The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Really? So not cool on Orci's part...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-12-2014, 04:38 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Personally I don't think that the behaviour is the main problem, it is will hardly hurt the prublic image of Trek as only fans are aware of it. But I think the nutty conspiracy thinking does influence Orci's writing and I think that he will be a worse director than Abrams. Frakes did at least direct some TNG episodes before he directed two movies. On the other hand Orci has production experience.
I think it is a pity that Abrams will not direct the next Trek movie. I might not like his way of story-telling but from a technical perspective he is undoubtedly one of the best directors in Hollywood right now; Trek made a visual warp jump under his direction.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-12-2014, 08:24 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Let him direct, hopefully it bombs and maybe we can get a quality series shortly after. The fact that he went after fans doesn't make me like his work any more or less as I already dislike it. The more time goes by the more I dislike ST09 and STITD. In my opinion Orci and Kurtzman aren't very good writers in general and when it comes to Star Trek it's even worse. I saw Amazing Spider-Man 2 not knowing these two wrote it and when I got to the end it totally made sense. What's the deal with them and miracle blood?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-13-2014, 01:41 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Orci and Kurtzman are often hired to work on reboots and as their movies make money they will probably continue to work along these lines. You really gotta blame the audience, if they don't mind fairly generic story-telling and blunt copy&paste jobs (although I predicted the Khan hat-trick and had a low opinion of O&K after ST09 I nonetheless did not expect STID to be such a mess of a story) these guys will continue to write low-quality scripts.
Until people realize that O&K style reboots have more to do with rehashing old stories and destroying the soul of the original (TWOK was different than TOS but nonetheless stayed true to its core, TNG was different to classical Trek but nonetheless stayed true to its core) than with genuine innovation Hollywood will continue to produce crap.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-14-2014, 02:03 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

It appears he has gotten what he wished for.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/ro...-3-1201180140/

I confess I'm not encouraged by this at this point (while by relative Star Trek standards the scripts for the last two films were fine - although one must conceed that Star Trek fans as a collective whole are undoubtedly content with generic storytelling and plotting as long as it has the words 'Star Trek' on it somewhere) it has much more to do with Orci's lack of directing experience and 'difficult' relationships with fans means this is probably going to be a very rocky road.

Not that I follow the logic of a film franchise imploding encouraging people to spend money on a new TV series but what do I know.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-14-2014, 04:20 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Not that I follow the logic of a film franchise imploding encouraging people to spend money on a new TV series but what do I know.
I'm sure it will make it's money back but if it doesn't do as well as the last two and gets critically panned maybe the studio will see this blockbuster style Star Trek is not the way to go. Then again the TV franchise and film franchise are owned by separate entities now. I have a feeling in the future these 3 films will be viewed as a dark time for ST.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-14-2014, 08:46 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

I think it already is by some

But for me if it doesn't work out it'll simply have been something that was tried and either ultimately worked or didn't. But I'm not sure given how much the TV world has changed even since ENT was cancelled how a new series would really fare.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-14-2014, 09:06 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I think it already is by some

But for me if it doesn't work out it'll simply have been something that was tried and either ultimately worked or didn't. But I'm not sure given how much the TV world has changed even since ENT was cancelled how a new series would really fare.
Personally I would love to see this come together. I think it's a great idea and if executed well could be very interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-14-2014, 09:37 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Maybe TV Trek did peak with the TOS/TNG/DS9 trinity......................

OK, I won't lie.........I think getting three TV series up and running is neither as simple as percieved nor a slam dunk once they are. He's kind of seemingly advocating a Marvel Cinematic Universe for 'Star Trek' on TV but the way you have to do that is lock yourself into a great deal of serialisation and forward planning. For me..........serialisation = Happy Days, but what happens if one fails to take off? How far ahead do you need to plan your stories and what happens if audiences don't dig one of your main strands? How do you course correct when you have three series to consider? There's a whole lot of practicalities to work out that I really don't think people like ourselves understand when coming up with some of this.

No, let's start with one and see how that goes. Now, a show that doesn't throw away the progressive future but portrays people themselves as being still an issue (or the old Whedon 'Firefly' angle of 'our technology will change but humans won't') is of much more interest. But that's because I prefer (when I'm not in the mood for fun) as I get older murkier stories which reflect the battle between idealism and pragmatism (by that token the S31 show would be of more interest if they can tidy up the cliche filled synopsis) but that's because I like the idealogical battle between those unable to do the dirty work that always needs done, and those who are willing to do that very same work but are vilified and excluded by the very people who they protect from threats and dangers they refuse to see exist because they don't want to know about it. If you're making an actual serious show. However I don't know a new show would be covering new ground either in doing that. But it could put a 'Star Trek' spin on it. Maybe since that was the underlying theme of Into Darkness that's why I can see past it's other admitted issues.

But that would likely be a darker show. I don't think that's strictly what a lot of fans clamour for. There's a lot of Trek of the bouncy fluffy kind with a happy neat ending and probably you go too far in one direction and then fans want to veer back the other way. There's an argument that at least when 'TNG' and 'DS9' were on air you could decide what you were in the mood for and then each would have a go at being the other inbetween sometimes as well. You could kind of do the same with 'VOY' and 'ENT' aside from them being inferior to their predecessors generally.

The argument about giving Trek some kind of relevance again in a world that has changed quite a bit (and yet also still has many of the same issues as well) since the 1960s is probably the biggest challenge and to be honest Trek as a whole has probably been spinning it's wheels on that front for some time. The additional problem for me though is that it's not on the film front that will be fixed. The films have always been too much fun side excursions and space adventures rather than heavyweight material. It would have to be on TV.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 05-14-2014 at 10:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-14-2014, 11:16 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
Personally I would love to see this come together. I think it's a great idea and if executed well could be very interesting.
"But I actually wonder if the Very Serious Point bit, the optimism about a progressive, secular, interconnected vision of the future might actually be the bigger challenge for networks that are either skittish about politics or committed to a gritty, pessimistic take on them."

Yep, that's the entire problem of current Trek in a nutshell. The times are fairly reactionary so it is hardly surprising that Trek becomes reactionary crap as well.

About the suggestions, these hypothetical series could easily suffer from what Trek suffered in the nineties (more precisely, TNG since S3/S4 until the end of VOY): soap opera feeling. You could get the best of both worlds, make the universe feel large again and explore hitherto unseen parts of the Federation, if you did something like e.g. a 23rd century freighter series (and no need for this explicit reboot nonsense, who cares how the stuff looks as long as the stories sticks to the rough parameters of what Trek and the 23rd century should feel like).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-14-2014, 07:54 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
Default

I'm not encouraged by the news either. With him already writing, I wanted someone more experienced to direct (or alternatively he could have directed another person's script, however we've known for some time that the screenplay was him plus two newbies). Naturally I do the only thing I can, which is shrug my shoulders and hope for the best.

My hope at this point is that Orci will try to develop a style (or whatever you call it when it's your first picture) apart from JJ's. I (generally) dislike continuity for its own sake, especially when it's reinforced by mere virtue of assumption (there are exceptions).

I remember the forbes link, and the observation that almost every fan's 'dream' ST series already existed as DS9. I even remember several of us agreeing with that.

So here are some rhetorical questions I want to bounce off the wall:

Suppose this is it for ST. This next movie and then nothing else ever again.

Would you be fine with that? Could you look at all the DVDs on your shelf and say "You know what, this was already more than enough." How long would it take to re-watch all those DVDs anyway? Or even one-third of them, if you figure that each series so far has about 30-50% re-watchability?

(On a side note -and I know some of you probably thought this was where I was primarily going- suppose they kept on making ST but it was never again something you were able to connect with? Would this really be any different, practically speaking, then the scenario above?)

How much more ST do we actually need? And is there really anything left that hasn't been done on ST before? (and if you say Star Trek The 'Next' Next Generation, as the forbes blogger did upfront in the first of his three proposals, I promise I'll fall asleep)

Let's go back to DS9, arguably the most ambitious of the STs. Could it be redone, only better? For my own money, two other shows already out-DS9ed DS9. They are B5 and BSG (and even then it's an either/or tradeoff between which has better setup/payoff and which has more consistent quality dialogue/performances/production value). Could ST come back and do it better than they did?

Then there's Joss Whedon, whom the blogger quoted somebody mentioning as an instructive model. I bring him up because I think he did a better job than ST of managing two simultaneous shows and of handling crossovers between the two in an indirect or casual (and sometimes discreet) manner. Does ST need to come back and prove it can do it to it better?

If it did, so what? What would be the point, what would be the relevance? What would be the inspiration besides "Let's make the ultimate space opera, whatever that is"? What would be the justification?

Should whoever's at the helm be challenged to have an answer? (I don't have one).

For myself, I like the 10-13 episodes-per-season idea. Ever since The Sopranos I've believed it was time for the next 'big' sci-fi show to implement that format (which makes it now about 15 years too late). It's not just the production that has limits, but also the imagination. For one season I thought that BSG was listening.

I don't 'dislike' the blogger's three ideas, although I think his West Wing and S31 concepts are really different aspects of the same show.

I don't dislike the idea of a starship show having a season-long arc to it, since I think VOY already seemed out of touch (with then-contemporary television) for not having something like that.

I wouldn't know how to make ST relevant again. I think you would have to step WAY back to see how it's been influenced by the '60s, the '80s, or the '90s, versus at what point did it start being more heavily influenced by its own past traditions/cliches/whatever. As a fan, I wouldn't know how to do that.

Idealism vs pragmatism: I wouldn't claim to know what balance of the two would attract audiences today. But I wonder if ST could keep its idealism, but dial it back (so as to not seem verbally explicit or self-aggrandizing about it) without being accused of abandoning it altogether.

Finally, I love movies. I can maybe write off a whole season (or whole series) if it's bland enough. But I can't ignore a ST movie, even a bad one (The Final Frontier, anybody?). I wonder 'why' ST can't become more relevant on the movie front. Tradition argues against it. But contemplative or 'smart' film franchises occasionally happen. Is it not really a question of who is doing it? (And I agree that it's not going to happen this time out, which I suppose brings me full circle in closing: Love ST, do we need more ST, and is there any unexplored territory left for ST)

I've had the Rolling Stones' "It's Only Rock-n-Roll But I Like It" stuck in my head through most of this...
__________________


Last edited by samwiseb : 05-14-2014 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.