Orci: Currently ‘In Middle’ Of Writing Star Trek 2016 Script + Directing Deal Not ‘Final’ Until Script Finished | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Orci: Currently ‘In Middle’ Of Writing Star Trek 2016 Script + Directing Deal Not ‘Final’ Until Script Finished July 10, 2014

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,ST: Into Darkness Sequel , trackback

orcidirecting

According to Roberto Orci he and his co-writers are in the middle of writing the script for the next Star Trek film, and even though it has been reported in the trades, he hasn’t officially signed a deal to direct the next film. More details below.

Orci Talks Star Trek 2016 Developments

In an interview with Collider promoting his upcoming new show Matador on the El Rey Network, Roberto Orci gave an update on the next Star Trek film, which Paramount officially announced would be part of the 2016 line-up. While both  Variety and Deadline have reported Orci will be directing the next Star Trek, Bob pointed out that until the script is done, the studio has not technically ‘greenlit’ the film (or his deal to direct)… 

Well, I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch. The studio has yet to even read the script. I’m in the middle of writing it, with the talented team of [John D.] Payne and [Patrick] McKay. They are true Star Trek fans, as well. So, I can’t even think anything about the future until I give them a script and they greenlight it. Until that happens, everything else is just a rumor…

If I’m lucky enough that Paramount loves the script and that we go forward, it’ll be because I have loved Star Trek for so long and the idea of having seen one of the best guys in the business direct two of them already, and to have seen it from the vantage point of a producer too, I know where a lot of the challenges are and where a lot of the fun is.

It is not unusual for a film to not be technically ‘greenlit’ nor to have a director assigned until there is an approved script. Regular readers of TrekMovie will remember in the run-up to the last two Trek films that there was always a ‘will he or wont he?’ question with JJ Abrams over whether or not he will direct the films in addition to producing them. Abrams would always say that the decision would not be made until there was a script.

While Orci isn’t ‘counting his chickens’ regarding the final ink on his deal to direct the next Star Trek, he is already prepping for the job. In the recently reported podcast interview Bob talked about how he just flew to the UK to observe JJ Abrams on the set of Star Wars: Episode VII, noting:

That is why I am going [to visit with JJ Abrams the set of Star Wars Episode VII]. I am going to steal as much wisdom as I can. I am fortunate to have seen a lot of directors direct and I plan on picking all of their brains. Every one of them has a different style and different tricks. And they also have – one of them just sent me ‘Directing for Dummies [laughs]. So that is what you do. This is not a time to not ask for help and not get the cumulative wisdom of all the people I have been lucky enough to see and work with.

Orci talks Spock and Matador

Speaking of Orci, Star Trek and his new show Matador, here is another interview he did with Latino Post where he talked about the new series and about how he has always related to the character Spock because of his immigrant roots.

Matador, which has yet to air its first episode, has just been picked up for a second season. The series premieres on the new El Rey Network on July 15th at 9PM and is also available on iTunes.  More info on where to watch elreynetwork.com.


Trailer for Matador

Comments

1. Mike Barnett - July 10, 2014

Well, what can I say? Good luck, Bob!

2. CmdrR - July 10, 2014

Story. Characters.
Go light on the fistfights and lens flares, please.
Also… Rand in a sonic shower. Just sayin…

3. Ahmed - July 10, 2014

Bob: “So, I can’t even think anything about the future until I give them a script and they greenlight it. Until that happens, everything else is just a rumor…”

Lovely! So we were lead to believe in the past two months that it was a done deal & we were just waiting for the Spring shooting, while in reality they didn’t even finish the script & Paramount didn’t greenlight the movie yet!!

4. somethoughts - July 10, 2014

new star ship model for uss enterprise make it more like tmp, what better way to put ur stamp on the movie than to upgrade the ship!

5. Michael L. Deptula - July 10, 2014

Original story and no lens flares, thanks.

6. Mike Barnett - July 10, 2014

3. Ahmed

Maybe they have dates penciled in for production and release date. It’s just up to Bob’s team to deliver a script to Paramount for everything to be official (assuming the script is accepted).

7. The Keeper - July 10, 2014

So with any luck Paramount will reject the story and go with new writers and find some one with director skills?

Excellent news!

8. Ahmed - July 10, 2014

@5. Mike Barnett

Perhaps, I just don’t want them to delay the movie to 2017.

9. bjdcharlie - July 10, 2014

#2
Agreed!
Story. Characters. Drama. Sex. Weakness. Triumph. Vindication.

Slow cutting, long takes.
Don’t stage the dialogue.

Disappointed to hear script is incomplete. Please don’t let it get pushed to 2017 for cryin out loud! Either that or be bold and write a script that will blow Star Wars out of the water. Star Trek deserves no less.

10. bjdcharlie - July 10, 2014

4.
Yes, we need a new Enterprise model that is on a par with the exquisite Enterprise A Refit.

11. somethoughts - July 10, 2014

#9

that would be delicious

12. somethoughts - July 10, 2014

#10

excellent

13. AJ - July 10, 2014

The corporate mentality is the one constant in the universe. No commitments until “the suits” greenlight the thing.

As a corollary, when JJ is involved, he’ll always rally for a delay as he did successfully with the last 2 “Trek” films, and is in the midst of doing presently with his “The Star Wars, Part 7″ side project.

Since “Trek” is having an important anniversary in 2016 the importance of timing is critical. Trek is a beautiful lady and we love her, and the timing, the restaurant and the gift must all be just perfect this time.

No excuses.

14. griffin - July 10, 2014

#3 wrote: “So we were lead to believe”

You were “lead” to believe?

15. Ahmed - July 10, 2014

@13. AJ

“As a corollary, when JJ is involved, he’ll always rally for a delay as he did successfully with the last 2 “Trek” films, and is in the midst of doing presently with his “The Star Wars, Part 7″ side project.”

And he did that with his directorial debut ‘Mission: Impossible III’ when he delayed the production for a full year.

I guess lens flares & delaying productions in every single movie that he works on are his trademarks!!

16. Keachick (Rose) - July 10, 2014

Well, this is disappointing news.

17. somethoughts - July 10, 2014

borg cameo bob heheh one borg ship is seen within the ancient ruins of ships, the holy grail graveyard of ships is seen from one end to the other with no end in sight, in the ruins is also a millenium falcon as easter egg. Spock continues reading with his tricorder muthering under his breath, fascinating…

18. somethoughts - July 10, 2014

*muttering

19. I am not Herbert - July 10, 2014

…the usual B.S…. and cluster-trek… yawn… =P

…he’s making room for JJ to come back from getting fired from Star Wars…

20. Marja - July 10, 2014

9 bjdCharlie, couldn’t agree more on all your points. Especially slowing things down and long takes. I think Orci writes great dialogue with wit, humor, and deep feeling [except all the metaphors given McCoy in STiD, boy, those got old, even when they "hung a lantern on it" by having Kirk ask him to knock it off]. One exception re: your point of view on Trek3, I like the NuEnterprise just fine, thank you. She’s beautiful. OK, get rid of the fins on the aftward ends of the nacelles, but otherwise she’s a fine lady.

15, Ahmed, Y’know, you’d think for all the delays in JJ’s films he’d put out better movies. Maybe it’s a major ego-trip for him? Cripes, I hope #19 Herbert, is wrong. Not even in joke do I want JJ back to do Trek as a “side project.” That would be an insult indeed.

It’s my hope that Paramount doesn’t say, “put more whiz-bang-BOOM! in the script” but that they do give it a good critical read give Orci input re: any plot holes. I am trying to keep faith that Orci & co. will write a good, not just serviceable, script.

However, since Paramount is there to make money, I imagine they will ensure that Trek3 is another “summer blockbuster,” with all the depth, emotion, character development and moral philosophy thereunto pertaining. [Yes, my sarcasm meter is turned up.]

Very hopefully, and somewhat cynically yours,
Marja

21. boy - July 10, 2014

all we can say it good luck orci, regardless of if we disagree with him or not, our goals are the same. we want trek 2016 to be successful and all we can do is wish him the best.

GOOD LUCK BOB.

22. Colinar - July 10, 2014

#9 I seriously hope you are right.

23. Sxottlan - July 11, 2014

So you’re saying there’s still a chance we could get Matt Reeves.

Please?

24. Oscar - July 11, 2014

He’ s writting the plot? Beh, I think he is copypasting some old good stories. He is not a creator, but a copycat…
Fringe…X files
Sleepey hollow….Supernatural
Alias…Nikita la femme…

Etc, etc, etc…
And his cavalier attitude about fans…

25. Timncc1701 - July 11, 2014

I am just hoping that while polishing the script that he can bring back the characters closer to their TOS counterparts and show some maturation and character development. I expect this to be the case. This can be an opportunity to transition all of the “newbies” who came in to fandom in 09 into an appreciation for the original characters and stories. There is so much more to these characters than what has been portrayed thus far in the 2 JJverse films. The cast is great. That is something to credit JJ for. I wonder if this film could be a transition to a TV series? It would be nice to have a Star Trek fix every week rather than every 3 years.

26. Cygnus-X1 - July 11, 2014

3. Ahmed – July 10, 2014

The “news” as it were was first reported by Variety two months ago:
http://trekmovie.com/2014/05/13/roberto-orci-named-director-of-star-trek-3/

Paramount and Orci had no comment for Variety at the time.

He appears to have a handshake deal contingent upon Paramount liking the script. Being that they liked Orci’s last two scripts, it seems likely they’ll like this one as well and greenlight it.

27. dmduncan - July 11, 2014

Phony controversy.

Bob can’t direct any Star Trek movie unless and until the movie he wants to make is approved.

There’s nothing strange about the deal.

28. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

24. Oscar
“He’ s writting the plot? Beh, I think he is copypasting some old good stories. He is not a creator, but a copycat…
Fringe…X files
Sleepey hollow….Supernatural
Alias…Nikita la femme…”

Don’t be ridiculous. That’s a weak argument. There has been tens of THOUSANDS TV shows and theatrical movies. Every TV show or movie has elements from some previous TV shows and movies. So what? Who cares? In real-life, there’s a lot of copy/paste – doing the same-old, same-old. Deal with it and movie on.

29. Lt. Dakin - July 11, 2014

Paramount needs to get serious. Disney has announced slates of movies but Paramount can’t formally commit to a single film?!

30. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

25. Timncc1701
” I wonder if this film could be a transition to a TV series?”

The Orci-haters won’t like this but I think it would be terrific if they could convince this cast to do Trek for TV after the next film…with Bob Orci as the showrunner. How about using the cable TV model and only produce 8 to 16 episodes per year? That way the cast can have time between seasons to do theatrical features or Broadway plays. They also can save some money by using the existing sets, costumes and CGI models.

31. Captain Slow - July 11, 2014

There’s nothing concerning at all about this news. It isn’t even news really. J.D. Payne said that they had to finish the first draft of the script around mid-May, but as writers always say never let anyone read your first draft. It’s usually just a very rough version for no one but the core creative team and in ST09’s case for Leonard Nimoy as well.

STID wasn’t greenlit until about a year and a half before it came out so there’s still plenty of time to finish the script. So there’s nothing to panic about. This is all normal.

32. Captain Slow - July 11, 2014

@ 30 Mike Barnett

What about the Sherlock model of three 90-minute episodes a season? That way you could make each episode like a mini movie but without the need to have a blockbuster type story all the time.

33. Oscar - July 11, 2014

27.
Roberto Orci should NOT direct any ST movies ever.
Because he is not a director. ST deserves a true director.
And he insulted fans. Paramount should not insulted fans, too.
If he is the next director, a vast number of trekkers could boycott ST…
Because they do not want more humiliation…actors insult fans, writers insult fans, Abrams despises ST and fans…STID. and fans must buy more tickets…?c’mon…
A vast number of Trekkers are sicks of this humiliation and they could boycott star trek 2016.
It is time to say this truth…
We are Star Trek fans, not a bunch of idiots…we pay, we choose, we are the boss…
Do you understand, Paramount?
Our money, our, call.

34. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

33. Oscar

Orci had a couple very bad days last year and he has apologized. The moron from DumbA$$ may have been the trigger – who knows. Don’t forget that the DumbA$$ did a kind of bait-and-switch on Orci at the Con.
Orci didn’t insult ALL fans. I’ll bet most of the casual fans don’t even know about what happened last year on Twitter/Trekmovie. Those same casual fans probably don’t know who Roberto Orci is!

35. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

32. Captain Slow
I like that idea better. It leaves the audience wanting more!! Made for TV movie events for Trek – – Columbo did that starting in the late 60’s and they kept that going into the early 2000’s.
Make it so! We’d get our character-driven stories that we crave.

36. Captain Slow - July 11, 2014

@ 33 Oscar

He’s been far more patient and understanding with the fans than most of the people on this site are with him and each other. Also, provide evidence that J.J. despises Star Trek and the fans. Maybe he was never a big fan, but there are stages between worshiping it and hating it.

37. Chris Roberts - July 11, 2014

@Bob Orci – Wow. Visiting Star Wars Episode VII? So envious. Then you must be over here in England from time to time. Hope you get chance to enjoy some nice weather while you’re honing the script.

38. Curious Cadet - July 11, 2014

@30. Mike Barnett,
” it would be terrific if they could convince this cast to do Trek for TV after the next film…with Bob Orci as the showrunner.”

I think Orci as a show runner for a series would be a terrific idea. But the problems I see here are:

I don’t believe Pine would ever allow himself to become Capt. Kirk in a TV series. It’s one thing to play him every 4 years in a blockbuster feature film, it’s quite another to do it weekly on TV and risk becoming William Shatner.

Saldana is not going to ever play supporting role in a TV series. Now if they give her her own ship …

I doubt Paramount would be interested in any film that compromises itself to serve as a vehicle to launch a TV series, unless they own the series, which is not likely to happen where CBS is concerned.

If a TV series happens, they might be able to convince this cast to make a transition cameo, but it will be set around a new ship with a young captain who sees Kirk as his role model. Perhaps even a recurring role for Nimoy as they service New Vulcan’s needs. Who knows, perhaps it’s Jim Kirk’s brother’s ship, inspired to join Starfleet himself after Jim’s success, so we even have a captain named Kirk.

39. Marja - July 11, 2014

30 Mike B, Agreed! I’ve been harping on this for a year or so, but I’d be thrilled if this cast transitioned to TV, in a “Mad Men”-length season/year. And I’m sure Bob Orci would love to be the showrunner. But I hope that Trek wouldn’t just be “one of many” of the projects he has, he’s got more TV shows than Granny Smith has apples!

There are some agreements that need to be made between CBS and Paramount, though, and we’ve not heard of any yet.

Make it so, Bob! And Godspeed!

40. TrekRules - July 11, 2014

Um, he wrote the last 2 Trek films and you have to assume was on the set while they were being filmed and he has to go to England to watch how JJ films Star Wars to learn? Did he just wake up and decide he wanted to direct or is he a slow learner? The sooner this little Trek experiment is over, the better.

41. Marja - July 11, 2014

32 Captain Slow, I disagree, and here’s why …

[a] A12-episode season will allow for 4 three-episode story arcs.

[b] There could be a season-long arc as well.

[c] More time to develop background characters … Yeoman Rand, Nurse Chapel, Lt Charlene Masters … [notice these are all females so far?] … the gay couple we’ve never seen in pro Trek … more about Chekov, Sulu and maybe Keenser, and CUPCAKE [if he's still with us] … and BRING BACK RACHEL NICHOLS AS GAILA! please?

[d] Time for a variety of episodes … emphasizing drama, philosophy, science, action, or humor … I know Pine, Quinto, Urban and Pegg are all funny, and I’m pretty sure the rest of the cast are too … oh yeh, didn’t Cho star in all those pothead movies? ;-) … and I would love to see each of the above qualities explored in Trek again.

I don’t want a “season” like Sherlock’s, cripes, that’d be what, a total of 4.5 hours of Trek/year? Scr-r-r-ew that, I say!

42. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

When Bob did the podcast with Geoff Boucher couple weeks ago, he talked about going to London to get advice & tips from JJ on directing as if the deal was a given. And now, in the new interview with Collider, we get a different vibes from him, what changed, if any, between these two interviews ?

43. Phil - July 11, 2014

@33. Still professing to be the official spokeshole for all of fandom, I see….

God, I miss the days when that was an insta-ban offense around here.

44. Captain Slow - July 11, 2014

@ 38 Curious Cadet

That’s one of the reasons I suggested the three episode/90-minute model because it would mean that it wouldn’t be a weekly series and the actors could still focus on other projects. An alternative they could have done except that STID made it impossible would have been a Pike series.

@ 41 Ahmed

Most likely Paramount said to him that the job is his if they like the script. So it’s not a done deal yet but the chances are that the script will be approved.

45. Phil - July 11, 2014

If someone signs a contract with Bad Robot, there must be a ‘double-speak, will he or won’t he’ clause in there that requires a preset minimum of BS speak when it comes to making commitments. Now that he’s met that obligation, hopefully he’ll cut the crap moving forward.

I’m not holding my breath. Paramount has committed to a 2016 release year, and there’s a FREE PR bonanza connected to the 50th anniversary. It’s doubtful there will be a lot more ‘gee, I gotta think about it’ comments from Bob at this point….

46. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

@43. Captain Slow,

“Most likely Paramount said to him that the job is his if they like the script. So it’s not a done deal yet but the chances are that the script will be approved.”

I’ve no doubt that they will like his script, after all they approved his last two scripts. But Paramount really needs to move fast & get rolling.

@44. Phil

“Now that he’s met that obligation, hopefully he’ll cut the crap moving forward.”

Agreed. We still have plenty of time before 2016 but that doesn’t mean delaying things & dragging their feet like they did with ST09 & STID.

47. star trackie - July 11, 2014

Oscar, considering the tantrums you throw every time any article is posted regarding Orci or the next Trek movie, I bet you were a real pain in the ass as a kid! You don’t get it YOUR way so you throw a fit. (the same goes to a few more regulars around here as well) Well, I hope your parents didn’t cave into your tantrums as a kid, because you’re most assuredly not going to get your way now( as far as Trek goes anyway). So please don’t hold your breath, blue isn’t your color!!

48. Phil - July 11, 2014

In all fairness, I seem to recall it was Paramount’s idea to move the release from Xmas 2009 to May 2009. The delay for STID was squarely on BR, but it’s unfair to blame them for the ST 2009 release change.

49. Phil - July 11, 2014

Overall, I’ve been supportive of BR’s efforts with the franchise – they have had their successes, and hit a few bumps in the road as well, but have been successful in reintroducing the franchise and growing the fan base….

But, yeah, this production crew doublespeak is getting irritating. Bob, there’s a career in politics just waiting for you when you get done in Hollywood. Most of your interviews rival anything that comes out of a Washington press conference – forty five minutes of weighty tone and inflection, and no useful information….yeah, politics would suit you well.

50. Phil - July 11, 2014

Oops…Xmas 2008.

51. Anthony Thompson - July 11, 2014

The ‘These Are The Voyages” books make crystal clear that Roddenberry, Justman, Fontana and Coon were concerned about the characters first and foremost. That’s been missing in Trek 1 and 2. the characterizations are off (except for McCoy, Sulu and a few others). Get the characters right, Bob. Please.

52. bjdcharlie - July 11, 2014

If Bob is not struggling and sweating and toiling and worrying and improving his script, it may not turn out very good.

53. AJ - July 11, 2014

This is all happening while Paramount really tries hard (and fails) to build billion-dollar tentpoles outside of their horrendous “Transformers” movie series. I mean, how many times have we heard that “Beverly Hills Cop” is coming back, and that Harrison Ford was game for “Indy V” after the last piece of junk pulled in a billion and change? The latest “Jack Ryan” flick was a snoozer/low-earner as well. Their next highest-grossing film after “Transformers 4″ this year has been “Noah,” so you know it’s bad. Too bad there was only one biblical flood.

Meanwhile, “GI Joe” is definitely a B-brand franchise, and “Star Trek” is desperately trying not to be one. Will reducing the director’s star-power (and price, most likely) actually make the margins better? Or are they just looking to ease Trek down into real B-brand territory with Orci leading two no-name writers? Only the finished product will tell. I really hope not.

54. Oscar - July 11, 2014

36.
Right now, personal opinions had nothing to do with What is happening around ST. ST is a mess and the main guilty is Orci.

He insulted a critic because he did not like STID and he said «you prove the cliché of shitty fans. And rude in the process. So, as Simon Pegg would says: f.ck you»

And then, Orci said «Do not take me seriously. If you have been on this board for last five years as I have been, you know that twice a year I explode at the morons. Today seemed to be a congregation.»
So, the people who say STID is crap, is a «congregation of morons»

Oh, yes he insulted fans and he re insulted fans. Previously, he insulted Rick Berman. Outrageous situation.

Paramount should dismiss this guy. You can not insult customers, and fans are the best.

But he insults fans and he is promoted …Paramount insults fans, too.
They think trekkers are a bunch of cheer-leaders., no honor people…that you can insult for free..
Wrong. Very wrong. A vast number of trekkers could boycott this movie because they are sicks of this situation. Arrogance and insults.
Orci, let’ s ST go..

55. Marja, fan of both TOS and BR Trek - July 11, 2014

44 Phil, then lucky for us that JJ is elsewhere :-P

Not sayin’ I dislike the guy, I love him for “re-starting” the Trek franchise, but the BS between Trek 1 and Trek 2 really p***ed me off. [And gods, was I peeved about the change from Christmas 2008 to May 2009. I was SO EXCITED then disappointed they delayed. Paramount's call, BAD on them.]

50 Anthony T, criminey, the characters ARE right, in this ALTERNATE universe. And they are 10 years younger than our TOS heroes. Maybe in Trek 3 we’ll see them closer to the TOS folk, but maybe not. There are 79 TOS eps and six movies, and the TOS “inheritors” to enjoy, if you can’t get your head around this group.

Sorry to go off like this, but I’ve seen this comment like, 200 times, and wonder if people were in the bathroom during the “alternate universe” discussion part. Yes, Elder Spock said there would be “currents” that might influence events, and he rather heavy-handedly tried to guide the currents as regarded one James T. Kirk, but this Trek is different; try to appreciate it, or don’t.

56. Al - July 11, 2014

Please please please mirror universe and bring back Shatner

57. Red Dead Ryan - July 11, 2014

There is absolutely NO chance of CBS greenlighting a new Trek series involving the current cast. Zoe Saldana might do it, but I doubt Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine want to risk being pigeonholed and typecast as following Nimoy and Shatner.

Plus Paramount will want full control of the characters, and this new universe. They would most likely sue CBS to keep full control and to prevent competition.

CBS and Paramount are essentially rival studios now.

58. Red Dead Ryan - July 11, 2014

BTW, this will be pee in Oscar’s cereal, but both “Star Trek” and “Star Trek Into Darkness” are included on Empire magazine’s “301 Greatest Movies Of All-Time” list, at #188 and #245, respectively.

:-)

59. Kevin - July 11, 2014

@57 — Paramount licenses the movie rights from CBS who owns the franchise. CBS could create a new Trek TV show tomorrow and Paramount wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

See here: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek_corporate_history

60. TUP - July 11, 2014

Marja – yes different and crap. Only an idiot takes on a 40+ year old franchise with established characters and canon and *chooses* to use those same characters but as different as can be. Talk about a lack of respect for Star Trek from self-professed fans.

61. Captain Slow - July 11, 2014

@ 58 Red Dead Ryan

I’d say that beats the poll from the convention. Watch for smoke pouring from Oscar’s ears.

62. CaptainObvious - July 11, 2014

Uuuuummm, if the same Person who greenlight the Into Darkness script is also the now who will greenlight the script for the new movie then we are f****d…

63. Dee - lvs moonsurface - July 11, 2014

Mr. Orci never behaved as a director of Star Trek, like right now, he certainly received some lessons from JJAbrams on the set of Star Wars in London!

Emphasizing, now Mr. Orci is behaving like a director of Star Trek 3 … def It looks! :D

64. Daoud, The Sinfonian - July 11, 2014

Nice haircut, Bob. Makes you look more Kirk than Spock.

65. Vultan - July 11, 2014

#58

Including Transformers on that list makes me doubt their judgment. But they’ve ranked TWOK at 89, high above the other Trek movies copying it, so I can live with STID, bizarrely, being on there.

66. El Chup - July 11, 2014

“I’m such a Star Trek” – Orci.

Yeah, remember that Mr. Orci the next time you insult and degrade fans, including doctors, engineers and had human rights lawyers such as myself, who came to my professional because of Star Trek, for not being good enough not to lick your vastly superior boots because “we don’t get to write movies and [you] do”. I said it then and I’ll say it now. I am the same age as Orci and he lost me over his reaction to the Into Darkness criticism. His token “not my finest hour” comment. Until he offers a sincere and professional apology to the fans I will not pay to see anything he is involved with, Trek or otherwise. He owes his job on these movies to the long term fans who kept this franchise going while his was still graduating High School.

67. THX-1138 - July 11, 2014

My expectations are very low. I expect that Paramount will greenlight whatever script they get handed. After all, they greenlit STID and in my opinion that script was a giant mess.

Yep, I’ll be in the theater to watch it, good or bad. I was in the theater for STID and that movie gave me a headache. Mostly from rolling my eyes so much.

There will be a Star Trek 3. It will come out in 2016 or 2017 or whenever. And I expect it to get blown out of the water by Star Wars, if they are released in the same year (remember, captain production delay JJ Abrams is at the helm). I expect Trek to fade back into oblivion and we all take another five years off before some suit thinks Trek should come back to TV. Maybe.

Maybe not. Star Trek is beginning to take on the shape of a museum piece. It was once great but recent efforts are resembling a parody of itself. I don’t hate JJ and I don’t hate Orci and I don’t hate any of the rest of whoever it is that’s been producing Star Trek for the last 2 movies. I’m just getting ambivalent about where my favorite franchise is going. Not your father’s Star Trek, they said. Well, I’m old enough to be most of the new Star Trek fan’s father so I guess they hit the nail on the head.

68. ADeweyan - July 11, 2014

I’m always concerned when a writer, director, etc., says they are huge fans of the series. Certainly there are exceptions, but often movies benefit from fresh eyes and someone more concerned with an engaging story than creating hooks to what has come before.

I think of Empire Strikes Back vs. Return of the Jedi (Kershner, not a fan, Marquand, big fan). Or look at ST 2009 vs. STID — I think into darkness would have been much stronger had they not made the turn, late in the process to bring in the hook to the previous stories (Khan).

69. NuFan - July 11, 2014

Should we count how many times we see links to the Empire Magazine Greatest of All Time List from our busiest commenters?

Maybe I should just do it a couple hundred times. It’s only fair.

70. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

67. THX-1138
OK, guess what? I’m canceling out your opinion because my views are the exact opposite of yours. And I’m the father that has watched Trek since 9/8/66. I like all the Trek’s. Sure, a particular episode or feature would rank towards the bottom of my favorite’s list, but I still will watch & enjoy them.

NuTrek has fulfilled my lifetime dream of having Trek movies presented with all the bells and whistles that other franchises have enjoyed. This is now a world-wide franchise. We’re in the big leagues now and I for one am enjoying the ride. IDIC!

71. Phil - July 11, 2014

Nah, it’s just a list. Considering that most film snob lists won’t list any sci-fi except for 2001 and maybe A Clockwork Orange, I’ll give them credit for a generous mix of sci-fi and fantasy. Considering they went 301 deep, it’s not a bad list.

72. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

It’s funny how all the NuTrek/Orci haters come out of the woodwork whenever a new Orci article is posted on Trekmovie.

73. IDIC Lives! - July 11, 2014

#67 Thx1138

I don’t think you did hit the nail on the head by saying it is your age. You hit the nail on the head with your statement that STID is a mess and is a weak parody of TOS.

Marja, here’s the sequence of events – where it went wrong, from my pov:

Really big deal! :-) Star Trek was to be made into a major motion picture with a new cast!

Pine=Kirk Quinto=Spock, and so forth. We were excited, ecstatic, we all recognized that Shatner and Nimoy were too old. We were thrilled when Nimoy was to be in it, however.

It materialized that it was an alternate universe and we were ok with that. We do comprehend “alternate universe.” Yes, we thought, that will give the new guys leeway for looking different and not make TOS canon be super-dominating in every tiny way. It leaves room for some creativity and gives the new Trek its own.

That would have been fine and actually, the only way it could have been done.

BUT THEN–oh, it is an alternate universe and Kirk is not Kirk, Spock is not Spock, Star Fleet is not Star Fleet; it is no longer an actual military or quasi military organization with rules, protocols, all the things which made the Star Trek Universe. You can go from disgraced cadet to captain, you can be Scotty and go AWOL and so much more (can you imagine a disgraced cadet performing an act of bravery in the Navy and being jumped up to captain?? NO! He might be forgiven his disgrace and bumped up one rank, MAYBE).

AN THEN– it turns out, nu Trek was not going into Space: The Final Frontier, to explore strange new worlds, discover new life and new civilizations…for two (count them TWO) long films! WHAT ELSE IS STAR TREK ABOUT??

Yes, we glimpsed the pasty white aliens on Nibiru and believe me, I love that brief beginning of STID even if cold fusion isn’t cold and why they couldn’t be in orbit above the planet, I still do not know. But lo and behold, it was an alien planet!

The PLOTS of the 2 films have nothing to do with exploring space. That is what Star Trek IS and was. I repeat: That IS Star Trek!!

Then there are travesties like blowing up Vulcan for gratuitous shites and grins. That was really—really–wrong. (There might not be an English word for what it was, actually).

The 2 films, and STID in particular, are full of these potholes and discrepancies and, frankly, thumbing their nose at the real Star Trek.

And then they don’t create their own creations but use TOS as a plot crutch (the whole Khan thing), adding insult to injury.

As we’ve said, maybe if Paramount wanted to use/abuse Trek, it could have advertised that this was a Star Trek universe (alternate universe, actually) and two new officers, one human, one Vulcan, are in conflict but later find the same friendship as two other officers found before them. yada yada.

Corrupt the Star Trek universe if money means so much to the studio, but do not call this the TOS universe and the two guys “Kirk and Spock.”

Star Trek began in 1965 and it had/has earned the right to be Star Trek. Period.

Kirk has earned the right to be/remain Kirk. Spock – an immortal character too, an icon — earned the right to be/remain Spock. Spock has the right to behave like Spock, to have integrity, to not deal out cruel and unusual punishment to a cadet who dared oppose him (and was also his First Officer) and — so much more. Kirk and Spock are established characters, to put it mildly.

Marja, you are right, there is no use to argue on this further. You said take it or leave it. I leave it. And when it is shoved down my throat on this forum, I will again speak out.

I do NOT think the nu-universe is just fine, it and I will not be quiet. :-)

I am really not looking to open up another argument/debate. I am trying to tell you how we see it – we who feel TOS/Star Trek was really used very badly. Tacky, and wrong.

THIS is the reason the big films were okayed to be made in the first place: TOS/Star Trek.

They were to be in the TOS Star Trek universe with its characters.

I have a feeling of betrayal which is not going away, sorry. So I suppose the debate will go on. I am trying to state something here from the foundation up, I hope it is accepted as friendly and honest.

Let us please debate on the issues and not call what I just tried to say “nonsense.” Also, let no one “feel sorry for me” that I feel as I do.

Please let’s debate the topics if we HAVE to debate it anymore.

This is not a debate, however, as much as just a statement.

74. Keachick (Rose) - July 11, 2014

“The PLOTS of the 2 films have nothing to do with exploring space. That is what Star Trek IS and was. I repeat: That IS Star Trek!!”

So many of TOS plots had little, if anything, to do with exploring space. The Enterprise were going where others (Starfleet) had been before. It might have been set in space, but exploration of new – no, for the most part, it was not. Take for example, one of the favourite episodes, Amok Time – the Enterprise was in space but it was tasked with having to deliver much needed medical supplies to a colony (ie already explored and populated by humans…). Spock gets Pon Farr (new) and has to be sped back to Vulcan lest he did. We had not been shown Vulcan but we certainly knew of its existence because that is where human/vulcan Spock grew up.

Apart from the introduction of the notion of Pon Farr (a bit of a daft one really), nothing truly new is discovered. Perhaps Vulcan get explored, but not that much.

So, is it that all it takes to be Star Trek, as in “Space – the final frontier…” is simply to be in outer space far from earth as opposed to being in outer space close to earth?

The only difference for many of the TOS episodes was that they showed Kirk and the Enterprise being far from earth as opposed to close to earth.

75. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

73. IDIC Lives!

“Star Trek began in 1965 and it had/has earned the right to be Star Trek. Period.”
Maybe you are living in an alternate universe but in my universe Star Trek began on September 8th 1966.

“The PLOTS of the 2 films have nothing to do with exploring space. That is what Star Trek IS and was. I repeat: That IS Star Trek!!”
Please list the oldTrek movies that were about exploring strange new worlds.

76. IDIC Lives! - July 11, 2014

Mike Barnett,

TOS is The Original Series. That is the foundation I was referring to and I did specify that.

In the theatrical releases, which were never quite as magic as TOS, the Motion Picture (first) is certainly science fiction and explored a strange phenomenon/world (machine planet).

They were in space (Mutaran Nebula and such) for Wrath of Khan but admittedly, it is about a villain, not exploring new worlds. There was the Genesis Concept, however.

Hey, we all know the theatrical releases and my cat is eating my dinner.

#3 The Genesis Planet and Vulcan I will add that nuTrek has had super-villains as the only focal point whereas even #3 film – there was much more than just The Villain (which I guess was Kruge).

Ok, briefly, #4 was certainly the essence of Trek but if you are being picky, it was not about a strange new world but about a strange time (Earth, 1980s).

#5 and 6 had new worlds, be they “God’s” or Klingon (#6).

The theatrical releases go to more strange new worlds than nuTrek, no, not with exploration as the main theme as with TOS.

Did I respond to your liking?

77. IDIC Lives! - July 11, 2014

Keachick,

“Apart from the introduction of the notion of Pon Farr (a bit of a daft one really), nothing truly new is discovered. Perhaps Vulcan get explored, but not that much.”

And the rest of your post too:

SAY WHAT???? Sorry, too far off base, I’m not wasting my time.

“off base” – please note, I am being civil.

78. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

76. IDIC Lives!
Yup. I knew all that but I just wanted to distract you so your cat can get some good human food :-)
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare nuTrek to TOS anyways. TOS had the benefit of 79 episodes which gave them the time to do extensive character interaction. NuTrek has only 4 hours in the movie-world where tentpole movies are required to be more action oriented rather than character scenes like talking heads at a conference room table.

79. Phil - July 11, 2014

@73. Here’s the problem, a small but vocal group of people are just outraged (outraged, I say!) that BR Trek isn’t exploring space…..but the support of that position falls flat when the glittering generalities get flung around to back up that flawed position….Submitted as evidence:

TMP: Enterprise defends earth
WOK: Maniacal bad guy run amuck. Where’s Enterprise? Earth.
TSFS: Nimoy career CPR. No exploring here, either.
TVH. Home would be…Earth.
TFF: Shore leave on some distant…oh, never mind. Yosmite.
TUC: Where’s that damn peace conference? Earth…
STG: Proof that a room full of monkeys can write a script. Oh, and Enterprise-B….yep, Earth again.
STFC: Enterprise defends…Earth. Past, present, and future.
STI: No Earth. It only took eight movies…
STN: Romulans threaten…Earth.

Setting aside the very abused ‘no other ship in the quadrant’ trope, I see another pattern here…with one exception, the entire flippin film franchise has been defending Earth, in some form or another.

80. Phil - July 11, 2014

@74. Spock exploring T’Pring doesn’t count? I kid…..

81. IDIC Lives! - July 11, 2014

Mike Barnett,

I was not comparing TOS and nuTrek, or that was not the point. I was trying to say, the Star Trek premise, begun in TOS and the characters, should remain as The Premise and The Characters. Or, don’t call them Star Trek. It is science fiction, not fantasy and not melodrama.

We could move on to yet another conversation about the specifics of STID in particular, and 2009 film to some degree, which were just shoddy and constituted huge plot holes and lack of reason.

However, we’re all sick of arguing. I ate my dinner, cat hairs and all. Someday I’ll have a fur ball.

82. IDIC Lives! - July 11, 2014

“Apart from the introduction of the notion of Pon Farr (a bit of a daft one really), nothing truly new is discovered. Perhaps Vulcan get explored, but not that much.”

__________________________________________________

Did Keachick really say this???? Oh–my goodness!!

Yes, again I put palm to cheek in utter bewilderment and shock. (Thank you Jack Benny).

Best to IGNORE. I know. And I am.

83. Disinvited - July 11, 2014

#75. Mike Barnett – July 11, 2014

TMP was definitely about an old NASA space probe having explored many many many strange new worlds and representing that exploration visually to the audience in the trip through V’yger. It was also about addressing the emergent AI lifeform’s desire to answer the question “Is all that exploring all that there is?” and its desire to move on to the next level in exploration which it concluded that it could not accomplish on its own.

84. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

I guess that Bob is getting ready to focus on ST 13 without the distraction of other movies.

=======================
Roberto Orci Off The Amazing Spider-Man Franchise, No Clear Timeline for TASM 3, Venom, or Sinister Six

“I don’t know what their plans are for that franchise,” Orci said when asked about his continued involvement. “I don’t ever want to say never, but we have to figure out what their scheduling is in terms of when they want each movie. I’ve read probably as much as anyone else. There’s a love for the Sinister Six, the idea of Venom — there’s an idea of Spider-Man’s going to be one of these characters that’s part of our business. He’s such a popular character. Spider-Man’s not going to go away any time soon. When it all happens and how and all that has yet to be determined.”

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/07/11/roberto-orci-off-the-amazing-spider-man-franchise-no-clear-timeline-for-tasm-3-venom-or-sinister-six?abthid=53c0554518ea4c015d00002b

85. Mike Barnett - July 11, 2014

83. Disinvited
Got it. I’m almost afraid to admit that TMP is in my top 5 Trek movies!!

86. Lurker - July 11, 2014

God, I hate how they turned the newly renovated, most advanced flagship of StarFleet into a frickin’ training vessel. And that Admiral guy – the most experienced captain in history is suddenly an old geezer forgetting space combat tactics..what were they thinking??????

What was that Oscar? Oh, wrong movie? Sorry, I forgot it had the words Star Trek in it so it must be good….silly me.

87. Keachick (Rose) - July 11, 2014

No, we have IDIC for fantasy and melodrama for that and it is all right here.

I gave the TOS episode Amok Time as an example of many a TOS episode, where the notion of exploring and discovering that which is new, is barely hinted at, if at all. Vulcan is known about, SF and Kirk already know about the colony, where it is, what its needs are etc. Perhaps there was more in terms of discovery when it came to learning Vulcan ritual, Pon Farr etc, but once again, it was more in a context of what is already known, as opposed to what is NOT known.

The whole premise that Spock was so immature and self-centered (mostly to do with Vulcan pride) not to inform at least the ship’s Chief Medical Officer of the biological nature of his Vulcan half and the remote possibility of him experiencing pon farr and what needs to be done etc, is another matter altogether. WTF? Such bad writing, and people say that nuSpock is too emotional – yeah right…

88. Ryan - July 11, 2014

Someone in an earlier post mentioned Chris Pine wouldn’t want to get labeled like Shatner did by doing a Trek series for TV– Mr. Pine could only be so lucky, and I find it laughable so much “talent” becomes so opposed to being lucky enough to portray an iconic character that will literally guarantee their living comfortably for the rest of their lives… Good thing Pine doesn’t seem like the type– he mentioned on Ellen he would be willing to do 10 Trek films if he was lucky enough too.

I think it’s sad humans can just never be “content” after being so lucky with certain things in the first place. I bet any amount that Denise Crosby ended up lamenting her decision to leave Next Gen after one season given that cost her 6 more seasons of good money for TV, on top of 4 feature films. She’s at least lucky they brought her back in some form, but man, what a blessing she had being given such a role in the first place.

Lastly, lastly, I never thought Orci was “cemented” as director until Paramount actually makes an official announcement, versus it just being reported in Variety. Me thinks Paramount is having second thoughts wondering why the heck they’d peg a rookie director when there’s hoards of directing talent out there waiting to get a call– Edgar Wright anyone?

Nuff said

89. somethoughts - July 11, 2014

#89

Every actor or actress is free to do what they think is best for them.

Every great director needed a first film first shot and chance to become known.

I thought that avengers director was soso meh before I saw Avengers boy did he prove wrong.

90. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

@89. somethoughts

“I thought that avengers director was soso meh before I saw Avengers boy did he prove wrong.”

Joss Whedon meh ??

Whedon directed over 40 TV episodes & one sci-fi movie before he went on to direct The Avengers.

You should check some of his works on Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Firefly & Serenity.

91. THX-1138 - July 11, 2014

#70-Mike Barnett

Good for you. I don’t remember addressing you in particular, or that there was some score we were keeping on how many opinions were in each camp. I was stating my opinion without the need to counter anyone else’s. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

#79-Phil

Huh. Almost to a movie I disagree with you.

TMP-Sure Earth was threatened and the movie starts out there, but as soon as they can get the E out of space dock they are gone. Away. Into space. The E doesn’t even appear near earth until the end of the movie.

TWOK-Umm, no. The Enterprise is sent out on a training voyage and spends most of it’s time in the general vicinity of the Regula 1 station and the Mutara Nebula. Earth is never directly in danger.

TSFS-Starts out on earth but quickly ends up going to the Genesis planet, where it crashes. Then they are off to Vulcan. No threat to earth.

TVH-Well, yeah, that’s earth. But it’s a time travel romp to the 20th century. 23rd century earth makes brief appearances.

TFF-You gotta be kidding. The Enterprise is sent to Nimbus III and then after being hijacked heads off to the center of the galaxy.

TUC-Nope, not earth. The peace conference is at Camp Khitomer. A planet that is not earth and located in the Khitomer system. The crew spends the bulk of it’s time escorting the Klingons and then rescuing Kirk. From Rura Penthe, a prison planet which is not earth.

After that we are into TNG movies. I’ll just keep to TOS for brevity.

92. Keachick (Rose) - July 11, 2014

I think the question is more about exploration of that which has yet to be explored and discovered, and not about whether earth is somehow involved in the story. Since Star Trek is largely about humans, it does stand to reason that earth will get mentioned, be shown and even have characters on earth. It is more about what else occurs within a particular story.

It is also clear that the terms “exploration”, “discovery” have been variously defined.

If we want a TOS view on PD, how about discussing Devil in the Dark – now there’s a doozy if there ever was one…Clue – any notion of honouring the Prime Directive would appear to get chucked down a dumpster shoot when it comes to the idea of not being able to continue mining for precious minerals because of PD…

#88 – ” [Chris Pine]he mentioned on Ellen he would be willing to do 10 Trek films if he was lucky enough too.”

In which Ellen show did Chris say that?

I think it is a bit presumptuous to say whether or not any of these actors would be prepared to do a TV series based on BR Star Trek movies, where they play their characters from the movies. I do not think that Chris Pine has even been asked, let alone given any (definitive) answer. I think the same applies to the other actors. Besides, work is work…

93. Keachick (Rose) - July 11, 2014

“shute”, not “shoot”

94. Phil - July 11, 2014

@91. Are we watching the same movies?
TMP: V’ger is on a bee-line where? Earth. Enterprise is defending earth.
TWOK: If you’d like to speculate that Starfleet Academy on in a city named San Francisco on some plant other then EARTH, be my guest. Our intrepid crew is busy training cadets….where was that again?
TSFS: Never said there was. As I’m one of those guys who would have kept Spock dead, SFS is nothing more then an exercise in actor ego stroking. Perhaps if they had made a real sci-fi movie, they might have actually gone exploring, but that IS speculation on my part. At least I’ll admit it.
TVH. Earth is earth.
TFF. Yosemite isn’t on earth?
TUC: The second conference was on Khitomer. The first one was supposed to be on…Earth. Further, it looks like all the intelligence briefings and command and control of the whole operation was also on….wait for it…Earth.

All this outrage being voiced that BR Trek is to earth-centric is very misplaced, when you consider that, with a couple of exceptions, all the previous movies were predicated on earth being defended, or that our fearless, exploring crew was now pretty much relegated to teaching classes at the Academy…on Earth. All BR is doing here is carrying on the grand tradition.

95. somethoughts - July 11, 2014

#90

ya did not enjoy his work maybe I should revisit his earlier work

96. Keachick (Rose) - July 11, 2014

Of course, one of the biggest favourite of all TOS episodes, City on the Edge of Forever, was totally earth-centric.

97. Marja, fan of both TOS and BR Trek - July 11, 2014

57 RDR, Zoe Saldana might do it, but I doubt Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine want to risk being pigeonholed and typecast as following Nimoy and Shatner.

They won’t be pigeonholed. Quinto has numerous projects in train yet was able to perform in two 13-episode seasons of the creepy “American Horror Story” [which, much as I adore Quinto, I gave the skip]. With a short quarter-year season, the only thing really at risk is Quinto’s eyebrows. And, much as I like him, Pine’s movies have not exactly had stellar performance at the box office. He’ll be able to capitalize on Trek and build more popularity — and make more movies.

60 TUP, Fine, that’s your POV. I get it. Oscar says it, Herbert says it, and you say it. I will say that the movies are violent and action-y — and I don’t like that so much — but I like the present actors and the characters they inhabit. And I won’t go into the box office profits, b/c others have already done so. You may have more luck with the characters if they “mature” in Trek 3 and go to TV, but you will never be able to restore TOS. It was made in the 1960s. Again — I love it — but I don’t expect it ever to be duplicated in the mass market. For TOS adherents who will never accept anything else, there are excellent fan/pro projects, such as Star Trek Continues.

98. Phil - July 11, 2014

@97. Quinto has already said he’s ready to move on, and he’s not lacking for projects. Pine sounds like he’s game, and there’s some speculation that he may have already signed on for more. Saldana has another couple of franchise movies to deal with, so scheduling could be an issue. Pegg also has other projects, but he seems to enjoy these and likes working with BR. Urban has been a bit of a wash out as a leading man, so I guess he’d take the work, if offered. I’m not personally vested in the idea that we have to have all seven featured, so if Cho, Yeltsin, Pegg, Urban, and Saldana can’t all make it back I don’t think the product suffers if anyone takes a pass on future projects…in my opinion, of course.

99. dswynne - July 11, 2014

@33 (Oscar): So, Orci shouldn’t direct a film because of personality conflicts with SOME fans? Lest we forget, all this started at the Las Vegas Convention, when a bunch of so-called “fans” managed to get “Star Trek: Into Darkness” voted as the worst Star Trek film in the franchise (simply because these “fans” hated the franchise getting a soft reboot) which is laughable considering the existence of “Star Trek: The Final Frontier”. And lest we forget again, it was Simon Pegg who told the critics of STiD to “f-off”, while Orci, after Pegg got slammed for his comments, backed him up. And in the heat of the moment, Orci got into a spat over Ahmed’s comments, after Ahmed mocked Orci over having thin skin over the criticism. Since then, both Orci and Ahmed have buried the hatchet, and are now cordial. These are the facts. So let’s not re-write history simply because it is convenient to do so. I may have had problems with the STiD script, but the film itself was enjoyable. And hopefully, lessons can be learned from the execution of STiD, so that ST3 can be a better product for 2016.

100. Vultan - July 11, 2014

The fact Earth has been featured heavily throughout the film series is all the more reason to move away from it. In TOS we never saw 23rd century Earth (probably for budgetary reasons, but still).

More of that, please.

101. dswynne - July 11, 2014

@73 (IDIC Lives!): I think your assessment is unfair, in that these new versions of the classic characters did not have a five-year mission. In fact, go back to “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. The original entry, made by Kirk’s personal log, didn’t indicate that the USS Enterprise had not embark on a deep space exploration venture yet:

“Captain’s log, Stardate 1312.4. The impossible has happened. From directly ahead, we’re picking up a recorded distress signal, the call letters of a vessel which has been missing for over two centuries. Did another Earth ship probe out of the galaxy as we intend to do? What happened to it out there? Is this some warning they’ve left behind?”

From this, one could assume that the crew of the Enterprise up until this point were not assigned to anything other than routine missions. So why expect the NuEnterprise and crew to have gone deep exploration beyond patrolling and surveying known areas of space, considering the fact that NuKirk has only been captain of the Enterprise for only six months post-Star Trek ’09? It wouldn’t have made sense to send out the NuEnterprise, especially after much of Starfleet was still rebuilding from the Nerada attacks, and would want to see if Kirk being promoted to captain so soon was warranted (in StID, this question was answered, due to the complaints by fan audiences).

I think your problem is that you have had YEARS to find a connection to Prime Kirk and crew, so much so that you are impatient to see this dynamic unfold anew. Maybe you should stop watching Trek for a few years, so that you can get comfortable with the new crew?

102. Marja - July 11, 2014

98 Phil, Well, Quinto may have been referring to the three-month shoots under extra-extra-extra secret conditions, and he definitely hates the haircut and eyebrow-plucking, but I imagine those could be dealt with either through the magic of makeup or the magic of big bucks. He has a production company to fund, after all, and would still have time to do other projects.

Nevertheless, Nimoy, who is now a good friend to Quinto, may have advised him to be very cautious about typecasting. Nimoy suffered from this in the ’60s, but nowadays film and stage actors do TV with no shame, and TV actors are able to get on stage without suffering condescension. [Hooray, we're becoming more like Britain in that respect!] Quinto has done a lot of other work to prevent that, but who knows. I hope he will return to perform Spock, but if he doesn’t, I’m sure they will either find another Spock, or “transfer” Spock and Uhura to another ship or station, and bring in new actors with new roles, with the accompanying drama/humor of the Enterprise officers having to deal with the changes.

103. Phil - July 11, 2014

@100. You’ll get no argument from me. It would be refreshing to see a solid sci-fi story with this crew, where they have to grapple with a situation knowing Starfleet won’t be riding over the ridge to save the day….

104. Phil - July 11, 2014

@102. A lot can happen between now and then…as Rose keeps correctly pointing out, we are speculating, and we don’t know what the talent or the studio have in mind. We just read the tea leaves the best we can…

105. Vultan - July 11, 2014

#103

Amen to that. Set it deep in uncharted space. Strange new worlds. Mysterious and weird. Dig it.

106. Vultan - July 11, 2014

Off-topic (but very funny)

Steven Spielberg, animal poacher.

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/facebook-sparks-outrage-over-steven-152000792.html

107. Disinvited - July 11, 2014

#96. Keachick (Rose) – July 11, 2014

The only way that CotEoF could possibly be “totally” Earth-centric is if the planet on which The Guardian was found was located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

108. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

Sony is not happy with ASM 2 $700 million box office !!! Talk about greedy studio!

=======================
Roberto Orci “Not Officially Involved” in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 3; Franchise Timeline in Limbo

When your movie brings in over $700 million worldwide, you’d think you’re in pretty great shape, right? Well, not when the movie is The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and it ranks as the lowest box office in the franchise’s five films to date.

In the movie-making world of big studio productions, that means changes are a comin’. One of the early casualties might just be screenwriter/producer Roberto Orci, who penned the Spidey sequel with former writing partner Alex Kurtzman. While the duo went their separate ways to work on their own projects, Orci was supposedly part of Sony’s brain trust that would tackle not only The Amazing Spider-Man 3, but also franchise spin-offs Venom and The Sinister Six. Now, the state of those future films also appears to be in disarray.

http://collider.com/the-amazing-spider-man-3-roberto-orci/

109. LittleLebowski - July 11, 2014

96. Keachick, I have to agree with you. Most people that say ‘Star Trek is about exploring’ only have it half-right. Star Trek is about exploring the human condition via the metaphor of ‘space exploration’.

It’s a lot of philosophical what-if stories and morality tales, thinly disguised versions of real-life events and topics. At its best they wove in their takes on cult-like rigid ideologies, the state vs. the individual, the idea of free will / destiny, the morality of war, racism / extremism, the limits and dangers of technological progress, the pain of adolescence, the horrible things people do in wartime occupation or extreme circumstances and how they learn to live with themselves afterwards; how power corrupts… usually set against some sort of ticking-clock Macguffin that moves the plot along.

You could rewrite most of TOS as a Western or an Earthbound military / police drama.

Very occasionally were there stories that fell into “true SF” territory – the monster-of-the-week episodes, parallel worlds and time travel being most notable.

But true “space exploration?” I mean, to show that on TV would basically be following a bunch of geologists around a new asteroid as they take rock samples, or doing spectral analysis of some star, or lots of visually unflashy math work…

110. Red Dead Ryan - July 11, 2014

#65.

The Empire poll is pretty credible considering the vast majority of the movies have been critically acclaimed and considered classics by the general audience.

I think, for whatever reason, “Transformers” being included was an exception.

111. Ahmed - July 11, 2014

@ 110. Red Dead Ryan – July 11, 2014

“The Empire poll is pretty credible”

Nope, a poll where they rank The Avengers at #16 among the “Greatest Movies Of All-Time” is not credible at all & to put “Transformers” there is absurd.

112. Disinvited - July 11, 2014

# 109. LittleLebowski – July 11, 2014

” But true “space exploration?” I mean, to show that on TV would basically be following a bunch of geologists around a new asteroid as they take rock samples, or doing spectral analysis of some star, or lots of visually unflashy math work…” — LittleLebowski

And strangely enough, in the real world, robot geologists with nary any emotional range did exactly that and generated all sorts of coverage and buzz while exploring Mars — go figure.

113. Vultan - July 11, 2014

#111

I don’t know who came up with the list or how many, but reading through it I kept thinking it was a couple of people, one older, one younger, making trades. “Okay, you can have Gone with the Wind in there, but you gotta give me Star Trek Into Darkness.”

;-)

Maybe they have a different idea what “greatest” means. Maybe they’re thinking in terms of box office. I just wouldn’t put so-so popcorn entertainment that doesn’t have a greater influence on the culture on that list.

114. Captain Slow - July 12, 2014

@ 111 Ahmed

As opposed to a poll that ranked STID as #13 in a franchise with 12 movies?

115. Captain Slow - July 12, 2014

Has anyone here seen this video before?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcIjOMGIU&feature=youtu.be

Absolutely awesome! (except that the music should have been Enterprising Young Men)

116. Cervantes - July 12, 2014

I first read about this news on the Collider link that someone posted a couple of days back.

But what really caught my eye over there was the fact that a certain poster called ‘MJ’ had written a few contributions there, lol. Scroll down the responses after the article to see his rant about Trekmovie.com, lol. – http://www.collider.com/star-trek-3-script-roberto-orci/

117. Cervantes - July 12, 2014

Edit: just noticed that the Collider article has actually been included near the top of this article. But do check out the responses, regardless.

118. IDIC Lives! - July 12, 2014

#115 Captain Slow
I love the video, good for those guys! It points up the obvious fact that Star Trek is about space exploration – the deeper space, the better.

Keachick,
“City on the Edge of Forever” was called by Gene Roddenberry, “Not Star Trek, “meaning that it was an amazing science fiction story which Trek decided to do with some changes.

The Guardian was on an alien planet, it was not “earth-based.” Time travel is science fiction too and Star Trek is science fiction. Quantum research shows space and time are intricately connected and–never mind–you won’t get it.

As for the rest of Star Trek TOS not being about space exploration, your ignorance is blinding. You don’t even “get” that.

Save your venom, I am not bothering with this thread. I honestly tried to explain something at the core of my criticism of nuTrek. I accept other people’s opposing comments, no problem, as legitimate arguments.

Your comments, however, stick out as usual like a sore, infected thumb. So, Star Trek is not about space exploration. Your comments are pathetic and ignorant.

119. Lurker - July 12, 2014

Simply stated, and if we can believe what has been alluded to – Star Trek 13 could be the FIRST original crew movie that does not start at earth, visit earth, and/or end up on earth.

Let’s hope the writers, and more importantly Paramount, have the courage to make this the first movie true to the TOS format.

120. Curious Cadet - July 12, 2014

@94. Phil,
“All BR is doing here is carrying on the grand tradition.”

I see this “defense” from you repeatedly in these forums. Maybe you are just pointing out the obvious, but for my money I would like to see someone do something with Trek other than repeating the mistakes of the past.

Bad science, murky plot points, questionable villain motivations, silly comedy, Earth-centric stories, the untested enterprise is the only ship available to respond to an emergency … and on and on …

Is it too much to expect someone to treat the franchise seriously and invest some real effort into making Star Trek better than it was, rather than merely regurgitating the same old tropes we’ve seen for 40 years, only with a bigger budget?

If I had to level any one criticism against Abrams and Orci, it’s that they seem to have this nostalgic bent on reliving the pop culture moments that so entertained them in their childhood. And it’s not just Star Trek, it’s everything they do. Pop trivia permeates our culture in ever distracting levels.

How about telling us a story then, that doesn’t just retell their favorite movies with a kitschy twist? Maybe instead find a way to move the franchise forward by covering new ground that hasn’t been covered, boldly go where no filmmaker has gone with Trek before.

121. Captain Slow - July 12, 2014

@ 120 Curious Cadet

The main point is that if you are going to condemn the BR movies for those faults then you have to condemn all of them.

The only Star Trek movie not to feature Earth was Insurrection. And that was hardly the finest moment in the franchise. The only movies not to have traditional villains and have exploration aspects were TMP and TVH. Now a lot of fans love TMP but TFF is almost universally hated (personally I have a soft spot for it). So getting away from Earth, having no villain, and being about exploration does not guarantee greatness. Of course being Earth-centric, villain-packed, and action-focused doesn’t guarantee it either. It’s all in the execution.

122. Jonboc - July 12, 2014

#94 “All this outrage being voiced that BR Trek is to earth-centric is very misplaced, when you consider that, with a couple of exceptions, all the previous movies were predicated on earth being defended, or that our fearless, exploring crew was now pretty much relegated to teaching classes at the Academy…on Earth.”

I’ve often found that facts, especially facts that lend credence to an opposing view, are often conveniently forgotten…especially on this forum! lol

123. LittleLebowski - July 12, 2014

#112 Disinvited

Don’t get me wrong, science is awesome. But it is rarely an exciting spectator sport. The results of what the Mars Rovers are doing, and the photos they bring back, are amazing. But watching them sloooooowly drive towards a distant object wouldn’t really make for a dramatic movie.

Likewise, science as portrayed in movies and TV is usually all whiz-bang, infinite zoom, instant answers, pop some miniscule sample into a tiny sensor and the computer can analyze it instantly.

Unless, of course, for plot purposes, we need the computer to have to take hours and hours to crunch the numbers.

Whereas in reality 99% of the science is happening in clunky old-style email lists, in conversations on whiteboards, researching existing literature, figuring out how to make the tool you need in order to detect the thingy you think you’re looking for…. and then you need to run the numbers multiple times to get a proper control group… oh did I mention this usually takes YEARS?

My point being, science in Star Trek is a backdrop, an excuse to bring our characters together in their workplace (the Enterprise) the same way that politics was the setting for The West Wing, which brought its characters together in the White House.

It’s nice when they get the science right, but Star Trek was not a science program like The Nature of Things or Nova. The “science” (loosely termed) was there to move the story of the week along.

It’s like saying King Lear is a documentary about medieval English royalty, when it’s actually about a fictional king and the tragic relationship he has with his children… his being King is a Macguffin, in that he has absolute power and demands absolute fealty, and the tragedy is that he can’t tell the good daughter from the evil ones.

124. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@ 113. Vultan – July 11, 2014

“I don’t know who came up with the list or how many, but reading through it I kept thinking it was a couple of people, one older, one younger, making trades. “Okay, you can have Gone with the Wind in there, but you gotta give me Star Trek Into Darkness.””

Yep, the list of “Greatest Movies Of All-Time” is full of summer action movies like Iron Man, Man of Steel, The Avengers, that you can’t help thinking that was clearly made by some kids who think that these movies are best movies EVER!!

A spot on comment on their site: “The staff at Empire should be embarrassed at the results of this list. It means their primary demographic is now pre-pubescent boys. Far, far too many ‘flavour of the month’ choices that won’t make a Top 1000 List in less than a decade.”

@ 114. Captain Slow – July 12, 2014

“As opposed to a poll that ranked STID as #13 in a franchise with 12 movies?”

I was talking specifically about the Empire’s poll. No one is going to take that poll seriously when they include every forgettable action movies from The Transformers to the Marvel movies as the “Greatest Movies Of All-Time”. This is ridiculous to say the least.

125. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@116. Cervantes

M-J is just a sore loser.

126. LittleLebowski - July 12, 2014

#118 IDIC Lives,

Aren’t you splitting hairs there to make your point?

The Guardian of Forever is on a planet, but the majority of the action in the episode takes place on Earth in the 1930s.

For all practical purposes, the Guardian is a MacGuffin that gets our characters into a nice philosophical “what if” story – what are the ethics of time travel?

The real point of the episode isn’t space exploration, it’s a _moral_ exploration, because it’s about having to make a choice. How does saving Edith Keeler’s life change history? Why does Kirk, in the end, choose not to save her, when he could have easily been selfish, and lived with her in a now-altered timeline, abandoning his colleagues, his ship and the Federation…

Often forgotten: Do some people *not* have an effect on history? Remember, the bum that accidentally vaporizes himself…

It raises more philosophical than scientific questions. Whose history is “correct?” We don’t get into the mechanics of time travel, grandfather paradoxes or the Multi-Worlds quantum interpretation. It’s a big papier-maché ring with lights and dry ice. That’s all the audience needs to know: it’s magic.

The location of the Guardian was not really a key plot point. Of course they come across it in space — the show is SET in space, where else would they find it?

You could redo the exact same story as an episode of Stargate:SG1, and find it in a cave or put it on the island from Lost. Only some of the “wrapper” details would change.

In a real world production perspective, it’s quite economical — a redress and relight of the planet-of-papier-maché-rocks set and then the Paramount street backlot.

127. Red Dead Ryan - July 12, 2014

Ahmed,

Most people would agree that both “Iron Man”, “The Avengers” are classics. No doubt about it. They are highly critically acclaimed as well as popular with the general audience.

But, its a side issue. Your main beef is the fact that the BR Trek movies are on the list.

If they hadn’t been included, you’d hold the list in much higher regards, even praising it.

Your hate for the reboot movies has clouded your judgement.

128. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@ 127. Red Dead Ryan – July 12, 2014

“Most people would agree that both “Iron Man”, “The Avengers” are classics. No doubt about it. They are highly critically acclaimed as well as popular with the general audience.”

You actually believe that these action movies are classic, wow.

“But, its a side issue. Your main beef is the fact that the BR Trek movies are on the list. If they hadn’t been included, you’d hold the list in much higher regards, even praising it.”

Sorry to disappoint you but my main problem that a movie like The Avengers, a good summer action movie no denying that, is raking high above Sci-Fi classics like The Matrix, Alien, The Thing, Planet of The Apes, Terminator 2 & so many other movies.

The list should be retitled Greatest SUMMER Movies Of All-Time, that would make more sense.

129. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

116: Cervantes

He BS-es about this site and the best part is a then guy asks him:

“Do you have this view because you were banned from that site?”

Another individual responds to him:

“Oh, you poor, poor blighted fool…” ;^)

LOL

130. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

That should be: ” ….and the best part is then a guy asks him:

“Do you have this view because you were banned from that site?”

131. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

Guys we should go the collider article comments and answer emmjey in his various “personalities” (joking, but hey if anyone wants to go for it.;^) he took on here when he turned this board into “m-j’s inferno”: arguing with himself and others – disrupting the board: Disco Spock, K-7, Dopey, Sneezy etc, etc, . He was cast out and now it’s like paradise in comparison.

LLAP

132. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

“go to the collider article”

133. Curious Cadet - July 12, 2014

@121. Captain Slow,
“The main point is that if you are going to condemn the BR movies for those faults then you have to condemn all of them.”

And I’ve said this before as well … I don’t know any fan that doesn’t address the many flaws of the previous movies. I keep seeing this strawman argument propped up that the fans complain about the new movies but forgive the old ones. I just don’t see it. And here’s the thing, the first three movies get a pass as they have the benefit of being the progenitors. TWOK in particular is essentially a reboot of TMP, so we can even give TVH a pass on repeating the earth in peril formula.

You say the main point is this, but every time this argument comes up, I rarely see anyone saying the first 10 movies were so much better than BR Trek. In this case the point originally posited seems to have originated @ 73 by IDIC Lives! — in which he said they rebooted Star Trek (which many fans accepted), but then didn’t really deliver on the promise. So maybe we can forgive STID as a rebooted origin story grounded on Earth, but not only did STID not deliver on the promise of getting us out into space exploring, they essentially rehashed a character who originated out in space in TOS, and brought his story back to Earth, thus compounding the mistakes of the past films.

So the point I see coming up over and over is that we’re going back to the same old formula the Trek films have followed for the last 40 years, despite efforts to reboot the franchise presumably to get away from the same tired routine the previous filmmakers fell into, not that the previous films were so much better.

However, to the extent that people do say that, I am in total agreement with you.

134. Captain Slow - July 12, 2014

On the MJ subject, there’s something that I find funny every time I drive past it. On a bridge near where I live someone wrote “MJ I <3 YOU". However I think it's probably referring to Michael Jackson.

135. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

49. Phil – July 11, 2014

“Bob, there’s a career in politics just waiting for you when you get done in Hollywood. Most of your interviews rival anything that comes out of a Washington press conference – forty five minutes of weighty tone and inflection, and no useful information….yeah, politics would suit you well.”

Actually Bob is already active politically. On Wednesday, he attended the DNC Austin fundraiser.

========================

‘Matador’ Co-Creator Roberto Orci on the Complexity of Immigration Reform

On Wednesday, Rodriguez drew an A-list crowd to his home in Austin, Texas, including several prominent Latino players in the entertainment industry like writer and producer Roberto Orci (“Mission Impossible 3,” “The Amazing Spider-Man 2″ and “Star Trek”), Voto Latino’s Rosario Dawson, actress Jessica Alba, singer Demi Lovato and actor Danny Trejo, as well as President Barack Obama, who had a jam-packed day that included fundraisers in Denver and Dallas.[...]

“Mainly, I am there … I will be honest, to just get my picture with the president … a selfie,” Orci joked during an exclusive Q&A with Latin Post for the New York premiere of “Matador,” the second scripted TV series on Rodriguez’s new English-language network, El Rey.

“I can’t stand here and tell you that I know what the answer is to what’s going on, and I can’t stand here and tell you that I think even the president knows. I think being someone who is multicultural as our president is, he understands that the issue of immigration is more complicated than it is possible to say in a 20-second sound bite,” Orci continued.

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/16938/20140712/matador-co-creator-roberto-orci-complexity-immigration-reform.htm

========================

Totally agree with him on this issue. I hope that he & the others will continue supporting the DNC to retake the House in the midterm elections.

136. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@98 Phil &102. Marja

At the end of this interview, Quinto is vague regarding his role after the 3rd movie.

===================
Quinto’s participation in the third film was never actually in doubt but after that movie it’s an open question.

“We all signed on for three movies so we’re coming up to the conclusion of that commitment,” Quinto said. “It will be interesting to see how our relationship to the franchise evolves beyond that point.”

http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/arts-entertainment-living/tuned-in/item/38123-press-tour-zach-quinto-on-returning-to-star-trek-heroes-reborn
===================

137. THX-1138 - July 12, 2014

#94-Phil

From where I stand you’re kind of reaching. In most of your examples earth takes up about 10% of screen time at most, the One With The Whales notwithstanding. And of course earth is going to be at least a part of the plot: Starfleet Headquarters and the Federation seat are both based here. But for example in TMP the crew spends a huge bulk of the movie inside Vger, basically exploring. There is even an extensive scene of the gathered galactic explorations of the combined Voyager and machine culture’s journey.

I guess this all comes down to an issue of perspective. I’m not lauding Prime Universe Star Trek over JJ Trek in terms of how earth centric either is. I just don’t share your opinion but would also like Star Trek to be more an exploration of the unknown and how these experiences affect the crew. My total preference would be for Star Trek to quit reliving the past, whatever new spins could be made on familiar stories. Throw the story forward and let us all, characters and audience alike, go on new adventures

138. TUP - July 12, 2014

IDIC hit the nail on the head. I thought the premise of using Nimoy and the time travel device (as weak it was, it was okay to over-look if the big picture worked…which it didnt). The idea that they were free from the “constraints” of canon and gave themselves some freedom.

But this isnt Star Trek. These arent the characters we know. Please no one give me BS about their different outside forces and raised differently and all this garbage. Make an original Trek movie with original Trek characters if you dislike James Kirk and Mr Spock that much. But again, you cant really do that because even the premise is all wrong, as IDIC stated – this isnt Star Fleet.

What a disaster. And Im dismayed that they are going to treat the anniversary like any other and not give us a big epic to “fix” the problems. They are going to play in the sandbox they created. Well here’s some advice: When someone craps in the sandbox, stop playing in it.

139. Keachick (Rose) - July 12, 2014

As I have mentioned before, I have a short story outline which did have the Enterprise discovering a whole new planetary and alien beings not discovered before, as far as I know, in any other iteration of Star Trek.

If I am correct, I am the ONLY PERSON to actually tell of alien beings and their planet(s) that have nothing to do with any other known race like Klingons, Romulans, Tholians et al.

While people keep talking about wanting to see the folk going where no one (presumably human is meant here), all I see are suggestions for the re-use of known peoples. I do not have a problem with that per se, but if you want to see something original, don’t keep harping back to races, beings already known about within the Star Trek universe(s).

IDIC – “The Guardian was on an alien planet, it was not “earth-based.” Time travel is science fiction too and Star Trek is science fiction. Quantum research shows space and time are intricately connected and–never mind–you won’t get it.”

Yes, I know that. The Guardian of Forever was placed on a far off alien planet and was estimated to be about one million years old. The original inhabitants had long since gone and it simply sat there looking for a question. Soon after, Kirk and Spock were taken back to New York(?), earth in the 1930’s depression years and the story remained there until their timeline could be restored by Kirk preventing McCoy from saving Edith Keeler.

The Guardian of Forever was in outer space, but the story took place on earth.

I am well aware that it was science-fiction dealing with the possible repercussions of time-travel. Only Kirk, Spock and Dr McCoy could make things “right” again, not the Guardian of Forever. It just presented a time and place and a “magical” means through which the characters could get themselves there and back to wherever they were to start with.

140. Disinvited - July 12, 2014

# 123. LittleLebowski – July 12, 2014

“But watching them sloooooowly drive towards a distant object wouldn’t really make for a dramatic movie.” — LittleLebowski

I think you will find that Kubrik’s 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY did find a way to do precisely that and was rewarded monetarily and critically for it.

TMP was definitely influenced by that style of movie making and was rewarded monetarily for it as well.

Also in the first series’ episode WINK OF AN EYE, you will find many scenes of actors doing precisely that: moving slowly across the set.

” Whereas in reality 99% of the science is happening in clunky old-style email lists, in conversations on whiteboards, researching existing literature, figuring out how to make the tool you need in order to detect the thingy you think you’re looking for…. and then you need to run the numbers multiple times to get a proper control group… oh did I mention this usually takes YEARS?” — LittleLebowski

I think you will find that Ron Howard found a way to do just that in APOLLO 13 and A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

” It’s like saying King Lear is a documentary about medieval English royalty, when it’s actually about a fictional king and the tragic relationship he has with his children… his being King is a Macguffin, in that he has absolute power and demands absolute fealty, and the tragedy is that he can’t tell the good daughter from the evil ones.”” — LittleLebowski

If you had studied any English Literature in HS through college, I think you would have found that many scholars propose precisely what you appear to claim is unreasonable: that Shakespeare used fictional and historical fictions to expediently comment upon, and document the last vestiges of medieval English royalty contemporary to his times while keeping his head attached to his body, i.e. a documentary as much as he could get away with by cleverly disguising it as merely fiction. Roddenberry seemed particularly taken with this view in his numerous throwbacks to the Bard in his “science-fictions”.

141. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@131. B Kramer

After reading his “essay”, it is clear that the guy is having some serious issues!

M-J: “for example, see the constant personal battles between a poster called Keachick and others for instance..that’s ugly and disturbing”

Coming from him for all people, this easily wins the Joke of the Day Award!

And then this gem:

MJ: “For anyone wanting real and original news on the new Star Trek movies, and who also want to avoid that small, but incessantly vitriolic subgroup of nuTrek haters, I recommend using Trekcore and Collider as your primary news sources, and places to post legitimate fan comments.”

I guess that he forget to check Trekcore before posting his “essay”. The front page is full of news about Blu-ray comparison videos & comics but nothing at all about the new Orci & Quinto interviews.

Trekcore is a great site when it come to Star Trek merchandise but with the exception of the exclusive interview with the new guys, they do take their time to post movies related news as it was the case this week.

142. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

Meant o , not for in this sentence “Coming from him for all people”

143. Vultan - July 12, 2014

#141

Ha, yeah, I noticed those comments there too. Maybe you should ask him which personality he’s using today.

As our friends in England would say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2vAdytmkBc

144. Disinvited - July 12, 2014

#142. Ahmed – July 12, 2014

Some days, you hit the keys and others, the keys hit you.

145. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@143. Vultan

“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2vAdytmkBc”

LOL

I talked with him once on Trekcore & didn’t see a reason to engage with him again. And as you can see from his posts, he is still fighting the good fight for the soul of Nu-Trek!! But this time, he added trekmovie, the site, to the list of his enemies!!!

A strange person indeed!

146. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@144. Disinvited

Yep :-)

147. dswynne - July 12, 2014

@138 (TUP):

“But this isnt Star Trek. These arent the characters we know. Please no one give me BS about their different outside forces and raised differently and all this garbage.”

I guess you haven’t seen the TOS episode “Mirror, Mirror”, or any other subsequent episode relating to “Mirror, Mirror”, on how characters can be affected by “different outside forces” and be “raised differently” when historical events are changed. In fact, didn’t “City on the Edge of Forever” touched on how the timeline can be changed? Your argument, save for wanting BR to produce original material, is unfounded.

The fact of the matter is that the Nerada Incursion DID change create an alternate timeline, and it was Prime Spock that managed to set things right as best as possible. Actually, the events of STID restored much of the original dynamic of Kirk and crew to something that was much more recognizable. I call into evidence the TOS episode “Obsession”, in which Kirk relates a tale of a time when he had his “ultimate” test involving an alien monster that killed most of his old crew, including his commanding officer, back when he was a fresh officer out of Starfleet Academy. That event would would have a humbling impact on his life (the same way that in the TNG episode “Tapestry” would have an impact on Picard’s life), which would make Kirk the man we would all know. STiD is essentially the same thing, in which NuKirk learned humility while facing the ultimate “no win scenario”, thus setting the stage to be the kind of officer ready for the 5-Year Mission Project. Sure, the plot could have been less derivative (which is why BR using Khan the way they did was “silly”), but the movie was designed to answer the critics of the film who was concerned that Kirk was promoted from cadet to the rank of “Captain” way to fast. And now that STiD is done, we can get to the meat of the matter: deep space exploration in search of strange new worlds, etc.

That is why this need to bag on BR is silly and overly-obsessive, especially since Orci himself said that the concerns over STiD will be addressed in the next film. You should really relax about this, at least until we know something of a plot when the film production has released a teaser trailer.

And speaking of plots, here is something that I want to see in the film’s structure:

1) Opening scene would be the closing of an adventure that homages a classic TOS episode. It should one that is both recognizable, yet not readily so. The scene on Nibiru is, IMO, the best part of STID. More of that.

2) Original adventure. Don’t care what it is, as long as there is no one who could point to a previous episode of film to make the accusation that BR simply did a cut-and-paste job for the new film. This is where Orci and his writing team should make the effort in coming up something new that is neither a homage or a parody of something that I can’t use Google to find out. But most importantly, avoid copying themes from other films, even if they are topical. I noticed similar elements in STiD within the movie “Iron Man 3″. In fact, there were a lot of film recently who copied each other, months apart from their release:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_films

And most of them are not “parody” films. I know it’s difficult to develop a plot that hasn’t been done before, but, please make the effort. BR’s next ‘Trek film needs to stand out from the rest of the films being put out, while being entertaining. And most of all, the adventure has to be in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s vision, especially since we’re coming up on the 50th anniversary of the franchise. Don’t disappoint. And, please, no antagonist bent on vengeance. There are other reasons why a character can be “the bad guy” without having been “wronged”. In fact, the bad guy could be perfectly logical in his or her motives, and quite sincere without being “insane”.

3) Closing scene would be the START of another homage to a classic TOS episode. It can be silly, but a nice wrap up to the movie while being recognizable. In fact, the closer could connect to the opener in some manner, especially within the dialogue.

As bonus, if I could suggest a title to the film, it should be something based upon what Dr. McCoy said to Kirk, based upon what was said when they first met “(“Space is a disease wrapped in DARKNESS and SILENCE!”). StiD has the DARKNESS. Work SILENCE into the title of the next film. Point is, Kirk and crew, in spite of these “hazards” are explorers who are charged with the task of going boldly where no man has gone before, which should be a hint as to what type of story the main plot will be about. Just don’t go “Event Horizon” on us. I don’t think Trek fandom is ready to have horror elements injected into franchise, even if the story is pure sci-fi (though, seeing BR’s take on TNG’s Borg or VOY’s Vidians would definitely inject horror elements in NuTrek).

Anyway, good luck…

148. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

141 Ahmed yep, have you been back at the comments section?

http://www.collider.com/star-trek-3-script-roberto-orci/

149. TrekMadeMeFat - July 12, 2014

I don’t have El Rey Network. I’ve never heard of El Rey Network until now.

150. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@148. B Kramer

Nope, I just read the comments section but don’t make any comment myself at Collider.

151. B Kramer - July 12, 2014

150 No I meant just checking it out. It’s the usual mj fest.

152. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@ 151. B Kramer – July 12, 2014

“No I meant just checking it out. It’s the usual mj fest.”

Yep, I find it a bit hilarious when you see M-J upvoting his own comments !!

Anyhow.

153. Ahmed - July 12, 2014

@147. dswynne

I agree with all your three points. If they manage to pull that off, we will get an amazing Trek movie worthy of the 50th anniversary. We can only hope & wait.

154. Cygnus-X1 - July 12, 2014

123. LittleLebowski – July 12, 2014

My point being, science in Star Trek is a backdrop, an excuse to bring our characters together in their workplace (the Enterprise) the same way that politics was the setting for The West Wing, which brought its characters together in the White House.

I appreciate your point about realism in fiction often not being sufficiently dramatic or compatible, but you extend the point too far by saying that science has traditionally been nothing more than a backdrop or setting for Trek.

That’s simply not true.

Ask the many NASA astronauts, engineers, professional scientists, etc…who have been motivated into their professions by Trek, and they will tell you that the spark of curiosity came from the scientific concepts in Trek, among other things. Look at the various real-world technological inventions that have been borne from Trek—video chat, cell phone design, universal translator, transparent aluminum, iPad… These technologies were fictional concepts in Trek before they were real and functional technologies. Trek was the drawing board, the first stage in their development. “Science” fiction.

And it’s not the lack of realism per se that people complain about in movies. Everyone knows that you can’t show everything happening in real time in a movie that runs 2 hrs. Don’t fall into the trap of conflating this with the real issue, which is whether the various story elements, devices, scenes, etc…in the movie are done well, not necessarily “realistically.” Whether or not events in the movie happen for a good reason with respect to the story, its theme, the characters, their motivations, and so on. In other words, whether or not the movie and its various parts make sense.

155. Cygnus-X1 - July 12, 2014

135. Ahmed – July 12, 2014

I fully support Bob in that cause as well.

156. Cygnus-X1 - July 12, 2014

147. dswynne – July 12, 2014

That is why this need to bag on BR is silly and overly-obsessive, especially since Orci himself said that the concerns over STiD will be addressed in the next film. You should really relax about this, at least until we know something of a plot when the film production has released a teaser trailer.

If you really believe that your characterization applies to all of the criticism relating to BR Trek, then you’re simply not understanding the points being made.

Further, the script for the new movie is being written as we speak. What better time to weigh in than now?!? If we all take your advice and wait for the movie to be nearly finished before voicing criticism, what effect is that likely to have on the finished product? At least if people sound off now, there’s a chance—maybe the slimmest of chances, but still a physical possibility—that the criticism might have some beneficial effect.

157. Cygnus-X1 - July 12, 2014

147. dswynne – July 12, 2014

I guess you haven’t seen the TOS episode “Mirror, Mirror”, or any other subsequent episode relating to “Mirror, Mirror”, on how characters can be affected by “different outside forces” and be “raised differently” when historical events are changed.

And you’ve totally missed TUP’s point here.

It’s not just about the BR characters being different; it’s that they’re so different and for no good purpose. The characters having been raised differently, and therefore being different than their Prime Universe counterparts, alone isn’t sufficiently interesting, compelling nor meaningful as a premise. OK, they’re different. So what?

In Mirror, Mirror as well as its ENT variation and the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes, the Mirror versions of the characters live in a very different variation of the Federation. The characters’ differences are all related to the differences of the society in which they live. The characters’ motivations flow directly from their different personality attributes. It’s all cohesive and ties into an overarching theme—a larger, meaningful point about society and how it shapes the people who live in it.

Conversely, in BR Trek there is no such overarching theme tied into the characters’ differences. At least, not a very meaningful one. People tend to fall back on Alt Spock’s mother’s death as the explanation Alt Spock’s being so unSpock-like and unVulcan. But, apart from the initial scene in ST09 where Kirk exploits Spock’s mental state to wrest command from him, there has been no further treatment of a theme relating to Spock’s mental state vis-a-vis his mother’s death. It’s a non-theme. So, what’s the point of having a Vulcan character who’s even more of an emotional basket case than an average human on a bad day? Why not just make the character HUMAN. Or some other species not known for having attributes which Alt Spock doesn’t have.

Anyway, this point has been made several times already. The BR characters are badly written. That’s all there is to it. The characters’ attributes are superficial and arbitrary. They’re excessively emotional because Paramount and/or JJ Abrams wanted to make Star Trek less Trek-like and more Star Wars-like. But they didn’t need to bastardize the TOS characters in order to execute their plan; they only did so in order to eat their cake and still have it—to cash in on the rich, multi-generational, world renowned legacy of TOS and also tailor it in accordance with their global focus group research results, the foreign market and so on. This way, they figured, they could pull in everyone—keep the Trek fans while attracting people who don’t like Trek.

158. Captain Slow - July 13, 2014

@ 157 Cygnus-X1

“The BR characters are badly written. That’s all there is to it.”

That is simply your opinion. You cannot state it as fact. Some people feel the way you do and others such as myself feel the exact opposite. There’s no scientific way to measure how good a movie is. You thought it was poorly written, I thought it was one of the best ST movies. But neither of those views are right, and neither of them are wrong. It’s simply our own opinions.

159. dswynne - July 13, 2014

@156 (Cygnus-X1): I’m not saying that one shouldn’t be concerned about the next film. Heck, I just wrote MY concerns about the franchise, and what I want to see in ST3. All I am saying is RELAX. We all know Orci lurks on TrekMovie, so it’s not like he isn’t unaware of the concerns of the fans. No need to needle the man unless he deserves it.

160. dswynne - July 13, 2014

@157 (Cygnus-X1): How are the NuTrek characters “badly written”? I need examples if I am either going to refute or agree with your assessment. Besides, you more or less agreed with my original premise: the events of the NuTimeline had an effect on the characters. In fact, that was the point of the events in STiD, with the militarization of Starfleet on the surface. I will also contend that Prime Spock’s appearance began the process of “righting” the timeline to something more of what we are familiar, though the characters will never be exactly be duplicates of the Prime Timeline crew.

Normally, I don’t do this, but there is a FF.net story that has an interesting take on the differences between Prime Kirk and crew and Nu Kirk and crew:

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8670214/1/What-Makes-the-Men-We-Are

Interesting take, I think.

161. Curious Cadet - July 13, 2014

@158. Captain Slow,
“Some people feel the way you do and others such as myself feel the exact opposite.”

You feel nu-Spock is a well written character?

I’m just curious. If so, do you mean well written from a story point in context of these movies, or do you mean as in being faithful to the original source material?

Seriously, there may be no scientific way to measure how a good a movie is, but it’s pretty black & white when it comes to things like character depiction. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t like or hate how a character is depicted, but if they start changing fundamental aspects of a character, then compared to the original creation, it can be said he was “badly written”.

If they re-wrote James Bond so that he was a pacifist, and flamboyantly gay, and in a monogamous relationship — no matter how well they pulled it off in the movie in which he made such an appearance — would you still say the character was well written?

Perhaps the confusion here is over semantics. I don’t think this Nu-Spock has much in common with the character created by Roddenberry and Nimoy, and to varying degrees neither do any of the other characters. Do I enjoy them in the new movies? Sure, in context. But compared to who they are supposed to be, they aren’t very faithful to the source material, and that’s either good or bad depending on how important that is to you.

162. IDIC Lives! - July 13, 2014

Cygnus X1,

I make this remark to you because I think you might have empathy with it: Logic and an effort at excellence, two things not always understood.

Deep sigh.

Not talking to anyone else in this particular remark, so please don’t bother to bicker and dicker. Thanks.

163. WalkingAlmostDead - July 13, 2014

I’m well aware the house got cleaned, but it doesn’t negate the fact that I, as well as many others, have lost that spark we had when ST 2009 debuted. Something truly phenomenal is going to have to happen (I don’t want another remake) because I just don’t care.

@ 54. Oscar – You couldn’t be more wrong.

164. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

158. Captain Slow – July 13, 2014

Yeah, OK. Just insert “…for the reasons stated herein” after my opinion.

As for your opinion here: I thought it was one of the best ST movies.

That’s not necessarily mutually exclusive with my opinion.

Maybe you didn’t care for the other Trek movies for various reasons, and so by comparison, you think STID is one of the best. Also, maybe you were extremely impressed with the other attributes of the film—the actors’ performances, the slick production values, the way that the movie was directed and cut together, the fast pacing, the aesthetics, the music, the sound effects, etc.

There are things to like about STID. But, in my opinion, as you say, the writing is not one of them. And, for what it’s worth, most critics tended to be of similar opinion. Reviews praising the writing of STID are few and far between, if they exist at all.

165. Harry Ballz - July 13, 2014

Star Trek Into Darkness was a convoluted mess. A stupid plot strung together with a handful of big action scenes. A disaster of a movie.

Saying the screenwriting for STID is good would be like saying the plotline for Plan Nine From Outer space is on a par with The Usual Suspects.

166. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

160. dswynne – July 13, 2014

@157 (Cygnus-X1): How are the NuTrek characters “badly written”? I need examples if I am either going to refute or agree with your assessment.

Man…I just told you in that post that you’re responding to (#157)!! I

I’ll try to sum up some of the common points made:

(1) Kirk is not believable as Captain. He is irresponsible and largely bereft of leadership attributes. His enthusiasm and willingness to rush into danger are his only qualifications for being captain of the Federation flag ship.

(2) Spock is not believable as First Officer. He’s an emotional trainwreck who comes unglued in every movie.

(3) Because both Spock and Kirk have been re-written to be more emotional (again, subsequent to Paramount global focus group research results), the original role of the McCoy character in the “troika” has been eliminated. In TOS, Spock was the cold, calculating logic; McCoy was all heart and compassion; and Kirk was the practical decision-maker positioned in between the two polar opposites. In BR Trek, Spock is the entire troika rolled up in one, exhibiting whatever part of it a particular scene calls for—sometimes reasonable, sometimes unglued, sometimes passionate.

(4) Consequently, BR’s McCoy is now little more than a grump. He’s grumpy. That’s pretty much the McCoy character.

(5) Kirk never really learns a meaningful lesson throughout the movies—the Kirk character has no “arc.” He violates Star Fleet regulations, is demoted, and re-promoted 10 minutes later. He spouts off some supposed “lesson” at the end of STID, but it’s totally divorced from the events in the movie which preceded it. We never see Kirk so consumed with lust for revenge that he verges on becoming as twisted and evil as his enemy. It just doesn’t happen in the movie. It’s a non-theme, in spite of the writers trying to fool us into thinking otherwise with Kirk’s little speech at the end.

There’s plenty more, but I’m just rehashing what’s been said before. These points have been argued to death. When considering them, just don’t fall into the trap of doing the writers’ jobs for them, i.e. inventing backstories and scenes that never existed in an effort to rationalize the shallow writing. As TUP said, you can’t explain it all away simply with “Well, this is an alternate universe, so things are different.” Again, as I said in #157….So what?

167. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

159. dswynne – July 13, 2014

@156 (Cygnus-X1): I’m not saying that one shouldn’t be concerned about the next film. Heck, I just wrote MY concerns about the franchise, and what I want to see in ST3. All I am saying is RELAX. We all know Orci lurks on TrekMovie, so it’s not like he isn’t unaware of the concerns of the fans.

I disagree. His comments here suggest to me that he is not entirely aware of the common criticisms of the BR Trek movies: http://trekmovie.com/2014/07/06/analysis-when-in-2016-will-next-star-trek-be-released-could-star-wars-butt-in/#comments

168. LittleLebowski - July 13, 2014

154 Cygnus-X1

I think you’re overstating the case for Trek here. Sure, lots of scientists were inspired to become scientists because of science fiction, but they were also inspired by Jules Verne, Jack Kirby, A.E. Van Vogt, Isaac Asimov (whose ideas were borrowed by TNG), Poul Anderson, Stanley Kubrick + Arthur C. Clarke.

Video telephones predate Star Trek – AT&T was developing the Picturephone as far back as the 1950s and plenty of sci-fi movies had two-way TV somewhere in there. The idea of a pocket-sized 2-way radio or video communicator goes back to Dick Tracy newspaper comics, and certainly the idea crops up all across Golden Age and pulp sci-fi adventure stories.

Apple was always working towards smaller and flatter computers, going back to their Knowledge Navigator concept and several of the prototype concepts they worked on with Frogdesign – even if the tech wasn’t there, they were thinking about the forms, the use cases and scenarios. The fact that there were iPad-like tablets in 2001: A Space Odyssey shows that the concept had broad currency – I don’t think the set designers took it from Star Trek.

But in any case, you miss my point entirely, which is that, viewed from the outside, looking at it as a piece of genre television: Star Trek is not a show about science per se. It’s a serial adventure/drama show that happens to be set in space, and some of the characters are scientists or engineers, We rarely see them doing actual science or engineering – we see them mostly do “technical” things which might as well be magic in order to advance the story of the week.

The same way most workplace TV shows rarely show people actually, you know, doing their work, but instead, focuses on the motivations and interactions of the characters.

If we saw real “politics” happening on the West Wing, we’d have an entire episode or two devoted to underpaid staffers cleaning up Excel spreadsheets of volunteers, people phone banking for primary elections, and long, 4-hour, dull commerce committee meetings where legislation about tariffs is hammered out.

Instead, we get the Issue of the Week, the conflicting motivations of various staff members, the scheming of someone to get what they want, and a Crowning Moment of Awesome when Martin Sheen makes a good speech in Aaron Sorkin-speak.

The denouement of an episode of Trek has rarely, if ever, hinged on a scientific discovery being able to be measured within acceptable ranges of error, and then replicated by others (i.e. peer reviewed). I.e., science.

For the sake of suspense there might be some technological solution that needs to work in the nick of time, and this usually involves unobtainium, psychic energy and “warp particles.” Whatever those are.

The climax of an episode is really about a character having a breakthrough realization about themselves, or an insight into human nature, history, society (usually by visiting a world which is remarkably similar to, but not quite exactly, like Earth!)

In TOS, Spock was the “naif” to whom these lessons were occasionally explained; in TNG, it was Data.

“You see, Data… something something something logic emotions. Yes, it’s contradictory, but that’s what being human is all about.”

Star Trek TMP – was probably the closest to a pure sci-fi movie the Trek series has ever done; first contact with a totally alien, implacable, omnipotent force that could digitize (and destroy) entire star systems…

Star Trek II – Not about science, but a story about aging and revenge, basically Moby Dick crossed with Captain Nemo. In space.

Star Trek III – Again, not about science, but a movie about what friends are willing to sacrifice for each other. In space.

Star Trek IV – Save the whales! OK, some environmental science here. In space!

Star Trek V – Interestingly, didn’t even go near the territory covered in the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debates. That thing at the center of the galaxy? God. No scientific analysis or counter-argument offered. In space.

Star Trek VI – The cast of TOS do murder mystery dinner theatre. In space.

Star Trek Generations – I don’t really know what this movie was about, except Kirk being annoyed and peevish until he is reminded of his duty. The “science” regarding collapsing stars to alter gravitational pull is completely wrong, so it’s just “science-y.”

Star Trek: First Contact – A good adventure yarn with a time travel twist tha shows a bit of Trek history, but there’s not much real science in it.

Star Trek: Insurrection – No real science here. Kind of a copy of the episode with Worf’s Russian brother. In space.

Star Trek: Nemesis – Cloning is more of a Macguffin to get the plot rolling.

Star Trek (2009) – Red Matter is a MacGuffin, and the way black holes work is total fantasy, but the Multi-Worlds Interpretation of history is interesting at least.

Star Trek: Into Darkness – More of a political/military thriller.

169. Ahmed - July 13, 2014

@167. Cygnus-X1

“I disagree. His comments here suggest to me that he is not entirely aware of the common criticisms of the BR Trek movies”

The guy is open to the idea of having Khan back because the story is not complete yet!!!

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/07/13/star-trek-3-roberto-orci-on-the-possibility-of-andorians-or-q-and-taking-over-for-jj-abrams

170. Keachick (Rose) - July 13, 2014

“and the way black holes work is total fantasy”

No, the way the black holes worked in Star Trek are both part of scientific theory. Scientific *theory* is not the same as fantasy.

171. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

168. LittleLebowski – July 13, 2014

You’re right. I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

Star Trek is not a show about science per se. It’s a serial adventure/drama show that happens to be set in space, and some of the characters are scientists or engineers, We rarely see them doing actual science or engineering – we see them mostly do “technical” things which might as well be magic in order to advance the story of the week.

Of course, Trek is not strictly an educational program. So what? What’s the point you’re trying to make here?

My only point is that science and scientific concepts—hypothetical and established—have always been fundamental to Trek. Who cares if they’re not doing science in real time all the time in Trek shows and movies? Is this a straw man argument that you’re putting up, or what? I haven’t seen anyone argue the position that you are rebutting.

Science and scientific values have generally been fundamental to Trek when it’s at its best — Spock using the Scientific Method to solve problems and get the crew out of danger; hypothetical scientific concepts that are based on real science and whose implications and formulations have actually been thought through to some degree; caring about getting the science right in general — this is what’s important, not whether we see people peering into microscopes for an hour in real time.

The climax of an episode is really about a character having a breakthrough realization about themselves, or an insight into human nature, history, society (usually by visiting a world which is remarkably similar to, but not quite exactly, like Earth!)

Some episodes are like this. Others not so much. Some of my favorite episodes of TNG were the ones involving a mind-bending mystery that the crew have to solve in order to save themselves—episodes like Cause and Effect, Clues & Conundrum.

Regarding the Trek movies, I won’t comment on the TNG movies because they had so many failings overall. On the TOS movies:

TMP: As you said, obviously scientifically inspired.

STII: Dealt with the theme of scientific hubris—the Genesis Device, McCoy protests it, we see Khan viewing it only as a weapon, the issue of when technology becomes too powerful, etc.

STIII: Basically a continuation and denouement of STII that focuses more intersocial dynamics.

STIV: Environmental conservation, extinction of species. Obviously scientific issues.

STV: Technology used to mimic a deity, technology as avatar, science vs. religion—these are scientifically related issues. Though, obviously STV had an abundance of problems as a movie. We’ve already analyzed it thoroughly in the STV 25th Anniversary thread.

STVI: Even this movie, which comprises mostly a sociopolitical theme, deals with science and technology being abused in order to convince people that lies are truths.

172. Cygnus-X1 - July 13, 2014

169. Ahmed – July 13, 2014

When asked if he’d go that far, Orci replied evasively, “I love Q! C’mon, who doesn’t love Q?”

(sigh)

173. TUP - July 14, 2014

147. dswynne – July 12, 2014

You didnt understand my point at all.

First of all, Mirror Mirror and all the Mirror universe stories were episodes of a TV series, not the series itself. How would you have liked DS9 if they stayed in the Mirror Universe for the rest of the series, because thats what essentially happened with the modern Trek Film Franchise.

And again, I reiterate the point – the vast majority of people dont want to see a “different” James T Kirk. They want to see the James T Kirk they grew up on. If the writers are so devoid of creativity that a ‘young’ portrayal of Kirk just has to be the sterotypical rebel without a cause, then Im sorry, but they missed the boat from the very beginning.

As I stated previously, they completely under-served the Kirk character. They made his career an accident. And not an accident of destiny but really just a fluke. They made his recognition of the Nerada a joke. They forced situations and characters into the film in ways to advance a plot that was weak and full of holes to begin with.

I dont have a problem with the time travel hook per se. I think it was a crutch and an excuse, in hindsight, to let the writers off the hook. Anytime anyone complains they can say “its a new universe” and anytime someone says “oh that subtle nod to TOS was so awesome” they can pat themselves on the back for being Trekkies. Kirk should have been better portrayed (so should Spock and Scotty for that matter).

Sulu and Bones were well portrayed (except Sulu forgetting how to pilot in Star Trek and Bones becoming a parody in STID). Chekov was really the only changed character that was an improvement as it expanded, in a reasonable way, on how/why such a young character was apart of the bridge crew without delving into Wesley Crusher territory. The only problem with Chekov is, he shouldnt have been in the first two films at all.

So in saying that, showing a Kirk that had different outside influences *could* have been a good way to bring us the character but he should never have been portrayed as this broken, arrogant goofball who lucked into his career. Ill use a really bad comparison – in Star Wars Prequels, Anakin was portrayed with the cloud of Darth Vader hanging over him the entire time. Lucas didnt try and pretend that Anakin didnt become Vader. It was always there and we knew it. Now, the prequels were done incredibly poorly, but the point is the same – Kirk should have been portrayed as a person of destiny not a “bad boy” who flukes into it.

174. LittleLebowski - July 14, 2014

171 Cygnus-X1

I think I got started on this by someone else upthread who wanted to see more “scientific exploration” in the 2016 movie. I felt that I needed to point out that science / exploration is, *sometimes*, the premise that gets the crew of the Enterprise into the adventure-of-the-week.

And yes, one of the joys of doing a long-running series set in the future with an “anything can happen” premise is that you can do mini-genre-episodes — a romance show, a Dixon Hill detective mystery, a Western, a fairy tale, a cautionary “what if” tale, a philosophical exploration of morals that relates to modern-day issues and society, etc. That’s kind what Trek was intended to be, storywise; the “ship + crew exploring space” trope is a vehicle that gets them into these situations. As you say, correctly, there isn’t always a human insight, but it happens often enough that it’s a well-known trope of the series.

Regarding the TOS movies, I think there’s a difference between premise and themes. Aside from TMP, most of them lightly touch on the science as a way to get the plot moving, but it’s not the central core of the movie.

For instance, Kirk doesn’t make a speech to Gillian in TVH about how the destruction of the environment led up to aspects of WWIII, and how much more enlightened they had become in the 23rd century — he makes jokes about being from Iowa.

In TWOK, we get McCoy and Spock ever-so-briefly debating the ethics of the Genesis Device before we get into some pew-pew phaser action. I don’t think the audience walked away thinking about the Genesis Device, they remembered Khan’s Large Ham scenery-chewing and maybe the Ceti Eel for the eeeeww factor.

So to recap – from my view, science (and technology) is rarely actually a central theme in Star Trek, it is more the “how” that gets a dramatically interesting story going.

That said, it is nice when science takes a central role (for instance, the TNG episode The Chase had a scientific puzzle at the heart of it, and the human interest came from seeing how different cultures reacted to a relatively objective truth; the Klingons wanted a weapon, the humans wanted knowledge, the Cardassians remained enigmatic, and in the end, the Romulans turned out to have hopes and dreams Just Like Us, awww). Also: nice callback to this episode in “Gambit, parts 1+2″ when Picard calls himself Galen, after his old archeology professor.

175. TUP - July 14, 2014

To the person who pointed out that Spock is now the entire troika, yes yes exactly!

They’ve actually not shown Kirk as being in any way, shape or form a heroic character. The only reason he is the “leader” is that he gambles and mostly wins. There is nothing that puts Kirk above the others as “Captain”.

And as stated, Spock is whatever the scene calls for. I harken back to a line that always bugs me. When Kirk offers Nero help and Spock cracks a joke about not wanting to do so. Not only was that the wrong time for laughs, it was not fitting with Spock’s character at all who was, at that moment, suggesting they let everyone die.

And now that I think of it, they actually missed an obvious point – Kirk “lectures” Spock about how helping Nero might gain favour with the Romulans. So in essence he’s telling spock to put his personal desire for revenge aside for the greater good. But in STID, Kirk wants revenge. So not only does Kirk not learn, he actually regresses.

There were other opportunities to explore ‘real’ emotion. How about Spock being raised by a human mother but a cold father who he had a strained relationship with (this isnt actually shown in these films which was another error on the part of the writers) versus Kirk who loses his father and is raised by a step father he obviously didnt get a long with and, as near as we can tell, a mother who was distant. They both lose a parent. But none of that has any impact on their relationship.

All the emotion in Star Trek is surface emotion. Like Orci et all pulled out their “Film Making for Dummys” book and turned to the chapter on “forced emotion”. The relationship between Spock and Uhura is a perfect example. Pike dying for no real reason is another. The Kirk death scene that creates an emotional moment only because the writers are involing the canon they claim to have been unconstrained from and then that emotional moment is immediately undone.

These writers just arent that good. The fact Orci sort of admits STID had problems and he will address them is mind blowing. This isnt a low budget college project. Why did STID get to print with problems? And if its now commonly accepted that STID was a mess, why is one of the head writers being promoted?? They should all be replaced.

As said, there was no arc. No planning of any kind. Star Trek should NEVER have ended how it did just so these writers could force a shot of the main cast on the bridge. It was just a bad idea. And in retrospect, the time line hook was a bad idea and changing the rules of time travel just so they didnt need to follow up on Spock Prime, all it did was remove the stakes and remind us that these arent the same characters we love. The whole point and reason for this franchise to exist and these arent those guys.

176. Curious Cadet - July 14, 2014

@172. Cygnus-X1,
“Orci replied evasively, “I love Q! C’mon, who doesn’t love Q?”
(sigh)”

I’m not sure Orci actually does listen to anything the fans say anymore, if he ever did. But one thing is for sure … If Q were such a hot item among the fans, shouldn’t the Q article have a lot more discussion in the forum than it does? Even STV has more commentary than the Q article, and that’s universally hated.

Q would be a mistake. I can see the stunt casting now … Perhaps Will Ferrell, or Vince Vaughn? That would put butts in seats.

And the fans who would actually love to see Q only want to see deLancie in the role, so everybody loses.

177. TUP - July 14, 2014

I dont hate the idea of Q (just as I didnt hate the idea of Khan) but I dont trust these guys with the concept.

The issue with Q was always writing stories that gave reasonable motivation to his actions. There is really no peril since he could snap his fingers and do anything he wanted. As the character evolved to be more of a fan favourite, the uniquness was the fact he’d “torment” the characters but was actually helping them in the end. All Good Things was pretty brillient to be honest.

Where Q really works as a concept for these films is to bridge the generations. There is no point to using Q if not to do that.

Off the top of my head, a jumping off point might be Trelane. Or starting it back in the 24th century.

If you want to get really interesting, start the film by showing the end of Generations (I know…who wants to see that), but show the good part, Kirk’s death scene, except at the moment of death we’re taken to the white afterlife (first seen when Picard “died”) and Q enters. He explains that Kirk was never meant to die, has more to acomplish, too important to the universe. In a way, he vocalizes what we’ve come to feel over the decades watching the character and dismisses the terrible Generations. Continue on with film from there.

178. somethoughts - July 14, 2014

Jim Carey would make a awesome Q

179. TUP - July 14, 2014

I dont mind them stunt casting for one of the Q, but if you use Q and it’s not John Delancie, dont bother. Jim Carey is actually a decent actor but I’d suspect he’d ham it up too much. It has to be someone who can be as menacing as he can be funny. Cumberbatch might have made a decent Trelane.

180. somethoughts - July 14, 2014

#179

Tom Hiddleson lol Q is just like Loki no?

181. somethoughts - July 14, 2014

Hiddleston*

182. TUP - July 14, 2014

Tom Hiddleston would make a PERFECT Data if you recast the role.

183. Curious Cadet - July 14, 2014

@179. TUP,
“if you use Q and it’s not John Delancie, dont bother.”

And that’s why it’s doomed, no matter how well they might pull it off.

184. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2014

174. LittleLebowski – July 14, 2014

So to recap – from my view, science (and technology) is rarely actually a central theme in Star Trek, it is more the “how” that gets a dramatically interesting story going.

Well, the central theme is traditionally a moral lesson that we learn by means of the story. I’d say that in TMP, STIV and STV the moral lesson was directly related to science (STV can be viewed has having more than one main theme, but the Religion vs. Science sort of implied comparison of world-views and “philosophies” is the one that I’m referring to).

But, I’d go even more general than theme. I’d just say that science has traditionally been an important and characteristic ingredient of Trek, generally speaking, and Trek at its best has traditionally been imbued with scientific values.

That said, it is nice when science takes a central role (for instance, the TNG episode The Chase had a scientific puzzle at the heart of it, and the human interest came from seeing how different cultures reacted to a relatively objective truth…

I agree.

185. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2014

173. TUP – July 14, 2014

the vast majority of people dont want to see a “different” James T Kirk. They want to see the James T Kirk they grew up on. If the writers are so devoid of creativity that a ‘young’ portrayal of Kirk just has to be the sterotypical rebel without a cause, then Im sorry, but they missed the boat from the very beginning.

they completely under-served the Kirk character. They made his career an accident. And not an accident of destiny but really just a fluke.

Yes.

And that’s why BR’s Kirk seems so devoid of leadership attributes and doesn’t seem particularly believable as Captain. The character has no particular raison d’être.

186. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2014

175. TUP – July 14, 2014

All the emotion in Star Trek is surface emotion. Like Orci et all pulled out their “Film Making for Dummys” book and turned to the chapter on “forced emotion”. The relationship between Spock and Uhura is a perfect example. Pike dying for no real reason is another. The Kirk death scene that creates an emotional moment only because the writers are invoking the canon they claim to have been unconstrained from and then that emotional moment is immediately undone.

Exactly.

This is the kind of writing that I’m referring to when I criticize the BR Trek movies as shallow and superficial.

187. Cygnus-X1 - July 15, 2014

176. Curious Cadet – July 14, 2014

Q would be a mistake. I can see the stunt casting now … Perhaps Will Ferrell, or Vince Vaughn? That would put butts in seats. And the fans who would actually love to see Q only want to see deLancie in the role, so everybody loses.

Ha!

Vince Vaughn as Q… I can already see him doing the smug routine and snapping his fingers to make magic happen — basically just acting like he does in every movie.

188. Who cares - July 15, 2014

Re: STV.

Littlelebowski upthread made the usual sort of comment on this movie saying “That thing at the center of the galaxy? God, no scientific analysis or counter-argument given.”

Thing is every single time I have ever watched the movie I quite clearly hear Spock tell Sybok that “This is not the god of Shakari, nor of any other place.”

Alien energy being like many others the Enterprise has encountered? Yes. Pretending to be a god to manipulate Sybok? Yes. actually a god or ever in the film stated to be actually a god? No.

189. IDIC Lives! - July 15, 2014

#184 Cygnus and TUP too

Yes! I have tried several times to say, Star Trek is about science and is science fiction by definition. And it is about spirit well. But science fiction is a specific genre. Yet some STID defenders have proclaimed that, after all, everything has been discovered already in science and that we will never be able to go into space due to radiation (Yes, the radiation is a problem but it will be overcome). And THAT’s where they are coming from, in all this arguing; “everything new in science has been discovered.”

I am not aiming to gromish about any individual but the general mindset of the most vocal of STID defenders is that it is not about space exploration at all or science speculation/science fiction at all, it is about–Jim n Carol, Spock n Uhura, and so the pov is generally character based.

Now this is very very bizarre because these characters in STID are so badly, shallowly written. This is a puzzle which I cannot fathom.

We had good, deep, interesting, iconic, beloved characters in TOS in the first place to rely on.

But when it comes down to it, TOS and Star Trek is not about the characters. It is about the science fiction story at hand into which our characters are placed and react. Science fiction itself is about the story whereas “Superman” fantasy” is about a character. Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and so forth. So, an attempt has been made to change Star Trek into fantasy, and no doubt, a conscious attempt.

With nuTrek, it is now about the heavy drinkin rebel boy stereotype who catapulted to starship captain and then back again and then starship captain again and then back again, the alien Spock with severe anger issues and a smooch on-deck love affair.

There is no triad now, Bones has no place at all except to mutter bad metaphors. Is there ANY dialogue between Bones and Spock other than at the end when McCoy says he and Uhura had “something to do with it too” (saving Kirk)?

Maybe I am missing something but I can think of no other dialogue between Spock and McCoy in STID.

190. IDIC Lives! - July 15, 2014

should read “it is about spirit as well”

191. Keachick (Rose) - July 15, 2014

#189 – What an inaccurate and incredibly shallow summary of the main characters of Star Trek and STID.

I am done explaining the obvious.

And no, I am no writer. Do I need to be? I see what I see and tell it how I see it, without resorting to props and crutches, like appealing to respect for your elders, or telling everyone you make a living from writing science speculation etc., as if these mean a damn when your own unoriginal, shallow and stupid analysis of the characters of two movies do not really hold up under genuine scrutiny. Too many false and negative pronouncements are repeated, by the same people, as if by repetition, you think they will make your views more valid and more acceptable.

The fact is – they don’t! Watch the films again, without all the negative bias, and this time, PAY ATTENTION. While you are at it, count the minutes that are devoted to S/U display of affection (public and private) and how often you actually see this “heavy drinkin rebel boy” and then count up the total number of hours these movies screen – Here I will help you – approx. 4 hours (240 minutes).

“but the general mindset of the most vocal of STID defenders is that it is not about space exploration at all or science speculation/science fiction at all, it is about–Jim n Carol, Spock n Uhura, and so the pov is generally character based.”

If you actually think that is true about STID defenders, then you have failed to read the many comments and/or your basic comprehension is abysmal. As a matter of fact, Gene Roddenberry also meant for Star Trek to be generally character based, so what’s your point.

As usual, you skewer/mis-state the actual contents of most comments made to satisfy your own biases, fears and hangups, which appear to be numerous. There is little point in debating or discussing anything about Star Trek with you because your own hubris and emotionalism keep getting in the way.

192. IDIC Lives! - July 15, 2014

#191 Keachick
“There is little point in debating or discussing anything about Star Trek with you because your own hubris and emotionalism keep getting in the way.”

You think? Why are you talking to me then?? Rest your fevered mind.

193. TUP - July 16, 2014

Keachick you are wrong as usual. IDIC is spot on with his description of the characters.

It’s simpleton junior high creative writing level bad how they characterized these core characters. Kirk is always portrayed as a rebel, anti-authority, arrogant etc because in their mind he has to be that way so he can be “redeemed”. Its the simplest of arcs and so shallow. He’s a rebel without a cause in Star Trek until his entire life is changed by one short conversation with Pike. Then he’s again a rule breaking cheater in Star Fleet so he has something to learn there. Then he breaks the rules again to sneak onto the Enterprise. Then he shows no respect for chain of command. But its okay because by the end of the movie he has “learned”. Learned that he was right the whole time.

STID picks up with him back to having learned nothing. A liar and cheater putting his whims ahead of his orders and the greater good. But its all to show consequences, to show he has learned so we glaze over that and promote him again. But again, he’s a rebel without a cause other than revenge who doesnt care about whats right only what serves his emotions or vices, greater good be damned. Thats again all to show he has learned something. And in the end, what did he learn?

Next film he will end up being a brash, lying, cheating, arrogant, anti-authority prick…these writers dont know how to show us a real arc. it’s always, take the character down to show us he learned something by the end, then take him back down, repeat.

Spock is terrible. The reason “emotional” Spock was so interesting the times he was shown that way through TOS was because it was rare. When Spock was crying in TMP, it meant something. If he cried now it would be like “For God’s sake Spock, suck it up”. After Spock was resurrected in TSFS, Nimoy played him cold and even more emotionless to show how different he had been, to show us that Spock *had* grown over the years. Spock became comfortable with his human side, not emotional but accepting that he had human emotions. They didnt need to have Spock be a raving lunatic to juxtapose that against the “resurrected” Spock. it was subtle but in that way, obvious.

We’ve seen story arcs from TOS through the movies. Decades in the making. These new characters arc from scene to scene and back again. Its very clear the writers make a list of set pieces, and stand alone scenes they want to see (Uhura and Spock lovers spat, Spock & Kirk fist fight) and then construct tenous “stories” to connect them rather than write a really good, deep, emotional story. Write the story first and then look for ways to punch up the “action” after, done try to shoehorn in emotions and drama and depth into a mindless action movie.

194. Cygnus-X1 - July 16, 2014

193. TUP – July 16, 2014

Exactly.

Kirk is always portrayed as a rebel, anti-authority, arrogant etc because in their mind he has to be that way so he can be “redeemed”. Its the simplest of arcs and so shallow. He’s a rebel without a cause in Star Trek until his entire life is changed by one short conversation with Pike. Then he’s again a rule breaking cheater in Star Fleet so he has something to learn there. Then he breaks the rules again to sneak onto the Enterprise. Then he shows no respect for chain of command. But its okay because by the end of the movie he has “learned”. Learned that he was right the whole time.

Well said.

195. Keachick (Rose) - July 16, 2014

IDIC and TUP – Stop with the bs about Kirk in STID.

“But again, he’s a rebel without a cause other than revenge who doesnt care about whats right only what serves his emotions or vices, greater good be damned. Thats again all to show he has learned something. And in the end, what did he learn?”

What film did you watch? What could you not glean, understand, take in?

How is Kirk a rebel without a cause in STID? Perhaps, at the start of ST09, he might have been when we meet him for the second time as a 22 year old in a bar, but not in STID.

Let me explain – again

In STID, we meet Kirk and co. caring about the greater good, welfare, lives even of a race who are about to be annihilated by a volcano. They have the technology that could prevent this volcano from doing ultimate damage and because they are concerned for these alien lives and that their culture (at whatever stage in its development) might continue to survive and perhaps grow, they decide to undertake a risky operation.

Spock clearly volunteers himself and is supported morally/ethically by one Dr McCoy (we can assume such by knowing the kind of person Bones McCoy was in the TOS series – this Bones appears no different). Kirk wants/needs to save Spock’s life; they all do. Bones is, in fact, the one who damns the prime directive in this instance – did you not hear this?

Kirk is not being a “rebel without a cause” any more than Spock, Uhura, Bones, Sulu etc were. Kirk may have given the final order, but it is clear that he got OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, both moral and physical.

Once again, Kirk actually SEES for himself who is firing on SFHQ and who is responsible for killing or injuring the people there, including the death of his captain and mentor, Admiral Christopher Pike. He is grieved and is initially out for revenge (something which Marcus exploits) but, after the discussion with Spock and perhaps a time of quiet reflection and allowing Bones, his doctor, to finally look him over, Kirk decides to follow Starfleet protocols and seek JUSTICE, as opposed to vengeance, which means that he is set on bringing H/K back alive to stand trial and account for his crimes. This means countermanding an illegal order given by the head of Starfleet, Admiral Marcus – that order would/should have sent out warning bells …certainly Spock and McCoy were, from the very start, unhappy about Marcus’s orders.

Once Kirk had decided on the course of seeking justice, and not revenge, he did not budge from that decision. This became quite apparent to Khan as well. There was no way that Khan could manipulate Kirk from steering away from his purpose.

Kirk did what was right and the fact that Marcus then sought to punish, ie kill Kirk (along with the rest of Enterprise which also had Khan and the 72 unfired torpedoes) was about who Marcus was, not about who Kirk was.

Kirk did learn a lot – ie not lying and standing up for himself and upholding the protocols and ethics mandated and worthy of an organization that Starfleet should be. Admiral Marcus abandoned many of those ethics.

These obvious elements within the STID story could not be comprehended, or could it be, conveniently dismissed, by both of you, as well as others. Either way, it is not good.

196. TUP - July 16, 2014

In trying to prove your point you actually missed the lesson the writers were going for – that being a Captain meant knowing which orders to follow and which to disregard. But you’re not that tuned in with Star Trek so I cant blame you.

They keep forcing Kirk back two steps so they can say “look at how he’s matured” and then back again and “oh look at the lesson he learned”.

Watch the TOS movies and tell me Kirk didnt, at his advanced experience still learn without having to be knocked down repeatedly.

The issue is the superficial writing style. Writing for Dummys. No substance. Star Trek and STID had the same basic premise,.

197. aapip1 - July 17, 2014

196. TUP – July 16, 2014

I must disagree with your assertion about Kirk and the TOS movies. In Wrath of Khan, did we not see Kirk at his advanced experience learn at the hands of Khan knocking him (and the Enterprise) around repeatedly. With dozens of crewmen killed (including Scotty’s nephew, Peter and ultimately Spock as well) because Kirk got “caught with his britches down”?

Even in TOS, we joke about the fate of the “Red Shirts” all the time, but their deaths can often be directly attributed to a decision that Kirk himself makes.

Not sure what your point is here.

198. TUP - July 17, 2014

I wrote a great explanation and accidently deleted it before posting.

The gist was that the scene in WOK was actually a forward progression of the Kirk character, not a step backwards.

The theme was aging and how these old “cowboys” could fit into the modern world. Kirk made a mistake either through a lack of confidence, complacency or both. He believed they were “one big happy fleet” as Khan said. It was a new world that Kirk was trying to adapt to, probably hesitent to overreact. I cant recall exactly, but I believe someone even asked Kirk about raising the sheilds. He doesnt say no. He doesnt reply at all. Its not the Kirk we remember. He’s old, hesitates, unsure.

That’s all about the advancement of the character.

His line about being caught with his britches down and immediate dismissal of a compliment (his response was the quick reply one would have expected moments earlier) are indicative of his realisation that his internal issues cost them dearly. In that line he basically summed up the fact his self-doubt cost them and he wouldnt make that mistake again.

That’s reinforced later in the genesis cave when he sits back, almost smugly, as his maru test is being recounted. David speaks for the “youth of today” in dismissing Kirk’s actions as cheating. That’s a commentary on Kirk’s “generation”. They were always “cheating” out on the frontier – cheating death, cheating the rules etc. But Kirk was now uber confident, casually eating an apply and relaxing because he knew his plan would work. “I dont believe in the no-win scenario” reinforced his returned confidence whereas earlier in the film he likely didnt know what to believe about himself. He now knew everything that made him great in his 30’s still made him great.

The climax of the film shows us the perfect embodiment of the Kirk character ever put to film – his ship cripled, outgunned, supposedly out witted by a “superior” foe, essentially a no-win scenario and there’s Kirk using his tactical mastery, embracing all the characteristics that made him a great Captain in his youth PLUS the experience he’s gained as he aged.

Shatner’s Kirk was always progressing, always moving forward. The modern Trek’s keep painting Kirk as damaged and stupid. His arc isnt an arc at all, it’s up, down back and forth. Nothing subtle about his progression at all.

One of the reasons the Maru test in Star Trek was so terrible is that it betrayed everything we learned about it and Kirk in WoK. It was implied Kirk re-programmed the test so there was a way to win, not that there was no way to lose. I always envisioned Kirk taking the test and demonstrating some advanced tactical mastery in defeating it, not sitting back actling like a spoiled brat. In WoK, thats exactly what was shown as the film climaxed – Kirk “reprogrammed” himself and the situation to overcome the no win scenario. Star Trek betrayed that with their Maru portrayal.

In TSFS, Kirk again has a moment of self doubt after he blows up the Enterprise and Bones sums him up perfectly “you did what you had to do, what you’ve always done”. Again, that was a forward progression of the character, not a step backwards. Much more subtle character advancement.

199. TUP - July 17, 2014

Let me add also as far as the Maru test portrayed in Star Trek, that if it was me I would have filmed it very differently.

I would have played it more seriously, akin to how WoK opened with Saavik taking the test. As I said, I would have accepted that Kirk didnt cheat so much as he removed the computer’s “no win” predetermination. Kirk could still have failed. It took master tactical effort to “win”. Show Kirk deeply enthrawled in the process, inching closer to the edge of his seat as he did in WoK, showing the expressions of the crew and observers as he gets farther and father. Have Kirk getting quicker with his commands, showing his brain working on a more advanced level than the others taking part. This should have been a scene that showed the true promise of Kirk.

Whereas the writers had Pine’s Kirk casually eating an apple to pay homage to WoK, I obviously would not have. But at the conclusion of the scene, with the emotional release, have Kirk walk out. Spock confronts him “you cheated” (invoking David from WoK). Kirk picks up an apple, pauses for a moment as he flashes the classic Shatner-esque grin at Spock, takes a bite and replies “I dont believe in the no-win scenario”.

The writers pay homage to the weirdest things. Like having Pine eat the apple. They took the action of the scene from WoK (Kirk eating an apple) but ignored the emotion and the depth and the message of the scene.

200. Cygnus-X1 - July 17, 2014

198. TUP – July 17, 2014
199. TUP – July 17, 2014

Good explanation.

Another bit that I’d add is that BR’s Kirk doesn’t seem to have any internal dialogue. He doesn’t seem to struggle internally with anything. Whereas in TWOK, the through-line for the whole story (death/rebirth motifs in both Spock and Genesis Planet) and the theme of Kirk’s arc is his concern about getting old.

BR’s Kirk is, at best, a complete and total extrovert. He runs around reacting to the events of the plot but doesn’t seem to have any issues of his own that he takes an interest in. This does not make for an interesting character dramatically. Again—all very superficial and shallow.

201. Keachick (Rose) - July 17, 2014

Unless they have Kirk narrating his thoughts for the audience’s benefits, perhaps from his own personal diary, or heard talking to himself, we cannot know if there is an internal dialogue or not.

However, with the Kobiyashi Maru simulation test, Kirk did express his feelings about it to Dr McCoy, just before the Gaila/Kirk bedroom scene. In it, Kirk asked Dr McCoy to be part of the test again – his third test. Bones does not see the point in retaking the test as nobody wins. At this point, Kirk becomes very serious and asks Bones if that does not bother him at all… clearly there has been an internal dialogue going on within Kirk, which he expresses to Bones McCoy. Later we hear Kirk refer to the test itself as being a cheat.

202. IDIC Lives! - July 17, 2014

#199, TUP
This is exactly what I think too, regarding the Maru test (comparison of nu and prime Treks).

And because there is no internal dialogue going on with nuKirk, there is a lack of presence, too. The role of Captain is built on presence. A captain in real life needs presence in order to command.

NuSpock also suffers from this whereas Prime Spock has so many layers of depth, internal dialogue, and also (not coincidentally), great presence.

With Prime Kirk, from the very early episodes (” A tall ship…Bones, what if I’m wrong?), there was internal dialogue and an almost overwhelming presence.

Is it bad writing, or bad acting or bad directing, or all three with nuTrek? I lay it more at the door of bad writing and directing. It is how the actors are directed to be (since BOTH characters lack internal dialogue and presence), and again we arrive at the fact Trek is being turned into fantasy, not science fiction. Super-heroes are, almost by definition, shallow and one dimensional. They are not “real people.”

Regarding the acting, I personally don’t feel either nu actor is as perfect for his role as the prime actors were. That was incredible casting on Roddenberry’s part. I admit, this is only opinion.

However, the “proof” of “my opinion” is in the iconic status of Star Trek in the collective human consciousness. Apparently the entire planet agrees with us regarding TOS and, to a lesser degree, the theatrical releases with original cast. Prime Star Trek found its way into the human soul many years ago and remains there.

203. Keachick (Rose) - July 17, 2014

That Star Trek found its way into the “collective human consciousness” – really – which collective? is because of all the re-runs it had on US TV from the early 1970’s onwards. That is where its popularity really took off after people got to see episodes more than once and “got it”.

However, here downunder NZ, Star Trek TOS (all episodes) received just ONE screening on NZ television between 1968 and 1970. We did not get to see a repeat screening of any TOS episode until around 1980. Yet, from just watching an episode just once, it managed to make it into my soul/consciousness as a child and has remained there since. I did not manage to see every episode screened (I do recall at least one that I could not see) either.

I do resent the continual putdowns by IDIC and TUP in saying that I don’t “get it”, “lack comprehension about what Star Trek is about”. I knew what it was about then and I know what it is about now. But do you? I really, seriously do wonder sometimes.

A good part of the planet barely knows about Star Trek. They are too poor…

Get a reality check.

204. TUP - July 17, 2014

Cygnus and IDIC are correct Ofcourse and Keachick misses the point.

It’s actually a great point about the internal dialogue and how Kirk runs around reacting to everything. The writers don’t have a lot of respect for the character. They like Spock and tried to make him the central character. Spock isn’t much better written but he’s given more effort than Kirk.

Kirk was always incredibly complicated and not perfect. In fact he was very flawed in many ways making him sort of a modern hero decades before the “cool” hero became vogue. He occasionally doubts himself. He makes mistakes. He has an ego. He has pride. It’s as if his genius and destiny are a burden that’s almost too much for him. But in the end Ofcourse he’s the hero the story needs. BR’s Kirk is none of those things. He’s not so much a flawed hero as he is stupid. He never learns. He never uses
skill or smarts. He gets lucky.

Him calling the Maru test a cheat means nothing. He’s petulant. He was more bothered about not being able to beat the game then he was about solving the no win scenario itself. He’s shown nothing that makes him te character we know from TOS.

I like pine. He can deliver so much more. I like quinto less who was cast
For his looks and not his acting. I’m so so on Zoe who I think plays Uhura wrong but that’s more to bad writing and poor direction.

Really the issue is there is no depth to anything. Not the characters
Not the motivations. Not the stories. Not the issues. It’s all very surface stuff

These guys just aren’t talented enough to serve trek the way it deserves

205. Keachick (Rose) - July 17, 2014

I guess if you repeat something long and loud enough, you can make any false assertion seem true…

206. IDIC Lives! - July 18, 2014

#203 Keachick

My goodness, you contradict yourself from paragraph one to paragraph two.

Ok, maybe it found its way into the human consciousness after one viewing in NZ. And maybe you didn’t see every episode. What does this have to do with the price of potatoes?

The reruns in the 1970s of TOS, which gathered fandom together, began the conventions and fan fiction, then those contributed to making Trek an international phenomenon and because it is so valid, so RIGHT for our future, such a hope for us all–it found its way into our species’ consciousness.

Another man with a high IQ, I assume, is Rupert Sheldrake. His work is controversial, but if he is right–!! Then it explains so much about human consciousness and applies to each species of animal consciousness and ET consciousness (if they exist) as well. The Higgs boson field discovery/proof tends to verify Sheldrake. Google “Rupert Sheldrake” and educate yourself a bit.

We as a species have a need for this hope, this paradigm, for the future. It is a part of our evolutionary process. Roddenberry and the others involved, hit a “magic chord” which resonated in us as a human race.
They did not create human consciousness but they found their way into it, the same as the Beatles or Shakespeare. This is the mark of something very special in our creative process (music, art, and so forth).

Yes, many humans are too impoverished and struggle to survive physically but the evolution of our consciousness depends on those of us lucky enough to set the pace – we are able and capable of looking to the future, not for us as individuals but us as a species. This is our role in the scheme of things and could be thought of as a responsibility.

You might not understand, but this is why those of us who point out the strengths and greatness of TOS, do so passionately. You think we are snide and whatever. Our motivation is that we CARE.

“Which collective?” asks you—

The human consciousness IS the collective human consciousness.
There is no “which collective.” *Oh dear* * Heavy sigh*

You really need to know what you are talking about, you need to really know on what basis you stand as you attack others. You make more mistakes than most of us, such as “Steve Hawkings” and “common denominator.” You said something like, “common denominator, relativity, ok, whatever.”

No, it is not “whatever.” Someone as opinionated , authoritative, and downright aggressive as you are on this forum, need to get their elementary facts correct.

Just think how jumbled your theoretical thoughts are if your basic facts are this jumbled.

#205 Keachick
Are you talking to yourself?

207. IDIC Lives! - July 18, 2014

#204 TUP

I hesitate to write this because my other posts along these lines have been ridiculed and intentionally misinterpreted but I will not shut up regarding the brilliance of TOS. If such thoughts as these are not cool, then I am not cool–guilty as charged.

You know, when a creation is really good, people identify with the characters. TOS is always so amazing in this aspect. Our Trek friends know us to be — (are you)– Kirk? Spock? McCoy?

I have known a number of people who identify strongly with one of the three iconic characters and who freely admit that this identification helps or helped them through crises and challenges in their lives.

This is another reason why TOS is a part of our human consciousness and kudos to the 3 actors, Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley, who achieved this as much as GR and the writers did. The actors worked long hours, days after day, and much of each individual actor is within his character.

Those who identify most with Spock/Nimoy tend to be the most alienated. Spock saved the lives of two people I know – their identification with Spock helped them gain self esteem and worth. These are super-smart, sensitive people who needed to find an internal way of handling the stupidity and violence of this world.

McCoy probably has the least who identify with him but that might be because we all want to be Kirk or Spock :-) But, we learned about a man of peace who would rather die himself than kill another individual (“Empath”), a true healer who could be angry at the stupidity of a super-weapon like Genesis (could be used as a weapon, at least). On this deep basis, he and Spock connected.

Kirk, an enigma, an egotistical, noble hero who didn’t know within himself if he was up to the challenge but–always managed to overcome. As McCoy said, Kirk always gave them all a fighting chance to live.

Kirk is an individual with many levels, seemingly less sensitive than Spock and McCoy about being aggressive, and yet when it comes down to it, his internal dialogue would not let him kill – today. He is the glue between McCoy and Spock and yet on another level, McCoy is the spiritual glue.

IMO, Spock would not bother to defend TOS, he would feel this debating and arguing was all too ridiculous (quarrelsome humans). McCoy might just go have a stuff drink, but Kirk would fight for TOS. He would not allow it to be made into “GIjoe” or shallow, silly fantasy all for Paramount’s profit margin.

For this reason and so many more, Kirk is the character I identify with. I admire Hat Rick’s philosophy but I cannot be peacefully passive.

Trek must not become mediocre. It will survive nuTrek.

Paramount has always tried to shut down Trek’s spirit in various ways. Ask the individual small merchants who used to sew TOS uniforms to sell at early conventions and then Paramount said they could not do that because Paramount owned everything Trek. Star Trek belongs to we the people.

We identify with the TOS characters because they do have internal dialogue, we are layered, complicated, individuals who deal with the craziness of life. They are us. They travel the stars. We travel them too.

208. TUP - July 18, 2014

Very well said IDIC.

And again, those of us that not only love Trek but understand and appreciate it on a deeper, emotional, spritual core level get it. Bob Orci seems to me to be the type of fan who claims to be a bigger fan than he is.

For example, I would claim to be a big Star Wars fan. if Disney offered me the chance to write Star Wars I would jump at it, claim it was a dream and tell fans ‘dont worry, Im one of you’. But the truth is, there are a hell of a lot of people who understand the deeeeeeep intracies of the Star Wars characters far more than me. I *think* im a big fan because I’ve seen the movies several times and like them. But thats not the same as really truly knowing the characters.

I’ve asked Bob before (no reply) what research he did into Star Trek when he was writing the movies. Did he rely on seeing TOS years ago or did he sit down and watch them all as a research exercise (like Meyer did)? Did he only rely on the TOS films for insight into the characters and the Star Trek universe? When preparing for STID, did he watch Space Seed, WoK and even the Enterprise episodes dealing with Eugenics? Because it sure doesnt seem like it.

I come back to Pike. He was the most “original” star of the movies, the “blankest” slate for the writers to work with and in that respect they did a good job (because there was little to muck up outside of screwing up Trek history). But even then, he had that bizzarr assertion that Star Fleet was a “peacekeeping armada”. What? No it isnt. So either the writers did no research and dont know what Starfleet is or that was Pike’s opinion/belief and if its Pike’s position, that’s something worth exploring especially in STID when Marcus played Dick Cheney spoiling for war.

209. IDIC Lives! - July 18, 2014

Pike was a glimmer of hope in nuTrek except for the “peacekeeping armada” *groan* but as a character, he was by far their best. And then he suffered a stupid, needless death.

I also think Bruce Greenwood is an excellent actor, which helped a lot– perhaps Pine and Quinto haven’t gotten that far yet – just IMO.

I cringe in that scene where Pine opens his mouth so largely with each syllable and says, “Shut up. I could have killed you…” or however it goes.

That was one scene not shoe-horned in BUT, I always lose “‘belief” (what little I had). I fall out of the scene when Pine does this. Yes, I know, Cumberbatch was cool and deliberate so Pine had to be emotional (angry), but IMO, Pine’s acting in that scene especially, didn’t quite make it. I did not “believe.”

At other times, his acting was adequate but the scene was usually a shoe-horned one.

Or else it was like “I could rip his bangs out.” Ok, adequate acting, not as shoe-horned as some, but I do not believe Captain Kirk would professionally say that to one of his crew, like a boy in a school yard. Yes, I know he was frustrated, Scotty just quit (huh??) but I still say, unprofessional to the max.

210. Keachick (Rose) - July 18, 2014

I know about the brilliance of TOS. Have I ever said otherwise? No.

This aggression and continued distortion of what I have written shows to me that, although you may talk about the hope and more enlightened aspirations spoken of in Star Trek and its ability to appeal to humanity’s collective consciousness, you seem unable to walk it.

You are ultra-critical of BR Trek to the point where you are unable to see the positives and seem unable to understand certain obvious concepts. Your anger and hostility toward BR Star Trek, and toward people like me, especially me, has been ongoing and increasing.

From what I read in most of your posts just indicates that you need to practice more of what you think was the message of Gene Roddenberry and leave your patronizing pettiness, careless criticisms, sneering sarcasm and cynicism behind, because that, to me, is NOT what Star Trek is about.

You keep doing what you have done, off and on, for the last 14 months. You just can’t seem to help yourself. Now, it is really getting to the point where “malevolence” just may the appropriate description of what you, in particular, seem to be about and it is spreading like a cancer.

211. IDIC Lives! - July 18, 2014

#210 Keachick

You know, I thought you were younger. If you were a child in 1968, you are pushing senior citizen status. In the U.S. you get senior citizen discounts through the Association for Retired People at age 50.

I thought your youthful hormones might account for your strange hang-up on Chris Pine – you obsessively must know if he is being a bad boy by driving in the U.S., you know when he was seen as a passenger in a car, and of course, there is his great nude scene in your fantasy and, I am sure, so much more.

STID was badly written. It is not just me who says this. My criticisms are logical and I explain why I say what I do. My post above (#209) is civil and I explain my thinking. Why does it make you go off the deep end (again)?

Yes, yes, you always hurl the blindly stupid idea that I do not live up to my lofty principles. In fact, I was not presenting my lofty principles, I was talking about TOS 9not myself!)

You blindly strike out with all sorts of bad vocabulary words – “malevolent” is one of your favorites. Maybe you should go to the Thesaurus and learn some new ones.

Your mind is a jumble of inconsistencies and ignorance. Truth be told, I feel sorry for you. However, then you pop up with one of these ranting posts, as opposed to your fantasy nude Pine post, and– it is hard to have compassion.

212. IDIC Lives! - July 18, 2014

Keachick,

My moniker “IDIC Lives” is to show acknowledgement for Trek/Vulcan’s IDIC belief, it is not supposed to tell you about myself. It is not me who lives or even IDIC which lives in me but simply to say that IDIC ITSELF lives. It is my little tribute to Trek, not to myself. Can you understand this?

You know nothing of my life and you always resort to saying I do not “walk the walk” simply because I don’t agree with you nor think your scenarios such as the hot tub are the bees knees. In fact, my life is and has been one lived with IDIC in mind.

Just because I have strong opinions on TOS and on nuTrek does not mean I do not “walk the walk”–whatever “walk” you are talking about.

I assume you think you do “walk the walk?” But of course, you are NEVER wrong or rude.

The truth is, I got demoted to the status of a “spreading cancer” because I dared to say Pine’s acting is not always the greatest. If I told Pine himself this, he would smile and tell me to f___ off or possibly ask me why I think so, what specific scenes am I referring to.

I don’t know Pine so not sure which way he would go. But, he would not rant around and call me a spreading malevolent cancer. There is something off kilter in your obsession with Chris Pine but then you are a bit off kilter anyway.

213. Keachick (Rose) - July 18, 2014

Admin – please repost my comments #213.

These two posts make comments, some of which are untruthful, rude personal and irrelevant – ie comments about my age and hormones, something I did not mention in the post that has disappeared from this thread.

They are (deliberately) provocative.

Do I ignore or not? If I ignore, do I become a doormat, or perhaps more accurately a punching bag, for this poster and others like her? If I do not ignore and respond, am I seen as being perhaps just as critical and aggressive? I don’t know. One thing I do know – I feel disrespected and I am alone…

214. IDIC Lives! - July 19, 2014

Keachick,

YOU told us you were a child in 1968. I merely referred to this. I made no adverse comments about your age or hormones. You made it public and good for you.

I said I had THOUGHT your youthful hormones might account for your obsession with Chris Pine but obviously not. By “youthful hormones” I was thinking of teenage girls and Elvis; hormones actually influence us females for years afterward, of course.

Outside of that, I was merely defending or explaining myself. My recent comments were not untruthful, rude, or irrelevant. YOU are the one who called me a malevolent spreading cancer, something which is just nuts to say to someone who is expressing opinions on Star Trek.

You also attacked me in the post above that one. Can’t you see that it is you who disrespects other commenters? My defensive comments are civil and logical. Who can be personally insulted as you do with us, and not at least refer to it?

Your perception of the situation is way off. Yes, we on this site debate and even argue the merits of STID and what not. However, your approach has caused you grief often.

Take a deep breath and try again. You will read this remark as sarcastic and snide but it is not. I can’t help what you read into my and other people’s remarks – and that is the crux of your problem.

215. Keachick (Rose) - July 19, 2014

It is a pattern with you. Do not backpeddle.

Constant use of the word “obsession” in this context is derogatory and personal, as well as your comment about my age and hormones. And yes, some of the remarks were irrelevant, in the same way that Who cares’ comments were irrelevant.

In another context, I would not have taken offense, however, with you, given your previous history, I have little reason to believe that you were not being snide and rude.

Expressing opinions about Star Trek is one thing but you go beyond that on many occasions and not just to me either. You have managed to do similar to anybody who agrees with my viewpoint.

Regular posters coming to this site over the last four years have been aware of my interest and affection in Chris Pine, but few have done what you decide to do. Others who done similar are out of line and so are you.

216. Keachick (Rose) - July 19, 2014

edit: mind thinking one word while fingers type the next word…

217. TUP - July 21, 2014

Keachick is hilarious.

You guys are right ofcourse. STID *was* poorly written. Pine also paled in comparison to BC in some scenes. If that was the best of a dozen takes, I shudder. But I like Pine and think he’s a good actor so I tend to blame lousy directing. There are some actors so good they can take garbage script and bad directing and make it great. Pine isnt there yet.

BC is very, very good. He took bad writing, bad directing, a lousy character and made it all seem shakespearian. Funny thing is, the more I watch STID, the less I like BC. Its not him. its that the character is so one-note.

There are some scenes of great performances that I could watch over and over like:

Picard’s meltdown in the observation lounge “The line must be drawn here…” Fantastic fantastic fantastic.

Kirk reacting to David’s death “you Klingon bastards…” amazing.

Kirk and Picard on horseback “It’s not real, nothing here is…”

Not a single scene from either of the two modern films will stand the test of time. The closest would be Pike’s speech to Kirk “I dare you to do better”.

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