Orci and Kurtzman reveal they don't know jack about Trek

take a look at this nonsense from the 'scribes' who know only the way in which one strings together words, not how to actually WRITE anything that's coherent, about the various 'nitpicks' trekkies have made.


Note that I'm disappointed in my fellow trekkies for first of all; acknowledging these fools as star trek writers. Secondly, if you're going to acknowledge that they're 'writers', call them out for their real writing mistakes; IE how the plot makes no sense, how the characterizations make no sense etc. These guys aren't sci-fi writers, they're not trek writers. They shouldn't be writing sci-fi at all in my opinion.

There are two basic types of sci-fi, hard, and soft, sometimes they mingle, and particularly talented writers can handle it.

Hard sci-fi stories tend to have weak characters, and a weak story, backed with scientific speculation about technology, how it affects society etc, which is all backed by hard science itself. Thus the name.

Soft sci-fi tends to focus on the characters, the story, and scientific speculation can vary from wild to mild, with explanations as to how anything works varying just as much... from the detailed to the dismissive. The speculation could have a scientific basis, or it could be way out there. Either way, sci-fi in such stories tend to be the setting which, while often important in true science fiction, never eclipses the story or characters.

Star Trek has always been more 'soft', but it's technical fans have been adamant that even it's soft way out there tech be treated, within star trek, as if it were hard. Non-technical fans could care less, so long as the characters act the way they should, that the story is compelling, and overall thoughtful.

The result is that it's VERY hard to stray too far from the technical when dealing with the core audience. A trek story has to be good, be true to characters, true to the universe, and hardest of all; true as it can be to the technical details of how anything functions. Trek has never succeeded in pleasing all it's fans with this duality. Sometimes it's displeased both. But with 40 years that include five TV series and 10 movies, nevermind thousands of books... you can't please everyone all the time. BUT, even not counting books, we've been exposed to thousands of hours of the Star Trek universe. Before now, our biggest complaints have been a few episodes, and the fifth movie. Universally, we nearly all agreed that Star Trek V; the final frontier, was a joke.

Now we've got the new movie. It violates all the softness of star trek, and ignores the... er... 'hard', in favor of, as I've stated before, mindless action sequences.

There are a few things here that rile me up. I'm not even a big fan of technical trek, but I have to say the dismissive nature of Orci and Kurtzman is insulting. I'm not surprised, the story itself indicates they know nothing of trek... but to do so little research and call yourself a writer is just ... it's retarded is what it is.

Anytime someone brings something technical up, these two respond in a glib, haughty and pious tone. As if they knew the issue before hand when clearly they didn't. Even if they did, they have the nerve to act as if they're the ones in the right for flushing down 40 years of canon without any apparent rhyme or reason.

When someone brings up an actual plot point that was retarded; they indicate clearly they hadn't given it much thought, and respond with more glib and dismissive answers. They're insulted that trekkies who were paying attention not only hated what they did with the technology, even the story isn't up to our standards.

If you're not prepared to deal with trekkies, maybe you shouldn't attempt to write star trek.

Most galling; someone brings up Nero just waiting around for 25 years (the biggest problem in the movie in my opinion), and instead of saying something that would make sense... they just say that 'canon doesn't say what they were doing, it's a rich field for fan fiction'

No, a-hole, it's a rich field for you to have written something that made sense, it's a huge problem that you could've turned into a decent plot HAD YOU USED YOUR MIND.

Over and over these two fools show they clearly don't know star trek from any angle.

They and J.J. Abrams should never be allowed to touch Star Trek again.

the type of fan Star Trek XI appeals to

A perfect, if not THE perfect example of why I don't ever want to see a trek movie this mindless again.








We had some screwy fanbase before, but if you asked them what the heck happened in Star Trek III, they'd be able to tell you. And, they'd be completely coherent.

Some actual trekkies were screwy in the same way; shallow crushes and the lot... but again, I'd be willing to bet even the strangest housefrau slashfiction writer churning out disgusting homosexual fantasies involving Spock and Kirk at least KNEW WHAT STAR TREK WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT!

why Star Trek XI was an abomination

After taking a few days to get over my post-tramatic stress disorder from seeing the new star trek film, I've decided to honestly review the film without picking the standard Trekkie nits.

That is to say, that just like the movie did, I'm going to abandon every single thing I know about star trek.

I don't need to be a canon obsessed crazy trekkie nerd to pick apart this movie, I just need to be a fan of well written well directed movies.
Which is something I also happen to be.

I plan on taking bits I can recall that makes this movie bad and exposing it to the light of reason. It's not going to be pretty.

First off; it's a mindless action flick. Trek has never been, nor should it ever again be, a mindless action franchise. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a mindless action movie, I truly can. Seriously, I enjoyed independence day. How much more mindless can one get? They have their place, they serve a purpose... but...

Let's look at the simple word 'trek' and how it separates it from star wars as a simple and very classic example. We know what someone means when they say trek or wars whether they put a childish 'vs' in there or not. We know how vastly different the two are. Whether you're a fan of one or of both; you'd be hard pressed to make a case (until now) that between the two franchises, Trek was the least thoughtful, and most action oriented of the two.

Trek dealt with reality through fiction, trek, as the word itself implies, was about the journey. Wars was, unsurprisingly, about a literal WAR between good and evil, nothing more and nothing less.

Throwing out canon and continuity is only insulting to hardcore trekkies who even know what's being thrown out to begin with.

Throwing out what trek has always been about is insulting to trek itself. Scratch that, it's beyond insulting. It threatens to destroy what trek has been about for 40 years. I'm not nearly as upset about minor canon and continuity infractions as I am about this prospect. The prospect of trek becoming nothing more than mindless entertainment gives me nightmares. Because if trek goes down this dark path, I really won't have much left. Occasionally I may hope to be surprised by a decent film or TV show, and of course, I've always got books to keep me company...

But if trek becomes what this movie seems to indicate; then truly, trek as it has been is over. The Borg of the American idle variety will have assimilated it to their collective. And no, I didn't just misspell something, I choose my words carefully.

So, before anyone actually started writing or coming up with visual effects for the new movie, they screwed everything up. Simply by deciding it was going to be an action flick where the good guys win because good triumphs over evil, Star Trek itself was violated.

The movie starts off attempting to establish that everything you may have known about star trek is null and void. The problems with this scene are many, and indicate the problems with the movie as a whole.

When the huge Romulan mining ship shows up, it opens fire on a tiny Starfleet ship called the Kelvin. This moment, we're told to believe from on high (From J.J.Abrams), is the moment which changes the timeline.

The problem with this, is that the Kelvin was already breaking with canon and continuity in at least 10 different ways BEFORE history becomes altered.

But, that's just canon.

I'm going to focus on the non-canon issues. I'm going to focus on what makes this movie, as a movie in and of itself, stupid. And how that alone is enough for us to band together as trek fans, to ensure that never again shall we be subjected to such mindlessness under the name of Star Trek!

Let's start out with what I've actually heard people praise. The characters are left intact.

Really? Let's examine that shall we. I won't bring up canon, I'll just tell you how the characters are portrayed in this movie, and you can use whatever knowledge you may have about the characters to determine how false this is.

Kirk is shown as an easily lead, maladjusted sociopath. He's handed instant gratification time and time again, and never has to pay any price for the choices he makes. He never once bats an eyelash over anyone's death, friend or foe. And, despite the fact that he was about to be kicked out of the academy before graduating for cheating, he's given full promotion to CAPTAIN (follow me, that's six full ranks in what can be no more than a few days at most) and given command of the Enterprise, to boss around people he went to the academy with, who actually managed to pass without cheating, and joined because they felt the need, not on a dare as he did.

Spock is a halfbreed torn between two worlds. However, he's reassured by his father immediately after deciding to join starfleet that it's ok, and so has no real reason to be torn at all anymore. He's highly logical, but also apparently none too accomplished at emotional control, even BEFORE his planet is blown up.

Bones likes to gripe. They got bones down, and got a great actor. However, they failed to offer any sort of insight into why he's such a grouch, especially at such a young age. You'd think it would be a good time to explore it, what with it being during his academy days and directly after.

Uhura is a good looking black chick in a tight red mini dress and go-go boots with a silver funky hearing aid. She's also Spocks plaything, and apparently has no idea how to handle herself.

Sulu is a fantastic pilot... who doesn't know how to take the parking break off. He thinks fencing is advanced combat training, and also apparently thinks fencing doesn't refer specifically to European fencing but applies to any hollywood version of what a generic asian sword art may look like.

Scotty is a wiry redhead with an overly emotive accent and manners who conducts wild experiments with a lack of technical data and gets banished for them. He's very fond of telling a small troll to get down from places. He doesn't seem terribly ready to fight if you insult anything he takes pride in.

Chekov is a 'wiz kid' with an accent thicker than you've ever heard who's too old to possibly be the same Chekov from the original series. It must be his older brother, who happens to have the exact same name as the character we're familiar with.

If you've ever watched the original series, or the movies, you'd know that none of these descriptions sound terribly familiar, outside of McCoy.

YET! They all do interact as if they have personalities completely contrary to the ones they're portraying. How nifty!

Now, here's some plot details that don't make the grade either.

Lets start with the big bad and his big bad ship; Nero and his mining ship from the future...

Ok, look, I know the Romulans have a fetish for Earth's ancient Rome, but Nero? And, is this what people are going on about when they say J.J. Abrams likes to put 'hidden messages' in the crap he produces? Oh, how clever; Nero watched Rome burn, so this one watched Romulus burn, then he'll watch Vulcan and Earth burn... meanwhile the script and direction is so bad, J.J. has been watching star trek itself burn.

Is this J.J.'s idea or the two hack writers who claim to be trek fans? To my knowledge, not a single Romulan character has had a name of a Roman person. The Romulan culture reeks of Rome; but their names don't. Nero as the bad guy? Oh how original! Lets demonize the guy named Nero!

And again with these two writers saying they're trek fans? Is it them or JJ who decided the Romulans in this movie look NOTHING like the established romulan looks? This isn't canon! This isn't me not letting go of what's supposed to be new! Follow me; this ship is from the timeline we know, yes? Ok, when did romulans lose their ridges? When did they decide not to wear the pointy bangs? When did they decide to get tatoos and shave their heads? Is that just a mining thing? That just adds confusion where none need be added.

Speaking of miners... What's up with the Romulan STAR EMPIRE? One star goes nova, wipes out two planets, and there's no more empire? Where's the romulan fleet? All in orbit of Romulus, picking their noses and wondering if they should do anything about their star about to go nova?
This isn't canon; this is the movie. They introduce the concepts and right away if you're paying attention, you've got to wonder... a single mining ship is all that's left of the Romulans????

A single mining ship and a miner named Nero is going to take it upon himself to change history?

Then for 25 years do nothing but wait around for Spock?

Then not make his move for at least another 4 years after Spock shows up?

He destroys a starfleet ship, supposedly THE moment the timeline changes; and for almost 30 years, starfleet doesn't retaliate?

He stays pissed off all this time? His crew does too? He maintains that huge ship and crew for an entire generation all on his own without any help at all?

I mean really, he didn't even think: hey maybe if I go to the the Romulan Empire as it exists in the past, with my extremely advanced technology, I can install myself as ruler, ensure the star never goes nova, AND have a fleet to back me up when I go to destroy Vulcan and Earth?

No.

He waits around for 25 years for Spock to show up. So he can calmly take his ship, his red matter, which is never explained in the slightest, an then maroon the old man on Hoth?

The movie mentions he starts crap with the Klingons.

Where are they? And, why would he stir up trouble with the Klingons at all?

A single MINING SHIP is too much for either Starfleet or the Klingons to try and face unless it shows up, lowers it's retarded drill and drips a bit of red matter into THE CORE OF THE PLANET?

Even then, just send in some cadets... the real starfleeters are busy. With what preytell? What's so important that the fact that two founding worlds of the federation itself are about to be wiped out seems rather trifling to you?

Of course, mining to the core of a planet isn't going to create any changes to the planet on it's own, you have to drop some sort of mystery goo in there. Right?

And why the hell does the stupid drill have to be in the atmosphere? Just so there can be a platform where you can have a fight scene that requires a parachute scene and another pointless death scene?

I'm just supposed to accept all this?

Just like I'm supposed to accept that young Spock strands Kirk on the same planet that Nero stranded old Spock on? And how that JUST SO HAPPENS to be the same planet Scotty was exiled to?

And how Scotty JUST SO HAPPENS to be there because of a transwarp experiment gone awry, and he couldn't figure out why... but it also JUST SO HAPPENS that Spock knows the exact mathematical reason why...

None of this is remotely trek. When trek asks us to accept something that's hard to accept, they usually try to set it up beforehand, or at the very least, make sure that it's only one or two things per movie, which can be easily explained away due to nothing more than our knowledge of the trek universe and our ability to make right what seems out of place, so long as the story is good enough to compel us to jump through such hoops.

Every scene in this movie asks us to accept the unacceptable. Not even on a canon or universe continuity level; but on the level of trying to take this movie as it's own entity, wholly seperate from everything Trek we've ever known.

It asks us this by dangling a pretty light show and another nifty action sequence before our eyes. As if we're infants or cats. As if we won't notice detail, cohesion or pesky things like character development.

It asks us to ignore canon and continuity, then attempts ham fisted homages and half-assed tips of the hat to canon and continuity throughout the entire film.

We're trekkies.

You don't have to be a slave to canon...

But try to write a story that's at least self consistent and makes some sense!

Time to take back Trek

after stewing about how awful the new star trek movie was, and looking at comments people were making about how GOOD it was on different sites, including youtube... I also noticed I wasn't the only one who thought this movie was horrible. I do seem to be one of the few though, who can't stand what this movie does to trek, not just in terms of canon... like I said I can handle that someone wants to reset trek from the beginning... it's that they've turned it into mindless action.

I don't mind wanting it turned into an action platform. The first movie could've used a bit of action.

But Star Trek has NEVER been mindless. There were so many moments in this movie which could've been turned into pure trek moments and preserve at least integrity. Not one of them panned out. Instead; nods to trek were included, most of which only real trekkies would catch, which really comes out as an insult.

So, anyway. I'm going to see what me and my best friend can do to try and take star trek back. The old fasioned way. Trek was taken off the air after only 3 seasons; trekkies were appalled. Letter writing campaigns and self-orginized conventions lead to an actual response. Trek was shown in reruns, the first space shuttle to be tested was named Enterprise, and finally, we got a movie.

Albeit a slow moving one with a very silly plot. Even it's plot was far more intelligent than the new movies is.

It took time. But, those were the days before we had such instant communication. So hopefully, before the next movie gets into pre-production, we real fans of trek, who don't want Trek to become a mindless platform that makes money from the masses who are content not to ever watch something that makes them think, we can take it back, halt production, and get some real Star Trek writing back into our beloved franchise.

Star Trek, the Mindless Frontier

My worst nightmares have become a reality.

I must apologize to JJ Abrams however, for it was unfair of me to blame him and him alone, he's merely the director. I can only blame him for the atrocious look of the film, and for any bad direction I see, which I couldn't spot much of during the laser show which was Star Trek XI (reboot).

I blamed him only because I hadn't seen the movie (well it hadn't come out yet!), and I knew that everything he touched has been horrible in my opinion. The new Trek movie is no exception, but it's completely unfair to blame Abrams alone.

The lions share of the burden falls upon the two writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. These two even said they were fans of trek (not sure if they uttered the word trekkie or not), so though I dreaded that JJ would dumb it down, I hoped that perhaps with two people who knew trek actually writing, some semblance of a decent plot and story may make it through the typical hollywood abattoirs.

I was wrong.

If these two hacks are trek fans, I'm Gene Roddenberry.

That the movie destroys 40 years of canon and wipes out the last 25 years of continuity, I expected, and though it's frustrating, these facts are the least of the new movies problems.

I can accept an invalidation of canon, as insulting as it is.

I can accept a 'reboot' that tries to reimagine Star Trek from square one.

What I can't accept is a rebooting of the very spirit of what Star Trek has always been about.

In short; Intelligent, relevant story driven plots, characters that didn't feel forced, and an optimistic vision of the future of humanity have all been abandoned in the new movie.

At it's worse, star trek was a bit silly and preachy. But at it's best? It waxed profound, and it could move even a passing casual viewer.

I will not sit idly by as they continually slap me in the face time and time again, with trek references that show they know something about trek, and have chosen to ignore all that it implies.

Star Trek is not a mindless action movie franchise.

I can sit here and list everything wrong with this movie, and all the ways in which it isn't star trek, without once citing some nerdy trekkie canon or technical issue. I would point out issues of story alone, of how it doesn't fit in scope, story, plot, mood or in any other way with any of the previous trek movies.

I can't really do it without spoilers though. So, I'm going to sit on that for a while. Besides, I will have to bring up canon issues now and again; just based on the various 'nods' this movie is supposed to be making, in order to highlight that the nod is really more of an insult.

I also want to wait until some of the hub-bub dies down, and the children who currently think star trek is cool are distracted by the next shiny object to enter their field of view. I can't deal with their sort of mentality, or more appropriate lack thereof.

Suffice it to say; if you like mindless action movies and have no problem at all seeing a Star Trek movie that's as well written and ploted as 'independence day'... you'll probably like the new movie.

If that description sounds like an abomination... and I hope it does, you're not alone.

Live long and prosper. Because unless we do something, Trek won't.

The Return...

It's been ages since my last post. And, perhaps you should ignore the earliest ones.

It's not just my return however, I need to talk about. No. I need to talk about something I should've been talking about all along, something which had I been talking about it, I'd have no need to talk about it the way I'm about to.

I need to talk Trek.

I'm a Trekkie. I've been a fan of Star Trek my whole life, it's always been in my world and I've always been fond of it. I won't go into the ways I'm a trekkie, but suffice it to say I'm a third generation trekkie and amongst those in my own family, I'm hands-down the biggest one.

So why am I not looking forward to seeing the new Star Trek movie?

Maybe because it's insulting it's core audience, trekkies, with the tag "it's not your fathers trek"

Maybe because the entire idea of Kirk and the original crew meeting each other at the academy is retarded.

Or maybe it's because of who Paramount decided to hire as a producer (director).

As soon as I heard that J.J. Abrams was involved, my heart filled with dread.

Here's a brief rundown on why:

Reason #1 why JJ is a bad choice to be involved in any way shape or form in a star trek movie; in 1998 there were two movies about Earth threatened by an astronomic body impacting the surface and wiping out all life. One was slightly scientific, decently written, and attempted to be poignient and halfway realistic, the other was...


ARMAGEDDON, which didn't attempt any of the preceeding, instead opting for classic hollywood cliche of the hard working blue-collar guy saving the world, wrapped in a trite and very forced feeling love story.

Mr. Abrams co-wrote this piece of rubbish, which should speak volumes about his writing prowress.

He then wrote the craptastic television series 'Felicity', which I paid no attention to, becuase
A) I have an IQ of over 100, and B) I have far better things to do with my time.

He then created the show 'Alias', which once more paying attention to hollywood rules about roles for women, was about an unveiled threat of a girl who was, of course, extremely attractive and fond of inexplicable costume changes.

Then he wrote another movie; Mission Impossible III. Now none of the mission impossible movies were any good, but this one was quite possibly the stupidest of them all.

What he's most well known for is the series 'Lost', which is touted for being confusing, and this is confused for being deeply encoded with messages. I've watched it; the reason you're confused is that it's badly written, with no actual plot and no characterizations. It's not deep, you'll just have to trust me on that.

Having proved himself just as incapable of a writer as every other producer in hollywood, he's become a producer himself.

He produced most of the aforementioned wastes of writing, then Cloverfield; which was an epic waste of time.

So, it's only natural to bring someone so versatile in his lack of talent and attach him to a new star trek movie right?

If you want a #1 box-office hit, yes. If you want a decent star trek movie? NO.

Star Trek was killed by this fool, and it didn't have to be.

If Paramount was in any way interested in preserving star trek and appealing to it's MASSIVE core audience, they'd have hired a far more talented Jewish writer/producer than JJ Abrams.

They should've have hired Ira Steven Behr, the MAN who made DS9 interesting, and who proved time and time again he can write great characters, and fantastic plots, which are the very things that TREKKIES have always appreciated. Even if DS9 itself went largely unappreciated, Ira clearly knew how to write, and anyone who actually watched DS9 would be hard pressed indeed to disagree with my position that DS9 was the best of the trek shows, and that Ira was THE MAN.

But, Paramount is a hollywood studio. They don't care, they're not supposed to care. They wanted to 'rescue' star trek, and by that they didn't mean to restore it and give it back to it's core audiences. I'd smelled it cooking since Berman and Braga kept talking about 'appealing to a new audience'. Paramount only wanted to turn trek into it's Star Wars; a massive intellectual singularity, a platform to use to sell products and advertising.

In short; the exact opposite of the inherent spirit of star trek.

Roddenberry must be rotating in his orbit in rage!