Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are so incredibly stupid it stopped being funny months ago.

This is more old news but I've been away and despite having a computer, I've been bad on staying up to date.

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/17/j-j-abrams-says-star-trek-will-boldly-go-allegorical/

"In many ways a sequel will have a very different mission."

So, instead of the movies mission being to promote the sociopatich asshole New-Kirk from soon to be expelled cadet to Captain in the span of a three hour tour, show Spock with jungle fever, and take scotty on a tour of the willy wonka factory, you're actually going to try and write a movie?

"It needs to do what [Gene] Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory," says Abrams. "It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant."

What? You mean it's irrelivant that people still use Nokia and drink Budweiser in the future? People connect to that don't they? Surely the new movies success helped boost sales of Nokia and Bud as much as Picards drinking habit sparked thousands of people to try a tea they've never before heard of!

"It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. There needs to be relevance, yes, and that doesn't mean it should be pretentious."

So you won't be showing the willy wonka tubes, turbines and Mac computer screens as much? And relevant without pretention? Really now Abrams, calm down, you've none of the former and too much of the latter, that's clearly far too ambitious for you.

Orci echoed Abrams....

Because you always want the writer under the director/producers thumb. Nothing well written ever comes from writers insisting that the director, producers and all the other suits, are idiots that don't know anything about the material.

Orci echoed Abrams, noting that it had been one of the biggest criticisms of the new Trek. "One of the things we heard was, 'Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.'

Like how much do nokia phones cost in the 23rd century? what sort of coverage do they have? Planetary, interplanetary? I mean, can I talk to my cousin on Mars and my grandma on the moon without having to pay roaming fees?

We're trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what's going on today as possible. So that's one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today." When asked if "modern day issues" meant war, terrorism, and torture, Orci agreed that was "an approach" they were taking.

Because torture was never ever addressed in ToS, TNG or DS9. War and terrorism were never ever mentioned in TNG or DS9 either. Bajorans? Cardassians? Please, Cardassians just make alcoholic beverages for cadets to order in bars before a spectacular bar fight scene.

Many feel that the films should reflect the original 1960s series and hint at social issues.

Who? Where? All the complaints I've seen have been about how horrible the writing and confused the direction was.

Others feel that such blatant allegory can make a film feel very dated in a few short years, and want Trek to just stick to telling good adventure stories. After all, taking a political stance stands to alienate many moviegoers, though controversy is always welcome from a publicity point of view.

Yeah, Star Trek IV was popular because of it's stupid save the whales message, not because it was a well written funny fish out of water story.

And Star Trek VI was so good because of it's obvious cold war is over allegory, not because it was a well written mildly suspensful whodunnit.

No. Good writing isn't what makes trek movies good. It's the issues. Miss the point a bit more why don't you?

Star Trek is definitely heading into problematic waters.

I can't believe they said it. Though it's not clear whether they did or the writer of the piece did.

Anyway...Heading? It was dragged out by Abrams' undertow the minute he was hired. Then Orci and Kurtzman summoned up a hurricane and sharks with frickin laser beams just to make sure there was no chance of surviving within the first five minutes.

Sci-fi has always been at its best when it reflected the modern world, but it is such a fine line to tread because you don't want your sci-fi epic to be full of thinly disguised Communists when the geopolitical climate changes.

Indeed. Because trek has always been about epic film making and not good stories. Jebus. Besides; it was OUR HEROES that were the thinly disguised commies. Really now, no money, perfectly egalitarian society, and everyone wore red in the movies until the TNG ones, even then, the ones in red are in command.

While I think issues of pre-emptive strikes, war, and torture might be general enough to be forever relevant, I worry that trying to tackle them will just be clumsy.

You guys certainly don't have the grace to pull it off, you're absolutely right about that.

It already feels dated in some ways, and it's difficult to imagine Starfleet saying anything new on the subject.

Yeah, because STAR TREK has already addressed all of these issues, since 1966.

War movies are always made and always have the same core, and good ones are damn good! Whether it's a Vietnam movie, a WWII movie or even a flippin' Civil War movie.

Dated? Try timeless and part of the human condition. You just can't handle it because it's beyond your scope. Trek is all about the human condition.

If Star Trek is going to tackle something I hope they go gentle, and tackle prejudice through Spock and Uhura's relationship. There's some racial and gender issues there just waiting to be mined for a background story.

Seriously? Interracial dating is taboo? Maybe in the deep south and other bastions where white folk barely ever see anyone darker than a red neck.

Gender issues? Watch trek sometime will you?

Addressed in ToS, addressed in TNG, addressed in DS9, even Voy and Ent managed to address it!

Do you mean gay? That's not a gender issue, it's a sexuality issue, though they ARE often confused for one another. A lot of gay trek fans have clamored for years that it needs to be specifically addressed in trek.

I disagree.

Let me count the ways it's already been addressed.

Lonely nerdy women have sworn Spock and Kirk were gay since the 60s.

How can a Frenchman with perfect British received pronunciation that can't maintain long term relations with women NOT be gay?

How can Wes be anything other than a flamer? He wore a rainbow pride sweater almost every episode. He dated Ashley friggin Judd... but didn't DO anything with her except play a game. He gets all surly and disinterested in Starfleet after he lied and cheated for his dashingly handsome upperclassman... comes back to the Ent and gripes... hangs out with an old Native American and participates in his 'scared rituals' and LEAVES THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT with a man who's forehead literally looks like an ass and is dressed in a skin tight silver speedo. I rest my case with Wes. Sure, Wil happens to be straight, but don't confuse a nerdy actor with his nerdy GAY character.

Bashir started off flirting with anything in a skirt... but he ends up dating a woman who's been more men than women.

She was also another woman before who dated a coworker of his, and when a man was his bosses mentor.

One of her previous female incarnations found herself still attracted to a woman she was married to when she was one of the he's she used to be.

How's that for gender issues?

Sticking the the gender bending of the Trill; Dr.Crusher couldn't cross her own sexuality when the man she loved became a woman.

Riker loved a gender-bender who refused to go along with their societies concept of being gender neutral so much he risked his career for the heshe!

Harry Kim anyone? 'Oh my girlfriend back home... in SAN FRANCISCO, I can't cheat on her'... even though the odds of getting home are nil, and the sexiest twins ever wanna date me. We know which way Mr.Kim swings.

Malcom Reed? All Americans automatically assume anyone with a British accent that isn't Hugh grant is a bit of a puff anyway. He had no love interests in a show that matched everyone with everyone and was terribly fond of shower scenes and rubbing gels. Friggin' Hoshi was considered 'sexy' in that show. Sad, but true. Without a female love interest, Malcom was clearly gay.

And? Other than Kirk, Spock and Picard, these characters really DO read as gay, bi or at least very open... with only ONE being slightly prejudiced (Dr.Crusher) about it, and that was over her own inability to cross, which didn't make her feel any better about the situation.

None of them faced any real problems due to their apparent sexuality. Quite simply put, by the 23rd, and absolutely by the 24th century, no one gives a fuck if you're gay or not.

No reason to address it specifically. THAT would be ham-fisted. Get it under the radar, imply it, get the audience to infer it. Then, just maybe, like the characters, people watching also simply won't care whether or not anyone is gay.

Clearly, far too subtle for the three musketeers currently in charge of the future direction of Star Trek.

I didn't mean to turn this rant against Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman into a plea for homosexual fans to pay more attention and admit trek has no need for purely openly gay characters. I just hated how much time was spent on 'relationships' in Voy and Ent. That's not what trek is about, gay or straight.

Not that these three yahoo's would know what the hell Trek is about, as they've so amply demonstrated time and time again. I'm sure while exploring Uhura's and Spocks relationship, they'll delve into Spock and Kirk ACTUALLY being gay for one another. They're dumb enough it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they think it's a continuity nod. They don't even know the difference between continuity and canon...

ugh, enough said for today.