Star Trek: The Next Threaderation

[BlobVanDam]

A hint to the next movie was revealed to be " A huge moral dilemma ".

Someone online ( maybe here ) said they should find a way to restore the original timeline at the point of divergence - therefore erasing the last 30 years of their history. Thereby saving both Romulus and Vulcan and getting Spock Prime back to where he belongs. Plus it would end the third film back in the original timeline - leaving the three JJ movies as their own - alt universe franchise - and someone else can take over...

Sounds cool but I dunno if they would just wind up saying "none of this ever happened" - although that would be pretty funny / clever from a writing perspective.

Absolutely none of this is going to happen.

Surely there is a script writer out there who can write a Star Trek movie in that middle ground between being totally dumbed down for the masses, and being a respectable science fiction movie, and have it appeal to diehard Trekkies and the masses. One can dream.

[El Barto]

A hint to the next movie was revealed to be " A huge moral dilemma ".

Someone online ( maybe here ) said they should find a way to restore the original timeline at the point of divergence - therefore erasing the last 30 years of their history. Thereby saving both Romulus and Vulcan and getting Spock Prime back to where he belongs. Plus it would end the third film back in the original timeline - leaving the three JJ movies as their own - alt universe franchise - and someone else can take over...

Sounds cool but I dunno if they would just wind up saying "none of this ever happened" - although that would be pretty funny / clever from a writing perspective.

Absolutely none of this is going to happen.

I'm not so sure. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if that wasn't their plan all along. They knew they were looking at a three picture deal, so a temporary alternate universe story and then all back to normal seems perfectly plausible.

Although it occurs to me that I might be giving Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman too much credit.

[BlobVanDam]

Although it occurs to me that I might be giving Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman too much credit.

To be fair, that's not a hard thing to do.
I don't know, they'd boxed themselves in from most sides with the prime universe, so they wanted a clean slate, plus they get to rely on the bankable characters again by just recasting them. And if the rumours about the most likely new series with Kurtzman/Orci are true, then it will be a continuation of the new timeline.

I don't think they'll want to lose the new viewers they've gained from these movies, and confuse them by returning to the original universe. I'd be happy to see them return to the original timeline and somehow continue it with a fresh new series, but I don't see it happening. I'd love to be wrong on that though!

[Kotowboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nziS8brN00

This is properly funny.

I'm not sure who the "actor" is playing Spock. I thought Christopher Lloyd.

[ddtonfire]

• Basically I want a movie like the TNG episode " Where Silence Has Lease "

I really like the mindfuck TNG's. Great episode up until Nagilum, because I hate when some holier-than-thou alien species that has it allllll figured out goes on a lengthy diatribe full of generalizations of how bad humans are.

[jammindude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nziS8brN00

This is properly funny.

I'm not sure who the "actor" is playing Spock. I thought Christopher Lloyd.

   Yes, Christopher Lloyd.  Sepecifically, his Reverend Jim Ignatowski character from Taxi.   

Hilarious

[Nefarius]

My Trek apprentice and I are through 24 of the 40 TNG episodes I selected. The last four were the two-parters Redemption and Unification and she really liked them a lot. After 20 TOS episodes, 6 movies, and 24 TNG episodes she asked me: "I don't get it, how can anyone not like this?"
Couldn't agree more.

Greetings...
Nef

[jingle.boy]

Well done Nef.  Well done.

[The King in Crimson]

Has she had any thoughts and opinions on the two different crews ie which one she prefers or any other noteworthy comments?

[Nefarius]

Not really any comments about which crew she likes better, maybe because I always described Star Trek as one big interconnected story with different chapters and eras. Or maybe because not everyone is so obsessed with ranking stuff like your average DTF user.

A noteworthy comment though in the episode "Sarek" a few seconds after the scene where Picard is overwhelmed by the intenisty of the emotions parked in his mind: "Imagine this would have been necessary with no one else but Kirk to ask..."

Greetings...
Nef

[Orbert]

Kirk would not have been able to handle it.  Yes, in his own way, Kirk was as mentally strong as Picard, but somehow I don't see it as strength in the same way.  I think of the episode where Kirk gets split into two, and his personality gets split as well.  One gets all the compassion and intellect, the other gets the more primitive side like anger and impulsiveness, but from there comes the strength of will.  If Sarek's mind was somehow melded into Kirk's, I think Kirk would have fractured.  It would have blown his mind, he'd end up in a psyche ward, and both would be lost.

[Nefarius]

Although your Deanna Troi approach to this topic is an interesting one I'm pretty sure what she was actually thinking was: "Imagine 60s Shatner act a scene like that in his unique style!"

All those... *clenching fists* emotions, they are over... *pained face* ...whelming me, I am... *sigh*
I can't... quite... *lunatic screaming* SPOCK, I... *calming down, sweating, panting* love...
*shocked expression* you... yes I... do, please... Bones, help me! *covering eyes with hands, crying*

Greetings...
Nef

[Orbert]

Okay, that would be funny, too.

[Kotowboy]

Let's play a game of " Who Would You Like To Direct Star Trek 3 " and see if we can list our suggestions without bitching about the previous two movies !

My list would be :

• Joseph Kosinksi - Because Tron legacy and Oblivion are both gorgeous films.
• Chris Nolan - I'd love to see what he could bring to a Trek Universe.
• Joss Whedon - He cares about plot and characters and can clearly do action.
• Spielberg - because that would be all kinds of awesome - just keep Lucas away.
• Edgar Wright - mates with Pegg - directed a scene in Into Darkness ( Kronos ) - knows how to write cohesive stories with through lines.

[hefdaddy42]

Of the ones you listed, probably Whedon.

[King Postwhore]

Whedon and then Nolan.

[jammindude]

Whedon...no contest.

I wouldn't mind Nolan either.   

Spielberg *can* be good, but I've discovered that he basically has two hats.   His "action/sci-fi" hat and his "drama" hat.   Within those two sides, he does tend to repeat himself quite a bit...but I suppose that's to be expected. 

I guess I just don't understand why people criticize JJ Abrams for his "lens flare" signature and praise Spielberg, who had a very similar "signature" in his films.  (the E.T./Poltergeist/Close Encounters backlighting thing that he did in these and several other films)

[The King in Crimson]

Whedon...no contest.

I wouldn't mind Nolan either.   

Spielberg *can* be good, but I've discovered that he basically has two hats.   His "action/sci-fi" hat and his "drama" hat.   Within those two sides, he does tend to repeat himself quite a bit...but I suppose that's to be expected. 

I guess I just don't understand why people criticize JJ Abrams for his "lens flare" signature and praise Spielberg, who had a very similar "signature" in his films.  (the E.T./Poltergeist/Close Encounters backlighting thing that he did in these and several other films)

Because:
A) The lens flare looks super cheap and annoying.
b) Spielberg has made some fantastic films. Abrams has not.

[El Barto]

Whedon...no contest.

I wouldn't mind Nolan either.   

Spielberg *can* be good, but I've discovered that he basically has two hats.   His "action/sci-fi" hat and his "drama" hat.   Within those two sides, he does tend to repeat himself quite a bit...but I suppose that's to be expected. 

I guess I just don't understand why people criticize JJ Abrams for his "lens flare" signature and praise Spielberg, who had a very similar "signature" in his films.  (the E.T./Poltergeist/Close Encounters backlighting thing that he did in these and several other films)

Spielberg uses it on specific scenes for a particular dramatic effect relative to that scene. The red and orange lights worsening the terror Jillian was already dealing with. The white lights showing an angelic nature to the aliens (I watched CEotTK the other night). Abrams used the lens flare constantly to change the entire theme of his movie. Moreover, changing the tone to something pretty far removed from cinema and more into TV territory. That's why I refer to those movies as Star Trek for the reality TV generation. 

[jammindude]

...and you guys don't think the exact same effect (I remember seeing screen shots back to back from *several* of Spielberg's films...you would swear they were from the same movie, and maybe even just different angles of THE SAME SHOT) used over and over again has absolutely no bearing here?   

Ok, maybe you find the backlight effect less annoying than the lens flare effect...and that's perfectly fine...but don't pretend that they are any different in anything but personal taste. 

[Nefarius]

There's no need to continue J. J.'s abomination, no matter which director. You don't create an alternate timeline so you are "free" of 40 years of canon and continuity just to put a bunch of kids on a starship and - remember, we're "free" of canon and continuity - tell variants of the same stories with little twists all over again, only this time without any logical structure or background development or emotional impact at all.

It could be so easy...

Have Paramount team up with Netflix. Get back the people that were on the right track with Star Trek Enterprise after we were finally rid of Rick Berman and the show was cancelled. Combine the creativity of writers like Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, DC Fontana, Michael Sussman, André Bormanis and Manny Coto (also producer). Maybe add the great concepts and ideas of J. Michael Straczynski for renewing Star Trek. Bring people on board who truly care about both the legacy and the future of Trek and who are well versed in the lore like Rod Roddenberry, Tim Russ, Wil Wheaton, Walter Koenig, Grant Imahara and several people from the fan-produced incarnations. Give them time and money to develop high quality engaging, entertaining, and bold new material in our favorite universe and I'm absolutely sure the old fans would support them from day one and new fans would come along almost instantly. Give them a chance to herald the return of great science fiction to our present time. Let them realize story arcs without the limitations of seasons or generations. An arc about Troi and Riker exploring strange new worlds on the Titan's deep space mission. An arc about Federation/Romulan politics years after Khitomer with Kirk and Spock trying to expose treachery on both sides. An arc about the return of the Sisko just as Bajor is falling into chaos without the guide of the prophets. An arc about Picard and Janeway on a forlorn quest to make peace with the Borg. An arc about O'Brien facing a dilemma teaching at the academy. An arc about whatever happened on Cardassia Prime (Damar) and Qo'noS (Martok) after the Dominion war. Arcs with known characters as background and initiators with new characters to continue what they started... infinite diversity in infinite combinations, to boldly go where SciFi and TV have never gone before.

It could be so easy, yet I know it will never happen. Even if there are those people who are able come up with more creative ideas in one day than J. J. and his homies in a lifetime (I'm sure quite a few of the regulars in this post could do this quite easily) his cheap and efficient style of mass production will always win in the end.

Damn... I want to have my Trek back, but I'm afraid it's dead, Jim.

Greetings...
Nef

[Kotowboy]

It's quite simple.

Pick a director.

Don't bitch about the JJ movies. There's plenty of that in this thread already.

[jammindude]

There's no need to continue J. J.'s abomination, no matter which director. You don't create an alternate timeline so you are "free" of 40 years of canon and continuity just to put a bunch of kids on a starship and - remember, we're "free" of canon and continuity - tell variants of the same stories with little twists all over again, only this time without any logical structure or background development or emotional impact at all.

<snip>

The opening scene of ST11 was the most emotional impact I have ever had from anything Star Trek related...movie, series, book...etc...etc...etc...

[Kotowboy]

Exactly. And i've seen movies with WAY MORE lens flare than either Star Trek movie but nobody ever mentions those because they weren't directed by JJ.

[BlobVanDam]

I've never seen another movie with anywhere near as much lens flares as ST11. That was ridiculous. I don't remember Into Darkness having too much of it, but I've only watched it the once at the cinema so far despite getting it on DVD for Christmas. One day I'll build up the courage.

The opening scene of ST11 was quite good, but nowhere near one of their most emotional once you factor in the series imo.

[Kotowboy]

The death of Spock had more weight to it because you knew these characters and had done for 16 years by that point...

What ST09 managed to do was get you emotional about people you'd only just met.

Plus you really need to watch a film more than once in order to make a decision about it...

I've watched STID several times now and I accept all the criticisms but I enjoy it regardless.

[BlobVanDam]

You don't need to watch a film multiple times to see such glaring faults. Repeated viewings help you notice details, which can raise or lower your opinion of a movie depending on whether those details help or hinder it.
I've always liked ST11 despite having many criticisms of it (no really!). I didn't enjoy ST:ID that much at all, and I know that on multiple watches my opinion will only go down. It's the kind of movie where the more you think about the plot, the more it falls apart, and that's going to bother me much more on second viewing knowing this stuff in advance.

But I do agree that opening scene of ST11 did a good job of creating an emotional scene out of characters you'd just met. It was actually much more emotional to me than the Into Darkness TWOK copy scene, even after having two whole movies of Kirk/Spock. It doesn't have as much weight when you know it's going to be a cop-out, and also when it's not even an original idea.

[El Barto]

...and you guys don't think the exact same effect (I remember seeing screen shots back to back from *several* of Spielberg's films...you would swear they were from the same movie, and maybe even just different angles of THE SAME SHOT) used over and over again has absolutely no bearing here?   

Ok, maybe you find the backlight effect less annoying than the lens flare effect...and that's perfectly fine...but don't pretend that they are any different in anything but personal taste.

I have no idea where my original post about it is, so I'll just paraphrase. The problem with the lens flares (and the shaky cameras carried by people running around the action) is that it's an approach to change the entire tone. Rather than being cinematic, where the scenes are portrayed in front of you and it's the narrative that draws you in, it's filmed in such a way to make the viewer feel like he's right in the middle of everything. You don't need good stories or compelling characters because it doesn't need to be gripping. I'd rather have immersion from a great narrative sucking me in than because I feel like I'm trapped inside a bunch of chaos.

To be honest, I'd never noticed the backlighting thing from Spielberg. I suppose it's obvious in retrospect, but I never noticed a connection. However in his case, Spielberg is a master of portraying stories in a compelling way. I never felt like I was trapped in the room with Jillian. When I watched it the other night I was thinking about how terrifying that would be for Jillian (and both she and the boy did a fantastic job, BTW). The bright red and yellow lights from behind the door was a component of the story, not an attempt to make me a part of it.

[yorost]

An arc about the return of the Sisko just as Bajor is falling into chaos without the guide of the prophets. An arc about O'Brien facing a dilemma teaching at the academy. An arc about whatever happened on Cardassia Prime (Damar) and Qo'noS (Martok) after the Dominion war. Arcs with known characters as background and initiators with new characters to continue what they started... infinite diversity in infinite combinations, to boldly go where SciFi and TV have never gone before.

Deep Space Nine was more or less given the green light on relaunch books to do whatever, because Paramount wasn't going back to that property. There was a really great written form Season 8 for the series, which culminated with a hardcover book, Unity. That series of books hit on most of those points, but you do realize Damar is dead, right? It kept going after that first set, but fell apart miserably soon after. They got onto a bad arc involving the mirror universe (who'd have thought?) and dropped where they were going in lieu of major changes.  I've read where they went after I quit and I just can't understand why they would piss on Deep Space Nine the way they did. ...still, had a nice run going for Deep Space Nine fans to continue the story in a way that honored the series. Highly recommend it for Deep Space Nine fans, just read up until Wolrds of Deep Space Nine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_relaunch

Going back to explore these things (assuming new stories, not following the books) on film just isn't going to work. Deep Space Nine ended itself for better or worse. Yes, lots of threads left unanswered, like Bajor to Federation, but you could see where they were going. It will flop in the movies and it's totally unreasonable for a new tv series. The costs to bring back a niche project within a somewhat niche franchise can't be worth their possible returns. As an avid fan of DS9 I hope they never touch it again. It was great as is and the books offer a satisfying fill-in.

[The Dark Master]

A hint to the next movie was revealed to be " A huge moral dilemma ".

Someone online ( maybe here ) said they should find a way to restore the original timeline at the point of divergence - therefore erasing the last 30 years of their history. Thereby saving both Romulus and Vulcan and getting Spock Prime back to where he belongs. Plus it would end the third film back in the original timeline - leaving the three JJ movies as their own - alt universe franchise - and someone else can take over...

Sounds cool but I dunno if they would just wind up saying "none of this ever happened" - although that would be pretty funny / clever from a writing perspective.

That would be awesome.  I'm not going to hold my breath, but I think it's far from impossible.   My understanding of the whole "reboot" was that it was done less for the sake of wiping the slate clean and more for the sake of not wanting to be beholden to the existing timeline, while at the same time not wanting to give the impression to casual film goers that you need to be a fan of the established series to enjoy the new films.

Let's play a game of " Who Would You Like To Direct Star Trek 3 " and see if we can list our suggestions without bitching about the previous two movies !

My list would be :

• Joseph Kosinksi - Because Tron legacy and Oblivion are both gorgeous films.
• Chris Nolan - I'd love to see what he could bring to a Trek Universe.
• Joss Whedon - He cares about plot and characters and can clearly do action.
• Spielberg - because that would be all kinds of awesome - just keep Lucas away.
• Edgar Wright - mates with Pegg - directed a scene in Into Darkness ( Kronos ) - knows how to write cohesive stories with through lines.

Kosinksi would be a great choice as long as he has a good script to work with.  He's really got a great head for the more technical side of sci-fi, so Trek would be right up his alley.

Nolan would be totally wrong for ST.  His minimalist aesthetic wouldn't really work with a more visually complex setting that is, by nature, very flashy, and his penchant for non-linear editing would be a potential nightmare considering how convoluted some Star Trek stories can become.

Whedon would probably be the best best of all those guys.  He's great with characters, even with very large casts (he should have directed the TNG movies, IMO), and while I think Firefly/Serenity is a bit over-rated, he does understand science fiction.

Spielberg could be good.  Even moreso then Kosinski, though, he really needs the right script before hand to make the most of Trek, and unlike Kosinski, I don't think Spielberg has enough of a sci-fi oriented mind to write one on his own.

Wright could be interesting.  I think the best potential in having him direct the film would be the opportunity for Pegg, and possibly Karl Urban, to actually have some degree of control and input over the story and script.  From the interviews I've seen since Into Darkness came out, those two guys really seem to understand Trek, and while they were a bit to polite to just come out and say it, they seemed to think that the current direction of the franchise was misled.  If having Wright direct would help bring some real understanding of Trek, via Pegg and Urban, back into the writing of the films, then I would be all for it.

[The King in Crimson]

From that list, Whedon and Nolan would be my picks. Not from that list, I'd pick Aronofsky but then again I'd pick him for most anything.

Whedon is good with characters and with mixing humor, action and darkness and making even the shittiest writing fun. I think him helming a Trek film is awesome and entirely logical.

Nolan would be good at injecting at least some intelligent ideas back into the franchise or, at the very least, the veneer of them. Whether he handles them well or whether he gives in and lets his excesses take control is another thing.

Kosinsky I can't say much about as both Tron and Oblivion were little more than blips in my movie watching: adequate, but not very memorable.

Spielberg would be cool, but he's such a veteran now. I'm sure, given a good script, he could probably make a great film but I've rather see someone newer take on the franchise. Frankly, I'd rather have Lynch, Cronenberg or Mallick take over the franchise or do a single film in it before Spielberg, mostly because they would probably do something fucking weird.

I like Wright, but I just don't think his style would work that well for Trek. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a Wright helmed Trek film being... very Trek-like.

[Nefarius]

...you do realize Damar is dead, right?

Yes of course, but he was pretty much the last named public figure left. And I don't really see plain and simple Garak as a politician, he told the truth far too often, especially when he lied.

Greetings...
Nef

[Kotowboy]

On TNG - almost nobody ever leaves a room on the first try.

[Kotowboy]

Oops double post.

[Nefarius]

On TNG - almost nobody ever leaves a room on the first try.

As soon as I read your line I thought of Data heading towards the ready room door and Picard saying "...and Mr. Data... well done!"

Greetings...
Nef