Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Video Blog: The Future of Star Trek

Posted on Sunday, May 10th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

zz766fa476

Steve from Collider is a good friend of mine. At least a few times a week we talk about upcoming movies, TV shows, what gossip each of us have heard, and anything else we might find exciting. Since a number of our conversations cover things you also might find interesting, we’ve decided to start recording certain conversations as video blogs. Past video blogs have included The Future of the Batman Film Franchise, The Box Office Prospects of Watchmen, thoughts on the first 46 Minutes of Pixar’s Up, and a four part preview of the Summer 2009 movie season.

Star Trek came out this weekend and beat all the box office expectations, which got us talking about what could possibly come next. But the new video blog is more than that, we also discuss the Star Trek Premiere, Pixar’s Up, how one of the stars of Terminator Salvation watched our video blogs, and a shocking fact: how more people paid to see the original 1979 Star Trek film in theaters than will likely pay to see this new film on the big screen.

Discuss: Please, leave your thoughts on what you’d like to see happen in Star Trek 2 in the comments below.

Here are some of the topics we talk about. If you want to skip right to the Star Trek sequel discussion, it is at timecode 19:15. Warning, the sequel portion may contain spoilers.

* Sam Worthington Watches Our Videos Blogs
* Attending The Star Trek Premiere and After Party
* Star Trek’s Huge Opening Weekend
* How Many People Paid To See Star Trek vs. The Original Star Trek Movie
* The Crowded Month of May
* Quick Thoughts on Pixar’s Up
* Star Trek Sequel Talk
* What Will The Story Be About
* Most Popular Ideas With Fans: The Borg or Khan
* Steve Would Rather See More Adventure than a Weak or Rehashed Villain
* Peter explains Why Chekhov Must Die and How to Bring Back William Shatner
* Will There Be a New TV Show?
* When Will it Arrive in Theaters?

Video:

Audio:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

Discuss: Please, leave your thoughts on what you’d like to see happen in Star Trek 2 in the comments below.

Extra:

Peter’s William Shatner Theory Further Explained

I feel like I must explain my Star Trek sequel theory in more depth, or risk being screamed at in the comments by those who might not understand my idea. If you don’t like my idea, that’s completely and totally fine, I just want people to understand it before it gets critiqued.

When I began to think about how a Star Trek sequel might go down, two things occurred to me. First off, I don’t want to see a remake of the original films. I have no interest in seeing the new actors put into a re-imagined spin of the old storylines. I think the great thing about the reboot is that it allows you to do something almost totally new with the characters and universe.

But the problem is the first film plays a lot on destiny, and the coincidences that cause the crew of the Enterprise to still come together, even though the timeline has been altered. And I do think that needs to be addressed in the sequel. The way to do it is to kill off one of the main characters in the first third of the movie. Chekhov or Uhura might be the best options. The reason to do this is to establish right off the back… this universe is different and not everyone will live long and prosper. Some of the history will still take place, while other events will be avoided completely.

I use this as a setup of how they could reintroduce William Shatner. Does Star Trek 2 need Shatner? No, it doesn’t… but I think a lot of people would like to see it. Abrams has said that he didn’t include Shatner in the first film because it would take a lot of plot to explain how old Captain Kirk is still alive. But this alternative timeline could explain everything. Some things in the future will still happen regardless of the changes and regardless of knowledge. Old Spock will still get sucked into a black hole. It’s destiny, just in the same way the crew was destined to be together. The old timeline has been destroyed. There is only one timeline now, and this timeline is the alternative timeline

On the other hand, some things will be a lot different. James T Kirk is the character most affected by the butterfly effect change caused by Nero destroying the USS Kelvin. Now that that has happened, he doesn’t go to the Nexus and doesn’t die. Old Kirk in this new universe must go back in time and bring old Spock back to the future. Why? I’m sure there could be an easy explanation. And its not like this would be a huge part of the story.

This storyline would allow Shatner to reappear as Old Kirk in two or three scenes, somehow assisting in the main plot of the film, or possibly even saving Old Spock from death. Remember, Old Kirk now knows exactly when and where Old Spock is going to die. So maybe Kirk could arrive at that moment to save Spock and bring him back?  Anyways, its just an idea. It’s not necessarily what I’d like to see happen, but it seems like the best way to bring Shatner in briefly, get rid of Old Spock, and further the destiny vs. chaos theme from the first film.

Explaining How Less People will Likely See JJ Abrams’ reboot in theaters than paid to see the Original 1979 Movie on the Big Screen

And as for the Star Trek box office, I thought I’d leave my number figures in print for those who care: Star Trek: The Motion Picture made $82.2 million in 1979. As of Sunday night, the estimate for JJ Abrams Star Trek is $76.5 million in 3.3 days of release (this number could change). We have no idea how this film will perform in the coming weeks, but usually a film makes 3 times its opening weekend box office in its final domestic release total. So Star Trek is expected to end around $210 million, which would be roughly 29.2 million tickets. Wow, a lot more people are seeing Trek than ever before, right?

Not really. Star Trek: The Motion Picture might have only made $82 million, but it was the #2 film at the box office for the year of 1979. The film actually sold 32.8 million tickets (at an average of $2.51 a ticket). This might shock a lot of people that weren’t alive during the original films release but Trek was actually equally as popular in 1979 than it is now. It is shocking because we live in a day and age when Star Trek: Nemesis made only $43 million at the box office, which equates to around 7.5 million tickets. So compared to the last Trek film, released in 2002, JJ Abrams’ reboot will sell almost 4 times as many tickets domestically.

I’m not trying to downplay the success of the movie. I just wanted to put it in perspective to all of those who believe its reaching a much larger audience than the 1979 film did. On the other hand, word of mouth on this film is huge, and much like Batman Begins resulted in a much bigger box office for The Dark Knight, the same is likely to happen with a Star Trek sequel (to a smaller extent, of course). But it might be possible for Star Trek 2 to double the audience for any previous film in the series. Its all about the franchise.

Discuss: Please, leave your thoughts on what you’d like to see happen in Star Trek 2 in the comments below.

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Action/Adventure, Paramount Pictures, Sci-Fi, Sequels, Video Blog, , , , , ,

  • Fir3Wolf
    I just want more of the same from Star Trek 2 personally. I thought the movie was great and why change what works, but if I had one thing to nitpick it would be to cut back on the lens flaring. I know JJ Abrams likes to use it in his movies but that was a bit much imo.
  • Regarding the discussion at. 19:47 The introduction of an old villain thing worked in The Dark Knight didn't it?
  • bobsagat
    The Dark Knight is a different situation. The film reused a villain, but not any plot. For Star Trek, especially when considering reusing a specific villain character, it would be more difficult to create a new and satisfactory plot around that character rather than just an unnecessary rehash of what we've seen before. Reusing an entity, such as the Klingon or the Borg, is a safer route that also allows more room for creativity and the chance for something new and exciting.
  • EricR.
    That is true, but when you consider a character as dynamic as the Joker (especially with the brillant acting that Heath did) I don't think people minded that is was an old character. Besides, like most people will agree, with the exception of Khan, there has never been a strong and dynamic villian in the the Star Trek Universe. And as Pete said, Khan isn't a factor as of yet since that timeline has been altered. I would rather see them come up with something new that hasn't been done in a Trek movie before.
  • Khan is going to be a tricky one, if that's the direction selected. The beauty of WoK is that they'd already established the back story in the series AND had a good X of years with Khan stuck on that planet getting angrier and angrier. Without this, you don't have a meaningful basis for a re-wenge flick played out between the two of them.

    Personally, I'd rather see JJ take on the Klingons, who (in the series, at least) got watered down far too much (except for a bit in DS9)...in the non-canon sources (I'm thinking of The Final Reflection in particular) the Klingons Empire has a great scope for story telling. Beserk warriors, iconic ship designs etc have the basis of some epic sci-fi tales.

    Given the current popularity, why not aim high and go for a 3 picture arc..re-introduce the Klingons, turn Kirk into the Klingon's particular nemesis (though some spectacular starship / hand to hand actions) and turn up the action quotient to keep the momentum going.

    My 2 cents on potential movie action

    Kirk on his 5 year mission
    Run in with Klingons / diplomatic incident / transporting Fed ambassador
    Interstellar incident / mistake on Kirks part
    War faction in KE starts conflict
    Conflict escalates
    Kirk and co suspect conspiracy (orders leading them into harm's way)
    Faction in Starfleet working with Klingons to keep 'balance of terror' constant - anti-diplomacy
    Kirk and co. work with Klingon patriot rebels to expose conspiracy
    Finale with Kirk and allies caught between 2 armadas fighting in the Neutral Zone.
  • I love the original series and The next Generation, and though I see ways to work actors/characters from the original time line in (for instance the events of First Contact still technically happened in this time line) I would prefer they just move forward and establish themselves without resorting to cameos and that kind of thing.

    That said I wouldn't mind if the movie was based on events from an old episode. Perhaps "Balance of Terror" "Space Seed" or "The Squire of Gothos" (though you could work Q into that one...). Perhaps these new films could serve as "Ultimate Star Trek", like the Marvel Comics - updated re-tellings of the classic stories.
  • lukeg37
    so whatever happend to you discussing movies, tv and the latest nerd gossip with you friends from the east coast?
  • Well if Damon Lindelof is writing it and/or coming up with the idea, and you predicted/suggested that Pavel Chekov will have to die then.. That means something else will happen. Very seldom has someone predicted what shall happen in Lost when that episode was months and months away.

    I say Anton Yelchin should stay on the cast just so he can become discovered. We need to see him in more movies, he is such a talented actor.
  • For the record, I just said Chekov because I assume that if they were to kill someone off, it would be a less significant crew member, Uhura and Chekov are the most likely, and with the "emo" Spock storyline in the first film, I doubt it would be repeated in the second with his "girlfriend" getting killed. But you're right, with Lindelof involved, its likely to be something none of us expect
  • Right, I understand why you chose to use Chekov as an example for the theory of the writers killing off a character. You're correct in saying that he is one of the less significant/less known. I can see in my mind a pretty heartfelt scene of Chekov's death, since he is pretty much the youngest crew member. Also why it would be a crucial scene is because everyone I talk to who has seen the film only knows Chekov by "the Russian kid" but once I mention "the Russian kid" they all seem to convey that he was a very beloved character. I wouldn't like to see Yelchin off the cast, but if they execute any character's death correctly, I'll be fine with it, although disheartened.
  • Ali
    eek, didn't realize that so many people disliked Wolverine. I actually loved it :)
    I'm totally against killing off one of the main characters, wow... and yeah, I gasped.
    Well, now that I read your in depth Star Trek sequel theory... hmm, it actually sounds like a good idea. As long as we don't have to kill off a main charcater : )
  • I'm not getting one thing about Peter's sequel theory. Why would Kirk go back in time to bring old Spock to the future, when he should have his own old Spock by that time. Right? It seems a little greedy to need two old Spocks.
  • In my theory...

    "Some things in the future will still happen regardless of the changes and regardless of knowledge. Old Spock will still get sucked into a black hole. It’s destiny, just in the same way the crew was destined to be together, even when they were spread further apart. The old timeline has been destroyed. There is only one timeline now, and this timeline is the alternative timeline"

    The Old Spock would still be in the past. Kirk wouldn't have an Old Spock. The question might be, why did young Spock, now old, still allow himself to get sucked into the black hole? It might have happened differently, but some things, like that occurrence, still happen
  • Merciful_budah
    Hate to get all doc brown on you, but I don’t think time travel –insofar as the film’s particular time travel logic- works that way. As I understand it, Spock and Nero’s traveling to the past caused chronal continuity to skew in a new direction creating this Star Trek in a different parallel world than that of all of the original canon. Therefore, old Spock is essentially now a remnant of the old dimension. Young Spock could never grow up to become this old spock, and even if he did, and events transpired to cause him to go back in time, his doing that would just create a third parallel universe where Quinto Spock’s presence causes things to happen differently (Hey maybe this is how the Mirror Mirror Universe was created…)

    All that said, there have been at least 3 episodes and 2 movies already where the Enterprise crew time travels to the past. In each of these instances, the future they return to is completely unchanged. That said, perhaps in Star Trek time travel rules the future you return to is always the one you left, provided you return to it via the same method as you left. This seems to completely contradict the new universe idea of the new film (or rather the new film's new universe idea contradicts this theory). It could actually work that the black hole that the red matter created sucked Spock and Nero into a completely different universe, rather than the same one with only slight differences compared to the core trek universe. On an unnecessarily supergeeky level, this would explain why everything looks so much more advanced and upgraded on this Enterprise versus the Classic 60's Enterprise. So the entrance of Spock and Nero into this universe caused it to skew away from it's path and differentiate from the core universe on more than a superficial level.

    This logic makes the most sense to me. I don't think the altering of the past is going to change anything about Nimoy Spock. He was inserted into this story to be the fans' anchor to the old canon, and I seriously doubt Abrams would change that. Quinto Spock literally can't grow up to be him.
  • gah
    For your Shatner theory....it could be a "after the credits" moment in the next film. where at the end, he finally comes back to get old spock. it doesnt have to be a huge plot point.
  • freemachine
    Does anyone here really want to see a bloated Shatner squeezed into a Federation uniform? Some things should never come to pass, such as Jimi Hendrix at age 65 rocking the local American-Indian casino.
  • I wasn't thinking after the credits, but I was thinking 1 or 2 scenes, maybe a smaller role than Nimoy had in this film. A nice passing of the torch, saving nimoy, face to face with kirk and hes gone.

    And again, I don't think Shatner needs to be in the next film, it just seems like there were a lot of fans who would like to see it, and it could be easily explained in the new timeline (especially with a clarification that somethings changed while others stayed the same after the death of a main crewmember)
  • I haven't seen Star Trek yet, so I'm just commenting on the how-many-people-saw-which conversation.

    Using Box Office Mojo, I estimated that around 30 million people saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The movie banked $82 million in 1979. I took the ticket price for 1980($2.69), being only a year after, and since the flick came out in December of '79 anyway, a good chunk of it played during 1980.

    Now, this weekend, 10 million people came out to see the reboot($72 million divided by $7.18). If the movie banks $225 million, which is possible after amazing word of mouth, it'll match the viewership of the original.
  • average price of a movie ticket in 1979 was $2.51, Star Trek: The Motion Picture made $82 million, the #2 film at the box office for the year of 1979. The film actually sold 32.8 million tickets.

    Right now the JJ Abrams film is expected to do $210 million domestically (this number could go up with the good word of mouth, but remember... we're in a Summer of big films). But $210 million would be roughly 29.2 million tickets.

    Even if the JJ Abrams film narrowly beats the original motion picture, my point was not to say that it was less successful. I'm trying to point out that the original film was just as popular in its time as this film. Most people have no idea as we have grown up in a world where we believe Trek geekdom to be a small thing.
  • Oh ok, I see, and yeah that's a good point. When you think about it, maybe we shouldn't be as surprised as we are about its box office numbers? Still did amazing, both of them.Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
    From: IntenseDebate Notifications
  • sarek
    i hope its still the same writers for star trek 2 and they approach it the way the seem to have approached transformers 2. just more of everything. more scottie, more action, more of everything. and by the second film all the characters should be well acquainted with each other and the sequel should be grand
  • Merciful_budah
    might be a little early to compare this to Transformers 2
  • Tucker
    No Shatner (and I love the Shat), no Khan and definitely no Borg. I like the idea of a massive problem that the crew and folks have to use their varying talents and their smarts to overcome. I really like the idea, instead of killing someone off, to create an entire new villain species that is specific to this timeline/universe. Introduce this new race with someone vicious, menacing and memorable as its face.

    As for a new TV series, I've always thought Trek (on TV) would be better served now by filming a series of one-shot TV movies that allow them to explore all the various ideas floating out there for a series. Do four movies a year. It could be less expensive than a whole season of a new series and much more focused. If, at some point, one of those ideas really plays, you could consider that for a series down the road.

    I don't think I would do a series based in the new timeline created by this movie, though. Let them explore that on film. Stick to the original timeline on TV, but don't be beholden to it either. One of the problems with the TV series was that they became too insular. (Did Enterprise really need to have the whole Time War concept, bring in Spiner as early Soong, and actually introduce the Borg to the past?) They can think way outside of the box now.
  • I think if they have a TV spin off they should set up it up in a mini series format. A series that consist of three: three to four hour "episodes"
  • Lol@Sam Worthington story. He seems like a funny guy, probably going to explode
  • I hope they come up with a good story for the next one. The crew in this was fun, and effects were cool but the story just killed it for me...that's at least half of what Trek's about! If all the new Trek franchise is going to be is lens flares and explosions, I might not be so interested and they might as well get my man Michael Bay to film the sequel. We don't need a "24" in space, we do need more Battlestar Galactica.

    For the next movie:
    No more time travel - I hate it..even on the TV episodes...I skip them.
    No more stupid enemies with terribly explained motives, random weapons, stupid ships with lots of platforms to jump around on dramatically who are backed up by worthless henchmen.
    No more Enterprise rooms designed just so J.J. can get an action scene in every 10 min (see Kirk and Scotty doing their retarded transwarp transport).
    No more Spock love action, what was that?
    No more Chris Pike getting his ass beat left and right...hasn't he learned the "on the back pound" yet?
    Definitely no more young Kirk. No more Starfleet promotions from probation cadet to Captain because one crippled, recently tortured, admiral says so.
    No more ice monsters for no reason.
    No more ice planets for no good reason, wouldn't Nero want to see Spock suffer watching Vulcan die...and then kill him? Oh no hes just gonna set him down on an ice planet where a guy just happens to be inventing tranwarp transporting, which is dumb, with some midget fella.
    No more retarded story....if you want the movie to be anything more than bubblegum and lollipops for the bros and moms out there....you need to have a real story....doesn't even have to be great...just has to make sense (unlike this one).

    In regards to the rest of video:
    - I don't see the next film being a big solver puzzle movie, not enough room for explosions and phasers and sword fights.
    - I hope Shattner is not in it.
    - I will be more hesitant in seeing the next one.
    - Simon Pegg is awesome, but his Scottish accent is even worse then the original Scotty's.
    - I hope there is a bit more Admiral Pike in the next one, there was a good episode of the original show with crippled, post-Enterprise Pike...just an idea.
    -My favorite part of the whole movie was the first 10 minutes of the film, before the title. If there was more of that, real decision making affecting lives, real drama and real emotion..then Star Trek would have been amazing. The beginning was the only part of the movie (besides the Enterprise reveal) that I felt any emotional twinge.

    In summary of my rant:
    Star Trek was a good summer blockbuster, a bit above Transformers in my books because of the crew nostalgia. If they want the next one to be a "Dark Knight:" type of film, need to really get a story.
  • deme82
    Bitter, party of one?
    The genius of the current JJ Abrams reboot is in the terror, action, and danger of embarking on a mission into unknown territory. The aspect of fear and courage in the face of certain doom is necessary in a reboot- Considering the painfully boring Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I'm not surprised someone just like you bitched and moaned about the (at the time) gratuitous violence of Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn. That film dealt with the nature of friendship, sacrifice, and revenge. If you opened your eyes from that nit-picky squint of yours, you'd see that behind the "wham-bam" of "Star Trek" is deals with issues far greater than the (actually pretty awesome) leaping, gun firing, ship exploding action. Grief, courage, the line between revenge and duty, and most importantly, that a soul is not tied to to time, but to destiny- every person rises to his or her own challenges. Ask yourself this question. How many Original Series episodes actually made sense? Or Movies, for that matter? Plot holes run happily throughout even the most heralded Star Trek movies and series.
    Additionally, whats your problem with lead characters actually getting hurt in a movie? Kirk is certainly not a professional-he's a less than a year out of school. I don't think we'll see a fight-cagey Kirk for awhile. Its a JJ Abrams trademark- -vulnerable heroes.-
    Montgomery Scott was born in Aberdeen, Scotland. Simon Pegg studied the specific regional dialect for the film. If you've been to Scotland, you'd know its actually quite a pitch pefect representation of what a Scotsman sounds like. (See Trainspotting)
    I could go on forever...but I can't stand nitpickers who still have posters of Star Trek V in their mothers basements. Grow Up. This franchise was hanging by a tendon and now is stronger than anything Lucas shat out of his backside in the past 20 years. Maybe the plot was weak. Or the explanation of said plot. But you know something? I Really Didn't Care. It was swashbuckling, slapstick, breakneck paced action- something Star Trek hasn't had since I was born- 1982.
    Also- I love this website. But must a sequel hereafter be referred to as "Dark Knight?" Gosh, Empire Strikes Back was pretty dark. As was the Godfather fucking II. And T2. Lots of sequels are dark. Read a book two in a three part series. Ugh.
  • bb6640
    Klingons. This one's a no-brainer. Whether they will be the main Big Bad or just ancillary characters, who knows... (well, besides Lindelof and Abrams)

    Borg. I would like to see 'em, but this is more a Next Gen. thing than it is the original series. However: If we saw how the Borg came into being, that would be... interesting...

    Another idea: What if the sequel played with the idea of multiple alternate Enterprises. They have already established that what we are watching is an alternate time-line Trek. That gives them full license to kill off main characters and possibly co-opt and intesect with other Enterprises from parallel time-lines on a grand scale.
  • Klingon, with out a doubt, and Please have them speak klingon ONLY, no english. I hate subtitles .. but, I rather see them speak klingon and keep it authentic
  • Well, ok, but that raises another quetion. His Spock's jump into the past would create yet another alternative timeline with two Old Spocks. That means it won't solve anything in Abrams' new timeline and just create third one, making people completely lost, just as I may be right now. Do I make any sense at all?
  • A lot of directors like to but their brand into their films. In J.J. Abrams's films it is Slusho. So with that being said how funny would it be if the crew or a crew member visits a plant and encounters the Cloverfield monster. And to go with Peter's theory this "Cloverfield monster" is the cause of the death of the misfortune crew member like Chekhov or Uhura.
  • One screw member should die, it brings you back to reality.
  • I would like to see a stronger girl character, I thought Ohura was kind of boring and didn't come in enough.

    Some more work on Kirk's character, add some nice struggles for him, cut out some of the flirty and get him a real girlfriend he can be committed too.

    Some better aliens (Nero was the cheesiest part of that movie)

    Of course a film is always good with some good deep character plots (like we saw in the first one) so more of those would be great.

    And of course some more action! Explosions never hurt anything :) (in movies at least)
  • rcesm
    I think some of you need to remember that this time-line still takes place during the ORIGINAL series, NOT TNG, DS9, etc.

    They could do plenty with bringing back conflicts during the original series. They really shouldn't include post-1701 content.

    That said, scuffles with Klingons, Romulans, and hell - the UNKNOWN in general are all up for grabs. It gives them a wide array of content to work with. The galaxy is still mostly unexplored by this generation, so they can really do about anything with it.

    I'd hate to see them bring back post-1701 content and have it bomb. Even bringing back Khan, whom was encountered in the original series, would be a mistake. I honestly don't think audiences would accept it. I know I wouldn't. Keep it new. If this franchise is to live on, it needs fresh.
  • Lono
    What would I like to see in Star Trek 2? Nothing. Nothing at all. I hope it never happens. I hope they never get it off the ground. I hope the scheduling is impossible. I hope JJ refuses. While I thoroughly enjoyed JJ's movie, if I never hear the word, "franchise" again it will be too soon. JJ told Charlie Rose he wants to make an original story/film now. Do that. Move on. I'm sure they'll just find some hack to make another one, but I hope they don't.
  • Eric R.
    I like the idea of reintroducing the Klingons and really exploring the Empire in ways that the Original Series did/could not. Establishing the enmity between Kirk and the Klingons is an almost essential part of his character, so it would be good to bring that into a sequel. Of course the writers could/should take it in a new direction since he doesn't have a son to kill ala Star Trek III/VI.

    I'd also like to throw in my support for no Shatner (or any further cameos from any of the surviving Original Series, or Next Generation, DS9...pretty much anyone who's been in a Trek series before). That would be wasting the tremendous potential that has opened up with the reboot.

    My advice is to explore the characters, not the franchise. One of the major strengths of the new Star Trek is that the casting was spot on. Those actors nailed the roles. They inhabited the characters as characters. Like an actor would try to become Hamlet, Chris Pine became Jim Kirk. And that goes for the entire cast. Write scripts that play to this strength and you can't go far wrong.
  • Dean
    The thing with the Old Kirk (Shatner) coming back to rescue Old Spock (Nimoy) is that Old Spock came from 129 years in the future, and by that time Kirk would be long dead (unless life expectancy has severly shot up to around 150+). So if Old Kirk came back and got Old Spock, he'd (Old Kirk) be getting him (Old Spock) to replace a younger Spock than the one he lost, if you get what I mean.

    Put it this way, even if Kirk comes back from say 55 years in the future he'd be around 78 (the same age as Shatner is now), but he'd be getting a Spock who was over 150 years old!
  • no more time travel! i accept it as the plot device to reboot the franchise, but i do not want to see it any more, ESPECIALLY not to introduce other old versions of characters. sorry peter, but i think i would walk out if old spock and old kirk got together for a team up in the sequel.

    i'd like to see life on earth be explored a bit more in the sequel actually. i realize the entire point is about space exploration, but i think it could be an interesting paradigm shift to explore how life has been affected by the advent of the federation. not to say that the majority, or even a large minority, of the film should be on planet, but i think there could be some neat concepts to play with there.

    and i REALLY like the idea of killing one of the crew members. like peter said, it would really solidify this new timeline/alternate reality/whatever it is, as its own entity. it would really raise the stakes and give the series a real sense of tangable danger.
  • Seth
    "The reason to do this is to establish right off the back… this universe is different"

    Um, I think blowing up Vulcan kind of hammered that point in pretty well.
  • A.J
    I thought they did a good enough job establishing that this was an alternate reality by destroying an entire fucking planet.... and Amanda Grayson. They wouldn't dare kill off any of the main characters.
  • Chris Tomasso
    Hey Peter and Steve,

    I'm not sure if this is the place to discuss this, but I would recommend posting an edited version of your video blogs. I really enjoy the laid back informal discussion of movies, but I find that since you do them 1. without planning and 2. in a continuous take it, the overall quality could benefit from just taking out the filler.

    You even talk about in many of your video blogs how much both of you ramble, which is fine. Most people don't have incredibly well rehearsed dialogue on video blogs - it's not the nature of the medium - and I like how both of you have a more cemented personality in my head when I'm reading your editorials now that I've seen your blog. It's kind of the difference between reading the news and watching it from an anchor that you really like.

    However, for me personally I scan articles of interest in and I don't usually spend more than 5 minutes watching anything online (unless it's TV or some kind of webisode.) I can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine that many others browse with this "get-content-quick" mentality. So since your video blog usually runs 20+ minutes, I tend to just put your blog on in the background instead of watching it attentively. Now if it was 20+ minutes of interesting anecdotes, speculation, and banter - all tightly edited - that's something else.

    When you communicate in ways that make me feel like I'm privy to a Hollywood insider conversation, I'm completely entertained. Yet other times - when you're figuring out what to talk about next, engaging in idle tangents, or talking about what you can't talk about - I'm sort of pulled out of my information-consuming trance.

    Maybe you guys have a certain content quota. If so, then I understand and you can disregard this. I just feel that you could take a good idea and really make it a lot more effective with just a couple trims here and there. Maybe offer both versions - edited and non edited?

    Does anyone else agree? Disagree?

    P.S. While I'm being off-topic, when are you announcing the new Slashfilm news writer?
  • miketava
    I feel you could introduce Shatner by having Chris Pine's Kirk be artificially aged through some anomaly which the crew must work hard to reverse.
  • Merciful_budah
    That's probably the best suggestion to include the shat yet
  • hoth base
    star trek 2: rise of kahn
  • Travis
    Warning! Spoiler!
    I have not read any opinions on the implications from the destruction of Vulcan. The Vulcans will now have a very diminshed role in the Federation. What will that mean for Andorians? Will that aid Klingons who will perhaps gain a technology advantage without a robust Vulcan Science Acadamy assisting the Federation. Where are the remaining Vulcans resettleing? Since Spock had a say in it will it perhaps be close to Earth? Or maybe closer to Romulus. Spock may try from the get-go to reconcile with them right away. What if the Romulons become Federation members early on? Some cool story possiblities.
  • Mike
    Missed geek opportunity in the movie:

    OLD SPOCK: This is the equation on transwarp traporter technology you invented.
    SCOTTY: I invented? You just bloody showed it to me.
    OLD SPOCK: You invented it in your future. I just facilitated . . .
    [interrupting] SCOTTY: I did'na invent it. Can you imagine me 'poof' into the past. "Hey buddy, you invented transparent aluminum, here's the formula." You just don't do that kinda . . . [trails off finally looking at the equation]
  • frank
    The best thing to do is to address what we know, and what old spock knows. I think you have "Spock Prime" reveal to the federation some of the lurking threats that are out there that he knows the timeline change has not affected (kahn's sleeper ship out there, the big doomsday cigar, the guardian of forever ... etc) The vulcans justify the change of the timline and the proactive approach to federation security to the logic of species survival and security. I think you can then have somebody like the klingons get wind of what is going on and they exploit one of the changes they are making.

    ex. Klingons revive Kahn on their own and turn his military mind and their weapons on the federation. It would be an old name with a very new and far more dangerous twist that can involve kahn using terrorism tactics and the federation having to forge alliances with other powers because klingon/kahn is a danger to the entire galaxy. The story could be made contemporary with Kahn's terror, and alliances of groups with different opinions.
  • Doug
    This film completely missed everything that has already been established in the trek continuum. Mr Abrams could have taken 5 or 10 seconds to pick up any of the number of books on this subject and at least realized that it was Nurse Chapel that had a thing for Spock. She was mentioned in the film, so I will assume JJ knew who she was. Complete pan...hated everything this movie was and I am actually an Abrams fan from his TV stuff...Maybe he should stay there.
  • 7bits
    DOOMSDAY MACHINE(s)
  • JedK
    NO SHATNER!!
    Characters have been killed of in the movies. He says kill of a character but they killed off Spock (but he came back). Can't get more main character than that. I'd like to see a traitor on the Enterprise as a Villain. That would be something different.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.