Jump to content


Photo

'Star Trek' Writers Talk Direction, Technobabble


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#1 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:57 AM

'With this one we're going for the broad audience to bring people into "Trek" for the first time,' Roberto Orci says.
By Josh Horowitz

Kirk and Mr. Spock? On Christmas Day 2008, the storied "Star Trek" franchise will begin anew on the big screen, and its creators are almost as ecstatic as the series' famously obsessive fans.

"We just got the green light! We have a release date and everything," said Alex Kurtzman, co-screenwriter of the eagerly anticipated new "Trek" adventure. Kurtzman and collaborator Roberto Orci, who are also executive producers of the project

#2 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:59 AM

QUOTE(Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ Mar 9 2007, 11:57 AM) View Post

Orci and Kurtzman also confirmed that the film is not in any way a prequel but a reimagining of the franchise.


YESSSSS!!!!
Exactly the way I wanted it to be and also expected it to be! A reeboot like Casino Royale, Batman Returns and Battlestar Galactica.
This news makes me happy!

#3 Sybeck1

Sybeck1

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southaven MS

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:59 AM

UGHH!! Maybe we will get a female Kirk or a Enterprise that looks like the Millennium Falcon? And going to MTV to talk about a Trek film?

Remakes always work of course, such as The Planet of the Apes or The Avengers. That was a Connery Turkey I believe.

#4 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 06:24 AM

QUOTE(Sybeck1 @ Mar 9 2007, 12:59 PM) View Post

Remakes always work of course, such as The Planet of the Apes or The Avengers. That was a Connery Turkey I believe.


Was Planet of the Apes a flop? Is that why we haven't seen a sequel? I kinda liked it. And I'm still kinda curious about the end sequence and what happens afterward.

Yes, The Avengers was a flop. Uma was bad as Emma Peel, yet she was the best thing this movie had to offer. Even old dependable Connery was plain bad. And John Steed looked like Stan Laurel!
IPB Image IPB Image

Or how about The Saint. Except for the name, it was nothing like the Roger Moore or the George Sanders version. Take away the name and no one would have noticed any resemblance to The Saint.

And don't get me started on The Wild Wild West.

But look at Casino Royale, Battlestar Galactica, Batman Begins, the John Byrne Superman comics and many others. If well done a reboot is great. Especially for a series like Star trek where continuity ties any writer's hands behind his back. How can you be creative when for every idea you have you must check houndreds of episodes to see if it fits in with continuity. And this goes both for sequels and prequels. A reeboot is the way to go for Star Trek. I'm glad Paramount sees it my way.

#5 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 09 March 2007 - 07:39 AM

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd outgrown the Star Trek franchise. To me, this is the worst news in the world. It's not that I haven't suspected that this was the way things would turn out and that any mention of a prequel was just a smokescreen, but to have it confirmed in this way is just pants.

I don't know where they're getting the idea that fans are "ecstatic" about this move. I've seen an overwhelmingly negative response to recasting Kirk and Spock, and apart from a few who are keen for this to happen, people have been luke-warm, deeply sceptical, or freely admitting that they will go and see this movie "out of habit" just because it bears the title Star Trek.

This movie isn't boldy going anywhere but back to the past, getting the same unimaginative Hollywood treatment as just about every other TV and movie franchise. Some remakes ~ like BSG ~ have been spectacularly successful, but then they've also been radical new takes on old-fashioned series with old-fashioned values, but the vast majority have been dire.

Don't imagine that you'll be getting any new stories. You won't. That would involve effort and imagination, so expect to see a plot that looks very like City On The Edge of Forever with a subplot that looks a bit like The Corbomite Maneouvre . Okay, so that's a funky combination, but if they could think up new plots then they could have thought up a new crew and ship to go with it.

I've seen TOS before. I don't need to see it again with just new faces thank you. I don't believe this will be anything like a reimagining in the way I understand the term ~ by that I mean a new and radical take on TOS, and a new direction we haven't seen before. Paramount doesn't have the balls for that, and I'm not paying good money to see an old 60's TV show made over for the txt-me generation.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel about this. They should have let the franchise die with the demise of Enterprise, or at least let it take along snooze to allow an apetite for Trek to re-emerge and someone to have some decent ideas for taking the show forward.

This is just a lazy way to milk a tired old cash cow. Too bad.

Sorry to rain on your parade Berns, and come across so negatively (generally I try not to be negative here), but this 'news' has made me really angry...and sad.

#6 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:53 AM

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 02:39 PM) View Post

I don't know where they're getting the idea that fans are "ecstatic" about this move.


I am! I haven't been as excited as this about Trek since the day the announced the fifth series would NOT be set in the 24th century and the day I finally saw Broken Bow. Those were the two best days in my Star Trek fandom. I can only hope this new movie will make people completely forget the TNG-DS9-VOY arc (although I really enjoyed DS9, it was still second choice to Babylon 5 to me!)

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 02:39 PM) View Post
Sorry to rain on your parade Berns, and come across so negatively (generally I try not to be negative here), but this 'news' has made me really angry...and sad.


Oh believe me, you're not. In fact, I quite enjoyed your post. I knew you would see it that way, and forgive me for being naughty here, but I read your post with the largest smile ever on my face.

I really shouldn't though. I feel bad about this, but I'm so excited the new movie is going to be a reboot that I actually enjoy hearing those not in favor complaining. It feels like I just won a battle. I only hope I'll be equally excited after I've seen the movie.

The only thing that could ruin my 'victory' now would be a newsflash saying Tom Cruise will play Kirk.

#7 A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:08 AM

Unless it gets horrible reviews, I'll go see it. Honestly, though, I am not excited in the slightest about it, and I disagree with the "Star Trek is aboutthe human soul..." notion.

Star Trek is a Space Western. It wasn't about human interaction to any greater degree than a show like Gunsmoke or Bonanza was. It had the fortunate ability to cloak topics in alien worlds that censors of the time just wouldn't allow. This whole "human condition" notion is an invention that has its roots in the early movies and reached its full flurish during TNG. I'm not saying that this notion is a bad thing, but if that's what they think the original series was, I think they're mistaken.

As for accepting a new Kirk and Spock, I think it's possible that casual or non-fans won't really care. In fact, I'm pretty certain of it. The "hardcore trek audience" will be much more difficult to convince, but not impossible. Remember when everyone said that the Next Generation would never work? Heavens! How could we have a series without Kirk and Spock!? Sean Connery was successfully replaced as Bond, why not Shatner and Nimoy. Admittedly I think it will be harder because they have been with the characters for so much longer than Connery was Bond, but still do-able.

When you get right down to it, from a personal perspective, I'm just not interested in it yet because I don't know anything about it. I treat this as if Star Trek is going to be a completely different movie franchise from here on out. There are no script leaks, there are no trailers. All we have is a name. It could suck or it could be great, but it won't be "Star Trek" anymore, regardless of the title.

#8 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 09 March 2007 - 10:42 AM

QUOTE(Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ Mar 9 2007, 02:53 PM) View Post

I am!


Well that makes one I suppose.

QUOTE
I haven't been as excited as this about Trek since the day the announced the fifth series would NOT be set in the 24th century and the day I finally saw Broken Bow.


Yeah, I remembered seeing Broken Bow and feeling excited. That was somewhat premature, seeing how the series actually turned out.

QUOTE
I can only hope this new movie will make people completely forget the TNG-DS9-VOY arc .Oh believe me, you're not.


Now you're just being silly! Ther were many people who joined fandom with those shows.

QUOTE
I really shouldn't though. I feel bad about this, but I'm so excited the new movie is going to be a reboot that I actually enjoy hearing those not in favor complaining. It feels like I just won a battle. I only hope I'll be equally excited after I've seen the movie.


Don't start planning your victory parade yet Berns. It could be that you're very disappointed in the end. If this movie goes the way I'm left hoping, it won't be anything like the TOS you're so attached to. A NuBSG style reimagining would make me happy.

QUOTE
The only thing that could ruin my 'victory' now would be a newsflash saying Tom Cruise will play Kirk.


Don't count that one out either.........although that would be pretty terrible, I agree.


#9 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:26 AM

I think that this is a great idea and can't wait to give it a chance. I like how they are going to use the original charaters but make it look like it is in the future. This is very good news.

#10 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 12:51 PM

QUOTE(JMW326 @ Mar 9 2007, 06:26 PM) View Post

I think that this is a great idea and can't wait to give it a chance. I like how they are going to use the original charaters but make it look like it is in the future. This is very good news.


What do you mean. The original series has always been set in the future. And unlike Space: 1999, Star Trek's 23rd century is still the future today.

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 05:42 PM) View Post

Yeah, I remembered seeing Broken Bow and feeling excited. That was somewhat premature, seeing how the series actually turned out.


To me, a great show is a show with a great pilot. That a show loses some quality after that is to be expected. Yet ENT stayed good all through the first season and was still acceptable in it's second season. Only in it's third season did it become poor. So it's still a great show to me.

TNG will never be a good show to me. Because the first 2 seasons were unwatchable. I don't care it got better in the third season. When I think of TNG I always think of those first couple of episodes. And I gave anything beyond Encounter at Farpoint a chance because of the name Star Trek. If it would not have been Trek, I would not have watched another episode after Farpoint.

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 05:42 PM) View Post
Now you're just being silly! Ther were many people who joined fandom with those shows.


Unfortunately. But they are free to leave the fandom now. wink.gif

#11 knightone

knightone

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,235 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 01:30 PM

While I am not overly excited about this movie, I am eager to see it and see what they do with it. I for one am relieved that it will be a reboot rather than a prequel. At least now, if they stray away from canon, they won't be standing on a false pretense that this Trek has anything to do with the original timeline.

While I am not going to boycott this movie, I am being extremely cautious. If they can meet the middle ground and preserve what Trek is about while giving us a mainstream movie, I think many people will be happy. Myself included. However, if they only want to meet the expectations of a mainstream audience, then this incarnation of the franchise will not have much longevity. The mainstream audience is fickle and catering only to them is a short term solution at best. And, IMHO, Abrams work has always been more flash than substance. It catches your eye briefly, but doesn't have anything underneath to hold onto you.

So, while I look forward to seeing the movie, I am not going to get my hopes too high. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by a movie that was better than I thought it would be rather than be disappointed because I was expecting far too much.

#12 Hirogen

Hirogen

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 724 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:47 PM

QUOTE(Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ Mar 9 2007, 03:57 AM) View Post



What they will say, however, is that the film will be a starship-based adventure. "I don't know how you make 'Star Trek' without a starship," Orci laughed. "You have to trek through the stars, so you need a ship for that. There, you got something out of us!"


Because Deep Space Nine was such a horrible show. rolleyes.gif
I will see it, but I have to say I really don't care for the era TPTB are setting the movie in.

#13 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE(The Green Lantern @ Mar 9 2007, 09:47 PM) View Post

I will see it, but I have to say I really don't care for the era TPTB are setting the movie in.


The way I see it, as long as it isn't set in the TNG era or beyond, it's OK with me. I would have loved a movie set in the NCC-1701-A era, but anything between the ENT and the TUC era is fine.

However, I would prefere a movie that reboots the franchise and is set in the era when the NCC-1701 just gets launched, with Kirk as it's first Captain (Hey, it's a reboot) and that seems to be just what we'll get. I'm really excited!

#14 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7" Star trek action figures.

    Star trek & writing fan fiction.

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE(Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ Mar 9 2007, 06:51 PM) View Post

What do you mean. The original series has always been set in the future. And unlike Space: 1999, Star Trek's 23rd century is still the future today.


Er no, forget the setting of TOS, it was packed full of 60's social conditions and those are so far in the past now they are laughable ~regardless of how far Roddenberry tried to push the boat out at the time.

QUOTE
To me, a great show is a show with a great pilot. That a show loses some quality after that is to be expected.


well you're easy to please then aren't you! No wonder they stopped trying to make ENT decent. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Yet ENT stayed good all through the first season and was still acceptable in it's second season. Only in it's third season did it become poor. So it's still a great show to me.


Then you're in the minority, most fans gave up on it.

QUOTE
TNG will never be a good show to me. Because the first 2 seasons were unwatchable. I don't care it got better in the third season.


Time to change the 12" 33 RPM long-playing record Mister Berns! tongue.gif

QUOTE

Unfortunately. But they are free to leave the fandom now. wink.gif


Silly you. Not liking Abrams' plans for this particular incarnation of Trek does not equate to TNG fans leaving the franchise. What makes you think fans have to love all of the franchise? By that rationale you should have left it circa 1992 after TUC! rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

#15 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:43 PM

QUOTE
What do you mean. The original series has always been set in the future. And unlike Space: 1999, Star Trek's 23rd century is still the future today.



What I mean is that they are going to make it look like the future from todays point of view not the future from the 60's point of view. I am not in any way saying that the 60's version of the future was bad or anything it is just out of date and needs a serious overhaul for the new movie.

#16 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 10:23 PM) View Post
Not liking Abrams' plans for this particular incarnation of Trek does not equate to TNG fans leaving the franchise. What makes you think fans have to love all of the franchise? By that rationale you should have left it circa 1992 after TUC! rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif


You know, when I first saw TUC and the end titles come on, I wept. Because to me it was the end of Star Trek. I really planed to stop there and buy only TOS, TAS and the first 6 movies on VHS. And call it a thing of the past. By TUC's release I had longsince stopped watching TNG. It was DS9 that lured me back to Star Trek. Fortunately, otherwise I would have missed out on ENT.

QUOTE(JulesLuvsShinzon @ Mar 9 2007, 10:23 PM) View Post

Er no, forget the setting of TOS, it was packed full of 60's social conditions and those are so far in the past now they are laughable ~regardless of how far Roddenberry tried to push the boat out at the time.

QUOTE(JMW326 @ Mar 9 2007, 10:43 PM) View Post

What I mean is that they are going to make it look like the future from todays point of view not the future from the 60's point of view. It is just out of date and needs a serious overhaul for the new movie.


Out of date for now. Perhaps in 50 years those very same social conditions and ideas for the future might be modern again. It wouldn't be the first time such a reversal took place. Just think of the 1980's!
But you're right, it would look outdated to a contemporary movie going audience. And that's who they make movies for.

Anyhow, if you think such things are laughable that would explaine why everytime they make a show set in the 1970's all they do is make a fool of the 1970's. Can you imagine they almost made a Six Million Dollar Man (my favorite show) movie starring Jim Carrey!?!

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great if everything was back the way it was in the 1960's? Women being brainless sex puppets, cars having no seatbelts, no speed limit on the highways, the aroma of tobaco everywhere, no AIDS, sex with multiple partners without condoms, etc. I missed out on so much!





JUST KIDDING!!!

#17 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:21 PM

I wasn't talking about the social aspect of it. I was talking about the outdated look of the future technology. That is what needs an update.

#18 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:30 PM

QUOTE(JMW326 @ Mar 10 2007, 12:21 AM) View Post

I wasn't talking about the social aspect of it. I was talking about the outdated look of the future technology. That is what needs an update.


Oh, you're one of those. Those who think the look of the sets of ENT looked more advanced than those of TOS. I never understood that.

#19 Sybeck1

Sybeck1

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southaven MS

Posted 09 March 2007 - 08:51 PM

Star Trek is different from all other franchises, except maybe for Star Wars in one point. That is actors owing their roles.

Lets consider the early 70's and the beginning of the conventions. Those and syndication kept Trek alive. People by the thousands were going out to see the secondary characters as well as the show's stars. The actors became type casted and also they became those characters.

Remember Nimoy was not going to be in Phase II, and I have wondered if we would would be talking this now if Xon had won out and TMP (oh I hate that movie!) had not be made. I seriously don't think it would have been as popular, and missing that link of Spock would have not made it three years that time.

Consider other remakes. Batman had already been in Saturday morning serials 20 years before Adam West put on the caped cowl. It was a protrayal of written material since the Great Depression. Bond was already on its third actor by the time I entered grade school and my wife didn't even know there was a BSG in the past before I told her.

She knew all about Trek and Star Wars but never had heard of those 26 episodes from the 70's of BSG (I am purposely leaving 1980 out of this!!) Lorne Green is known more as Ben Cartwright of Bonanza than Adama, and Dirk Benedict more from the A Team than Starbuck.

But Kirk and Co. are different. We saw him in his early career, his mid life and finally his death. Now Hollywood wants to bring him back to get a little more dough.

It seems a poor investment as Nemesis didn't make money with established actors playing known characters, and well some thought Firefly would save sci fi, but it flopped (a captain in a space ship).

#20 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 10 March 2007 - 09:37 AM

The old Star Trek is both already gone and will never be gone. Paramount has said that continuing the series is a no go. Box office numbers suggest that any new movies using the same continuity and same charcaters WILL fail. There are not enough open minded fans to make Star Trek successful. We should all be blaming ourselves for this. To all those that complained when Voyager and Enterprise were on the air, saying that they did not follow contiunuity or did not live up to the "Star Trek ideal" thank you because you essentially sealed the deal on any new Star Trek.
If this then is the case and the old Trek is dead, a new reboot is the only option. For me Star Trek is not what happened 400 years ago, what Kirk said to Scotty in episode 14 and how that affects episode 17 of TNG. Thats nitpicking and is what gave "Star Trek" fans a bad label. Star Trek is about retelling current moral issues and setting them in a fantasy future. Its about recognizing the limits of humans but also finding ways to transcend them. This is the essence of Star Trek.
In regards to the more violence, who cares. We know what sells. Every blockbuster movie has huge explosions big battles and what not. My concern is the storytelling. If explosions substitute character development and morality tales, then I will be upset. We all like exciting adventures to spice up movies. Look at the favorite Trek movie that most people love....Wrath of Khan. It had plenty of explosions but still had a good story. Lets recreate that.
Finally the old Trek is never dead. We have the DVDs, we have the reruns. If you dont like the new film simply watch them. There are countless hours to watch. Read the books still set in continuity. The old Trek will never die in all media outlets there will always be someone trying to push things to the future whether it be in cartoons, books, or comics.
The bottom line is we must all resign ourselves to knowing that Star Trek is going to continue in this fashion and theres nothing we can do about it. The question then becomes do we want to have a new reimagined Star Trek experience or do we want to cry about the loss of a dear friend? We all must continue on with our lives and accept that life changes.....





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users