Amph Star Trek Beyond

Roberto Orci defends creation of alternate universe, saying it was his idea, but goes back to that "This is why I make movies and you don't" defense

I never minded the creation of it, but considering they went with a Wrath of Khan rehash for the sequel when they could've done just about anything, just ticks me off.

 

I'm not thrilled with the Khan plot for "into darkness", but even with that misstep it's still miles better than most of the other Trek films.

 

Honestly I think Star Trek would best work as a tv series, with the movies being the epic season finale/premieres.

 

I do miss Star Trek on tv...I wonder if Pine and Quinto would be willing to committ to a tv series in the alternate universe?

 

I am watching Star Trek TOS the episode is called, Shore Leave,, season one episode 15, Next up is Svengoolie, the invisible man returns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Depends on if Quinto's coming back as Sylar in the Heroes mini-series next year.

 

Star Trek is actually a premise best suited for episodic TV IMO. Not that it can't work as a film(s), because it obviously has both commercially and artistically for decades. But I think--particularly in this day and age--the pressure to deliver straight up Summer blockbuster/popcorn entertainment is such that I'm not sure Paramount would risk a smaller scale and more thoughtful story.

Maybe if they released one during the holiday season, when I think people are more inclined to that kind of storytelling.

 

Yes, Trek needs to be a gat-damn TV series because it's a gat-damn TV series. Heck, I'm not even all that for heavy seralization or a giant overaching continuity or grand mult-year arc story. It's folks on a ship named Enterprise. They run into various social issues of the week metaphor planets and/or wacky sci-fi story ideas. All very self-contained, almost entirely done in one. That's the most of what I would want out of Trek to me and I wish it would go back to that. But, as mentioned before, CBS is now Trek TV and Paramount is Trek movies, so slightly more complicated now.

Anyway, new director? My kneejerk reaction was bring back Orci. If anything, the guy at least knows the Trek series and seems to be passionate about it. Angsty about new Justin Lin guy. But, having thought a tad more, and even though I haven't seen much of the Fast and Furious series (I think Fast Five was the one I watched) Justin Lin is directing the first few eps of Season 2 of True Detective. True Detective is a good show. Okay, fine, Lin, you can have Star Trek now. Don't screw it up.

 

If they had gone with a True Detective director, they should have gone with season 1's Cary Fukunaga. I have no idea what he would do with Trek, but at least he would've done an awesome tracking shot.

 

Fukunaga directs: "Star Trek Is A Flat Circle" Whole lot of Rust Cohle style monlogues from Spock the briefing room as he works his way through a few bottles of Romulan Ale.

 

Pretty much everything in this video is correct. Except his choice for favorite Star Trek movie. IV is clearly the best.

 

that shot...

 

the last Good Trek on TV was TOS the rest that came after was just cheesy. As for the movies, Abrams made Trek cool for the first time, with tons of Star Wars Homages, I love both Abrams Trek and IMHO Any red blooded Star Wars Fan that does not get into the Star Wars Homages in the Abrams Trek, i question weather you are actually watching these movies. And lest we not forget ILM did the visual Effects for these two movies, they were the main vendor, Into Darkness had beautiful CGI if that does not give you hope for episode 7 TFA then I don't know what to say. personally i couldn't tell what was CGI and what wasn't it was seamless, and that is synonymous with how Abrams makes films he blends Practical And CGI really well.....

 

Allow me to rebut:

 

I think it depends on what generation you are from, if you are a child of the 1980's or the 1990's then you probably love the next generation and the shows that came after, but if you were a child of the 1950's or the 1960's then you most likely hate the next generation and the shows that came after and you most likely like TOS. I was born in 1981 but I was heavily influenced by my dad who was born in 1954 and he loves TOS but he hates the next generation. long story short it is a generational thing...

I know Star Gate is slightly different but the star gate TV show kind of reminded me of Star Trek The Next Generation and I loved Star Gate The Movie but i thought the TV Show was horrible. .

 

I'm from the 70s. I love TOS, TNG and DS9, hated VOY (though liked the concept) and liked half of ENT.

Most TNG movies sucked, most TOS movies were passable or good and first Abrams good, second Abrams abomination.

 

there was a time when i liked TNG and and DS9 but now I see how Cheesy they are, As for the Movies I used to Think Wrath Of Khan was the best Trek Movie but After seeing The 2 Abrams Trek movies I think they blow all Trek movies out of the water, I love all the Star Wars Homages in both trek movies and cant wait to see how Abrams does with a real Star War Movie.

 

Lelouch Rebellion: I spent my childhood in Pakistan where all we got was TOS star trek even though it was the 90s. My first star trek was TOS. And compared to TNG onwards, TOS is cheesy. TNG and DS9 are immeasurably better.

 

@Lord Vivec


Tell that to, Data's Cat, And Make it So # 1, And I think all that has to be said is Jonathan Frakes is Talentless and Boring.




come on, how is this not Horrible At least Abrams Trek And TOS nailed the whole concept of The Prime Directive, and Abrams Trek had way cooler Uniforms that harkened back to TOS but IMHO were Cooler!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lord Vivec are you A US soldier or one of our Allies Soldiers? If so that is Really cool, My sister Joined The US Army after 9/11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

what

 

I've read this whole thread like an anthropologist observing a tribe. Trekkie's are so interesting I don't think there's another nerd universe that is more divisive or "to each his own". Every series and its films has its adherents. People like different things. So I do sometimes find it odd that the arguments of " x aspect is/isn't how Trek should be" still ring from every faction. Especially when I'm pretty sure one of the only unifying things between all Treks is supposed to be the search for peace and the celebration of variety, multiculturalism, etc.

For that reason I as an Abrams Trek fan don't actually mind that much that a lot of other Trek fans hate that version. I mean, a lot of people hate DS9, but for some other people that's their favorite. I just kind of wish there was some acknowledgement of "to each their own". But then I have never understood spending a lot of time discussing something you don't like, particularly if no one is going to change their mind anyway.

Personally I love both ST'09 and Into Darkness, and I don't mind his contributions to those, but I'm glad Orci is gone. Personal truther crap aside, you absolutely can't let a novice direct a film of this size. Let him direct some Abrams TV shows if he wants to head that way eventually.

Not sure about Justin Lin. I know pretty much nothing about his work. I would not be surprised to see ST III be a little more akin to the first one. A little more adventure romp than The Dark Knight. I think we are finally breaking out of our post 9-11 addiction to dark and gritty movies. Yes it should be true to Abrams Trek. But I don't know that it has any more obligation to be like (insert your favorite Trek show) than that show has an obligation to be just like (insert your least favorite trek show).

As always with films I want to see, I'll reserve judgment until I see it.

Edit: I do have to add, with apologies to my good buddy Evan, that I don't think Orci's crazy truther beliefs matter to Into Darkness. Before I knew he was a truther, it never occurred to me that this is what the film was 'about'. After, I could see a few ways those beliefs if his influenced it, but it's not a direct parallel.

More importantly, though, there's a long history of people with rather out there or extreme beliefs influencing sci fi with them. Frankly much of sci fi and even a lot of Trek involves evil government organizations and conspiracies. For instance, every single Admiral in the history of Trek is secretly evil

Does anyone care that a lot of the story elements of BSG were inspired by Mormon beliefs? No because it just comes across as fantastic and fun and interesting. If there's any place for shadowy conspiracies and cautionary tales about the evils of everyone in charge, isn't it in sci fi?

 

Well, that's the thing though.

In BSG's case (and I speak only of the original and not the abomination of a remake, of course): that was explicitly the point. It was supposed to be a family-friendly, space fantasy which was based on Mormon ideals (and possibly some actual history of the religion; I can't say for sure).

In Star Trek's case, it's about boldly going -- exploration and intellectual pursuits in a post-scarcity, near-utopian society. Even DS9, my favorite, was still about that same society -- just about what happens when that type of society runs up against a theoretically more-advanced society that wants to eradicate that way of life (for which I'm glad that DS9 ended prior to 9/11) It wasn't a surprise that the episode involving a potential takeover of Starfleet was entitled Paradise Lost. And nowhere near all Admirals were secretly evil -- only a very, very few. Even Admiral Nechayev -- who was a brusque, no-nonsense woman -- was portrayed as the aforementioned but still wanted to act for the betterment of the Federation (while still caring whether Picard survived his potential suicide mission to Cardassia).

With the reboot... it's lost that, and not just because it's prior to the five-year mission. There's no exploration; the science isn't internally consistent with itself. It's more action than intelligence. And I say this as someone who had decently high hopes after the 2009 reboot film; I really liked it -- plot bunnies aside -- and was interested to see where it went. And the answer is: action, whitewashing, false flag operations and ignoring SMEs, which would never happen on TOS. McCoy and Spock may have fought, intellectually, but never on a science or medical issue.

 

I've said it before, JJA just doesn't get Trek. He tried to make it into SW action/adventure, but that's not what Trek was supposed to be about. NuTrek has no sense of hope for mankind to build a better future, which was arguably the keystone of the story as Roddenberry envisioned it.

 

I can kind of understand that. I just also find the Roddenberry concept of a society where there's no bad stuff ever to be:

1) Undramatic and an interesting idea for a book but not so much film or tv
2) A little xenophobic and arrogant in a sort of bizarre way... The notion that human society is perfect and now we have to go out and explore in order to bring peace and knowledge to those awful other people. I don't mind a world where leaders are often corrupt because, well... Leaders are often corrupt

But yeah, I would also never claim to be a real Star Trek fan. I think it's honestly a difficult show to get into as an adult. I liked some of the movies as a kid, but since I never saw the show until I was older I couldn't grasp the basic concept as well. Like I said, I think it would be a great book....

I mean, Doctor Who is a series that has an ultimately positive and optimistic aim for society (let's be kind and peaceful and try to do the right thing)... But contrastingly, shows over and over that this is hard because our main characters are great but also really flawed. It just kind of goes back to the roots of those shows. TOS presents a group of people who represent the shining perfect Utopian goal of future humanity. Original Who starts with a fantastic and exciting and dangerous universe that's interesting to explore but into which the characters are whisked by the Doctor, who is kind of an ass and kidnaps some people and won't take them home

What I'm saying I guess is that Star Trek is a valid sort of classic sci fi... It's just not one that appeals to me very much.

But yeah, I think most people who are NuTrek fans primarily like it precisely because it's an adventure sci fi. Which admittedly is not very Star Trek. So sure, I get the animosity I just still find the ST fan factions interesting. And I also don't think that Into Darkness is a bad movie just because it's not a good Trek movie. I think it's a really good adventure movie.

As to BSG, I was talking about the incredibly superior and awesome remake Which has nothing to do with the Mormon cosmos or being family friendly, and thus is a better comparison to the Orci Into Darkness thing.