, actually TMP was directly referenced in Star Trek XI through the discussion of Kolinahr. And given an homage through the fly by of the new Enterprise. Not to mention sets, props, and ship designs that worked their way into other films. (But I tend to agree with you and Roddenberry on TFF: that much was apochrypha.)
And the reason people rightfully refer to TOS through and including ENT as the “Prime Universe” is that the new film represents but 0.3% of canon. In other words, 99.7% of all canon Trek is something other than this new universe. If we get more than 720 hours or so of playing in the new universe then perhaps the designation of “Prime” can be reexamined, as it would take that long to reach a 50% mark.
As to not having a single canon, the concept of each episode of TOS existing in its own, separate but related universe was tossed around in the 1970s. It is no more satisfactory now as it was then, since consistency among the episodes has been one of the hallmarks and joys of the Trek universe.
The critics hate it, the fanboys love it!
Wow, we all knew “Transformers 2″ would kick ass, but wow oh wow, according to reports from the LA Times, T2 took in 201.2 million dollars in domestic sale in just five days ($387 million world-wide gross)! That is freaking amazing. The film is expected to easily rake in 800 million.
This is definitely going to a good summer for Paramount… and Hasbro.
Figured this might be a good spot for a Transformers review, since they do tend to read these posts–
I don’t know if I’m in the majority or minority on this movie, but I thought it was better than the first one. It’s not a MAJOR compliment though since I hated the first one. Well, hate’s a strong word, but the most memorable part of that movie was Megan Fox opening a car hood. That’s not saying much.
The critics are treating this movie horribly. Maybe that’s why I went in with low expectations. Usually when I do that, I walk away feeling the movie wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.
A lot of the problems with the movie may have been more Michael Bay than the script. I hate the shuttering camera technique. I want to see the fights better. They’re all over the place. That was an issue in both movies.
You guys did a good job streamlining a bit. It seemed like there were fewer characters, and that was a much needed improvement.
One big issue I had, in both movies, was that it’s very difficult to tell the transformers apart. That’s another issue with Bay and the fast moving photography. With the exceptions of Optimus and Bumblebee, half the time I couldn’t tell if I should be rooting for the robot because he’s an autobot or rooting against him because he’s a decepticon.
Even the voices weren’t that distinctive.
One major improvement, and probably the reason I enjoyed this movie more, was the increased role of the transformers themselves–notably Optimus Prime.
You did a great job showing Prime as the top dog badass that he should be.
I didn’t like that they pulled the kill Optimus/bring him back thing, but at least you got it out of your systems. I hope now, Prime can just be the ultimate badass transformer, and we don’t need to see him die.
It pissed me off when they killed him in the cartoon, but at least they brought the character back. Not having enough of Optimus Prime was one of the bigger flaws in the first movie, and I think you guys went a long way to fixing that.
I think in a third movie, it should be taken even further. My emotional attachment to Prime was due to my familiarity from the cartoon. I’d like to see an even bigger role. He should be the hero.
Other improvements were Sam’s dad, who actually acted like a father in this movie. The whole thing in college with his mom didn’t work for me.
All I know is that I want to go to that college. Every girl is smoking hot, the dorm rooms are unrealistically ass kicking, and every girl is smoking hot.
I could say much more, but this post is long enough. I hope Mr. Orci reads it. More later depending on responses.
40. Randy H.: ‘Um, actually TMP was directly referenced in Star Trek XI through the discussion of Kolinahr.’
I figured I didn’t need to spell it out that I was talking about the story not fussy details! :p ;)
‘And the reason people rightfully refer to TOS through and including ENT as the “Prime Universe” is that the new film represents but 0.3% of canon.’
Canon schmanon! Canon’s something for hardcore fanboys to get their knickers in a twist over when they have nothing better to do! The majority of Trek viewers grab an episode or a film as and when and couldn’t give a toss about making it all fit together. Frankly, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT have about as much to do with TOS as ST09 does. Only difference is I like ST09! ;)
‘consistency among the episodes has been one of the hallmarks and joys of the Trek universe.’
In the TNG-verse maybe. There was precious little consistency in TOS and it didn’t suffer for it. That’s why TOS, especially after its HD makeover, is still the most easily accessible of the Trek shows. Switch on any episode other than The Menagerie Part 2 and you can watch it, easily figuring out who everyone is and what’s going on.
Obsession with canon destroyed ‘Prime universe’ Trek, turning it into a smug little fanboy club that drove anyone else away. Once upon a time, Star Trek was about a possible future for us. By the end, it was about a pompous, self-contained fantasy universe that had about as much relevance to us as the Star Wars universe does!
I don’t mind if they go back to the prime universe. To me, this is exploration of a new time line, where we are boldly going where no man has gone before. And seeing how things are and were.
And the stupid thing is, there are so many alternate time lines in the prime universe, how do we know that the prime universe is the prime universe? Hm?
You have to give credit where credit is due. Great movie Bob!
I got exactly out of Transformers in the same way that my expectations were met by Trek. What were you expecting out of Transformers Syd? They wrote it for their target audience, and they did a fantastic job.
Here’s somethign else to consider, Paramount needs a big, successful cash pig like TF in order to move forward with other projects. Who knows, maybe the cashflow from TF will allow the budget for Trek to make it back to the small screen.
Once again, great job on TF Bob! I loved both movies this summer and can’t wait for your next project!
It’s really a sad state of affairs when a movie that is universally panned by critics (and even by many fans) can make over $200mm in 5 days. Even my 12-year old son’s first comment after the movie was…”that was long.” Have certain franchises/properties found a way to lobotomize audiences into accepting anything? Have they created a hunger that is so powerful their viewers will accept any slop served on their plates? How could the Star Wars prequels make $300-$400mm each? Crystal Skull $300mm+? And now Transformers? Truly sad. If we keep buying the drivel they’re selling, they have no incentive to work harder for our $$$ and the cycle will continue on endlessly.
I saw Transformers 2 yesterday and based on the horrible reviews, I went in thinking I wold hate it but I liked it. I thought it was a bit too long but I thought the writing was good. Lots of humor. No it wasn’t a thought provoking movie but the action was good and I liked all the special effects.
Star Trek connection: Tony Todd was the voice of the Fallen; love that voice, very distinctive.
Honestly, I agree that a lot of movies today are dumbed down a bit, but I also think the movie makers must pander to the audience that they have, otherwise success=ZERO. WAS Star Trek 09 (11, whatever) too dumbed down? No, not really. They did a whole heck of a lot right. Thing is, they just can’t get any “dumber” with it or they will have trouble. I loved this movie, have seen it 7 times, and plan to go back AT LEAST once more. Keep up the good work, especially in the writing of the characters.
#34 “For some more brain, you have to narrow down your audience or use other media like books, TV series and so on. It’s a simple, understandable rule.”
Sorry, I don’t buy into that at all. Look at the old Looney Tunes cartoons. Cartoons for kids, but laced with smart gags for the adults who were savy enough to pick up on them. And those were made 50 years ago. You can play to all audiences if you want to. It’s a little more work, but more and more it seems to be the road less traveled.
“Enterprise’s” 4 seasons are still canon in the Trek09 timeline, for what it’ s worth. That doesn’t give us much except, perhaps to I.D. the elderly Vulcan woman from the Katric Ark as T’Pau (with Surak’s katra), and perhaps a way in for T’Pol.
Showing other NX-01 crewmembers drooling in their cups doesn’t make sense, and there are no real storylines from that series worth expounding upon.
To Bob Orci…You are class act. I think it’s great that you’ll interact act with fans on a site like this, especially given the extreme feelings Star Trek fans have about “our” franchise. But you took it to a new level last week. You actually tried to have an intelligent conversation about Transformers over at AICN. (Boy! I’ll never use the term “hater” on this site again. Those people take crass and vulgarity to the Nth degree!) It took courage to even be there, let alone trying to provide insightful answers too some rather blunty stated questions. To paraphrase Spock in TWOK…your final response was…shall we say…unique. And you said it in a way that should have been clearly understood in their native language…while still remaining polite. So here’s to you Mr. O! You’re someone to be admired.
50–but are they? One could argue that Enterprise itself was a changed timeline caused by Picard travelling back in time to fight the Borg. Maybe in this timeline, that doesn’t happen, which would render Enterprise as useless as it should be.
Or maybe FC was actually part of the current timeline, not the prime one, in which case all is right. That’s something that’s potentially open.
As for Transformers, yeah, it was too long. Once they had a plan to bring Optimus back, they should have got to the point sooner. They could have cut out a good 10-20 minutes of shooting for that.
Leave the “prime” universe for television. The new universe is better tailored for moviegoers anyways.
#50 -”Showing other NX-01 crewmembers drooling in their cups doesn’t make sense, and there are no real storylines from that series worth expounding upon.” I agree.
I think Guinan and T’Pol would be the two least difficult TNG Era/Prime characters to work in to the alternate universe. Though I imagine it would make more sense plot wise to recast unused TOS characters.
The ‘Prime Universe’ will only still be valid so there is an excuse to bring in those characters and actors if the powers-that-be want to.
I’m not convinced that Patrick Stewart will never show up again on film as Jean-Luc Picard. Or that one day Data will be brought back into the fold.
52:
Mitch:
IMHO, we’ve already had our ‘reference’ to ENT with Admiral Archer’s beagle. That’s fine with me. Check the box.
The question to Mr. Orci was oddly phrased. Bringing in characters from the “prime” universe implies some sort of ‘maguffin’ that shleps people between universes. It may have been a veiled reference to Shatner.
I think it’s safe to say that there are enough unused TOS characters out there in the ‘new’ movie timeline without having to resort to more ‘prime’ characters.
Guinan would be fun to feature in the new universe, but there are enough major TOS characters to fill a dozen movies without parachuting in any other characters from the spin-off shows.
Frankly, I’d like to see the next film just get on with being a Kirk/Spock/McCoy movie, no time travellers, no Pike beyond perhaps appearing on the bridge screen to give Kirk his initial mission orders, no smug cameos.
ST09 was about redecorating the apartment. ST11 should be about living in it!
21. ChristopherPike – June 29, 2009
Something new on TV or DVD set in the Prime Universe for me.
Agreed! I would like to see TPTB leave TOS era to JJA for the big screen and have a TV miniseries cover the late 24th century with only a few (2-3)established characters and many new ones. If it is successful, every 6 months or so come out with another 8-hour miniseries. I would love to see Frakes and Burton as executive producers/directors but bring in new writers.
transformers 2 opened big cause the first one was great- the sequel will drop off fast due to word of mouth- its a bit of a mess- not as strong and well constructed as the first- there is no time with the characters- just fighting non stop except when the twins are onscreen- they are clown characters-cringe worthy wigger wannabe’s- embarassing- but ower all an ok sequel but wont have the word of mouth or repeat viewing the first one did.
#49 “Sorry, I don’t buy into that at all. Look at the old Looney Tunes cartoons. Cartoons for kids, but laced with smart gags for the adults who were savy enough to pick up on them.”
I love the old Looney Tunes cartoons. They had style and class. But, the more we discuss the matter, the more we sound like a grandfather preaching about his beloved memories, when all was good and beautiful. Transformers 2 is not dumber than a lot of 70s and 80s light hearted action movies.
To play Devil’s Advocate:
If in the new universe the “timeline” is constantly trying to correct itself, bringing the crew together no matter what has changed, would that not mean that it is inevitable that Khan and Kirk will clash in the new universe?
It has to happen, if O&K respect the new rules they have set out.
They are Nemeses. They are meant to collide as surely as Spock and Kirk are meant to be friends. It is inevitable.
56–that means nothing. Even in the original timeline, preFC even, there could have been an Admiral Archer. He just may have had a much different life.
And if they bring back Kirk prime, in any capacity, I would be grateful to them. But I highly, highly doubt they will bring Kirk prime into this, and even if they used Shatner, it would be an older version of Pine’s Kirk.
61–while Kirk and Khan clashing may be inevitable, there is simply no way Orci and Kurtzman can IMPROVE on the story. Even a good story wouldn’t be better.
Khan is not Lex Luthor. He is not a recurring enemy. He is not Moriarity to Sherlock Holmes.
He was a dictator left to start his own empire, who had an umbelievable run of bad luck and obsessed over killing the man he held responsible for it. TWOK can’t be topped.
61:
Khan can be dismissed simply due to the fact that 1996 came and went without a Eugenics War. Or, O&K can retcon the Khan story to a later date.
The ‘timeline correcting itself’ idea is a maguffin for any future re-introductions of elements of classic TOS. But there’s only so much that can be done: The Farragut is destroyed, Vulcan is gone, Pike is still active, the Romulans are known, and are in contact with the Federation, etc.
I trust the writers will have fun with this idea, no matter what the new film is about.
Yes! Prime Spock does end up fixing the timeline when all is said and done! May not be the next movie, but maybe the movie after the next!
I agree with #2.
Matt D is right, I think that the ramifications from Vulcan absolutely must be at least a major subplot of the new movie. They could even show what Spock Prime has been up to since Star Trek 2009, but they may not want to go that far.
I have to agree with everyone who thinks T2 was dumbed down alot…scrotum? gold tooth? no reading skills? If this is supposed to be a movie for the family, how is calling anyone a p*ssy okay for children? I can forgive dogs humping cause that’s what they do, but robots humping? This movie could have been great without all those tidbits. Maybe we could get an re-edited version when it comes to DVD? Just my opinion. Trek 09 was good, but the Spock/Uhura thing was too far in left field and how about some warp drive special effects that don’t make me think I’m on the Millenium Falcon?
#60 “Transformers 2 is not dumber than a lot of 70s and 80s light hearted action movies.”
Very true! But the point really isn’t that there weren’t dumb movies in the 70’s and 80’s. God knows there were. The point is Transformers COULD have strived to be better.
Like our old favs, the Looney Tunes, chose to rise above silly kiddie cartoons…a path they certainly could have taken…Michael Bay COULD have chosen to take a different path as well. But I also can understand the old adage, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that he didn’t feel the need to smarten things up, that people will come see it anyway…or the fact that he was absolutely right!
I wanted to see exactly how well Trek was doing against comparable films and franchises over the last 10 years, since the criticism is constantly raised that it is unfair to compare it to 30 year old films from a different era. So I compiled this comparison of similar films from 2000-2009 worldwide box office grosses & budgets adjusted for inflation, and grossing over $325M.
What is most interesting is observing ST09’s placement against equalized adjusted numbers and to get the entire worldwide picture, especially in relation to other films that did not do as well at the domestic box office. If Trek only manages to gross the expected $380M, its worldwide ranking will be similar to other movies over the last decade that did not make it into the top 10. Obviously this depends on what was offered in any given year, but while Trek may well hold its top 5 ranking domestically, it may come no where near it worldwide. It also appears to be an under-performer compared to the films it has been most often compared with.
Nevertheless, given that there are well over 600 films released every year, to even rank in the top 150 for an entire decade (6,000+ films) is pretty impressive. Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves and offer an interesting look at the state of the modern film business.
The left column is for overall ranking over the decade (not all films are included). The release year also includes the box office ranking within its year. All figures and calculations are in millions of US dollars and taken from Boxofficemojo, except for budget adjustments which use the Consumer Price Index calculations. All 2009 films have been included. TMP & TVH are included for reference to the top grossers of the Trek franchise, whether entirely relevant or not.
Rnk|Yr—Rnk|Adj. B.O.|Adj. Bdgt.|Title
001 2003 01 $1,332.5 $109.8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return
002 1999 01 $1,306.4 $147.3 Star Wars: Episode I – The Phanto
003 2001 01 $1,236.5 $152.4 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Sto
004 2006 01 $1,168.8 $240.1 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Ma
005 2002 01 $1,143.5 $111.9 The Lord of the Rings: The Two To
006 2001 02 $1,100.0 $113.4 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellows
007 2002 02 $1,085.8 $119.0 Harry Potter and the Chamber of S
010 2002 03 $1,015.5 $165.5 Spider-Man
011 2005 01 $1,003.5 $164.1 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
012 2007 01 $1,002.9 $311.4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’
013 2008 01 $1,001.9 $185.0 The Dark Knight
014 2007 02 $979.100 $155.7 Harry Potter and the Order of the P
016 2005 02 $950.760 $123.6 Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge
017 2007 03 $929.740 $267.8 Spider-Man 3
018 2004 02 $919.870 $147.0 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Az
019 2004 03 $902.440 $226.2 Spider-Man 2
020 2003 03 $883.630 $175.2 The Matrix Reloaded
021 2005 03 $843.490 $196.9 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion
024 2002 04 $802.530 $136.9 Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of t
025 2008 02 $786.600 $185.0 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of
026 2003 04 $779.080 $163.6 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curs
027 2007 05 $739.190 $155.7 Transformers
028 2004 04 $730.020 $104.1 The Incredibles
029 2000 01 $727.860 $154.8 Mission: Impossible II
034 2005 04 $660.000 $144.4 War of the Worlds
035 1999 04 $655.100 $80.7 The Matrix
036 2006 04 $651.350 $160.1 Casino Royale
041 2004 06 $629.320 $141.4 The Day After Tomorrow
042 2008 04 $624.400 $150.0 Hancock
043 2005 05 $616.630 $226.4 King Kong
045 2007 07 $610.820 $155.7 I Am Legend
051 1999 06 $587.830 $102.5 The Mummy
052 2008 07 $582.000 $140.0 Iron Man
054 2008 08 $576.000 $200.0 Quantum of Solace
059 2001 07 $549.280 $119.5 The Mummy Returns
061 2002 05 $545.980 $166.7 Men in Black II
064 2008 09 $534.800 $180.0 WALL-E
065 2002 06 $533.870 $169.0 Die Another Day
068 2003 07 $513.900 $233.7 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
069 1999 08 $511.360 $172.9 The World Is Not Enough
070 2003 08 $508.790 $175.2 The Matrix Revolutions
071 2002 07 $504.450 $85.7 Signs
073 2006 07 $503.590 $224.1 X-Men: The Last Stand
076 2003 09 $485.450 $128.5 X2: X-Men United
077 2007 09 $477.340 $134.9 National Treasure: Book of Secrets
081 2001 08 $465.880 $113.4 Jurassic Park III
082 2007 11 $462.100 $114.2 The Bourne Ultimatum
084 2009 01 $461.100 $150.0 Angels & Demons
087 2001 09 $459.470 $121.9 Planet of the Apes
088 2002 10 $442.900 $121.4 Minority Report
094 2006 08 $436.170 $160.1 Mission: Impossible III
096 2006 09 $428.720 $288.1 Superman Returns
100 2008 10 $419.700 $225.0 The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince C
102 2005 09 $417.470 $164.1 Batman Begins
106 2004 11 $401.780 $113.1 National Treasure
107 2004 12 $401.430 $135.7 I, Robot
108 2008 12 $401.100 $145.0 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon
109 2007 12 $400.220 $114.2 Live Free or Die Hard
N/A 1979 04 $400.000 $102.5 Star Trek: The Motion Picture
111 2000 09 $394.700 $91.4 X-Men
112 2007 13 $388.430 $186.8 The Golden Compass
113 2007 13 $387.300 $200.0 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
118 2005 11 $370.310 $109.4 Fantastic Four
120 2009 3 $369.200 $150.0 Star Trek
123 2009 02 $368.900 $175.0 Monsters Vs. Aliens
126 2009 04 $361.100 $150.0 X-Men Origins: Wolverine
128 2009 06 $357.400 $150.0 Night at the Museum: Battle of the
130 2000 12 $351.800 $113.4 Charlie’s Angels
133 2009 05 $349.000 $85.0 Fast and Furious
134 2001 15 $348.470 $131.2 Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
137 2008 15 $341.400 $75.0 Wanted
144 2000 14 $330.500 $91.4 Unbreakable
145 2000 14 $323.500 $200.0 Terminator Salvation
N/A 1986 05 $257.400 $52.0 Star Trek: The Voyage Home
Prime Kirk should be on the list of cool ideas that did not make it into the first movie. Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell, Finnegan could be others. Of course we will mmet some totally new and original characters and ideas. The sequel will work on many levels just like Star Trek did. Great movie with references and nuggets for fans sprinkled throughout
RD, like I said, the only thing that matters is if Trek did well enough to justify more equally fantastic movies. And it has. Paramount produces both properties, so they are looking at this as having two heavy hitters on the same team. One movie isn’t “blowing the other out of the water.”
A question I’d like to see answered concerns the director of the Trek sequel. If Abrams does NOT direct, does this mean that we’ll see yet another unexplained change in continuity in costume and set design such as we saw between TMP and TWOK?
Or will the new director be forced to accept the uniforms and sets the way they were conceived by Abrams?
Because those changes are annoying.
Although, I think the engine room in Trek ‘09 is almost universally disliked, and we’d all probably whistle and look the other way if that set were changed, and we wouldn’t complain afterwards.
65. trekntech: ‘I think that the ramifications from Vulcan absolutely must be at least a major subplot of the new movie. They could even show what Spock Prime has been up to since Star Trek 2009, but they may not want to go that far.’
I disagree. Vulcan’s gone and that’s it! Young Spock is on the Enterprise and has a job to do. What you’ve described above is a film ***about*** Star Trek, rather than a proper Star Trek film. Star Trek is a sci-fi action adventure series, travelling to the stars, not an exercise in navel gazing.
Make a spin-off TV show or a straight-to-DVD movie about the Vulcans by all means, but don’t bog down a blockbuster summer event movie that should be devoting itself to the Enterprise travelling far away from the Federation.
I can’t believe that after the ‘Supreme Court’ has done us the favour of shedding years of dead weight from the Star Trek franchise, allowing us to have something fresh and new, people seem desperate to bog the whole thing down with self-referential baggage.
Hasn’t the ultimate failure of TNG-ENT Trek taught people anything? Keep it simple and streamlined and people will watch. Disappear up the franchise’s backside and the whole thing falls apart!
Here’s how you get Shatner in: Shatner plays the aged sinister version of his Mirror Mirror self when a rift through time and space opens and through which Shatner-Bad Mirror Mirror Kirk-Prime comes flying through with a drop kick that catches Kirk Pine in the chest, to which Kirk Pine then says: “WTF is your PROBLEM, dude?”
#67 “The point is Transformers COULD have strived to be better.”
Well, I see your point. But Transformers 2 is making *a lot* of money and it’s a successful movie. So, in the director/writer/producer eyes, the movie doesn’t need to be better, don’t you think? :)
58. T’Cal, as much as I love TNG, I’d want ENTERPRISE to get a mini-series or telemovie. The show’s detractors are as vocal as ever, but for me the beauty of the current timeline situation is that it is a backstory potentially relevant to the new universe too.
The increased interest in Star Trek is resulting in more and more revisiting ENT. I’d be willing to bet DVD boxsets of it are selling more than at anytime since 2005. Aside from Remastered TOS, it remains the most recent series and an instant go to for those new fans. Recently introduced to this franchise, they’re discovering the show for the first time, with no preconceptions.
A reunited cast headed by Scott Bakula could star in a Romulan War tale. Put that whole Birth of the Federation arc to bed properly, while at the same time featuring some framing scenes set in JJ Abrams’ 23rd Century if CBS/Paramount really want to milk a reinvigorated fanbase, basically waiting around for the 2011 sequel.
I am torn with the idea of bringing back Kahn. One one hand, it would be good to explore new stories; on the other, the fun (and box office appeal) of having Kirk’s greatest enemy drive the story may be irresistible.
The story would have to be huge and very different to avoid a simple copy of the original “Space Seed” and “Wrath of Kahn” story lines. The new timeline makes this easy. For example, the Enterprise could be called on to visit a key planet that both the Federation and Klingon Empire have eyes on. Kirk and Co. discover that for the past 20 years or so, the lower-tech inhabitants have been enslaved by a race of supermen. As Kirk fends off the Klingons, he unravels the mystery that the leader of the supermen is Kahn from the Eugenics Wars. We would learn that the events of the Narada altered the course of the Botney Bay, resulting in the arrival at said planet, and Kahn and crew waking up 20 years earlier. You could cast a Kahn at an age in between the young and old Montalban.
Think of the possibilities: We could see the “world to conquer,” Kahn and Kirk could be allies at first against the Klingons; the ambition and jealousy could fester over the course of the movie to a nasty climax; etc. etc.
I suppose I am coming to the conclusion that a new story with an old foe is the way to go…
73: “Hasn’t the ultimate failure of TNG-ENT Trek taught people anything? Keep it simple and streamlined and people will watch. Disappear up the franchise’s backside and the whole thing falls apart!”
Yeah, I’m sorry, but I was never a fan of TNG. What’s cool is how Orci and Kurtzman can pack a lot of information in a short amount of time. They did that in Trek ‘09 and they did it WELL. So they know how to work in little things here and there without making the movie ABOUT those little details.
What I don’t want to see is the sort of boring nonsense that typified every Star Trek series after TOS:
The Enterprise discovers an alien life form AND young Wesley Crusher discovers he has acne.
I want to see the characters deepened, not trivialized, so whatever gets that done is what I’m for.
But what would ALSO be really cool with an eye towards DVD release and sales is to shoot more scenes that they would like to see but which would not necessarily make it into the theatrical version, and then do a special edition DVD where we could have the original theatrical version PLUS a fan cut version that has the additional stuff in it.
They should do that with Trek ‘09 so we can see more of the Kobyashi Maru and Kirk’s childhood. A FANCUT version of the movie on DVD in ADDITION to, not replacing, the theatrical version in the same set.
Last Of The Mohicans’ theatrical cut was a better version than Michael Mann’s director cut, and I cant stand the fact that you can now only see the director’s cut of the movie on DVD, which isn’t the best version.
#72. dmduncan wrote: the only thing that matters is if Trek did well enough to justify more equally fantastic movies. And it has. …One movie isn’t “blowing the other out of the water.”
Actually Transformers IS blowing Trek out of the water. But as you say, that doesn’t really matter for Trek’s success, nor to Paramount. I think my 10 year B.O. analysis (#69/70) shows that Trek is doing fine all by itself (expectations and budget aside). However, that does not change the fact that Trek’s numbers have been “blown out of the water” by at least 25+ films over the last decade as well. In particular, the Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter & Spiderman franchises. Now Batman and Transformers are entering that territory.
My question is, what will it take to get Star Trek into that club? Is it on its way? If Paramount has its way, will it chose to adopt the mindless action formula to double or triple Trek’s grosses, or is that even possible with the Trek franchise? And if not, why?
SETS & COSTUMES – If Abram’s produces, it is unlikely much of the look about the art direction or costumes will change, regardless who directs. My guess is Abrams will cherry-pick the director from a short list he runs by Paramount and that director will most likely have the same vision as Abrams, even if that vision is bought and paid for. There may be subtle changes, but you are unlikely to see anything like TMP to TWOK.
ENGINE ROOM – I was watching the Eddie Murphy movie “Meet Dave” on cable and could not believe how awful it was. I couldn’t believe it ever looked good enough on paper to greenlight. However, I will say this: they had a better looking engine room in Dave’s ass than the Enterprise did. However, I fully expect this to be a new set built for the sequel, justified in part by the repairs made after the damage suffered from the Nero attacks and jettisoning the cores.
79: “My question is, what will it take to get Star Trek into that club?”
But my point is it doesn’t have to be in that club. Star Trek doesn’t have to be the Alpha Male of box office numbers, it just has to do so well that the same kinds of movies keep coming.
The Alpha Male of box office numbers belongs to James Cameron, and he just might surpass Titanic if Avatar is all it’s cracked up to be.
Star Trek is a far better movie than Transformers 2, regardless of the box office. Heck, Hangover and The Proposal are each far better movies than Transformers 2. But that’s the kind of stuff that Michael Bay does, and he keeps getting to do it because people keep paying him money to see him make those types of films.
My guess is that the Star Trek sequel will do much better—provided it’s as good a movie with as much critical acclaim—than Trek ‘09 because many of the non believers who didn’t see it in theaters will probably have seen it on video by that time, and they will have realized that yeah, it’s a really good movie.
But all bets are off if the Star Trek sequel is a critical bomb.
40. Now, now. Don’t confuse them by using facts.
And P.S., RD, I really do think, as I mentioned in other posts, that if they are able cast a huge Bollywood star in the role of Khan (I suggested someone like Aamir Khan), then should they go that route with the story they might see a significant rise in overseas totals where Trek has been weak. And I think that would be a financially smart and artistically wise decision to make. India has a HUGE movie industry, well over a billion people, and they love their movies and movie stars there.
#32: :..while it is a somewhat interesting and pretty okay movie, it’s NOT Star Trek by any stretch of the imagination.”
Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. It’s certainly Star Trek, it’s just of a slightly different style this time. To quote the great Norm MacDonald: “You, sir, are extremely grizzled.”
“Sadly, moviegoers on the whole ARE INDEED that intellectually deficient these days. ”
I couldn’t AGREE more. I mean, we live in an age where movies like Beverly Hills Chihuahua are #1 at the box office for more than one week in a row. I will say; however, that I did enjoy the new Transformers for what it was… an enjoyable fun summer popcorn flick. It is what it is, and I couldn’t help but be entertained by it. I don’t consider myself any dumber for that. But I do see it for what it is, and sadly, many of those who saw it this past weekend DO see it as intelligent sci-fi (syfy to them?) somehow. But yeah, definitely not a lot of critical thinking going on during it. Also, definitely a good movie to put on during a night of moderate-heavy drinking (just don’t even try to play one of those “every time –transformer A– does something, do a shot” games because you are certain to all lose… BIG TIME.) because you really don’t have to pay attention to much of the plot. Still, I did enjoy it.
“Be further disquieted by this: after seeing the film “Idiocracy,” I am personally convinced that it won’t take 500 years for some future Star Trek film to be a long series of Jim Kirk kicking someone in the balls.”
As really stupid as that sounds, you know it would still be awesome on some level. I can see the title now: “Star Trek: Kirk-Fu Wrath to the Balls”
I also see “I’m Johnny Knoxville, and this is Klingon targ wrestling” and of course it’s Steve-O or Chris Pontius going in there to wrestle them. Knoxville would take part in the “Klingon head-butting” stunt.
76:
“The increased interest in Star Trek is resulting in more and more revisiting ENT. I’d be willing to bet DVD boxsets of it are selling more than at anytime since 2005.”
Just a random check on Amazon: The TOS-R season 2 DVD set ranks #831 in TV & movies, while ENT season 4 ranks #5043 in the same subset, lower even than DS9 seasons.
ENT is NOT coming back anytime soon because, season 4 aside, it is derivative Trek. Too much talking, constipated Vulcans and no chances taken at all.
32: “Be further disquieted by this: after seeing the film “Idiocracy,” I am personally convinced that it won’t take 500 years for some future Star Trek film to be a long series of Jim Kirk kicking someone in the balls.”
Lol. Why wait, dude? Get yourself a couple of Star Trek uniforms and a partner in crime and put that on YouTube ASAP.
You might be hailed as a genius and given Michael Bay’s former office.
lol. Kirk kicking someone in the balls from 200 different angles, photographed at different speeds.
#5
Syd you should be a movie critic.
Seriously funny and well put analysis.
I have a friend who is a movie critic and he told me that during the sneak preview screening, he noticed quite a few critics leave the theater at different points during the film.
The sad truth is, as long as movies like this make AS MUCH or MORE money than quality movies like Star Trek, the trend will continue.
84. If you want to take Amazon as the basis of your argument… you might want to avoid letting an “ENT sucks” mentality colour your view of the data.
Enter Star Trek into their search engine and from the drop-down box on the right hand side, select sort by Bestselling.
http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1246298314/ref=sr_pg_1?ie=UTF8&rs=130&sort=salesrank&keywords=star%20trek&bbn=130&rh=n%3A130%2Ck%3Astar%20trek&page=1
Star Trek TOS-R Season Two is #841 in their overall DVD sales and the fourth highest entry, below
1. Pre-order Star Trek (2009)
2. The Films I-VI (Blu ray)
3. TOS Season 1 (Blu Ray)
At 11. and rated #1771 overall, you’ll find Star Trek ENTERPRISE Complete Series.
As for ENT being derivative, I don’t agree… nor will I ever.
#67: “Very true! But the point really isn’t that there weren’t dumb movies in the 70’s and 80’s. God knows there were. The point is Transformers COULD have strived to be better.”
Nor is the dumbing down movies for audiences anything new. In 1982 the movie “Making Love” (which is as far from removed from “Star Trek” and “Transformers 2″ as being in another galaxy) had a scene where Claire, a TV network program planning manager (played by Kate Jackson) has a huge– and losing argument, on why can’t we have smarter TV (and presumably) movies, steering the audience to something better, something smarter, than pandering to a lower common denominator?
It was a valid question then, and frankly, more so now.
80. dmduncan wrote: Star Trek doesn’t have to be the Alpha Male of box office numbers, it just has to do so well that the same kinds of movies keep coming.
And my point all along has been that Trek ‘09 is simply continuing a tradition of mostly good and entertaining movies holding its own at the boxoffice. It is TNG that killed it, specifically INS and NEM (not counting TFF from which it recovered). If Trek were equal to Transformers, they could have still made INS & NEM and both grossed a billion dollars between them and kept making them. But Trek does not have the same kind of fan base for some reason.
So that raises two questions:
If Trek were more like Star Wars or Transformers would it make similar numbers? If Trek could make similar numbers to SW or Trans, would Paramount opt to change Trek to make more money than it already does? They didn’t 30 years ago, but as I am continually told, the historical view of Trek doesn’t matter.
dmduncan wrote: “Star Trek is a far better movie than Transformers 2, regardless of the box office.”
No argument there. However, were back to why a studio makes a movie in the first place. Is it enough for Trek to make steady money and maintain its integrity, or given its potential, could Paramount make Trek into a top box office blockbuster by giving into the same formulas as Transofrmers & Spiderman? Or is it even possible for Trek. Perhaps Trek simply does not have the universal appeal that Star Wars does, no matter what you do to the formula.
dmduncan wrote: “many of the non believers who didn’t see it in theaters will probably have seen it on video by that time, and they will have realized that yeah, it’s a really good movie.”
Do you really believe there is more than a handful of Trek fans who have not seen this movie? Do you think their numbers are in ANY WAY influential at the box office? I seriously doubt it.
INDIA I pointed out the billions of Indians/Bollywood marketing potential a while back and was promptly shot down in that most of the population lives in abject poverty. Nevertheless, there is a strong middle class at least equal to the population of the United States, but like in the US, they are not all going to embrace a Star Trek movie simply for the sake of an Indian star. Otherwise, Trek should have grossed as much as Star Wars in the US simply because it is a space movie.
It seems like they’re just tossing all these “pander-to-the-fans” ideas out there to get them out of the way before really getting down to work. If they absolutely must drag out and flog old continuity, then develop a character or a concept that was underdeveloped during the original series, as was done with Uhura. Don’t just toss out familiar names and actors and expect us to get all giddy like a bunch of trained monkeys.
64–I don’t think there could be a better storyline for the next movie. I don’t think they will DO that, but that’s what I want to see.
After that Perez Hilton post, I hope he doesn’t plan on hounding Zach Quinto. His private life should be HIS private life.
#7:
The prime universe was screwed up before Kurtzman & Orci got to it.
Which is one of the reasons I’m glad they changed things around in this movie.
Okay, it’d be kind of cool to see a future film in which, say, Geordi LaForge comes back into the Abramsverse to try and find Spock (who obviously went missing). That would kick ass, am I right?
I think leaving the possibilities open is a good idea. Whether it actually comes to fruition or not is another story. I can envision a lot of ways that they could incorporate the Prime Universe again.
I would say the diffrences between Transformers and Star Trek is like Star Trek is Real Math and Transformers is like Imaginary math. In real math a circle is 360 degrees and you can only go 180 degrees to be opposite. I imaginary Math you can be light years apart or even in another Time/Space Dimension. Even though in ST:TM (that’s Star Trek The 2009 Movie) the new time line thing kind of counters or aproches the Imaginary Math field.
Q could probably move between both universes…. just say’n.
#43: “Canon schmanon! . . . There was precious little consistency in TOS and it didn’t suffer for it. . . . Once upon a time, Star Trek was about a possible future for us. By the end, it was about a pompous, self-contained fantasy universe that had about as much relevance to us as the Star Wars universe does!”
I accept that we have fundamental difference in our enjoyment of Trek. I, personally, find the consistency and linkages between and among the episodes, shows, and movies to be a major factor in my affection for the franchise. But you should note that even TOS tried hard to have consistency (read “The Making of Star Trek” if you doubt me on that.)
I also think we have a disagreement on the relevance of Trek. It ceased to be about “us” in the sense of a true future history as early as “The City on the Edge of Forever” or “Assignment: Earth”, which even at the time were alternate realities. (For instance, there were no orbiting bombs launched in 1968.) It died entirely in 1996, unless you happened to see DY-500 launches taking place! : )
Bottom line: I submit that interstory consistency is at least as important as intrastory consistency and that I like both in my Trek – even if Trek “history” is different than our actual history. I accept that you may not, and may actually see little use for consistency. May you find your way as pleasant.
Sorry, but I hate it how a pretty much mindless movie like Transformers is gonna make ungodly more money than something thought out like Star Trek. For one, sorry but I hate Michael Bay, and I thought that the movie was worse than the first one. I still cant believe that the same people that wrote Star Trek were involved with it. It was fun, but nothing more. Nothing in the movie surprised me, nothing even made me say wow. But I guess that’s what the general public has been reduced to throwing their money at, pretty sad if you ask me.
I think its great that Bob Orci comes here and interacts so I want to get that out of the way.
I found Transformers II offensive on so many levels. Some have called it brainless but so much of the infantile bathroom humor and racist overtones had to be a CONSCIOUS decision. What saddens me even more is that the numbers it made this past week only guarantee more of the same. More distressing still is that the same writers who have been chosen to be the vanguards of Mr Roddenberrys vision, where this sort of 5th grade humor and cartoony racism would have been shunned, are the same ones responsible (along with Bay) for this garbage.
My Idea for a story is this. Someone stumbles in the cavern that has Datas Head and after studying it they find some scientest to also look at it and one of them is Dr Soong. (played by Brent Spiner of corse.) Well this Dr. Soong is not a nice person and he awakens the Data Head and then after a small conversation reprograms the Data Head to a more bad person and of corse the Head of Data helps him desgin a Cybertronic body. At some point Guinan who was there in the cavern and who also knows Data comes and tries to stop Dr. Soong and gets Kirk and the Enterprise to try and help her stop him and of Corse Guinan knows this is not how things were supposed to be but does not try and change it either. But a lot of twist and turns happen as well.
RD, for some reason you are obsessed with the money aspect of how well or not well Star Trek is doing in comparison to some other franchise.
I’m not.
I don’t want Star Trek to be Star Wars, Transformers, or anything else but what it is. Star Trek is one of Paramount’s heavy hitter properties, regardless of what numbers Transformers also puts up. And if it makes enough money to justify a sequel, then a sequel will be made, and if it doesn’t, then fini. But we already know a sequel is in the works. It did what it had to do.
Obviously movies like Transformers and Star Wars appeal to a certain segment of the population which is larger than the segment which loves Star Trek, for whatever reason, and the reason is probably not flattering. I don’t care about that either. I only care that we get to see more great Star Trek movies like the one we just had. I doubt it’s a coincidence that Star Wars became little more than a drawing board for the George Lucas Toy Factory after the first movie, that Transformers also has a far more robust toy line than Star Trek, and that I believe movies are scheduled to be made of Monopoly and Life board games.
RD wrote: “Do you really believe there is more than a handful of Trek fans who have not seen this movie? Do you think their numbers are in ANY WAY influential at the box office? I seriously doubt it.”
No, I’m not talking about Star Trek fans here. I’m saying that when Star Trek comes out on DVD, a lot of the people who are NOT Star Trek fans and who didn’t want to see it in the theater will check it out on Netflix, Blockbuster, Red Box, etc. And when they do they’ll realize what a great movie it was and I think you’ll see more people who didn’t watch it in theaters the first time more interested in not missing the sequel in the theater.
RD wrote: “INDIA I pointed out the billions of Indians/Bollywood marketing potential a while back and was promptly shot down in that most of the population lives in abject poverty. Nevertheless, there is a strong middle class at least equal to the population of the United States, but like in the US, they are not all going to embrace a Star Trek movie simply for the sake of an Indian star. Otherwise, Trek should have grossed as much as Star Wars in the US simply because it is a space movie.”
I disagree with those who shot you down. MOST of the revenue generated by movies in Asia comes out of India. And movie stars there do have a very loyal fan base. You don’t need everyone to go see it in India, either. What you need is to improve Trek’s Asian performance, and casting an Indian star would be a good way to do it.
Based on Transformer’s 2 & The Hangover’s performance I think Trek’s chances of making the top 5 Domestic are fading.
This is the way I see it now:
1) Transformers 2
2) Harry Potter
3) New Moon
4) GI:Joe
5) Up
6) ? The Hangover, Bruno, 2012, Public Enemies, Trek ?
“As far as I’m concerned ‘proper’ Star Trek begins with Kirk and Spock playing chess in Where No Man has Gone Before and ends with the crew sailing off into history at the end of TUC. It then restarts in ST09 with Spock from the future travelling back in time! All that garbage about the Nexus and Kirk dying on Veridian III is just an alternate universe.”
Amen, brother. TNG and on (with some DS9 exceptions) kind of seemed like the regional dinner theatre version of the trek universe — the darned sets even looked like a holiday inn on some midwest interstate.
Transformers was weak, aside from the endless balls and humping jokes (which will always be curly’s gold, I mean comedy gold — if you’re 9 and have no sense of humour). But it wasn’t as bad as I feared. Okay, and some of the dumb jokes were funny. For a 2.5 hour movie, there wasn’t a lot of story or character development there, other than answering the question we’ve all been asking since the first one — who will say I love you first (I won $3 on that). But frankly, I didn’t really expect that. I’ll still see it again, because robots are cool — even when you can’t really discern what they’re actually doing.
Bob and Alex restore the Prime timeline and don’t give us that this new timeline is an alternate parallel time line!
#105. Really? What the heck for? Just asking. It’s fiction, for Pete’s sake. I’ll take new stories any day — as long as I can get a written guarantee that the old ones aren’t going to fade from my DVDs like the McFlys.
Sorry, I sound like a jerk today, I’m noticing. I don’t mean to. It’s Monday.
okay! okay!
The movie was a REBOOT!
A prime timeline of this movie would also be a REBOOT, would it not?
call it alternate timeline, call it alternate universe. It still is a reboot.
102. dmduncan wrote: “RD, for some reason you are obsessed with the money aspect of how well or not well Star Trek is doing in comparison to some other franchise. I’m not. I don’t want Star Trek to be … anything else but what it is. Star Trek is one of Paramount’s heavy hitter properties, regardless of what numbers Transformers also puts up.”
I am not obsessed with money either. I am fascinated by the fact that Transformers, the worst reviewed movie of the year, can open and make more money in 5 days than Trek, one of the best reviewed movies of the year, has made during its entire 8 week run.
What interests me is whether Paramount (or its successor following a merger) will leave well enough alone and let Star Trek be the franchise it always has been, or if the studio’s desire to maximize profits will drive it to marginalize the franchise along the lines of Transformers. Many changes have been made to Trek already which many would not accept as traditional classic aspects of the series. In fact the cries have already started: “I loved the new movie, but lets get back to basics”. I doubt the studio will be willing to do that. If anything I would bet they will want to push for more “exciting” and uncharacteristic elements.
This Trek may well be the most successful of all of the franchise, and in any event one of the top two most profitable. By rekindling the franchise so dramatically, will they be able to resist the temptation to go for more, or accept less by sticking with the tried and true?
One final point to make, while this movie has all but guaranteed a sequel, there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that Abrams, Orci or Kurtzman will end up on board, especially if Paramount merges with another studio. Remember, Rick Berman was once the producer of the Trek prequel. Paramount may decide to hand the whole franchise over to Steven Speilberg to produce (if he were willing) and let Michael Bay have a shot at it to take Trek where none of its box office grosses have gone before.
It is not me that is obsessed with money, but rather the studios. Indeed it is their whole reason for being. With such a tantalizing motivation … will accepting a healthy profit be enough for them, when more might be possible? Only time will tell.
105. Robert – June 29, 2009
Bob and Alex restore the Prime timeline and don’t give us that this new timeline is an alternate parallel time line!
I am totally with you. restore the universe and everyone will be happy. and you still get to make more trek movies. i just feel that at the end, everything should be set right. thats always been the trek philosophy. spock told kirk, he cant change history in “guardian of forever” and its illogical that he do the oposite now. prime universe or not. thats just my opinion, but i would be happier knowing that the universe is restored. then do whatever but not invent RED matter. if you want real sci-fi, invent something better.
I love trek more than anything, but FARSCAPE is more sci-fi than trek. (And funnier, more violent, sexier, and crazier, badass, etc.) if they made trek like FARSCAPE, it would addict more than heroin. LOL
P.S. Best have William Shatner in it or ill be more pissed. When he dies, then you can not have him in the film, but until then, up with Shatner, down with Non-Shatner fans. Pine is good and he should keep at it, but Shatner is a must also.
RD wrote:
“What interests me is whether Paramount (or its successor following a merger) will leave well enough alone and let Star Trek be the franchise it always has been, or if the studio’s desire to maximize profits will drive it to marginalize the franchise along the lines of Transformers. Many changes have been made to Trek already which many would not accept as traditional classic aspects of the series. In fact the cries have already started: “I loved the new movie, but lets get back to basics”. I doubt the studio will be willing to do that. If anything I would bet they will want to push for more “exciting” and uncharacteristic elements.”
But there isn’t a formula that you can use to just get boffo box office. If there were, every studio would make billion dollar block busters all the time. It’s just not in your hands the way things work out or don’t. So turning the Star Trek franchise over to Michael Bay won’t promise a Transformers like box office turnout either. And you would set off a bunch of Star Trek fans that you need, by doing that. Paramount will play it safe and stick to what they’ve done so far, because it’s working. And Michael Bay wants to do a small movie, now, and get away from the big stuff, and who says Bay would even WANT to do a Star Trek? Can you imagine the threats he would get? Everything that guy makes is trivial crap, except for Armageddon, which I liked.
claudia black for the next trek!
Bob and Alex, if you are reading, THIS is why the timeline stories don’t work logically:
Even if Spock Prime ostensibly went back in “time” to prevent the destruction of Romulus, any change that he would have made would also have generated an alternate universe from that point forward, and so the Romulus of the timeline/universe Spock Prime left could never be spared by generating an alternate timeline/universe in which the star that destroyed the Romulus of Spock’s timeline was destroyed so that it could NOT destroy the Romulus of the new timeline.
So when you blew up Romulus in Spock’s universe, you blew it up permanently, and there was nothing Spock could ever have done to change that. He might have saved the Romulus of the new timeline from the same fate, but the Romulus in his timeline is gone, baby, gone.
The good news is that the Vulcan in Spock Prime’s universe still exists.
And I agree that none of the TNG movies mattered, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve never seen a more ineptly handled death than that of Captain Kirk in ST Generations. The poor work of unimaginative past writers should not be given more weight than it deserves to limit the possibilities of where this new franchise can go, and TNG had no authority to settle anything in the TOS universe as far as I’m concerned. And that applies to DS9, Voyager, and ENT as well.
All those series are “alternate universe” Trek stories, is how I look at it.
The nature as enemy story makes me kind of nervous. That seems better suited to me to a TV episode than a 2 hour movie. You don’t want to do another slow motion movie like ST-TMP.
One thing I thought might be a cool way to address all the fan complaints is to have nature correcting the imbalances caused by Spock by “resetting” the universe. Of course, this would be a transparent plot trick to reboot the reboot which I saw elsewhere you guys had considered.
Imagine a sort of wave that starts at the edge of the universe moving at much faster than light speed, and when it passes things will be slightly different than before. They know it’s coming, and they also know there is nothing they can do about it but wait for the end and the new beginning on the other side completely unsure of who or where they will be afterwards, with sadness that they might lose each other after just getting to know each other.
Maybe there is some major conflict and the passage of the wave resets and resolves that as well. Maybe you get sets that are more a combination of the old series and the new movie? So that you see things are different and yet the same.
Maybe the crew has a hint afterwards that things are different, maybe they don’t. Maybe all they have is a weird feeling of deja vu, or that things are suddenly not quite right or somehow different.
You could bring Vulcan back, get rid of Spock Prime, reset relationships, keep the future open for Kirk in disregard of ST Generations. It would be a mixture of the old and the new, with the future still wide open. It wouldn’t be an exact duplicate of TOS universe, but close enough to the Universe not to matter.
But yes, it would indeed be a trick to please fans. Still, it might be cool to see a reboot of the reboot too.
#110. dmduncan – ”Michael Bay” was an example. Never underestimate the foolishness of a studio. You cannot guarantee that they will leave well enough alone. Besides, if enough non-Trekkers flock to Trek, it will be their Trek too. While there may be no box-office formula, a popular director who does loud action oriented movies with trivial plots which attract a huge audiences who love them, may be a way to expand the franchise.
Think of it this way. If TMP made $400M at the box office and TWOK & TSFS made half that, and INS made half that, it would imply that the fans comprise perhaps half the number of the wider public success, and TNG fans half that. Applying those numbers, ST09 made half its money from new audiences. If Trek could make Transformers’ numbers and all the core fans were completely alienated, Trek would still gross twice as much at the box office than ST09 did. What studio would resist the temptation to achieve that, even at the expense of losing some? Clearly that’s the risk they took when they threw canon out the window and blew up Vulcan. And they did lose some fans. But for every original fan they may have lost, they probably gained 4 new ones. And that’s all that matters in the end.
RD wrote:
“If Trek could make Transformers’ numbers and all the core fans were completely alienated, Trek would still gross twice as much at the box office than ST09 did. What studio would resist the temptation to achieve that, even at the expense of losing some?”
Paramount. They are not stupid, and doing what you are talking about for some ethereal Transformers blockbuster status risks not achieving that status and blowing off its core audience, losing everything.
They don’t like risking money, and that is why in part you keep seeing brand name and old stuff being remade into movies. Because they are all recognizable brands, and that increases their odds of box office success in their eyes.
115. dmduncan wrote: doing what you are talking about for some ethereal Transformers blockbuster status risks not achieving that status and blowing off its core audience, losing everything.
Then they just reboot the franchise again and get all the fans back. It’s already happened once with Nemesis. Other studios have done it recently with Batman, Superman & The Hulk. They take a risk, it doesn’t work and they re-tool. No studio is stupid. But most are greedy. One failure will not kill a franchise like Trek which has made billions for Paramount over the last 40 years. It’s a small gamble to triple its profitability.
Besides, Michael Bay has only directed one box office failure and all but two have had tremendous returns. That is the kind of reputation studios will gamble the family farm on, and have done so in the past.
I don’t say the studio will do one or the other, I merely speculate. However, if they stay the safe course, it may become increasingly difficult to walk the fine line ST09 walked between die-hard fans and attracting new audiences and at the same time increase profits.
111. Andy T – June 29, 2009
claudia black for the next trek!
I HOPE SO. SHE IS HOT.
Its all about making money – the same phenom that drove the current recession and the Madoff Ponzi scheme.
I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie as entertainment – but I prefer TOS style Star Trek. I will plunk down the $$$ to see Star Trek 12 as well.
40 years ago we saw excellent TV programs like “Wild Wild West” cancelled due to the concern over violence.
The violence in movies and TV is far more prevalent, far more graphic, far more deadly and far more sanguine than ever. Strange how society in general is far more violent and sanguine than 40 years ago; strange how there are now so many street gangs and so much murder occurring within the USA.
For certain, if i had children between the ages of 6 – 16 I would never allow them to see Transformers 2 or any similarly violent films.
I try to avoid all violent movies as these are THE ONLY true obscenity in life!
I’d love to see Vonda McIntyre’s ‘Enterprise’ on the big screen. The special effects are up to par to bring all the amazing scenes to the big screen. Nice uhura story. Very cool spock story. Kirks first real adventure (including a love interest) as a mostly untried captain. Klingons. No need for a big giant over the top bad-ass villian to chew up the screen.
RD, they don’t like risking their money. If they could risk OUR money on a Michael Bay reboot, they might do it, but they won’t risk theirs because the outcomes are totally unpredictable. They do what’s safe, as long as its making money. And when it stops making money, THEN they’ll reboot it again, “canon” be damned. Star trek is not Transformers, Harry Potter, or Twilight. Transformers appeals to kids and adults who like to drool on themselves. Harry Potter is a great story with a huge literary following, and every movie they’ve made has done a good job of bringing the book to the screen. Twilight also has a huge literary following, but the books are awful! But the fans are following the story into the theaters. Star Trek is an odd bird that has been painted as something goofballs who wear Star trek uniforms during their daily lives go to see. It has a sort of stigma to the non fan general population, and I think all the series since TOS have actually helped to create that stigma. TNG actually WAS the Waltons in space, and apart form the fans I think Star Trek has a negative reputation to overcome.
This movie is helping to do that. And I think a lot of the people who missed Star Trek ‘09 in the theaters but who will catch it on DVD on some boring Friday or Saturday night when they have nothing to do and want to stay at home and relax, will become new fans who will want to see the sequel in theaters.
#120. If you say so. Brad Grey on the other hand has said this: “It’s incumbent upon us now to continue to build on our margins”. The only way to do that is to put more butts in seats. The only way to do that is to make Trek more appealing to a broader audience.
ST09 has still not yet performed any better than TMP and generally underperformed most of the early TOS films in every respect other than gross revenue. So any studio that gets it’s hands on the franchise has a choice to make, more of the same or more of what attracted new audiences in the first place.
One thing is certain. The new movie will have just as much action and as many explosions and space battles and fights as the current one. Any less would fail to deliver on the promise already established for new audiences, who every year seem to crave more and more of a roller-coaster ride from this type of movie. Many of the fans are already pleading for less of these elements in the next film and more exposition. Paramount or its successor will have to decide which way to go. My bet is that they will follow the path to make the most money. Whether the sequel gets the “Michael Bay” treatment or not, it will most likely creep into that territory, especially if the box office increases with every installment in direct proportion to pumped up action.
121: “One thing is certain. The new movie will have just as much action and as many explosions and space battles and fights as the current one. Any less would fail to deliver on the promise already established for new audiences, who every year seem to crave more and more of a roller-coaster ride from this type of movie. Many of the fans are already pleading for less of these elements in the next film and more exposition. Paramount or its successor will have to decide which way to go. My bet is that they will follow the path to make the most money.”
And as along as some of that action is “big idea” action, like space jumping, that’s a cool thing to do. Star Trek creates possibilities of merging ideas and action like that, which is true to its roots but in a cinematic way.
Also, action ain’t bad, bro. Look at Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Not only one of the best action movies ever, but a great, smart movie too.
So yeah, you can do dumb action: Transformers 2. Or smart action: Raiders. And this film sets a precedent for smart action to characterize this new franchise.
Now with a TV show you get 1 year of production that produces 24 hours of material. With movies you get 2 years of production that gets 2 hours of material.
The sort of slow, explorative stories of TOS are ideal for TV but less than ideal for cinema, because the dynamics of cinema are different, and unlike TV, the ONLY way you get to do episode after episode of a franchise in the movies is by doing great box office for each one.
One more ST-TMP type story and we are back to a slow demise and low budget Treks in the movies.
And I LIKED this Star Trek. I don’t like time travel plots, and I explain some of the reason why the time travel plot in ST 09 is actually illogical, even given how Bob and Alex think of time travel working in this case, but I also understand why Bob and Alex felt the need to do one to clean the slate. So I think they have the right feel for Trek in the movies, and all complaints considered, Star Trek ‘09 is a SMART action movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark, not a dumb action movie like Transformers 2.
# 112, I forgot to say, is where I point out why the Bob and Alex time line premise is illogical.
121: “ST09 has still not yet performed any better than TMP and generally underperformed most of the early TOS films in every respect other than gross revenue.”
Where was ST-TMP in $ at the same point during it’s release as ST ‘09 is now? How many theaters? The total that ST ‘09 is competing against with respect to ST-TMP is the total for its entire run. Star Trek ‘09 isn’t done yet.
And as far as gross revenue is concerned that IS the bottom line.
So don’t be so grim, RD.
Also consider that this film is much better than ST-TMP with solid critical acclaim. ST-TMP was a critical bomb, by comparison, and bad reviews combined with a sleepy slow plot makes the investor nervous.
Investment $ for the sequels dropped after TMP despite its box office success for those reasons.
123. dmduncan – June 30, 2009
# 112, I forgot to say, is where I point out why the Bob and Alex time line premise is illogical.
Watch “The City on the Edge of Forever” and “Mirror, Mirror”
#124 dmduncan wrote: “Investment $ for the sequels dropped after TMP despite its box office success for those reasons.”
Nope, investment dollars dropped because TMP ended up being one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, which Paramount went a long with because they thought they were gonna make Star Wars grosses. When they didn’t they needed to trim costs. TWOK was produced for the same budget Star Wars was, and despite being a significantly better reviewed movie, did not gross as well, but it did perform better than ST09 is now against its competition. After that the budgets went up, mainly due to ROI which is in the same ballpark as ST09 finally hit.
Also, the original Transformers was a pretty well reviewed film and the story fairly smart. After they made $750M the sequel is one of the worst reviewed films ever and stands to challenge The Dark Knight. So, everyone involved in the sequel pandered to the lowest common denominator and it paid off. Why didn’t the studio just play it safe and insisted on a smarter script? Because they wanted the money. It’s the same studio now with Trek. Its made a lot of money and part of what got it there is what audiences are responding too: Kirk’s swollen hands, Scotty’s sidekick and a lot of action and plot-holes that makes no sense if you think about them too hard. Hmmm. What will Paramount do next?
125: Watch “The City on the Edge of Forever” and “Mirror, Mirror”
You mean for 1029th time?
Star Trek has been responsible for some of the most incoherent conceptions of time travel literally imaginable. Sling shotting around the sun?
But we love it anyway, right?
Okay. So what I said addresses how Bob and Alex conceived of it working in Star Trek ‘09. Lots of people are angry because they think that Bob and Alex completely destroyed the TOS timeline, and that everything in that timeline never happened and no longer exists. They think Bob and Alex wiped it all out.
Bob and Alex, on the other hand, contend that Spock (moreso Nero, actually) created an alternate and parallel timeline by meddling in the past. That is, by changing the past, a parallel timeline was born that exists in addition to the timeline from which both Spock AND Nero came from.
So we’ll grant them that premise. So far so good, right?
The problem then becomes that destroying the star that will destroye Romulus in the future of the Trek Prime universe creates an alternate timeline that saves the Romulus for the ALTERED timeline, but leaves the Romulus from Spock’s timeline unsaved. Because any change made that did not happen before immediately begins an alternate universe. So the future in the Trek Prime universe where Romulus was destroyed remains unchanged, just as all the adventures and characters of the Trek Prime universe remain unchanged, according to Bob and Alex’s thinking.
Romulus in Trek Prime is gone.
So Spock was ultimately on a mission of folly. Even given the logic behind the time travel that Bob and Alex stated, Spock’s mission wouldn’t have saved the destroyed Romulus of the Trek Prime universe.
P.S. And unless they destroy that star in the new universe, it WILL destroy the new Romulus in 129 years in the future.
So, they’d better get to work on that, pronto.
Furthermore—I’m on a roll here—because that star DID explode in the Trek Prime universe, we can infer that no Spock from another universe went back to meddle in the Trek Prime universe to prevent that star from exploding, because A: They probably would have found a way to destroy that star, and B. Because Spock Prime would then have been aware of that dangerous Star in his youth, and it would thus not have been a surprise to him in the future that it would go supernova so quickly, prompting the events that set ST ‘09 in motion.
Therefore, the meddling begins with Spock and Nero as they leave the Trek Prime universe.
126: “Nope, investment dollars dropped because TMP ended up being one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time,”
Regardless of how much the movie cost, they made it all back and a profit too, correct? That’s what I recall. I can’t recall the budget of TMP right now, but despite the profit it didn’t do as well as expected. And when your expectations are disappointed the wallet goes back in the pants, even if they make money on the deal, they don’t like risk and they were disappointed.
“Why didn’t the studio just play it safe and insisted on a smarter script? Because they wanted the money.”
Yeah, they wanted the money, but they used the same team for the second movie as they did for the first because they wanted the second to be as successful as the first, and they are averse to risk. They had no freakin idea so many people worldwide were going to be in the mood to make ape noises at the screen for two hours over transforming robots. I guarantee you they are more surprised than anyone at how well Transformers 2 has done.
And I liked Transformers (the first one). It was fun. And I seriously doubt Bob and Alex intentionally turned out a simple minded script. They probably did the best they could to aim for the same type of film as the first one under the conditions they had, and just missed.
You don’t HAVE to make lame movies to make money. So the idea that they are going to just make lame stuff because they want money makes no sense at all.
Titanic wasn’t lame. The Dark Knight wasn’t lame. Harry Potter isn’t lame. Transformers 2 is a fluke, not the rule, because high earners are also generally good movies. It isn’t until position # 28: Independence Day, on the list I looked at, where you finally get to a genuinely crappy movie all the way around.
So I don’t think the facts support this idea you seem to have that more stupid stories equals more money at the box office.
#130. So if Bob and Alex aim for the same type of film as ST09 and we get the equivalent of Transformers 2, then that will be because they tried their best and the studio had no input whatsoever?
You really think after Transformers made over $740M Paramount had no idea the sequel would do just as well if not better, based on other similar franchise sequels in which the debut did well?
And which list are you looking at? For the last 10 years, I only have to get down around #4 Pirates of the Caribbean to find a film the critics panned almost as badly as Transformers 2. And are you seriously going to tell me that all 3 Spiderman Movies, Star Wars I, II & III, Matrix Reloaded, Shrek III, Indiana Jones: Crystal Skull, MI:II and Ice Age:Meltdown are all intelligent movies? I’d say the top 30 films grossing more than $700M in the last 10 years are about 50/50 bad, dumb, poorly reviewed action films, Vs. intelligent well received action films.
002 Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace $1,306.39
004 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest $1,168.75
010 Spider-Man $1,015.46
012 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End $1,002.90
016 Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith $950.76
017 Spider-Man 3 $929.75
019 Spider-Man 2 $906.23
020 The Matrix Reloaded $883.63
022 Shrek the Third $833.84
024 Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones $802.53
025 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull $786.60
026 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $779.08
027 Transformers $739.19
029 Mission: Impossible II $727.86
030 Ice Age: The Meltdown $714.60
The $600M films really start to get bad: War of the Worlds, Tarzan, Kung Fu Panda, The Day After Tomorrow, King Kong, Mamma Mia!, Meet the Fockers,etc.
In the end, just because a studio may be risk adverse, doesn’t mean they don’t make bad decisions.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we take a look at Orci/Kurtzman’s track record: The Island, The Legend of Zorro, MI:III, Transformers, Watchmen, Star Trek, Transformers 2 – all of which average out to about a 50% critical review ranking on Rotten Tomatoes, mostly due to Star Trek’s 95% review rating, which can arguably be credited largely to JJ Abrams. And let’s not overlook their producer credits: The Proposal & Eagle Eye, both of which received terrible reviews.
So far, only Transformers shows what they can do with a sequel. And what happens if Abrams decides not to direct?
127. dmduncan wrote: So Spock was ultimately on a mission of folly. Even given the logic behind the time travel that Bob and Alex stated, Spock’s mission wouldn’t have saved the destroyed Romulus of the Trek Prime universe.
You don’t understand their logic at all and completely misunderstood what happened in the film. Spock did NOT intentionally go back in time to attempt to save Romulus. He and Nero went back in time accidentally as the result of being caught in the black hole after Spock destroyed the star to prevent it from doing further damage after it had already destroyed Romulus.
Spock NEVER intended to reverse the destruction of Romulus, since he knew that such an effort was impossible, only resulting in the splintering-off of yet another alternate parallel universe. In fact, time travel may even be impossible in Orci’s Trek universe, with the secondary results of the red-matter black hole sending them back in time completely unanticipated and unintended. Whether or not it is attainable, it most certainly cannot be used to change linear events within a single timeline.
Actually, a Trek-Transformers crossover would be insane, plus it would create greater exposure for Trek worldwide, so it wouldn’t be seen a such an ‘American’ show. Of course, any talk of a crossover is crazy talk…
In a way, it’s disappointing that Transformers is pulling in the numbers much faster than Trek on the big screen.
Onto another opinion that I don’t read too much on the boards re: ST: Something Something….it’s entirely possible that the writing team might introduce an entirely new ‘regular’ character in the next movie (and not just a Lt. Hawk type). Throw a new face in the mix that the fans don’t recognize and it could really be interesting (eg: after Narada, the Rommies make truce with the Feds, as they were appalled by the destruction of their kindred on Vulcan and Kirk’s ‘goodwill’ gesture towards Nero at the end…and presto! a Rommie crew member on the E ala Riker training with the Klings. Tensions mount between Uhura/Spock/newguy because of the destruction of Vulcan.) Damn, just when I promised myself not to write another idea for the next movie…
Finally, looking at the list provided in a recent post, it’s entirely possible that by the time Trek finishes the trilogy/tetraology, the revenue will be massive. Note the number of 3rd installments in that list…
RD, obviously you are right. Michael Bay, or someone like him, will direct the next Star Trek movie, and they will dumb it down to make more money.
And I love movies and I judge them for myself. No critic’s opinion tells me what I think of a film. I don’t care what critics say. Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I do NOT agree. Transformers 2 sucked, but I enjoyed Pirates, all 3, and King Kong AND War of the Worlds, AND I would recommend The Proposal as an enjoyable lighthearted film, so don’t try to paint reviewer opinion stats as some objective gold standard of movie goodness or badness. I’m not buying it.
132: “You don’t understand their logic at all and completely misunderstood what happened in the film. Spock did NOT intentionally go back in time to attempt to save Romulus. He and Nero went back in time accidentally as the result of being caught in the black hole after Spock destroyed the star to prevent it from doing further damage after it had already destroyed Romulus.”
The star went supernova destroying Romulus. Spock wanted to inject the red matter into the star before it exploded, but failed. He was too late. Spock didn’t destroy the star at all. It went supernova BEFORE he could destroy it.
“Spock NEVER intended to reverse the destruction of Romulus, since he knew that such an effort was impossible, only resulting in the splintering-off of yet another alternate parallel universe.”
If he wasn’t going back to try and save Romulus, what was he going to do with the red matter? The star already exploded and there was nothing left to inject the matter into, except in the past. What was the black hole supposed to do? Suck up all the offending supernova energy spreading throughout the galaxy without sucking up anything else? That’s a rather selective black hole. At some point I’ll see it again in the next few weeks, but if you’re right, I suspect I’ll be trading one plot hole in for another one.
Maybe I’m the one who needs the Vulcan mind meld to understand the story.
But in either case THAT’S Star Trek too. Star Trek has never been hard science fiction and has always taken liberties with the science, but we love it anyway.
And don’t get so tightly coiled up over all these “what ifs.” What will be, will be. Bob and Alex are talented guys who like and respect this franchise and who respect the fans opinions. The measure of their talent isn’t Transformers 2, it’s Star Trek. In fact, I commend them for actually taking a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon and actually turning it into a fun and interesting action movie (the first movie), which I was skeptical could be done at all. So just relax, RD, there’s a long way to go before that sequel comes out to be so tensed up over it.
And there is nothing you can do about it anyway except “woe is me” about the future.
I mean, you can be grim if you want to be. I choose to be hopeful, because Bob and Alex have given me good reason to be hopeful with how they’ve handled the franchise so far. Doesn’t mean I’m not wrong, and that they can’t screw up the sequel, but it does mean that I’m not going to stoke a sense of dread about what might happen.