Orci & Kurtzman Q&A: lots of interesting tidbits

[Bounty]

the blanket way Orci and Kurtzman respect all future events (V'ger, Khan, WHALE PROBE)

"Blanket way"? They say it's something future writers just have the option of dealing with! How is saying that anything but sensible?

[LMSx]

the blanket way Orci and Kurtzman respect all future events (V'ger, Khan, WHALE PROBE)

"Blanket way"? They say it's something future writers just have the option of dealing with! How is saying that anything but sensible?

Reign1701A: While I definitely understand why you guys had to essentially reboot the franchise, aren’t you still bound my canon in many ways? The events of the movie should have no bearing on the Fesarius, the Doomsday Machine, the vampire cloud, V’Ger, and so on…all arguably major events. Won’t you be forced to acknowledge these threats as they appear in the timeline in future stories (and therefore retreading)?

BobOrci: 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.

It seems pretty obvious that Orci is saying, come Stardate (whenever V'ger comes knocking), if a Trek series is set at that time they are "bound" by canon to observe V'ger's return. Of course they're not, who ever is running the franchise then will make the decision to either deal with it or ignore it. The point is that the writers aren't doing themselves any favors as far as establishing a solid foundation for this new universe by already asserting new mandates and holes into the universe which will need to be worked around later, which seems fairly well contradictory to the whole point of a reboot, which is to get rid of that stuff. If they want to bring the stuff in because they have a cracking idea of how to work with it, great. But "bound" is not the right word to describe the option of doing that.

[ray245]

Maybe because they have a greater desire to see a remake as opposed to a reboot?

[Stark]

Watering down the 'reboot' just means it's more likely fanservice stupid crap will keep cropping up. Hilarious.

Amusingly, even THEY thing Countdown was too stupid to live.

[Oskuro]

Amazing. Suddenly people believe a reboot should delete all previous content instead of try to present it in a new and interesting way. I mean, just like Batman Begins and TDK got rid of the League of Shadows, the Scarecrow, the Joker or Two-Face, because they weren't bound in any way to revisit those.

Personally, I'd love to see V'ger or the Borg presented in a more interesting fashion, but the major point the authors make is that their storyline is set at the beginning of TOS, so they probably won't get that far into the future.

[LMSx]

Amazing. Suddenly people believe a reboot should delete all previous content instead of try to present it in a new and interesting way. I mean, just like Batman Begins and TDK got rid of the League of Shadows, the Scarecrow, the Joker or Two-Face, because they weren't bound in any way to revisit those.

Personally, I'd love to see V'ger or the Borg presented in a more interesting fashion, but the major point the authors make is that their storyline is set at the beginning of TOS, so they probably won't get that far into the future.

Are you referring to me? I've explicitly said already that a reboot should sift through the original material to find the best material, and that if they have a good take on how to approach it then go for it. The "major point" you speak of is basically minor housekeeping because it's just emphasing the point that some of these events they are "bound" by won't be happening in the timeframe of when Orci and Kurtzman write the sequel.

But let me turn it around: if they do come up with an awesome, amazing, thematically perfect way of integrating the Borg/V'ger into the sequel's plot, the writers aren't going to go "blast, we can't do this sweet idea for 10 more years!", they're going to wave their fingers and say Starfleet found it sooner, or something something something blah blah balh: in short, future writers won't be "bound" to the proper timeline at all. It's just sloppy any way you cut it. There's no reason to commit to setting good storytelling and respect for continuity against each other if you don't have to. Tell the fans who worry about these details that the out of universe reason is something to that effect, while the in-universe reason is butterfly effects. Surely the same guy who told fans to think up for themselves what Nero did in the intervening years isn't adverse to punting like that.

[Connor MacLeod]

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.

Yep, I'll fully acknowledge that there's tons of holes there as others have pointed out, in addition to the goofy pseudoscience, but this isn't something exactly new to Trek. I admit its been a LONG time since I've seen TOS, but I know it had logic holes of its own kind (Doomsday computer - they didnt need that big an explosion to cripple it, but for some reason they NEVER carried conventional nukes, couldn't fire phasers in, use a proximity detonation of a large quantity of antimatter stored in say a shuttle, since the "deactivation" was neither constant nor always very long ranged...) but in away that added to the whole charm if you didn't think about it. Hell, even SW (which I ilke a ton more than Trek and have for a long time) has lots of logic holes of its own technology-wise (the Death Star's implied capabilities and fast hyperdrive were, IMHO, never well thought out, but then again who expected Lucas to?) Or even more recent movies like Transformers (which is fun, but also had a fuckload of holes in them.) It doesnt neccesarily excuse any of it (whichever franchise does it) but I get used to it and I can forgive it if it doesn't break my SoD too badly.

Maybe it depends on how you decide to look at it? From a more technical/logical standpoint, which I think is what you are talking, yeah its got a ton of problems which make it a horrible movie. But this will largely only show up in a debating/analysis atmosphere (and in a strictly "out of universe" perspective as well. In universe requiring rationalization of some kind and all that to stay c onsistent.) and alot of this will be highly relevant in/during debates. From a purely "enjoyment" standpoint, its a good movie if you shut your mind off, which is what alot of people have said, and its the best trek to come out in a long time. Not THE best perhaps, but it at least gives you hope the franchise is pulling out of a nosedive.

[Thanas]

A question that I am wondering about - does Star Trek use paralell timelines or does this mean that all of my beloved TOS and DS9 never happened?

[Bounty]

A question that I am wondering about - does Star Trek use paralell timelines or does this mean that all of my beloved TOS and DS9 never happened?

Parallel timelines. At the very least in this instance. The original universe as it existed before this movie is still happily chugging along (in real life, too; there are still TOS comics and TNG-era novels getting published).

[Drooling Iguana]

Technically parallel timelines are used, but I don't recall any instance of a given timeline continuing to show up in the official fiction after its past is altered.

[Darth Wong]

"Parallel timelines" are the official story behind the reboot. But there are too many inconsistencies to rationalize that way. It's really more of a writer's excuse than an actual branch off the original timeline.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Yep, I'll fully acknowledge that there's tons of holes there as others have pointed out, in addition to the goofy pseudoscience, but this isn't something exactly new to Trek. I admit its been a LONG time since I've seen TOS, but I know it had logic holes of its own kind (Doomsday computer - they didnt need that big an explosion to cripple it, but for some reason they NEVER carried conventional nukes, couldn't fire phasers in, use a proximity detonation of a large quantity of antimatter stored in say a shuttle, since the "deactivation" was neither constant nor always very long ranged...) but in away that added to the whole charm if you didn't think about it. Hell, even SW (which I ilke a ton more than Trek and have for a long time) has lots of logic holes of its own technology-wise (the Death Star's implied capabilities and fast hyperdrive were, IMHO, never well thought out, but then again who expected Lucas to?) Or even more recent movies like Transformers (which is fun, but also had a fuckload of holes in them.) It doesnt neccesarily excuse any of it (whichever franchise does it) but I get used to it and I can forgive it if it doesn't break my SoD too badly.

Maybe it depends on how you decide to look at it? From a more technical/logical standpoint, which I think is what you are talking, yeah its got a ton of problems which make it a horrible movie. But this will largely only show up in a debating/analysis atmosphere (and in a strictly "out of universe" perspective as well. In universe requiring rationalization of some kind and all that to stay c onsistent.) and alot of this will be highly relevant in/during debates. From a purely "enjoyment" standpoint, its a good movie if you shut your mind off, which is what alot of people have said, and its the best trek to come out in a long time. Not THE best perhaps, but it at least gives you hope the franchise is pulling out of a nosedive.

Maybe, but stuff like the Doomsday Machine's destruction or Kirk talking a computer to death can be rationalised. Stuff like we see in this movie is just plain sloppy writing, as if Orci and Kurtzman didn't even take a composition course in university. And again, I'm talking about just plain idiotic plotting mistakes and story points that have to be tied together with bailing wire and duct tape to hold up at all.

[tim31]

What, no stock in chaos theory, Mike?

[Darth Wong]

What, no stock in chaos theory, Mike?

It would take quite a lot of chaos to make the inconsistencies start before the timeline diverged. That USS Kelvin simply does not belong in the original timeline 30 years before TOS, and everyone knows it.

[tim31]

Will you punch a hole in your hat in rage if in the next film they revealed that a third party had travelled back in spacetime and somehow caused all the minor changes? Because, you know, I wouldn't put it past them.

[Darth Wong]

Will you punch a hole in your hat in rage if in the next film they revealed that a third party had travelled back in spacetime and somehow caused all the minor changes? Because, you know, I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't care enough for that. I would, however, point out how stupid and hopelessly contrived it is, and then mock the Trekkies who tie themselves in knots trying to explain how it's actually quite reasonable.

[tim31]

And isn't that the best thing about this board? We come to you to get knocked down like bowling pins on industry night. Convenience!

But the point still stands; the plot of the next film will decide(in my mind) whether the whole thing sinks or swims. I like Trek XI despite the glaring flaws, but I do not like glaring flaws becoming a staple.

[Drooling Iguana]

What, no stock in chaos theory, Mike?

It would take quite a lot of chaos to make the inconsistencies start before the timeline diverged. That USS Kelvin simply does not belong in the original timeline 30 years before TOS, and everyone knows it.

Unless this is also the result of the changes to the timeline that occured in First Contact and Enterprise.

[Darth Wong]

And isn't that the best thing about this board? We come to you to get knocked down like bowling pins on industry night. Convenience!

But the point still stands; the plot of the next film will decide(in my mind) whether the whole thing sinks or swims. I like Trek XI despite the glaring flaws, but I do not like glaring flaws becoming a staple.

In my experience, a production team does not elevate itself beyond what it has accomplished before. Bring in a whole new crew and you might get something new, but if these guys repeat for the next film, they will turn out something with the same strengths and weaknesses, but with less creativity because that's a problem for all sequels.

[tim31]

I'm hoping- and this sentiment has already been expressed by others here- that they will put out something punchy and exciting without the need for a largely expository plot that this film was - ahem - bound by. Problem is, I don't want them trying to do a supervillain again because Trek has fallen flat on its arse every time they have tried since Khan. And it's not just the material, it's the actor; I like Eric Bana's work in general, but he couldn't pull off a Ricardo Montalbán. No one can except for Ricardo Montalbán. So they need to let that idea go.

[Stark]

"Parallel timelines" are the official story behind the reboot. But there are too many inconsistencies to rationalize that way. It's really more of a writer's excuse than an actual branch off the original timeline.

How stupid you have to be to think a rebooted ST would somehow 'delete' all the episodes people liked from other shows is beyond me. Next we'll hear that someone dying in Neighbours means they can't star in Firefly and thus Sarah Connor Chronicles never happened! OH NO! It's fucking sad. Even if this reboot was a proper clean start (which it clearly isn't according to the producers and they're going to keep jamming old content into it from the old series) it would NOT AFFECT THE OLD SHOWS IN ANY FUCKING WAY WHATSOEVER. I literally cannot understand the nerd panic about 'invalidating' old shows. How would that even fucking work? JJ Abrams isn't coming to my house with an electromagnet.

[Patrick Degan]

"Parallel timelines" are the official story behind the reboot. But there are too many inconsistencies to rationalize that way. It's really more of a writer's excuse than an actual branch off the original timeline.

How stupid you have to be to think a rebooted ST would somehow 'delete' all the episodes people liked from other shows is beyond me. Next we'll hear that someone dying in Neighbours means they can't star in Firefly and thus Sarah Connor Chronicles never happened! OH NO! It's fucking sad. Even if this reboot was a proper clean start (which it clearly isn't according to the producers and they're going to keep jamming old content into it from the old series) it would NOT AFFECT THE OLD SHOWS IN ANY FUCKING WAY WHATSOEVER. I literally cannot understand the nerd panic about 'invalidating' old shows. How would that even fucking work? JJ Abrams isn't coming to my house with an electromagnet.

'Tis terribly sad that Trekkies (or at least so the studio thinks) can't handle multiple versions of Star Trek the way Gundam fans have managed with multiple parallel versions of that series for thirty years now. But who can say? Maybe the studio might have something the way people like Bernd Schneider are about ready to slit their wrists over the very idea of a larger USS Enterprise in the Kirk-era.

[tim31]

The thing about that is that anime is crazy Japanese stuff and Star Trek is safe, stable, and constant, like apple pie or hospitality. You can't piss on hospitality Patrick! I won't allow it!

Next we'll hear that someone dying in Neighbours means they can't star in Firefly and thus Sarah Connor Chronicles never happened!

I'm getting on fanfiction.net right now and doing this.

[AniThyng]

The thing about that is that anime is crazy Japanese stuff and Star Trek is safe, stable, and constant, like apple pie or hospitality. You can't piss on hospitality Patrick! I won't allow it!

It's done all the time in western comics too.

In any case, the Gundam model is much better imo, sure, if it's done badly and you get lots of really stupid series sometimes, but when it works, you get the essense of the series without being weighed down by being forced to invent ever more contrived explanations to maintain continuity. Or if we see what star wars has become, absurdity where it seems like the entire history of the galaxy is the fucking same. It's like the Empire was nothing special. At all.

[Drooling Iguana]

Even if this reboot was a proper clean start (which it clearly isn't according to the producers and they're going to keep jamming old content into it from the old series) it would NOT AFFECT THE OLD SHOWS IN ANY FUCKING WAY WHATSOEVER.

It would mean that there's no chance of them being made any more, at least not in official canon. Sure, the old episodes will still be there but their stories and characters will never be developed past what's already on DVD. Personally I'm not very attached to any of the TNG-onward Trek characters and stories but I can imagine how others would feel differently.

Plus, while Star Trek in all its incarnations has had more than its share of cheese, when it's at its best it can put out some pretty well-done, thought-provoking science fiction. Now with the first, defining movie of the new version of the franchise being nothing but a string of plot holes tied together by explosions, and with it being financially successful enough that there's no incentive to do things differently in future instalments it's reasonable to think that that part of the franchise is now lost forever.