VIDEO: Nicholas Meyer on Star Trek II, Blockbusters and directing Star Trek Sequel (if asked) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

VIDEO: Nicholas Meyer on Star Trek II, Blockbusters and directing Star Trek Sequel (if asked) June 20, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Conventions/Events/Attractions,Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Star Trek Into Darkness,TrekMovie.com , trackback

Last night the Simply 70(mm) Star Trek Summer movie series continued at the Royal Theater in West Los Angeles. The guest for the night was Nicholas Meyer. Below you can see highlights and video of my chat with Meyer at the screening where he talks about making the ultimate Star Trek sequel as well as discussing if he would be interested in directing the next Star Trek sequel.  

 

 

Meyer talks Star Trek II, Blockbusters and more

Some highlights from Meyer’s talk on Star Trek II

Meyer on Star Trek sequel

The last question (by request of many via email and Twitter) regarded the sequel to the 2009 Star Trek movie. I asked Meyer "If it turns out that JJ Abrams cannot direct the next Star Trek movie, would you be interested?" which garnered a lots of hoots and hollers of approval from the audience. Meyer’s response (with a smile)

Meyer: It depends on the script

And here is the video in two parts on YouTube (thanks to our new friend bdbdb)

NOTE: Meyer uses some ‘colorful metaphors’, and yes you can see my belly.

I could have talked to Meyer for hours, but it was a midnight show and we were doing the Q&A before the event, so Mr. Meyer wanted to keep it short to let the crowd see the movie and get out of there at a reasonable time. It was a lot of fun and as usual he was very gracious and entertaining. There was a big crowd on hand who seemed to enjoy the Q&A and the 70 MM Screening of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.


Line around the block for midnight show of Trek II at Royal Theater in West LA Saturday June 19th (Photo: Jonathan Lane)

More 70MM Trek coming this summer

The summer series of 70 mm Trek films at the Laemmle Royal Theater (in conjunction with Ledjer Film & Theater services and TrekMovie.com) continues over the next few weeks, here is the latest schedule.

Date Film Guest
June 26 STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK Ralph Winter
(assoc. Producer)
July 10 STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME Nichelle Nichols
(Uhura)
July 17 STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER Walter Koenig
(Pavel Chekov)
July 24 STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY George Takei
(Hikaru Sulu)

EVENT DETAILS

What: Simply 70 Star Trek movie series

When: Saturdays at midnight in June and July (see above schedule)

Where: Laemmle’s Royal Theatre is located at 11523 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025, (310) 478-3836 

Tickets: $10 for general admission. You can buy tickets at the box office or online at www.laemmle.com.

 

 

Comments

1. Ran - June 20, 2010

“Meyer: It depends on the script ”

If he is going to write it, sure, why not?

2. Esteban - June 20, 2010

Good point ‘Number 1.’

3. Rick - June 20, 2010

Wow cool stuff. There are times like these I wished I lived just a few hundred more miles down the road.;)

4. Rosario T. Calabria - June 20, 2010

3. Rick
I was thinking the same thing.

Great stuff. I’d be all over this if I didn’t live on the other side of the country.

5. Hugh Hoyland - June 20, 2010

Good stuff for sure. Myers mentioned a lot of those points in the DVD commentary for Wrath of Khan. A lot of what he said on it makes sense to IMO. It makes me curious as to what his opionion is of Star Trek 09.

6. dep1701 - June 20, 2010

Poor Walter, having to do a Q&A for Trek V. If anyone was going to be there it should be Bill, so he could defend his ‘vision’ or at the very least, David Loughery, so fans could ask him what he was thinking when he came up with some of this stuff.

I remember in ’89,a few months after trek v had come and gone from theatres. There was a one of those one or two room mini-cons being held near where I lived in Virginia Beach. The guest was Jimmy Doohan, who was his usual entertaining self. During the Q&A, I couldn’t help myself…I usually wouldn’t have stirred the pot like this, but I was just in a mood after the disappointment that was “The Final Frontier”. I raised my hand and asked him, “So when did you know that Star Trek V was going to be a bad movie?” ( this provoked gasps from the crowd ). He groaned and rolled his eyes and said, “From the moment I laid eyes on the script.” which got a huge laugh from the audience. He was quite a character.

7. KJTrek - June 20, 2010

If only Appleton, WI was the movie industry capital of the world instead of LA…

8. TJ Trek - June 20, 2010

I don’t think the myer is going to direct the next movie. Not because I don’t he actually would want too (if the script really was good), but I don’t think that there will be interesting in asking him too. I would love to see another Star Trek movie directed by Myer, I think it could be really good. But then again, the reason that the other movies myer directed were good, is because he had a huge hand in writing them as well. So I think for a myer directed movie to be good, he would have to have a hand it writing it too. I don’t think that the type of movie that is being written is his style (I’m assuming the next movie will have a similar writing style to the one that was just done.) But, I would love see Myer involved all the same. Here’s to hoping.

9. Simon - June 20, 2010

“David Loughery, so fans could ask him what he was thinking when he came up with some of this stuff”

Easy (and true) answer: “Bill wanted that”.

10. Marc McKenzie - June 20, 2010

Nick Meyer is class act. Not just a great writer and director, but he managed to bring Trek back from the dead with ST II.

Make no mistake–I liked THE MOTION PICTURE when I saw it as a child, but now…it still works, but the film still feels stiff, cold…and after reading reactions and reviews from when the film came out in theaters back in ’79, it appears that a good deal of critics and fans were a heck of a lot harsher to the movie.

THE WRATH OF KHAN is vibrant, exciting, an excellent revenge tale. And if Meyer got the chance to direct the sequel to TREK 2009, that would be very interesting to see.

11. Christine - June 20, 2010

YES!! I SEE A DICK BLICK ART MATERIALS!!!! Best part of the article.

Anyways.
I think it would be interesting for Meyer to direct STXII, but I would be just as happy with JJ Abrams (minus some lens flares) directing it. I thought he did a wonderful job. Abrams succeeded, at least in my eyes, at making Star Trek a work of art, not just a movie.
Now, I’m not saying that Meyer wouldn’t do wonderful things for the franchise. I’m sure he would. But I can be just as content with Abrams. :)

12. Kirk's Revenge - June 20, 2010

“art is not a democracy”

There are bosses out there that need those words tattooed to their foreheads.

13. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

I would say that Meyer’s directing style is much too “slow-paced” for today’s audience. You can have great dramatic moments AND epic proportions!

14. Hugh Hoyland - June 20, 2010

Im not sure Meyer would be the first choice if JJ cant or wont direct the next one. If he doesnt direct it Im not sure who would be next in line. My preference would be Del Toro, but I would be happy if Spielberg did it, or Ridley Scott or just as cool if JJ does, but right now Im not getting the vibe he will.

15. The Riddler - June 20, 2010

Love Meyer and his philosophy on art.

If he directed and wrote the next star trek film it would be very very exciting to see.

16. Anthony Thompson - June 20, 2010

Excellent. Wish I could have been there (though frankly I do think WOK is over-rated).

Paramount won’t let him do the sequel unless he agrees to do breakneck editing and puts in lots of lens flares. Which he won’t do. And frankly, the technology of filmaking has changed so much that he’d be at a disadvantage.

17. dwnicolo - June 20, 2010

To the Execs at Paramount: get Meyer to write/direct the next movie.

18. Anthony Thompson - June 20, 2010

Another thought: Meyer, like Harlan, doesn’t have the kind of mindeset that studios of today (corporate to the max) can comprehend and accept. Studios don’t want to hear the ‘A’ word (art). Simple as that.

19. Vonneke Warlich - June 20, 2010

Speaking of “STAR TREK :THE MOTION PICTURE” ,when is the footage from that movie going to be replaced from the “The Wrath Kahn” space dock sequence. As beautiful as that footage is, it simply shows that the budget was to small to shoot new footage(everyones knows it is from the first movie). I love the movie as much as anyone, but that part always throws me out of the movie for a minute or two.
I had hoped they’d used the space dock set up(models & etc.) used from STIII on, as a set up to do some new CGI for the Director’s Cut. Maybe if someone bugged someone this could be done. Has this been brought up before. If so , please let me know where to find info.

20. Saavik001 - June 20, 2010

I read Meyer’s book The View from the Bridge and he seems like a intelligent and passionate guy. Wish I could have seen TWOK in 70 mm… TWOK is still my favorite trek movie of all time…

21. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

Just read “The Seven Percent Solution” to see that Meyer is quite brilliant. Whether he could direct another Trek movie (current day) is another matter entirely.

22. Admiral Waugh - June 20, 2010

Wow, I *really* wish I could have been there. Looks like a lot of fun. Good job.

23. WGW - June 20, 2010

anthony: are you moderating all the Q and A’s down there?

24. I am not Herbert - June 20, 2010

Sounds like a GREAT time!

I think Mr. Meyer would do just fine directing ST2012,

but GdT would be a dream come true!!

25. www.chrisfawkes.com - June 21, 2010

Even if he did not write i think consulting him on story and having him go over the working script and offering advice would be a smart move.

On the one hand the movies need to keep the feel that the new team have given yet getting input from Meyer would provide a level of depth that he seems to bring without over riding what Abrams, Orci and Kirtzman have done.

26. www.chrisfawkes.com - June 21, 2010

Oh, and i would like Tarantino brought in to write and direct a scene where Kirk fights the Gorn commander.

That would be cinematic gold.

27. S. John Ross - June 21, 2010

Meyer speaks wisdom.

28. Canon Schmanon - June 21, 2010

I have confidence in Meyer to direct the next film, but I’m not so sure he’s as picky about scripts as he may seem. TWOK was wonderful, but Undiscovered Country’s story was, in my opinion, very poor. Not as wretched as Final Frontier, but it was a pretty weak send-off for the original cast. Except for Sulu, actually. He was the only one who came out of that film not looking silly.

Sequels are scary, and can lose focus on what’s important. Take Iron Man for example. The first one had heart, it was about redemption, about fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, whereas the second one was simply about Stark’s self-absorption. He wasn’t fighting for the weak in this one. He was simply fighting those who wanted to kill him. This made for great action, but the heart was gone. Thank God we had Scarlett poured into various outfits. Her action scene stole the movie.

Sorry, kind of off-topic there.

29. www.chrisfawkes.com - June 21, 2010

Undiscovered country’s story was poor? You may be the only trek fan on the planet with that opinion.

The send off was fantastic.

30. Corinthian7 - June 21, 2010

Agreed Chris Fawkes, Undiscovered Country is my favorite of the TOS movies!

31. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

I believe that Meyer could write a stronger script for a Trek movie.

The Undiscovered Country has a really strong story and it is in my top 3 movies.

I’m sure I will get booed for saying this but Star Trek XI actually had one of the weakest plots, it is riddled with plot contrivances and when you actualy think about it the story makes no bloody sense, However, saying that the new movie works stronger on character.

What I am saying is the new movie did the mainstream thing and thought more about spectacle rather than thought.

I like the new movie but I am saying that it does suffer from a bit of lazy writing.

32. AJ - June 21, 2010

Star Trek VI suffers from several misfires, the first of which is Kirk’s brand new trait as a vengeful bigot. In “Day of the Dove” he says “We have no reason to hate Klingons!”

That shut him out of the rest of the story for me. You don’t alter a character’s long-established moral compass just to push the story forward.

It was also cringe-worthy for the Chekhov character to discuss “‘inalienable ‘human’ rights” in Trek’s 23rd century at a table loaded with Klingons.

Also, the gravity boots thing was extremely sloppy; a 5-minute whodunit that made Valeris and her insertion team look like idiots.

The overall arc of the film, the Sulu sub-plot, an over-the-top Christopher Plummer, and a great performance from DeForest Kelley make STVI a palatable piece of work. It could have been a lot better.

33. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

32

Fair enough but it worked for the film.

To me Undiscovered Country is a lot better than the new movie.

34. Jeyl - June 21, 2010

@32: “In “Day of the Dove” he says “We have no reason to hate Klingons!”

Ya, especially after a group of klingons invade Federation Space, destroy the USS Grissom, threaten Spock, Saavik, and murder his son David. When looking at the conext, David died for no reason. Kruge wanted to kill him just to show Kirk he meant business even though Kirk was already what kind of a man he was dealing with.

To make matters worse, the Klingon Empire labeled Kirk as a renegade and blamed him for the murder of the Klingon crew even though it was all in self defense. The klingons were literally calling Kirk the murderer even though they knew darn well that Kruge acted on his own and did all the killing.

I think that would change someone’s mind about their views of a society as a whole.

35. Al - June 21, 2010

Anthony doesn’t look at all like I thought. I assumed he was much older.

36. Steamblade - June 21, 2010

32. The killing of David, as was explained in the film during his log entry, is justification for his feelings. That said, it was a bit weak overall; the entire story hinged on a piece of velcro Spock just happened to have conveniently with him on the bridge and Kirk keeping his uniform when sent to prison. Veridian patch, indeed. Plus, they keep phasers in the galley?

37. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

What a surprise on this site.

The better Trek movies get slated for problems yet the problems with Star Trek XI’s script are always overlooked.

Hmmm

38. James Merson - June 21, 2010

Four stunningly beautiful and talented actresses were wasted in the last movie and should have had more screentime. Jennifer Morrison only appeared at the beginning and we don’t find out what happened to her, Rachel Nichols was only in it for three minutes and we don’t find out what happened to her, Winona Ryder was in it for nearly ten minutes and was needlessly killed off and Diora Baird was nowhere to be found (except in a brief cut scene).

The Jerry Goldsmith theme music from the Star Trek Insurrection end credits should have been used at the end. Even Russell Watson’s ‘Where My Heart Will Take Me’ (the album version which is one of the greatest, most inspirational and underrated songs of all time) should have been included in the film. The Original Series theme music and new theme music in the movie was unnecessary. The soundtrack was disappointing overall. ‘Labour of Love’ was the best part of it.

39. Greg Pope - June 21, 2010

Lady Gaga should have a cameo in Star Trek 12!

Midway through Star Trek 12, I’d like to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy go undercover to a concert of hers on a distant planet like with Diva Plavalaguna in The Fifth Element (1997). Her character (the most famous and successful singer in the Alpha Quadrant) could have dark connections to the Orion Syndicate who should be the villains of the sequel as they are essentially the Mafia of the Star Trek universe, involved in piracy, smuggling, and extortion. An explosively intense, thunderous phaser fight could erupt interrupting the show when she sings Bad Romance, Paparazzi, Poker Face or Just Dance between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and some Orion Syndicate henchmen.

40. Dresden - June 21, 2010

All of the cut scenes should have been included in the final film. J.J. Abrams made a bad call removing the Rura Penthe scenes. He said that the test audiences were confused by those scenes in particular. I am at a loss as to what was so confusing about the inclusion of the Klingons in the film. I am stunned that yet another recognisable actor (Victor Garber) was in the film (making it nearly 20) and not only was it not announced but cut out. It was absolutely shocking to leave such a huge plot hole regarding where the villains were for 25 years. It makes them look lazy and stupid on top of the fact that they were superficial. Nero and Ayel would have had more depth at least as well. The scenes with the Kirk family and Spock’s birth should have been included as well.

In Star Trek 12, James Kirk should have several human love interests just like James Bond and should be played by Hollywood’s most stunningly beautiful young actresses.

41. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

40

Shame that the Trek we love must be sacrificed for the mainstream.

42. Dan - June 21, 2010

To bad Hollywood today is pure crap now! Back then it was run by some a-hole studio heads but there were courageous directors to stand up those men. Now the coward directors are wipped by CEO’s, who decide what stays and what goes! Art is replaced by profit!

43. Buzz Cagney - June 21, 2010

The only problem I had with TUC was that they made Chekov an idiot! This man had served many years on the E. and yet we were supposed to accept he had no idea that the ship’s alarms would be set off by a phaser fired on anything but stun.
Apart from that Meyer is a god! Well, maybe not a god. But certainly a terrific story teller and movie maker. Where would Trek be without him.

44. Buzz Cagney - June 21, 2010

Was not Trek ’09 a ‘tent pole’ movie? I thought it was.

45. Trekfanatic - June 21, 2010

“On fans saying “you can’t Kill Spock” his reply is “yes you can, you just have to do it well.”

Please take note, Mr. Berman. Re: Kirk’s death.

46. www.chrisfawkes.com - June 21, 2010

@ 31. The story suffered from lazy writing. That’s good.

Generations suffered from lazy writing.

Just as Kirk’s death was singularly the worst kill off of a major pop culture icon his birth in the new trek would have to be the greatest entrance of any popular character ever.

The story of star trek 6 made no sense? I’ll explain it.

Given that Klingon had only a very short time left their only option was to make peace with the federation in order to survive.

Some from both sides did not like the idea and worked together to sabotage any attempts at peace.

It made sense. Not sure how anyone could miss that.

47. CmdrR - June 21, 2010

Paramount: HIRE THIS KID! Nic should be making tons of movies. He’s got at least as much talent as JJ Abrams (that’s meant as a compliment to both.) HIRE HIM, and let him do his thing!

48. Andy Patterson - June 21, 2010

Good interview Anthony. Wow, you get to meet all the famous people.

I like what Meyer says about the artist.

49. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

47

Actually Nick Meyer has more talent than Abrams and Orci.

50. denny cranium - June 21, 2010

I think Meyer (rightfully so) would antagonise the powers that be a t Paramount.
His “art statement” may prove this.
It’s “show business” people and unfortunately its decision by committee

51. Anthony Thompson - June 21, 2010

28, 29,30, etc.

Undiscovered Country (the theatrical / Blu Ray version, anyway) was hands down the best of the TOS movies. Just wish that it had had a proper budget. That Star Fleet conference room scene on an empty soundstage was cringe-worthy.

52. Remington Steele - June 21, 2010

Give that man the Gig for the new movie….

actually, just let him write it!

53. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

51

Actually, I seem to remember from the DVD commentary that the Starfleet conference was shot not on a soundstage but in the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood–of all things!

54. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

51

But Star Trek VI along with II proved you did not need large budgets to make a great Trek film.

50 Meyer’s thoughts on today’s cinema is a statement I agree with, its less about the stories and more about the commercial value even more so these days.

55. CAPT KRUNCH - June 21, 2010

If he directs..will it be another Khan story?…..I love his movie Time after Time….that was a beautifil story with sci fi thrown in….. TWOK was a great story with sci fi thrown in…..TUC was a great story..straight from news headlines…with sci fi thrown in….he could write another good story for TREK2!

56. Dunsel Report - June 21, 2010

Yeah, count me among the people who prefer II to VI. VI was an interesting bridge to TNG. But I agree that Kirk as a Klingon-hating bigot was a bit forced in the same way that it was sad to see Picard reduced in “First Contact” from Starfleet’s autumnal man of philosophy to an anti-Borg John Bircher.

The movie did succeed in making up for the perceived disaster of V, I think it was Nick Meyer himself (with his usual all-out brilliance) who observed that VI had this naive view of the end of the Cold War. It was the product of a time when we thought this hopeful new future was waiting after the collapse of the USSR, as long as a few bad guys didn’t hijack it. Hmm.

57. JohnWA - June 21, 2010

At the time of “Day of the Dove,” Kirk’s statement was appropriate.

But a lot happened between TOS and TUC.

The Klingons crossed into Federation space to steal a super secret experiment capable of destroying all life on a planet within seconds. Then they proceeded to attack an unarmed science vessel, threatened Kirk’s closest friends, killed his only son, forced him to destroy the Enterprise, and erroneously charged him with “terrorism” after the fact to cover up their crimes.

And to add humiliation to injury, the Federation sends him to make peace with the Klingons as a farewell mission? Three months before his scheduled retirement?

Given all that, I think Kirk’s reaction in TUC was not of line.

58. Victor Hugo - June 21, 2010

“art is not a democracy”

This line made my day, i´ll write that down :)

59. Hugh Hoyland - June 21, 2010

#57 Good points there, and as you point out quite a few negative “incidents” happened between Kirk and the Klingons in general in the latter part of the journey to make anyone bitter, no matter how PC they are supposed to be. TUC was yet another TOS based film that came out at a time when TNG was still in full swing, the other being ST5 and IMO both films suffered for it.

The studeo had its attention and resources focused on TNG and the upcoming DS9 series and had substantually lowered the production budget for both movies from the previous 3 (which werent sky high in the first place). Therefore the original scripts were either greatly altered and or edited from the original final drafts to the point of being “watered down” to fit the lowered budget and lost a lot of their piss in the process. Both movies could have been much better with better production values and less studeo interference.

60. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2010

Re: Walter and STV
that was his request actually

61. Tony Whitehead - June 21, 2010

16. Anthony Thompson

I agree completely. While I enjoy TWOK and TUC, it’s not the same type of moviemaking experience as ST09. Audiences require a different style of filmmaking nowadays, whether us old fogies admit it or not. If TWOK was released in today’s market as a new film, it would kill the franchise. Sad, but true.

62. No Khan - June 21, 2010

NO PLEASE KEEP MYER AWAY FROM STAR TREK! I will die if i see the return of those awful brown uniforms! His era has come & gone please no more submarine military Enterprise!

63. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - June 21, 2010

The discussion about Meyer directing Trek ’09 is interesting. In honesty, I don’t think his style is a good fit for the tempo implied by Abrams and crew for the franchise reboot. Meyer is a fairly deliberate storyteller, where Abrams inserted a fairly breakneck pace. If you take this new, rebooted Trek and put it under Meyer’s hands, I think the mix might be problematic.

Seems odd to say that, given that Meyer’s pacing for TWoK compared to Wise’s pacing for TMP made Meyer look like a jackrabbit, but TWoK is actually told in very measured steps. Don’t know how well ST09 would adapt to that style.

64. No Khan - June 21, 2010

While were at it since everyone likes Hollywood re-cycling. Lets have Meyer direct the next ST movie & even bring Khan back too. How geeky cool would that be? Not!!!

65. Buzz Cagney - June 21, 2010

#60 sorry, Anthony, but what was Walters request re:V?

66. Buzz Cagney - June 21, 2010

SORRY, YES, I SEE!
I will properly read ALL posts before asking questions!

67. Buzz Cagney - June 21, 2010

SORRY, YES, I SEE!
I will properly read ALL posts before asking questions!

68. Nathan - June 21, 2010

Personally, I’d rather have Meyer write than direct; the script for STXI was pretty weak in terms of plotting, character, and dialog, and could definitely have been improved by his involvement. Him as a writer is doable, but I just can’t see the studio agreeing to him directing, especially after J.J’s mind-bending turn in the first film.

A Meyer-directed sequel would be quite a bit different aesthetically and character-wise than the original; and in a day and age where sequels are supposed to be virtually identical to the original films, I can’t see the studio going along with that.

69. Spock's Uncle - June 21, 2010

#63: Loved the TWOK uniforms, and the idea of starships as submarines gives weight & gravitas to the ships themselves. It also removes us from the one-man-ship, dog-fight mentality so prevalent in Star Wars…. Enterprise is massive vessel… not some flimsy fighter. Loved Meyer’s entire take on the Trek universe.. he totally gets it.

I was lucky enough to be in the audicen on Saturday, and Mr. Meyer even autographed my copy of his book. Very interesting, smart, talented man. Anthony, nice job with the Q & A.

70. Spock's Uncle - June 21, 2010

audience… meant to type audience, apologies for the bad typing.

71. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

62

Before you die, it would be a good idea to have your eyes checked, buddy. Those were RED uniforms, not brown. Unless you’re referring to the subdued colors the crew wore in Star Trek V during the mission to the “peace planet.” (BTW, a movie which really needed some of Nick Myer’s Midas touch.)

Anyway, what’s the point with injecting Star Wars style action into Star Trek? Keep them separate, man! I’ll take the Myer’s submarine battles over Abrams’ attention deficit, lens-flare action-palooza any day, thank you very much.

72. Ran - June 21, 2010

My guess is that Meyer’s writing would be considered to cerebral for the current generation.

73. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

72

Well, my friend, we can only hope the next Trek movie is not as cerebral as the last Transformers.

;)

74. Ran - June 21, 2010

73

Or the last Trek movie….

;-)

75. Horatio - June 21, 2010

“art is not a democracy”

Yes, but its also very subjective.

One person’s Picasso is another person’s pile of steaming horse5hit.

76. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

74

I second that emotion.

77. Kev -1 - June 21, 2010

Re. the Kirk bigotry, in STVI wasn’t the Scotty line referring to Azetbur, in which he said “that b*#%@ killed her father…” left out of the theatrical release purposely? Uhura had a line she refused to say. I understand much had happened to Kirk since TOS but James T. Kirk seems to have been a bit strong-willed to submit to such illogical and short-sighted prejudice. Even in STIII he offered his son’s killer Captain Kruge his hand in aid. I liked STVI a lot, but that anti-Klingon bias seemed contrived, or at least strengthened to give Kirk a personal obstacle to overcome. Still can’t see anybody as hardheaded — Spock in “Paradise Syndrome”: …”he is a very dynamic individual!” becoming so righteously Anti-Klingon.

78. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

No, [art by committee] is not subjective. It will always result in a steaming pile.

79. Boborci - June 21, 2010

72. What generation do you represent? How old are you?

80. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2010

btw, to answer WGW’s question, yes I will be doing the next four Q&A’s

They are now working on putting together a series for the TNG films as well, but that hasn’t been finalized, i will update if/when that happens, and maybe a screening of ST09 too, although I can’t think of any good guests for that ;)

…oh hi Bob

81. kmart - June 21, 2010

“72,Ran – June 21, 2010
My guess is that Meyer’s writing would be considered to cerebral for the current generation.”

That’s valid given Meyer’s writing usually riffs on literary classics (moreso than other movies), which are sometimes too cerebral for general audiences, the folks who seem to be even less discerning now than when I was a teen. But I think he can be awfully heavy-handed with that stuff, as was the case in TUC.

When Meyer was on target (and believe me, I am NOT talking about his awful uncredited rewrite of TOMORROW NEVER DIES), his writing delivered WIT … and that is something almost utterly lacking in contemporary films. I think Christopher Nolan’s work has wit AND intelligence, and I think you get the same in Cuaron’s pictures, but those are really perceptive filmmakers and must be considered exceptions.

82. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

Hi Anthony, and thanks, GREAT job as always!

…and hi Bob, GREAT idea! (For a new poll!)

Would it be possible to do 2 polls for like / dislike ST09, and age being the data collected? possible to do in one poll?

Is this a good idea?

83. Anthony Pascale - June 21, 2010

RE: poll
we have polled on ST09 many times, over 90% fall into the ‘like’ category. Not sure what value there is mining into the dislike minority, but anecdotally i would say that the ‘dislike’ group skews older than the 90%+ in the like category, however there are plenty of people in the 35+ range who like the movie (myself included). And of course there are some youngsters in the dislike group as well.

84. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

Yeah, this is the general feeling that I have as well, that the dislike comes from older fans like myself, I’m 45, a fan since early syndication in the 70′s.

Spock is/was my #1 hero. Cain, from “Kung Fu”, my #2.

I’d be interested to see if there is a correlation, especially among fans of your site, Anthony. I think it’s more “old fan”, not just “old”.

But, older might correlate to wiser, thus the appeal of more “cerebral” fare.

85. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

61

In other words BANG! BANG! EXPLOSION! BANG! is the thing the mainstream wants.

Its sad but it true.

I have to admit I want my father’s Trek back

86. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

Abrams speed is a little too relentess and fast that it forgets the story, Meyer on the other hand would craft a stronger story, a great balance between character and plot.

Orci and Kurtzman delievered good character moments but very little plot. ITo me its clear who should be doing the next movie.

87. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

7 percent solution is an EXCELLENT movie, but try and sell it today…

…and time after time…

88. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

87
Never seen the movie but read the book, its a great read

89. Ran - June 21, 2010

@ 79

I am 37 years old. I would like to think I represent those who seek substance over style.

90. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

keep the jj-verse rolling in every 3 years, I guess…

but, please also, take Trek back to TV, with smaller budget, smaller, dare i say, more intelligent audience?

maybe animated version for the kiddies? (i’m still a kid at heart) ;-)

91. captain_neill - June 21, 2010

Just never forget the Trek that came before

92. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

@91: goes without saying ;-) LLAP

93. Steve-O - June 21, 2010

#86 I agree. I definitley think the guys need to step up, and add a little more meat with our potatos.
I enjoyed the 09′ film and after watching it now multiple times I think so much is going on from scene to scene there are few moment to digest everything we just saw. So again, although I was pleased with the movie and enjoy watching it- please let’s not be timid about making all the lazy thinkers actually use there head during a film.
It’s sad to see in the last 15-20 years such a decline in story telling, as a result of simply providing enough eye candy to help the A.D.D society we curren….. Oh look a squirrel!

94. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

I’m 26 and not a fan of the new movie. Not that I didn’t want a new movie or even a reboot of the franchise (I’m cool with any direction Paramount wants to go in that regard); I just wanted a story with a well-executed plot and dialogue that didn’t sound as if were lifted from an old episode of Boy Meets World or Saved by the Bell… dude.

Oh well. Call me cerebral. I’ll go back to my C.S. Forester books.

95. P Technobabble - June 21, 2010

Nick Meyer says, “Art is not a democracy,” and people generally seem to agree with him.
But an awful lot of people seem to want to “dictate” what Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman should be doing, as if it were some sort of democracy. I wonder what sort of reaction Trek-fans would have if Bob Orci made the same comment on this site.

96. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

There is some democracy here, in that at least we get to (mostly) freely share our opinions and POV’s.

97. Al - June 21, 2010

Art may not be a democracy, but film is an inherently collaborative process. Fantasy to claim otherwise.

98. I am not Herbert - June 21, 2010

this is true, but the vision should be singular.

99. SciFiGuy - June 21, 2010

Great interview, Anthony! Thanks for posting!

100. boborci - June 21, 2010

Art is not a democracy.

Let’s see what happens.

101. boborci - June 21, 2010

those who claim no plot in recent trek must have different definition of plot than me.

102. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

101

Hey, I’m not saying there wasn’t a plot; there just wasn’t a cohesive, well-executed plot. See any book by Syd Field for a definitive definition.

103. boborci - June 21, 2010

102

hilarious. thanks.

104. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

103

Oh, your welcome. If you need any further advice, I’d be glad to lend a hand.

105. boborci - June 21, 2010

104.

you’ve done so much for the franchise so far, you deserve a break

106. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

(Just as Kirk did on the Genesis planet.)

107. boborci - June 21, 2010

107. Yes, just like that. Sit back, have an apple, and wait for us to beam you back.

108. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

I don’t like to lose.

109. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

BTW, he ate the apple on Regula, not the Genesis planet. Earlier, I was referring to his lending a hand to Kruge.

110. boborci - June 21, 2010

108. Can’t lose if you don’t have skin in the game.

111. boborci - June 21, 2010

I see, so you weren’t commenting on your time to relax. You were equating your amazing help with Kirk’s?! Your analogy is more correct.

112. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

Oh, I’ve put plenty of skin in the game. But, alas, Hollywood seems only interested in the botox set these days.

113. boborci - June 21, 2010

112.

Figured you had to be a disgruntled something or another.

114. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

Not disgruntled. Sage.
But potato, poe-tat-toe.

115. Hugh Hoyland - June 21, 2010

I think the 09 script had a definite plot, now Im looking at its structure, was it three act or five? But for sure it appears to use the Campbell myth structure, which IMO was the only way to go for an origin story. Also, the script is quite longer than the usual average 120 or so page script.

116. SciFiGuy - June 21, 2010

Folks, (the ones calling for Nick Meyer to write and direct the next Trek film) the next Star Trek film HAS writers — Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

I loved Wrath of Khan and the other two Treks Nick Meyer worked on but I highly doubt he’d come back as director without having a hand in the writing as well.

Who knows? Maybe the third time out he’ll come back…but for now we have our writers.

117. philpot - June 21, 2010

itd be great if Meyer got involved with the sequel in someway..

he should be the first choice for director if JJ Abrams is unable to direct it (and only produces)

i know ST09 was great and JJ did a tremendous job, but Meyer directing another Trek movie would be mind blowing (for a trek fan anyhow)…one of those amazing WTF! moments…pretty much like when it was announced original Star Trek was coming back in a big movie or Ridley Scott directing Alien 5…

118. philpot - June 21, 2010

one question id have wanted to ask is what TNG films (if any) he was asked to direct?…i keep reading he was approached for Generations (in addition to Nimoy) and Nemesis but i cant believe theyd have had the audacity to ask him to direct Nemesis – if so he mustve taken a look at the Nemesis script and laughed long and hard

119. philpot - June 21, 2010

although maybe he talks about it in his book (which ive yet to pick up)

120. Hugh Hoyland - June 21, 2010

If JJ doesnt want to direct it, Meyer would be an interesting choice, but could he, or would he want to continue the directorial style that Abrams laid out in the first one? JJ likes fast paced action, shooting in many different locations, fast CAMERA movements ect. Maybe he (Meyer) would want to take it in a different direction, in fact I bet he would. My personal choice from fanboy wishes would be Guillermo Del Toro if JJ doesnt want to. but he would also probably want to write part of it, and as someone mentioned we already have writters.

121. kmart - June 21, 2010

109,

Hey, I got your point about Kruge and the hand up in your earlier posts, even if he didn’t.

Plenty of folks here probably remember the movies as they actually happened — instead of how they choose to remember them.

122. What is it with you? - June 21, 2010

102. Kirk’s Revenge

You must be a hoot at parties and I bet your coworkers love you.

I don’t understand entitled people who have to tear everything down. I like debate as much as the next fellow, and there are no perfect entities in the world, but I bet you are the type to complain about everything.

Put the recent movie up against any decent Trek and let’s compare the faults objectively.

If there are some convenient plot points in the movie, are they not made up for by the best special effects in any Trek; some of the best acting (sorry TOS and TNG, but it’s true), some of the most emotional scenes? They gave us an original, yet respectful Trek – an almost impossible task.

But sure it has its flaws. Nothing is perfect; perhaps except for a 26 year old know-it-all.

123. red dead ryan - June 21, 2010

Bob,

I really enjoyed “Star Trek” ’09, but I have a couple of issues. First, I didn’t care for the brewery, though not a huge deal since not a lot of time was spent there in the film. My other complaints are the silly, dumb slapstick moments. Like the expanding hand sequence. That was just ridiculous and was a needless distraction from Karl Urban’s awesome performance in those scenes when he sneaks Kirk aboard the Enterprise. Finally, there is Engineer Olsen. When he decided to ignore Kirk’s order to open his parachute at 2000 feet and waited until he got to 1000 feet, I thought to myself “What an idiot!”. During “The Original Series” and sometimes during “The Next Generation” era Trek, the Red Shirts were almost always victims of bad luck, bad timing, and cruel twists of fate, never because of their own stupidity/arrogance/hubris.

Aside from that, the rest of the movie was awesome. Look forward to the sequel.

124. S. John Ross - June 21, 2010

#83: “however there are plenty of people in the 35+ range who like the movie (myself included).”

And there are those of us in the 35+ category who like the movie, but who are treated as if we were in the “dislike” category because we don’t slavishly worship it or those who made it.

#85: “I have to admit I want my father’s Trek back”

Not me. All my Dad has ever liked about Trek is Uhura’s legs. New Trek has his limited interests covered. Or rather, uncovered :)

#116: I thought the next one had three? Isn’t Damon Lindelof officially part of a writing trio for the next one? Did I dream it? (darn those Damon Lindelof dreams again …) Anyway, every glitzy brainless blockbuster “has writers” (some have … dozens) it’s a meaningless observation.

125. Kirk's Revenge - June 21, 2010

122

Never thought I knew everything or was perfect or great at parties or loved by my coworkers, but I appreciate the compliments. I, like a few others disappointed with the latest feature, was just wanting to express my opinion on the subject with one of the screenwriters (though I do realize it devolved into something less than gentlemanly on my part, and I do apologize to Mr. Orci if he was offended). But maybe those of you with thin skins should steer clear of websites where differing opinions may be found. It can and unfortunately often does get ugly.

But, hey, let’s all just dust off our breeches and call it even. You seem awfully nice yourself, mister. Maybe we can have a beer sometime, find us some low-milage pit-woofies.

126. Red Skirt - June 21, 2010

#79. “72. What generation do you represent? How old are you?”

Oh Bob, don’t worry … evidently your writing is too cerebral for the current generation, too. ;-)

127. CarlG - June 21, 2010

@45: And Trip’s death, too; it says volumes about it that they commisioned a series of novels to fix that debacle.

@95: You make a very valid point. We can pontificate all we want about how the next Trek movie “should” be, but ultimately the writers should really not listen to us and make their own movie. The only other potion is trying to please everyone, which will end up pleasing no-one.

I found this quote from Terry Pratchett that seems rather apropos:

“Of course I listen to my readers! So the next book will be: Set in Ankh-Morpork/not set in Ankh-Morpork. With lots of the good old characters/with a whole cast of new characters. Written like the old books, which were better/written like the later books, which were better. With lots of character development/none of that dull character development stuff, which gets in the way of the jokes. Short/long. You want fries with that?”

;)

128. Sebastian - June 21, 2010

I think that Nick Meyer would direct a very different modern Star Trek movie (in terms of pacing) than newer audiences might appreciate, but I for one, would look forward to it. And an Orci-Kurtzman script would fit like a glove as well. But I think that Meyer had his day in the sun with the franchise, and it’s probably wise to let the ‘next generation’ have theirs (and IMO, they’ve done a fine job).

Meyer’s book “A View from the Bridge” is a wonderfully brisk read. The man does not suffer fools, and has a hell of a lot of integrity as well. And one of these days I really want to get my hands on both the book and the (out of print) dvd of “The Seven Percent Solution” (as a Sherlock Holmes fan, I can’t believe I haven’t as of yet!).

Meyer is a smart, cool guy and he set a benchmark for quality in Trek films that, 28 years later, is still used today. That’s one way to achieve immortality in cinema.

129. braxus - June 21, 2010

I’d love Meyer to get back on board. It would be an interesting contrast to the last movie.

Side note- I saw Star Trek 2 and 4 in 70mm at the Vancouver IMAX theater in the 90s. It was cool to watch. If anyone can- its worth just to go see.

130. Anthony Thompson - June 21, 2010

110. 111. 113.

I kinda like the new ‘Feisty Bob’! : D

131. Jai1138 - June 22, 2010

Thanks for posting this, Anthony P, I wish I could have been there. Nick Meyer is one of my writer-director heroes and I highly recommend that TREK fans read his excellent memoir The View from The Bridge,.

132. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#81: “… general audiences, the folks who seem to be even less discerning now than when I was a teen. ”

I think it’s important to remember that Hollywood’s output doesn’t really tell us very much about what general audiences like. Rather, it tells us what Hollywood _believes_ to be a _safe investment_ with general audiences. That set of beliefs goes through phases of fashion, and it’s a very particular viewpoint … probably often insular, and certainly often driven more by caution than by any real idea what people would clamor for if they were offered it. Tinseltown seems ruled by a kind of Accepted Wisdom mentality, with all the blindness that inevitably entails.

133. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

Don’t get me wrong just because I said that Star Trek XI has a weak plot doesn’t mean I dislike it. I love the film, it just ain’t the best one in my opinion like it is with everyone else. Many films I love have weak storylines and I agree with Nick Meyer that the weaker stories are a side effect of the increase in tentpole movies having to draw the mainstream in.

All I am saying is that the film works better for emaotion and characters than it does on the storyline.

I felt like I better understood Nero by reading the comics, and that in the film he came across as a pretty weak villain. Hate to say this but I felt Shinzon was more interesting. Not faulting Eric Bana’s performance, he did the best with what he got

The plot holes and contrivances in the movie are so big I could fly a GalaxyClass Starship through. THey fell into their roles to conveniently and the Delta Vega sequence is quite the amazing bit of luck ain’t it.

Bob I know you will quote that this is Destiny and was meant to happen but I seem to find that this is lazy writing on my part. That’s say in my script I had a convenience like that to get to the next plot point are you going to buy the destiny card?

Bottom line I do feel that Star Trek XI has dumbed down Star Trek to appeal to the mainstream. JJ Abrams was so concerned not to bore the mainstream that the film whizzs past so fast that the full plot explanations were probably on the cutting room floor.

I agree with an article I read on the movie I read, great for character but its narrative has sizeable holes.

134. boborci - June 22, 2010

wont quote destiny. Will quote quantum mechanic’s probabilities.

135. P Technobabble - June 22, 2010

People who find no — or weak — plot in “Star Trek” have very little understanding of what plot is, IMO. It is so easy to say “The story had a weak plot,” and then leave it at that. In order to explain WHY a story has a weak plot, one would have to break it down to its core, which a book could be written about, so I’m not gonna do it here. The fact is, “Star Trek” certainly fulfills all of the requirements for screenwriting (and I have broken it down and followed it closely). If you want to run it through the screenwriting “templates” of any screenwriting “teacher,” the story of “Star Trek” follows through as well as any other film that follows conventional screenwriting “formula.” And yet, it is erroneous to assume that every screenplay MUST follow any formula, including Syd Field’s! As Capt. Barbossa said in “P of the C” — “the Code is more like a guide.”
All of the so-called rules of screenwriting are there to accomplish structure, but structure doesn’t necessarily require the rules. There are plenty of unconventional films that don’t follow the rules, yet still have structure — “Memento” anyone?
If ya don’t like “Star Trek” fine, so be it. But it’s simply being argumentative to start rattling off shallow reasons why it’s not a good film. “Good” is subjective, from the point of view of the observer anyway.

136. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

134

Sorry I really am sorry.

But you have to admit it does not come across as that in the final cut

137. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

Am I being censored for some of my thoughts?

138. kmart - June 22, 2010

137,

Kind of thing that would happen on a MINORITY REPORT forum, not a TREK one, right?

139. Red Skirt - June 22, 2010

#135, “People who find no — or weak — plot in “Star Trek” have very little understanding of what plot is”

Ah the final refuge of the defenseless, hinge the rationalization on technicalities … while simultaneously belittling the opposition, nice touch.

140. TrekkieJan - June 22, 2010

I thought it was a fine Star Wars episode, myself! Loved it. I do miss Trek, though.

141. moauvian waoul - June 22, 2010

While I throughly enjoyed the movie and thought it accomplished most of what it set out to, and realize their were several challenges unique to this franchise that needed to be overcome, I thought there were some things that could have been done differently, or perhaps better. But Orci and Co told the story they wanted to tell, as they were hired to, like those who came before. We don’t have to agree but it is what it is. I’m glad he cares enough to come here and listen to us strip his story down and examine it and give our opinions about it and what we would like to see in the next movie. I would like to point out that some of the “holes” in the movie were not an oversight on the writers part but left on editroom floor.

142. moauvian waoul - June 22, 2010

132. “I think it’s important to remember that Hollywood’s output doesn’t really tell us very much about what general audiences like. Rather, it tells us what Hollywood _believes_ to be a _safe investment_ with general audiences. That set of beliefs goes through phases of fashion, and it’s a very particular viewpoint … probably often insular, and certainly often driven more by caution than by any real idea what people would clamor for if they were offered it. Tinseltown seems ruled by a kind of Accepted Wisdom mentality, with all the blindness that inevitably entails.”

Very true I believe, but one can draw certain conculsions by tallying ticket sales as well as tv ratings and website trends. They’ve built a multi-billion dollar empire by giving the audience what they want. They got us figured out, I’m afraid. …And the enemy is us.

143. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

I’ll use the definition of “plot” that is applicable here :2. the interrelationship of the main events in a play, novel, movie, ect. OXFORD. Pretty tight definition. Does Star Trek 09 have a plot? obviously it does. Is it a “weak” plot, thats very subjective to each viewer. What makes a plot “strong” in the first place?

Ive heard people who watched 2001: ASO say it makes no sense, is boring, has no plot ect. The same with Blade Runner, two Sci-fi classics to be sure. They both have plots IMO, just some couldnt figure them out easily.

144. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#142: “Very true I believe, but one can draw certain conculsions by tallying ticket sales as well as tv ratings and website trends.”

Sure. If the public are offered a choice between red apples, green apples, and yellow apples, all aggressively marketed as their only real choices, we will learn which color apples the public likes. Meanwhile, the fruit industry, increasingly timid and based on something that happened in 1964, has decided that pears and pineapples are too arty and sophisticated to risk money on, so they’re left to be sold at farmer’s carts along rural roads. When fewer people shop at the carts than at the supermarkets, they smile and nod to themselves, deciding that they have it all figured.

“They’ve built a multi-billion dollar empire by giving the audience what they want.”

No … but I’m sure it comforts many of them to believe this.

#140: Aye, certainly a bit better than the previous four :)

145. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

WOULD PEOPLE STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE TNG MOVIES

First Contact is one of the best movies in the series. There I said it.

146. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#145: “WOULD PEOPLE STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE TNG MOVIES”

Seems unlikely.

Personally, the only one I saw (First Contact), I liked.

147. Boborci - June 22, 2010

136

I really am sorry, but the events of the movie can only be reconciled with time travel theory of QM. And once you realize that (and not everybody does), then you can understand that in MW QM those universes which exist do so because they are more probable. And, therefore, the probable universes have many similar copies.

148. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

134. Ya should only quote what you understand. Science definately wasn’t the movie’s strong suit. ;-)

149. boborci - June 22, 2010

This stuff has been around for 75 years plus, now. Doesn’t take a genius to understand it, just the patience to learn;)

150. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

147

I do get the theory, guess part of me feels that Star Trek was still within the same canon as the rest of Trek. But guess its new canon which will remain separate.

I get that you are using Quantum Realities and that this is a parallel universe, I get that but I am talking about the storyline in general.

But if that were the case of the timeline trying to reassert itself with the proper universe then why does Kirk now become Captain 6 years before he does in the Prime timeline. Does this not exceed the principle of this theory?

Does the theory allow for the chain of command to be disregarded tso that these fresh cadets can get into their roles sooner than in the proper universe. Just my two cents.

151. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

149. MWI: 53 years to be exact.

152. boborci - June 22, 2010

151. QM statistical implications dealing with probabilities since the 20s.

153. Shatner_Fan_Prime - June 22, 2010

#145 “WOULD PEOPLE STOP BITCHING ABOUT THE TNG MOVIES”

No, because they were lazy tv movies on a big screen. FC was the only one that qualified as good, and that was largely due to the popularity of the villains. By and large, the TOS movies felt like events, departed from the series and took chances. So did ST09 for that matter. There was a reason the TNG movies dried up at the box office; they were extended tv episodes, and not even great ones.

154. P Technobabble - June 22, 2010

139. Red

“…Ah the final refuge of the defenseless, hinge the rationalization on technicalities … while simultaneously belittling the opposition, nice touch…”

Ah, Red, you love playing ping-pong with me, eh?
First, you didn’t quote me exactly cos you left out “IMO,” which means I was only stating what I think and not making a statement of fact.
Now, WHO is defenseless? And WHAT belittling? Aren’t you being rather harsh?
I didn’t put anyone down at all, I simply suggested that some people may have a poor understanding of what plot IS. I grant you that to say “weak plot,” or “strong plot” is a purely subjective matter, but to say “no plot” is really off-base. Of course there’s a plot.
And I wouldn’t consider myself defenseless, hiding behind technicalities. That’s nonsense. The fact is that all movies are based on screenplays, and screenplays must fulfill certain technical matters — like structure. There’s no hiding behind… it’s all out front. Pointing to the more “technical” matters of screenwriting is certainly not a “last refuge.” If you wanna make a movie, you gotta have a script.

155. Ironhyde - June 22, 2010

#147 – Boborci

Quote QM all you want. The plot contrivances still felt over-the-top. Maybe someone in the movie should have mentioned either the word Quantum or Mechanics… I don’t care if they’re even in the same sentence :P Fact is, nobody said anything about this. Nobody addressed it even as a theoretical notion in a lecture hall… There’s absolutely no reference made within the four corners of the film. Although you are very right in your defense of QM, it still makes for a hell of a hole in the script.

27 years old here, and thought the movie wasn’t thoughtful or mentally engaging enough. If it matters. :) But LOVE your sense of fun, Bob-o!

156. boborci - June 22, 2010

155. Ironhyde – June 22, 2010

No one mentioned the earth was round, either.

157. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

I also find it funny when he cites QM and MWI to defend various plot holes and contrivances in a movie with warp drive, beaming, red matter, galaxy threatening supernovae and a laser beam drilling a stable hole inside liquid magma.

158. Phobos - June 22, 2010

@145

I think the TNG movies are better than the TOS movies.

159. boborci - June 22, 2010

157. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

Those are all givens of the franchise. The mechanics of time travel, we felt, were up for grabs.

160. boborci - June 22, 2010

Forgive us for updating the rules of science.

161. Phobos - June 22, 2010

But that being said, they are ALL great movies. Every movie has something very special e.g.,

ST1 = Fresh out of Kolinar Spoke boards the Enterprise, Kirk is happy.
ST2 = Khaaaaaaaann!! scream or “Khan… Im laughing at the superior intellect…”
ST3 = McCoy reveals to Spock at his bedside he values him. Or the showdown between the Ent and the bird of prey. Or, “I… have…HAD… ENOUGH… of youuuuu! (boot to the face). Kirk greets Spock on bird.
ST4 = McCoy bashes 1990s medicine. Spock awkwardness in truck, won’t lie. “No, I only work in space, Im from Iowa”
ST5 = Spock distracts Kirk, falls off mountain. Row Row your boat. Kirk implores Spock to shoot his brother, McCoy tries to calm Kirk down later.
ST6 = Spock doesnt give up on his friend despite what appeared to be crushing evidence. Use of logic to figure everything out. Kirk survive on ou-houra-Pente

ST7 = That actor who is in Heroes, the british guy, excellent, charismatic. Picard and Kirk meet up. Special effects Enterprise fighting Bird, or data on the science station. Star explosion, wave. Emotion chip.
ST8 = The Borg, always great and scary. Picard rushes back to Earth despite orders. Vulcans meet humans. Quantum torpedoes.
ST9 = Slick scenes. Noble. Data shuttle tactics. Riker maneuver. Ethics topic, Picard uses foundation of federation values to know what needs to be done. Freezing time.
ST10 = Powerful new sovereign Enterprise. Cloning ethics. Salvageability of one’s soul despite one’s past. Picard wonders if he also could have been bad like Shinzon. “Shinzon… you too are a mirror of me (awesome moment)” B4 learns song, same as Data did in Ep1 of TNG. Prospect of possibility Data can be brought back.

ST 11: Young crew. All great representations of the TOS team. Young Spock being guided by father after fight. His exchange with his mother who will always be proud. Spock’s father calling him back to logic before Spock nearly kills Kirk. Beaming up before fall onto the planet. Sulu fight. Chekov, fun character. on and on and on.. I think this last movie is the best one of the franchise. The music was also fantastic.
The best moment for me in this movie is when Spock prime saves Kirk from the spider and says “James T Kirk… How did you find me?!” The lighting, the acting, the tone, everything was perfect.
— GRANDIOSE. —

BUT… like I said, ALL the movies have great memorable moments.

162. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

You’ve never seen Yesterday’s Enterprise, Time’s Arrow, First Contact and the City on the Edge of Forever, have you? I thought Trek was pretty clear that it has the concept of one timeline with predestination paradoxes. And I think the general audience is also under the impression that time travel works like in Back to the Future or Deja Vu. So for the general audience, it appears that Nero’s time travel essentially destroyed the old timeline for good.

163. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

“160. boborci – June 22, 2010
Forgive us for updating the rules of science.”

Updating here, completely ignoring it there and going totally fantasy here. I really do not understand why you even make the effort to justify a plot contrivance with that.

I think that is another essential difference between writers like you and writers like Nicholas Meyer. Meyer would never even see the need to justify a plot hole, plot contrivances or unbelievable character development with a weird interpretation of a scientific theory.

164. boborci - June 22, 2010

162. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

Meyers didn’t have your wonderful insights to contend with on the internet.

Not weird interpretation. MOST COMMONLY ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION OF MOST SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

And not a justification. Again, only way to make sense of events in the movie.

165. Phobos - June 22, 2010

@163
I have follow your whole polemic, but I would like to point out that fans demanded as much canon as possible and plot hole explanations. You can’t blame 2010 writers for trying to accommodate.

Also, Meyers, as intelligent as he may be, has his own ways. They are not better or worse, just different. For example, like we heard in the YouTube video he does not believe in fan feedback, he believes in absolute artistic license. Personally, I prefer more open minded more contemporary movie writers like Orci and Kurtman.

Like the Queen borg said to admiral Janeway: “Do what all good pragmatist DO admiral! … compromise… “

166. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

“Again, only way to make sense of events in the movie.”

Right, the ONLY way. If you say so…

167. boborci - June 22, 2010

prove wrong. Does Spock Prime remember the events of the young Spock’s life?

168. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

I think people just aren’t following the Very Serious Science going on here.

It’s simple, folks. Thanks to QM and an understanding that some things (like the existence of hydrogen, or Kirk and Spock being pals) are vastly more probable than universes in which those things aren’t true, so much so that _causality itself_ will step aside for them, and the universe will twist itself sideways and squirt polka-dotted bunnies out of its butt to make sure they happen. The result: HUGELY IMPROBABLE and ridiculous plot contrivances. Simple as that. A contradiction, you say? Oh, tut tut. Not at all. It’s just that Kirk and Spock standing on the bridge of the Enterprise is _so very very probable_ that everything else we _think_ we know about probability and causality may be … scientifically … tossed out the quantum window as the universe itself steps in to get these guys into funny shirts, onto Burger King glasses, and into slash fiction.

You know. Like in science.

169. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

Give me an address, and I’ll send you a revised version of your script that makes more sense and still includes all the important events.

170. boborci - June 22, 2010

168. S. John Ross – June 22, 2010

how can one argue with your ignorance of science?

171. boborci - June 22, 2010

169. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

a non answer.

172. P Technobabble - June 22, 2010

Once again, there you go, singling out “Star Trek” for plot holes or contrivances… when EVERY OTHER Trek movie had its share of “problems.” Must be cos Orci is in the room but he can’t smack you upside the head.

Nick Meyer is a terrific writer and director — I’ve enjoyed his books and his movies. He has a few Ellison-like qualities, which I admire. He is not without fault, however.
For example: In TWOK, when the Reliant first enters the Ceti Alpha system, all of their hi-tech equipment doesn’t see there’s a planet missing??? Ceti Alpha 6 explodes and there’s no indication of that whatsoever??? Nonsense!
Another example: in TUC, Spock slaps a homing beacon on Kirk’s jacket that stays with Kirk throughout his imprisonment??? Unlikely.
These are two instances where, IMO, Meyer dropped the ball. Other Trek films have their own instances.
Once again, however, I must state that if I were to let these instances overwhelm my senses, I would not be able to enjoy and appreciate those films. I say let ‘em slide…
On another note, I do not think any writer — including Orci and Kurtzman — are “open-minded” about fan feedback to the extent that they do not believe in absolute artistic license. A writer does not consult with fans in order to write. I could be wrong (and I am willing to be corrected if I am), but I think Orci comes here mostly because he’s a Star Trek fan, not because he’s involved with the production. In other words, I don’t think he’s here, specifically, to explain or justify himself… he’s here to participate with us, as a fan. Sure, the writers can look at some of the polls and opinions to say, “Hey, it seems pretty unanimous that everyone wants to see more McCoy in the next film,” (hint, hint), but that doesn’t mean if some fans are saying “McCoy should have a love interest” that this would happen. Orci is not asking us to be collaborators, he’s already got one. This is how I see it…

173. boborci - June 22, 2010

here’s another question for you geniuses. In canon, how did Kirk and Scotty meet?

174. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

I knew you would refuse that offer. Fan input has its limits, I guess.

Based on your script, Spock doesn’t know. But did Marty McFly know he changed his own future until he returned and recognized it was different? Were Picard & Co affected by the Borg time travel? Did Denzel Washington’s character remember the changes in Deja Vu? The general rule is that the time travel himself is unaffected.

175. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#170: I’m just repeating your own Jedi Wisdom there, sport :)

176. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

“In canon, how did Kirk and Scotty meet?”

Well, we don’t know. And I’d personally say that they never met until Scotty was assigned to the Enterprise as Chief Engineer under Kirk’s command.
And what does that change about the point that the meeting in the new movie was an unbelievable contrivance?

177. boborci - June 22, 2010

174. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

So essentially, your gripe is that we didn’t conform to flawed hollywood time travel rules and instead chose to go with the most current thinking on the matter. Is that about right?

178. boborci - June 22, 2010

175. S. John Ross – June 22, 2010

You think you are, And it’s adorable.

179. boborci - June 22, 2010

Well, we don’t know. And I’d personally say that they never met until Scotty was assigned to the Enterprise as Chief Engineer under Kirk’s command.
And what does that change about the point that the meeting in the new movie was an unbelievable contrivance?

—–

Right, we don’t know. So for all we know, they met during a threat to Vulcan in similar circumstances. So for you to say it is a contrivance has no basis in logic or canon. Because, after all, we know they DID MEET SOMEHOW.

180. boborci - June 22, 2010

Based on your script, Spock doesn’t know. But did Marty McFly know he changed his own future until he returned and recognized it was different? Were Picard & Co affected by the Borg time travel? Did Denzel Washington’s character remember the changes in Deja Vu? The general rule is that the time travel himself is unaffected.

—–

To put in another way, were any of those movies based on QM MWI, the most successful scientific theory in history. The answer, obviously, is no. Our movie was.

181. boborci - June 22, 2010

or to put it another way, you’re upset that we “changed the laws of physics!”

From what came before.

182. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#178: I can feel all new slash fiction starting :)

183. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

181. Based on your comments, I am so afraid that the next movie will have even more unbelievable coincidences that will be explained behind the scenes with the most awesome, most current, most extraordinary, most scientific theory ever. “Kirk must survive, because that has the highest QM probability. So there’s the reason for the giant pink elephant appearing out of nowhere to save him.”

184. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

And how does QM MWI explain that they ignored the chain of command every time? In the climax, Scotty is suddenly Chief Engineer! How the hell did that happen?

185. boborci - June 22, 2010

183. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

way to change the subject.

Next movie will not deal with this topic whatsoever because we are now free to do whatever is best.

You’ll be right about something sooner or later. Don’t give up.

186. boborci - June 22, 2010

184. IcroBob – June 22, 2010

Chain of command?

Another nice change of subject, but I’ll indulge you.

Examples please would be helpful, but I’ll take a shot in the dark.

Pike field promoted Kirk to first officer. When Spock recused himself, Kirk became captain. Once back on earth, Kirk had something on his resume others did not: HE SAVED COUNTLESS FEDERATION PLANETS.

187. boborci - June 22, 2010

By the way, within canon, how did Kirk become the youngest Captain in starfleet?

188. boborci - June 22, 2010

Scotty? Kirk obviously made him chief engineer as captain. Spock Prime’s recommendation and that fact that they achieved the impossible task of beaming onto a warping ship using Scotty’s equation must’ve weighed heavily on Kirk’s decision.

189. boborci - June 22, 2010

do you actually need to see the scene where captain Kirk promotes Scotty to understand that?

190. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

“HE SAVED COUNTLESS FEDERATION PLANETS.”

And that qualifies him to run a starship the size of an aircraft carrier – no wait, almost three times the size of an aircraft carrier in the new movie – how?

And how did Scotty become Chief Engineer so quickly? Was there not second in command of Engineering after Olsen?

191. boborci - June 22, 2010

“Kirk must survive, because that has the highest QM probability. So there’s the reason for the giant pink elephant appearing out of nowhere to save him.”

—-

thanks to QM MWI, quite the opposite. Everyone is in danger because their future is unwritten. Get it now?

192. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

“thanks to QM MWI, quite the opposite. Everyone is in danger because their future is unwritten. Get it now?”

So the QM helps Kirk to become Captain, but doesn’t help him to become Admiral?

193. boborci - June 22, 2010

And that qualifies him to run a starship the size of an aircraft carrier – no wait, almost three times the size of an aircraft carrier in the new movie – how?

—–

uhm… because he used that very ship to save countless federation planets.

194. boborci - June 22, 2010

192 Okay, thanks for the fun time. I think this discussion has outlived it’s usefulness, but I appreciate your opinion and your time because I know it comes from your passion for trek!

See you next time!

195. boborci - June 22, 2010

its

196. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#193: “uhm… because he used that very ship to save countless federation planets.”

So if he’d used a hypospray to do it, they’d make him Chief Surgeon, I guess. Like in logic! :)

197. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

That’s why I want to send boborci a revised version of his script. Because if it is good it will make me become the director of the next Star Trek movie – no, President of Paramount Pictures! ;-)

198. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

And sadly, he didn’t even answer my question why QM MWI helps Kirk become Captain but then suddenly doesn’t apply anymore at all. He also became Admiral and got sucked into the Nexus. Surely QM probabilities would push everything into this direction, if they already pushed everything into the “Captain Kirk of the Enterprise” direction, no?

199. Shatner_Fan_Prime - June 22, 2010

Some people really need to give it a rest. Wasting time arguing about a movie you didn’t enjoy that was released a year ago? Get. A. Life.

200. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#198: “Surely QM probabilities would push everything into this direction, if they already pushed everything into the “Captain Kirk of the Enterprise” direction, no?”

Unless Orci has scientifically determined that those elements _aren’t_ among the super-probable elements that are so probable they _cause_ stuff (note to those basing a homework assignment on random Internet blather: in the real world as successful science successfully understands it, probability is an observation of causality and has no force to “cause” anything …)

It’s interesting, though, that Kurtzman has been pretty consistent in simply to the “fate” and “destiny” which drives the film, without attempting to couch it as anything other. The whole QM thing seems to be Orci’s own hobby horse (the hobby around here being: beating it once it’s already dead). Still, I guess that’s what makes them a Dynamic Duo of punching out product, or whatnot.

201. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#199: “Wasting time arguing about a movie you didn’t enjoy that was released a year ago?”

I liked the movie a fair bit, myself. Saw it twice. I think I rated it 7/10 on imdb.

Plus, this site is devoted to it. Not exclusively, to be sure (sometimes we bitch about Battlestar Galactica or Doctor Who instead), but … check the name, check the graphic icon. This is what gets discussed here; that movie.

Same response to anyone who says we’re “singling it out.” Um, check which site this is :)

202. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

Ask Abrams and Lindelof, they probably wouldn’t get caught up in this QM MWI thing either. ;-)

203. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#202: Yeah, though honestly I don’t know that I’ve read more than twenty words, total, quoted from Lindelof … he seems to be the quiet one; gotta watch out for those :)

204. Romulan Headache - June 22, 2010

IcroBob, S. John Ross,

Nice try, guys, but Bob O. can’t stay on this board and argue all the livelong day about the holes in the last movie. The man has a lot of work to do–more remakes, more scripts, more plot contrivances, more obscure scientific defenses–

Forget it, Jake Sisko. It’s Hollywood.

205. Disinvited - June 22, 2010

#134. boborci on June 22, 2010 wrote “wont quote destiny. Will quote quantum mechanic’s probabilities.”

I’m more of an evidence:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

man myself.

206. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

Bob you never answered how QM makes Kirk become captain 6 years ealrier than he did in the universe.

I like your movie, but I don’t think there was a Vulcan crisis in the proper universe as Vulcan is still there.

207. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

201

I rated it 8 on IMDB

208. IcroBob - June 22, 2010

I rated it a 10 first because it was enjoyable. But I downrated it to a 6 the more I read about the creation process.

209. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

208,

Wrath of Khan, First Contact, The Undiscovered Ountry are better films.

210. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#204: “Nice try, guys, but Bob O. can’t stay on this board and argue all the livelong day about the holes in the last movie.”

To be fair, he has on multiple occasions proven otherwise :)

“The man has a lot of work to do–more remakes, more scripts, more plot contrivances, more obscure scientific defenses–”

Well, obscure defenses, anyway :) I hope next time, Kirk is handed his solution-on-a-platter while he’s standing on a planet. That way, they’ll have to make him King Kirk!

211. Romulan Headache - June 22, 2010

210

King Kirk won’t do. Long live Emperor Kirk, Master of Quatum Mechanics (and hiding under beds while girls are undressing)!

212. Steve-o - June 22, 2010

i just dont get why this had to all just be about the science of the movie….
couldnt we all nicely discuss a story in the future with more dialog, and “down” time to digest what we are seeing?

jesus people you wasted all our convo time with bob to talk about stupid shit like time travel. who give a damn. time travel films, just like vampire movies all have their little tweaks to fit the story.

bottom line. wrong questions and suggestions were focused on. and jesus the poor guy doesnt need to be mocked, haggled, and torn apart. show a little respect. none of you would have the balls to act like this in person. i doubt you’d behave like that at one of the 12 conventions you plan on going to every year for the rest of your lives… (by the way this sassy attitude is only directed at certain folk)

213. P Technobabble - June 22, 2010

Yeh, some people come here and waste precious time arguing with Orci about QM, Kirk’s command, Spock’s hair, and Uhura’s underwear… and then bitch that he isn’t busy writing the next film.

What an opportunity we have to talk to not just a Trek insider, but an industry insider… to possibly gain some previously unavailable insights, some industry information, some tips for those of us interested in screenwriting or film-making. But that opportunity is completely blown because a small group of people have to argue with Orci because… well, I don’t really know why, or what purpose it serves… but they do like to argue, over and over and over and over…..

I think Bob is a class act for putting up with the bs. If I were in his shoes I’d have said “adios” by now……

214. Ran - June 22, 2010

Guys. I don’t think the writer needs to defend his position. I am never going to agree with him on these subjects. I also, will never watch another movie Orci and co. are the writes. Arguing here is pointless.

215. captain_neill - June 22, 2010

214

An excellent point.

I am never watching a Transformers movie again, especially number 2.

216. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

@213

I think Bob likes to chat here to because hes a fan, I think he even said so. As far as giving tips, I remember one time he says one technique he uses is the “critic court” or something like that. The ideas that he comes up with are then, in his mind “argued” with an imagined detractor and when he is finally able to “shoot down” the imaginary detractors arguments against the idea(s) logically, he knows hes got it. Thats not word for word and I hope its correct, but I think its something along those lines.

Im with you, its pretty cool that he takes the time to come here and chat with other fans, debate a little, and give some pointers. Some of the “critics” here appear to just want to argue for arguements sake, or just to knock someones art, which is a low blow. Nothing wrong with artisitic difference, but dont negate someones art.

217. Disinvited - June 22, 2010

#212. Steve-o on June 22, 2010 lamented “i (sic) just dont (sic) get why this had to all just be about the science of the movie….”

With all due respect, I’d say that it’s more than likely because even though STAR TREK has some fantastical elements, it has long been categorized as science-fiction and not fantasy. It’s the nature of the beast to concentrate on science and at least make some attempt to get it right within reason, and then on that canvas construct a compelling story.

It is also of some historical note that science-fiction fans and the nature of their kind in the 1960s and 70s kept STAR TREK going when it was all but orphaned and some say “Left for dead.” Their efforts and success in sustaining a STAR TREK phenomenon back then is why there is even is something called STAR TREK, today, for you and others to lament about discussions being all about the science.

218. boborci - June 22, 2010

214. Ran – June 22, 2010
Guys. I don’t think the writer needs to defend his position. I am never going to agree with him on these subjects. I also, will never watch another movie Orci and co. are the writes.

—–

evidence of a truly open mind. i guess you’ll just have to read about the next trek on this site.

219. boborci - June 22, 2010

or better yet, hold your breath until retire

220. boborci - June 22, 2010

I

221. Steve-o - June 22, 2010

no #217

you’re missing my point. we have an opportunity to chat with someone involved in the next film, and rather then be civil and have a conversation about many different things we badger him and focus on one thing!
dude im on a star trek fan website, i think i realize science (in real life, and in the franchise) has played a large role… as has star trek played a role in real life science and technology.
im just saying it’s all trivial

222. Erik Parrent - June 22, 2010

Bob – How has working with Damon Lindelof on the new Star Trek differed from the process of writing the first one with just Alex? (And BTW, doesn’t Nestor Carbonell look a lot like a young Ricardo Montalban? Just sayin’)

223. kmart - June 22, 2010

“199. Shatner_Fan_Prime – June 22, 2010
Some people really need to give it a rest. Wasting time arguing about a movie you didn’t enjoy that was released a year ago? Get. A. Life.”

He isn’t going on a board to defend (badly) something he wrote (badly) a year after it came out. That’s the one needing to give things a rest. Badly.

224. kmart - June 22, 2010

BTW, ‘most successful theory in history’ refers to how it has tested out, not how many people voted for it or saw it in IMAX. So you folks may want to qualify that remark instead of throwing it around like ‘AVATAR is gr8 bcuz it made a trillion quatloos.’

225. Boborci - June 22, 2010

222. Not sure yet. He is contracted to break the story with us and then for Alex and I to write it, but I suspect we will just end up writing all together.

On the first movie, he was running an obscure show called LOST, but now he is totally free!

226. Anthony Pascale - June 22, 2010

Guys i am glad people have the opportunity to interact with one of the film makers, but I ask people (as in any discussion) to please keep it civil and respectful.

We are all fans here (Bob Orci included).

227. Boborci - June 22, 2010

224 not sure who your comments are aimed at. Talking to me?

You are right about QM. Most successful theory because most tested theory.

228. Erik Parrent - June 22, 2010

I think I read about that show in TV Guide. It’s nice of you guys to give him a shot at the big leagues like this.

Incidentally, where do the 3 of you fall on the scale of 1 being not a Trekker at all and 5 being a tattoo of a cast member in a private area?

229. Kirk's Revenge - June 22, 2010

It’s because we are fans that we criticize and discuss trivial matters. Only a troll would come here and say that all Star Trek sucks or some other nonsense.

Although I didn’t enjoy the majority of the latest movie, there were some things I liked: the effects, the robot highway patrolman that talked like the Lone Ranger (“citizen”), Quinto as Spock, Nimoy as Spock, Pine, and especially Karl Urban’s performance. I only wish the story had been more carefully done (Delta Vega’s location, black holes, plot holes, and so on). Again, I apologize to Bob if my passion for Trek and storytelling came off as arrogant or, Heaven forbid, snarky. I wish him and the creative team the best in the making of the next movie.

Long live Trek!

230. moauvian waoul - June 22, 2010

144. The public has spoken. They’ve made their choices whether we like it or not. You and I may not agree but the trend cannot be denied. They have never had more choices than they have today. By and large they want what’s fast and furious. No excuses.

231. Boborci - June 22, 2010

228

Me, Damon, Alex, in decreasing order of fandom.

232. Anthony Pascale - June 22, 2010

Having met all of the guys i think it is safe to say that Bob and Damon could be considered Trekkies. Alex is a solid ‘fan’. JJ (at least before the film) was ‘Trek-curious’ and Bryan Burk wouldn’t have known a Tribble from a Transporter (although he sure does now). All in all a good spectrum.

Of course some men (like Nick Meyer who is actually the subject of this article) have done great things with Trek without any prior Trek fandom. I do not think there needs to be a Trek loyalty test. However, Stuart Baird proves that you at least need to be open to it and not hostile

233. What is it with you? - June 22, 2010

#229 That’s more like it! I knew you had it in you.

Agreed about the actors….but I disagree about the black holes. QM was the ONLY WAY to start over yet not erase/retcon TOS/TNG. QM is a complex thing….they did just fine. Oh, and I read that Hawking loved the new movie, so I guess they did okay.

234. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

Anthony you and Damon sounded like you both had a good time doing the commentary for Star Trek: First Contact DVD. Damon liked to josh around with you at times, it was cool lol

235. New Kirk - June 22, 2010

nick is the best director and writer.. he can really tell a story. I wish he would do the sequel and team up JJ’s writers and come up with a really good script that balances action with story telling..

236. Kirk's Revenge - June 22, 2010

233

Hey, maybe Hawking could be the voice of the Enterprise computer in the next movie–and I don’t mean that in a snarky way. They could readjust his electronic voice just as they did in his recent documentary series, you know, slightly more natural sounding but with the same inflections. Anyway, Hawking is the man! Loved his cameo in “Descent.”

237. Disinvited - June 22, 2010

#227.

Would you say that all of the Federation personnel manning Enterprise have this clear understanding of the true nature of QM time travel by the final battle with Nero near Saturn?

238. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#214: “Arguing here is pointless.”

Arguing here is fannish entertainment. I would have thought it obvious :/

#226: “I ask people (as in any discussion) to please keep it civil and respectful.”

I thought we were doing really good this time.

#230: “You and I may not agree but the trend cannot be denied.”

I wasn’t denying it; I was only explaining it.

#232: “I do not think there needs to be a Trek loyalty test. ”

Well, amen to that. The notion that everyone working on Trek needs to be some kind of devotee is a strange and unsettling one. All you need to do is step up and see the potential, and be willing to bleed a little :)

239. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#233: “QM was the ONLY WAY to start over yet not erase/retcon TOS/TNG.”

The other way (one of many, really) is to do a full-on, committed reboot. This creates an all-new fictional universe that isn’t tangled with, doesn’t affect, and has no bearing on the prior one. Nothing gets retconned, nothing gets erased, and even the canonistas might theoretically get to relax (if they ever do – no one’s tested that theory, which I guess makes it very unsuccessful).

The way they did it (with QM tacked on to rationalize stuff) was a good excuse to get Leonard Nimoy in it, though, and that makes it a trickier argument, because Leonard Nimoy = Good.

240. Ran - June 22, 2010

@ 218

Bob,

I kept an open mind and went to see your movie. As a Trek fan and a person that studied literature all his life, I hold in high regards the written word. To take 40 years of history and slap one of the worst scripts ever written for a serious theme was not something I expected. It is nothing personal, I think that your interaction within this forum is candid. I just cannot care for your writing style.

Sincerely,

Ran

241. Boborci - June 22, 2010

240.

Reading between the lines, you think we cheated?

242. Ran - June 22, 2010

No. I think the writing came secondary to the visuals.

243. Boborci - June 22, 2010

239

Qm was not tacked on. It is in the DNA of the movie.

244. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#243: “Qm was not tacked on. It is in the DNA of the movie.”

So you’ve said uncountable times. I’ve listened, I promise. I hope we can at least agree that Leonard Nimoy = Good :)

245. Erik Parrent - June 22, 2010

Bob – Just for the record, I loved the movie. Can’t wait for more.

If I might make a recommendation? If you agree Prime Directive is one of the greatest Trek stories ever told – and I think it is, novel or not – you might look up a graphic novel called Debt of Honor, which I think is comparable in terms of quality. Lush artwork, strong writing.

246. Kirk's Revenge - June 22, 2010

243

Bob, forget DNA. Let’s talk villains. C’mon, who’s it gonna be in the next one? Gorn? Klingons? Tony Hayward? C’mon, spill. ;)

244

Leonard Nimoy is the definition of good. Even my dictionary knows that. ;)

247. Boborci - June 22, 2010

242

You’re dismissed.

248. Boborci - June 22, 2010

244

You’ve listened, but you haven’t heard.

Agree LM is good. That’s why we brought him out of retirement with our brainless script.

249. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

From what I understand, screenplays are the visuals just in word form. They describe the pictures along with the dialogue, what we see and hear in the movie.

250. Boborci - June 22, 2010

LN

251. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#248: “You’ve listened, but you haven’t heard.”

I have, and I prefer to think the best of people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t see how this applies, well, it’s a compliment you’ve received but not recognized :)

“Agree LM is good. That’s why we brought him out of retirement with our brainless script.”

I’m not among those who consider your script brainless.

252. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#250: “LN”

I’m also not among those who tend to go diving for the typos with an “aha,” either :) Especially since you’re (I believe?) often posting from a portable device.

253. Boborci - June 22, 2010

252

True about portable device. Stuck in the middle of desert on all night shoot. Surprised I’m getting service at all. Thanks fir not busting my typos!

254. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

# 253 Bob

Cowboys and Aliens?

255. Boborci - June 22, 2010

254

Yes.

256. Red Dead Ryan - June 22, 2010

#212, 213

Totally agreed! Some people just won’t let this go. They are the same people who need everything explained to them in the movie. I really enjoyed this movie. I also have my dislikes. But the time travel method Bob used in this movie isn’t one of them. There are folks on this thread who seem to believe that Bob and company screwed up/erased previous canon.These same “fans” also happen to believe that Bob is deliberately screwing them over.

I for one was able to connect the dots with regards to Kirk’s rapid promotion. He took command of the Enterprise after Spock removed himself. He also saw(knew?) that no one else was going to take the captain’s chair. He knew that what he was about to do was risky and that there was a good chance he and the ship wouldn’t survive, but he also realized that there was no other choice but to stop Nero. He ended up stopping Nero and saving billions of lives. He displayed command ability. He was recognized for it by Star Fleet and was given command of the Enterprise. And by the way, Star Fleet had lost many fine captains and ships at the hands of Nero. Another reason Kirk was promoted quickly.
Makes perfect sense to me.

As for whether the original timeline exists or not, I believe Bob when he says it does. Spock Prime is proof of this. The original timeline exists because Young Spock Prime has to live there until the year 2387 before travelling back in time. Spock Prime(younger self) has to still be in the original timeline for him(older self) to exist in the new timeline. Otherwise he would probably cease to exist once he went through the anomaly.

257. Disinvited - June 22, 2010

#221.

Well, even back in the day with the first film not all STAR TREK fans uniformly supported it. These are Treks fans for which the films hold no sway. To them, they are totally inconsequential, trivial if you will. To them, ST was and can only be truly realized as a television show. My point is that what’s seen as trivial can be relative to the observer.

But I am curious if can accurately surmise what you would find cogent in regards to your statements. Would you say that you would find the possibility that the next Trek film could end up an MGM/Paramount joint production:

http://www.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=dkV6X_QRavN6-pMff57ZFgfel4kWM

interesting?

258. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#253: “Thanks fir not busting my typos!”

To the limited extent that we can compare circular Internet arguments to a game of chess, it’s a bit like when someone accidentally takes their hand off a piece because their hand itches. According to the rules, you can pounce on that, but … really?

#256: “Some people just won’t let this go.”

It’s plainly apparent that this includes one of the screenwriters, and it also, by extension, includes the people who won’t let it go about letting it go. So just kick back and enjoy your membership in the club. There are still people kvetching about Khan recognizing Chekov in STII, for chrissakes. This enduring attention (warts and glories and all) is one of the things that makes it a franchise worth revisiting.

Personally, while I find the arguments very entertaining, the only complaints I have about the time travel elements in the film are (A) oh goodie, another one about time travel and (B) it consumes more of the narrative real estate than I’d prefer, leaving less room for other bits of the story (I’m not among those that feel the film has no plot).

259. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#257: “To them, ST was and can only be truly realized as a television show.”

You can _nearly_ count me among those. I think Star Trek has never really survived in translation from small screen to big …

On the other hand, I’m not among those who believe such a translation is _impossible._ I just don’t feel it’s happened yet, though I’ve enjoyed quite a few of the Trek films (including ST09) for what they are.

260. Hugh Hoyland - June 22, 2010

255 Bob

Cool, good luck on it bro. Hope shooting is going well.

261. Red Dead Ryan - June 22, 2010

#257, 259

“To them, ST was and can only be truly realized as a television show.”

There is some truth to that. A movie has to have action, visual effects and fast pacing. Therefore, story ideas are somewhat limited to whatever can put butts in the seats and keep them there until the movie ends. Television, on the other hand, provides a bigger and better canvas for different story ideas since you could have up to 20 or so hours spread over six months to explore different facets as opposed to 1 two hour movie every few years dealing with one idea. And the mainstream media/audience equates Star Trek with television moreso than with movies, despite the fact that there are eleven films, with the recent one being the biggest earner.

262. S. John Ross - June 22, 2010

#261: “And the mainstream media/audience equates Star Trek with television moreso than with movies, despite the fact that there are eleven films, with the recent one being the biggest earner.”

And they’re not wrong to. I mean, Batman will always be a comic-book character, no matter how many movies or TV shows (or radio shows or matinee serials) he’s got under his utility belt. Captain Kirk will always be a TV space-hero, likewise. Things can spread out into other media (and I think Star Trek has survived translation into many other media, including novels and pen-and-paper games and comics, less so movies and video games and some others) but home base is home base. I think it would take generations (and certainly not Generations) to change that.

263. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#259.

I can relate to that. Definitely understand where you are coming from.

It’s odd. Back in the day we liked to “discuss” Trek with great energy. Maybe it was the times, but we had a more communal attitude back then. If someone was only interested in the books we accepted it – maybe there was a self-serving notion underneath that any Trek being regularly consumed was good for eventually convincing some network to bring it back…I can’t recall. I do clearly recall being coldly calculating in that vein about STAR WARS, i.e. that spreading the word about it and getting as many as I could to see it not just because it was a superb experience (which it was) but because we knew if SW succeeded beyond the dreams of avarice that it would only help the Trek effort. I know some like to think that the Trek phenomenon just “happened” but I recall a lot of organization, calculation and effort from Gene Roddenberry right down to Bjo Trimble. Lord, I remember Bjo…she was one in a million.

I can’t deny at times feeling seduced by “The Franchise” – to make yet another SW reference.

One other thing I recall is calculating the end of ST’s copyrights (Twenty-eight years if it remained abandoned and ignored. This would have been prior to the 1976 Disney lobbied extension.) and imagining the day in 1993 when Trek would truly be “ours” (the fans). Odd, that I should recall that as I also remember thinking that it would also open the door to a plethora of Trek that I could only conceptualize as “faux” but that seemed inconsequential as long as there were no encumberments to prevent us from doing our own Trek thing.

Funny that, recalling how irritated and irate I was/am with Disney sort of mellows me out – if you know what I mean.

264. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#262.

Exactly. A film, a series of films, or a film franchise doesn’t hi-jack a body of art that existed prior. SPIDERMAN comics aren’t dead because Sony found Raimi’s 4th film not viable. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn’t kill Superman. Well…um, Warners/DC did but then they brought him back but that’s besides the point! LOL.

265. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

Still no answer to the question why QM MWI helps Kirk become Captain of the Enterprise but then suddenly stops having an influence on the events shown in the next movie.

266. boborci - June 23, 2010

doesn’t stop having influence. still our old crew in their old posts aboard same ship. Just not an EXACT copy of the other universe you love.

267. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

This is total nonsense. An entire planet with billions of inhabitants can be destroyed, but the only thing that is important to the universe is that a small group of people is aboard the same ship?

268. captain_neill - June 23, 2010

Bob – did you answer why it made Kirk Captain 6 years earlier than in the prime timeline?

269. P Technobabble - June 23, 2010

It is funny how an article about Nick Meyer turns into a(nother) debate about the recent film. If Meyer is reading this he must be wondering what happened!

267. IcroBob
You oughta just hang it up, man. It’s obvious you will never get out of your own head, so just let bygones be bygones. No matter what Orci says you just bring in something else to argue your point. It’s just a circular argument that goes nowhere, and you come off looking like you’re just after a “one-up-man-ship” over the writers.

If the negative critics of the film are waitin for Orci to cry “uncle!” I’m willing to bet you’ve got a longer wait than it will take for the next Big Bang to happen. As I’ve said countless times, if you don’t like “Star Trek,” go make your own. There’s a neat little book by Loyd Kaufman called “Make Your Own Damned Movie!” in order to help you along the way. Of course, YOU won’t be able to make any $$$ doing it, but you’re so passionate about Star Trek that the $$$ doesn’t matter, eh?

Getting back to Nick Meyer, his book “A View From the Bridge” offers some great insights into his own attitudes about Star Trek, Hollywood, and film-making. If you haven’t read it, you should! Find out how a guy who knew virtually nothing about Star Trek (along with producer Harve Bennett) came to enjoy it… (see it was okay that THEY weren’t Star Trek fans in the beginning, hm?)

270. captain_neill - June 23, 2010

Bob guess I owe you an apology in the QM dept.

I was letting my gripes with changes in my fav show within in this one movie blind me to completely embracing it.

271. Ran - June 23, 2010

@ 247

Ditto.

272. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

All I’m saying is that Roberto should quit his QM MWI babble and re-read the lecture of how to avoid so called “fatal coincidences” when writing a script. I the next movie I don’t want to see any kind of extreme unbelievable coincidence like “Kirk happens to find Spock and Scotty on the same ice planet”, “Kirk happens to stumble over Spock in an ice cave that he just found out of pure luck (oh no, it was all because of quantum probabilities, yeah right)”. And the extreme case of small universe syndrom this movie suffers from. Pike being aboard the Kelvin, Pike writing a thesis on the Kelvin incident, Pike just happening to be there the night Kirk starts a bar fight, which happens to take place in Iowa, which happens to be the construction place of the Enterprise, which happens to be the ship EVERYONE who has been in that bar that night ends up on (Uhura, Kirk, Pike, Cupcake, and I’m sure all the other ones involved were, too. Oh, and McCoy, he just happened to be there in Iowa, too). Then of course Spock has to be the one who wrote the Kobayashi Maru scenario. And of course Kirk happens to find out about an attack because he is making out with Uhura’s roommate, and so forth.

Old Spock is just sitting there waiting for pure luck to help him out of his miserable situation. And oh boy were they lucky to find Scotty there, because he is the only one who understood the formula to be able to beam them back aboard the ship. What was Old Spock’s plan B to get Kirk back on the Enterprise had they never found Scotty?

Seriously, the script is a mess in this regard. I know this is harsh, but I’m not sorry to say it. NONE OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE NEEDED COINCIDENCE TO CONNECT THEM! Coincidence is the lamest way of connecting plot points. Defending the coincidence backstage with babble about QM MWI is even worse.

Seriously, all I want to do is to get the one who is mostly responsible for that script to listen and learn. The point is that the way that script was written was quite horrible, and I BEG YOU, please, when you write the next movie, THINK about it. NO MORE COINCIDENCES to resolve and connect plot points.

THE CHARACTERS WERE FANTASTIC! THE DIALOGUE WAS MARELOUS! THE ACTION WAS GREAT! Most of the stuff about it was great! But the structure of the story was HORRIBLE.

PLEASE! Stop the horribly lame way of resorting to coincidence to connect plot points. Please, I beg you!

Creativity is all about problem solving. In this case: “How do I connect these scenes in a way that makes sense?” Reading that particular script, there was no creativity in this regard to be found. It reads like a very bad B type horror movie. You know, the ones where you see a character acting totally stupid, just because he needs to die in the next scene. Ignoring the chain of command, ignoring the fact that every starship has a brig, resorting to pure luck/coincidence, and so forth, that’s lame.

If there is ANYTHING you take from this message board to your script discussions with Lindelof, Kurtzman and Abrams, then please take this with you.

273. Anthony Thompson - June 23, 2010

272.

I didn’t see Pike aboard the Kelvin. Can you point me to which Kelvin scene you saw him in (or where the dialogue mentioned it)?

274. captain_neill - June 23, 2010

272

Well Bob can quote can quote QM as a good source to explain plot contrivances, it is a plausible theory.

I just dont buy it all. It just creates too many gaps in the narrative in the way it was cut.

275. captain_neill - June 23, 2010

272

I do agree that the script is all over the place. But its still a cool movie.

276. Boborci - June 23, 2010

272. Death of George Kirk and crew seminal event in Starfleet. Why is it a coincidence for Pike to write a dissertation on it. Shipyards erected in Iowa in honor of George Kirks sacrifice. Kirk dropped on ice planet because of proximity to Vulcan, Spock left on ice planet because of proximity to Vulcan. Both on way to Federation outpost. Federation outposts staffed by federation people ( so why not Scotty? As discussed, canon is silent on how they met).

Kobayashi Maru written by Spock could be the case in canon as well. For all you know, that is exactly how they met in other universe.

I love how you are talking to me like we killed trek.

To me, all your arguments are evidence of why I am doing what I’m going and you’er doing whatever your doing.

277. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#276: “To me, all your arguments are evidence of why I am doing what I’m going and you’er doing whatever your doing.”

That’s one of the sublime points of beauty about Internet arguments. Everyone involved gets to walk away knowing they’ve won.

I mean, should we, in theory, ever walk away, that is :)

278. Ran - June 23, 2010

@ 276 “I love how you are talking to me like we killed trek. ”

You did not kill Star Trek, you just made it dumb.

279. boborci - June 23, 2010

278

How dare you insult Leonard Nimoy like that? Do you hate Star Trek?

280. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

I never said you killed Trek, all I’m saying is that the story structure could have been much better. I also said I loved this movie until I read about the creation process. I still like this movie but I’m also seeing what went wrong.

That there’s no canonically explanation how everyone met is not important. Important is the overall impression the story makes. And that is that there is way too much coincidence and that it suffers way too badly from “Small Universe Syndrome”.

The problem is that you could not develop the story in a natural way. It feels like you ran off a checklist of things instead of letting it develop naturally. One example:
- Naturally, there is no reason why Kirk should be the Captain. Naturally, it would have been alright to let him go on another ship as a Lieutenant, knowing that one day he will sit in Pike’s chair and be a hell of a good Captain, but he also has to gain more experience to do so. But the franchise dictated he needs to be Captain by the end of the movie. But instead of coming up with a clever way, you decided to “Jump the Shark” on it (or is it “Nuke the Fridge”, or is it “Promote the Cadet (to Captain)”)?

Same goes for other things. Another example:
- Spock having to exile Kirk in an escape pod so that there is a reason for him to be on the same planet as Old Spock. And that wasn’t enough, he also has to be chased by a monster to stumble over Old Spock out of pure luck. Was that really your BEST idea?

What about Old Spock actively going to the outpost, getting in contact with the Enterprise, with a message directed to “Captain James T. Kirk” about “the Romulan Nero”? Young Spock then decides to release Cadet Kirk from the BRIG and let him beam down to the station. And there Old Spock explains the situation like he did in the movie. No lame coincidence, no forced “escape pod exile”. AND Old Spock would have been ACTIVE, and not passive.

That’s only one example. There’s many more contrivances that could have been solved in a more intelligent, less contrived, and hence BETTER way.

Of course this isn’t about fact, this is solely about my and your opinion. But don’t you agree that relying on coincidence and characters making stupid decisions is worse than finding a way where there is no coincidence and characters making smart and natural decisions?

“I love how you are talking to me like we killed trek.”

Again, I repeat, I never said that, nor did I imply that.

“To me, all your arguments are evidence of why I am doing what I’m going and you’er doing whatever your doing.”

Now you decided to resort to arrogance. Why?

281. boborci - June 23, 2010

Arrogant is telling a Superbowl winning team that they shoulda’ played harder using your unproven playbook.

282. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#281: “Arrogant is telling a Superbowl winning team that they shoulda’ played harder using your unproven playbook.”

Changing the subject to the winning team. Okay, I’ll bite; I think Neytiri should have appeared a little earlier, and it creeped me out that Sigourney Weaver had her own nose even when she was blue.

283. boborci - June 23, 2010

282. S. John Ross – June 23, 2010

Okay, I’ll clarify.

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

284. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#284: Yes, top of your Conference. Good work.

But back on topic: seriously, about the nose, right? I guess it must have been like a prototype Avatar; she would have been one of the first, something like that, but it just wigged me a little. Something in Weaver’s contract, you think, or story-driven?

285. Red Dead Ryan - June 23, 2010

#283

Sorry, winning a weekend is the equivalent of a football team winning one game. I got to agree with #282. If each weekend amounts to a game, then “Avatar” wins hands down. It wins the “Super Bowl” due to its final tally. Judging by the numbers, “Star Trek” would qualify for the playoffs and be out after the first game. “Avatar” is the clear “Super Bowl” champion, with “Star Trek” as the young-up-and-coming yet somewhat inexperienced team. A little more “seasoning” and the sequel may very well challenge for the “Super Bowl”. And maybe even win it all. :-)

286. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#286: “A little more “seasoning” and the sequel may very well challenge for the “Super Bowl”. And maybe even win it all. :-)”

And I for one would love that, as would most of us, I bet. Something to look forward to with hopes.

287. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

Superbowl winning team?

You sold a lot of tickets, but I’m not sure you even made the play-offs…

In this context, I think you would be Grammy winners or People’s Choice…

288. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

now if you rebuild the stadium, and treat the players with respect, I think you might have a shot…

289. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

Wow, now you argued with Box Office. I am not impressed. In fact, I am pretty disappointed. You are a producer at heart after all, not a screenwriter.

290. Boborci - June 23, 2010

289

Not just box office. Most well reviewed, highly attended trek ever.

Just the facts. We won the Superbowl of Trek.

Is that not relevant. You get to say whatever you want and I can’t even bring in facts? Am I supposed to go at it with you with one hand tied behind my back? Are we simp,y supposed to ignore these facts so that you can feel good about yourself?

291. Red Dead Ryan - June 23, 2010

On another note, Anthony looks really mean and scary with that goatee. I wonder how long it took him to grow it?

And is it possible the Anthony we see in the video is really from the “Mirror Universe”? :-)

292. Boborci - June 23, 2010

Ok. I’ll leave you all alone now for real, even thigh I love thses debates. Sharpens me for everything else. I apologize if I’ve offended anybody Again, I appreciate all opinions because they come from a love for Trek. As I hoe you can see, I love trek so much that I am willing to spend hours with the minority view.

And finally, to bring it back the the great Meyers, I think I may agree with him.

Jury is out.

Ciao!

293. Red Dead Ryan - June 23, 2010

Ah, you mean’t the “Superbowl of Trek”! That all makes sense now.

Except for the “Most highly reviewed, highly attended trek ever.” part.

I think “The Motion Picture” still holds the record for most attended Trek film. Because you forgot to take into account inflation.

294. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#292: “And is it possible the Anthony we see in the video is really from the “Mirror Universe”? :-)”

Dude, now you’re scaring me!

295. Boborci - June 23, 2010

293. Nope. Do your homework!

Bye again!

296. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#294: “I think “The Motion Picture” still holds the record for most attended Trek film. Because you forgot to take into account inflation.”

Citing “most highly reviewed” is dodgy, too, and gets double-dodgy when claimed as a “fact.” If you look at something surface-level, like the numbers at Rotten Tomatoes (a site which measures what percentage of critics think your movie is at least “yeah, okay I guess”) then wa-hoo, we have a winner. But “most highly reviewed” can never be a statement of fact, because a movie review consists of so much more than a star rating or a thumbs up-or-down.

Star Trek’s “positive” reviews are way numerous, no argument there … but they’re laced with backhanded compliments, provisos, and qualifiers. And I’m not talking about the Huckahootchie Farmer’s Gazette, either … [CTRL-C, CTRL-V] USA today said the time-travel aspect doesn’t “jell,” and points out that Trek’s traditional ideals “take a back seat to pyrotechnics.” The New York Times said it’s a showcase for movie-making tech and implies that the girls in the movie aren’t required to do any acting. The San Francisco Chronicle points out that the energy of the film lags when Abrams tries to pump the pace; NPR laments that the villain’s villainy is “beside the point” and blames the writers explicitly, and the Los Angeles Times basically damns it with faint (relieved) praise, telling us that it’s “serviceable” enough that we can sigh in relief, but refers also to its “missteps” and “misses” and “over-caffeinated aspects.” And so on and so on. These are all from _positive_ reviews in major media markets.

There are no functionally relevant “facts” about critical consensus, but the impression I get from _reading_ the reviews (instead of counting them) is this: it’s fast, it’s fun, it’s sexy, it’s ‘splodey, and … that better be enough :)

And, you know, it was. For what it was.

297. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

And in most of the reviews I read, guess what is always seen as a problem of the movie: the ridiculous coincidences!

298. Boborci - June 23, 2010

298 take heart, then, that it didn’t go over your head alone!

299. Anthony Thompson - June 23, 2010

296.

Bob is right. It’s been reported on this site that ST09 was the most attended of the Trek films. Box office inflation was factored in.

300. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

Ouch! those sting! but do cut right to the heart of it, i have to agree.

“Trek’s traditional ideals take a back seat to pyrotechnics” and “showcase for movie-making tech” resonate with me…

301. Anthony Thompson - June 23, 2010

Several reasons , BTW. A larger international audience and “better legs”. ST09 had staying power because it was the superior film.

302. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

Bob is a brave man and a stand-up guy, just for making the attempt with us.

Giving / taking criticism is very difficult to do without hurting feelings, especially with regard to what one creates.

Thank you Bob, for including us in your creative process; i hope that you may be able find some positive application for it. ;-)

I apologize also, if we come off as jerks sometimes…

303. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#299.

Its impossible to accurately know attendance as the studios refuse to release the data on number of tickets sold because they regard it as not impressive enough with regards to other figures. All reporting on attendance is just a guess that seldom accounts for the non-uniform pricing of individual tickets during different times of the day or week and also the variations based on the purchaser’s age – not to mention premium prices charged by many IMAX or other exhibitors who consider what they offer “golden chair”. Also, not to mention the widely varying prices and rates of exchange in the international markets as well.

But I do encourage people who honestly believe attendance.to be an important milestone and gauge (I am referring to the many who attempt to cite it.) to pettition Paramount to release the data on actual number of tickets sold for each of the Trek films – but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

304. What is it with you? - June 23, 2010

280.

Wow, you know so little about writing for motion pictures it is scary.

Your version is, I admit, more “logical”. But is far less fun, and emotionally and visually it is close to dead.

These are MOTION pictures, not an exercise in logic.

Who wants to watch Kirk sit in a brig and our first view of Nimoy in decades to be on the view screen.

Welcome to boring city, lamewad.

I’d rather see the lobstrocity (the first really creepy and realistic alien in all of Trek by the way) chase Kirk into a cave and have Nimoy be there than the boring drek you came up with.

EPIC FAIL, IcroBob.

Orci is correct. SO GLAD you are where you are and he is where he is.

305. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

“Your version is, I admit, more “logical”. But is far less fun, and emotionally and visually it is close to dead.

These are MOTION pictures, not an exercise in logic.

Who wants to watch Kirk sit in a brig and our first view of Nimoy in decades to be on the view screen.”

The VIEWSCREEN?! Who said anything about a viewscreen? I didn’t. I said Kirk meets him personally. And when I said that I meant including the mind meld.

You didn’t even read everything and totally misinterpreted what you read. And you resorted to insults. Now that’s incredible.

306. What is it with you? - June 23, 2010

305 (via 280)

“What about Old Spock actively going to the outpost, getting in contact with the Enterprise, with a message directed to “Captain James T. Kirk” about “the Romulan Nero”? Young Spock then decides to release Cadet Kirk from the BRIG and let him beam down to the station.”

How is Spock supposed to contact the enterprise? Text message? How does he get a message to Kirk? On most episodes I’ve seen it’s via viewscreen. Especially if he is communicating directly with the captain, which by this point would be new Spock.

How about this, IcroBob – Write us all a manual about how the message is communicated, read it, and that’s exactly how your “superior” version would play out.

Better yet, why don’t you just write us all a mini-screen play and prove it?

Bob comes on here an truly interacts with all of us. And he likes the debate, when it is civil. But what you continue to do…

Well, it’s so easy to tear someone down. Show me something you’ve created – something you’ve put all your passion into – and let me pick it to pieces in the manner you have done here over 300 posts or more. And then try to tell me you aren’t insulted.

If I were Bob, I would be personally insulted. And yes, he’s better than me for not calling you lame. But you deserve it.

Epic Fail, man.

307. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

“How is Spock supposed to contact the enterprise? Text message? How does he get a message to Kirk? On most episodes I’ve seen it’s via viewscreen. Especially if he is communicating directly with the captain, which by this point would be new Spock.”

You’ve never seen TOS, have you? UHURA is the communications officer (yet she didn’t do anything in that movie to show it, which would be changed in my version, too).

Kirk gets into the argument and fight on the bridge, Spock does the Vulcan neck pinch. CUT TO: Kirk getting thrown into the brig by a pleased Cupcake. On the bridge, McCoy gets into the “Are you out of your Vulcan mind. … Green blooded Hobgoblin” argument with Spock. They are interrupted by Uhura. “Captain, I am receiving a message from the Delta Vega outpost. Someone wants to talk to…” – She is puzzled, and Spock comes closer, interested. “To whom, Lieutenant?” – “Captain James T. Kirk, Sir.” Spock raises a brow, and McCoy exchanges a WTF look with him, and Uhura continues. “He says he has important information about the Romulan Nero…”
CUT TO: the Enterprise approaching Delta Vega, a magnificent shot.
CUT TO: Spock entering the brig. Kirk is angry as hell, Spock cuts him off coldly by deactivating the force field. “I have an assigment for you, Cadet.”
CUT TO: Delta Vega outpost. Kirk materializes within the complex machinery and architecture. Nobody there. Kirk looks around, shouts “Is anybody here?” A mysterious figure walks out of the shadows. “Jim…” – “Who the hell are you?” – “I have been, and always shall be, your friend.” – “Wha, oh, look, I don’t know you, what the hell do you wa…” – “I am Spock!” – “Bullshit.” AND SO FORTH. Nero. Mindmeld. Spock tells Kirk it is essential that he needs to take command and that it is essential that he doesn’t tell anyone about this.

This is the 5 minute rewrite. Give me some more time and during Spock’s log entry about the aftermath of Vulcan’s destruction, there would be some short scenes in which survivors of the destroyed fleet are beamed aboard. One of which is Scotty. And Scotty would have been Chief Engineer of another ship, and when he hears that the Enterprise lost their CE, he takes the initiative and Spock agrees as it is the most logical decision. ONE exiled person on a planet (namely Spock Prime) would be enough, wouldn’t you think? It doesn’t need Kirk being exiled, Scotty being exiled and Spock being exiled all on Delta Vega to meet each other.

Doesn’t sound like an epic fail to me.

308. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

And by “short scenes” I mean SHORT. It wouldn’t break the pace.

309. IcroBob - June 23, 2010

Of course, I don’t expect anything different than “What is it with you?” criticizing the hell out of it for the sake of it just so that the trench warfare can continue. All I want to say is that the final script wasn’t the best and only solution. And even though their were paid for it, and even though the movie was a success, they should not stop learning! Don’t do the same mistakes twice.

310. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#304.

You must be new to Trek. You see there are these devices called communicators that have absolutely nothing to do with the viewscreen but everything to do with communicating with a nearby ship.

The classic Trek script mechanism is to have whoever is manning Enterprise’s Communications touch the Bluetooth earpiece in their ear with their hand, turn, and say with a puzzled look “Captain, I’m getting a message from Delta Vega…asking to speak with ‘Captain’ James T. Kirk?”

311. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

@IcroBob: I must say, I’m liking your re-write so far…

Doesn’t sound like an epic fail to me either…

312. What is it with you? - June 23, 2010

IcroBob

Wow, didn’t think you’d take the bait! Way to go.

I admit, it’s a good try. But it bores me to tears. And it isn’t visual. Not in the least.

I liked the ice world, and I liked the new alien monster thing.

But a couple of questions, if I might. Why would Spock stop long enough for a man in the brig to go on an away mission, after a major catastrophe? Why would he believe a mysterious voice over the communicator, even if it was from a federation signal, especially if it’s calling for “Captain Kirk”? By your logic, he’s happy just stop everything and wait for the criminal (Kirk), who effectively tried to mutiny just moments ago, to go on an away mission?

See how easy it is to tear something down?

310

Not new to Trek. Been a fan as long as I can remember.

If you like IcroBob’s version better than why don’t the both of you go ahead and make your own version?

I’ll happily be on the boards tearing you down.

Better yet, why don’t you both send me anything creative you’ve ever written and I’ll pick it apart completely. I’d be happy to, just to see the sobering effect it’ll have on your egos.

I’d bet you’ve never had anything reviewed in your life. I have. And your type of debate does nothing but sap energy and poison your outlook.

It’s too bad you both are Trek fans, but I’ll take the good with the bad.

313. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

I’m beginning to suspect that there might be some aspects of Bob’s nature that prevent him from taking Star Trek, and for that matter sci-fi, seriously.

I’m beginning to suspect that perhaps his world view precludes him from taking “science fiction” seriously. And maybe that’s why it came out as fantasy fluff?

Perhaps he’s motivated to “re-write history” for Star Trek, to redact those aspects that might not make sense from his world view?

314. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

304. What is it with you? on June 23, 2010 espoused “These are MOTION pictures, not an exercise in logic.”

I’m not certain, but I think you just made an argument as for why the screenwriters were compelled to get rid of the planet Vulcan?

315. What is it with you? - June 23, 2010

314

Perhaps. It did look pretty cool. I wouldn’t have gone that route but I respect it.

My form of disagreement wouldn’t be implying they were lazy or stupid, or hacks, as so many in this discussion have.

Instead, I’d ask them why they did it, and if they thought it was justified.

That’s the last I’ll say on this topic. I’m starting to get into Icrobob territory here with my responses.

316. I am not Herbert - June 23, 2010

the killing of planet Vulcan does seem like an attempt to kill logic in ST09…

317. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#312.

If you are as old a Trek fan as you let on, then you know full well in the intervening years between cancellation and the film “franchise”. That is exactly what we did.

As for your estimation that I never wrote anything resembling a script or endured searing criticism that could sap the soul, well you couldn’t be more wrong.

But I’d have to say no criticism in my entire life ever stung so much or cut so deep as all the praise and accolades I got for a brilliantly funny WW II comedy that I wrote in all earnest as a serious drama.

318. What is it with you? - June 23, 2010

317 Then you should know better. Shame on you.

And that’s enough. Good night to all those with a chip.

319. P Technobabble - June 23, 2010

There certainly are ways to make your point… and then there are ways not to. Some folks just don’t know the difference. If some psychologist were reading all of this, he/she might have something to say about the “games” some people play.
I don’t think Orci deserves all the badgering he’s had to endure. I’d like to think it would stop, but obviously that’s more fictional than even Star Trek.

320. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#318.

Likewise I’m sure with regards to leaping to unwarranted conclusions.

321. Boborci - June 23, 2010

I have to take some responsibility for the degeneration in tone on this thread. Thanks to those defending me but no foul to those attacking.

Herbet, I lpve your psychoanalysis!

And icrobob,your rewrite is not bad. Here’s what I would’ve told you100 insults ago if you’d just posted it:

It was ultimately our decision that while the story is as much about Kirk as it is about Spock, our movie is designed from Kirk’s point of view. He is the audience. And the turn in behavior you are pitching is the key turn of Spock Prime’s first contact with our crew. Not only are you robbing Kirk from being the first, you are denying Young Spock’ first contact with himself unless you sit through the whole scene while two Spocks sort everything out. Otherwise, why would Spock follow random orders.

court rules that the PoV of the movie would not support petitioners claim that said rewrite should over rule new canon;)!!!

322. Disinvited - June 23, 2010

#290.

I think you may have failed to notice that you wandered into the science-fiction badlands. Here, we use the scientific-method with strict mathematical rigor when we start firing-off “facts”.

You start drawing on numbers from undisciplined varmints like boxofficemojo and rottentomatoes, and I’m reminded of what the farmers use to say in the hills of my youth:

“Whoa, Bob, that’s one wobbly stool you’re standing on there.”

323. Kev-1 - June 23, 2010

Mr. movie writer. I thought ST2009 had nice structure. But. You don’t have a lot of people trying to convince you how great chocolate, Abe Lincoln and sunsets are each day, do you? if you are happy with it, that’s all that matters.

324. Boborci - June 23, 2010

323. Sustained;)

322. Ha! It’s as true as anything else you read in the papers!!:)

325. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

Some of the criticisms are well thought out. So are the defenses. But some of these attacks are the need to be “right” or seen as being so. There are those who need to feel superior. It’s all they got. It’s a nerd thing. Not calling anyone out but the conversation is devolving. We would all have done something different if we were in Bob’s place, but we’re not. So it’s his call. You don’t have to like it but you do have to accept it. Or maybe not.

By the way Bob. If you want to shoot the shit, I got some great ideas for the next movie… Just kidding. …Call me.

326. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#325: “You don’t have to like it but you do have to accept it. Or maybe not.”

Maybe not, indeed :) Any of us who do anything that gets sold to the public … whether we’re a musician in a local band or a chef at a hotel restaurant or a painter or a politician or a video-game maker or a movie guy … know that the lumps are part of the paycheck, and the guys not getting any lumps, are the _guys without an audience._

Thanks to the efforts of those who created Star Trek in the 1960s, everyone riding that particular franchise’s shotgun-seat from now for the forseeable future (until Star Trek goes the way of Joe Palooka and Nick Carter) automatically gets to be talked about and argued about and vilified and deified and demonized and lionized for a long time to come. It happens as soon as the licensing deals or contracts are signed; nobody even needs to write a single word or compose a single note or paint a single stretch of latex :) When they finally do, they just determine the tone of the convo … not whether it’s going to happen.

What’s unusual about Bob (and what I and I assume most of us are grateful for about Bob) is that he (evidently) enjoys wandering into it now and again.

327. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

Of course. But I think you’ll agree there’s a way to do it. A discussion is one thing but relentless bagering? Its a out art. It’s all subjective. There is no right or wrong.

328. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#327: “Of course. But I think you’ll agree there’s a way to do it.”

Several ways, but sure.

“It’s all subjective. There is no right or wrong.”

Sure. If someone says “Your movie was total crap and that’s a fact,” then they’re wrong. It’s not a fact. But they also have every right to be wrong in that way (even if it grates on some of us, like when someone uses the word “literally” to mean “emphatically but not at all literally”) but that is, as you say, a nerd thing :)

329. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

It’s an art. (stupid phone)

330. Red Dead Ryan - June 23, 2010

A thread that was supposed to be about Nick Meyer has become target practice against Bob. Maybe we all should just get back to the original topic. :-)

Nick Meyer really understood the characters especially well considering he wasn’t a Trek fan prior to doing “The Wrath Of Khan”. TWOK was the movie in which three best friends (Kirk, Spock, McCoy) became brothers in my opinion. Nick was also able to get William Shatner to another level of acting, though he couldn’t do anything about Shatner’s toupee. :-) Meyer never got his fair share of credit and praise as a writer and director (so far) in Hollywood. But he gets it from me and most others on this site.

Could Bob be as good a writer and could J.J Abrams be as good a director as Nick Meyer? Quite possibly. Except that Bob and J.J need to eliminate silly scenes such as the expanding hands and Engineer Olsen’s dumb “red shirt” death sequence. A little less in the way of slapstick comedy and more serious drama (with a little bit of TOS humor) would go a long way in making the sequel better than “Star Trek” ’09.

“Star Trek” got an 8 out of 10 from me. Bob, “I dare you to do better.”

331. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

S John Ross.
True true. Let me explain. Too long. Let me summarize… When you are speaking with the artist, or in this case the writer, and you ask him what he meant and he tells you (by the way, I’m impressed we have that opportunity) you can either accept his answer and agree or you can accept his answer and think that he failed in the effort. But to argue about the why or about his interpretation is, I think, silly. It’s his work. He is thoughtful enough to give us some insight into what he was doing and why. Its really not open to debate. That being said, I think we should continue to give our opinions or our wishlist for the next movie. But to argue…?
By the way I wasn’t referring to you earlier… And that includes my nerd comment. :)

332. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#330: “A thread that was supposed to be about Nick Meyer has become target practice against Bob.”

Both true and a little unfortunate, but I think it’s also inevitable that when a for-real live Bob wanders in and makes himself available, it will draw attention. Plus, the thread wasn’t just about Nick Meyer, but also about the possibilities for the next film, and on that portion of the topic, Bob is awfully relevant :)

#331: “It’s his work. He is thoughtful enough to give us some insight into what he was doing and why. Its really not open to debate. ”

Facts are facts and Bob should know alright … but it isn’t a _given_ that anything an artist says about his work process is factual, especially when it comes to motives and priorities in the process. Five possibilities (not about Bob specifically, but about any artist of any kind) include (A) the artist misunderstanding his own process (B) the artist deliberately misrepresenting his process (C) the artist misinterpreting a part of the process that a collaborator was responsible for (D) the artist misremembering his process and (E) the artist describing his process unsuccessfully. There are also others.

A real-world example: Tolkien claimed that The Lord of the Rings wasn’t about his war experiences. Isaac Asimov wrote some very good essays insisting that Tolkien was either mistaken, fibbing, or fibbing to _himself._ Asimov did this because it is, always, open to debate. Was Tolkien correct? Was Tolkien honest or self-deluded? Was Asimov wiser on matters of Tolkien’s own work process than Tolkien himself? Beats me, but it remains open to debate. Always.

The same applies here, there, and everywhere, even if we’re not Isaac Asimov and even if Bob isn’t Tolkien.

333. S. John Ross - June 23, 2010

#329: “It’s an art. (stupid phone)”

See post #252. It’s not a special thing just for Bob :)

334. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

332 Okay, but would Asimov argue with Tolken about it. Sure he had an opinion, this I don’t debate. But if he said to Tolken “You’re wrong,” or “you’re lying,” or ” I know what you really meant,” well that would be kind of crazy, and arrogant. Why ask the artist anything if you’ve already made up your mind, or you know more than he does? Which of course you can never know.

335. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

You can never know for sure, at least.

336. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#334: “Okay, but would Asimov argue with Tolken about it.”

I don’t know. I think he may have actually discussed it with Tolkien at least once while they were both living, but I’m not sure.

“But if he said to Tolken “You’re wrong,” or “you’re lying,” or ” I know what you really meant,” well that would be kind of crazy, and arrogant.”

Perhaps, but there are dozens of other ways to discuss it, or even argue it, it without being accusatory in those ways.

“Why ask the artist anything if you’ve already made up your mind, or you know more than he does?”

I’m not sure how that scenario relates to the topic. That the matter remains open for debate doesn’t mean that people who debate it have “already made up their minds.”

337. captain_neill - June 24, 2010

290

So Bob because the figures say so you even claim to think your film is better than both Wrath of Khan and First Contact.

Im sorry but your film was good but not that good.

338. captain_neill - June 24, 2010

Just because its’ the biggest does not mean its the best now does it?

Quantum of Solace made the most money of a Bond movie but it ain’t the best Bond movie.

All it means you succeeded in getting more bums on seat, does not mean its more better reviewed.

Please stop making my Star Trek feel inferior to this one movie.

339. captain_neill - June 24, 2010

330

God you had to remind me of the expanding hands, that was really silly

340. IcroBob - June 24, 2010

321. “Otherwise, why would Spock follow random orders.”

He wouldn’t. Old Spock would tell Kirk that it is unlikely Young Spock would follow the order to chase Nero. So he – just like in your version – suggests that Kirk forces him into an emotional breakdown. And he does so eventually and takes command.

As said before, it wouldn’t change the important scenes, but it would get more sense into how they are connected.

341. Hugh Hoyland - June 24, 2010

Does anyone here honestly think they could have written a better script than Bob and Alex for Star Trek 09? I dont mean that as a joke either, or do they think they can write a better sequel than what they will for the next movie?

342. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#341: “Does anyone here honestly think they could have written a better script than Bob and Alex for Star Trek 09?”

Depends. Better at what? Better in what way? Better for whom? Better by what standard or set of standards? Better at achieving which set of goals, weighted by what set of priorities? Better at appeasing the canonistas? Better at appeasing the humanists? Better at appeasing the people who think Trek should be hard science fiction or better at appeasing those who think it should be more military? Better at luring Shatner into seeing it earlier? Better at impressing Roger Ebert? Better at impressing Bertrand Oliver Clemworth IV of Keyser, West Virginia? Better at putting his dog to sleep? Better for the people who love Voyager most or the people who think DS9 was the only really good series?

Better isn’t a very useful word, really.

343. Hugh Hoyland - June 24, 2010

#342 ok how about a more entertaining script in general, that could appeal to an even broader base of viewers?

344. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#342: “ok how about a more entertaining script in general, that could appeal to an even broader base of viewers?”

Ohhh.

[brings in Princess Leia doll, pulls string]

“If money is all you love, then mrrrmmrrrrrmrrrrr.”

Hm. Stupid string.

345. Boborci - June 24, 2010

340.

Then how did Kirk get out of his cell in the first place?

346. IcroBob - June 24, 2010

345. “Then how did Kirk get out of his cell in the first place?”

Earth to Boborci, Earth to Boborci. Please read post #307 again. Over. ;-)

347. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#341:

Anyway, Hugh, we _need_ for there to be at least one guy in the room who will give your question an unqualified*, enthusiastic “YES.” Right now, like it or not, choose it or not, we need that guy to be Roberto Orci, for the NEXT one …

[*Well, he may legitimately qualify it with "But I'll be having my bud Alex and maybe this cool dude Damon on the gig, too."]

348. Hugh Hoyland - June 24, 2010

#344 well I think the idea of making a movie is for it to make money. The more money it makes means the more people enjoy the movie, simple.

349. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#346: “Earth to Boborci, Earth to Boborci.”

Oh, Christ; can’t some _other_ planet be in peril? :)

350. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#348: “well I think the idea of making a movie is for it to make money. The more money it makes means the more people enjoy the movie, simple.”

Wow. Well, send Bob a resume, soldier; I think he’d like the cut of your jib :)

351. Hugh Hoyland - June 24, 2010

#350 I just asked a question, and a serious one. Can anyone that posts here think they can write a script that people will read and go wow, that really rocks! Of course any work will have its detractors but thats to be expected. Maybe a writting contest would be fun to do. Compare screenplays to the the next movie and see how many like the sequels screenplay to the ones written by fans here. :}

352. Boborci - June 24, 2010

346.

So young Captain Spock is following Spock Prime’s orders and willingly let’s Kirk out. So he is either trusting random message, or he is aware of his older self in violation of Kirks point of view. I’ll leave the judgement of what is more dramatic to others.

353. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#351: “#350 I just asked a question, and a serious one.”

Indeed. To clarify, do you feel that my response (#342) was insufficiently serious? It was intended seriously.

354. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#352: “I’ll leave the judgement of what is more dramatic to others.”

Well, it’s about time. :)

355. Hugh Hoyland - June 24, 2010

#351 Ok I got it, well im off to sleep, have to work this afternoon and night. BBL :]

356. moauvian waoul - June 24, 2010

336. Let’s say I see a painting. The artist is standing next to
me. I ask him about it. He explains it to me, why he used certain colors, what he tried to convey, his understanding or opinion of the subject. I am free to like it or discuss it with him and try to understand it and to decide if I agree or even if I think it’s art. That, I feel, is not what’s happening here. If you feel he owes you an explanation, fine. If he gives you one, better. But since it’s subjective, there would be no right or wrong. I cant convince him that his art must reflect my understanding. It doesn’t work that way, no matter how much I want it to.

357. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#356: “That, I feel, is not what’s happening here.”

I’m not sure which thread or portion of which thread you’re referring to, so it’s hard to know whether to heartily agree, politely disagree, or just be confused. I’m good at confused, so I may just stick with that. :)

“If you feel he owes you an explanation, fine.”

I don’t. Do you? Does someone here?

“If he gives you one, better.”

Depends on how much one values the explanation. Could be worse, or simply tiresome, or just of neutral interest and neither better nor worse, or “better” mainly by dint of passing the time (which is the default, IMO).

“But since it’s subjective, there would be no right or wrong.”

Whether or not a movie is “good” (or exciting, or funny, or moving or dramatic or magical) is subjective. But a lot of the things we’ve discussed here are at least partly objective. Consensus wobbles on which bits, too, which adds interest. :)

“I cant convince him that his art must reflect my understanding.”

Okay. Well, maybe if you tried you could, but what would be the reason to?

“It doesn’t work that way, no matter how much I want it to.”

Why would you want it to?

To return briefly to our topic above, another real-world example (and bringing it back to ST09 directly) is George Lucas. Starlog did a great little piece several years ago now (I think it was early 1990s) where they went through all the old newspaper and magazine clippings in their vault, and they quoted Lucas everytime he said something that had “always been the plan” about the Star Wars films. It had, according to Lucas, always been the plan to make just one movie. It had, according to Lucas, always been the plan that there would be 15 films. it had, according to Lucas, always been the plan that there’d be 12 films. And so on for just about every integer … they had a direct quote from Lucas describing what his “vision” had “been all along, since the beginning.” Fine times, fine times :)

358. BiggestTOSfanever - June 24, 2010

@Boborci
Hi this is totally off the subject but I was just wondering,
how come Spock calls Uhura ‘Lieutenant’ and Pike calls her ‘Cadet’?

359. moauvian waoul - June 24, 2010

The trend of bickering with the writer everytime he shows up here is what I refer to, not accepting his reasons for what he created. To be clear, I am not responding to the general discussion. It is interesting and insightful and brings up questions I hadn’t considered. When I speak of trying to change the mind of the writer I am not referring to myself, or to you for that matter. But endlessly bagering the writer of a move released over a year ago… why, and to what end. It strikes me as chest-thumping, inan intellectual sort of way Time could be better spent understanding their point of view and they us.

360. Red Skirt - June 24, 2010

332. “A real-world example: Tolkien claimed that The Lord of the Rings wasn’t about his war experiences. Isaac Asimov wrote some very good essays insisting that Tolkien was either mistaken, fibbing, or fibbing to _himself.”

“according to Lucas, always been the plan to make just one movie. It had, according to Lucas, always been the plan that there would be 15 films.”

S. John Ross, why do you need to look any further than this very franchise to prove your point? Gene Rodenberry was a notorious revisionist, and either everyone he ever worked with was lying, or Gene himself suffered from the problems you have so eloquently outlined.

But these writers are different in that they are infallible. If that point has not been made clear to you on this site, then I don’t know what else can be done for you.

#344. “[brings in Princess Leia doll, pulls string] “If money is all you love, then mrrrmmrrrrrmrrrrr.” Hm. Stupid string.”

ROTFLMFAO!!!

#350. ‘#348: “well I think the idea of making a movie is for it to make money. The more money it makes means the more people enjoy the movie, simple.”
Wow. Well, send Bob a resume, soldier; I think he’d like the cut of your jib :”

Exactly. The argument assumes the fallacy that “more” people enjoy the movie if it makes more money. It offers no qualifications that the movie be “good” by any standard and completely ignores the fact that higher ticket prices and repeat viewers might seriously erode the foundation on which that argument is posed, actually resulting in fewer viewers “enjoying” the movie. But as long as it makes lots of money, who really cares? C’mon John, it’s simple!

361. IcroBob - June 24, 2010

“352. Boborci – June 24, 2010
346.

So young Captain Spock is following Spock Prime’s orders and willingly let’s Kirk out. So he is either trusting random message, or he is aware of his older self in violation of Kirks point of view. I’ll leave the judgement of what is more dramatic to others.”

No. He doesn’t follow Spock Prime’s orders. There is no order. There is a message from a stranger who says he has important information about Nero, and needs to give it to “Captain Kirk”. He has to options: Ignore it, or give it a try. Nero just destroyed a major Federation world, he just can’t sit back and ignore someone who claims to know something about that guy. And since that stranger specifically asked to speak Kirk, he might as well send Kirk down.

And Spock Prime has a good reason to ask for Kirk only. A) he doesn’t know the exact timeframe and assumes Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise, and B) he trusts him more than anyone else (especially since he knows that his own younger self might be very disrupted by Vulcan’s destruction).
The thing is: Nero exiled him on the planet. Spock found a way to the Starfleet outpost and wanted to warn Starfleet about Nero. But he’s to late and has to witness the destruction of Vulcan. Then the outpost’s sensors tell him the Enterprise is still there, and he immediately contacts her.

Then Kirk meets Spock Prime who tells him about exactly what he told him in your script. And then Kirk returns to the Enterprise saying they MUST hunt Nero down. Spock still refuses, and then Kirk follows Spock Prime’s advice to force him into a breakdown to assume command himself.

It doesn’t feature the red lobster monster, but that’s about it. And it would have made Spock Prime look active, and not passive. It’s not in Spock’s nature to just sit back in a cave and wait for a miracle to happen.

362. Red Skirt - June 24, 2010

#361 – “It doesn’t feature the red lobster monster, but that’s about it. And it would have made Spock Prime look active, and not passive. It’s not in Spock’s nature to just sit back in a cave and wait for a miracle to happen.”

You are soooooo missing the point. There’s no point in doing the movie without the red lobster monster, at least for JJ.

Besides, you have no idea what going through a black hole does to a person’s mind. Like a relative after a stroke, Spock may not be anything like the same character he was in the Prime universe despite being the exact same character. Why are you second guessing the “Supreme” Bob Orci?

363. I am not Herbert - June 24, 2010

@IcroBob: your re-outline continues to be appealing… especially with the lack of red lobster monster! Hopefully, you will have replaced red matter as well?

364. Red Dead Ryan - June 24, 2010

339

What did you think of Engineer Olsen?

365. I am not Herbert - June 24, 2010

321. Boborci: “Herbet, I lpve your psychoanalysis!”

I’m glad that it didn’t offend, but at that risk again, I must ask:

Are you religious? I know this is a VERY personal question, but it is now inescapable, because it would have so much bearing on the hugely creational position you are in with Star Trek.

If you are, with any conviction, I feel that you should recuse yourself.

366. P Technobabble - June 24, 2010

This sort of debate tends to go on ad infinitum, simply because it’s a polarized subject — you’re on one side or the other… two sides of the same coin that never see each other. You either agree with the artist or you don’t. As far as I am concerned, I give the artist the benefit of the doubt. If an artist says, “This means this,” or “I did it this way because–,” I simply accept that. Not because I am a blind follower or a dolt, but because I accept the artist at his word. In this case, Orci’s word is good enough for me. If his word isn’t good enough for you, so be it… but you can’t change his word. Telling a writer how he should have written something is, IMO, arrogant presumption. I do not believe we have a right to tell an artist how to do his work. And, in any case, when we look at an artist’s work, we always see it after the fact of creation — we do not see it during the creation. And, thus, hindsight is always 20/20. Even the artist may wish he had done things differently (John Lennon once said, “I’d like to record every single track over again…”). But for the consumer to impose his/her own value judgments upon the artist is just being an armchair quarterback. You tell Brady or Manning how to throw a football, he’s liable to throw you the finger. Orci deserves more respect than he’s been given, and, by now, he’s earned it.

367. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#360: “S. John Ross, why do you need to look any further than this very franchise to prove your point?”

Oh, it’s not about need, really. It’s just when we start talking about Gene Roddenberry around here (especially in any way the holy acolytes might feel is disrespectful), it warps the convo in straaaange ways sometimes and … so you caught me tip-toeing around that :) But yeah. If there was an excuse for more examples, I was thinking of some cool comic-book ones.

“But these writers are different in that they are infallible. If that point has not been made clear to you on this site, then I don’t know what else can be done for you.”

Well, I just guess I … well …

[pulls the string again, grinning, hopeful to impress Red Skirt]

“There’s a snake in my boot!”

[hangs head, thumps the smartass Leia doll]

368. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#366: “Orci’s word is good enough for me.”

Likewise. So, to return to an _extremely_ relevant example: how many movies do you believe George Lucas had in mind, “all along?”

369. P Technobabble - June 24, 2010

368. S. John

Only Lucas really knows for sure (or maybe his hair-dresser), or maybe he wasn’t really sure what he could accomplish, or he could also change his mind depending entirely upon his mood, or what he felt, or whatever he thought sounded good at the moment of the interview. As far as I know, the six films that are out there are gonna be it… but I certainly don’t know for certain.

370. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#369: “Only Lucas really knows for sure (or maybe his hair-dresser)”

If I were an investigative reporter, I’d track down his chin masseuse.

371. What is it with you? - June 24, 2010

P. Technobabble

moauvian waoul

You guys (girls?) hit the nail I’ve been trying to hit on the head with these two for the last two days. And you did it far more eloquently than I.

S. John Ross and IcroBob, you will never understand why your interactions with BobOrci are so out of line. It’s not in your worldview to understand.

What is truly sad is that you clearly “get off” on making someone else defend themselves in such a way.

Pitiable. The both of you.

372. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#371: “It’s not in your worldview to understand.”

That’s correct; I’ve never really been religious, though I have _worked_ with the pious and I think you’re all just fine folk, very fine folk indeed. Salt of the Earth and whatnot.

George Lucas, somewhere in the 80s (around the lead-up to Jedi), finally settled on “nine,” a trilogy of trilogies, that kind thing. Repeated that one _countless_ times.

373. What is it with you? - June 24, 2010

372.

I’m an atheist. I believe you should start with mutual respect, not self-righteousness and disrespect.

Every time I see you and IcroBob on here you start with something inflammatory.

How is that fair to the guy who spends his time (likely worth more than yours or mine) trying to interact and get feedback from the fans?

It just ruins the experience for everyone but you two, who get off on it. And so instead of getting a real two way conversation between fans and insiders, we get the thread constantly hijacked by you two and your negative agenda.

Just give it a rest.

374. Red Skirt - June 24, 2010

No religious commentary, just seems appropriate:

http://c0116801.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/091203Comic.jpg

375. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#373: “I’m an atheist.”

Indeed. Apologies if the metaphor was needlessly obscure.

“I believe you should start with mutual respect.”

I agree, and I always do, and always have.

“Every time I see you and IcroBob on here you start with something inflammatory.”

I started with post #27. I’d be curious to know by what reasoning you consider it inflammatory.

“How is that fair to the guy who spends his time (likely worth more than yours or mine) trying to interact and get feedback from the fans?”

Likely worth more _money,_ I suppose you mean. Yes, that’s true. I’m not sure I understand the separation you’re making. Are you suggesting that I’m not a fan, or that my posts don’t count as feedback?

“It just ruins the experience for everyone but you two”

There are numerous posts above that contradict this assertion directly.

“we get the thread constantly hijacked by you two and your negative agenda.”

I’m not the one who hijacked the thread, and I have no negative agenda.

#374: You are a treasure as always, Red Skirt :)

376. moauvian waoul - June 24, 2010

What is it with you?

Eloquent? Me? You sir, (madam) are too kind.

In all fairness to S. John Ross, though he doesn’t agree with us, I don’t believe he has been one of the worse offenders. He just happens to be wrong. This time. :) Now some of the others…sheeesh.

No religion here either.

377. S. John Ross - June 24, 2010

#376: “In all fairness to S. John Ross, though he doesn’t agree with us,”

As near as I can see, we do agree on at least 95% of what we’ve discussed, and on a good many general implications as well (though those are harder to pin down, of course).

And the remaining 5% is just trivia (though, I suspect, one of the things we disagree on, is that) :)

“He just happens to be wrong. This time. :) ”

I’m at peace with that :) Though again, I wish I knew which post(s) you were referring to … the abstract general hand-wavery is awfully vague :)

“No religion here either.”

I keep vowing not to use metaphor here, and I remember for a month or two, and then I forget again, and use metaphor, and then: d’oh. All over again :)

378. moauvian waoul - June 24, 2010

Okay S.John Ross, I’ll agree with that.
The only thing we’ve disagreed on, that I know of is this one…earlier this thread, and that was a discussion, like I said previously.

379. Red Dead Ryan - June 24, 2010

#365

Does it matter if Bob is religious? What does that got to do with anything?
And I don’t see how it would necessarily influence his script even if he were. And Bob certainly doesn’t have to recuse himself.

380. Boborci - June 24, 2010

361. Why would Spock Prime’s message be reserved for Captain Kirk, especially if young Spock answers the phone. Why limit himself? Why not send message to himself, whom he could more easily prove his identity to? Why be coy about it at all. Why not send all I importent Information regarding Nero to the ship. Incidently, in your version, exactly what important info does spock prime have for Kirk? If Kirk is already walking around free, what purpose does he serve? Are u proposing he says to Kirk, ” so glad you’ve beamed down here from your ship. Now let’s get you back to your ship?”

381. Red Dead Ryan - June 25, 2010

#380

I believe “IcroBob” is your counterpart from the mirror universe. Over there, he is a writer just like you. Except instead of having your talent, he merely thinks he does.

Just another example of why Bob is doing what he is doing and why the rest of us are doing what we are doing.

By the way, I’m a lowly janitor with no life who doesn’t pretend to be better or more than he is! :-)

382. Boborci - June 25, 2010

381. Red Dead Ryan

Stop!!! No such thing as lowly janitor. All labor is love. Your comments here have crossed pleasantly and helpfully through our minds. We thank you.

383. captain_neill - June 25, 2010

Bob

Im fed up arguing over my gripes with the film

Bottom line is I love your film but I don’t like it as the best ever thing in Trek.

384. Hugh Hoyland - June 25, 2010

ok just got back from a hard 12 hour shift Im wiped out so I’ll just say hello all and be back later when Im a little bit more awake. :}

385. IcroBob - June 25, 2010

380. ???

“Incidently, in your version, exactly what important info does spock prime have for Kirk?”

The same information he had for Kirk your script.

“Why would Spock Prime’s message be reserved for Captain Kirk, especially if young Spock answers the phone. Why limit himself? Why not send message to himself, whom he could more easily prove his identity to?”

Why did Spock Prime not beam over to the Enterprise together with Kirk and Scotty in your script?

386. Boborci - June 25, 2010

385. So you are pitching, “thank you for coming down. Time to get you back up.”

387. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

381
Don’t know about that lowly stuff but you’re valuable here

388. Boborci - June 25, 2010

All while Spock waits in orbit instead of following one course of action over another. Why wouldn’t Spock come with him? You haven’t answered this question. Why, If Spock has decided to intervene in this universe, why doesn’t he send all relevant info to in his encoded message. He thinks Kirk is Captain in your version, right? So what info would he send?

389. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

379. Red Dead Ryan – June 24, 2010

#365 “Does it matter if Bob is religious?”

Religious dogma and Star Trek / Federation philosophy are mutually exclusive and incompatible. A truly religious person is unfit to be in such a creational position with Star Trek.

390. IcroBob - June 25, 2010

385. So you are pitching, “thank you for coming down. Time to get you back up.”

If you mean the entire exposition with the mind meld and Spock Prime formulating the plan how Kirk can get command of the ship, then yes.

391. IcroBob - June 25, 2010

“388. Why wouldn’t Spock come with him? You haven’t answered this question.”

For the same reason he wouldn’t come with him in your movie. What was that reason again?

“He thinks Kirk is Captain in your version, right? So what info would he send?”

He asks Captain Kirk to come down and meet with him. No other info. Ever seen how it works in the average crime movie, when a contact requests a meeting with the cop? There’s not info sent.

392. Boborci - June 25, 2010

391.

No, you can’t use the same reason because in our story Kirk is exiled from the ship and young Spock goes onto execute his plan of following Pike’s orders. And Spock Prime has no idea he is about to meet Kirk.

So, in your version:
Why does he ask Kirk to come down and meet him? To tell him what?

Why doesn’t he send whatever information he thinks he has to the the very ship he trusts so much?

393. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

Information from the future is inherently dangerous, and must be shared carefully and sparingly.

394. Boborci - June 25, 2010

393.

So then why not keep it to “himself?”. Especially when he discovers “he” is the Captain.

395. Boborci - June 25, 2010

And, again, what info is he giving him? That Nero is pissed and from the future? Young Spock has already explained that to Kirk. So, once again, what game changing info is spoke Prime hoping to convey, in person or not?

396. Red Dead Ryan - June 25, 2010

#382, 387

Thanks! (sniff, wipes tears from eyes!) :-)

397. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

…just saw some interesting Boborci quotes:

On the sequel possibly having an exploration sci-fi plot where “the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary.”

This would tend to confirm a religious POV, reflecting fear of truth, knowledge, wisdom, logic…
(unknown as adversary = fear, prejudice, hate of gaining true knowledge)

Nature (Creation, the environment) as adversary confirms this POV, and suggests other motivation as well….

On recasting Khan, Orci questioned “why take the chance?”

1. We are in the business of risk.

2. For the pay-off. But, I’m beginning to see your point…

398. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

A story about our relationship w/ Creation is a good idea, but WE (humans) are the bad guys in this story.

Perhaps a cautionary tale about H.A.A.R.P.? When the sky is burned, this will be the tool that does it. It’s part of S.D.I. (Star wars). it’s probably being used secretly already. Truly insidious, INSANE weapon.

399. boborci - June 25, 2010

398. I am not Herbert – June 25, 2010

speaking of HAARP…

http://www.relifac.com/is-information-system/u-s-defense-had-mock-haiti-disaster-drill-day-before-earthquake-coincidence

400. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

..and there have been other recent suspicious earthquakes… floods…

coincidence?

401. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

Yeah yeah; don’t mention it. Im feeling generous today.

402. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

That was for 396.

403. I am not Herbert - June 25, 2010

Since Bob cannot / will not answer (I don’t blame you), I have to take what I can from that, and assume the answer is yes.

Judging from your heritage, I would assume that you are Catholic.
The question becomes: casual or devout?

If casual, it MIGHT work, but since you probably still take orders from the church, probably not.

If devout, it will not work. It would make you unsuitable for creating this universe for Star Trek. Maybe producing instead?

404. Disinvited - June 25, 2010

#399.

Wait. Wait. Wait. If I recall correctly, in your movie the trip “through” the black hole for Spock Prime, is instantaneous from his point of view. And Nero pounces on him even before he could draw a breath when he emerges.

So wouldn’t you say that he hasn’t had enough time in IcroBob’s script to figure out that what appears to be time travel has happened (Nero has every motivation to tell him nothing and let him go on believing that planet Vulcan he’s seeing destroyed is his.) until he approaches the outpost and realizes that it is in a state that it hasn’t been for decades?

Ambassador Spock is pretty quick on his feet and probably more than capable of figuring out by the second knock the exact stardate.

But your question is probably better put “How does Ambassador Spock know that Kirk is even on the Enterprise?

Even if the Ambassador was smart enough to enter Impossible Mission mode and represent himself convincingly (He does have a multiple decades leap on them even with the changes.) to Scotty as the high ranking (retired?) Federation officer he is: How does he come to assume Kirk is on Enterprise at all, let alone as Captain?

In the Amabassador’s universe, Pike was Captain. Even if the Ambassador checked the current crew list at the outpost: Kirk wouldn’t have been on it. He was only on the ship as McCoy’s patient.

With all of Nero’s jamming activities and the obvious low priority of the outpost, I doubt McCoy’s last minute patient addition would even be available in the outpost’s local systems data storage.

405. Disinvited - June 25, 2010

#391.

You are going to need to add a scene where the Ambassador and Scotty “tune-in” to Kirk’s assault on the drill and thus the Ambassador can make the leap to assuming that Kirk has assumed command.

406. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2010

…not letting you off, and i regret the need to be confront you personally…

…but here are some more story ideas:

It’s about some other culture we (Federation) encounter: Earth-parallel? Klingon?…?

The problem: their arrogantly militaristic society has them unknowingly on the brink of self destruction w/ horribly unimaginable suffering / loss / degradation. (hell on earth) In addition, their plan is to project their technology into space on in interplanetary scale, where it’s affect is far greater than they anticipate.

Our (Federation) problem: we already went through this stage of human evolution hundreds of years ago: the military / energy / tobacco / profit driven scientific community had nothing but disdain for the medical / life sciences, unless it could be applied in a negative / profitable manner. One arrogantly believing that it had nothing to do with the other. When in fact, EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

…but, this other culture does not trust us, to say the least! as they attempt to blast us out of the sky on first sight, both out of fear, and lust for our advanced technology.

…but our sensors have seen what they are doing, and we cannot just stand by while they foolishly destroy all life on their planet, as well as f**k up a huge part of the quadrant, in fact, affecting the entire galaxy’s magnetic field.

…but there are also Prime Directive issues… not to mention: how do we get them to see that what they are doing is hurting themselves? in addition to a multitude of innocent life that they have little or no regard for. Can this be done? Do we intercede?

conflict, action, drama, suspense ensue!

407. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2010

…and this could be a very good story for McCoy / Karl Urban! ;-)

(the biggest and best of the troika, IMHO)

408. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2010

…but then, you seem to be part of the machine, driven by profit and adding to the collective conscienceless unconsciousness…

…i’m probly just pissin’ up the flag pole…

409. I am not Herbert - June 26, 2010

Oh! …and don’t let JJ direct or write, dammit! maybe “co-produce” instead? =)

you probly couldn’t get GdT, but maybe Sam Raimi? or maybe even Favreau?

410. Red Dead Ryan - June 26, 2010

#406,407,408,409

Are you finished? Or do you still have something else you’d like to get off your chest?

411. Harry Ballz - July 1, 2010

It appears not! He had one idea and it died of loneliness!

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