At a writer’s workshop in Santa Monica on Thursday, Star Trek co-writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman talked about the craft of writing. Most of the discussion and Q&A topics were very ‘inside Hollywood’ discussions about making pitches, drawing characters, doing research, etc. However the subject of Trek came up every once in a while while describing how things work for them. For example they said while making the Star Trek script there came a point when they were falling behind and the studio was saying ‘we need the script – we need the script’…so Kurtzman says "we locked ourselves away for a good two months actually and didn’t take calls and finished it. And they got the script and it was greenlit the next day…which was most satisfying."
One question asked them if they ever used other scripts to help them in the writing process. Orci said that they did and it helped them see how others had solved problems in the past. Kurtzman used Trek as an example
Kurtzman: I remember a period when we were writing Trek and we were looking for a moment and I went to “The Insider” screenplay. There was a moment where he was standing and looking out at the water and to describe it, there was an emotional truth to that moment that struck me. It does not necessarily have to be genre specific, it is what ever is inspiring emotionally.
They were also asked what it was like to work on sequels and if the plot and character expectations of that made things more or less difficult…
They were also asked what it was like to work on sequels and if the plot and character expectations of that made things more or less difficult…
Orci: It’s case by case thing. In MI3 because we were going to go in such a character way it was a benefit because there really was no real character development in the other movies. You really didn’t know that much about him. In that case it was liberating.
Kurtzman: In the case of Trek it is different. There is so much of a deep mythology that exists not just in the movies but in the television shows and novels and that is more challenging.
As a follow-up I asked the writers about their process when writing in an established universes like Mission Impossible and Trek, and if they would read the previous scripts or watched the DVDs before they began writing
Kurtzman: In the case of Mission I loved the first one, wasn’t a huge fan of the second. But I loved what it was, we loved the series. In Mission, and to a degree in Trek, for us it is going back to the series. I think rather than saying it is just a continuing story with a higher number on the end, I want to forget that this is a sequel. The fact that this is about Ethan Hunt and Tom Cruise is secondary; I want to tell a great spy story. That is the reason to do it. Sort of taking the spirit of what done before and owning it in a new way.
Orci: But you always got to read it just as a responsibility. You want to read it, know it, put it aside and figure out why you are going to do the next one.
Specifically on Trek the moderator followed up by asking if there were certain nods they felt obligated to put into the film because of the long legacy of the franchise…
Orci: With Trek we wouldn’t be writing it if we didn’t know a whole mess about Trek.
Kurtzman: In the case of something like that, it would be so wildly arrogant if we were going to re-invent Star Trek in that way
Orci: without knowing your Trek.
i chatted with the pair after the event and followed up on the ‘nods’ question. They said that even though the film is being made for fans as well as a wider audience ‘it is full’ of winks for the Star Trek fans. In general they seem truly excited and respectful for the chance to work on Star Trek. When talking to them it becomes clear that they really love Trek and take this film very seriously. They also told me they are fans of TrekMovie.com and I it appears I will get some more time with them (and possibly more of the team) in the future. That interview would offer an opportunity to talk much more about the franchise and their approach to Star Trek…which will be nice.
Still hoping for the oft-rumored inclusions of Captain Pike, Lt. Comm. Mitchell, and others.
or not… :(
though I do love the interjection “without knowing your Trek”…very, very intriguing…
Anyways, I think it’s great that we might have a better line on Trek rumors, what with Anthony’s new fan’s of the site
About the “nods to the past”, I think it is really subjective what elements you’d need to win over hardcore fans. For example, I couldn’t care less if the cast run around in TOS uniforms in an adventure set years before the series, because I like the classic uniforms and am prepared to overlook the inconsistency with the uniforms used in the pilots. But if they don’t have the Enterprise looking EXACTLY right, it will stick out like a sore thumb for me. Very geeky I know, but that’s an example of the minefield they navigate.
They do have quite a minefield ahead of them (or, more accurately, all around them), but I for one am excited and intrigued. For me, the biggest danger area is the character of Spock. Many people have tried to write Vulcans and play Vulcans, usually basing their portrayals directly on Nimoy’s Spock, and have failed miserably. Usually it’s because of a deep misunderstanding of what “unemotional” and “logical” Vulcans are like. To me, the only actor not named Nimoy who nailed the Vulcan vibe was Mark Lenard, and that was 40 years ago.
As far as I’m concerned, if they (the writers, director, and whatever poor actor plays him) get Spock right, I’ll be very forgiving of nearly everything else. Your mileage may vary, of course.
#7 – I’m assuming you mean if the Enterprise is in the film at all… there’s still no guarantee of that… it’s still a possibility, from what I know. Anyway, as I’ve been said before, I’m sure the filmmakers will do their best to be faithful to the designs of the past while at the same updating them for the present.
Having seen M:I III, I am really looking forward to this movie now more than ever. I can’t wait to see their take on the franchise. If they handle it as well as they handled Mission: Impossible, we’re in for a really good, really fun movie. I just hope it has better opening titles than M:I III did. That was the only really disappointing part of the film for me; the opening titles (aka the opening credits) weren’t as exciting as they should have been. It had the actor names go by real quick and then the rest of the credits playing during the party. Kinda lame. And I’m going off on a tangent so I guess I should end this… :P
I think they genuinely had fun writing this. Imagine the “easter eggs” buried in the screenplay alone, let alone the visual aspects. This will be fun to watch 2 or 3 times, the first time or two for the story.. the event. Then to watch for the buried information.. the “winks”.
I cannot believe some people will threaten to “not support the film” if their favorite actor isn’t hired or if the nacelles spin the wrong way. This has the potential to be a great deal of fun!
I like how often these guys bring up not just being loyal to canon but even having some knowledge of Trek novels and such, It’s most encouraging that they have so much respect for Trek continuity.
re 10. Xai
“This has the potential to be a great deal of fun!”
Or a flaming bag of dog poo. ;)
#7: “For example, I couldn’t care less if the cast run around in TOS uniforms in an adventure set years before the series, because I like the classic uniforms and am prepared to overlook the inconsistency with the uniforms used in the pilots. But if they don’t have the Enterprise looking EXACTLY right, it will stick out like a sore thumb for me.”
For me it’s the exact opposite: I’m hoping they WILL change the uniforms and sets, and slightly alter the models. They seem to 1960s to me and I think they’d look silly on the big screen.
“Kurtzman: In the case of something like that, it would be so wildly arrogant if we were going to re-invent Star Trek in that way”
After YET ANOTHER QUOTE like that, how can people still be running around shouting “Oh noes it’z a reeeboot!!!!!”
(That should be “too 1960s”, not “to 1960s”)
So long as the original Enterprise is in it, unaltered (except for adding the Franz Joseph phaser banks…they honestly do make more sense to me), and the original uniforms, then the only thing I’ll really worry about is characterization…and having a decent warp effect!
Seriously though, with a good story and good characterization, I’ll be fine.
I seriously hope that they avoid trampling all over established Star Trek. I mean, really, there are literally thousands of places they could go without making a total mess of what we know and love.
Focus on some unanswered backstory…or, on another crew or any of a million places. I think the “Kirk and Spock kids” is right up there with “Muppet Babies” and other attempts. Unless it is a framed flashback…or something cliche like that.
Many people keep saying that they want to “attract a new audience.” I think that is unrealistic to a great degree. There is not going to be new wave of STAR TREK fans that will be anything like TREKKIES, TREKERS and TREKISTS.
My fear is that this moive, if bad, will be a punctuated end to Trek. Just like a flop for TRANSFORMERS will do the same.
It is too late to “reinvent” Star Trek. That was 1979…redoing it totally today is going to really risk the franchise. Also, I think BattleStar Galatica also beat Trek to the punch on that and that a reinvent/reboot will be seen as COPY CAT!
Let’s hope for the best… Imagine what life would have been like with this…
“The fact that this is about Ethan Hunt and Tom Cruise is secondary; I want to tell a great spy story. That is the reason to do it. Sort of taking the spirit of what done before and owning it in a new way.”
Man, talk like this can get you banished from Hollywoodland… but I’m very happy Orci said this. I like this guy instantly. Makes me hopeful about their work. :)
#16 John Gill
You sound almost afraid that a new group of people could like Trek. You said “There is not going to be new wave of STAR TREK fans that will be anything like TREKKIES, TREKERS and TREKISTS.”
When did it become a special members-only club? Who said someone couldn’t start liking Trek based on this new movie? Do they have to be like what came before them?
I don’t know how much you’ve kept track of this, but the director said months ago that this isn’t a reboot and canon would be respected. They may be lying, but that remains to be seen.
It’s early… far too early, to proclaim this movie bad or anything else yet, it’s not even begun to be filmed. There’s been far too many comments about this movie being bad before it’s even begun. And I love the type of comments that basically state that they will pout or “not support the film” if their idea of a perfect Trek isn’t adhered to.
I want what I feel everyone wants here, a great Trek story.
18. Xai – June 22, 2007
Thank you…I however wanted to get my point across in this world of “constant poor remakes.”
I hope for the best. Just had to say my piece.
The more I read about these guys, the more I like them. It will be interesting to see big screen Star Trek written and run by people who are into it as much as the rest of us are again.
I am green with the envy.
Or some kind of scary Orion skinrash.
Is there an exodermatologist in the house?
Please, don’t take this as an attack,but are you a fan of Star Trek?
No offense, but it just seems like you want something new just for the sake of change.. The series and it’s actors have been a cultural force for decades yet it seems you just want to minimize their contribution to the series.
People love the Star Trek they grew up with. Is there anything wrong in that? It seems you just want to bash anybody that is not for a total revamp of the franchise or the slightest bit pro Shatner or Nimoy.
I agree with you when you say it “has the potential to be a great deal of fun”
On the other hand It also has the potential to insult the fans who have been loyal to the series,characters and actors of the franchise for 40 years. I don’t want an MTV version of Star Trek with new bright shinny actors, tons of cgi + no soul.
I for one like Star Trek and just because the project might have new actors playing these iconic roles doesn’t mean they are going to be better.
In fact I think it’s safe to say they will never live up to William Shatner + Leonard Nimoy. So much so that I question the whole prequel concept without Shatner + Nimoy’s participation.
W/out them this could look like just another prequel/reboot with young shinny actors trying to relive the glory days. Shatner and Nimoy would turn this into an event and add a sense of legitimacy to the project that they could not possibly have without them.
If Harrison Ford can play Indiana Jones,Sly Stallone can play Rocky Balboa,Bruce Willis can play John Mclane etc… would it be such a bad thing if the two most popular figures associated with the Star Trek universe were to be in this film? It would be a fanboy’s wet dream to see the real Kirk + Spock in action one more time.
Their casting in this film would have the net buzzing about Star Trek for the first time in over a decade. Their return would make this a huge event film like ST used to be. Unlike recent Trek that nobody cared about,but the very hardcore fans.
Hasn’t recent history proven it’s not a good idea to just throw (or in Star Trek;s case just throw them off a cliff in favor of younger actors?…how’s that working out for ya?) away icons?
Do you not like what they have brought to the franchise that they in essence created?
I just don’t understand why you seem intent to bring anyone down that is pro Shatner or Nimoy?
To the vast majority of the public THEY ARE STAR TREK.
While I agree younger actors playing these roles COULD give the series some new life (and clearly Shatner + Nimoy are not the future of the franchise) going forward. I also strongly feel that this film and the franchise in general would be better off with Shatner + Nimoy as Kirk and Spock in some capacity. It’s a no brainer.
PS: I just don’t think it is going to be as easy as some people think it is going to be to simply recast these parts. Actors have never been associated with characters in the way that these actors have been associated with these characters.
When they recast James Bond Sean Connery had only been associated with that part for six years. Not over 40. For the record the 007 franchise did keep going,but the box office was cut in half when inflation is taken into account after Connery left and that trend still holds today.
Do you want Star Trek to resemble the 007 franchise when Timothy Dalton played Bond? With this recast it runs that risk.
How would you feel if you saw someone other than Carrol O’Connor play Archie Bunker or Somebody just step into Jackie Gleason’s Ralph Kramden?
It just wouldn’t work. I fear this may happen with this film and sink the series forever.
rethinking of the story and concept of star trek will require US to rethink and approach the material from a fresh perspective as well. we all know how this goes, so let us all brace ourselves for a complete overhaull!!!!
let’s hope for the best and put faith that the wonderful Star Trek past will open doors for a more wonderful Star Trek future. let us not judge too quickly but allow ourselves for a NEW trek experience. Expect the worst, and hope for the best.
The next journey into the undiscovered country!!!
#21 – Keep in mind that Abrams and one of the writers (I forget which now) are die-hard fans of the original series (the other writer is more fond of TNG, but I think is still a fan of TOS). So, I don’t think you will have to worry about a film that insults the fans.
Then again, John Logan claimed to be a fan of TNG… and we all know what most thought of Nemesis. But then, most don’t put that movie’s failure on the script. *sigh* That movie really did have a lot of potential in the right hands (in other words, anyone other than Stuart Baird… except maybe Joel Schumacher :P).
Also, someone other than Gleason has stepped into the Ralph Kramden role, at least twice. Everybody Loves Raymond star Brad Garrett played Gleason (and, as a result, Kramden) in the 2002 TV movie Gleason (co-starring DS9’s Terry Farrell as Gleason’s wife-to-be, Marilyn). Garrett did a pretty good job and actually got an Emmy Award nomination. Of course, he could never really fill Gleason’s shoes… but he came a lot closer than Cedric the Entertainer, who played Ralph Kramden in the horrible 2005 “urban” film adaptation of The Honeymooners. Just seeing the trailer for that thing made me barf.
Basically, I guess what I’m saying is, it’s never good to see someone play a role that has been attributed to another actor, particularly for many years. As long as the performances and characterizations are accurate and convincing, though, then everything will be just dandy. Of course, a good story is needed, as well… but I really don’t think we have to worry about that. ;)
“… but he came a lot closer than Cedric the Entertainer, who played Ralph Kramden in the horrible 2005 “urban” film adaptation of The Honeymooners. Just seeing the trailer for that thing made me barf.”
That is the sort of CRAP that I woud like to see STAR TREK avoid. These “hip” attempts to get new “blood” that insult everyone who loves the original.
I would rather see, if they want to “reboot,” the story of some Sistership of the Enterprise. What I have read sounds a lot like a remake of “Where no Man has Gone Before,” or worse, a remake of a TOS episode. Even worse than that would be a bogus story where people meet eachother way before they should have. Kirk and Spock and the academy is a perfect example.
Also, it was Director Nicholas Meyer that said it best. “Directors stive on limits.” Established Trek is a reasonable limit…there is lots that can be done. Let’s just hope they don’t kill it with clever “gimics” to make Trek more “Hip”=
I love the original, I am not ‘insulted’ by the attempts to bring in new fans. I fell in love with Trek when I was young and I welcome the idea of bringing in a new generation.
I am insulted by those that think Trek should grow old and die with us…
More time with them? Cool! Great achievment!
Looking forward for it!
If the ideas and the vision behind Star Trek are as truly exceptional as we say they are (and I for one believe that to be true), then by all means we should try to bring Trek to a new generation. Honestly, all of you who just want to make Trek about red bridge railings and Shatner’s hairpiece just boggle me….
Voodoo, you are letting your fears run away with you. With such a gloom and doom attitude no one would ever dare to try anything bold or risky. And one of Star Trek’s messages was that it’s occasionally good, even necessary to make a bold and risky move in the hopes of something better. You admit that the new movie has the possibility to be good, so let’s wait and see if it actually is decent.
Will our nerves stand it once we get ACTUAL clarification of some aspect of this production?…
I’m not saying ST “should die with us”
What I am saying is:
1/ We should respect the immense contribution these actors have made to the franchise.
2/ Star Trek XI stands a better chance commercially with it’s two most popular actors back on board as it’s two most popular characters.
3/ Shatner + Nimoy instantly give this film credibility.
4/ With Shatner + Nimoy aboard with a younger cast you can please both the old and the new fans. It’s a no lose scenario.
Just for the record. Brad Garrett did not play Ralph Kramden. He played Jackie Gleason + in several scenes played Gleason playing Kramden, but the film was about Jackie Gleason not Ralphn Kramden.
#24 John Gill:
Cedric the Entertainer’s version of Ralph Kramden is a GREAT example to prove my point.
Somebody at the studio had the bright idea to attempt to recreate The Honeymooners (an impossible task) and that they were going to reinvent the wheel with an African American cast. They were going to make the Honeymooners hip.
In the end it was a critical and box office flop. Often mentioned as one of the worst films of 2005. Imdb.com gives it a 2.2 out of 10 rating and ranks it as the 44th worst film ever made.
Nobody bought Cedric the Entertainer as one of the most beloved characters to ever hit the screen.
This is exactly what could happen (I’m not saying this will happen) if these iconic roles are recast. And this is just one example. There are many others.
My point is with Shatner + Nimoy they lend credibility to this film + the new actors. Plus, it it be a healing for a fan base that has been ripped apart.
With Shatner + Nimoy you get the best of both worlds. Old and new. What’s the problem?
I don’t envy Abrahm’s trying to make it all work. Kirk and Spock are so much more than just two names. Shatner’s natural dis-arming charm, mixed with his humor and strong commanding presence along with Nimoy’s amazing understanding of suppressed emotions played with strength and dignity are what brought these characters to life for 40 years. It’s the chemistry between those two personalitys that people fell in love with. Now,do you try and recreate those traits with new actors, even if they don’t come naturally? Do you try and recreate the Shatner/Nimoy relationship, to try and recapture the magic between those two, and hope to win people over? If you do, you risk immediate comparrisons (which is inevitable anyway). Or, do you let the actors create their own versions of the roles, where the ony similarity is the name and avoid being labled a “2nd rate Shatner clone” , thus risking complete rejection because the character is nothing like the pop favorite of the last 40 years that people loved. Talk about a “Kobayashi Maru”! This could be just the thing to revitalize the franchise, or it could end up just another Hollywood re-make that missed the mark. It’s a slippery slope, but I’ll be there on opening day hoping for the best.
I would very much like the oppurtunity to sit and discuss with the guys some specific things as to how they intend to approach this story, and where they intend to take it.
As a general example of what type of stories I would like to see done and how to be done, I would ask them to watch Starship Exeter: “The Tressarian Intersection” and then read the Exeter fan scripts of
“And Soon Enough Even For The PRaetor’s Taste.”
as examples of where to go with the TOS universe and it’s handling. Think these stories clearly wit hthe Exeter characters pick up and run with TOS where it left off. Would like to see the new movie done this way in the same cosmetic appearnace to TOS. And I ask the question…if one is going to revisit the TOS Trek universe in any form, what purpose does it serve to change it’s appearance by changing the ship’s appearance, changing the costumes, or even the hairdos? Doen’t canigng theings kindof DESTROY the whole premise to revisit it to begin with? I mean really…..to come back to something that alot of people have been saying they want to see more of, just to deny them that? Kind of a cruel tease and a slap in the face to those eagerly anticipating to see that old beloved familliar look and feel of you ask me.
Just write the story to fit within TOS existing canon please. I do think there is plenty of room within canon to be flexible to do an interesting story .
I think that fans who have expressed wanting to see more of TOS are expressing a desire to see more of “what has been established” and not “what can be molded to fit the present”. And changing stuff to where it no longer has that longed for “old familliar look” and “feel” to the characters, writing, treatment, writing…..then why bother to being with?
What purpose does it serve? I seriously ask. What is the point of the execercise if you alienate those asking for it to be done to being with?
“To me, the only actor not named Nimoy who nailed the Vulcan vibe was Mark Lenard, and that was 40 years ago.”
I’ve always thought Tim Russ did a very good Vulcan, too. Voyager’s writing was frustratingly inconsistent, but Russ’ performance as Tuvok was usually on the money.
33. Robert Simmons A.K.A Vice Rear Admiral Nerd (TOS Purist / SFB Gaming Dude ) – June 23, 2007
I agree. It is possible to “update” TOS without the “Cedric the Entertainer-Honneymooners” effect. Look at the DS9 Tribbles episode or ENT: In a Mirror Darkly. I also agree that Starship Exeter is the best example of capturing that certain feel.
I have always felt that the U.S.S. Enterprise was not all there was to Star Fleet, focuing on other elements/crews would fir the bill.
1) Explore another crew…like the U.S.S. Lexington after the Ultimate Computer affair. Focus on the potentially powerful character of Bob Wesley. Make it about characters…real interaction.
2) I think passing up some element of the Eath Romulan War was a mistake.
3) Focus on some lesser character, like Chekov’s or Scotty’s background.
Here is some free advice to the writers…
1) If you are going to do TOS, don’t try to “pimp” the Enterprise. It is an iconic form. Whatis done in the remastered episodes shows that you don’t have to “update it.” We alrealy have an update in the Enterprise Refit of ST:TMP.
It is not “tired” or “hokey,” the Constitution Class Starship has ot remain the same. If you want to toy with other ships…go right ahead. There are thousands of fans that would like to see 23rd Century TOS area Star Fleet.
2) Kirk and Spock are set in the minds of millions…yes, millions. Toy with that and millions will hate you if you do it wrong. I would leave it alone.
3) Don’t try to make Star Trek “Hip.” It has its own gravitas.
4) If you are going to make a Movie, make a good one. Don’t worry about spin offs and sequels or television shows.
5) Don’t sell out to fans you don’t have.
For all those people giving advice to Orci and Kurtzman, what are your credentials for doing so? O and K have written for TV and for big budget, successful pictures. Why the heck should they listen to you over their own instincts? What have you done?
I think we’re seeing big changes to the franchise, seeing how the mission is to be fresh and appeal to the new generation.
Are you saying nobody’s opinion but their’s counts?
B.Braga has been involved in tv + film for many years and look at what a great job him + Berman did of screwing up ST.
Are you saying Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman are Berman and Braga?
i dont get the paranoia thing. The writers and Abrams have never said anything that is of any concern, yet people twist things around and bring up Logan, Braga, Reboots, etc. That is all just fear.
How about a little optimism, or at least patience. If they actually say something or show us something concerning they we can all have a nice freak out together. Until then everything I have heard is encouraging, and from my brief moments talking to Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman I can tell these guys really love Trek.
36. The TruthTeller – June 23, 2007
You must not be an American or Brit to make a comment like that. “Experts” don’t exist in the entertainment industry…its all luck. Who am I?…What are my credentials? A better question might be who is anyone.
39. Anthony Pascale – June 23, 2007
Optimism would be great…but the recent trend to “over reinvent” the wheel, in other words take classic movies and TV like “War of the Worlds,” “The Honeymooners,” “Car 54,” “Oceans 11” (via Oceans 12) and a long list and CRAP all over them to be “hip” and “happenin'” and “far out” has ruined a bunce of stuff.
I just don’t want to go to a Star Trek movie that is so foerign I might as well be watching “Wing Commander,” “Battle Star Galactica” or “Star Wars.”
Don’t sell out to fans you don’t have.
“I just don’t want to go to a Star Trek movie that is so foerign I might as well be watching “Wing Commander,” “Battle Star Galactica” or “Star Wars.””
35. John Gill – June 23, 2007
2) I think passing up some element of the Eath Romulan War was a mistake.
They didn’t “pass it up”, they were heading towards it but Enterprise got cancelled before they could show it.
Part of being American (I don’t know so much about the Brits) is going with what your passion and your gut tells you. Listening to a bunch of non-experts on the web is not an American tradition, and is probably a sure path to failure.
43. The TruthTeller – June 23, 2007
How do you know I’m not in the Industry? Suppose I work at CBS Paramount? suppose I own an Television station? Suppose I’m a teacher. Truth is, you don’t know. No matter what I am, I am a fan. I am also not alone in this. I have every right to give anyone any advice I see fit.
Now, what is your problem with anything I’ve said? Do you hate TOS or Star Trek in General? Why do you want something “radically different?”
Why do you not change the channel to one of the other franchises out there?
This forum/blog is likey a direct route to the producers and writers that likely read this sort of thing daily.
Part of being an American is Freedom of Speech, you know the FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. Listening to a bunch of non-experts on the web is what we called a democratic principle of the Republic.
Don’t sell out to fans you do not have!!!
I have watched Trek since the 1960’s. I did the models and lived on novels until TMP. I won tickets to ST:TWOK on a radio trivia call-in. I won’t go on…
Change for the sake of? No. Change for the need of change. Yes.
TOS character actors are in the unique position of “40 years in the part”… that’s very rare and that is great and also the problem. They won’t be the leads in this movie because they can’t. Age has finally caught them. That’s not my decision but seems to be the way things are going.
Greed and the need to be in control also is a problem. They both want “significant parts” and significant $$$ for their time. I doubt that Paramount wants to pay top dollar for minimal screen time and I have problems with people throwing their weight around (ala Nimoy on past projects) saying that “if my character isn’t a major player in the film, you won’t have my character”.
I also have a problem with fans making Shatner and Nimoy almost holy. Both have voluntarily killed their characters in two separate movies, (with later remorse) will fans accept two resurrections? That’s REALLY suspending belief.
I also believe that XI needs a fresh start. It WILL have new actors and I don’t think that they or the story needs the burden of two actors playing the same part, even they are years apart. The new actors then have to mimic the elders..something no one wants. Let’s take off the training wheels and not hinder things with trying to correct the sins of Generations.
You agreed with me that this could be great fun and then expressed great fear that it wouldn’t be what you wanted it to be. That’s very possible and I want great things for this movie as well.
But the film isn’t about what you and I want. That isn’t possible and you know that. I tire of the negativity of statements like you and others have made. It might suck horribly, the actors may be hacks…. but we don’t know that yet. Not a single frame of film is shot or any casting announcements made. This film needs more than the fanboy boxoffice.
To the vast majority of people, unfortunately they couldn’t name who played Kirk or Spock. They may even call the Vulcan by “doctor” Spock.
Let’s say that XI casts Shat and Nimoy and other actors and it works… wonderful! A sequel will happen and will the call go out again that Shat and Nimoy again reprise the roles, both close to their 80’s by then? Will we have to bring one of them back from the dead again?
You have implied that this movie will suck without them. Their presence doesn’t guarantee success. Look at ST:V. Ugh.
Everyone here is entitiled to their opinion and because I challenge their statement doesn’t mean I think they are wrong or stupid. I just don’t agree and want to talk about it. Well within my rights and yours in here.
In deference to Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekkens and Trekkits, this Trekkish Trekulatory Trekinator likey ocassional re-interpretations of established pop-culture iconoclasts.
I for one don’t want Trek relegated to the Library of Congress as archival testimony of a bygone era.
I think Star Trek is far too relevant, important, and fantastic a concept to NOT continuously re-interpret and update for a contemporary audience.
It seems Paramount has decided Star Trek as a concept and intellectual property IS to survive, and yet, Trek “fans” find fault in that? Amazingly barbaric. Especially considering several short years ago Treks potential future was in doubt due in no uncertain terms to the mismanagement of the concept the last few years.
Someone at Paramount obviously felt Trek was significant enough to continue, and invited us to come along for the ride, yet people bitch.
Don’t you guys want Star Trek to survive us, completely assured of a continuing legacy for every subsequent generation to enjoy and discover?
The reason it IS infact possible to re-cast the original crew is infact BECAUSE those characters have achieved an archetypical status in the pop-culture lexicon beyond the wonderful actors that initially portrayed them. All of us, we know the character qualitied that define these individual characters like the backs of our hands, and these character qualities are not unique to the original cast.
If an actor plays Leonard McCoy, and NOT Deforest Kelly, we get it. We understand what that means and what that actor is doing. That’s the impact these characters have had, they INVITE continued interpretation.
The PRIME example if this notion is Ewan McGregor portraying a younger Obi-Wan Kenobi. McGregor didn’t play Alec Guiness, he played Obi-Wan Kenobi: the wry confidence, the gleam in eye, the smirk, the intolerance for Bullshit. It worked. And damn well.
If the casting directors emphasize the CHARACTERS and not the original actors when casting for this film, we will be absolutely fine, and we will instantly “get” what’s going on when the film starts.
In 2008, a drop-kick a day, keeps the doctors away.
James T. Kirk owns you.
I just hope they don’t think “Hey, let’s get that guy who plays Spock in New Voyages to play Spock in this!”. I can imagine that happening. I can then imagine my brain exploding.
Hell, Tim Russ got that guy to act for him, next to Martok and Chekov. If Tim Russ will hire him, God knows who else will!
re: 46. Josh T.
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I personally disagree with a lot of it.
In my opinion, nobody else should play these characters. Nobody. Since those actors are too old, then they should be abandoned for future use in movies and tv.
As far as Star Trek continuing, that’s fine, I guess, but not with those characters being played by others.
The Star Trek I want to see already exists. I don’t care about “modern sensibilities” and “for a new audience” and all that crap. I also don’t care if I am labeled as “closed-minded” or “afraid of change.” Maybe I am those things. I don’t think I’m afraid of change. I just like certain things and if those things get messed with, I don’t care for it.
No, I am not stomping my feet. No, I am not threatening to boycott. I am just stating my opinion (yes, Xai, I know, I know).
I agree completely with Xai with her comments in 45. Hear, hear!
I also agree with Anthony in that I think some of you are letting your fears run away with you. Now we’re bringing up Cedric the Entertainer and the “Honeymooners” remake?
Look, if you want to dig into Hollywood’s trash bin you’ll find all sorts of crap. None of that proves that’s what’s going to happen to the new movie. Neither does the fact Kurtzman and Orci won’t slavishly comply with every list of demands that gets posted here. They’re the guys who got hired to do the job. It sounds like they tried to do the best job they could. When you get hired to write the next Star Trek movie, feel free to do it any way you want, and let the end result speak for itself. But until we actually see the new movie all the gloom and doom is WAY too premature–especially as we still don’t know what the movie’s even about!
If I were Roberto and Alex I would read these posts and have a good laugh. Guys, if you are reading this, please forgive all the fanboy angst. Everyone just really wants the new movie to do well, that’s all.
You, in the Industry? Well yes, with such sage advice as “If you are going to make a Movie, make a good one,” I could see how the screenwriters might be tempted to think you’re a studio executive with guacamole for brains–but c’mon. You’re not fooling anyone. Don’t even try.
And I just want to point out there’s an old truism–free advice is usually worth what you pay for it. It’s worth even less on the internet.