EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: ‘Star Trek 3′ Screenwriters Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne · “We’re trying to make the best Star Trek movie we can.”

mckay-payne-header2

We're back today with the second half of our EXCLUSIVE interview with Star Trek 3 writers Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne, where we discuss writing with director Roberto Orci, the involvement of producer J.J. Abrams, listening to fan feedback, and more!

div_spacer

TREKCORE: You mentioned all the different kinds of things Star Trek does well – and after Into Darkness used so many of the iconic Wrath of Khan moments, to varying degrees of success – we have to say that the biggest question people are asking is if you looking at a standalone story for the next film, or if are you trying to tread closer to an existing Trek plot.

J.D. Payne: Well… we're trying to make the best Star Trek movie we can. That's probably the easiest way to answer that one. The first two films did really, really well, and they really brought Star Trek to a much larger audience. It sort of expanded the tent a little bit out into pop culture, and put it out into the public consciousness a little more than it might have been with the previous incarnations.

The first two have now set us up to be out on the 'five-year mission,' to go out and have the coolest adventures we can come up with.

best-quote

TREKCORE: When you went in to pitch to Bad Robot, did you have to tailor your story idea to any particular expectations of points to follow up from the first films? Were there any must-have things that HAD to be in there?

Patrick McKay: The 2009 film is very much an origin story, and Into Darkness is very much the "Okay, we've got the team together, but they're still young, let's have them face a really formidable threat" sequel – and that movie ends with them going off on the five-year mission out in space, so that points to where the next one would go.

We're very much thinking about a movie that would stand alongside the first two, in a general sense, but more specifically, I would say that in working with our wonderful co-writer Roberto Orci, it began very much as a conversation. "Well, what would you guys like to see in the movie?" "Is there an area we all want to explore?" Nothing was off the table – all along, it's been about the coolest, best movie we can write. There's no sort of requirement saying we have to do this or that, I think it's very much been a blank canvas.

J.D. Payne: What we keep on coming back to is the basic credo of Star Trek, that opening prologue you hear at the beginning of each Original Series episode. That's our mantra for what we're trying to accomplish here.

orci

TREKCORE: Speaking of Bob Orci, now that your co-writer is also set to direct the sequel, has that changed the overall story development process?

J.D. Payne: It doesn't change things as much as things are enhanced by it. We have a process that we've developed over the seventeen years we've worked together. We have this yarn we're spinning back and forth, and we walk around outside with people thinking we're crazy as we're going down the street, brainstorming a mile a minute.

We make it work verbally, and then once we've got the pitch down to be able to tell each other the full story, one of us will take a stab at writing a part of it, and the other will write another part. We end up with a treatment that hits critical mass, and once that's at a point that feels right, we go to the page and then a lot of things in that treatment get reworked.

That's just the process we developed working with the two of us – and adding in Bob to make three of us felt totally natural. Bob couldn't be more of a gentleman, or any more awesome with how collaborative he is. There's really no sense of a hierarchy, and what really best serves the story is the idea that ends up winning the day. We'll toss around all kinds of things and have a lot of fun.

idea-quote

Patrick McKay: It's very much like having one more leg to stand on – a collaborator who brings an enormous amount of experience, talent, and ideas, all things that he can teach us. It's been a very natural collaboration. As far as the directing aspect of it goes, here's what's great: when you're writing a script – whether it's a story J.D. and I are working on together, or as in this case, collaborating with Bob – there's always the possibility that down the road, a director will come on board and have different instincts about the film.

The fact that it's going to be Bob is just great, and it means we can be emboldened to really embrace the ideas we're all passionate about, because that's going to be the movie, hopefully.

TREKCORE: Could you give us an idea about J.J. Abrams’ involvement with the film, since he’s so heavily tied to Star Wars: Episode VII over the next year?

Patrick McKay: Oh, sure. Bad Robot, J.J., and his team are really at the heart of this movie's development. They are the guiding light by which we all do our work.

J.J.'s been a key part of helping us spin this tale from the beginning, and if there are people who think that we've lost him to Star Wars this time around, that’s not the truth as far as we see it.

jj-quote

TREKCORE: Back in February, J.D., you talked about an expected script development timeline – now that filming is set to begin next spring, how are things progressing? When do you expect the screenplay to be completed?

J.D. Payne: Well, the answer is always "As quickly as possible!" (laughs) We're pushing things forward and feeling really good about how things are coming out. Once the three of us have gone through it, we'll then take it to the producers and of course, the studio. That's all part of the creative process with this big team that's making the movie together. We can't say that it will be done on some specific date…

Patrick McKay: It's an ongoing, fluid process – but the train is moving, fear not!

TREKCORE: Obviously, there won’t be anything official on this for several months, but we've had people tell us that the title Star Trek 3 should be reserved for The Search for Spock – could you share any kind of working title that you might be using?

Patrick McKay: Well, we'd love to... (laughs) Look, we have several – but the way these things work is that you build a list and kick around ideas to see what sticks, and sooner or later, a consensus is built… and we're just too far away from that right now. If we were to tell you any of the ideas we've been thinking about, well, we'd just be giving it too much of the spotlight.

countdown

TREKCORE: Both of the previous films had official comic ‘prequel’ stories leading up to each release – and Bob Orci has been credited as a ‘story consultant’ on the ongoing monthly comic series. Do you expect to have a hand in crafting a similar comic tie-in for Trek 3?

J.D. Payne: We love the Star Trek universe and hopefully, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart, this will be the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

TREKCORE: Have you paid much attention to the fan reactions online to the previous two films as you shape your script? A lot of discussion has revolved around some of the more controversial elements of the new timeline, like how Kirk was promoted right up from the Academy being captain of the Enterprise in the first movie.

Patrick McKay: Let me ask, did that bother you? Do you agree with those sentiments?

TREKCORE: Well, it's a bit questionable to have Kirk go from what is essentially a college student to being the in charge of this massive operation aboard a starship. That’s a bit of a leap.

J.D. Payne: In some ways. It's interesting – Star Trek often reflects the cultural milieu in which it's being created, which is one of the reasons it's such an enduring franchise and can speak so freshly to each generation.

minority-quote

Some cultural historians define Millennials, speaking in terms of archetypes, as part of a rising 'hero' generation. Millennials are often very willing to dive into complex crises and take them on even without lots of experience. They're got a sort of brash kind of confidence, so, generationally, you could look at the first film as simply reflecting the culture and characteristics of the rising generation.

TREKCORE: Do you use any of the online fan feedback to sort of guide yourself through the waters, so to speak?

Patrick McKay: Well, look – there's always some sort of conversation about any kind of creative pursuit. The writer, or director, or painter, or whatever is going to create what they create, and then there are going to be responses to that.

One thing that J.D. and I talk about a lot when it comes to the online world of instant critical response to something that may have taken five years and untold man-hours to produce is most helpful when it's in the "Yes, and..." category. To explain a little bit more about what I mean -- in collaborating, all the time J.D. and I write something, the other guy reads it, and maybe he doesn't like it – even if you loved it and thought it was maybe the best thing in the world.

But what we've found is that the worst way to respond is just "No." That sort of ends the creative process right there. But if you can respond with a "Yes, and...", saying, "Yes, these things I like, and I think this other part should go like this," then those are the most helpful kinds of constructive feedback.

soup-quote

The more considered fan responses become the things that we would probably listen to the most. As for those kind of nay-saying kind of comments like "This isn't MY Star Trek!"... you know, I think that's a real minority.

TREKCORE: It does seem that with nearly every entertainment product, there is always some vocal minority broadcasting the thing's perceived flaws louder than everyone else, especially online; out of ninety people who might enjoy something, there's always ten other guys yelling over the rest – whether it's about Trek or some other film or television show. It's not always easy to see the more calm, critical discussions between the shouting matches.

J.D. Payne: Yeah, and that's really pretty indicative of our cultural conversation right now. You see – and not to wade into politics – but with the way communication is changing, it makes it more difficult for people to actually have a real civil conversation. That's what's we're about.

We take in all the information around us that we can, we read what fans are saying, we think about our own instincts, we go back to the Original Series, we talk with Bob, we talk with J.J., we talk with everyone else involved with the project... you put it all into one big soup and serve the best meal you can.

kirk-bashir

TREKCORE: Finally – 2016 is a big year for the franchise, and that's surely weighing a bit on the development for the film. Are you guys trying to include a sort of "50th Anniversary spirit" in your story? With some of the other big anniversaries, there were a number of crossover events between the television shows, that kind of thing, to draw attention to the milestones.

Patrick McKay: Well, look at Skyfall – that was an anniversary movie, like a 50th anniversary movie, and it was of course very successful and very well liked. I didn't know anybody who didn't really enjoy it, and what was cool about that movie is that it felt like the 'ultimate' James Bond film.

While it wasn't necessarily overly-reliant on references to previous Bond movies, I think it ties into what you were asking earlier about if Trek 3 is going to be a standalone tale. I think the idea of doing an 'ultimate' Star Trek movie for the anniversary year is a really nice ambition to have, but...

J.D. Payne: (laughs) We're really not trying to talk ourselves up too much here!

Patrick McKay: That's why I said 'ambition!' (laughs) It's going to be the best Trek movie we can think of.

We're the guys who are the fans that will be waiting in line for the midnight showing – although we're into our thirties now, so we'll probably be at the matinee showing the next day instead! But as we walk into this playground and see all the opportunities and characters available to our imaginations, we're really asking ourselves "What's the Star Trek movie that we'd be most excited about?"

Hopefully, it's going to be one that will get a lot of other people excited about it too.

div_spacer

Our thanks go out to Patrick and J.D. for taking the time to speak with us – and
we look forward to checking in with them again as 'Star Trek 3' draws nearer.

part1-button

It's your turn now, readers! Let's hear what you think about these Trek newcomers after hearing about them in their own words? Do you have any burning questions we didn't address? Sound off in the comments below!

Pre-Order Star Trek The Compendium on Blu-ray today!


Order Star Trek Into Darkness on 3D Blu-ray today!



  • MJ

    “The first two have now set us up to be out on the
    ‘five-year mission,’ to go out and have the coolest adventures we can come up
    with.”

    - check! New
    adventures, more scifi and strange new worlds…this is great news for Star
    Trek!!

    “Trekcore: There’s
    always a vocal minority that ends up being heard the loudest in any Trek
    situation; out of ninety people who might love something, there’s always ten
    other guys shouting over the rest.”

    - agreed Trekcore, the naysayers will still NEVER be happy
    short of a time machine to go back and watch TOS and TNG in real time again…LOL

    “J.J.’s been a key part of helping us spin this tale from
    the beginning, and if there are people who think that we’ve lost him to Star
    Wars this time around, that’s not the truth as far as we see it.”

    - So glad to hear this, given it’s Bob’s first directing job
    and these creative young guys are still newbies…great team effort here it
    sounds like

    TREKCORE, YOU HIT THIS ONE OUT OF THE PARK – THANK YOU !!!!!

    • James

      Well said, Abrams and his team deserve real credit for making Star Trek viable again. It was always a huge challenge to recast the iconic roles of Kirk and Spock and I think that these new writers face another huge challenge.

      They have to build on the overall critical and commercial success that the last two films have enjoyed, whilst pleasing fandom and creating something new and interesting.

      As someone who follows Trek closely, I have been heartened to see how convention numbers have increased since the Abrams films came out. I’ve also had a few friends start to enjoy TNG and TOS as a result of these new movies. I don’t shout about my love of Star Trek very much (outside of these forums) and so it’s always great when someone else brings up the subject!

    • Swanderson67

      “JJ is the new Great Bird.”

      Oh Good God….

      • hypnotoad72

        Dodo? Loon? Or mynah, which has more to do with reflecting the audience…

  • Sykes

    Nice. I enjoy the way anyone who doesn’t like something is put forward as just a loud fraction.

    • jstimson

      I hear you. It’s as if they are dismissing any criticism as just a bunch of old cranks. I wanted to like Into Darkness, I really did. But too much of it was just pandering to the popcorn crowd to leave me ultimately satisfied with it. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Enterprise was underwater. Did it look awesome as it rose up? Hell yes. But with no logic or reason behind it, it became just a dumb moment.

      • James

        The transporters and shuttlecraft weren’t operable.
        The whole point of having to physically land the ship was that the magnetic field around the volcano was screwing up their transporters and they couldn’t use the transporters except at incredibly close range. As we saw with Kirk and McCoy’s narrow escape, having your ship parked literally within walking distance of the landing site does have certain advantages.

        If you’re one of those ‘but the Enterprise can’t fly underwater’ people, then I suggest watching the following:

        Insurrection – Village sized holo-ship under water.
        The Immunity Syndrome – Enterprise flies around in a giant cell.
        Numerous Voyager episodes – Voyager flies around in ‘fluidic space’.

        It’s like people that say the Enterprise can’t fly around in an atmosphere, completely ignoring Tomorrow is Yesterday!

        Honestly, it’s a fun pop-corn movie, just like all the others.

        • jstimson

          Regarding the transporters and shuttles not being operable, not a single line was said about that. And you know what? The shuttles certainly were operable, since they flew one right into the maw of the volcano itself. Landing another shuttle for the away team on the outskirts of the village would have made far more sense than submerging the whole damn ship underwater, which required the crew the added hassle to run to the beach and scuba-dive to the ship. Heck, even Scotty had a line after Kirk and McCoy swam aboard that “It’s stupid to hide a starship underwater”. Yer rrrright! It is stupid. This was done solely so we can get a cool special effect of the Enterprise rising out of the sea. Total visual candy and about as nutritious as a pop tart (mmmm, pop tarts).But that is just one example of the many death-of-a-thousand-papercuts the movie suffered from.

          Kahn is a white British guy now? Benedict Cumberbatch is good, don’t get me wrong, and he has a voice that melts through steel. But Kahn is not a white British guy. Although Montalban was Mexican, he did come across on screen as the intended race, an East Indian Sikh (even if he did not seem to embrace the core values of being Sikh). Malra McGivers (who became his wife) painted him with a turban in the original Space Seed episode. I have a hard time envisioning Cumberbatch with a turban.

          Perhaps the writers got uncomfortable painting a villain in this day and age coming from an Asian continent? Seems like that’s where most of our movie villains are from now so maybe they didn’t want to go there. But too bad, Khan is not a white British guy. Heck, if casting is this fluid, maybe Spock can be played by Morgan Freeman in the next movie.

          Khan has magic blood? Really? This opens up all kinds of questions. Why does McCoy have a dead tribble laying around to test this on? Have tribbles become the new white lab rat for Starfleet medical? And just because the tribble revived should mean nothing to McCoy. Even now, things that happen in white lab rats do not necessarily translate to working in people, and we’re from the same planet. What can cure a tribble could eat Kirk from the inside out. And why chase after Khan to get his blood? McCoy has 72 supermen popsicles he can use right beside him.

          Something I missed on first viewing but caught on second, was the McCoy synthesized a serum from Khans blood. So I guess now Starfleet has a cure-all medication. Bet we never see that again.

          Carol Marcus, who is apparently now a permanent part of the crew, served no real purpose. There wasn’t anything she did or said that could not have been carried out by another crewmember. Her being the daughter of Admiral Marcus was not really used to any good effect. Not that I dislike her, she just seemed put in for making fanboys happy. In our timeline she is the mother of Kirks son and she was also very much against weaponizing of anything (she built the Genesis device as a peaceful tool). Since she is now part of the crew at the start of a 5 year mission, not sure how they intend to utilize her character.

          Khan was not the real villain of the film, that title goes to Admiral Marcus. Not only head of Starfleet, it seems he’s also head of Section 31. I’m OK with that, Section 31 was first shown to us in DS9 and also appeared in Enterprise. They are an off-the-books shadowy spy organization that thinks the only way to get things done is to bypass the rules and get your hands dirty. Here, as in previous times we’ve seen them, they are used to contrast how messy it can be trying to make a good decision without compromising your core values.

          For all that the USS Vengeance was supposed to be a secret project, I find it amusing that a model of it was shown early on. As Marcus is talking with Kirk, the camera pans across a lineup of models, showing the history of flight, with the last model being his uber secret battleship. Really? Although good to see the Phoenix (from First Contact) and the NX-01 (from Enterprise series) in the lineup.

          Two problems with Khan teleporting himself to Kronos. First, we now see that the transwarp teleporter that Scotty came up with in the first movie is a real product. So I guess we don’t need starships now? Why fly anywhere when you can beam any distance in an instant? Although a line was said about Section 31 commandeering the technology, the doesn’t erase the information from Scotty’s head. What needs to be done with this magic transporter is to find a fatal flaw that would prevent it from ever being used again. Just like the magic blood serum, this needs to go away.

          Second, why Kronos? And why to an unpopulated province? At this point Khan did not know his 72 companions were safe, he was basically just trying to cripple Starfleet and make a run for it. If I was Khan I’d pick a destination (remember, my magic transporter can take me anywhere), that would allow me to slip away, not strand me in the middle of nowhere with no resources.

          As for the Klingons, there’s something going on there that is not being said out loud. As shown, they come across as pretty incompetent. Khan was able to transport undetected to their homeworld. Kirk was able to fly a trade ship to their homeworld. This is Kronos, home of the Klingons, it should be heavily guarded and impossible to even get close to it. Klingons are conquerors and know how to occupy a planet, this type of thing does not make sense.

          However, there seems to be a visual clue that may deal with this. As Kirk approaches Kronos in the trade ship (belonged to Harry Mudd! nice shout out!), what appears to be a destroyed moon is seen. Although nothing is said, we can speculate. Perhaps this is Praxis, the same moon that was destroyed in ST VI. Praxis was the location of a Klingon energy plant that exploded and threatened to cripple the entire Klingon empire. In that movie we saw the first overtones of peace between the Federation and Klingons. However in this movie, Praxis seems destroyed much earlier (about 40 years Trek time). The Klingons may be in a world of hurt right now and unable to deal with anything. I’d even go farther with this theory and speculate that Admiral Marcus knew about this, which would explain why he felt it was a good time to start a war with the Klingons before they could regroup. But all of this is pure speculation since nothing was actually said out loud.

          We get to see the Enterprise warp core in this movie. Sadly, we still have an engineering section build by Molson, but the warp core appears much more functional. In actuality, the warp core scenes are filmed at a real scientific installation (The National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California). After getting used to it, I actually like the depiction of the warp core, both inside and out. It seems grounded in reality. The Molson engineering set? Not so much.

          The Spock/Khan flying barge fight annoyed the hell out of me. This whole sequence belonged in Phantom Menace. This was not Star Trek. And Uhura beams down by herself with a hand phaser? Why not send “cupcake” with a phaser rifle?

          At the start of the movie, Kirk gets demoted for 5 minutes for breaking the prime directive. His demotion and promotion happen so quickly that it loses the effect it should have on us. Yes, he does learn valuable lessons later on as the movie progresses, but the initial kickdown seems wasted as a story element.

          There’s lots of other things to discuss, but right now those are the main points that I found. BTW, this movie looks fantastic. Visually it is just amazing.

          At the end of the movie we are promised the start of a 5 year mission in deep space. So what we really need is a new series to take advantage of this, not a third film. Movies will just fill us up with the junk-food of popcorn. What the fans are craving is a continuing series that will actually give us nutritious meals.

          • Christopher Roberts

            http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080316205925/memoryalpha/en/images/3/32/Khan_Noonien_Singh,_1996.jpg

            I do kind of wish there had been that visual reference of Montalban’s Khan from the history books. I have issues accepting Cumberbatch playing a character with a surname implying a certain racial background. Illogical given the Mexican actor I associate with him but there you go. He was too strong to be shrugged off really. Wrath of Khan still a critically rated film that floats in serious polls. Space Seed referred back to, although whether or not it would have that classic status without it, is debatable. How they would’ve done it, and not stalled the whole film I frankly don’t know. But I’d have liked to have seen it tried and dumped into Deleted Scenes if it didn’t work.

            Mileage varies, but I think whoever they’d have cast as Khan… to me, that scene in the brig needed us to see more. More to sell the reveal about his actual name. More to counteract the John Harrison mould Cumberbatch’s casting fits.

            It would’ve silenced the critique about possibly having kept him that way… a rogue Starfleet agent. Engineered or not.

            My attitude to that scene is, “Khan?!? Really? Prove it.” And that must be so in the minds of the writers too. So much so, that later in the film they have to produce Nimoy Spock to back it up. Only suddenly saying his full name kind of compounds the issue.

            If visual references or a flashback to Montalban’s Khan were to happen… probably while Nimoy Spock gives his full name Khan Noonien Singh and breaks his promise not to give any information about his 23rd Century.

            Or else, when John Harrison is in the brig and speaks of his past. Images should’ve
            flashed by of Marcus boarding the Botany Bay with a security team, and Montalban Khan or somebody standing in for him at any rate, being discovered there. Shots of Doctors performing a surgical procedure and canisters being moved in a cargo bay, while Khan confesses to being used by Section 31, in return for the safety of his crew.

            Like the trippy 24th Century scenes of Nimoy on Romulus, leaving in the Jellyfish, being captured by Nero and getting stranded on Delta Vega.

            Or Newt’s family backstory, cut from Aliens with the ship from the original film shown.

            The scene focused on Cumberbatch’s crying face for absolutely ages and could’ve benefitted from being broken up and cut away from. My reaction is generally that’s where the whole film disappears down the rabbit hole. It needed to show, as much as rely on the actor to tell us who he really is.

            Zero chance of doing that now though. No such alternate or deleted scene was shot.

          • Yotsuyasan

            I’ve heard of this comic suggesting surgical alteration, and I, too, don’t take it as a proper explanation as it wasn’t in the film itself. Unlike some other franchises, Star Trek’s extended universe has always been that things such as books and comics are not official canon. If it didn’t happen on screen, chances are it didn’t happen.

            So the way I see it, we have a character born long before Nero’s alleged alteration, who should thus look no different, and yet who looks radically different.

            Now, I know it isn’t like they could have had a young Ricardo Montalban on hand to film with, but they could have least looked for a similar looking actor.

            That being said, I never bought the “altered timeline” premise, anyway. Too many inconsistencies in things that should not have been affected, like Delta Vega (a planet previously established as being close to the Galactic Barrier) suddenly being in the Vulcan star system, close enough for Vulcan itself to be large in the sky as it imploded.

            Thus, I’ve always seen this “new timeline” not as such, but as an entirely alternate universe with a plethora of similarities, that Spock Prime mistook for simply an altered timeline. (I can forgive his mistake, his sole experiences at that point had been being captured, being stranded, and witnessing his planet being destroyed. So it isn’t like he’d had the opportunity to fully study his situation.) I suppose in this instance, one can forgive Benedict Kahnberbatch, as it is possible that in this reality the geneticists who engineered him used different DNA in his makeup.

            So I guess, for me, the casting of Khan would be the least of my complaints. At least if they had to go with someone who was ridiculously miscast, they did so with an exemplary actor. (Cannot wait for Sherlock series 4!)

          • Christopher Roberts

            I don’t see it that way. I found the divergent timeline convenient. It allowed them to tell an origin story without being slavish to the original detail. I’m also a fan of Enterprise (they do exist) and it allowed that show to precede the new movies. I liked the idea of two universes sharing the same timeline if you go back to where the two branches of this “Y” fork meet. That explanation for Khan having been altered isn’t perfect, but I wish they had made it official onscreen in the way I’ve suggested. It helps me as an old fan and would’ve been welcome in my eyes, even if they’d done it with some slight of hand, in being a blink ‘n’ miss it moment.

          • MJ

            I agree. They should have paid Del Toro what he wanted. He could have channeled a more Montelban-like Khan.

            BC wasn’t a convincing Khan for me. Pasty white guy playing Khan was bad casting, and after all the hype about what a supposedly great actor he was, I found his performance lacking. Bana was actually a better villain in Trek 2009.

            I still have yet to see BC shine in anything beyond the very good Sherlock TV show. He’s overrated, and is probably bet suited to stay on TV versus major flims. Just like Colin Farrell.

          • James

            That’s a huge post to respond to, but here’s what I can address.

            There was a line about magnetic interference making the transporters inoperable from Chekov. It seemed pretty clear that the only reason they were able to get Spock out of the volcano is because the Enterprise moved directly overhead and within a certain distance. This would probably account for why the Enterprise wasn’t in synchronous orbit over said volcano. It’s been shown in a few instances that magnetic fields disrupt transporters. So why didn’t they use shuttles? I’d infer that they were worried about ash clogging everything up (which happened after all).

            Yes – the writers admitted they were uncomfortable having an asian baddie.

            The blood thing – see posts above. There is real world research into this and the writers (as SF writers do) have extrapolated this into the future. I dont like this particular deus ex machina.

            http://www.cordblood.com/stem-cell-research/stem-cell-clinical-trials

            I also don’t like the concept of a long range transporter, maybe section 31 is restricting its use? Maybe the prototype is now destroyed. Let’s hope so.

            Completely agree about the flying barge fight – found it boring.

            Like you, I’m looking forward to the new movie being set in deep space. A continuing series would be great! I happen to think Trek works best on TV.

    • http://www.trekcore.com/ TrekCoreStaff

      Our apologies; that question has been corrected to more accurately reflect the intention in which it was asked.

    • MJ

      Agreed — yes, it was nice the way they handled this — good words from these two writers that we should all listen to. The constant negativity and bitching was getting real old.

  • DangerousDac

    Well, this is leaving me cautiously optimistic, but of course, without anything specific theres always a 50:50 chance things can turn out for the worse.

    If there’s one thing that rubs me the wrong way though, its seeing negativity as absolute. If I didn’t like Into Darkness, its because I’m a butthurt TOS fanboy who can’t accept anything new. Thats far from the truth. Intro Darkness suffers from problems with the story (Average moviegoer doesn’t know who Khan is – the reveal is meaningless, and people who know Khan know the ending is lifted verbatim from TWOK), message (Every situation is resolved through violence and dumb luck. In TWOK, Spock sacrificed himself because he had the knowledge and ability to do what must be done. In ID, Spock saves the day by beating Khan up with a chunk of metal. Kirk sacrifices himself by kicking a chunk of metal. Marcus stops a torpedo exploding not with expertise, but by ripping out a random chunk of metal with wires attached.) and believability (why is a spaceship underwater? Cold Fusion isn’t cold. Why do we have spaceships if I can beam to another planet halfway across the galaxy? Why can they warp halfway across the galaxy in less than 2 minutes?). Those 3 core areas, Story/message/believability are the core concepts of A movie, let alone a Star Trek one (although admittedly the message tier should be beefed up a tad). Negativity exists for a reason. Beyond the initial remark, there are valid reasons for not liking something. I just cited many. I’ve done this every time I’ve been accused of being a hater for haters sake. Its something thats starting to piss me off as much as the film itself did.

    • MJ

      “If there’s one thing that rubs me the wrong way though, its seeing negativity as absolute.”

      Huh? Here is what they said:

      “But what we’ve found is that the worst way to respond is just “No.” That sort of ends the creative process right there. But if you can respond with a “Yes, and…”, saying, “Yes, these things I like, and I think this other part should go like this,” then those are the most helpful kinds of constructive feedback.”

      THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL ABSOLUTE ABOUT THIS ? ? ?

      • DangerousDac

        I highly doubt 90% of all fandom unconditionally love “NuTrek”. There are many facets of it. I liked the 2009 film. I disliked Into Darkness.

        Bob Orci once famously told fans who didnt like Into Darkness to fuck off on Twitter and in the Trkemovie.com comments. Thats pretty absolute.

        “It does seem that with nearly every entertainment product, there is always some vocal minority broadcasting the thing’s perceived flaws louder than everyone else”

        The use of the word “perceived” belittles the negative viewpoint as if story structure and logic are subjective, so to take issue with them isn’t valid.

        • http://www.trekcore.com/ TrekCoreStaff

          Two people may view the same events in opposing ways; one might see Kirk’s “death” in “Into Darkness” as an emotional high point in the film while someone else sees the same scene as a hackneyed rip-off from “Wrath of Khan”.

          The first person perceives the scene as a story strength while the other perceives the same thing as a negative. Our use of the word is not intended to “belittle” anything.

          • MJ

            Exactly. The whole point here that the writers are trying to get at I think is that we as fans finally need to step in and “just say no” to the people that are just incessantly being negaitive on the new movies.

            STID was not as good a fllm as ST-2009. I’ll be the first to say that. But for some fans, who I see over and over on the internet for the last year to be continually bitching about it and being so negative about thes team folks that has successfully revived Trek — I think we as fans need to stand up and not accept such incessant negativity…all McKay is saying is:

            “”But what we’ve found is that the worst way to respond is just “No.” That sort of ends the creative process right there. But if you can respond with a “Yes, and…”, saying, “Yes, these things I like, and I think this other part should go like this,” then those are the most helpful kinds of constructive feedback.”

            HOW COULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON DISAGREE WITH THIS?

          • DangerousDac

            I dont. But that is literally 2 or 3 people compared to literally dozens of threads over on reddit filled with essays on the topic of what Into Darkness did wrong.

          • Mark Ward

            Even without appreciating the sentiments there, using super mutant blood to cure death is pretty weak writing.

            I’ve never heard anyone refer to that sequence as anything worthy of praise.

          • James

            Fair enough, but you could say the same about Star Trek III, with proto-matter somehow regenerating Captain Spock. I liked Star Trek II and III, but the supernatural elements bugged me somehow what with the ‘living spirit” and all.

          • Mark Ward

            I think that’s a fair complaint.

            The real problem I’m considering is with this “must be positive” approach to writing and criticism. Sometimes ideas are just not good (we all have them!) and it is better to put them to rest completely.

            Maybe if someone in that trio had said “this whole super human blood thing… Well no… Just no…” we’d have had a better thought through and more refined scripts.

          • James

            The thing is that there is real world research into the regenerative properties of blood, so the plot device didn’t bother me so much.

            http://www.cordblood.com/stem-cell-research/stem-cell-clinical-trials

            I just like to point out that singling ‘Into Darkness’ out for inconsistency / errors is fine, but people shouldn’t pretend that previous Trek’s were flawless masterpeices. In my opinion, the Khans blood plot device is facetious as using protomatter to regenerate Spock.

          • Mark Ward

            Yeah, but curing cancer is slightly different to resurrecting someone from the dead.

            My point remains that being unable to say “no” isn’t healthy in any team.

          • James

            agreed.

          • MJ

            I AGREE 100% — PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE WHERE I COVER THIS IN ALL ITS NERDY DETAIL

          • Yotsuyasan

            People defend the magic blood by comparing it to proto-matter bringing back Spock… And I say it isn’t a fair comparison.

            From a story perspective, what happened in Into Darkness was a magic wand being waved at the end of a movie. On the other hand, Star Trek III was taking an entire movie to tell a story about bringing a character back, and in a way that had consequences. Kirk got Spock back, but he lost a few other things along the way. True, technically he’d have lost those things anyway. (The Enterprise was to be decommissioned, and David would have been captured by Klingons reguardless. Indeed, without Kirk showing up, Saavik and Spock’s reborn body would likely have died, as well.) But those losses are now, to Kirk, emotionally tied to the quest to bring Spock back.

            From a larger perspective, Spock’s resurrection was a fairly unique event. How often do you have a Vulcan, who’s Katra has safely been preserved elsewhere (remember that Genesis regenerated the body only) and who’s dead body is projected towards a planetary body being created by the Genesis effect during the necessary window to become entwined in the effect itself? Kind of not easily repeatable circumstances.

            Where as in Into Darkness we have 70ish super humans on ice to draw blood from, and that blood can probably be easily studied and replicated. Injectable cure for death. Wee!

            One method of resurrection is a well written tale of a non-repeatable set of circumstances with consequences. The other is a lazy piece of writing simply because the writers wanted to rip off — sorry, homage — Wrath of Khan, but didn’t want to deal with what anything in Wrath of Khan actually meant.

          • James

            I don’t like the idea of the ‘injectible’ cure for death either.

            The point of my post is that singling ‘Into Darkness’ out for inconsistency / errors is fine, but people shouldn’t pretend that previous Trek’s were flawless masterpeices. In my opinion, the Khans blood plot device is as facetious as using protomatter to regenerate Spock. Think about it. They beam Spock off the planet and his rapid ageing just stops, and they beam him off at exactly the right age. Implausible?

            You want silly magic wand waving – I’ll analyse just one of the classic Trek episodes and I’ll happily do another one if you like. Let’s take ‘The Changeling’ – an episode so good that they turned it into a movie!

            1. Uhura’s wiped mind is retrained with basic education (she is reading sentences on the level of “See the dog run” at one point in the episode) is more than just a little absurd. The fact that she’s on the bridge the next week as if nothing happened
            is just plain silly.
            2. Spock mind melds with a computer / robot.
            3. How could that tiny floaty thing be capable of warp drive / firing tremendous bolts of energy?
            4. How could it KILL SCOTTY and magically bring him back?
            5. According to our boy Spock, the shields absorb the equivalent of 90 photon torpedoes!!!! and the shields only drop 25%. That means that the stalwart starship could absorb 360 torpedoes before she blew apart?!

            I love this episode though, just like I love Into Darkness. Honestly, to be a fan of SF you have to be able to suspend your disbelief unless you want hard SF. The only true hard SF film I can think of is 2001 (Gravity was runied by some crazy stuff). The closest to hard SF in a trek movie is TMP.

            This is a real geeky post, so I’ll just add a couple more things. In TMP, V’JUR really wants to ask the big questions (who am I?) it reanimates Lt.Illea, but it never thought to wipe the muck of it’s name plate? At the end of the day though, these are plot contrivances – Generations has the biggest plot hole of any Star trek movie. Serious magic that nexus is – you can leave it and go ANY TIME, ANY PLACE – wow.

          • Yotsuyasan

            I never said that there weren’t stupid plot holes in other aspects of Trek. I was just arguing that Star Trek III and it’s resurrection of Spock was not such an instance, and Into Darkness was. Between magic resurrection blood and super take-you-half-way-across-the-Galaxy transporters, Into Darkness introduced two very stupid elements that, frankly, for Star Trek to continue, will have to be conveniently forgotten in the future. Unless that story is: “Ensign Ricky died again!” “Quick, grab some super blood!” “We’ve run out, and the nearest supply is two weeks away at maximum warp!” “Well, fire up the transporter, then!”

            Okay, I was being a bit extreme in that example. But seriously, in Star Trek we have now cured death, and we have negated the need for star ships for exploration. That they would still use them is quaint. Rather, they should set up some massive transporter station, say maybe in Cheyenne Mountain, from which they could then send teams of explorers. Ships should now only be needed for matters of defense against other aggressive powers with starships. (So much for Starfleet’s stance that it is mainly an exploratory service.)

            (And before people point out that the super transporters were introduced in the 2009 film… to me there is a big difference between saying, “With this new transporter formula, we can beam you onto a ship in warp… Oh, and it is a bit risky, you could end up in a giant tube of water!” and suddenly being able to transport all the way from Earth to Q’onoS, a good 90 light years away. So I put this one on Into Darkness.)

            And these are just some of the problems with Into Darkness. The reason they are worth mentioning the most, though, is that the other problems are internal to the film where as these ones have ongoing consequences. They will either need to be ignored or hand waved, and when that happens there will undoubtedly be fans who call future writers on that. They put these impossible tools in the Trek toolbox, and I guarantee you that next time a character dies in a Trek film (even if it is just Ensign Ricky) the response from the nitpicking faction of fandom will be, “Well, why didn’t they just resurrect him with super blood?”

            And just for the fun of it, some of your non-Into Darkness points:

            Indeed, The Changeling did have some issues. I don’t mind the Scotty thing so much. But the near perfect complete re-education of Uhura within such a short span was ridiculous. And even if it was possible, that would just be technical knowledge. She should still lack a sense of who she is, have a very different personality, and no memory of personal events from prior to that date.

            Spock mind melding with Nomad… Who knows exactly how it works? Spock has been shown to be able to meld with other very different intelligences before. If he can meld with a silicon based life form such as a Horta, and if Nomad did have some sort of sentience behind it, then why not? You also talked about TMP briefly; I didn’t see you complain about Spock being able to touch V’Ger’s mind. (And in that case, he could even feel at least a sense of it across interstellar distances!)

            As for the power of Nomad… Well, I guess whatever the alien craft the original Nomad probe merged with must have been from a very advanced species, indeed!

            But yeah, I suppose it was a bit much that the Enterprise’s shields withstood such a powerful blast. Maybe Spock meant the equivalent of 90 very small photon torpedoes? :P

            V’Ger’s looking for a sense of “Who Am I?” — V’Ger had a name. V’Ger. Wiping off the muck would have reviled the full name of Voyager 6, yes. But what would that told it? “Huh. I guess my name is actually Voyager 6. Interesting. So, as Voyager 6, who am I?”

            The question of “Who am I?” was not a question of, “What is my name?” It was more a deeper question of, “What is my meaning?”

            And yes, Generations did have a bit of a plot hole with that. I would suggest Picard didn’t want to return from the Nexus in a way that would drastically change what had already occurred other then that one final event of Soran’s destruction of Veridian III. Preserve the timeline and all that. So I get why he might not have gone back two weeks, stepped into his ready room, and said, “In a few weeks you’ll meet a guy named Soran. You may wish to detain him. Oh, and call Robert. You might want to tell him to take René and go on a vacation” But, rather then showing up just moments before everything went to pot, but this time having Kirk as backup, Picard could have just gone back to Veridian III prior to Soran’s arrival and waited in ambush. And he could have left Kirk alone where he was happy.

            But at least that which you call the biggest plot hole of any Trek movie was just internal to that movie, and not something that every writer to come will now have to either deal with or make a point of ignoring, unless some writer finds a way to permanently ret-con it away.

          • MJ

            The long-range transporter issue is simply inconvenient to the Star Trek universe…it messes up Star Trek.

            But scientifically, if you have the ability to create wormholes, which a warp drive continuously does, then combining transporter technology with a mini-warp device (you only need a tiny wormhole to send information through), development of long-range transporter devices in the 23rd Century should not only be possible, they should be likely developments.

            But then this messes up Star Trek as we know it, so yea they should probably “forget them” in future movies. I don’t see a big issue with this — they allowed the Federation and Starfleet to forget where Khan and his crew was (Ceti Alpha) in TOS…LOL…so just do the same here.

          • kadajawi

            I find the transporter usage in 2009 by far more offensive than in ID. In 2009 it was used for a comedic relief to seem like a smart engineer/scientist, and to create a comedic relief/mildly exciting film. There was absolutely no reason to have the scene. In ID it made more sense, though still it shouldn’t have been there. Khan could have simply used a small, advanced vessel stolen from Section 31 that has, say, a cloaking device (they do exist in the 23nd century, just not, officially, for legal reasons, in the Federation).

            In any case, killing off Kirk, and having him being rescued by Spock served little purpose but adding a couple of minutes and an exciting action scene (which could have been added in other ways! Say Khan had a bomb with a remote trigger somewhere). The emotional impact wanted didn’t happen, because we all know Kirk will be back by the end of the movie (while Nimoy actually wanted to leave the franchise before they made TWOK, and only agreed to make it so that they can write him out of the franchise), and because we simply didn’t care enough for the characters and couldn’t believe that they have bonded as much as we are supposed to believe. I’d say it was the biggest mistake they did in ID, together with naming Cumberbatch Khan (again serving no purpose, hurting everything, and not being necessary. Khan could have been one of the other passengers on the Botany Bay, and be shown inside one of the torpedoes).

          • DangerousDac

            Hey, I wasnt saying all Trek is solid – but there is a distinction between Good Trek and Bad, and that is usually the Good doesnt had dumb shit involved in it.

            As for suspension of disbelief, well of course that’s in play – but the film has to earn it. Take your example of Spock being brought back via the Genesis effect, that happened over the course of an entire film, and was the result of something that happened in a whole OTHER film. The entire plot was about getting Spock back. The motivations of all the characters were about that. TSFS earned its hand wavy bullshit, because it spent 2 entire films rationalizing it with the Genesis device. Heck, we even see the minute long shot of pure exposition explaining what Genesis is across THREE movies! Its almost as if the writers knew bringing Spock back was a cop out so they reiterated their reasoning for it time and again to try and have it make sense. And it worked! At least, compared to “Khan’s super blood” it’s damned near Einstein like in its complexity.

          • hypnotoad72

            Bingo!

            To each point:

            1. true

            2. very true

            3. warp drive = maybe. It’s not always about bulk… But fflinging out bolts that are more powerful than 90 photon torpedoes = strains credibility far worse.

            4. Nomad’s electrical burst probably did Scotty’s heart in and there was just enough time for him to restart it. Definitely a plot convenience and a bad attempt to get people to weep over the death of a crewman.

            5. yup :)

            I think the 1979 movie did a better job with “The Changeling” than “The Changeling” had. :D

          • MJ

            The worst magic wand live-death-resurrection device in Star Trek history was undoubtedly The Nexus in Star Trek 7. The whole thing was constructed by the writers as a plot device to let Kirk not age and be able to interface with TNG crew.

            By comparison, The Nexus makes Khan’s GE blood seem like a rather trivial plot device.

          • Yotsuyasan

            If that is true, then I would have been just as eager to call bullshit on TSFS back when it first came out, and I assure you such is not the case. At least not with me, personally. I know this might not be easy, since there was no internet back in the mid-80′s, but if you can find, say, a pile of fanzines calling TSFS the worst Trek film ever and lamenting it’s weak plot of conveniently having the Genesis Planet around to bring him back to life, I may be ready to listen to you saying that older fans are only giving the older movies a pass for nostalgia reasons.

            Besides, Genesis was well set up to do what it did, even if not intentionally so. It was certainly not Nicholas Meyer’s intention, and he’s gone on record as saying so. But lines from TWOK such as, “What exactly is Genesis? Well, put simply, Genesis is life from lifelessness.” Or, re: your complaint about rapid aging, “The lifeforms grew later at a …substantially accelerated rate.” That, plus a few things thrown in by the producers behind Meyer’s back (“Remember,” and the shot of the torpedo/coffin on the planet’s surface) and things are set up quite nicely for what unfolded to be believable.

            And again, the big problem I have with the super blood is not that it was a magic wand to bring Kirk back. It was that it is a virtually inexhaustible magic wand that can be used to bring back anyone near death, or soon after death. Unless you think every time Ensign Ricky dies, they will have the foresight to first remove his Katra (which will be a nice trick anyway for any non-Vulcan crew members), and then they’ll detonate a Genesis device on the nearest dead planet or in the nearest nebula, then the circumstances of Spock’s resurrection are hardly repeatable. It isn’t as easy as sticking a needle in his arm and waiting a little while.

            So I stand by my statement that there’s a big difference between planting a few seeds to help set up how you will resurrect a character and then taking a whole additional film in which to play it out using non repeatable circumstances, and in the final act of a film just going, “Magic blood! See? He’s fine! And there’s plenty more where that came from.”

          • MJ

            “If that is true, then I would have been just as eager to
            call bullshit on TSFS back when it first came out, and I assure you such is not
            the case.”

            No you wouldn’t have, and I didn’t either back then. It was only our 3rd Trek movie (remember, we were all just so happy then that Trek had been revived still in the movies), we were still three years away from TNG, and people were sad, pissed, or both that Spock was gone.

            I remember wanting Spock back, and hoping they could work it out. Then, with the way they brought him back, it was so emotional, and it was such a great movie, that I was completely willing to overlook the so obvious unconvincing way they brought him back.

            Contract this to STID. A movie that was an OK Trek movie (nothing like WOK or ST-2009 in terms of pleasing fans), and in which the emotion and sentimentality connected with nuKirks death was not able to rise to the level of Spock in WOK and TSFS, and you get fans who are not willing to cut the same amount of slack that they allowed for the equally unconvincing Spock insurrection in Trek III.

            I thin your issue here is that you are having problems separating your subjective sentimental feelings for Trek III from your more objective criticisms of Kirks’s equally lame resurrection in STID.

            It’s really quite simple. If STID had been a better movie, and if we had been more investing in nuKirk and nuSpock, then you wouldn’t be bitching so much about this, and trying to make the false case that this is somehow a weaker ressurection scenario than we saw in TSFS.

            In fact, scientifically, Kirk’s ressurection in STID seems a tad more believable that Spock’s in TSFS. Kirks body had just died, and his mind was arguable still recoverable from lack of Oxygen still. In contract, in TSFS, acky Genesis wave thing which supposedly reanimated his dead tissue and just happens to reconstruct his body (with super-rapid aging) to the exact age of Spock before he died, and then of course the moment his body is off the planet…walla, he stops aging.

          • Yotsuyasan

            Nope. Sorry. I just don’t feel that way about Spock’s death and resurrection via Genesis. It made total sense within the narrative, it was properly set up over the course of two films (especially impressive since some of the set up was not specifically intended during the making of TWOK), it played off well, and it had impact.

            Kirk’s resurrection had none of that.

            And even if I were to flip-flop and say that the Genesis resurrection made no sense and super blood made perfect sense… (and to be clear, I am not saying that, just hypothetically supposing that) …then I still stand by my having no problem with Spock’s resurrection and disliking how Kirk’s was handled. Why? Simple. TWOK / TSFS was a well told story, Into Darkness was not. And I would rather experience a story that made less sense but was told well then a story that made sense but was told poorly.

            But, in my opinion, reality presents us with the opposite. TWOK / TSFS tell stories that do make sense, and are told well. On the other hand, Into Darkness is a poorly conceived and poorly told story with ridiculous plot elements.

            Sentimentality doesn’t enter into it. A preference for good storytelling is what does.
            I will agree with you on one point: If Into Darkness had been a better movie, I wouldn’t be bitching about this plot element. Because if it had been a better movie, it wouldn’t have included this plot element. Not to say it might not have still featured something similar, with Kirk dying or nearly doing so and then being brought back. But, my god, what kind of writer introduces magic death curing super blood into any universe that they want to also have future dramatic stories in?

            Any time there is a death from now on, it better be someone being disintegrated by phaser fire, otherwise Bones just needs to grab his hypo spray. Any time there is even a threat of death from now on, again it better not be a method that leaves a body.
            Otherwise, what’s to stop Kirk from saying to the bad guy, “Go ahead, kill me. I don’t care?” then shooting Bones a quick knowing wink? (I suppose it could come in handy when Spock goes through Pon Farr!)

            That, as I’ve previously stated, is my biggest problem with this resurrection device. Unless you have a Genesis torpedo, an expendable dead planet, and a copy of your patient’s soul handy every time someone dies, good luck turning Spock’s method of resurrection into something that will be extremely detrimental to future plots. On the other hand, now Bones would be an idiot not to keep a large quantity of his synthesized resurrection serum in his supply stores. (And if he, or any doctor, doesn’t, going forward they should be found negligent the first time they lose a patient.)

          • MJ

            In my opinion, you are just not being honest with yourself then. But I can’t make you be objective, so I give up on that.

            “But, my god, what kind of writer introduces magic death curing super blood into any universe that they want to also have future dramatic stories in?”

            Please see again here what I was still writing above when you posted — this is my response to your concern that they are somehow forced to use magic blood over and over again in future movies”

            Come on now, can’t we all go back to other movies and to TOS and point out multiple major advances and wacky plot devices that were “conveniently” never address in follow-up episodes or movies? Do I really need to provide you a list here? Here are three quickies off the top of my head:

            1. Kelvins have the Enterprise exceeding Warp 12, but Warp 10 is suppose to be the maximum limit in Star Trek. But yet they never went Warp 12 again, did they — even in new Starship designs…FORGOTTEN !!!

            2. After City on the Edge of Forever, the Guardian of Forever is completely forgotton in the Trek universe, and instead, dangerous and rather silly looping around suns is used instead to go back in time.

            3. As a plot device for Star Trek II, we are to believe I guess that all records of Khan and his crews settlement on Seti Alpha were lost in a Starfleet server crash?

            In fact, of all the super-technologies by advance races, and wild space-time things that happened in the series, the Enterprise and Federation never seem to learn and build any prototypes or advancements base on what they learn. The cloaking device is about the only exception here. ALL OF THAT STUFF IS CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN!

          • Yotsuyasan

            For the main point, it very much seems we shall have to agree to disagree. For some of your more recent examples:

            1. The Warp 10 limit was imposed by later productions, so hardly an error in the original series episode. And as for those later productions, while this may contradict a post I made replying to someone else just a moment ago, for this I am willing to accept a non-televised explanation. (Especially since a, it is from an official source and b, it’s hardly an issue that causes huge plot issues.)

            2. They did use The Guardian on at least one other on-screen occasion (Yesteryear), and who knows how many off screen occasions? As for times (beyond the first, accidental time) when they used the slingshot effect, I would presume those were occasions they required the resources of the ship, where as using The Guardian is only good if you are taking a small party of people along. In Assignment: Earth, it seems to me that they were initially supposed to be observing from orbit. And in Star Trek IV, even assuming that wanted fugitives could access The Guardian (and Starfleet would be foolish not to have that facility well secured) I doubt they could have fit George and Gracie in their pockets.

            3. Who ever said that Khan and his exiles were not known about by Starfleet? Captain Terrell may not have known, but it isn’t as if individual ship captains are expected to know the details of every mission every other ship has undergone. And if Chekov had known they were beaming down to the wrong planet (they really should have done a scan of the entire system when they approached, or at least wondered about the unexpected asteroid belt they encountered between Ceti Alpha VII and “Ceti Alpha VI”) one would hope he might have told him.

            As far as “super-technologies” and “wild space-time things,” who is to say that study of such things didn’t lead to some of the advances in technology we had seen throughout the length of the franchise?

          • MJ

            “The Warp 10 limit was imposed by later productions”

            So, that would be like the next set of Star Trek movie imposing no references to superblood. What’s the issue then? This is exactly what I was saying.

          • Yotsuyasan

            I take it, then, that you don’t wish to dispute my counterpoints to #’s 2 and 3 then? ^_^

            As for #1, the Warp 10 issue, are you seriously equating use of a different warp scale to suggesting that conveniently forgetting the existence of super blood? Mind you, I will be happy if they do… but the point has always been that they shouldn’t have to forget it because it shouldn’t exist.

            Anyway, one is a minor technical matter that has no great bearing on the ability of a writer to tell a story. The only time any kind of warp speed became an important plot point was when a speed limit of warp 5 was imposed, and frankly for that it wouldn’t have mattered what the upper limit was, warp 10, 12, 14, or 1000… as long as it was higher then 5.

            “So, that would be like the next set of Star Trek movie imposing no references to superblood.”

            How are they the same? A later production making a minor change to something previously established that is of little consequence is not at all like a current production establishing something that has the potential to cause a great burden on later productions. Into Darkness left “Trek” in a mess, and couldn’t be bothered to clean up after itself, plain and simple.

            If you want to make a comparison between super blood and warp speeds, the better comparison would be the aforementioned speed limit of warp 5. It was a stupid thing that later writers handwaved as needed before allowing the whole thing to quietly be forgotten. (I’ve heard behind the scenes hand waving that advances in warp technology negated the need for the limit, but I don’t recall this ever being mentioned on screen.)

            But again, after the initial story in which the need for the limit was imposed, the warp limit was just a minor technical detail that had little impact on current plots. Ability to resurrect people at will is something that has a huge potential impact on future plots. I fully expect it to be, if acknowledged at all, just quietly hand waved away. But that won’t erase it from the minds of any viewers who saw Into Darkness, and Trek viewers of any intelligence will call bullshit if it isn’t used, much like they are currently calling bullshit on it having been introduced in the first place. The writers should have never created it, and doing so was poor story telling. But now that it exists, it is likewise poor storytelling to pretend that it doesn’t. And overall, either way it has a good chance of weakening future productions.

          • MJ

            Actually, after reading yours and Corylea’s posts above, I’ve now concluded that the Superblood thing can just be assigned to a “production team error” given that JJ’s team, and the actors, are still getting their feet wet with the reboot series of movies. So we can treat the super-blood thing as just and early production era resulting from the new production team still finding their way. It’s no big deal, and we don’t have to consider it canon. Someday, one of the production team members will write a book and clear it all up for us. ;-)

            “I take it, then, that you don’t wish to dispute my counterpoints to #’s 2 and 3 then?”

            How about I’ll respond to those when you respond to my canon comments earlier, instead of just claiming that Corylea addressed them? I am interested in hearing your response to my comments concerning to be what appears to be an obvious double-standard?

            “As for #1, the Warp 10 issue, are you seriously equating use of a different warp scale to suggesting that conveniently forgetting the existence of super blood? ”

            Well surely we can at least agree that the Warp scale issue is not any worse than the Detla Vega issue — you know, the minor mistake that you use to rule out the alternate timeline.

          • Yotsuyasan

            “It’s no big deal, and we don’t have to consider it canon.”

            Well, that’s a big change, coming from you. ^_^ One problem, however. It is harder to dismiss as “early installment weirdness” aspects that are integral to the plot. The Cage still works even if Spock doesn’t have a stupid grin on his face while playing with the plant life on Talos IV. Encounter at Farpoint still works if we pretend Data said, “Class of ’45″ instead of, “Class of ’78.” Into Darkness, as written, doesn’t work without super blood, unless what we are supposed to pretend that Kirk never died, or stayed dead. (And that second option might cause further problems come the next film! :P )

            “I am interested in hearing your response to my comments concerning to be what appears to be an obvious double-standard?”

            Well, I was in the middle of writing said response while you were posting the one I am responding to now, so enjoy! Of course, some of that might be moot, as given your declaration that you can see super blood dismissed as “early installment weirdness,” you seem to have suddenly accepted for yourself the same “obvious double-standard” you were asking me to defend.

          • MJ

            I was being sarcastic. :-)

            PS: OK, thanks of the other thing in responding to me.

          • kadajawi

            About that super blood thing… a) there is limited supply. b) it probably can’t cure everything. c) it’s the result of genetic engineering. And didn’t DS9 teach us that the Federation does not want to have to do anything with it, at all? Including excluding people that were enhanced, just because they were enhanced, and no matter how important they may be for the Federation? Seems reasonable enough to me that the Federation rejects this blood because of this, too.

          • kadajawi

            While I didn’t like that scene, it’s not too unbelievable that the
            blood of a genetically enhanced being could cure radiation sickness.
            Think of nanoprobes for example.

          • Mark Ward

            He isn’t sick, he is dead, there is a pretty big difference.

          • kadajawi

            He died of radiation sickness. If the damage is repaired it might be possible he could be revived (though he does wake up without any intervention from McCoy IIRC… but that’s a minor point to me).

          • Matt_Cardiff_UK

            I’m definitely one of the people who saw the whole of Into Darkness as a rip off. I don’t think I’m a naysayer…I’ve not been vocal enough about how much I hated that movie. If anything, it made me appreciate 2009 Trek more than I did initially.

          • hypnotoad72

            Wow.

            STID does rip off plenty of TWOK and other Trek shows (so did “Nemesis” but it wasn’t made shiny enough), but the double crossing of everyone made up for the magical khan blood, magical transporter, reversal of the lead character non-death (and condensed, and an opportunity for Spock to learn being human once again and screaming out in agony complete with bad in-joke), and other gross plot contrivances… and yet I’ve rewatched it twice whereas the 2009 movie is nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying…

          • Matt_Cardiff_UK

            Fair enough lol!

            I found many issues with 2009 Trek, and I vowed to hate it, but STID changed how I felt. Kirk running round with big hands was stupid – the Enterprise being constructed on Earth was frustrating – Time Travel…again! – boring. But when the Enterprise comes out of warp into a starship debris field and almost loses a nacelle is just epic. Nothing in STID made me feel like that.

        • MJ

          Bob Orci apologized to that fan, and deleted his Twitter account. (FYI, that fan who baited him, never did personally apologize back to Bob)

          Would we rather have a director/writer/producer who doesn’t wear their heart on their sleeve, and who doesn’t talk and listen to us?

          After STID came out last year, with the incessant and even sometimes personal negativity on the internet last year from that loud and nasty 10%, it’s not wonder the poor guy had one bad day and slipped up on his professionalism. I dare any of us to do better.

          • hypnotoad72

            A creator should make a product the way he or she wants to, and let people decide. There will always be critics. Always try to be different – rehashing the past is more likely going to be a waste of time and energy, since fans are more likely going to loathe it, less fannish audiences might get off on nostalgia but nothing more, and the most general audience will prefer the generic whiz-bang effects and not see any of the in-jokes and other references. If the references don’t add up, or don’t come across right, they’ll question. Most of the general audience probably watches movies while drunk or stoned anyway.

    • kadajawi

      Why the space ship is underwater was explained (I expected to hate that bit about the movie going into it, and in the end I didn’t mind). Cold fusion is not cold – yes, that irked me on my first viewing too, but then again cold fusion is a concept that some charlatans are bringing up, but if it will ever work? It’s very well possible that the term describing something that wasn’t a sound scientific concept will be forgotten 200 years from now, and will mean something entirely different. When Kirk hammered that bit of metal he knew what he had to do, even though it required brute force. It made for a more exciting scene (with the wire of the bomb being cut in the last second… I know, it’s cliché). This stupid beaming was a concept introduced in the 2009 movie, it never should have been introduced. For once there is continuity in Star Trek, and you wish there wasn’t.
      To me ID was a vastly superior movie over the 2009 one, though to be fair that isn’t saying much.
      The flaws you saw in ID you could find in pretty much every other Star Trek movie. That doesn’t make them less valid of course, but only bashing ID for it when the others weren’t better at all…

      • DangerousDac

        Er, nope. Look at The Wrath of Khan, or the Voyage Home, or the Undiscovered Country or First Contact or even Nemesis. Critical situations are set up prior in the movie and use logic and skill to resolve them. When Spock fixed the warp core in TWOK, he does some random shit in the giant light gas thing that takes time and is implied clever crap. In The Voyage Home, getting the Whales back to the 23rd Century is a major plot point and shows the crew creating the material, transporting it and assembling it in order to carry out what needs to be done. In The Undiscovered Country, Spock asks for McCoy’s assistance in “performing surgery on a torpedo” – it’s a shoutout to his unique skillset and it shows them doing technical stuff in a stressful situation – and yet still saving the day. In First Contact, the identify the coolant columns of the Warp core as a Deus Ex Machina a 3rd of the way into the movie before paying it off in the finale (which, again – industrial chemical shit is usually dangerous, of course something that powers a warp core can melt flesh). And FINALLY! Several parts of the film make reference to Thalaron Radiation and the reactor aboard the Scimitar – yes, Data firing a phaser into it is a bit of a weak link in my argument, but again – firing a highly destructive device into the nerve center of a weapon is an established trope.

        See, the end of Star Trek 2009 has something Into Darkness doesn’t have – a well executed plan. They show the crew working together planning out the best way to stop Nero – that they then go and execute. Into Darkness has nothing remotely like that, everything is Kirk winging it. Everything is EVERYONE winging it. The Torpedo surgery scene in Into Darkness is nothing like the one in TUC, because its resolved by dumb luck. Again – Kirk in the reactor? DUMB LUCK. There is nothing intelligent about it. Kick kick kick kick kick kick kick and voila, the most powerful thing depicted in the fictional universe you are playing in is fixed like an old TV. Spock – a character defined by his emotional restraint – loses his mind at a much lesser emotional event than he has previously experienced in the films (HIS MOTHER DIES. HIS HOME PLANET GETS BLOWN UP. HIS FORMER COMMANDING OFFICER DIES WHILE HE IS MIND MELDING WITH HIM – NONE OF THESE MADE HIM FLIP OUT AND GO NUTS without external stimuli) that causes him to not only cry profusely, to not only ignore all reason by not sending a massive security team but just himself to apprehend the man who could save his said friends life, he beats said man who could possibly save his friends life -AFTER being told explicitly to keep him alive – with a giant hunk of metal until he loses consciousness.

        And theres no need to shy away from intelligence! Iron Man is all about a smart ass saving the world *with his intelligence* (that he uses to build robot suits, but still). And those 3 movies together probably made the entire profits of all 12 Star Trek movies. What did Chekhov do the entire movie of ID? Say “I don’t know what’s wrong with ze core!” Uhura? Get into arguments with Spock at the worst possible time and shoots Khan to no effect. Her only positive effect on the plot is acting as a messenger. Marcus? Runs around the entire time on the Enterprise saying she doesn’t know how a weapon works – only use is to cry to Daddy and act like a damsel in distress at the end. McCoy? I guess he randomly injects a random tribble with random super blood, but thats…dumb (How the fuck do humans and TRIBBLES share a physiology?! I can’t believe I just had to type that sentence). Sulu gets a bad ass moment in the chair, but thats pretty much it. The only characters of consequence are Kirk, Spock and Khan. Everyone else is window dressing to make it Trek flavoured.

        • kadajawi

          It’s been a while since I’ve seen the 2009 movie, cause I just didn’t want to, while I’ve seen ID several times. But there were many things that irked me about 2009, including things such as the brewery, Kirk landing on the exact same planet that Spock Prime is on. Even nearby. Scotty being able to beam right onto the Enterprise, when the Enterprise isn’t even able to properly beam down people to a falling object. Nero is as fleshed out as, well, I have a hard time thinking of a less fleshed out villain in a movie. Hot Shots 2 perhaps?

          ID did prepare for the “magic” blood with the Tribble. But yes, I don’t like the whole Kirk dies a heroic death and Spock wanting to save him part of the movie. They didn’t earn that, and it worked in TWOK because it was spread over 2 movies, with audiences having to wait a few years, during which they were thinking Spock was really gone for good (he didn’t want to be in Star Trek anymore… which was AFAIK the reason why he had to die in TWOK!). Also the part with Cumberbatch being Khan (Orci didn’t want it, but the other 2 or 3 did. Luckily they aren’t involved anymore). They add nothing to the movie, and severely hurt it. Still, a better movie than that 2009 mess.

          I hate it whenever I see Chekhov in the new movies. He is unlike how he should be… a constant comic relief. That doesn’t belong into Star Trek. Those serving on the Enterprise are there because they are good at their job, not because they are stumbling around helplessly.

          Btw. characters apart from Spock and Kirk being window dressing? Oh wait, you’ve just described TOS (alright, McCoy was important too).

          In any case, many of your flaws mentioned I agree with. Still I could probably mention just as many flaws with pretty much all the other Star Trek movies.

          As for Iron Man… bigger built in audience. Plus great movies of course (Marvel seems unable to do anything but good to great movies, and people know that by now), though the 3rd was a bit of a let down at times. They just had to make things bigger, the Iron Man suits had to become more awesome, until they reached a point where it really goes too far.

          • DangerousDac

            Iron Man did not have a built in audience back when the first movie came out a year before Star Trek, making over half a billion dollars worldwide. IM was very much B-list Superhero after Spider-Man, X-Men and Fantastic Four – thats the whole reason Marvel still had the rights, nobody wanted Iron Man.

            As for problems with the 2009 movie, they just pale in comparison to me for Into Darkness. The issues I have with “Star Trek” relate it to being a wonky Star Trek movie, not a bad movie at its core.

            You’re not wrong about the other characters being window dressing however. My only argument there is that the exact same characters had more to do in the last film. Chekhov managed to beam up Kirk and Sulu when they were free falling AND figure out how to board the Narada. Sulu had his tacky yet “big” sword fight and arguably was the guy who ordered the Enterprise to intercept the Narada and destroy it’s torpedoes at the end. I’ll concede that Scotty, Uhura and McCoy don’t have much more to do than what they had in Into Darkness however.

            I don’t dislike Into Darkness because its another JJ Film. I liked the first one more than a bit. It had issues – but for me they didn’t detract from it being a good film at its core. I’m a Trek Fan – I want MORE Trek, not rehashed Trek. Thats one reason why Into Darkness failed. Another was its woeful use of characters and message. Finally, it did a lot of dumb shit too.

            As long as the next movie is above all – original. By all means, use species from Trek if you want, but maybe not one offs or the highest points of the franchise. My gut still tells me they’re gonna play with the Borg, but I hope its done in a vaguely original way….

  • David James

    I’m really hopeful that these guys can come up with a good story, and bring back that optimistic Star Trek spirit (which was present in the first movie but strangely lacking in the overly militaristic and action-obsessed second one). I still love the basic idea of rebooting the TOS universe and seeing these characters in all new adventures, but we also need to start seeing some more depth in the stories and characters.

    And yes, we also need to see them out exploring. Just once I’d love to see a Star Trek movie that created the same sense of awe and wonder about the universe that we saw in the recent Cosmos series. It can’t just all be about space battles and threats to Earth.

  • Stephen

    Hmm, I just don’t think I can care much for their characters until I’ve got to know them in a TV series.

  • RIPHollywood

    I didn’t appreciate into Darkness at all, but love the original reboot. Let’s hope the reboots work by the odds unlike the original movies which the evens were good!

  • phyfell

    Although some of their answers were a bit vague and deflecting, these guys do seem to have their hearts in the right place, if nothing else. I’m still concerned that Bob Orci is still involved with writing the script, and I’m sure he’ll have veto power over any ideas these fellows put forth, but at least Damon Lindelof isn’t going to be involved with this one. I’m convinced that he is the one truly responsible for Star Trek being dumbed down and trivialized for today’s attention-deficit theater audience. I just hope that the third, and quite possibly last Star Trek production of this generation, does not present itself as a shameless pastiche of what was done before, simply to sell tickets and popcorn.

  • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

    Guys, can we have a Spock who actually acts like a VULCAN in this one? No crying, no screaming “Khaaaan,” no strangling people, no trying to beat someone to death with his bare hands? I’d love to see Spock the scientific genius, Spock the intensely ethical pacifist, Spock the severely restrained Vulcan with just a glimmer of human humor deep in his dark eyes. Please?

    • Yotsuyasan

      This. So much, this.

      I get that in the first film he lost his whole planet, and part of the plot involved showing he was emotionally compromised, but beyond that he should be able to keep himself very much in check and him still being Super-Emotional-Angry-Spock™ in Into Darkness bothered me.

      If anything, this early in his life Spock should be MORE rigid in his apparent lack of emotion, not less so. He should still be a young Spock, trying too hard to over compensate for his human half, not yet having the wisdom to relax and let it show now and then with the aforementioned “glimmer of human humor.”

      • MJ

        “If anything, this early in his life Spock should be MORE rigid in his apparent lack of emotion, not less so.”

        Huh ??? That is simply wrong — not at all supported by canon.

        Not to be negative, but seriously, some of you here really could use some remedial TOS episode watching.

        Yotsuyasan, your TOS episode remedial viewing assignment is to watch The Cage, followed by Where No Man Has Gone Before, and then get back to me with an objective assessment of whether Spock was more or less emotional earlier in his career?

        • Yotsuyasan

          And here we have the difference between what TV Tropes would call “Early Installment Weirdness” and what has been established as the norm once the show knew what it was doing. The Cage has many differences from later episodes, some of which are entirely compatible with what came before. As for Where No Man Has Gone Before, I don’t recall that episode having an emotional Spock.

          • MJ

            Canon is canon. That’s what I go by.

            You seem to go by it to unless I am missing something? For example, you are quick to point out something relatively trivial in another post related to Delta Vega being a different planetary/lunar body in the Prime Universe, as a main point for you to reject the new timeline.

            Thus, you are quick to point out a trivial matter of Canon as a way to reject the alternate timeframe when it suits your purpose, but when I provide major evidence of something meaningful in canon that we can all see with our own eyes, then it’s a TV show error? Huh?

            I’d ask that we stick with one set of rules here, either way. If I were to accept (and I don’t!) that you think “the TV show was finding it’s way, so let’s overlook that,” then shouldn’t you also grant to the new movies something similar, like “the reboot production team is finding it’s way still, so let’s overlook Delta Vega and give them another movie or two to get to a more dependable condition?

            Whichever approach we are going to take here, let’s be consistent. Obviously, changing the rules to make your point correct on each instance would be intellectually dishonest…

            “As for Where No Man Has Gone Before”

            Please go back and watch the scene where Spock get’s emotional and sarcastic for losing the chess game. And watch him in that episode in general. It’s the second pilot, and although he’s not as emotional as in the cage, he is definitely more emotional that the first season episodes — which again, shows him becoming more logical over time across his early career…and this is supported by Yesteryear, where we see him as a pretty emotional Vulcan child.

          • Yotsuyasan

            Corylea’s recent post above pretty well made the points I would have made in response to this, so I would refer you to that post.

          • MJ

            Correspondingly, I refer you to my response to Corylea’s post that I just posted to her above.

            PS: No one can really argue with WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE ON THE SCREEN WHEN WATCHING TOS EPISODES…that is not debatable If it was on the screen — on the star-ship Enterprise as we viewed TOS episode — then IT HAPPENED IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

          • Yotsuyasan

            I don’t see myself as having a double standard. I see myself as accepting the realities of producing a show, and that there will be a few things in early episodes of any show that are still in flux, and once things are decided upon and unless they address the change in-show, then we should ignore the conflicting aspect.

            For example, is it easier to believe that Uhura was in the command division during her first few appearances, or that they just hadn’t quite settled on what colour costume she should wear in her job?

            Also, since you swear so much that what is shown on screen must be canon, I guess that means that Scotty must have a lot of free time, since he frequently changes what the back of the warp nacelles look like, sometimes mid-episode! Or should we just accept that they changed the model a few times, between and after the pilots, but frequently stock footage of the older configurations?

            What I do expect is that, with televised Trek, once they’ve gotten a handful or episodes into their first season, things remain consistent going forward. Then, with any future produced series, I’ll allow internal inconsistency for that first handful, but expect consistency with shows and movies produced before.

            Films I hold to a slightly higher standard, in that they have had their respective shows to already get the “early installment weirdness” out of the way. One might argue this is not the case with the ’09 film and Into Darkness, but I’d argue differently: as something of a reboot that specifically made a point of trying to say, “What came before still counts, somewhere,” it should strive to maintain consistency. Delta Vega shouldn’t move locations so drastically. Khan should at least look vaguely like Ricardo Montalban, at least as recognizably close as the rest of the cast to their roles’ originators. (Heck, at least ones aside from Khan have the excuse of having been born after the alleged change in the timeline from Nero’s incursion.) Klingons should look like at least one of their previously established looks, rather then adding a third entirely different look. The new films seem to be going out of their way to needlessly piss on some of the few areas of canon that they should logically still be following in ways that could easily be avoided.

            Anyway, back to the alleged absoloute canonicity of early episodes…

            By your logic, Data graduated Starfleet Academy between Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan. Because he said on TV that he graduated in the class of ’78, and 2378 hasn’t happened yet (in The Neutral Zone, Data himself gives the current year as 2364), so it must have been 2278!

            If what happened on the screen is an absolute, then Data graduated Starfleet Academy 58 years before he was even constructed so time travel must have been involved. (Well, I suppose if time travel was involved, maybe it was 2378, after all!) And he’s been in Starfleet, by the time of Encounter at Farpoint, for over 80 years! How is he only a Lt. Cmndr.? And if he’d been around so long to have been the first android member of Starfleet when McCoy was still active, how had he never heard of him before?

            Is it not more logical just to assume that Data’s statement re: Starfleet class of ’78 was a mistake in a pilot? (Indeed, a later episode establishes him having graduated in 2345.) And if we can assume that, can we not likewise take Spock’s emotionalism in The Cage as a mistake in a pilot?

            I take what is on-screen as canon. But for pilots / early episodes, I take it as LOOSE canon.

          • MJ

            OK, well based on your new material here, I would assume that you will retract your Delta Vega complaint then, right? And honest mistake, and not a reason to invalidate the alternative timeline then since that was just a production error, right?

          • Yotsuyasan

            Nope. First of all, I shall repeat from my preceding post: “… as something of a reboot that specifically made a point of trying to say, ‘What came before still counts, somewhere,’ it should strive to maintain consistency. Delta Vega shouldn’t move locations so drastically.” If the ’09 film had been a complete reboot, fine. Put Delta Vega wherever you want. But even if we were to allow the ’09 film “early installment weirdness,” it should only be internally weird, and should not contradict previously established facts.

            Also, it wasn’t an honest mistake… it was a deliberate one! “We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg than a new name.” — Roberto Orci. So, the writer KNEW it was a mistake, he just didn’t care because he thought it would be clever to use a familiar name even if it wasn’t appropriate. An honest mistake, I can perhaps be forgiving of. A deliberate one… Well, given that the only fans who would recognize the name are also the sorts of fans who would know it was a mistake, I can only take that as the writer saying, “F you!” Not an attitude I find myself wanting to be forgiving of.

          • MJ

            You are ignoring that the era of Star Trek covered in the reboot — the pre-5 year mission era, even including Starfleet Academy — was never covered in TOS. Hence, by your logic, they should get some some slack for this supposed theory of yours about how we should not treat that as canon.

            I was not aware of that comment from Bob Orci though. I supect though that he was just too proud to admit the mistake. Bob has a huge ego. I met and spent some time with GR in the late 70′s — he had a similarly huge ego and was not prone to admit he was wrong…great guy though.

            “What I do expect is that, with televised Trek, once they’ve gotten a handful or episodes into their first season, things remain consistent going forward. Then, with any future produced series, I’ll allow internal inconsistency for that first handful, but expect consistency with shows and movies produced before.”

            How do you explain then in Season 3, where we see unpainted plywood at the top of corridors and other sets on the Enterprise?

            “Klingons should look like at least one of their previously established looks, rather then adding a third entirely different look. ”

            Come on, did you see TMP in 1979, dude???

          • Yotsuyasan

            “You are ignoring that the era of Star Trek covered in the reboot — the pre-5 year mission era, even including Starfleet Academy — was never covered in TOS. Hence, by your logic, they should get some some slack for this supposed theory of yours about how we should not treat that as canon.”

            Sorry, not quite sure what you’re getting at here. The fact that we are in a slightly earlier point in the timeline from when The Original Series would have been should have no bearing on pre-established facts such as the location of planets, what Klingons look like, or what Khan (born well before the alleged new timeline) looks like. On the other hand, you may have noticed that I haven’t complained that Kirk is a womanizing reckless arsehole, which I have accepted as a part of this new Trek, even though it would contradict Kirk’s established characterization. This was a thing that had been covered in TOS, when Kirk of that era was described as a “pile of books on legs.” This is a description that can never be claimed of New Kirk. (A shame, as part of why he was able to get away with so much in TOS was because, since he was studious in his earlier days, he had the intelligence to back his bravado up. This new Kirk doesn’t, he’s much more of a smart ass with no substance, and that makes him a less compelling character.)

            “How do you explain then in Season 3, where we see unpainted plywood at the top of corridors and other sets on the Enterprise?”
            Now we’re comparing apples and oranges. It is one thing to argue aspects of writing and actor performance, or mistakes in intentional aspects of props, effects work, or set design. But to nitpick accidentally getting unpainted plywood in a shot, claiming I am trying to say that since it was in season 3, it must be canon? That’s silly. Next, you shall claim I must think that in the TNG episode Lessons, there must be a spy secretly recording Picard because there was a boom mic briefly in shot.

          • MJ

            “should have no bearing on what Klingons look like”

            There you go again bringing up the change of the Klingons in STID.

            So, now this really is hypocritical given your other arguments. It IS DOCUMENTED that the reason Rodenberry changed Kliingon appearance in TMP was sole to make them look more alien. And it was also document that the reason they changed Klingons again with Worf in TNG was to bring the appearance back to bit more human look to aid with his facila expressions. So here we have production reasons, not really based on TOS history of Klingon or our understanding of them in the Trek universe, to keep changing their appearance in different movies and TV series. Heck, there were even slight changes again in their appearance for the Klingons in TUC. So four different Klingon looks by four different Star Trek production teams.

            So now, you are really going to sit here and complain that JJ’s production team made a 5th version of the Klingons?

            Really, guy? REALLY ???

            You’ve made some good points today, and you even having me leaning your way a bit on Delta Vega and Magic Blood, but come one…bitching because this production team, like most Trek production teams in history, changed Klingons again? Huh ???

            Klingon appearances seem to change more often that Lady Gaga.

        • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

          It can certainly be interpreted that way, and a lot of people do. However, I think it’s more accurate to say that at the time “The Cage” was made, Roddenberry wanted Number One to be the emotionless First Officer, and he hadn’t given much thought to what Vulcans should be like, since Spock was a relatively minor character for the first pilot.

          Even at the time of “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” although they had a little better understanding of what Vulcans should be like, they still hadn’t figured it all out yet. Heck, halfway through the first season, they were still calling them “Vulcanians.” :-)

          In his autobiography, Mr. Nimoy talks about the process of coming to understand what a Vulcan is and how he should behave during the making of the first several episodes of the first season and notes that he smirked inappropriately as late as “Charlie X” (the 7th episode made). Mr. Nimoy certainly makes it clear that the differences we see in Spock during the first half a dozen episodes of TOS are not intended as canon; it simply reflects the fact that neither the producers nor the actors nor the directors had yet figured out exactly who Spock was or exactly what a race of non-emotional people should look like. And as far back as “The Cage,” they hadn’t even begun to figure this out.

          It can be fun to make up back stories for Spock to explain why he’s so much more emotional in “The Cage” and more expressive during the first few episodes (in production order) of Season 1, and lots of fans engage in this. But it’s at least as valid to believe — as Mr. Nimoy does — that Spock was always who he came to be halfway through Season 1 and his greater emotionality early on is simply a series of production mistakes.

          The real evolution in Spock is throughout the movies, as he comes to allow himself more emotional expression in the wake of V’ger, his own death and rebirth, and many, many years serving with Kirk and McCoy.

          • MJ

            I prefer canon, because it’s a standard. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of subjective opinions where we never really get a definitive answer.

            Sure, canon has some “groaners” and things we don’t like (e.g. where was Khan in our 1990′s..LOL), but no one can really argue with WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE ON THE SCREEN WHEN WATCHING TOS EPISODES…that is not debatable If it was on the screen — on the star-ship Enterprise as we viewed TOS episode — then IT HAPPENED IN THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE for me.

            I’ll stick with canon over endless subjective arguments, even though they are fun, and even if Nimoy wants to rewrite history concerning his performance in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before.

          • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

            I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of canon. :-)

            Regardless of our interpretations of Spock’s backstory, all three of us are agreed that we’d like to see a classically Vulcan Spock in Reboot #3, and that’s our message on this issue to the screenwriters. Just in case Mr. Payne and Mr. McCay are paying attention. :-)

          • MJ

            Agreed! This has been a fun discussion.

            This site is more fun for real Star Trek debates than Trekmovie.com. Too much personal animosity between posters over there. Best thing I ever did was to get booted off that site…it forced me to grow up! :-)

          • trekwars1

            yeah…trekmovie can be a little nasty.you should join trek bbs forums

          • trekcore

            Absolutely! I barely have to moderate – you guys in the comments section are wonderful. Intelligent, well thought out and reasonable discussion. A pleasure to read, and a pleasure to write articles for!

    • MJ

      Yes, it’s time for him to “the five year mission” Spock now. More serious and classic. I agree.

      The first two movies were appropriate though. As we saw in The Cage, during “the Pike era” in Spock’s early career, Spock was prone to being more emotional.

    • kadajawi

      Spock isn’t a Vulcan. He’s a half Vulcan, and a young one that hasn’t fully learned how to control his emotions. And that went to a pretty damn traumatic experience.

      • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

        Spock thinks of himself as a Vulcan, identifies himself to others as a Vulcan, and aspires to be as Vulcan as possible. TOS Spock acted like a Vulcan, and I’d think that reboot Spock would act even MORE like a Vulcan, since his Vulcan identity would be even more important to him — if that’s even possible, given how important it was to TOS Spock :-) — since Vulcans are now an endangered species.

        Yes, losing his mother and his planet were traumatic, and I don’t hold the strangling against him. But I’d think reboot Spock would want Vulcan stoicism even MORE in the wake of that tragedy than TOS Spock wanted it.

        • kadajawi

          I’d say eventually he’ll be that character, just not yet in ID. To me that is more believable than having him only struggle in the first movie.

  • CoolGeek

    Fantastic interview Trekcore! I really liked what these writers had to say about where the new Trek is headed and online critics.I am also really glad that they pay not much attention to the ” This is not MY Star Trek! ” haters who tend to clog up these forums.The two JJ Trek films both did very well critically and commercially.I appreciate those who may not liked the films but thankfully they are the minority.

    I really enjoyed Into Darkness despite its few minor flaws ( no movie is without them ).Im hoping that the new Trek film will have plenty of action and adventure along with what will hopefully be a captivating storyline that will be worthy of the 50th anniversary.It will be fitting that in its 50th year that the Enterprise will be deep into the 5 year mission that launched the franchise half a century ago.

  • CoolGeek

    Fan fiction can usually explain perceived plot holes in Trek that cannot be examined in an episode or movie.For example in one of the biggest plot holes in Star Trek 2 is that Khan never met Chekov in ” Space Seed ” but stil somehow knows him in Wrath Of Khan.The novel ” To Live In Hell ” has a scene in the beginning showing that Chekov leads the landing party in Ceti Alpha 5 as a young security ensign leaving Khan and his gang on the planet.

    I can come up for an explanation for the ” magic blood ” or ” Interstellar transporter ” not being used anymore after Into Darkness.The Khan blood may have healing properties but cannot cure everything.Its not going to be much use to someone disintegrated by a phaser set on maximum or a ship explosion, or it can said to be unreliable or work only on certain people or species (etc).

    The long range transporter i got the impression of , from Trek 2009 and Into Darkness that its extremely dangerous to use and can only be done so by those few who are scientific or engineeering genius’s.We have only seen it used by Scott ( using Spock primes help ) and Khan.Besides i also got the impression that it only works for one way travel so not really practical and much less safer than using ships.

    • MJ

      OK, allow me to please repeat what I said below regarding the long-range transporter technology:

      “The long-range transporter issue is simply inconvenient to the Star Trek universe…it messes up Star Trek. But scientifically, if you have the ability to create wormholes, which a warp drive continuously does, then combining transporter technology with a mini-warp device (you only need a tiny wormhole to send information through), development of long-range transporter devices in the 23rd Century should not only be possible, they should be likely developments. But then this messes up Star Trek as we know it, so yea they should probably “forget them” in future movies. I don’t see a big issue with this — they allowed the Federation and Starfleet to forget where Khan and his crew was (Ceti Alpha) in TOS…LOL…so just do the same here.”

      • Yotsuyasan

        They didn’t forget where Khan was. The Reliant just somehow failed to notice a planet was missing, and that (presumably) there was an unexpected new asteroid belt in the Ceti Aplha system. Entirely different plot hole. :p

        • MJ

          I know that, but I didn’t bring that up because it’s even more embarrassing for Starfleet. :-)

    • Yotsuyasan

      I never saw Khan recognizing Chekov as a plot hole. Enterprise was a big ship with a crew of about 430 people. We only know for sure that Chekov wasn’t around for Mudd’s Women, which was before Space Seed. It is hardly a stretch to think that Khan and Chekov met off screen during the events of Space Seed.

      But for things that are huge plot holes, or for things that are lingering around and will be detrimental to future plots but will be conspicuous if they are not mentioned, I think it is insulting to an audience to say, “Eh, whatever. Who cares if our movie doesn’t make sense? I’m sure fans can come up with their own explanation.”

  • DeathSpiral

    Yes, more “innovations” from the crew that took the previous cannon and characters then shredded them in the first movie – Kirk is a punk, Spock is an emotional train wreck, and Vulcan imploded into a black hole by time traveling Romulan miners from the future. Then in their second run they copied the Khan character made him literally superman with blood that is a super serum which they used to save Kirk from radiation death incurred in the warp chamber, which, congratulations, you ripped off from Spock and Data’s previous deaths. Instead of writing something fresh and imaginitve, like say Star Fleet before the prime directive and the painful lessons that brought about it, you’ve written total junk and wrapped in special effects, heavy action, and some pretty good acting. It is like painters that have painted over masterpieces and are proud of their ham handed work. Please, just stop.

    • MJ

      “Kirk is a punk”

      Unlike in the Prime Universe, Kirk is this one is from a single family home with bad stepdad, so being Kirk, he had rise on his own bootstraps with some mentoring by Pike. Kind of like a friend of mine who’s dad left, he ended up being a punk having to go to the military to get “straightened out” and eventually got his PhD. This is real-life — we’ve all seen this.

      “Spock is an emotional train wreck”

      That’s nothing. Spock stole a starship in TOS and broke all kinds of laws in an emotional attempt to save his first Captain, Christopher Pike.” Where his parents or his first Captain were involved, he was capable of doing most anything — again, that is document in TOS. In fact, he faced a General Court Martial for his emotional actions here.

      “Vulcan imploded into a black hole by time traveling Romulan miners from the future.”

      Voyager 6 returns to Earth as a huge machine-planet enhanced super-ship, nearly destroys Earth…yet, the Voyager probes should take 40,000 years to reach the never stare…however, lucky for us, Voyager 6 falls into a wormhole which transports it to a machine galaxy, but somehow is able to travel intergalactic distances within 200 years (Warp 50, anyone) to return to Earth…but, weirdly, the super-advanced machine folks that helped V6 hadn’t invented turpentine or nail polish remover yet, so they couldn’t do a simple clean of the probe to realized it was Voyager 6, so they told it is was called “V’ger” instead.

      • hypnotoad72

        Kirk in the new timeline/first movie was not a punk. I know punks who are far more decent people than that spoiled brat reboot-Kirk. Why people think the 2009 movie was showing the real TOS crew in their formative years I will never know, especially when the movie goes out of its way to say it’s a new timeline…

        At least “The Menagerie” has a soul behind the story.

        Totally agreed on the Nexus, LOL! :)

        • MJ

          Yea, I mean, what was so bad about his behavior as a punk in the 2009 movie? He liked women a lot, and he got drunk at a bar…big deal?

  • DrZoid99

    Here’s hoping for a thought provoking story and maybe redesigning the enterprise to look more proportional, I didn’t like the bulgy nacelles hanging by a thread and the disturbibg Apple Store vibe it has.

    • MJ

      If you think that is bad, you should have seen the way out of proportion Enterprise that was used in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

      • DrZoid99

        Hmm, I don’t know. It is weird and different, I’ll give you that, I personally don’t think it is out of proportion (I had the same initial reaction when seeing Voyager’s nacelles for the first time) . But you can argue that a lot of thought has been put into it. The JJprise looks like someone smeared the Original Enterprise Refit with some PS effects for like 5 minutes just so that JJ could claim a unique Enterprise. I couldn’t find the charm of it. (I still think the NX-01 and its refit looks kinda ridiculous but they have proportionality).

        • MJ

          The NX-01 is completely inconsistent. If, for sake of argument, we accept that over time, the size of nacelles relation to an overall starship can decrease because of improved design and miniaturization of warp components, then at least there is logic to the design of TNG Enterprise and the Voyager in this regard to explain that change from the classic Enterprise. However, this means that the nacelles on ships before TOS Enterprise at least have to be similar in proportion to the rest of the ship as the classic Enterprise design. However, that is not the case. Inexplicably, the NX-01 has smaller nacelles again, just like the 24th century ships. That is unacceptable…another in a long line of reasons why I personally don’t consider Enterprise part of the Star Trek universe. It’s like the “Highlander 2-The Quickening of the Star Trek franchise…just pretend it never happened please..

          • DrZoid99

            Then what about the Enterprise E then? or the B? I think it was changed too much to argue that there was a consistent downscale (But you can argue that there was a sort of down scale up until the warp scale revision, then they had to go up again). There are a lot of star ship designs that don’t really have consistent relations to each other regarding the scale of the nacelles. They did have (in the TOS/TOS Movies era) more consistency in the general shapes used for large starships (sans the Orbeth class but nobody’s perfect), that they didn’t have in the TNG era.

            However all of these designs do have proportionality and charm to them, so they usually work. Now as for the NX-01 and that era design, I agree with you about the lack of effort to relate more to the graphical sense of TOS (For example I was pissed about them taking off the secondary hull for some bullshit reason), however this is an inevitable symptom of prequels/reboots done for stuff from several decades ago, there is so much you do to balance that old look without it looking ridiculous in regards to modern designs and CGI tech (I can cover it up with bullshit arguments but in the end this si the prime culprit). In the other departments, such as proportionally the NX-01 and her counterparts do maintain it much more that the JJPrise and her counterparts (You could also argue, that it was the cradle of Humanity’s warp efforts, they experimented more before coming up with consistent designs – which is kinda of a nice argument of they were to address it instead of being all “Whoeva! I do wot I want!”. On the other hand what about the Andorian and Vulcan weird designs, on the third hand maybe the’ve incorporated them somehow to for the TOS designs – but then we’ll be stuck on an endless loop XD). Still for example the NX-01 had proportionally between the nacelles and the saucer, so I can see that it wasn’t all “Whoeva! I do wot I want!” and that more though (albeit wrong) and effort were out into it)

            In those regards I find the JJprise and her counterparts in the StarJJleet to be the biggest offenders of “Whoeva! I do wot I want!”. First the JJprise is all cobbled up and bulgy nacelles, with those weird speed outtakes, that are all disproportional and look like a giant sperm from top view. As for more traditional TOS design for a ship that suppose to be the equivalent of the Enterprise at “The Cage”, it’s a much worse offender – it looks like a 29th century apple store monstrosity gone haywire. It
            and the other ships look like someone took the TOS designs and just mangled them for five minutes so they can say the have “”unique” designs. Plus all of that doesn’t explain why the Kelvin looks weird as well. I’m sorry but you can stretch the “It’s an alternate timeline” (Which itself was a last minute brain fart to say FU and “Whoeva! I do wot I want!” to the audience) so far. It’s the equivalent of “It’s just a movie” in regards of insulting our intelligence and covering up sloppiness and laziness.

            Finally it all comes back to a point I made earlier. When doing prequels/reboots to stuff from decades ago, graphics-wise, you’d always have problem to maintain a believable design that is true to the original. In that regards we have to acknowledge that and consider the other elements in the mix (story, etc). In Enterprise’s defense, that whole era was largely unexplored, story-wise. JJ’s “It’s an alternate universe” dodges and designs were mitigated if he had a point to it or a story to convey, a nice intelligence sci-fi story (Even SW has a story). Alas I’d like to think that the JJverse never existed, at least it’s an alternate one.

          • MJ

            I would give the Ent-E a free pass since it was a special class of Starship designed to combat the Borg, which was unprecedented in Federation History. The E was overbuilt to take on that threat. Probably needed to channel phasers through the warp core, etc. etc.

            Regarding the Enterprise B, I actually don’t it deviating much from the trend that I mentioned. Remember, it was built in the 23rd century, thus it was developed many years before the G.

            I have other criticisms of Enterprise that go beyond starships and technology. Portraying the Vulcans as racist was on act I simply can’t come to terms with — it violated canon, and Rick Berman should have just stepped in and said NO. I have heard arguments/excuses trying to defend that, but I categorically reject them. That was a violation of Star Trek’s core.

    • Laven Pillay

      BWahahaah !! I loved that comment about the “Apple Store vibe” – you totally nailed it ! :)
      Including being manned by “Geniuses” who are anything but. :)