Star Trek (next) JJ.A signs on, plot?

[Centurion Draco]

Seems like this project is coming together now...
What would you like to see as a plot?
Familiar themes and adversaries or something 'new'?

[Senmut]

How about...nothing?

[Centurion Draco]

Originally Posted by Senmut

How about...nothing?

Really?
With the almost complete lack of sci-fi on the cinema horizon, you don't even want to give this a chance?

[Gemini1999]

If they are going to do another film, having more of a plot than the last one would be a good idea...the storytelling aspect in the 2009 film was on the thin side. It was more like an action/adventure film in a Sci Fi setting.

I could go on for days about this...

[Dawg]

I thought Star Trek was a good introduction to this alternate ST Universe. It was a lot of bright lights and action - but that's what sold the original story and helped capture the attention at first, which opens the door to more substantial and intricate story lines.

I'm very happy a second movie is going forward, and I'm very happy Abrams is helming this one, too.

I am
Dawg

[BST]

I, too, am happy that this is going forward as opposed to having nothing at all. Having been a Trek fan since 1971 and watched each series, except Enterprise, multiple times, I can tell you that the "old" universe is pretty well-worn. But, you know that.

Although, I'm still a bit on the fence with this re-boot, I'm willing to give it an opportunity to spread its wings and try to fly. Hell, with Science Fiction, there can usually be a plausible explanation for just about anything. This is simply an alternate timeline and does nothing to violate the more familiar timeline.

Plus, it gives us some good science fiction to watch. What could be wrong with that?

[Centurion Draco]

I agree that the first movie was lacking in several areas. But it was a good introduction for the new cast and did have some good points too.
I liked it.
And its good for sci-fi!
I heard somewhere that it made more at the box-office than the last 4 (or was it 5?) Trek movies put together!
If this next one does as well, perhaps the studios will look at other franchises?

Personally, I'd like to see the Klingons given a make-over for this installment.
Make them darker and meaner. Almost like the Predators.

[Dawg]

Well, the re-boot started with the question "what if something happened to change the timeline", which is one of the most often-recurring themes of Star Trek since Day One. "The City on the Edge of Forever" is a prime example of how they explored that theme, as well as "Yesterday's Enterprise."

There are a lot of ways they could go for the next movie. I think a re-introduction of the Klingons is pretty likely, in fact. I wouldn't mind that.

I am
Dawg

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

If they are going to do another film, having more of a plot than the last one would be a good idea...the storytelling aspect in the 2009 film was on the thin side. It was more like an action/adventure film in a Sci Fi setting.

I could go on for days about this...

Yeah. A plot would have been nice. Leonard Nimoy's excellent performance notwithstanding, did anyone actually watch the original series?

[BST]

Originally Posted by Senmut

Yeah. A plot would have been nice. Leonard Nimoy's excellent performance notwithstanding, did anyone actually watch the original series?

Yes, Sen. Multiple times, on the order of 10-15 times per episode, or more. I didn't keep a strict accounting.

What's your point?

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Dawg

Well, the re-boot started with the question "what if something happened to change the timeline", which is one of the most often-recurring themes of Star Trek since Day One. "The City on the Edge of Forever" is a prime example of how they explored that theme, as well as "Yesterday's Enterprise."

There are a lot of ways they could go for the next movie. I think a re-introduction of the Klingons is pretty likely, in fact. I wouldn't mind that.

I am
Dawg

We would've gotten a wee bit of an introduction if the Klingon scenes had not been cut from the movie.

[martok2112]

Quite honestly, Star Trek '09 is the Trek movie I've waited my whole life for. Good story, lots of action, the Enterprise kicking tail.....

If the second movie is more of the same, then more power to it....although I would love to see a somewhat meatier tale, I'll still go if it ends up being another action fest. Much as I loved Star Trek the Motion Picture (even on the big screen), that's not what I want to see for the next film.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

I agree that the first movie was lacking in several areas. But it was a good introduction for the new cast and did have some good points too.
I liked it.
And its good for sci-fi!
I heard somewhere that it made more at the box-office than the last 4 (or was it 5?) Trek movies put together!
If this next one does as well, perhaps the studios will look at other franchises?

Personally, I'd like to see the Klingons given a make-over for this installment.
Make them darker and meaner. Almost like the Predators.

Star Trek '09 is the highest grossing Trek movie of all time. I think it pulled in around $400 million plus at the box office.

[gmd3d]

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Salute

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by Taranis

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Taranis -

That's a pretty good summation and I agree, but I did include the DVD (at a greatly reduced price) to my Trek movie DVD set. I have watched it once or twice, but there's just something missing from it that makes it truly compelling for me to watch on an annual basis. I can watch films like TMP or TWOK year after year, but never tire of them. It's not the actors, mostly the production design and the thin storytelling.

Oh well, it is what it is.

Bryan

[martok2112]

I do not mean to disparage....and forgive me if it sounds as if I am....but, the folks who did not like the new Trek are in the vocal minority apparently.

The new Trek is likely going to continue as it did for the first film, although admittedly, I hope with a somewhat meatier story.


However, in the end, Star Trek is many things to many different people.

For some, it is Roddenberry dogmatism, which, I hate to say, I've found rather hypocriticial.

For others, despite Roddenberry's POV, it it still something worthy of some profundity and headiness.

For still others, it is an action tale with hot babes and one apparently well-endowed paramour for these babes that we all wish we were.

For me, Star Trek resembles everything, from heady stories, to all out action flicks, to starship porn, to beautiful babes in the sack with the Captain (myself wishing I were said captain) LOL!

I cannot subscribe to the "one truth" about Star Trek, because there is no "one truth". As I've said, Star Trek is many things to many people. For some, it is a multitude of things...for others, it is a singular matter. But regardless...Trek is Trek, as is Battlestar is Battlestar.

I only get fanboyish when it comes to covering up Wonder Woman or Lara Croft....otherwise, let things go as they may.

[gmd3d]

Lol
I agree with the point your making Star Trek does mean different things to different people and I like action and story and character development.

and I completely respect your POV totally.

I don´t mind been in the minority at all, been in that group all my life.

I think what gets in my claw is that for all the fine actors in the new franchise and new universe etc .. the story was the biggest let down for me and could have been
handled a lot better .

in fact I know that you Steve could have come up with a story far better than what was done founded in more believability and superior story arch.

The cast was very well cast.
I had no problem with Chris Pine as Kirk who did a great job in playing Kirk and brought his own angle to a character played by Shatner for 45 year or so. Zachary Quinto as Spock. Karl Urban as McCoy also top performances as for the other leads where also nicely done.
(you know what I think of Simon Pegg as Scotty.... as fine an actor as Pegg is)

I never to look at the real lives of people ie actors, producers, like Roddenberry as these people are real (as you know) have foibles and character flaws like the rest of us and was disappointed when I start to reading about them in biography's etc.
I know think that the less we know about these big or small screen people the better we suspend our belief and enjoy the feature.

In fact if I see a magazine with a cover of an actor I like in a tabloid type magazine, it thrown under the nearest bundle of papers or press as i don´t what to see it.

except magazines about the show or film itself

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I do not mean to disparage....and forgive me if it sounds as if I am....but, the folks who did not like the new Trek are in the vocal minority apparently.

The new Trek is likely going to continue as it did for the first film, although admittedly, I hope with a somewhat meatier story.

However, in the end, Star Trek is many things to many different people.

For some, it is Roddenberry dogmatism, which, I hate to say, I've found rather hypocriticial.

For others, despite Roddenberry's POV, it it still something worthy of some profundity and headiness.

For still others, it is an action tale with hot babes and one apparently well-endowed paramour for these babes that we all wish we were.

For me, Star Trek resembles everything, from heady stories, to all out action flicks, to starship porn, to beautiful babes in the sack with the Captain (myself wishing I were said captain) LOL!

I cannot subscribe to the "one truth" about Star Trek, because there is no "one truth". As I've said, Star Trek is many things to many people. For some, it is a multitude of things...for others, it is a singular matter. But regardless...Trek is Trek, as is Battlestar is Battlestar.

I only get fanboyish when it comes to covering up Wonder Woman or Lara Croft....otherwise, let things go as they may.

Steve -

Pardon me a bit, but some of the comments you've made feel just a bit on the edge of being a bit disparaging. It's one thing to comment on the film, what you like, what you don't and why, but the discussion surrounding the 2009 film seems to mirror the same kind of conversation back in 2003+ over the remake version of BSG. I'm not trying to drag that up again, but the big problem back then was that the discussion always turned personal. The discussion started out well enought, but then it got rather pointed when discussing those that liked it and those that didn't The comments always alluded to either side's viewpoint as being part of an inherent character flaw (i.e. "fans that like it are....." or "folks that don't like it are...")

Whenever someone says that they don't like the 2009 film, even when they elaborate what they did or didn't like about it, there's always someone bringing up how much money it made, what's wrong with the Trek fans that didn't like it and so on. Those comments seem to be made in an effort to dismiss or deflect the comments posted by those that didn't enjoy it.

In the end, it really is about individual likes and dislikes. Most, if not all of us are of an age where there's room for all opinions. It doesn't have to be characterized as being "dogmatic" or "hypocritical". If you can accept the axiom that Trek means many things to many people, then you should be able to accept that not all Trek fans share the same viewpoint, or that their viewpoint is not irrelevant because you view it as a vocal minority. Why does it matter how many people like or dislike it?

I've seen quite a few discussions on the 2009 film take place on multiple message boards. On one board, every time the discussion comes up, it always results in the thread being locked because it takes a personal turn. People are just not going to agree on this, but that doesn't mean that people that enjoy the film are sycophants or miscreants because they feel how they feel. It's just a difference of opinion and as simple as that.

The days of "my Trek beats your Trek" is something that all of us should be well past at our stage of life, be it fanboyish or not.

Bryan

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

Steve -

Pardon me a bit, but some of the comments you've made feel just a bit on the edge of being a bit disparaging. It's one thing to comment on the film, what you like, what you don't and why, but the discussion surrounding the 2009 film seems to mirror the same kind of conversation back in 2003+ over the remake version of BSG. I'm not trying to drag that up again, but the big problem back then was that the discussion always turned personal. The discussion started out well enought, but then it got rather pointed when discussing those that liked it and those that didn't The comments always alluded to either side's viewpoint as being part of an inherent character flaw (i.e. "fans that like it are....." or "folks that don't like it are...")

Whenever someone says that they don't like the 2009 film, even when they elaborate what they did or didn't like about it, there's always someone bringing up how much money it made, what's wrong with the Trek fans that didn't like it and so on. Those comments seem to be made in an effort to dismiss or deflect the comments posted by those that didn't enjoy it.

In the end, it really is about individual likes and dislikes. Most, if not all of us are of an age where there's room for all opinions. It doesn't have to be characterized as being "dogmatic" or "hypocritical". If you can accept the axiom that Trek means many things to many people, then you should be able to accept that not all Trek fans share the same viewpoint, or that their viewpoint is not irrelevant because you view it as a vocal minority. Why does it matter how many people like or dislike it?

I've seen quite a few discussions on the 2009 film take place on multiple message boards. On one board, every time the discussion comes up, it always results in the thread being locked because it takes a personal turn. People are just not going to agree on this, but that doesn't mean that people that enjoy the film are sycophants or miscreants because they feel how they feel. It's just a difference of opinion and as simple as that.

Well told. I don't think I said anything disparaging, but if you perceived it as such, I do indeed apologize for that.

Believe me, I hate it when thread discussions of something like this get personal. I hated it with Battlestar...and I hate it with any franchise that may have a fractured fanbase.

I don't marginalize someone's opinion of a movie if they are in the vocal minority. I might point out that those who did not like it are in the vocal minority, but I don't feel that their opinion doesn't count. However, it is to say that it is not enough to stop the next film. Indeed, the film's financial success, not to mention the fact that it emboldened many old fans, as well as brought in tons of new ones, would appear to have guaranteed two more movies.

Yes, sometimes even I mention the film's financial success....however I prefer to focus more on what I said in the last paragraph about how the new film bolstered old fans, and brought in many new ones. Star Trek has been revitalized, in my humble opinion. Star Trek is relevant again. It was well on the downward slide with the tired Next Generation movies...with Nemesis (my favorite of the four TNG movies) being darn near the death blow for Star Trek, period.

Here's how I kinda view some folks dislike of the new film:

Star Trek The Motion Picture. It was a financial success, but it was critically panned, and lots of fans really didn't like it. Like the new film with its emotionally charged opening, folks felt that the best part of the movie were the first few minutes, with the Klingon battle. After that, the movie started going downhill. They felt that the characters were pale shadows of their TV selves.....wooden, humorless (I personally did not see that...I still felt they were spot on ), and that the story dragged a lot...especially with overdrawn visual effects sequences during the V'ger fly through. The movie became boring for them.

With Star Trek 2009, it had its emotionally charged opening sequence, which many felt were the best ten minutes of the movie, but then it started going in the opposite direction with characters that seemed more like caricatures of their Original Series counterparts, and with wayyyyy too much action and whiz-bang factor. (Frankly, one thing that does irk me--and yes, this may indeed sound disparaging-- is how some folks seem to associate some "intelligence level" with phweeeeee phweeeee phasers vs. pew pew blasters. Admittedly, some folks felt there was too much "pew pew" with the phasers in the new Trek film.....that's that whole Star Trek vs. Star Wars crapola. Star Trek is for brainiacs and Star Wars is for the brainless. Total garbage.)

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

The days of "my Trek beats your Trek" is something that all of us should be well past at our stage of life, be it fanboyish or not.

Bryan

The days of any one version of a franchise being better than another version is something that should be well past us at this stage. Believe me, as much as I know that such things are a general part of fandoms, nothing sickened me more than the felgercarbish fights that resulted from Classic Galactica vs New Galactica.

Me, I love all Trek....be it Enterprise, TOS, TNG, the movies, DS9, or the 2009 film. Many different iterations, many different ideals....and yet all of it very much Trek to me.

I guess you can say (with a nod to Dork Tower for the inspiration for this) "My fandom is random!"

[Senmut]

It was an attempt to cash in and make money off someone else's creation.
And yes. The new ship design sucked gakh.

[martok2112]

Well of course Paramount's gonna cash in. It might be Gene Roddenberry's creation, but it's still Paramount's property.

Yeah, the ship didn't settle well with some old school Trekkers. I personally love the design, but that's me. The shot where she rises above Titan is simply gorgeous.

Looking forward to the next two installments.

[Titon]

For me it was one viewing and done. It was flashy but that was about it. I like Trek. Always have and always will but why is hollywood so bent on remaking everything? Can't the original story be told with a refreshing twist on an old story without completely reinveting everything? Take for instace the new "THING" movie coming out. Why would you redo this movie for the 3rd time? Is there not another scifi alien concept that can be put to screen over this?

Hollywood is dieing a slow death. They spend billions showing us stuff that's already been seen. Cripes they even remade "FOOTLOOSE"!

Instead of Trek let's have something new and cutting edge for once with a freakin story so your not bored half way through.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by Titon

Hollywood is dieing a slow death. They spend billions showing us stuff that's already been seen. Cripes they even remade "FOOTLOOSE"!

Instead of Trek let's have something new and cutting edge for once with a freakin story so your not bored half way through.

yeah that would be my take too.....

[martok2112]

For that, we once had StarGate SG-1 and Atlantis....alas, they are no more.
I don't think it's so much the problem with Hollywood.....it's the problem with younger generations.

I offer the following food for think.... Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc. But when the movies get remade for these younger generations, an interest in the original version gets cropped up....and then they sometimes look at the original version in a more favorable light.

I'd never even seen True Grit until the Cohen Bros' version with Jeff Bridges got released on Blu-Ray. However, I had bought both versions (John Wayne and Jeff Bridges) on Blu-ray, and I chose to watch the original first. I was blown away. And then seeing the Bridges version, I loved it too. I thought he did great respect to the Duke's original version by not trying to ape Wayne's original iconic take. However, when he utters that famous line "Fill yer' hand you son of a b----!", I coulda sworn I heard just an edge of Wayne in it.

It's the same thing with Star Trek. This new movie comes out....folks eat it up, and now they have an interest in a show they'd never even considered watching before.

Sometimes remakes do favors for the originals.
But that's my two cubits.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by martok2112

For that, we once had StarGate SG-1 and Atlantis....alas, they are no more.
I don't think it's so much the problem with Hollywood.....it's the problem with younger generations.

Enjoyed Stargate SG1 never care much for Atlantis.

I think its a bit of both Hollywood and younger viewers and Hollywood catering to that, expected as its a business.

But on creative levels its run by accountants more than film makers as in the heyday of Hollywood.

there are a few with vision I suppose.

perhaps I am just tired of the same modern formula that is now rampant in Hollywood film making and that goes for TV too.

I would say that is why I no longer watch them.

But that is me and I respect your views Steve. and I agree with aspect of your views.

ie. Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc.

agreed they do and it looks as if it the visual eye candy that wins out and the story telling looks at times to be lacking and therefor the film or TV shows are rapidly forgettable at least by me.

I mean there are many sites that talk about this and there is never a resolve nor do I think we can have one.

I love classic films for all the hokeyness lol. because.
1. I think the acting is great as are the actors in them,
2. The camera is lock on to the actors and does not get involved in the performance
3. The story telling is usually superior as is the direction.

again just my views on it.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Taranis

Enjoyed Stargate SG1 never care much for Atlantis.

I think its a bit of both Hollywood and younger viewers and Hollywood catering to that, expected as its a business.

But on creative levels its run by accountants more than film makers as in the heyday of Hollywood.

there are a few with vision I suppose.

perhaps I am just tired of the same modern formula that is now rampant in Hollywood film making and that goes for TV too.

I would say that is why I no longer watch them.

But that is me and I respect your views Steve. and I agree with aspect of your views.

ie. Younger generations probably would look on older movies as hokey, unsophisticated, etc.

agreed they do and it looks as if it the visual eye candy that wins out and the story telling looks at times to be lacking and therefor the film or TV shows are rapidly forgettable at least by me.

I mean there are many sites that talk about this and there is never a resolve nor do I think we can have one.

I love classic films for all the hokeyness lol. because.
1. I think the acting is great as are the actors in them,
2. The camera is lock on to the actors and does not get involved in the performance
3. The story telling is usually superior as is the direction.

again just my views on it.

And of course, I respect yours, and everyone else's views on this particular matter.

Believe me, I rarely have problems with original versions of a lot of movies and shows. And yes, there are some remakes that I felt absolutely did not need to be made.

But I do like some that have been made because they are pretty intelligently written, and some actually try to do homage and respect to the original material. (That's why I loved both versions of True Grit.)

Of course, I'm all about dynamic cinematography too....I'm one of the ones that doesn't mind the "shakey cam" effect for certain types of movies.

[Centurion Draco]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Star Trek '09 is the highest grossing Trek movie of all time. I think it pulled in around $400 million plus at the box office.

Which has to be good news, not only for Trek but also for the whole genre.

I don't think it was the best ST movie, but it's surely a good one.
I certainly wouldn't be happy if they decided not to make a sequel!!

TBH sci-fi (tv and movie) has just been a letdown in recent years.
Series I've really liked get cancelled long before their time, re-boots I actually want to see seem to be frozen in the pre-production stage, and stuff that does get made often sucks.....
We all know the story !

In short it's about time something went right!
A good start to the Trek reboot followed by a total EPIC!!!

.....will do me just fine!

Thanks for the Klingon tip. I hadn't seen the deleted scene!!
Glad they are clearly thinking about it, although I'm kinda glad they didn't go with that version. I want the Klingons to be really dark and mean!

Best
Gene

[Centurion Draco]

Originally Posted by Taranis

For me Star Trek 9 was the worst of the lot.

1. for me the story was weak.
2. Casting was the only good thing (save for Simon Pegg as Mr Scott. as much as I like Mr Peggs other work)
3. Good action (yes) but for me and I think others, Star Trek was about more than that.
4. Cadet to Captain in one mission is god awful story telling.

My personal opinion is that it grossed so much based on a number of things.
Original fans having a look see. (and going away disappointed. ie me)
Modern audiences look for smash and bang movies now and not content.
I think I got my action trek in TWOK and UDC. Steve

Personally I have given up on it and have my DVD collection to sustain me now lol

Oh again I hate the Enterprise design in it.... seen better fan made designs out there.

Salute

Worse than 5??

Now come on, that's just crazy talk

I thought that the plot wasn't anything to phone home about, but I think it was kinda hampered by the fact that it needed to do so much!
I really think they made a big effort not to piss off the old fans, to pay homage to the original while introducing the new. To not 'erase' the old, while giving the reboot a life of its own and setting the scene for more to come.

In short I think it was a compromise, but it had to be and I think it could have been a whole lot worse.
Lets face it, WE of all groups of fans know how wrong it could have gone!
So some minor gripes........
Like how completely mis-cast Simon Pegg definately was.... Are still forgivable.

.... As long as the next one is as good as Wrath Of Khan!

Best
Gene

[Centurion Draco]

Originally Posted by Senmut

It was an attempt to cash in and make money off someone else's creation.
And yes. The new ship design sucked gakh.

Of course it was an attempt to make money, it wasn't a fan-film, and as my namesake has been dead these last 2 decades.... I don't see your point Senmut?

What didn't you like about the new enterprise?
Too Ambassador class-ish?
It's not the refit-Enterprise for sure, but what was so wrong with it?

I thought it could have been a bit more 'sharp' but hey! As with everything, it was a compromise candidate.

What would you have wanted, or is it that you are essentially just against messing with the source material at all?

Best
Gene

[Darrell Lawrence]

I liked the new movie just fine, story-wise.

The designs I didn't care for though.

This was an alternate timeline, yes. But when did it diverge? Certainly not when the Romulans appeared during Kirk's dad's time, because his ship was more "advanced" than the classic "E".

I'd have LOVED to have seen the classic "E" on the big screen, even just once.

This movie was too bright/shiny on the "E" bridge, etc. That was my main prob with t.