Peter T Chattaway

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

484 posts in this topic

NBooth wrote:

: Tor.com asks why Star Trek 2 needs a villain.

Heh. Join the club.

Yeah, I immediately thought of your comments when I read the 'blog post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more of a Star Wars aficionado than a Trekkie...I don't know all the problems with time lines and I don't recognize any of the characters mentioned except for Khan and Enterprise crew.

Me, I hated ST: TMP and ST: TFF. I found them both boring. I'd rather see a film with poor quality but some action (Nemesis) than be bored through the whole movie. I don't think the sequel needs to, or should, have a villain/character from previous Star Trek films or series. I'd rather have the Federation clash with the Klingons or the Cardassians. I think that the Klingons would provide some familiarity with casual fans or people who have barely watched any Star Trek because they are one of the most famous alien races. I think the Cardassians might be interesting too because I don't think they've been featured in any of the films yet. If I were making the movies, I would introduce some sort of conflict between the Federation and the Klingons or the Cardassians and then have the conflict continue on into Star Trek 3.

Also, this is an awesome shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winter shaker wrote:

: I'd rather have the Federation clash with the Klingons or the Cardassians.

Klingons, maybe. But then, at this point in galactic history, we'd have to ask where the Organians are. (They were the ones who imposed a peace treaty between the Federation and the Klingons in the very first episode that featured the Klingons; this treaty was referred to in later episodes such as 'The Trouble with Tribbles'.) (The Organians don't seem to have intervened during the events of the earlier films, though -- at least one of which, namely ST6:TUC, was basically a fulfilling of the Organians' prediction that the Federation and the Klingons would one day be working together.)

As for the Cardassians... had the Federation even encountered them yet, by this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Cardassians... had the Federation even encountered them yet, by this point?

Like I said, I'm not a huge Star Trek fan so I don't know the "historical details". But what with this series being an alternate universe, I figured it lets J.J. Abrams basically do whatever he wants with his vision of Star Trek because unless there's some sort of dimension-leaping in subsequent Star Trek shows, anything in his films won't have any bearing on events in the Roddenberry/Braga/Berman universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winter shaker wrote:

: I'd rather have the Federation clash with the Klingons or the Cardassians.

Klingons, maybe. But then, at this point in galactic history, we'd have to ask where the Organians are. (They were the ones who imposed a peace treaty between the Federation and the Klingons in the very first episode that featured the Klingons; this treaty was referred to in later episodes such as 'The Trouble with Tribbles'.) (The Organians don't seem to have intervened during the events of the earlier films, though -- at least one of which, namely ST6:TUC, was basically a fulfilling of the Organians' prediction that the Federation and the Klingons would one day be working together.)

It always bugged me that the Organians never really figured in the post-TOS universe (particularly in TUC)--though, since I'm primarily old school Trek, perhaps they show up in TNG at some point. They play a major role in the Blish novel Spock Must Die!, and they seemed like a key element that scriptwriters would want to keep in mind, but for whatever reason it's a point in Klingon-Federation history that's basically ignored. I would love to see them show up in the new series, but I'm not sure it's really "smart" enough to handle them (speaking as someone who has said more than once that the Abrams Star Trek gets TOS futurecool in a way that none of the movies ever even attempted).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

winter shaker wrote:

: But what with this series being an alternate universe, I figured it lets J.J. Abrams basically do whatever he wants with his vision of Star Trek because unless there's some sort of dimension-leaping in subsequent Star Trek shows, anything in his films won't have any bearing on events in the Roddenberry/Braga/Berman universe.

Well, within limits, yeah. But the idea behind the current movie series is that everything stayed the same *until the birth of Kirk*, which took place slightly earlier than it was supposed to on this timeline. So that means, for example, that the Braga/Berman series Star Trek: Enterprise actually belongs to the past of these movies just as it does to the rest of the franchise.

(Kirk was born in 2233 on both timelines, but on different days; the series Enterprise took place between 2151 and 2155.)

NBooth wrote:

: It always bugged me that the Organians never really figured in the post-TOS universe (particularly in TUC)--though, since I'm primarily old school Trek, perhaps they show up in TNG at some point.

FWIW, Memory Alpha indicates that their only non-TOS appearance was in an episode of ENT (i.e. in an episode that took place a century BEFORE the events of TOS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this line of reasoning questionable. I mean, I own all three seasons of the TOS. There are a lot of villains throughout the series.

I think a third or fourth film should feature the Mirror-verse. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nezpop wrote:

: I find this line of reasoning questionable. I mean, I own all three seasons of the TOS. There are a lot of villains throughout the series.

Yes, but you don't have a villain in EVERY episode. And even when you do, the villains are sometimes more comedic than anything else; see, e.g., the Klingons in 'The Trouble with Tribbles'. Are they the "bad guys"? Yes, of course. Are they particularly dangerous? Beyond a bar brawl -- in which it is Scotty, not the Klingons, who throws the first punch! -- no.

And what about Harry Mudd (one of the very few non-regular characters to appear in more than one episode)? Is he a "bad guy"? Maybe, on some level. But again, he's not a "villain" in the action-movie sense, which I think is what the makers of these new films are going for.

: I think a third or fourth film should feature the Mirror-verse. :)

Oh my. An ALTERNATE Mirror-verse, to go with the alternate universe? The mind reels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son asked me yesterday if Harry Mudd was a "bad guy". I had a hard time answering that one. I said he was neither wholly good nor wholly bad; he was a scoundrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My son asked me yesterday if Harry Mudd was a "bad guy". I had a hard time answering that one. I said he was neither wholly good nor wholly bad; he was a scoundrel.

That is the response I give to my kids about anyone.

'Cept the boogyman, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can 'Star Trek 2' Morph From 70-Page Outline To Summer Tent Pole In 13 Months?

Paramount isn't confirming any of this, but I'm told that there soon should be good news and bad news on the Star Trek sequel front. The good news: With his film Super 8 set for release June 10, JJ Abrams is expected to announce shortly his return as director of Star Trek 2. The bad news: Even moving at warp speed, Abrams will be hard pressed to make the June 29, 2012 release date that the studio set for the film. I'm told that the move being considered right now is to push Trek back for a Holiday 2012 release. . . .

Mike Fleming, Deadline.com, May 24

- - -

So the three-year gap between J.J. Abrams films could now be a three-and-a-half-year gap, or more. The only longer gaps between films in the history of this franchise are the four-year gap between the last two ST:TNG films (Insurrection and Nemesis) and the six-and-a-half-year gap between the last ST:TNG film and J.J. Abrams' film. Indeed, with the exception of the two aforementioned gaps and the three-year gap between the last ST:TOS film (The Undiscovered Country) and the first ST:TNG film (Generations), all the previous films were produced at gaps of between two years and two-and-a-half years.

With the films coming out so far apart now, I'm not really sure it feels like a "series" right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GamePro has an interview with screenwriter Roberto Orci on how the upcoming Star Trek videogame will tie into the new movies' continuity:

Story is actually one of the things that comes back and one of the things that the game might not always have. So one of the reasons we were excited to participate in this game is that we wanted it to be very much something that can fit in between the two movies, something that was in a way – fans will tell you that it's only canon when it’s on screen in a movie; and so fine, Alex [Kurtzman] and I, and Tim [Jones] and J.J [Abrams]. and Brian will acquiesce and say that it’s not canon unless it’s not on film. But we would like to think that the game and everything that we do in between to be as close to canon as you can get because it’s actually being taken into consideration with where the movies are.

So I would say that what’s going to be different about this game is that it’s going to fit into our new universe. It’s going to fit into the Star Trek that we were lucky enough to generate, and it’s going to be a story that happens within that universe and that story is not going to be fan fiction. It’s going to be a story that fits into our movies, and fits into between the first two movies. The things that we are thinking about for this game very much fall into what can happen between the two movies, and that’s exciting for me as a fan.

Kat: So when I watch the second movie. will I be rewarded in some way for having played the game?

Orci: Absolutely, that’s exactly the point. We would not allow a game to go out if it was not somehow a part of the continuity. One of the things that we always loved about Star Trek before we were ever lucky enough to work on it, was that it had this very inclusive universe. If you’re a Star Trek you‘re a canon fanatic. You want to try to see how things fit into everything else. So when the idea of this game came up, we could not help but try to figure out, how does this fit into our universe? If you’re a fan of the first movie or Star Trek in general; hopefully like the Countdown comics, the game is not just a side effect but a part of the universe. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ Abrams Moving Toward Helming 'Star Trek 2,' But 'G.I. Joe' Sequel Will Get His June 29, 2012 Release Slot

EXCLUSIVE: Now that the launch of Super 8 is behind him, JJ Abrams is moving toward a commitment to direct Star Trek 2. But just as Deadline has been telling you, there's no way that he'll be able to make the June 29, 2012 release date that Paramount carved out for the film. . . .

Abrams has just returned from vacation and is hunkering down with writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof to work on the Trek script and beginning prep for a Trek sequel that will likely begin production in January and either be dated for release for the fourth quarter of 2012 or summer 2013. Abrams hasn't formally committed and hasn't approved a script yet, but the studio has exercised its option on the cast and they will be ready when Abrams is. . . .

Deadline.com, July 27

- - -

To repeat: The longest gap between Star Trek films, not counting the 6.5 years between Nemesis and the JJ Abrams film, was the 4 years between Insurrection and Nemesis. And prior to that, the longest gap was the nearly 3 years between The Undiscovered Country (the last film with the original cast) and Generations (the first film with the Next Generation cast). So gaps of this length, in the past, have always taken place when there was a changing of the guard or some uncertainty regarding the franchise's future; it is unprecedented for the cast and crew of a successful (and very much so, in this case) Star Trek film to wait this long before making another one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So J.J. Abrams will now officially become the fourth person to direct two Star Trek films ... and the first non-cast-member to direct two CONSECUTIVE Star Trek films. (Leonard Nimoy directed ST3:TSFS and ST4:TVH, and Jonathan Frakes directed ST:FC and ST:I, while Nick Meyer directed ST2:TWOK and ST6:TUC almost a decade apart.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so one of the cast members has let us know that the title won't be Star Trek 2.

Well of course it won't. There already IS a "Star Trek Two". And not only that, but it's the most highly-regarded movie in the entire franchise. Putting ANOTHER "Star Trek Two" out there is just asking for trouble.

But there's no word yet on what they WILL call this movie.

It's a challenge, to be sure.

The first six movies all had numbers, because they all starred the original-series cast (who, during the first four movies, were the only cast the franchise had ever known). But after that, they went to a non-numerical system; the next four movies all featured the Next Generation cast, and, given that they were just getting started on their big-screen adventures, it wouldn't have been right to call their first movie Star Trek 7 and their second movie Star Trek 8, etc. And then the eleventh movie just called itself plain old Star Trek because it wanted to establish itself as a reboot of sorts.

The problem now is that if any of these reboot sequels have short punchy titles like Star Trek: Sequel, it might end up sounding like one of the Next Generation movies (only one of which -- Star Trek: First Contact, the only one with a FOUR-word title! -- is really all that well-regarded). And a numerical title is pretty much out of the question because, as noted above, it's already been done and comparing part-two's in particular would just be a bad idea.

But what else can they do?

Well, perhaps they could go the route of the current wave of Batman movies and just avoid mentioning Batman -- er, I mean, Star Trek -- altogether. The Dark Knight was one of the most successful movies of all time even though it was the first of six (or seven, if you count the 1960s spin-off movie) Batman movies that didn't even mention Batman in the title. So maybe they could call this next movie Kirk Lives or Spock Dies or Where No Man/One/Thing Has Gone Before or Final Frontier (oh, wait, William Shatner already used that as part of the title for Star Trek 5) or The Needs of the One or some similarly thematically relevant thing.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just start calling them Captain's Log Stardate ________. Endless numbering. And then retitle the originals accordingly. They'd be unlikely to ever use the same stardate twice.

Or better yet, retitle all of them Captain Kirk/Picard and ______ of _______.

Captain Kirk and the Wrath of Khan

Captain Picard and the First Contact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for Star Trek: The Dream Warriors or Star Trek: Flares! as the title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek: Too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's a parallel universe they're in, the movies should have-similar-but-not-quite-the-same titles.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Juan (they battle a megalomaniac salsa dancer)

Star Trek III: The Search for Sporks (set on the Taco Bell planet)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Gnome (Travelocity tie-in)

I'll stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, c'mon. Don't deprive us of:

Star Trek V: The Final Front Tire

Star Trek VI: The Undies-Covered Country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to experience Star Trek: Emesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I'm experiencing Star Trek: Groan-ations...

Seriously, though, I think a Star Trek: Literary-Sounding-Title idea has a lot of merit, like Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before, or Star Trek: Vulcan's Forge or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now