-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
655 replies to this topic

#641 of 656 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,552 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted January 04 2010 - 07:32 AM

The other problem was there were too many villains.  The main protagonist is Kirk and the main goal is to get him to be captain of the Enterprise.  In a very real sense, Spock is the biggest villain in the movie as in preventing the protagonist from reaching his goal; trying to get Kirk expelled from the academy, marooning him on an ice planet, and then giving him the 3rd degree when he beams onto the Enterprise while at warp.  The amount of conflict between Kirk and Spock was too much such that it took away all of the usual screen time devoted to protagonist / antagonist (theoretically the main villain) interactions.

The other huge villain is the Narada itself.  The ship is so uber-powerful that we will never see the Enterprise anywhere near it so we don't get a good give and take between Kirk and Nero, the supposed main villain.  They have to stay so far apart from each other that we really have two independent plot lines going on at once.




#642 of 656 Claire Panke

Claire Panke

    Second Unit

  • 409 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 05 2002

Posted January 04 2010 - 12:58 PM

There were not too many villains in Star Trek

The Narada certainly has a powerful screen presence and aura of mystery, but it doesn't direct the action. Nero wields its weapons. It's not a villain.

Spock is not a villain either. In fact, most of the plot and character development hinges not on Kirk overcoming Spock but on Kirk learning how to respect and work with him - and Spock doing the same. It's not until these two can acknowledge their inner demons and the value of the other's POV that the whoole thing finally gels. The development of the relationship between these two, and Kirk's earning the respect of the rest of the key crew members, how they all work together as a team to defeat a seemingly insurmountable enemy - this is the main story in the movie. As an origin story, Nero & the Romulans are the McGuffin, and as such a bit more interesting than they might've been, given their limited screen time. I actually thought Bana was very effective in the role.

But the big deal in this movie is the story of how these people all got together and became the people we know (more or less) from TOS.

Spock and Kirk's relationship is quite like the one in classic romatic comedies - protagonists meet cute, hate each other on sight, clash, have change of heart, form lasting realtionship.

#643 of 656 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,552 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted January 05 2010 - 03:29 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire Panke 

But the big deal in this movie is the story of how these people all got together and became the people we know (more or less) from TOS.

Spock and Kirk's relationship is quite like the one in classic romatic comedies - protagonists meet cute, hate each other on sight, clash, have change of heart, form lasting realtionship.
Then any external force would have done and we didn't need a villain if the story was going to be 90% about the conflict between Kirk and Spock.  But that is almost beside the point as there didn't need to be conflict between Kirk and Spock.  There is nothing in TOS that indicates Kirk and Spock were ever anything but friends.  Spock respected Kirk because Kirk was a damn fine leader, officer, and captain.  Kirk respected Spock because he was an excellent science officer and helped balance out some of his more rash thoughts and decisions.

The goal of this movie is to get Kirk to the captain's chair and we are starting at the academy time frame with a little time at the start for the setup.  J.J. Abrams decided to go for the conflict between Kirk and Spock angle to create the respect and friendship.  Fine but then the external force that creates the extreme battlefield promotions, i.e. "the villain" won't be anything but what we got on the screen.  A one-dimensional caricature of a villain and it could have been anything.  Why not just choose some force of nature as the external force and then we don't need to care or have explained the motivations.  Why "waste" a good humanoid villain especially now that there is talk of bringing back Khan for the second movie, yet another humanoid villain "Doing the same thing we do every [movie].  Try to take over the world!"?  Oh wait, wrong show.



#644 of 656 Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,574 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted January 05 2010 - 08:50 AM

I hope this talk of bringing back Kahn is just that: talk. We don't need another take on Kahn. Let these writers come up with their own villains instead of wrecking the creations of others. It is bad enough what they did with the original characters in this movie: Kirk and his Looney Tune hands; Spock with an ill-conceived and poorly executed "love interest"; and Scotty being the usual buffoonic comedy relief. The only one they didn't shit on was "Bones" McCoy. Obviously, the writers must have had great love and respect for that character.

Now they want to use Kahn. Hey, maybe they can have him fall off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote. That should be good for some yucks.

Edit: I just thought of something. I was wrong about "Bones". They even shit on that character by having him inject Kirk and then cast doubts on his competence as a doctor by having him run around behind Kirk, injecting him repeatedly as he willy nilly tried to correct his boneheaded move of injecting the man in the first place. In reality, these writers probably respected "Bones" the least, because they made him look like an irresponsible idiot, prone to rash action, and barely competent as a physician.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#645 of 656 Claire Panke

Claire Panke

    Second Unit

  • 409 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 05 2002

Posted January 05 2010 - 09:07 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S View Post

I hope this talk of bringing back Kahn is just that: talk. We don't need another take on Kahn. Let these writers come up with their own villains instead of wrecking the creations of others. It is bad enough what they did with the original characters in this movie: Kirk and his Looney Tune hands; Spock with an ill-conceived and poorly executed "love interest"; and Scotty being the usual buffoonic comedy relief. The only one they didn't shit on was "Bones" McCoy. Obviously, the writers must have had great love and respect for that character.

Now they want to use Kahn. Hey, maybe they can have him fall off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote. That should be good for some yucks.
Fangirls everywhere are happy Spock has a love interest, me included.

But I'm with you on Khan. I would not like to see another take on that in a future film - it's already been done, and done well.

Chuck, I don't think a personality conflict makes Spock and Kirk "enemies". And I think it added a richness to the story that will end up making them even closer friends. TOS relationships have already been explored and this alternate time line offers a fresh take on beloved characters. I'm just fine with this, and I've been a Trek fan since Spetember 1966.

I'll just have to disagree with you all about this film. I thought it was a terrific and enjoyable reboot, quite my favorite popcorn movie of the year. Flawless? Nope, fun and well crafted? Definitely.


#646 of 656 Will_B

Will_B

    Producer

  • 4,733 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted January 05 2010 - 12:44 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S 
Edit: I just thought of something. I was wrong about "Bones". They even shit on that character by having him inject Kirk and then cast doubts on his competence as a doctor by having him run around behind Kirk, injecting him repeatedly as he willy nilly tried to correct his boneheaded move of injecting the man in the first place. In reality, these writers probably respected "Bones" the least, because they made him look like an irresponsible idiot, prone to rash action, and barely competent as a physician.
On the contrary, Bones was ready to correct for any reactions that SOME people get to the medications. Only some people get the numb-tongue.

I thought this was the only well-done slapstick scene in the movie. The "Scotty in the tubes" scene was terrible, and I seem to recall one other comedy moment that just didn't fit.


"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now

#647 of 656 Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,837 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted January 05 2010 - 02:03 PM

Maybe it was something involving Scotty and Dobby?


#648 of 656 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,468 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted January 05 2010 - 08:28 PM

I've seen real life allergic reactions that make Kirk's hands seem mild. And we all know Kirk has a history of allergies. Retinax V ring any bells?

As for McCoy's competence, he's damn good, but not infallible. "Operation Annihilate!" being a good example of when he messed up.

I have no problem with Spock's girlfriend, as they clearly got the idea from an early episode where Uhura flirts with him. Maybe there will be trouble later on if a certain nurse falls for him too. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif

They really ought to have Klingons in the next movie. I've long wondered about Koloth and Kirk's first encounter. They were very familiar towards each other in the Tribble episode.


#649 of 656 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,552 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted January 06 2010 - 04:06 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire Panke 

Chuck, I don't think a personality conflict makes Spock and Kirk "enemies". And I think it added a richness to the story that will end up making them even closer friends. TOS relationships have already been explored and this alternate time line offers a fresh take on beloved characters. I'm just fine with this, and I've been a Trek fan since Spetember 1966.

I'll just have to disagree with you all about this film. I thought it was a terrific and enjoyable reboot, quite my favorite popcorn movie of the year. Flawless? Nope, fun and well crafted? Definitely.
I enjoyed the film a lot.  Saw it two times in the theater and just watched it again on Blu-ray.  I was just pointing out that the paper-thin villain was inevitable given the real conflict was between Kirk and Spock and the creators really should have recognized that from the beginning and handled it better.  I personally would have chosen a different path but I am fine with the direction the movie went.

I imagine after the script was finished a conversation went something like this.
"Wow this doesn't suck and it actually damn good.  Excellent way to tie together old universe and new universe without resorting to the usual mumbo jumbo."
"The only problem is the villain is really weak.  With so much time devoted to the conflict between Kirk and Spock we don't have time to flesh out Nero."
"I know but we want Kirk and Spock's relationship to be built upon an initial conflict so Nero is what he is."
"Okay.  Let's film it."

As a whole they did a really good job with casting and acting.  I am going through the TOS season sets and occasionally I see Pine or Quinto on the screen.  In Amok Time as Kirk was getting his ass kicked, I had a flash of him looking like Pine, who also got his ass kicked the entire movie.  There are also times in TOS when Spock speaks and I here Quinto.  I do think that Quinto needs to make more of an effort to play logical as flat and matter of fact rather than looking like he is stifling anger but close enough.



#650 of 656 Ockeghem

Ockeghem

    Lead Actor

  • 9,164 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2007
  • Real Name:Scott D. Atwell

Posted January 06 2010 - 05:07 AM

Chuck,

I heard Shatner a few times when Pine spoke, and Spock (Nimoy) when Quinto spoke.  Those scenes were heartwarming for me.

Silverwook,

I wouldn't mind seeing Klingons in the next film.  I know some people think they're overdone, but I think there is much room for some of their earlier backstory to be included in a subsequent film.

#651 of 656 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,468 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted January 08 2010 - 08:43 AM

That animated Klingon propaganda short got my hopes up. Many thought it might be early viral marketing for the sequel, before the fan who made it came forward.

It's also about time we had another animated Trek series.


#652 of 656 Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer

  • 4,797 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted May 02 2010 - 11:58 PM

With Batman III scheduled for a few weeks after the next movie, and Spider-Man IV for a few days after the movie, could it be time to move the release date to make sure it isn't overshadowed by two highly anticipated - and sure to be over-hyped - franchise releases?


#653 of 656 PaulDA

PaulDA

    Screenwriter

  • 2,577 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 2004
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationSt. Hubert, Quebec, Canada

Posted May 03 2010 - 12:25 AM

 Why?  Don't you think a lot of people will go to all three?
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.

#654 of 656 Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer

  • 11,221 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted May 03 2010 - 03:14 AM

It could be the 80's all over again when a Trek film is killed by the competition. While a JJ Abrams Star Trek could fair much better, it sounds like it will be a busy summer. Trek 2009 did do very well against some stiff competition. Granted the competition didn't live up to the hype. But Batman 3 does have some expectations. Spidy 4 I'm guessing could flop, but they probably learned from that last film.

#655 of 656 PaulDA

PaulDA

    Screenwriter

  • 2,577 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 2004
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationSt. Hubert, Quebec, Canada

Posted May 03 2010 - 05:39 AM

 If it is good, it will do fine.  The target audience for all three films will not avoid one just because another one is showing.  If anything, it'll probably mean a lot of flow-through traffic for that two week period (if cinemas are smart--assuming film lengths are not too out of proportion, they'll stagger the showings in such a way that the overflow for one will simply go to the other and return soon for the first one).
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.

#656 of 656 jalli

jalli

    Auditioning

  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: May 03 2010

Posted May 03 2010 - 05:52 AM

thanks for your information i hope that you will give more in future that type

thanks

____________

 http://www.spinthecam.com/home.php'>chatroulette alternative