Orci: Freedom Of New Star Trek Movie Timeline ‘Scary’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci: Freedom Of New Star Trek Movie Timeline ‘Scary’ June 19, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

More comments on the Star Trek sequel have emerged from the People Like Us junket, this time it is co-writer/producer Roberto Orci talking about how, even though they didnt really dig into writing the movie until 2011, they had created the story early on. He also talked about the pluses and minuses of creating a new timeline.

 

Orci on developing sequel story & freedom of new timeline

At the People Like Us junket, Star Trek sequel’s Roberto Orci talked about how writing team developed the story for the movie early on…

“We sat on a story that we had for a while and waited to see if it still felt relevant a year or two later, after we’d all gone through a bunch of stuff. And it still did. The hardest part was being patient and kicking the tires of what our instinct was. Not just writing, the momentum of the studio being happy with us and the nice reaction we got. It’s very easy to get overconfident and go, “Anything we say next is going to be Star Trek.” You want to mitigate against that and be your own check.”

Orci also talked about the double-edged sword of giving themselves more freedom by creating the alternate time line…

“Since we freed it from the original time line we had narrative freedom, which is sometimes worse. Absolute freedom is sometimes scarier than what you have to do.”

More from Orci and Pine on Trek and Enders Game at Latino Review.


Orci with fellow "People Like Us" producer Bobby Cohen at LA Film Fest Premiere – June 15

Orci’s last Ender’s Game production update

Orci and Kurtzman have just wrapped production on their second big sci-fi movie that shot this year, Ender’s Game. For this project, an adaption of a classic sci-fi book by Orson Scott Card, there isn’t the same kind JJ Abrams level of secrecy. Orci and the team have even been running a blog showing images from the shoot. Yesterday he posted the final production update.

Ender’s Game is due in theaters on November 1, 2013. It is a highly anticipated movie for sci-fi fans and here at TrekMovie.com and we will be tracking the film like we did with Prometheus, and other non-Star Trek projects we choose to adopt.


Shot from the set of "Ender’s Game"

 

Comments

1. Duncan MacLeod - June 19, 2012

Inching closer and closer to spoilers….

2. Joe S. - June 19, 2012

It sounds like they really care about the story they tell instead of thinking, “We can say anything and we’ll be allright.”

3. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

A blank canvas is the most daunting challenge for any artist.
Can’t wait to see the result in May, 2013.

I also very much look forward to seeing “People Like Us” someday, too. Looks very interesting. ;-)

4. Phil - June 19, 2012

Can’t be that scary, because we are getting TWOK 2.0.

5. Aurore - June 19, 2012

“Since we freed it from the original time line we had narrative freedom, which is sometimes worse. Absolute freedom is sometimes scarier than what you have to do.”
________

So true.
I sympathise with you, Toto.

That’s why I generously offered to tell you what you had to do. From the start.
And, I believe all my precious advice, and, suggestions have been very helpful to you.

Shhhh…No, don’t say a word. Don’t thank me; Star Trek fans must help each other out.

It’s only logical.

:)

6. Andy - June 19, 2012

Bob Oric is one cool dude.

7. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

4. Phil~

It’s been awhile since the Khan rumor was shot down (by no less than Simon Pegg; a source pretty close to the production, I’d say).

What is the basis for your rationale that the sequel will be TWOK 2? I’m not baiting, I’m just sincerely curious…

8. lankyguy - June 19, 2012

You’re tracking Ender’s Game? Really disappointed in you, and Orci for that matter. Card’s a nasty bigot. *unfollows*

9. Phil - June 19, 2012

8. AP reported BC is Khan, and has taken the position that he stands by that until official announcements indicate otherwise. That’s where I’m at as well, though I’m on the record as stating I think it is a really bad decision to do TWOK 2.0, and I really hope that AP is wrong….

Did I miss AP’s retraction?

10. Hugh Hoyland - June 19, 2012

Bob Orci

Count me there opening day! I honestly have never read Enders game. I’ll attempt to do that at some point. (The other Cards book I have read is “How to write Fantasy/Sci-Fi.)

I wonder if in fact I should read it first before I see the movie. Or go in with little knowledge of the story?

Either way it looks exciting IMO!

11. Jack - June 19, 2012

9. Associated Press reported Cumberbatch is Khan?

12. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

9.

No, but with all due respect to AP (he cited an anonymous source close to the production, I believe), I think Simon Pegg’s statement (with no denials from Paramount or any other sources; including Bob Orci) might be a bit more accurate on the matter.

Simon Pegg used no anonymity or coy innuendo; he just flat-out said, “It’s NOT Khan.” He was fairly clear on that point. I doubt he’d risk his reputation to cover a deliberate falsehood.

But who knows? I suppose we’ll ALL find out in about a year or less, right? ;-)

13. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

11. Jack~

I think Phil meant Anthony Pascale.

14. Teddy Salad - June 19, 2012

#4.
Even IF the Khan rumor is true (which, according to Pegg, it isn’t; but since we don’t know, let’s assume it IS true for a moment)…

…I don’t see how it would be TWOK 2.0. Wouldn’t Khan need to actually MEET Kirk first before he can be all crazed with revenge against Kirk?

If anything, it would be closer to Space Seed 2.0, but even that may not necessarily be an apt description. They could change the circumstances surrounding Khan’s “thawing” and eventual first meeting with Kirk.

TWOK was about revenge, plus the idea of aging and mortality. I don’t see any reason why this film would necessarily need to be about those things (especially the “aging and mortality” part).

15. LizardGirl - June 19, 2012

Extremely excited for Ender’s Game! Didn’t know about the blog though, just read that. Answers many of my questions. November 1…much longer to wait. I wonder… will we’ll get a teaser for Ender’s Game with the Untitled Star Trek Sequel? A teaser or full blown trailer would make sense–it’ll be almost 6 months before EG comes out…not too early for an audio visual treat!

16. Teddy Salad - June 19, 2012

OK — I just checked out the ‘Enders game” IMDB page….
…he cast list has an actor named “Han Soto” as portraying an aide the character of Colonel Graff, played by Harrison Ford.

Wild.

17. LizardGirl - June 19, 2012

I think that maybe at some point they were seriously going to do Khan as the main villain. Then they were like “we’ll be slaughtered” and scrapped that idea. Methinks they’re doing an original character, maybe the offspring or an associate of an established TOS character.

Simon said “he’s not Khan”, as in Benedict won’t play Khan. Not saying that the baddie won’t be mentioned or not have a cameo, just that Ben won’t be playing Khan.

I’m practicing at being ambiguous. I’m learning a lot from this site. How am I doing! ~_^

18. The Red Shirt Diaries - June 19, 2012

“We sat on a story that we had for a while and waited to see if it still felt relevant a year or two later, ”
They originally planned on a shot of the Botany Bay after the credits of ST2009. Put two and two together people!

19. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 19, 2012

17. You’re doing fine. …If in fact you were asking a question. I’m not really sure. ;)

20. trekprincess - June 19, 2012

Bob Orci looking forward to what you guys will have in store for us in the sequel.” :):) Live Long And Prosper

21. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 17 LG~

“I’m practicing at being ambiguous. I’m learning a lot from this site. How am I doing! ~_^ ”
________________

Hmmm….
I can’t really say at this point …. (Just kidding! ;-D ).

And yes, Khan was probably the ‘big bad’ in the earlier versions of the script and that’s the info that got leaked out to Anthony. My guess is that when they were casting early on (and were leaning towards Benecio del Toro), they didn’t have a finished script just yet. When negotiations with del Toro fell through, they did a quick rewrite and Cumberbatch’s as-yet-unnamed villain was born.

But yes, I agree with you LG; I’m pretty sure it’s not Khan at this point, either. Pegg’s undisputed denial was a pretty firm ‘NOT.’

22. Thorny - June 19, 2012

I hope “Ender’s Game” is better than “Prometheus”. An EG trailer accompanying Trek 2013 should be a shoe-in.

23. Anthony Thompson - June 19, 2012

9. Phil

If AP reported that Cumberbatch is playing Khan (which is ridiculous on it’s face, BTW), his assertion is contrary to statements from both Lindelof and Pegg.

24. Michael Hall - June 19, 2012

“Card’s a nasty bigot.”

He is, but that has nothing to do with the quality of “Ender’s Game” as a work of literature, let alone its considerable potential as an SF movie blockbuster. Targeted at the youth demographic for all the right reasons, and with plenty of character-defining action both on earth and in near space, it could be a smash on the level of “The Hunger Games” if done correctly.

25. Scott - June 19, 2012

18 — agreed.

My feeling is that Simon Pegg is engaging in disinformation in a (quite understandable) attempt to let the studio, marketing department, and filmmakers control the release of that information on their timetable.

I will be shocked if it’s not Khan.

26. Michael - June 19, 2012

Why is Card a bigot? Could someone please spell out for me why there seems to be a consensus that he is bigoted?

27. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 23 AT

Did Lindelof back Pegg on his “not Khan” statement? I haven’t heard. Probably missed it somewhere….

But yes, I don’t believe Pegg is engaging in disinformation either. I’d take a main cast member’s open admission that an anonymous source’s shadowy rumor any day of the week. My take is that Khan was in an earlier version of the script and even after the rewrite, the rumor stuck.

And “Ender’s Game” has me officially intrigued. My wife is a fan of the book and was pretty stoked to hear they’re making a movie of it. I need to brush up on the Orson Scott Card books….

28. Justin Olson - June 19, 2012

Michael
Why is Card a bigot? Could someone please spell out for me why there seems to be a consensus that he is bigoted?

Card’s a Mormon — his great-great-grandfather was Brigham Young. Card supports laws that ban homosexual behavior and believes homosexuality is somehow linked directly to incest/molestation/pedophilia.

29. rogue_alice - June 19, 2012

Shore Leave?

30. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 19, 2012

Orson Scott Card (b. 24 August 1951) – “He is also known as an advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which he has been a lifelong practicing member, and as a political commentator on many issues, including opposition to homosexual behavior and the legalization of same-sex marriage.” Wikipedia

I think, MJ, there lies your answer as to why many people see him as a bigot.

31. Michael - June 19, 2012

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

The take away seems to be that if you are: a. religious, and b. favor traditional marriage, then you are a bigot.

Duly noted.

32. John - June 19, 2012

I hope Khan is in this because I hate original writing!

33. Azrael - June 19, 2012

@29. Uhhm, MJ isn’t even on this thread, so I am not sure who you are responding to.

34. Azrael - June 19, 2012

@30. That’s about what I got from it. Sad, really.

35. Jack - June 19, 2012

30. favour “traditional” marriage…

Sigh. A cowardly way to say one’s not wanting gay couples to marry, which won’t be hurting traditional marriage.

36. Jack - June 19, 2012

From a 2004 essay (also in Card’s Wikipedia entry):

“The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.”

37. Richard Daystrom - June 19, 2012

I recently watched the original episode and Khan came within a gnat’s ass of dying. Suppose he dies in this timeline? Cumberpatch IMO has a strong resemblance to Joachim ( I hope I spell that right!) from STTWOK. Just throwing it out there. Don’t crucify me.

38. The Art of Cinema is Dead - June 19, 2012

#7

Cumberbatch is not playing the Khan of the Prime Universe, but is playing the the Khan of the B Universe, therefore Pegg hasn’t lied. He is possibly giving out disinformation for his friend Abrams. A wait and see postion is probably best.

39. Azrael - June 19, 2012

@35. If that had been made clearer by others I would have understood their position better. Never having read Card’s wiki entry, or even any of his books, how would a non-interested party like myself be aware of that? Aside from that I know a number of people that oppose same-sex marriage, including some gay people, for a number of reasons, I personally am not opposed, because as a divorcee I want them to have the freedom to be just as miserable as I was. This will be my last statement on this matter, because I am going to respect Anthony’s wishes and keep politics off the site.

40. Tiberius Subprime - June 19, 2012

I get the feeling Ender’s Game will be a “soft” B sci-fi film, and not an overly extravagent production.

Maybe it’s just me, but films about kids tend to be underwhelming. (Example: Super 8 was good, but nothing special, and you knew the boy was going to make nice with the alien and send it on its way.)

Not sure about it. But I will see it anyway, as I enjoyed the book.

41. Richard Daystrom - June 19, 2012

@37

It would still be Khan Prime as the Botany Bay was launched prior to Nero changing the timeline.

42. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 40

Richard Daystrom~

Merci! I was just about to say that…. ;-D

43. Aurore - June 19, 2012

@23. Anthony Thompson – June 19, 2012

Of course, I could be wrong.
But, I am of the opinion that Khan was never considered to be the (main) villain of the sequel. Not for very long ( if indeed he was , at some point), anyway.

The fact that some people were convinced that Khan Noonien Singh had to be played by Hispanic actors allowed “the powers that be” to quietly work on the sequel, so to speak.

Thus, denying all the Khan rumours earlier on was not really in “the powers that be”‘s interest.

While many indulged in heated debates believing that the villain would be Khan, who would ever come close to discover the (“real”) identity of Mr. Cumberbatch’s character?

As far as their need for secrecy was/is concerned, the apparently commonly held belief ( at least, on the Internet ) that Khan had to be Hispanic was a “blessing”.

44. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

8. lankyguy – June 19, 2012

You’re tracking Ender’s Game? Really disappointed in you, and Orci for that matter. Card’s a nasty bigot. *unfollows*

***

You just wrote a post concretely demonstrating bigotry against Bob and Trekmovie over Ender’s Game, while calling Card a bigot.

Look in the mirror much?

45. Aurore - June 19, 2012

Correction 42.

come close to discovering

46. Keachick - rose pinenut - June 19, 2012

Apologies to MJ. I was responding to Michael’s query.

Of all the kinds of relationships that get discriminated against the most, I think that polyandry *wins* the *award*.

Oh well…anyway, gotta go…

47. Jack - June 19, 2012

I’m just passing on part of what (crowd-sourced) Wikipedia says, I just did a Google search myself when I heard talk here of his controversial views. I’ll read the book (written before all this, I think) in the library (I don’t remember ever seeing it when I was a teenager and into sci fi) and see the movie, if it looks good. Look it up yourself and decide for yourself whether or not he ‘s a bigot, if it matters to you.

It just bugs me when people suggest they’re being targeted merely for having political or religious views, which Michael’s post did. Have your views, be religious — but when you start deciding on what others should or shouldn’t do, what rights they should or shouldn’t have and what they should believe, well, you might face criticism…

48. NuFan - June 19, 2012

10,000 denial points for Aurora.

49. Jack - June 19, 2012

43. Dmduncan — what you just wrote is ridiculous. Feel free to disagree with the guy (and his assumptions about the site) but basically you’re following the old “if you call me a racist that means you’re a racist to even notice it” line of argument.

50. Richard Daystrom - June 19, 2012

How about get back on topic?

51. Anthony Pascale - June 19, 2012

Enough about Card . Stop hijacking thread for politics.

52. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

48. Jack – June 19, 2012

“43. Dmduncan — what you just wrote is ridiculous.”

No. What you understood is ridiculous, Jack.

To suggest you are unfollowing (that was lankyguy’s intent in post 8) Bob or Trekmovie because they are, respectively, making a movie of an Orson Scott Card book, and covering that movie, is a pretty clear textbook case of bigotry. It’s a lame attempt to punish somebody for their association without someone else they don’t like as if they share the same attitudes or opinions, on the basis of those presumed attitudes and opinions.

Not only is it intolerant, it is stupidly so.

Bigotry means zealous intolerance of other people’s reasonably held points of view. I’m pretty sure that both Bob and AP have reasonably held points of view with respect to Ender’s Game, which bozoboy @ comment 8 doesn’t want to know about.

Many people seem to think that bigotry comes exclusively from religious people, who are certainly as capable of it as anyone else. But that is incorrect. Plenty of gay people can be and are bigots. Plenty of non religious people can be and are bigots towards believers.

It’s a human flaw, not a religious one. Not even during the Albigensian Crusades was it a religious one. Since the terrible things inflicted on the losing side of that war…were inflicted on true believers… many of them submitting willingly to the flames instead of the doctrines of the Roman church.

53. CmdrR - June 19, 2012

“Ender’s Game is… a highly anticipated movie for sci-fi fans and here at TrekMovie.com and we will be tracking the film like we did with Prometheus, and other non-Star Trek projects we choose to adopt.”

WHAT?!? Who authorized coverage of a sci-fi film other than Trek on this TrekMovie site? It’s an outrage! We’ll sue!

**just getting Anthony in the mood for the inevitable whining…**

54. Phil - June 19, 2012

@23. Well, I can fall back on ‘I can neither confirm nor deny things of which I have no direct knowledge’. I sincerely hope the whole Khan thing is just a ruse, but until that’s reported what he have is unofficial confirmation that we are getting TWOK 2.0, the comments of Mr. Pegg not withstanding.

55. Azrael - June 19, 2012

@58. As many here keep pointing out, there cannot be a “TWOK 2.0″ without Kirk and Khan actually meeting for the first time, so you just sound stupid with your constant whining about it.

56. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

58: “I sincerely hope the whole Khan thing is just a ruse, but until that’s reported what he have is unofficial confirmation that we are getting TWOK 2.0, the comments of Mr. Pegg not withstanding.”

It’s not going to be The Wrath of Khan 2.0. It’s going to be The Ire of Joaquim 1.0.

57. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

ST: TIOJ

Yeah! That title even looks good as an acronym.

58. crazydaystrom - June 19, 2012

@37. Richard Daystrom -

I’m with you there and I can see it now :

Kirk : “This unit’s been activated.”

McGivers : “Captain it says here his name is…Khan. Wait a minute! What’s that?!?”

Spock : “Tricorder readings indicate it is the anus of a gnat.”

Sulu : “OH MY!”

McCoy : “He’s dead Jim!”

Kirk : “Khhaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn!!!!!”

Spock : “Captain another life unit has been activated over here. The augment inside seems to bear a striking resemblance to the early 21st century thespian Benedict Cumberbatch, a.k.a., affectionately…..Cumby?”

____________

Also I’m confused Richard Daystrom. Are you me?

I dunno. Call me crazy…

:-)

59. Romulus - June 19, 2012

So will there be more urgency on the production of JJTREK 3? or can we expect to wait another 4 years?

60. PEB - June 19, 2012

what if khan isnt the villain at all? what if he starts out helping kirk and crew somehow. what if…what if noel clark is playing khan?

61. Sam - June 19, 2012

Just come out and say it is Khan and get it over with. Pine just said it was about the villain. This new movie is going to be a rehash of Space Seed. Guaranteed!

What was the point of ditching all the TOS-VOY storylines only to rehash known stories again? Let me guess the creative well is quite dry?

Ridiculous!

62. Phil - June 19, 2012

@61. Star Trek: Rise of the Eugenics….

@60. Repetitive, perhaps, but stupid? What part, the ‘I hope it’s not Khan” part, or TWOK 2.0 part? Hey these writers are sharp guys, if they headed down that path, I’m sure they worked up a slick way to get around that ‘they need to meet’ problem.

63. Bob Mack - June 19, 2012

At least there was less Orson Scott Card bashing on this thread than there was lady-that-is-selling-the-Galileo bashing on an earlier thread. Perhaps we are evolving into a more tolerant group? I just want to add that being intolerant of someone else because we consider them to be intolerant is no better than the original intolerance. It’s all the same.

I don’t know how we have time to bash anyone given the rampant speculation on whether the next villain is Khan or not. I figure it’s Gary Mitchell. I’m just not convinced by the idea that it cannot be Mitchell since the comics did the Mitchell story already. It seems like a weak excuse for a 200 million dollar movie to NOT do a story because some version of it has already appeared in a comic book.

64. crazydaystrom - June 19, 2012

I know JJ has a game plan and an ‘unveiling’ schedule, but FOR THE LOVE OF PETE GIVE US THE TITLE ALREADY!!!!! It’ll be alright JJ! And we’ll love you even more for it! COME ON!! THROW US FANS A BONE!!!

PLEASE!!

jeez, it’s come to begging…..*shakes head and quietly sobs*

65. Sam - June 19, 2012

@69

Star Trek 12: Space Speed The Motion Picture

Happy now?

66. Phil - June 19, 2012

@68…Good lord, some folks were going on like she was peeing on the Mona Lisa or something. Yeah, it’s a shame the shuttle is looking a little rough, but it’s still a set from an old TV show…..

67. Jefferies Tuber - June 19, 2012

ENDER’S GAME has been used hard and put away wet over the years by THE LAST STARFIGHTER and others, and doesn’t seem to have much residual value.

It’s telling that Dreamworks had Orci on a first look and chose to pass repeatedly on the project – despite the fact that it’s the exact type of material that Dreamworks hoped to harvest from that deal.

Orson Scott Card and the LDS are the exact opposite of Gene Roddenberry and IDIC, so perhaps the topic is relevant.

Trekkers on this site have been so caught up in obsessing over nacelles and Khan that many have missed the bigger story. STAR TREK is being written [pretty well] by someone who fundamentally disagrees with Roddenberry’s politics. Orci is a climate change-denying, gun loving libertarian… raised by an anti-Communist Cuban mother. He probably hates whales, too.

68. Red Dead Ryan - June 19, 2012

#71.

When someone badly neglects something, and tries to sell it for outrageous prices in such bad shape, that’s when the line has been crossed.

69. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

72: “Orci is a climate change-denying, gun loving libertarian… raised by an anti-Communist Cuban mother. He probably hates whales, too.”

Thank you, alternate universe Archie Bunker!

70. Gary S. - June 19, 2012

Anthony has said that based on what he has heard from reliable sources
that he believes the villain to be Kahn.
He has NEVER said that belief is a 100% Fact .

71. boborci - June 19, 2012

72. Screw the whales!!!

Agree that you have perhaps reduced me a tad too much. I love DEBATE and hate GROUPTHINK.

72. Montreal_Paul - June 19, 2012

Say it is Khan… were is that passionate hate Khan had for Kirk for leaving him marooned all those years… his wife dies and he blames Kirk. You can sense the hate in TWOK… it was building and building all those years he was exiled. Where would that passion be in the new sequel? It was personal. But in the sequel, there would be none of that because there is no history between Kirk & Khan. Like a few had mentioned before, it would be a Space Seed 2.0. That wouldn’t be a smart move. I don’t feel that it is Khan… Pegg denied it… the way Bob Orci was talking above, maybe they were thinking about Khan but decided against it.

How about this…. Charlie Evans. Just kidding. ;) I’m hoping it’s just a new character that BC is playing.

73. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

For the alternate universe retelling of TWOK, I think I’d have Khan die on Ceti Alpha Five, leaving his 7 year old son to vengefully pursue Kirk across the galaxy.

74. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 82

Montreal Paul~

Indeed.
I sincerely hope it’s a new character Cumberbatch is playing as well…

75. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

Always suspected the guy hated whales. If he’s not posting here or at AICN, you can usually find a OrciBob posting about his latest adventures on whaleslaughtervacation.com.

76. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 81 boborci ~

“Screw the whales!!!”
_______________

Surely you don’t mean George and Gracie, do you? ;-D

77. No Khan - June 19, 2012

Cumberbatch kills Khan and takes over as Leader of the BB.

78. Vultan - June 19, 2012

#71

Hate groupthink? You mean like the “Supreme Court”?
I kid, I kid.

79. Anthony Pascale - June 19, 2012

Did people think my Card comment was just a suggestion? Next time I will ban in addition to delete

80. No Khan - June 19, 2012

@72 There will be a Utopian society once money is taken out of the system and everything is free. And everyone gets a free education worldwide. People will realize a lower world population is the way to go. Robot’s will do most manual labor. I could go & on. Everybody will get on the same page and work together. If they don’t mankind will destroy the world like we are now.

81. No Khan - June 19, 2012

It will be interesting after the movie comes out whether Khan was thought about if it turns out he wasn’t used. Unless of course we see the BB floating in space at the end of ST 2.

btw @72 is wrong. i lost the post.

82. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 19, 2012

But I like whales AND Bob Orci. Just not Khan.

83. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 19, 2012

As I’ve said before, I won’t judge this film before I see it. I don’t care if the bad guy is Skeletor as long as they write the story well.

Best of luck, Bob & Co.!

84. Michael Hall - June 19, 2012

@ 64 Bob Mack

” I just want to add that being intolerant of someone else because we consider them to be intolerant is no better than the original intolerance. It’s all the same.”

Haysoos and Krishna, Bob, but do you really believe that?? Defending Card and his beliefs is fine–but that’s not an argument, just pure semantic sophistry.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Mr. Pascale, whose efforts I sincerely appreciate and respect, I would just like to state that my original posting was not intended as a swipe at Orson Scott Card at all–quite the opposite, in fact. Since a poster had brought up the subject of his attitute towards our brothers and sisters who just happen to be gay, my point was that his religious or political opinions (in truth, pretty much the same thing in his case) are irrelevant to the quality of his fiction or the potential of Ender’s Game to be a successful film, obviously the actual subject of this thread. For attempting to bring to movie audiences a great story about childhood idealism and decency managing to survive against all odds under the weight of responsibility that would crush most adults, the last thing Roberto Orci deserves is censure as a bigot. And while I understand @ 8′s bitterness–particularly if he’s gay himself–I hope he comes to understand that, per some guy named Stephen King, in the end “It’s the tale, and not he who tells it.”

85. Ahmed - June 19, 2012

i was skeptical at first back in 2006/2007 when I heard about the reboot but after the movie came out, I was more than happy with the result.

I hope this second movie will be as good & even better than the first one.

Can’t wait for “Ender’s Game” as well, even if they made some major changes from the book.

86. sean - June 19, 2012

A whale shot my brother and burned my house down!

87. dmduncan - June 19, 2012

Okay, I’m confused. Ender’s Game is on topic, but the guy who wrote it, and who is mentioned in the post, is not?

I believe Nomad put it best when he said, and I quote:

ERROR!!! ERROR!!! STERILIZE!!! STER…I…LIZE!!!

88. Vultan - June 19, 2012

#89

I’ve heard similar arguments about the author Forrest Carter, who wrote The Outlaw Josey Wales among other stories. Despite being an excellent writer, Carter was also a member of the KKK at one point in his life!

But yes, I agree it’s probably best to judge the story and not so much the man behind it. Though it is difficult once you learn who’s really behind the pen….

89. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - June 19, 2012

Hey Bob Orci. Have you started to write or are you already kicking around ideas for the next Star Trek movie.

90. Ahmed - June 19, 2012

#90. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire

Good question, I wish if they will begin brainstorming and writing something for the third movie from now if that is possible.

I’d hate to wait another 4 years before we see the third movie.

91. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 19, 2012

I personally support any new science fiction film/franchise. Unfortunately, they are often not supported by fans. John Carter, for example did not deserve the lack of crowds. It was certainly flawed, but still beautiful and entertaining. Nothing deep, but very fun.

I’ll see Ender’s Game. Maybe I won’t like it, but at least I’ll have done my part to support the efforts at creating something that hadn’t been done before.

92. Sebastian S. - June 19, 2012

# 92

Shilliam~

Soooo agreed about John Carter (of Mars; that’s the title I prefer, anyway… to hell with Disney marketing). It was both entertaining AND faithful to the original book (“Princess of Mars”). That movie deserved much better.

And I am deeply curious about Ender’s Game. I’ll at least give it a fair shot.

93. Red Dead Ryan - June 19, 2012

#90, 91.

I would guess the guys will take a year or two off of Trek to pursue other movies and shows. I have to think they’re burnt out, and need to do other things to re-energize themselves.

I don’t think they’ll start working on the script til next year at the earliest, and then only in preliminary stages.

Depending on the success of the sequel, I would expect that Paramount will allow a three year gap to allow J.J and co. to work on other projects.

So the earliest date for the third Trek movie (if there is one) would be 2016.

94. Y - June 19, 2012

Bob Orci, does Benedict Cumberbatch speak in his usual English accent in this movie?

95. Ahmed - June 19, 2012

I hope that Ender’s Game will be so successful that Hollywood will look to other major sci-fi books to adapt .

Books such as:

Rendezvous with Rama
The Foundation series
Nightfall
The Forever War
The Uplift saga
The The Night’s Dawn Trilogy

I can only hope!

96. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 19, 2012

86. You’re the second person that’s happened to.

97. Basement Blogger - June 19, 2012

@ 9

Phil,

There’s been no retraction from Anthony Pascale. I agree with your points. The evidence points to BC as Khan. (Search for Hispanic actor ala Ricardo Montalban, BC’s superhuman strength, video commentary hinting that the Botany Bay would signal the sequel, and of course Anthony’s inside sources) Yeah, I could be wrong but all signs point to Khan. And by the way, I also agree it’s a bad idea to bring back Khan for the second movie. But you never know. It could be great.

As far as Simon Pegg debunking it’s Khan, they’ve had fun with us Trekkers before. Remember naming the deflector dish?

98. MJ - June 20, 2012

Does anyone know why the Ender’s Game release got moved to an off-season opening date of Nov 1, 2013?

99. MJ - June 20, 2012

@97. Agreed. Anthony has not commented at all regarding any potential retraction of his original article saying that internal sources had confirmed the the villain is Khan.

100. Calastir - June 20, 2012

In reaction to the actual article:

So Orci, first you destroyed Romulus so that nothing can stop the Klingons from occupying the Beta quadrant in the original timeline, then you destroyed Vulcan in the new one, in essence kicking logic and reason out the door. Did I mention Vulcan was my favorite world in the Trek universe? Anyway; so Spocks’ quest for reunification is now impossible in both timelines, congratulations and thanks for destroying even that small hope. And now you say you’re scared by the absolute freedom your actions create?

I expected you’d be cackling and wringing your hands with glee by now! So there was no plan, just wanton destruction for the sake of destruction?

No sympathy from this Trekkie here. If you can’t stand the heat, you should have stayed out of the kitchen.

101. La Reyne d'Epee - June 20, 2012

Orci hates whales?

Bigot!

;}

102. Aurore - June 20, 2012

I’ll have to listen to it again, in order to be sure.

But, in the DVD commentary of Star trek 2009, didn’t Damon Lindelof say that they had considered a post-credits scene showing the Botany Bay, Khan’s sleeper ship, but decided against it?

I seem to remember him saying something akin to ” I’m glad we didn’t, because it would have tied our hands for the sequel”. And, one of his colleagues, I believe it was Alex Kurtzman, agreed with him saying “It would have”.

That is why I am always surprised to notice the importance given to the first part of his statement… at the expense of the one I ‘ve just mentioned…

103. Mark Lynch - June 20, 2012

@100
Another thing to consider. If Vulcans have to return home every seven years for a bit of slap and tickle, sorry, Pon Farr, or die.
Then surely with the destruction of Vulcan, we will soon see a lot of Vulcans curled up in the corner, flapping like a salmon out of water, eventually dying.

I always knew Orci had a grudge against whales. I blame the parents for giving him a surname which has basically given him a pathological hatred of whales.
I mean come on! Orci – Orca it’s too close to be a coincidence, right?

Man, my tongue is so far in my cheek, I can barely breathe.
;-)

104. Calastir - June 20, 2012

@103
They don’t need Vulcan or even other Vulcans for that matter, as we’ve seen in Star Trek III and a couple of Voyager episodes.
Just a room, some species of the opposite sex and some privacy.
That, or a fight to the death.

As for the future of the Vulcan survivors; The Trek universe always mirrors Earth history in a way, so I expect the Federation will grant the Vulcans a colony within Romulan space, mirroring the whole Israël-Palestine conflict. (Just my suggestion, not an invitation to get into a political debate.)

105. Michelle - June 20, 2012

I don’t think Khan is the villian. However, what about the idea that Cumberbatch could be a Klingon (one of the augments without ridges)? There is no reason for the retcon of the looks of the Klingons from Enterprise to be ignored or made irrelevant. So, at this point in the new dimension’s timeline, there should be significant portions of the Klingon population who look more human than Klingon. A spy for the Klingons in the Federation would be advantageous.

Also, Benicio Del Toro would be a great Klingon.

106. Michelle - June 20, 2012

^^^Might also explain why the Klingon’s were wearing masks.

107. Sebastian S. - June 20, 2012

# 95 Ahmed~

I would also love to see a big budget adaptation of Clarke’s “Childhood’s End” someday…. I know it’s been promised off and on since the 1970s, but it’s never come close to happening, as far as I know.

And yes, “Rendezvous With Rama” just BEGS for a cinematic treatment….

108. Sebastian S. - June 20, 2012

# 102 Aurore~

Yes, that was EXACTLY what they said in the commentary.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who heard it that way. It sounded like an idea that was spit-balled and then quickly dismissed. Others seem to be taking it (and one unnamed source’s word) as gospel. Whattyagonnado?

Sorry, but I’m in the Pegg (and apparently Lindelof) camp; a firm denial with no ambiguity whatsoever. Khan was probably an idea that never got past the draft stages…

109. Jai - June 20, 2012

The 007ish, TOS era, 1960s-referencing title of the sequel is…

“Star Trek 2: You Only Live Twice”.

Mad Men reference ;)

Also very appropriate if the sequel’s villain is defrosted, or in disguise, or both…

110. Daoud - June 20, 2012

@Vulcan…. the beauty of it is that the remaining Vulcans will likely be even truer to their core culture, civilization, and concepts to a degree it might start a logic revolution in the Romulan Empire!
.
If Bob and Alex want to write a novel after they write the threequel, I’d highly recommend they consider that. Imagine if the end result of Nero’s Incursion is that the Romulan Empire instead is taken down by the ideas of Vulcan, and thus saved not just by knowing “move before Hobus blows”, but also *saved*. Nero, the full circle anti-Hero.
.
@Ender’s Game… I like to think of it as “a movie starring Harrison Ford”, and check the other things at the door.
.
@Boborci… global-warming-denying? More power to you! Heck, what we really have is constant global abnorming and norming. “Abnormal” is the new normal. Oscillatory cycles are proven in the geologic record from Icebox Earth to Polar Seas Earth over time. Me, I’m waiting for Higher Oxygen Content Earth.

111. T0707 - June 20, 2012

Here is something interesting. In the cast list for Ender’s Game on IMdB, we have:

Harrison Ford as Colonel Hyrum Graff

then a little further down, we see

Han Soto as Colonel Graff’s aide

Han Soto! — That’s a great name for an actor playing opposite Harrison Ford!

112. No Khan - June 20, 2012

Some people just won’t get this ridge non-ridge Klingon needs explaining thing out of their mind. Its best if they just have ridges & leave it at that. The masses out there could careless about the 10 fans that need this explained in a movie!

113. Sebastian S. - June 20, 2012

# 112

Agreed.
ENT already did a decent job of explaining away the discrepancy in Klingon visages in the 4th season 2-parter. I think the new timelines’ Klingons could go either way, or even just minimal ridges like General Chang in ST6 (one of my favorite Klingons of all time). That makeup was wonderfully subtle (aided by Christopher Plummer’s wonderful hot/cold performance).

Personally I, too, don’t think the average moviegoer will give a damn really…

114. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

“But, in the DVD commentary of Star trek 2009, didn’t Damon Lindelof say that they had considered a post-credits scene showing the Botany Bay, Khan’s sleeper ship, but decided against it?
“I seem to remember him saying something akin to ‘ I’m glad we didn’t, because it would have tied our hands for the sequel.’ And, one of his colleagues, I believe it was Alex Kurtzman, agreed with him saying ‘It would have.’”

It seemed to me those comments were in regards to the “hands tied” aspectt, (the freedom to decide the next direction at a later date, and weren’t intended to rule Khan out at that moment.

115. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

110. I am tickled that on a SciFi fan site there are those who take the words of talk show hosts over those of scientists in their everyday lives.

116. Aurore - June 20, 2012

“It seemed to me those comments were in regards to the “hands tied” aspectt, (the freedom to decide the next direction at a later date, and weren’t intended to rule Khan out at that moment.”
________

I don’t disagree.

My point was that by leaving out part of Damon Lindelof’s statement, some seemed to infer that he could only have meant that Khan should(would) be in the sequel .

While in fact, “they” probably wanted to be able to be scared to have absolute narrative freedom as far as the next Star Trek was concerned…

117. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

I see. *Ahem* I knew that.
How are you Aurore?! I wasn’t sure if I was speaking to you or the “other” Aurore, but this is more your style of writing. ;)

118. dalek - June 20, 2012

Klingon Ridges – Gene Roddenberry’s budget was limited back in TOS. In the motion picture he was able to portray Klingons the way he intended had he been able to afford the prosthetics back in the 60s. Kang Koloth and Korr all had ridges in Deep Space 9. By the way the Klingons are named after Wilbert Klingon, a police officer Roddenberry was partnered with.

119. Bernd Schneider - June 20, 2012

“Since we freed it from the original time line we had narrative freedom, which is sometimes worse. Absolute freedom is sometimes scarier than what you have to do.”

They should have put that freedom to better use by refraining from rebuilding the TOS crew, instead of spending it on gratuitous or unwarranted changes. But they obviously took the freedom after it had already been decided they wanted to go with the TOS crew at any rate and change only some minor things, such as blowing up Vulcan.

Sarcasm aside, what I find “scary” is that in this very different timeline, six years ahead of time, on a ground-built behemoth that happens to have the same name as the ship we love, the same seven people (will) form the senior crew, of whom one isn’t technically the same person but his own elder brother of the same name though. All because some people think the 40+ years of Star Trek boil down to the TOS crew on a ship that just has to be named Enterprise and that somehow looks a bit like the Enterprise.

In other words, if you want to revive the franchise and still respect it and if you’re planning to make more than a popcorn movie, you just have to drop the idea that you could carry on with Kirk, Spock and their crew on the Enterprise as if they were protected by the hand of God, or your creation will always remain a second-rate universe without a driving force of its own, or alternatively you have to declare it a re-enactment or total reboot like it happened in so many other franchises.

(My critics should duly note that I managed to explain what I dislike about the Abramsverse without once mentioning “continuity” or “canon”.)

120. Michael Hall - June 20, 2012

@ 119 –

What I don’t understand about this “alt.universe 2.0″ concept is why, as a fan of the Star Trek franchise for longer than some of the members of this “Supreme Court” have been alive, I should care at all about what happens to these characters. Yes, Trek 2009 was a well-produced summer popcorn movie with great production values and an attractive cast, so I can understand why it was a hit. But as the writers have gone to great lengths to tell us, the original characters still exist in their own universe somewhere, and since they’re the ones I grew up with they’re the ones I want to see, even if played by different actors. I really couldn’t care less whether Pine or Quinto gets it on with Zoe Saldana, since I have no history at all with the characters that they play.

121. NuFan - June 20, 2012

120

Now say just the opposite for those of us who have not been alive longer than dirt and have no interest in the distant past or its 9 million volumes of canon. This is our Star Trek.

122. Azrael - June 20, 2012

@119. You are wrong on one major point, George Samuel Kirk Jr still exists, and he was not renamed as James T Kirk. This was originally going to be made clear in the 2009 movie but had to be cut for time constraints. JJ and the others have even mentioned George Jr. on a number of occasions, and he survived the events that killed him in the PrimeTrek timeline, though he has no wife and son. Just fyi, cause if you want to complain you should at least have your facts straight.

123. Basement Blogger - June 20, 2012

@ 121

NuFan says, “Now say just the opposite for those of us who have not been alive longer than dirt and have no interest in the distant past or its 9 million volumes of canon.”

Yes, NuFan you don’t have be interested in every episode of Star Trek in the past. But as a new fan you should respect what went on in the past. It was Trekkers in the past that saved Star Trek. NBC wanted to can the show after the second season. It was the fans with an intense letter writing campaign that saved Star Trek for one more season. That allowed for syndication and Star Trek gained more fans and took off.

But what was it that those ancient fans loved? Star Trek was smart and thought provoking. It had action but the show had important things to say. Leonard Nimoy always says Star Trek works on many levels.

I understand the need to make tentpole movies. But Star Trek is not Star Wars. You can have big action and thought provoking issues in a summertime film. See Inception, and The Dark Knight.

124. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 20, 2012

“…It’s very easy to get overconfident and go, “Anything we say next is going to be Star Trek.” You want to mitigate against that and be your own check.””

Wise. And a very, very smart move. :-)

125. Sebastian S. - June 20, 2012

# 121 NuFan

Well, before you continue with any more ageist assumptions about us older folks, I am older than dirt and I loved ST09 ….. ;-)

126. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 20, 2012

@#120 Michael Hall

“But as the writers have gone to great lengths to tell us, the original characters still exist in their own universe somewhere, and since they’re the ones I grew up with they’re the ones I want to see, even if played by different actors. I really couldn’t care less whether Pine or Quinto gets it on with Zoe Saldana, since I have no history at all with the characters that they play.”

If you don’t care, then why are you here? I certainly don’t waste my time posting on boards about movies I didn’t care for with characters that I have no connection with. Sheesh. And I got called a troll…

127. Aurore - June 20, 2012

“I see. *Ahem* I knew that.”
_______

Of course you did, sweetheart. Of course.

:)

“How are you Aurore?! I wasn’t sure if I was speaking to you or the “other” Aurore, but this is more your style of writing. ;)”

Funny that you should say that, seymour.

As I read your post in 114, I literally said to myself, “What kind of bullsh*t is this? ‘Might be the “other” seymour …”.

:)

P.S. : It’s been a while. I hope life treats you well.

128. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 20, 2012

So now we’ve got doubles running around? Wow.

Well, Michael, if that wasn’t really you, then nevermind.

129. Aurore - June 20, 2012

It’s already Thursday, here!

Happy Birthday, Mr. Ballz!

:)

130. Aurore - June 20, 2012

Oh, I thought I was in Chat !

:))

131. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

“Might be the ‘other’ seymour …”

You mean the one with the bandage on his forehead? Mmm, I guess you’re just gonna have to beat it out of me and find out.

132. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

I know there was a changeling trolling around here several threads back.

133. AOLAOL - June 20, 2012

Its gonna be as lightweight at the first. BLAH.

134. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

So I’m thinking Cumberbun will be playing Lazarus, …from the prime universe, see? That’s the twist! Get it?? ‘Cause he’s the opposite one in this universe… Huh? No? Okay, never mind.

135. Aurore - June 20, 2012

“You mean the one with the bandage on his forehead? Mmm, I guess you’re just gonna have to beat it out of me and find out.”
_________

Will do!
You asked so nicely….But, not now; I’m off to bed.

:)

“I know there was a changeling trolling around here several threads back.”

Yes, there was.
So, if while I’m away a poster named Aurore starts begging to see Khan Noonien Singh in the movie following ( hopefully ) the sequel, it won’t be me…

Good night, all.
Good night, seymour!

136. Adolescent Nightmare - June 20, 2012

121.

Preach it, Brother!

No leaks for a long time now. I guess the guilty were executed by boborci.

137. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - June 20, 2012

‘night Aurore.

138. The Quickening - June 20, 2012

#125

I’m one of those old folks and I thought the first 35 minutes were pretty good until Kirk started eating that apple right in front of his superior officers; grew Mickey Mouse hands; and conveniently got kicked off the ship and marooned by Spock, just so he could run into you know who in that cave–which has got to be one of the worse examples of deus ex machina I’ve seen in cinema in years; then Scotty is discovered on the same planet and its Delta Vega–which is nowhere near Vulcan; then we got what seemed like 5 minutes of narration/exposition (considered bad writing technique); plus, Kirk and Scotty are transported unto a ship traveling at high warp speed–which stretched credibility. As far as I’m concerned, at that point, the film fell from being a good movie and never recovered.

And before anyone starts with the excuse that the universe is correcting itself–I’ll just say… nonsense. Even if that were true, smart writing stays as far away from deus ex machina as possible, excuses and all.

139. Michael Hall - June 20, 2012

@ 121–
“Now say just the opposite for those of us who have not been alive longer than dirt and have no interest in the distant past or its 9 million volumes of canon. This is our Star Trek.”

I say, have at it, then. Obviously, my comments in that post weren’t for you. (But if you liked Trek 2009, why not give TOS a shot? You might be pleasantly surprised.

@ 126–

“If you don’t care, then why are you here? I certainly don’t waste my time posting on boards about movies I didn’t care for with characters that I have no connection with. Sheesh. And I got called a troll…”

Because this is a site about all things Trek, not just the 2009 movie. And even if it was, so what? There’s no room for critical voices here?

Yes, I’ve been very hard on the film ever since its debut, and for what I consider to be damned good reasons. You disagree; fine. FWIW, my criticisms have never taken the form of “the movie sucked,” but have always been measured while attempting to address the specific issues that I had, having mostly to do with the script and overall concept. I like to think that’s why even in the midst of some very heated debates between myself and other posters (including Roberto Orci), the sitemaster has yet to take me to task for trolling.

140. dmduncan - June 20, 2012

Kirk meeting Spock in a cave on Delta Vega (which is not the same world named in WNMHGB) does not make me think deus ex machina.

Had Kirk been marooned on a planet in a different star system (too far away for Spock to have witnessed Vulcan’s destruction in the sky from), and he THEN met Spock in a cave (on a planet where he had no explicable reason for being) THAT definitely would have been a deus ex machina.

Spock was marooned by Nero on Delta Vega so that he could witness Vulcan’s destruction.

Kirk was later marooned on the same planet because they were already in the Vulcan system, it was nearby, and it had a Starfleet base.

Both maroonings proceeded out of the story’s events which did not seem unreasonable for a Star Trek story. No deus ex machina. It is, I think, at least arguable.

You may say it was too improbable, if you want, but the improbable does happen in reality, and in a franchise that has been trying to stretch the limits of what we think is possible since the 1960′s, Kirk meeting Spock in that cave was hardly a strain on the type of credibility I have long been accustomed to granting Trek.

I did see a recent example of something that hit me as deus ex machina in the movie Man on a Ledge, which I am about to the spoil the ending of.

Fair warning!

What we had until the end was a fairly believable heist movie where the sense of reality was this was something that could happen. But when the ex cop, having broken out of prison and after capturing the city’s attention by threatening suicide, finally holds the diamond in the air that proves his innocence, and that he was set up by the rich owner of the diamond as the man who had allegedly stolen it years before — everyone magically believes him.

After everything he did — breaking out of prison to steal the diamond that will prove his innocence, after threatening suicide on a ledge, deceiving the woman cop trying to help him, stealing the diamond, and having the reputation of being a crook — just holding up a giant diamond which might as well have been a piece of quartz — was enough for everyone, including the news reporter, to instantly believe him and clear his name.

In reality he would have been taken down, hauled off back to prison, and MAYBE a week later if they had been able to prove the stone he was holding really was the diamond, he would have been allowed to walk.

Instead, he was having beers with Elizabeth Banks later that night.

That wasn’t just improbable given the sense of reality that had already been established. It was more like divine intervention.

141. dmduncan - June 20, 2012

I really do think that deus ex machina criticisms have to be filtered through the sort of world that a story is depicting to be valid. Otherwise you are bitching at apples for not being pears.

When the Hulk takes off on one of his stratospheric leaps, he should leave behind a pit of pulverized concrete. Unless it’s a comic book universe where that sort of thing is excused from happening.

As long as you play by the rules of the world you create I think you’re doing okay. And ST.09 was in line with tradition as far as I could tell.

142. Bucky - June 20, 2012

Generally, I never agree with people who angrily yell “They screwed up everything!” But I will admit that I am curious how Romulan / Vulcan reunification would work in the JJ-verse. Can’t see a whole movie dedicated to that but it would be an interesting novel. Or, hey, how about a Star Trek TV series? Isn’t that a wacky idea! (Sorry, I miss Trek on TV.)

143. Vultan - June 20, 2012

#138

The thing about Delta Vega that confused me:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the writers put it there as an Easter egg for fans (they could’ve easily used just about any name), but obviously only diehard Trekkies would know of Delta Vega from TOS, right? Which means the only ones who recognize the name and know of its significance to Trek lore… are also the only ones who know it’s in the wrong place…

I understand the logic behind Easter eggs (Hey, they’re fun!), but I don’t think they quite thought it all the way through on that one.

144. Michael Hall - June 20, 2012

For all my criticisms of the film, the choice to name the Vulcan moon (sister-planet?) “Delta-Vega” wasn’t one of them. The Federation agency that names planets and stars has obviously had a love affair with the Greek alphabet from the very beginning, so it’s entirely believable that they would wind up using such a name more than once. Though why they would use it for a body that apparently sits right next to the homeworld of a major ally, or what purpose Starfleet had in constructing a base there (would the Vulcans even allow such a thing, given their ambivalence about the use of force?) is anyone’s guess. From our exchanges, I doubt that Bob Orci gave all that much thought to what he considered a minor side issue in any case.

145. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 20, 2012

I watched TOS when it first aired, that’s how old I am. I loved it. I also loved TNG and DS9. After that, my love is very selective and mostly unrequited. I tell you this so that I may say this:

ST09 definitely had its faults. But I can find just as many faults in the other Star Trek movies. They all had their share of bad science, impossible coincidences, and gaping plot holes. To view them with rose colored glasses is unfair to the new regime. They’ve only had two hours to build their new universe. I think they showed a lot of promise, and my expectations for the next film are quite high.

It’s yet to be seen what will happen, but how well developed were TOS, TNG, DS9 VOY or ENT in their first two hours? Each series had its high points, and each had its very low points, some more than others.

I have no problem with the new guys shaking things up. Canon Schmanon. Just make a really good movie and I’ll try not to nitpick too much. Make a disappointing movie, and I will pick some nits for sure.

146. Sebastian S. - June 20, 2012

# 144

I too, never had any issues with ST09′s reuse of the name “Delta Vega” for a separate planet. How many cities or countries in the world have like-named counterparts elsewhere in the world? Moscow, Idaho. Paris, Texas. Lebanon, Ohio. Ontario, Canada (from Ontario, Italy).
There are soooo many more….

I could only imagine that a generic name such as Delta Vega would probably be a relatively common designation for planets throughout the galaxy. It could be the Federation’s equivalent of “Springfield” or “Main Street” or “Riverside.”

The ‘science’ of ST09 was, IMO, no better or worse than most of the ST films. It’s ‘red matter’ black hole devices were no more or less silly than “metaphasic radiation” being a fountain of youth, the Genesis device making planets with ‘proto-matter’, or sling-shotting around the sun to induce time travel. It’s an adventure story, not a Science channel special. I accept it on that basis (and enjoy it!).

;-)

147. Bernd Schneider - June 21, 2012

@122: Not Kirk, but Pavel Chekov is the one who was replaced by his elder brother of the same name!

148. Azrael - June 21, 2012

@147. Now you have lost me, Chekov never had a brother, Sulu specifically said so, when the energy being was making the crew fight Klingons on the Enterprise.

149. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

“Because this is a site about all things Trek, not just the 2009 movie. And even if it was, so what? There’s no room for critical voices here?
Yes, I’ve been very hard on the film ever since its debut, and for what I consider to be damned good reasons.”

Michael, there is always room for criticism from my point of view. You will not find someone who will defend that more than I will. I was, and am, merely trying to understand you better.

You say that this is a website for “all things Trek,” okay. So, my point is that I never really see you posting about the “things Trek” that you are interested in, like TOS, and instead I usually see you posting about how much you don’t like ST09. You are free to do that, of course, from my view. Like I said, I was just trying to understand you better.

You disagree; fine. FWIW, my criticisms have never taken the form of “the movie sucked,” but have always been measured while attempting to address the specific issues that I had, having mostly to do with the script and overall concept.

Michael, I do not ascribe to the notion that just because you don’t use the word (“suck” in this instance) that the meaning of that word is not the overall message you are sending with the words you do use. It is.

The one time I saw a campaign where the word “suck” was used, at least the people there had an objective, and they moved on once it was achieved. What’s yours? Or are you just here to complain?

“I like to think that’s why even in the midst of some very heated debates between myself and other posters (including Roberto Orci), the sitemaster has yet to take me to task for trolling.”

Okay, as for trolling, and I am prepared to be called a troll for this if this posts: I got called a troll for disagreeing with the way content was being posted on the site (not for anything I had to say about Trek) and I stand by it. Interestingly enough, the couple of people that repeatedly said they agreed with postings of high school crushes and people getting sued for not paying their bills on a TREK site weren’t called trolls, but I can a do respect that this is not my house. Point blank, I was not guilty of trolling. So your comparison doesn’t really add up, and whatever gets posted is what gets posted. I just skip over the articles that don’t interest me, much like you could do the same in this regard. But have at it, though. Thank you for answering my question.

150. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

@#145

“I have no problem with the new guys shaking things up. Canon Schmanon. Just make a really good movie and I’ll try not to nitpick too much. Make a disappointing movie, and I will pick some nits for sure.”

That’s where I’m at. Although, I’m not much of a TOS fan, so it doesn’t really mean the same thing. I just want a good movie, and if I enjoy what I’m watching then I can let a lot go. If something is bad, then that’s when it’s flaws, even the small ones, become glaring.

151. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

it’s is really its. Forgive the typos…

152. The Quickening - June 21, 2012

#140

I think it was improbable to have Kirk marooned on the same planet. But the same location of said planet, chased by two alien monsters in the right direction, and to the same area, and, then, into the very cave old Spock just happens to be in… and conveniently within walking distance of Scotty? I know there’s a star-base nearby, but why would Nero marooned old Spock, a person he hates, near a star-base, much less go near one (wouldn’t Nero want to avoid detection?)? Adding all of these elements together in this sequence makes for deus ex machina. I see the writers’ “puppet strings” and contrivances all over this, and that’s not a good thing. These, along with many other pitfalls (thoses mentioned above, not to mention Nero walting 25 years to enact revenge), just knocked me out of the movie and I never recovered.

And why name the planet Delta Vega anyway and invite questioning? Smart writing should be clever enough to stay away from anything that smacks of disbelief or problems. Was it done for the fan boys? Elements in a film should flow naturally from the story itself, not from outside agents. It’s just one more blunder (minor for sure) in a film that has way too many of them–major and minor.

153. Bernd Schneider - June 21, 2012

@148: In the new timeline the Chekov we know would be too young (he would be young Wesley’s age and definitely not someone who mastered at the Academy). The older brother was an ironic remark alluding to “Pyotr” (from “Day of the Dove”). ;-)

@145, @150: “I have no problem with the new guys shaking things up. Canon Schmanon. Just make a really good movie and I’ll try not to nitpick too much. Make a disappointing movie, and I will pick some nits for sure.”
The fact that your view of movie errors is governed by favoritism doesn’t exactly increase my interest to discuss them with you. But I’m glad you admit it. Some other people effectively denied me the right to find errors in the Abrams movie in the first place.

154. Azrael - June 21, 2012

@153. Whatever man, they said Chekov was 17 in the movie so exactly what is your frakkin problem? I rather suspect you just want to b-tch and nitpick the 2009 movie, and I am not interested in any of that. Oh, and if you knew much about Sebastian and his posts you wouldn’t accuse him of favoritism.

@Sebastian, I agreed with your point of view on all that before the 2009 movie came out, hell I had a list of Trek novels that “I” considered canon, and a bunch of comics that I wished were (like the story where Worf’s grandfather Worf became the science officer aboard the Enterprise, under Captain Kirk, as Spock’s successor).

155. dmduncan - June 21, 2012

152. The Quickening – June 21, 2012

Improbable does not mean impossible. On this very subject in the past I have pointed out examples of things that seemed just as improbable, yet which really happened.

You either accept that about your universe or you don’t. And Star Trek is not a place for pervasive mundanity. It’s not Kramer vs. Kramer in space. It has green people and blue people, and pointy eared people and people with ridges on their heads. It has gravity on starships and transporters, none of which are likely to work the way we see them working, yet which we accept as such for their value in moving the stories forward in ways that we are comfortable with. If you aren’t conditioned by those features to accept the unusual happening in that universe, I don’t what else to tell ya.

All I know is it felt exactly like Star Trek to me.

156. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

@#153 Bernd Schneider

“The fact that your view of movie errors is governed by favoritism doesn’t exactly increase my interest to discuss them with you. But I’m glad you admit it. Some other people effectively denied me the right to find errors in the Abrams movie in the first place.

Hi, Bernd, and thanks, I think. If you’re interested in finding what you call errors, then in my view, by all means, find away. I have no problem saying that my view of movie errors is governed by favoritism, if that’s what you want to call it, because most views about movies are, even the “objective” ones. I say this because after any of us gets done with our nitpicking, it all comes down to “How do you feel about it.” Obviously, you didn’t feel too good.

What we like and what we don’t like or will accept is a matter of taste, i.e. what one favors versus what one does not. You seem to have wanted the movie to adhere to a lot of details that the overwhelming majority of people watching it probably didn’t even notice, or didn’t care too much about if they did, so none of that kept most people from enjoying the film. Considering the fact that they had a really hard job to do, I think that all involved should be applauded for the last film, errors and all.

And don’t mistake me, even for someone that is not a TOS fan, I had some questions. I have yet to see someone answer the question of why McCoy was there during the KM test. Shouldn’t a senior medical officer had something more to do than hang out with and assist cadets? Same thing goes for when he was on the bridge strategizing right after Vulcan was destroyed and they’d taken on many injured and his talents as a doctor and surgeon were probably needed much more in his part of the ship at that time. Then there’s Scotty. It seemed like aside from his little sidekick, he was the only person at whatever base he was at. Why would he have been there alone? That seems a little unsafe, especially when Spock Prime and Kirk were able to waltz right in with no security checks or opposition. I could go on, but why should I? I still really enjoyed the film and will continue to do so.

The most any of us can likely do when going the objective route is just that, try to be objective. So it doesn’t bother me to admit that in liking this film I’m not. Most people think the movie was fun and entertaining and the characters were good. I agree, so those are some of my main reasons for really liking it. And let’s be honest, there were always going to be some people that weren’t going to like it because it’s not their idea of “old trek.” Maybe you fit into that category and maybe you don’t.

The writers and team associated with ST09 took a decades old television show and revamped it into an updated and exciting movie with alternate versions of the original characters. I was able to sign on to that along with many other people. Maybe the next film will get you to sign on too. If not, it’s okay to watch, not prefer it, and then say that. It’s all fine by me. And I’m not necessarily looking for a discussion either, btw.

157. Harry Ballz - June 21, 2012

#129

Thanks, Aurore! It’s nice to be remembered by your friends!

158. dmduncan - June 21, 2012

Happy birthday Ballz!

159. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 21, 2012

153. Bernd Schneider – I respect your right to not discuss anything with me. I actually don’t believe we ever HAVE discussed anything here, as I am a fairly new arrival on the scene.

As for favoritism governing how much I nitpick about a movie, I’m not sure that’s the correct way to phrase it. What also matters to me is the type of movie I’m watching. For the sake of discussion (should you care to indulge in such) let’s limit this to science fiction films.

OK, every Star Trek film has had errors galore. There has been bad science, wild coincidences, plot holes aplenty in the Trek films. I have come to accept that, because Star Trek, to me, is not a hard-science fiction vehicle. They have always taken liberties to further their plots. So I tend not to be as nit-picky with Star Trek.

With a film like Prometheus, I have a different set of rules, because Prometheus set itself up to be a much more science-oriented story. At least that’s the way I viewed it. And to that extent, it was, to me, a terrible failure. But it set itself up as a much deeper movie than it really was, and I couldn’t overlook the flaws so easily. I’ll freely admit I was harder on Prometheus than I’ve ever been on a Star Trek film. Except for The Final Frontier, which was so bad, in my opinion, that I could not find much enjoyment in it at all.

I suppose that’s not fair, but it is what it is. What you’ll never find me doing is telling somebody here that they are wrong for the opinions they hold. I might challenge the way they present them, especially if they are attacking me or somebody else.

That’s what dismays me about this site- how cruelly and thoughtlessly some people express themselves. To me it’s cowardly, since those people are always posting anonymously. You can click on my name and easily find out who I am. I have nothing to hide. And most of the time I express myself reasonably enough that I’m not attacked. But I will certainly stand up if somebody attacks me. I don’t care for bullies.

Anyway, I would never “deny” you the right to point out errors in Abrams’ movie. I’ll freely admit there were plenty. And some of them bother me, but in the end, did not make the movie a bad experience for me.

However, having recently watched The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock and Voyage Home, I can attest that there are many errors, coincidences, and plot holes in all of those films as well. So I believe I’m actually using the same criteria to judge all of them. Still, I enjoy them immensely, as I enjoyed ST09.

Sorry I was so long winded. I had the best of intentions not to be. Cheers!

160. Ahmed - June 21, 2012

Finally watched Prometheus & now I’m beginning to be really concerned about Star Trek sequel; the script was really not good or even close.

161. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

“…What you’ll never find me doing is telling somebody here that they are wrong for the opinions they hold. I might challenge the way they present them, especially if they are attacking me or somebody else…”

This may be a difference between the 2 of us, Shilliam. If the message is hate-filled and targeting someone for something they can’t change, then I will tell someone that they are wrong for that. To me, sometimes it’s not just he delivery (or presentation), but it is the message also.

Being a Spock/Uhura admirer, this makes me think of some of the opinions people had when Zachary came out as a gay man and some of of the comments I’ve read in the past about Zoe/new Uhura. When it’s something like that, I still agree that people should be able to say what they think in the best way that they can, but then I should also be able to come and say hate and bigotry is wrong regardless of how it’s presented.

I’m not trying to step on you here, but it’s something I felt I had to say.

162. The Shat - June 21, 2012

Red alert! Shields at maximum! Brace for impact!
The sequel is about to blow!

163. The Quickening - June 21, 2012

#155

You either accept that about your universe or you don’t. And Star Trek is not a place for pervasive mundanity. It’s not Kramer vs. Kramer in space. It has green people and blue people, and pointy eared people and people with ridges on their heads. It has gravity on starships and transporters, none of which are likely to work the way we see them working, yet which we accept as such for their value in moving the stories forward in ways that we are comfortable with. If you aren’t conditioned by those features to accept the unusual happening in that universe, I don’t what else to tell ya.
____

Yes. Stories contain contrivances. TREK and many movies of this type of genre have them. Which is why it is imperative to keep away from as many faux pas, improbabilities and questionable actions/elements as possible–something this film didn’t do. It had way too many of them, hence adding to my problem of supension of disbelief. Thanks.

164. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 21, 2012

161. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) You mistake what I said. I’m differentiating between an opinion and an attack. I absolutely will call somebody on an attack. As I said, I don’t like bullies, and I won’t stand down when presented with one.

I’ll never put up with hate, and will definitely speak out against it. Click on my name and go to my recent posts and you’ll see that I’ve taken on gay-bashing more than once, as well as other incidences of hate and prejudice. I would gladly defend Zachary Quinto against haters, with logic, history and reason as my basis for argument.

I don’t think we’re as far apart as you might think.

165. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 21, 2012

161. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) – And I’m not anonymous here. I did that on purpose so I would be forced to think about what I’m really saying before I commit it to digitization. I have to use my wit and intellect, and not my baser instincts, which, as far as I’m concerned, gives me the upper hand on somebody who is simply expressing irrational hate.

Of course, the hater will never see that, but at least I can walk away feeling all self-righteously indignant, as well as victorious ;-)

166. dmduncan - June 21, 2012

People’s mileage varies with ST.09. As with anything else. But I think the popularity of the movie with general audiences demonstrates that the improbability of the cave sequence was not a significant problem to them, as it was not at all for me.

I just checked rottentomateos, because I was curious, and yep, ST.09 ranks 95% among ALL critics, 93% among TOP critics, and 91% among audience members. That puts it almost neck and neck with Avatar among GA and TOP critics and significantly higher than Avatar among ALL critics. And that’s without all the fanfare of being the most groundbreaking movie of all time! (And I am not actually appealing to the professional opinions of critics by citing how many of them liked it as if that decides the value of the movie, because mass opinion be damned there will always be a minority who feels the opposite way, and that is okay; the critics just serve as audience members with an opinion like everyone else who saw the movie, and are data for the purpose of this post).

Which is to say, if more people felt themselves jerked out of the movie by perceived improbabilities in ST.09, then I expect those numbers would be much lower, since that gripe does seem to appear over and over again among those on this site who criticize the film.

The cave sequence was one of my favorite parts of the movie, and I always get excited when it comes time for it happen each time I watch it.

I know they couldn’t make changes because of the writer’s strike at the time, but if they had the chance to and I was counseling them — I would have told them “don’t even THINK about ditching that sequence!”

167. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 21, 2012

166. dmduncan – I absolutely loved your lengthy parenthetical disclaimer. I also agree with your observations. I only wish young Kirk and Spock Prime had spent more time together.

168. dmduncan - June 21, 2012

167. “I only wish young Kirk and Spock Prime had spent more time together.”

Yeah! You know if anything it was too short! :-)

169. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - June 21, 2012

@164/165

Thank you, Shilliam. I didn’t think we were that far apart (based off of your previous posts), if it helps, but I wanted to be clear about what I stand for and what I do not think is okay because of how that particular post was worded. I appreciate your clarifications. It seems that we agree, and all is well. :-)

170. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 21, 2012

169. Spock/Uhura Admirer – Acknowledged :-)

171. MC1 Doug - June 22, 2012

#95: “I hope that Ender’s Game will be so successful that Hollywood will look to other major sci-fi books to adapt. Books such as:”

You forgot “When Worlds Collide!”

172. Harry Ballz - June 22, 2012

158.

Thanks, dmduncan!

Hey! Where’s my f*%ing cake??!!

173. dmduncan - June 22, 2012

172. Harry Ballz – June 22, 2012

Aurore actually baked you one. Then she ate it all by herself to celebrate.

174. Aurore - June 22, 2012

“Aurore actually baked you one. Then she ate it all by herself to celebrate.”
________

At least, I remembered to bake one.

It’s the intention that matters.

That’s what friends are for…

175. Phil - June 22, 2012

@174. Dare I ask, who frosted the Ballz?

176. Harry Ballz - June 22, 2012

173-75.

Well, if that don’t take the mother%$@*& cake!!

177. Sebastian S. - June 23, 2012

# 171

You’d have to massively rewrite the ending of “When Worlds Collide” to make it fly these days. From what is currently known about planets and collisions these days, the idea of a rogue, yet HABITABLE planet just miraculously drifting into a stable orbit in the ‘goldilocks’ zone of our solar system would be more preposterous than 1998′s brain dead shlockbuster, “Armageddon.”

In a way they already did a kind of pseudo-remake of WWC in 1998 with “Deep Impact”; a very good movie that chronicled much of the same subject matter as WWC, only with a bit more actual science and some genuine humanity as opposed to the macho histrionics of it’s competition Armageddon. Armageddon was like an mentally challenged mix of WWC and “The Three Stooges”. Sadly, DI got lost in the ‘blockbuster wars’ that year…. a shame, too.

Getting back to adaptation wishlists? I’d love to see Alfred Bester’s “The Stars My Destination” given the big-screen treatment. I know it’s been in development hell off and on for many years now. Thematically, it’s very similar to “The Wrath of Khan”.

178. MoOeY - June 24, 2012

I would love to see an updated Khan but i m leaning toward Lt. Gary Mitchell ( Where No Man Has Gone Before ) Maybe but what do I know.

179. Jack - June 24, 2012

159. “With a film like Prometheus, I have a different set of rules, because Prometheus set itself up to be a much more science-oriented story. At least that’s the way I viewed it. And to that extent, it was, to me, a terrible failure. But it set itself up as a much deeper movie than it really was, and I couldn’t overlook the flaws so easily. I’ll freely admit I was harder on Prometheus than I’ve ever been on a Star Trek film. Except for The Final Frontier, which was so bad, in my opinion, that I could not find much enjoyment in it at all.”

Agreed. That’s what bugged me too. Now whether it was the marketers, the filmakers or fans (or all of the above) who painted it as so profound, well…

On a completely different note: I’m finding that a lot of CGI ships don’t convey a real sense of size — like Prometheus or the 2009 Enterprise. Even with smaller objects in scenes to provide perspective, they still seem flat and small to me, like models and not ships (in a way that those old, physical models didn’t) — and even more so when they integrate a shot of actors at a window. I didn’t notice it as much with the Kelvin, but with the Enterprise I couldn’t picture the scenes happening on that ship…. Not entirely sure why.

180. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2012

179. Jack “I couldn’t picture the scenes happening on that ship”

I agree completely, Jack! I’ve watched Star Trek 2009 a dozen times and every time I see an exterior shot of the Enterprise I shake my head and think, “gawd, they could have done a much better job of it than THAT!!”

181. Woulfe - June 25, 2012

TITLE

~ drumroll please ~

STAR TREK TOO

~ bows ~

Thank you, I’ll be here all week, try the veal

182. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2012

181.

D’OH!

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