Orci & Kurtzman Q&A: lots of interesting tidbits

[Bounty]

TrekMovie has done a Q&A with the writers of the new Trek movie to clear up some of the events in the movie and ask about what happens next. It's a long read, but the highlights answer a lot of the questions that have been raised about the movie:

- Countdown is not canon
- The 10.000 Vulcan survivors does not count off-world Vulcans
- Spock's view of Vulcan imploding was "impressionistic" and not literal
- Spock Prime will stay quiet about the future, but future events will still unfold insofar as they're unaffected by the changes in the timeline (ie, V'Get is still en route)
- The Enterprise was built in Iowa for political reasons (a George Kirk memorial site)
- Enterprise (the series) happened in this timeline and it really was the Archer's dog Scotty messed up
- Kirk's mother went into premature labour due to the Narada's attack
- Money exists in new Trek
- Starfleet knows about the look of Romulans thanks to the Kelvin's salvaged telemetry
- Vulcan's sky colour is seasonal
- JJ Abrams never saw Nemesis
- Scotty's gnome assistant is a member of Starfleet

The bad news:

- They're not ruling out using TNG characters in the future if they can be added "organically"

[TithonusSyndrome]

- The Enterprise was built in Iowa for political reasons (a George Kirk memorial site)

If George Kirk gets Starfleet's new flagship built on his home turf by way of recognition, what did the Kelvin's actual captain get for his troubles? And how does James Kirk not know about his dad's past and needed to have Pike explain it to him while Starfleet was building a ship that big in his backyard?

[Bounty]

When did Kirk not know what happened to his father? Pike just drove the point home, I don't think Kirk actually needed to have ti explained to him.

[Kamakazie Sith]

- The Enterprise was built in Iowa for political reasons (a George Kirk memorial site)

If George Kirk gets Starfleet's new flagship built on his home turf by way of recognition, what did the Kelvin's actual captain get for his troubles? And how does James Kirk not know about his dad's past and needed to have Pike explain it to him while Starfleet was building a ship that big in his backyard?

Pike explained the significance of George Kirk's sacrifice. He didn't tell James Kirk something new...he explained how George Kirk actually made a huge difference by saving 800 lives...including James Kirk's own life.

As for the original Captain of the Kelvin. We don't know because this movie wasn't really about him.

[Morilore]

New timeline still bound to canon events that took place in the prime timeline (like Botany Bay, V’Ger, etc)
The Admiral Archer mentioned by Scotty is the same Jonathan Archer from Enterprise (and Enterprise is part of new timeline)

To me, this is bad news.

No ‘canon’ explanation for what Nero and crew were doing for 25 years between Kirk’s birth and arrival of Spock Prime, open to ‘fan fiction’

It's good that they said that, because otherwise, you know, fanfic writers, they would just be SOL. Without official blessing from the writers, fanfiction is impossible. And said fanfic writers can rest easily knowing that future movies won't kick around their toys, because the writers are now bound by the power of God which prevents them from discussing this period in future movies.

Bridge viewscreen changed to window/HUD to justify the bridge’s placement atop the ship instead of in a more secure location

Aaaaand these people are retards.

[Bounty]

Aaaaand these people are retards.

Imagine the outrage had they put the bridge in the middle of the ship. It's not smart from a shipbuilding POV but cinematically, especially if they want to avoid comparisons to BSG?

[Drooling Iguana]

They could've just kept it vague.

[Prannon]

- Spock's view of Vulcan imploding was "impressionistic" and not literal

I'm glad to see that they at least addressed this. That whole scene was one of the biggest flaws in the movie. On top of everything else, it really wouldn't make much sense for Delta Vega to be so close to Vulcan. I'm also glad my original idea was right.

[Patrick Degan]

- Enterprise (the series) happened in this timeline and it really was the Archer's dog Scotty messed up

- They're not ruling out using TNG characters in the future if they can be added "organically"

No, no, no, boys. You rather missed the point of a reboot —being to jettison excess baggage, not keep carrying it along.

[Thanas]

- Enterprise (the series) happened in this timeline and it really was the Archer's dog Scotty messed up

So...they declared the best parts of ST to be non-canonical for the new timeline, but kept the suckiest part of it?


Excuse me while I go cry in the corner.

[Ghost Rider]

So they keep Enterprise canon but strip the rest. Yay, for fucking morons.

And Countdown isn't canon but is what? A kinda explaination of possible events?

Not seeing Nemesis just mean Abrams didn't want to waste the time or money. Says nothing really.

Money has existed in Trek, or Kirk, McCoy and others were talking out their everliving ass.

And lastly the whole "The future has certain events that will happen!" is fucking stupid. Here, you have a chance to completely rewrite Trek but instead you're artifically hampering yourself.

[Enigma]

I think some of this makes sense. Since from what I understood (haven't seen the movie due to financial reasons), the timeline diverged from the battle between the Narada and the Kelvin? So it makes sense that the Enterprise series is part of this timeline as I assume it is also part of the OTL? Same thing with V'Ger, the whale probe, and the Borg and whatever else. Just because the Federation (plus the Klingons and Romulans) changed from that one instance doesn't mean the whole universe changed too. IMHO, if Trek was truly to be rebooted then Trek should have been redone from top to bottom.

What I do agree that doesn't make sense is the idea of reintroducing TNG characters with the exception of Data. By the TNG\DS9\Voyager era, the timeline would have diverged so far away from the OTL that who is to say that any of the characters save Data would have existed?

Nevertheless, I do have a feeling that should TPTB introduce a new Trek T.V. series that they'll end up following Dr. Who style of story ideas.

[Patrick Degan]

I think some of this makes sense. Since from what I understood (haven't seen the movie due to financial reasons), the timeline diverged from the battle between the Narada and the Kelvin? So it makes sense that the Enterprise series is part of this timeline as I assume it is also part of the OTL? Same thing with V'Ger, the whale probe, and the Borg and whatever else. Just because the Federation (plus the Klingons and Romulans) changed from that one instance doesn't mean the whole universe changed too. IMHO, if Trek was truly to be rebooted then Trek should have been redone from top to bottom.

Actually, very little of it makes sense. Oh, not trivialities like the existence of money or Spock's viewpoint of Vulcan's destruction, but the far more important issues of not doing what should be done with a reboot —that whole top-to-bottom restructuring of the Trekverse that ST so desperately needs, was promised somewhat with this movie, but now seems to have been aborted. Orci and Kurtzman are saying that they're going to be fitting themselves (and future writers) back into the same straitjacket they'd just clawed their way out of.

It seems the professional studio franchise remains as depressingly bereft of imagination as ever.

[Drooling Iguana]

Actually, very little of it makes sense. Oh, not trivialities like the existence of money or Spock's viewpoint of Vulcan's destruction, but the far more important issues of not doing what should be done with a reboot —that whole top-to-bottom restructuring of the Trekverse that ST so desperately needs, was promised somewhat with this movie, but now seems to have been aborted. Orci and Kurtzman are saying that they're going to be fitting themselves (and future writers) back into the same straitjacket they'd just clawed their way out of.

It seems the professional studio franchise remains as depressingly bereft of imagination as ever.

The new Star Trek movie was never a reboot. That much was obvious from the moment they cast Leonard Nimoy. It should have been a reboot but the filmmakers were too gutless to go through with it and gave us a half-assed branched timeline instead.

[Bounty]

As for TNG and ENT: remember that this was a Q&A with fans, not a prepared statement on the future of Star Trek. The TNG question especially was answered in a "we don't rule anything out" manner, it's not a concrete plan or anything.

Specifically:

Data: Do you think of bring some characters from TNG era in future Star Trek?

BobOrci: If we can do it organically, perhaps.

On events from the Prime timeline that may still happen (Whale Probe et al):

We are bound in many ways, yes. Although those exact stories may fall under the jurisdiction of a future court since our the latest mission of exploration takes place many years before the events you just listed.

They're not saying "we must" or even "we will", just "we can".

[Uraniun235]

Aaaaand these people are retards.

Imagine the outrage had they put the bridge in the middle of the ship. It's not smart from a shipbuilding POV but cinematically, especially if they want to avoid comparisons to BSG?

Yeah but they still don't need to make it an actual window. Who cares about justification? It would actually make more sense if they had said straight-up "we like the aesthetic of 'glass + HUD' more than just a big TV or hologram", because then it's at least just an aesthetic decision. This just sounds like they're too chicken to challenge Roddenberry's ruling from TNG when he put the bridge on top of the Ent-D.

[Connor MacLeod]

Actually, very little of it makes sense. Oh, not trivialities like the existence of money or Spock's viewpoint of Vulcan's destruction, but the far more important issues of not doing what should be done with a reboot —that whole top-to-bottom restructuring of the Trekverse that ST so desperately needs, was promised somewhat with this movie, but now seems to have been aborted. Orci and Kurtzman are saying that they're going to be fitting themselves (and future writers) back into the same straitjacket they'd just clawed their way out of.

It seems the professional studio franchise remains as depressingly bereft of imagination as ever.

I wouldn't go that far. The new movie seems to have done alot to correct the flaws of the previous Treks, which I think is a worthy achievement for a single movie so far. I also think its not going to be the first movie we judge the series by, its by whether or not they can keep improving or if they decline in quality. Even Voyager and I'm guessing Enterprise had good moments (Going by Sonnenburg and his reviews, and he's pretty unbiased.) Yes, there's still alot of room for improvement, but so what? If you're going to expect complete perfection from the movies then I guess there's no hope for you.

And to be honest, alot of the "stupid" shit actually encourages me, because having Trek as a more "turn your brain off" type of movie hearkens more back to the TOS era for me, which ALSO had alot of dumb stuff, but that was what made it enjoyable. And alot of the details (like the "build your ship on the ground") also hearken back to the earlier days of sci fi (such as Lensman) even though starship building on the ground (or landing) is utterly stupid.

As far as the attempts to connect this continuity to the "past" Trek, I guess that also depends on how they do it and what bits they salvage. I mean, from what little I remebmer about Enterprise, they somehow did a massive "reset button" on the series, and iwth an alternate timeline its quite possible there's lots of wiggle room for differences in the timeline even if it includes Enterprise.

In any case, the attempts to 'connect' this universe to past continuity simply strikes me as a half-assed last minute job, probably by someone (execs?) who somehow are afraid of alienating the past fanbase for some bizarre reason. Or they're trying to draw it in. Its a stupid decision, but it makes sense even so (They're taking a risk with the reboot, so not going "all out' and trying to play it safe by being inclusive would be "playing it safe".) I hope that the popularity of the movies is attributed to the ways it broke from the old canon, and encourages further deviation from the older canon.

[tim31]

Money has existed in Trek, or Kirk, McCoy and others were talking out their everliving ass.

Yeah, but you can see the confusion when you get open-interpretation lines like:

GILLIAN: Don't tell me you don't have money in the 23rd century

KIRK: Well we don't?

[VT-16]

Maybe they don't call it money?

I do like things like the V'Ger incident still happening, it makes sense since the original probe getting lost happened centuries before nu-Trek and TOS. I don't think it's ever going to appear on-screen again, neither with any of the other things from old canon, so I don't see why people are complaining.

I'd like a Patrick Stewart walk-on part as a 23rd Century Picard family member. With the militaristic changes, maybe the 24th Century Federation might be less pussified.

[Patrick Degan]

I wouldn't go that far. The new movie seems to have done alot to correct the flaws of the previous Treks, which I think is a worthy achievement for a single movie so far. I also think its not going to be the first movie we judge the series by, its by whether or not they can keep improving or if they decline in quality. Even Voyager and I'm guessing Enterprise had good moments (Going by Sonnenburg and his reviews, and he's pretty unbiased.) Yes, there's still alot of room for improvement, but so what? If you're going to expect complete perfection from the movies then I guess there's no hope for you.

I don't expect complete perfection, just something more competent than what we've gotten in the last three series and the TNG films.

In any case, the attempts to 'connect' this universe to past continuity simply strikes me as a half-assed last minute job, probably by someone (execs?) who somehow are afraid of alienating the past fanbase for some bizarre reason. Or they're trying to draw it in. Its a stupid decision, but it makes sense even so (They're taking a risk with the reboot, so not going "all out' and trying to play it safe by being inclusive would be "playing it safe".) I hope that the popularity of the movies is attributed to the ways it broke from the old canon, and encourages further deviation from the older canon.

Well... let us hope so.

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't expect complete perfection, just something more competent than what we've gotten in the last three series and the TNG films.

And it hasn't improved on it in any way? This movie is far less like the series and the movies we've been burdened with for a long time. This would be the first Trek movie I've been to since STVI if that tells you anything - I only saw First Contact and that was on video. No, it may not be perfect, but the ST franchise has been suffering for so long it takes awhile for anything to overcome the inertia of sheer dysfunction it has mired in for now.

And, I daresay, to overcome the cynicism that Trek has built up in some fans over the years with all the shit they've endured, I am gathering

[TithonusSyndrome]

When did Kirk not know what happened to his father? Pike just drove the point home, I don't think Kirk actually needed to have ti explained to him.

And the Federation flagship being laid down in his neighborhood due to his father's actions wasn't able to do this? I'd think that a 700+m megaship he could see at any time would've been a more manifest demonstration of the significance of his father's actions than what some strange captain said to him when he was battered and cut in a bar.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't expect complete perfection, just something more competent than what we've gotten in the last three series and the TNG films.

And it hasn't improved on it in any way? This movie is far less like the series and the movies we've been burdened with for a long time. This would be the first Trek movie I've been to since STVI if that tells you anything - I only saw First Contact and that was on video. No, it may not be perfect, but the ST franchise has been suffering for so long it takes awhile for anything to overcome the inertia of sheer dysfunction it has mired in for now.

And, I daresay, to overcome the cynicism that Trek has built up in some fans over the years with all the shit they've endured, I am gathering

It's a fun movie with a good cast and the classic characters more or less in the forms we know them in, and that's why it's succeeding. But it's also horribly flawed and I'm not talking about the goofy "science" (which is de-rigeur for Trek) but the awful clumsiness of the plot and how whole situations have to be kludged together, how Starfleet essentially have to be incompetent to the point that the captains can't tie their own shoes without help in order to allow Nero to get as far as he does, and how Nero has to be incompetent to the point where he can't tie his own shoes without help in order to allow the Enterprise crew to succeed in thwarting his Diabolical Plan™. The movie also really fails to take full advantage of the Greek Tragedy aspect of time travel which could have been so effectively utilised if anybody involved with the production had bothered to think a few things through for just a few minutes before one frame of film had been shot.

[LMSx]

There's absolutely no good reason to see a TNG character ever again, and the blanket way Orci and Kurtzman respect all future events (V'ger, Khan, WHALE PROBE) is bad because the writers are surrendering the right of a reboot to sift through the old stuff and pick out the best, while discarding the weaker material. And "including a TNG character needs to be organic" doesn't mean much considering the contortions of the film they just made to fit in The Continuity and Leonard Nimoy.

[Prannon]

I'd like to weigh in and say that Connor MacLeod and Degan are right. I can get over bad science, I can get over plot devices and various other "suspense of disbelief" things that Trek often uses. In the future, I doubt that many people will be complaining too much about "black holes don't work that way!" Instead they will be complaining about Kirk "acting like a douchebag and getting promoted for it!" and for other character development mistakes. The plot isn't shoddy because something doesn't make sense in the realm of science, but more because the plot would require characters to get things they don't deserve or act in ways that don't make sense.

I mean, look at all the criticism of Voyager, Enterprise, the TNG movies, and even TNG to a certain extent. Most complaints were directed to a lack of meaningful development of the characters, or characters acting in ways that don't make sense or are otherwise stupid for the sake of the Plot-of-the-Week. Sure we'd complain about technobabble or the bad science or the utopian points of view, but often these were the symptoms of a lack of story/character development in general because they prevented characters from making tough decisions.

Whether nTrek makes it over the next few years or not depends on how well they portray and develop the characters, and I think also on how well they treat the villains. Kirk is an ass? Alright, that's fine, but do we see the consequences of his assinine behavior, and does he learn from it? They're facing a new villain? Alright, give the villain a brain and have our heros really out think him/her in a battle that has consequences for our characters as much as the villain. All else, including the ENT series (bad as it may have been), V'ger, Khan, and the Whale Probe, is secondary and nitpicky.