RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

Content filter

Want to find something specific?

Filter content by category

Filter content by date

Star Trek 2: Go Boldly!

Posted by T'Bonz - 27/06/12 at 01:06 pm


Share |

Although some decisions made in Star Trek XI were apt to upset fans, Star Trek 2 Co-writer Alex Kurtzman believes that bold moves are what make for a great movie.

For Chris Pine though, it’s the people, not the major action sequences, that make for a good movie.

“[Star Trek 2] … is relentless,” said Pine, when asked about the Abrams’ sequel. “The movie is relentless, and for the visually inclined people who want to see major sequences, there are a couple specifically that I think…I’m not a huge 3-D fan, but I think will be incredible.”

Star Trek 2 may be relentless and chock-full of action, but Pine is more interested in the characters and their journey from strangers thrown together to cohesive crew. “But what I’m more excited about and what I think they did so well is that really the story is that much better,” said Pine, “and the journey that these guys go on is that much more, and what they always talked about is that even though they’re a crew from what we know about the original team, the fun of getting there is following that journey to where they become that tight-knit crew. It’s no fun if they’re already a tight-knit crew. So suffice it to say, they’re still learning how to get along.”

Kurtzman agreed with Pine on the importance of seeing the crew come together as one team. “One-hundred percent,” said Kurtzman. “They only really came together as a team at the end of the first movie as a function of story. But the bridge crew from the original series, they aren’t those people yet, neither in age nor in experience. So I think the worst mistake that we could have made was to assume that they were there already at the top of the movie and skip that stuff.”

In addition to the crew story, Kurtzman believed that choices made in Star Trek XI, controversial as some may have been, made for a better movie and fans can expect more bold moves in Star Trek 2. “And the other thing I’ll say without revealing too much,” he said, “is that in the first Trek, we made choices–in our invention of the story–that were extremely controversial. Blowing up Vulcan, hugely controversial choice, and we knew that die-hard Trekkers were either going to skewer us or accept it based on the emotional architecture around that choice. I think for us, Trek is at its best when it is making hugely bold moves like that, and there will be hugely bold moves in this one.”

Source: Ain't It Cool News

Tags: ,

  • Ireland

    Good for them. You can’t hate them for making bold moves to keep the series fresh. It was dying before J.J. Abrahms and company came along so I can’t help but be very grateful that they breathed some life into Star Trek for us. Even if they do reboot a classic villain, it could turn out to be amazing.

    We’ll always have the original to hold on to and a reboot is just a new and exciting way to see our favourite characters in a different light. You don’t criticize a stage actor for playing Macbeth for the millionth time, right? Take the Batman franchise for example. The Joker had been done well in the past but Heath Ledger’s version was unarguably fantastic. I can’t wait to see where they take Star Trek 2 :)

  • OIO

    “Blowing up Vulcan, hugely controversial choice, and we knew that die-hard Trekkers were either going to skewer us or accept it based on the emotional architecture around that choice”

    No, blowing up Vulcan was fine.

    Characters were fine, Karl Urban was spot on in his portrayal of Bones. The only problem character was Scotty.

    I’m less convinced about Spock/Uhura, and I’m less convinced about “transwarp beaming”, which will have to be ignored or retconned (only works on Thursdays) as it’s too much of a plot spoiler. I’m certainly not happy about a cadet becoming permanent captain.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Scotty was not the worst character problem for me, even though he’s only the Scotty we know for the last few minutes of the film. An actual Scotty actually made it into the film, however briefly.
    In my opinion, they chose very poorly for Sulu.
    I like John Cho for himself, but he’s a poor choice for Sulu. He doesn’t have any of Sulu’s self-confidence or cockiness, which was actually more prevalent in the early episodes and mellowed over time; he doesn’t show any of Sulu’s love of adventure, which came from his childhood; he’s entirely too quiet and introspective. Sulu’s not a character who came out of his shell, go look at the first season. Sulu’s a character who had to temper his brashness with experience and the occasional failure.
    The last detail is not John Cho’s fault; the expanding katana. Wrong. Sulu’s heroes were swashbucklers, not samurai; he idolized the larger-than-life, expressive, outgoing characters, not the reserved, disciplined, taciturn samurai. Sulu studied Western fencing, which is what the dialogue in Trek XI states, and not kendo.
    Okay rant over.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Yes, but it’s a bad idea to go head-to-head with what critics and fans regard as the best of the old series. You would have to bring your A game. you can’t half-ass it. You would have to have something that when people compared it to the older film would unquestionably come out on top.
    The Nolans had that in Dark Knight. They don’t do things by half measures.
    I don’t know if those knuckleheads Kurtzman and Orci, and the vastly overrated Lindehof, have that kind of game in them. K&O did really well with the characters and the dialogue in this last film, but the story was weakened by their poor grasp of story logic, and their complete and utter lack of the most basic understandings of science. Adding Damon Lindehof is not the answer, because his grasp on logic is even weaker than theirs.
    All three of these writers are people who rush, they pull out an idea and they run with it, and then they run out of steam. They half-ass it. Half-ass is not going to dethrone Star Trek II.
    Further, all three have historically shown a tendency to fall victim to their own hype. *cough*Revengeofthefallen*cough*
    I’d really love to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Their idea of “taking it further”, “kicking it up a notch” for this next movie are to have a better villain, relentless action, and eye-popping 3d effects sequences. If that is indeed what they did, then what they were strong in on the last film– the characters, the dialogue, the strong emotional backbone of the film– will just get lost in all that relentlessly eye-f*cking nonstop 3d action.

  • Gordon Hopkins16

    I can’t wait ’til next year

  • John Wielgosz

    Respectfully, I have no problems with bold choices. I have no issues with re-casting or alternate time lines. (Heck, what else could they do at this point?)

    My problem is the EXECUTION of those ideas (and the production design of said ideas, but that’s a different rant). I’d rather have fewer action set pieces that carry dramatic weight, over stuffing them into every crevice possible.

    And one other thing. Comedic relief is fine, but not when it swoops in every time a scene is building some dramatic steam. A relative asked me why I thought the comedy in ‘Avengers’ was fine, but not in ‘Star Trek’. I answered “Because no one in the back ground dropped a wise crack every time something important happened.”

    Tension is an okay thing, especially when you’re dealing with the destruction of a Federation member home world, the loss of a character’s mother, or what should have been a desperate race to save Earth. Ironically, the pre-title sequence nailed the tone, but the remainder of the movie never lived up to those ten minutes.

  • Ensignahkinum

    I prefer people that know and love Star Trek to be the writers of Star Trek. I prefer actors that know and love Star Trek to act in Star Trek movies.

    I dislike it when actor’s say, “No, I never heard or watch Star Trek”, but then want to be lead people on the Trek shows. Why would you want to be on a show that you never gave a second glance to? I’ve heard some of the Star Trek actors, whom said they’ve never seen it before they were on it, and now do not allow their children to watch it. What’s up with that? Why would you want to be on a show that you would not have enough pride in, to even let your children watch it?

    I would not think it right to hire ninja martial arts specialist to do Shakespeare, or Christians to teach Buddhism. Why would you want to hire people that never gave a crap about a show, to even give time to watch it, but put them in-charge of making and acting it out?

    I don’t believe in the myth that there are Star Trek stories that are tired. I do believe that people get burnt out and need to move onto another show or movies, because they have seen everything Trek. “MOVE ON”. The stories today may seem old and tired to you, but these show’s are meant for the next-generation. I started watching Star Trek with Voyager, I thought it was an interesting story and situation and enjoyed pretty much every episode with my family. A lot of Voyager may have been reused scripts from TOS, TNG, DS9, but I did not know that, they were new to me. And, it was quite fun to go back and see all those show’s and learn how they and Voyager tied into each other.

    Uhg, I need another strawberry Daiquiri!