Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

J.J. Abrams

  • Please log in to reply
482 replies to this topic

#21 Thom Wade

Thom Wade

    Happy Go Lucky Meat Machine

  • Member
  • 2,949 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 01:57 PM

I got through First Contact last year... then I looked at 9 & 10... and I remembered I have more fun ways to spend my time...for instance, jumping in front of a moving truck. Which would be less traumatic.

#22 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 13 September 2010 - 05:52 PM

Persona wrote:
: Was this over the process over the whole year or in a matter of weeks, or (gulp!) days?

As per my film journal, I went through the boxed set with the first six movies between May 29 and June 10, and I went through the boxed set with the next four movies between October 12 and October 29, and then I checked out the eleventh film on December 1.

I also watched ST2:TWOK on January 14 to mark the death of Ricardo Montalban, and I checked out the five-disc Alternate Realities boxed set between August 9 and November 9. And I seem to have watched ST:TMP and ST4:TVH on September 5, mainly because those were the least-violent films and thus the ones that might be safest to watch with the kids around.

#23 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:53 AM

Scoop! No Khan In STAR TREK 2. So Who Will Kirk & Co. Face?
The story will focus on a classic Trek character. And when I say classic, I mean a character who appeared in season one of the original series, when Gene Roddenberry was in charge.
Some sources give you all sorts of info, but this source likes to play games. I couldn’t get the exact character from them, but I got an email that reads:
It’s definitely a character that will make fans of TOS excited. Think along the lines of Harry Mudd or Trelane or Gary Mitchell or the Talosians or the Horta. Actually it’s one of those that I named. . . .
Devin Faraci, Badass News, October 25

Roberto Orci Reveals Star Trek Sequel Tidbit In NYT Article About iPad – Is T’Pring In Sequel?
So this article about technology gives us a potential tiny morsel of information about the Star Trek sequel — notably that that the plan (as of now) could be to include a Vulcan female character. Assuming this to be true, the fact that it would be discussed at such an early high-level meeting could mean it is an important character. . . .
TrekMovie.com, October 25

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 26 October 2010 - 01:53 AM.


#24 CrimsonLine

CrimsonLine

    Man of Yesterday

  • Member
  • 1,984 posts

Posted 26 October 2010 - 05:23 AM

I saw those scoops on Trekmovie.com, as well. I give the first one you quoted little to no credence without knowing how close the source is to the production. Of the TOS characters he listed, only Gary Mitchell and Trelaine really wind up being individual villains. The Talosians are a whole race, the Hortas are not evil, and neither is Harry Mudd. Between Mitchell and Trelaine, Mitchell would probably be easier and more emotional to do as a villain, but they've already showed Kirk in the Academy, and we heard and saw nothing about Mitchell. So I tend to doubt the whole thing.

The T'Pring idea intrigues me, though. Bringing in T'Pring lets you pick up on two main threads from the last Star Trek movie - character-related threads - the Spock/Uhura relationship AND the destruction of Vulcan. Both of these resonated with viewers, both of them are intensely emotional for Spock, and so I think this is an idea that has strong merit.

#25 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 26 October 2010 - 08:54 AM

CrimsonLine wrote:
: I give the first one you quoted little to no credence without knowing how close the source is to the production. Of the TOS characters he listed, only Gary Mitchell and Trelaine really wind up being individual villains. The Talosians are a whole race, the Hortas are not evil, and neither is Harry Mudd. Between Mitchell and Trelaine, Mitchell would probably be easier and more emotional to do as a villain, but they've already showed Kirk in the Academy, and we heard and saw nothing about Mitchell. So I tend to doubt the whole thing.

How "villainous" are any of these characters supposed to be, though? In the bits that I didn't quote, Faraci says "my source says that the film won’t be focused on a traditional ‘villain’ type at all" and "Also, the idea that they’re shying away from a bad guy vs good guy storyline only confirms that Abrams, Damon Lindelof and Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman get Star Trek."

I don't know how much credibility I give to this "scoop" either, but I am encouraged by the thought that the next film won't be trotting out the same "good guy vs bad guy" thing that characterized only some of the original episodes but nearly all of the first eleven movies.

: The T'Pring idea intrigues me, though. Bringing in T'Pring lets you pick up on two main threads from the last Star Trek movie - character-related threads - the Spock/Uhura relationship AND the destruction of Vulcan. Both of these resonated with viewers, both of them are intensely emotional for Spock, and so I think this is an idea that has strong merit.

Yeah, me too.

#26 NBooth

NBooth

    Magpie of Ideas

  • Member
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:32 PM

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

Anyway, many people will tell you this is neither here nor there because apparently everyone agrees Star Trek was a solid action movie. This is probably true. But honestly, who cares? As a kid I didn’t get into Star Trek for all the badass action. If that were the case, I’d be a fan of violent movies, which I’m not. Now, I’m guessing most Star Trek fans are with me when I say that the Star Trek movie that is most in the spirit of ALL the TV shows is The Voyage Home. This movie has a fun science fiction premise and is totally something the shows would want to do, but couldn’t because the scope of it is too large. And what’s the best part of The Voyage Home? There’s no bad guy. Even The Wrath of Khan, arguably the best Trek movie has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device. Without the scientists on Regula I, the entire plot of Wrath doesn’t happen. The interesting science fiction premise drives this movie. And yes, I know the movie is really about Khan, Kirk, and Spock, but it’s not super transparent about it. Star Trek (2009), while very fun to watch, doesn’t even bother with originality.



#27 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:38 PM

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

Heh. Join the club.

#28 NBooth

NBooth

    Magpie of Ideas

  • Member
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 02:54 PM

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.

#29 winter shaker

winter shaker

    Bazooka Babushka

  • Member
  • 331 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:23 PM

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.

#30 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:34 PM

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?

#31 winter shaker

winter shaker

    Bazooka Babushka

  • Member
  • 331 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:53 PM

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.

#32 NBooth

NBooth

    Magpie of Ideas

  • Member
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:28 AM

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, 22 March 2011 - 12:29 AM.


#33 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:32 AM

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).

#34 Thom Wade

Thom Wade

    Happy Go Lucky Meat Machine

  • Member
  • 2,949 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 08:29 AM

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. :)

#35 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:42 PM

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.

#36 CrimsonLine

CrimsonLine

    Man of Yesterday

  • Member
  • 1,984 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:59 PM

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.

#37 Persona

Persona

    You said you'd wait... 'Til the end of the world.

  • Member
  • 7,460 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:26 PM

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.

#38 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 26 May 2011 - 11:32 PM

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.

#39 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 04 July 2011 - 01:50 AM

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. . . .



#40 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 29,583 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 11:34 AM

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.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: J.J. Abrams