You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Star Trek sequel will be a modern-day allegory...

Who/What should the villain be?

Khan29%[ 6 ]
Klingons24%[ 5 ]
A scientific disturbance0%[ 0 ]
The Borg19%[ 4 ]
Someone from past episodes10%[ 2 ]
Someone completely new14%[ 3 ]
Other5%[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 21

Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 2:48am

Post 1 of 33

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

http://trekmovie.com/2009/09/15/abrams-orci-star-trek-sequel-to-be-modern-day-allegory/

Awesome news. This completely proves that Abrams and company "understand" Star Trek as being something more than just action/adventure, and that they were planning to go down this root after re-introducing the characters. Now the question is, what kind of allegory? Where should they go with the plot? Bring back old characters/villains, come up with something completely new, etc?
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 3:14am

Post 2 of 33

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I definitely think they shouldn't already be bringing up Khan... save him for the 3rd movie, as Kirk is still kind of new in the 2nd movie. Khan should face Kirk in his prime, which means the 2nd movie should be about something else.

Klingons could probably be used to fit the modern terrorism issue.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 3:46am

Post 3 of 33

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Oh, this could be good. Really good. I'm almost sure it will be.

Honestly, I don't care what they do with it; Abrams has- for me- lived up to his hype, so I feel pretty safe getting excited. smile
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 5:02am

Post 4 of 33

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I refuse to see the current Star BLECH film on principle. Time Travel??????????? at what point does it just become ridiculous that every other film involves time travel. Nothing has any weight at all because you can just go back and fix it. Join the George Lucas Crystal Skull brigades. Jesus.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 5:24am

Post 5 of 33

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

I refuse to see the current Star BLECH film on principle. Time Travel??????????? at what point does it just become ridiculous that every other film involves time travel. Nothing has any weight at all because you can just go back and fix it. Join the George Lucas Crystal Skull brigades. Jesus.
YEAH! Let's all be pessimistic about everything and judge movies we haven't even seen!!!! YEAH!!
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 5:26am

Post 6 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan, come on now, they found a way to circumvent negative reactions and offer new chemistry and interactions by using time-travel as a story device to create a 'new alternate timeline'.

You can't knock them terribly hard for that- it was just to save face. And it was, to much surprise, handled exceedingly well, too! With smarts, finesse, and a clever disregard for 'heavy space/time travel thinking'. Which was necessary to most degrees, wasn't it? Star Trek was never a show about space physics, it was about space philosophy- the movies should and have so far followed suit.

Can't wait, this is great news. I have pretty much a complete faith in JJ Abrams. I don't think 'everything he touches is gold' the way many do of his pet projects and him (And Whedon and the rest of the TV Producer like)- but I generally like the way he does things and have immensely enjoyed the past films he's directed.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 5:38am

Post 7 of 33

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Bryan M Block wrote:

I refuse to see the current Star BLECH film on principle. Time Travel??????????? at what point does it just become ridiculous that every other film involves time travel. Nothing has any weight at all because you can just go back and fix it. Join the George Lucas Crystal Skull brigades. Jesus.
You're acting like Star Blech never did anything ridiculous in the past... You're also missing out on one of the best films of 2009. Open your mind, Bryan M Block. There's a whole world out there!
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 6:26am

Post 8 of 33

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You think the movie poster will read "ripped from the headlines"? biggrin Kidding, only. Anyhow, this doesn't sound like necessarily good news. Previous allegories and involvement of modern day events can seem topical, dated and tacked-on.

I'm looking at you, Hurricane Katrina in Benjamin Button.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 6:29am

Post 9 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I voted for The Borg, but I realize that might not be a good idea. They shouldn't make it too dark on the second go. Klingons might be a good idea. Having Klingon in the second movie will also do a major fan service at the same time. I'm really looking forward to seeing Kirk having to do a Next Generation style second guessing of The Prime Directive.

I would also (and this is just the Star Trek fan in me) like to see that Vulcan's remaining population is getting along fine due to Spock Prime's efforts, then I hope to see some hints to that Spock Prime is trying to rebuild a controlled black hole that will take him back to his time-line. He will end up managing to get back in the third film if I had my way. This will do two things for the film:

1. It will finally shut fans up about erasing time-lines, and prove that it was always meant to parallel time-lines.

2. Spock can be picked up by what's left of The Next Generation characters (at least one of the characters is dead) in The Enterprise E (just thinking of the Enterprise E in HD remade by ILM with a movie budget makes me drool). They can use make up and the "make younger" CGI on the actors that was used in the opening of X3 if necessary.

I would just love seeing the Next Generation cast together again on The Enterprise. The scene could end with Picard saying: "Engage".
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 8:22am

Post 10 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

I refuse to see the current Star BLECH film on principle. Time Travel??????????? at what point does it just become ridiculous that every other film involves time travel. Nothing has any weight at all because you can just go back and fix it.
Erm, the whole point of the new Star Trek film is that you specifically can't do that. The changes brought about due to time travel are irrevocable and lasting.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 3:32pm

Post 11 of 33

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

YEAH! Let's all be pessimistic about everything and judge movies we haven't even seen!!!! YEAH!!
Which is for whatever reason worse then being optimistic about everything and judge movies we haven't even seen? smile

Heh, I find it amusing that a simple statement like "The new trek film will be a modern day allegory" evokes reactions as "AWESOME! THEN IT'S GOING TO BE AWESOME" as if the simple fact of it being a modern day allegory somehow prevents it from being a bad one. smile

It could be great, it could be worse then the last one as far as I'm concerned. I'm still open for it.
I for myself will watch it for sure cause I'm curious to see whether they will manage to bring back that Star Trek feeling back the last one totally didn't have for me. I have my doubts, but I'm all ready and willing to be pleasantly surprised by a good film.
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 5:36pm

Post 12 of 33

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

YEAH! Let's all be pessimistic about everything and judge movies we haven't even seen!!!! YEAH!!
Which is for whatever reason worse then being optimistic about everything and judge movies we haven't even seen? smile
I was actually referring to the Star Trek movie that was just released, not the sequel. However, in any case, it would make more sense to be optimistic about a sequel to a movie you've enjoyed than to be pessimistic, is it not?
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 8:21pm

Post 13 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Don't try, Thrawn. As you'll remember, Sollthar hates fun. wink
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 10:19pm

Post 14 of 33

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar... you're right. It could be bad. But right now, it does seem like they're heading in the right direction. They know what the essence of Star Trek is.

Khan shouldn't show up until movie 3, if at all. And only if he's played by Antonio Banderas. I think the best (and safest) thing to do is Klingons. Actually, I don't think there should be any question about that matter...

I also think Nimoy, or some other actor from TOS or TNG should appear in the film, in order to prove that the "old" timeline still exists. As long as it's Klingons, and Nimoy's in it, I'll be happy. smile

And definitely no Shatner, I'm thinking. razz Too bad he rejected his scripted appearance at the end of the first one.

EDIT: Speaking of Klingons... supposedly there's a lot of them in the deleted scenes. Warbirds, Rura Penthe, everything. smile
Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009, 11:49pm

Post 15 of 33

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think they'll have a really difficult time re-introducing Khan. He's one of those seminal bad guys who was perfectly portrayed the first time around. Bringing him back for a new generation will feel sloppy to the purists, no matter who they get to play him. Since this is an alternate Star Trek universe, I don't see any reason to introduce him at all, apart from the "Hey look it's still the Star Trek you knew!" factor, which was the worst thing about the new movie, if you ask me.
Posted: Thu, 17th Sep 2009, 2:29am

Post 16 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Oh, but Antonio Banderas as Khan would be so amazing. Like Quinto as Spock and Pine as Kirk, I think we could all rest just fine with a recast/revision of such an iconic character should it be done with grace and portrayed the right way, you know?

Never rule anything out. After all, Nolan started with a more obscure villain for Batman Begins and moved into iconic Nicholson/Joker territory in the sequel just fine. Star Trek could just as well, riding off of the success of a similarly obscure villain, do just the same.

And Banderas saying "he tasks me....". Nuff said.
Posted: Thu, 17th Sep 2009, 2:49am

Post 17 of 33

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sure, there's no reason it couldn't work if they pulled if off well, but I don't see any reason that it would be a necessary risk, is all. I guess we'll find out!
Posted: Thu, 17th Sep 2009, 8:31am

Post 18 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I'd rather see them go off into totally new territory rather than go down the Khan route.

Having said that, there's nothing to say they couldn't drop in a little Khan cameo or something in the background.

The hints the writers are dropping so far seem to be angling towards some kind of Iraq/Guantanamo/terrorism metaphor, which is all well and good but, well....Battlestar Galactica's already done it pretty much perfectly. Be interesting to see if they can bring anything new to a sci-fi dissection of the thorny topic.
Posted: Sat, 19th Sep 2009, 5:21pm

Post 19 of 33

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Yeah, I'd rather see them go off into totally new territory rather than go down the Khan route.

Having said that, there's nothing to say they couldn't drop in a little Khan cameo or something in the background.
I'd say that's the best thing to do. Have the Enterprise discover the Botany Bay and/or Khan, and then call it in to Starfleet, while continuing on their real mission. Something along those lines would be an awesome bit of nostalgia that would please the fans, and certainly not do anything to hurt the franchise.
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 3:54pm

Post 20 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Something along those lines would be an awesome bit of nostalgia that would please the fans,
It could go either way. Some fans of Scarecrow thought his cameo in The Dark Knight was beneath him. I should think a few Khaaaan fans would be mad that they just referenced him when "he should be the whole film". It would be a bit like dangling a carrot.
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 5:02pm

Post 21 of 33

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Some fans of Scarecrow thought his cameo in The Dark Knight was beneath him.
Scarecrow was in TDK?
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 6:04pm

Post 22 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Richard III wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

Some fans of Scarecrow thought his cameo in The Dark Knight was beneath him.
Scarecrow was in TDK?
Thanks for proving my point. wink

Though I can't see how you missed him. He even had lines. Maybe you forgot him, that wouldn't surprise me.
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 6:28pm

Post 23 of 33

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Richard III wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

Some fans of Scarecrow thought his cameo in The Dark Knight was beneath him.
Scarecrow was in TDK?
Thanks for proving my point. wink

Though I can't see how you missed him. He even had lines. Maybe you forgot him, that wouldn't surprise me.
Thank you for answering my question. o_o

EDIT: Found it on YouTube. I had totally forgotten that scene. Thanks a bunch. neutral
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 8:08pm

Post 24 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Richard III wrote:

Thank you for answering my question. o_o

EDIT: Found it on YouTube. I had totally forgotten that scene. Thanks a bunch. neutral
Sorry, didn't realize you were actually asking me question. Thought it was more a joke/rhetorical question on your part.
Posted: Sun, 20th Sep 2009, 8:53pm

Post 25 of 33

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No prob.
Posted: Mon, 21st Sep 2009, 1:05am

Post 26 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Richard III wrote:

No prob.
Short forum-wasting response inside quotes.
Posted: Mon, 21st Sep 2009, 1:15am

Post 27 of 33

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Richard III wrote:

No prob.
Short forum-wasting response inside quotes.
Provocative response stating that such things are mundane and don't need to be addressed.
Posted: Mon, 21st Sep 2009, 1:19am

Post 28 of 33

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Richard III wrote:

No prob.
Short forum-wasting response inside quotes.
Can you suggest something else I should have said? Maybe a lengthy discourse on the difference between rhetorical questions and real questions? Also, whatever I wasted saying that, you wasted about twice as much taking note of it.

I want to see Khan again. Or maybe a son who somehow inherits his father's abilities and seeks to have revenge on Kirk for killing his dad.
Posted: Mon, 21st Sep 2009, 8:43am

Post 29 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, it's difficult to balance the needs of 'fans'. Which is why, generally speaking, you should probably just ignore them and make the film that you want to make. Might work, might not, but at least it won't be compromised.

I really liked Scarecrow's cameo in TDK - while it was small, it hinted at 'more stuff' going on around the edges of the film, which makes the fictional world feel bigger, rather than being 100% plot focused.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Sep 2009, 10:45am

Post 30 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I really liked Scarecrow's cameo in TDK - while it was small, it hinted at 'more stuff' going on around the edges of the film, which makes the fictional world feel bigger, rather than being 100% plot focused.
Good point. I think this is also somewhere The Prequels could have improved. They tried so hard to be "grand", but ended up being an enormous world seen with a really narrow vision. The most utilized the universe and "war" ever was, was in the short Order 66 montage in Revenge of the Sith when they cut to all the places the Jedi Masters were betrayed (which happens to be one of my favorite moments in The Prequels. The Williams score is awesome).

(Also I love how Ben Burtt added a lot of deep bass to Anakin's Light Saber when he's about to murder younglings. It really sells the difference in power between the younglings and Anakin.)

Last edited Wed, 23rd Sep 2009, 4:56pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Sep 2009, 11:07am

Post 31 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Staff Only wrote:

Tarn wrote:

I really liked Scarecrow's cameo in TDK - while it was small, it hinted at 'more stuff' going on around the edges of the film, which makes the fictional world feel bigger, rather than being 100% plot focused.
Good point. I think this is also somewhere The Prequels could have improved. They tried so hard to be "grand", but ended up being an enormous world seen with a really narrow vision. The most utilized the universe and "war" ever was was in the short Order 66 montage in Revenge of the Sith when they cut to all the places the Jedi Masters were betrayed (which happens to be one of my favorite moments in the film. The Williams score is awesome).
Absolutely. That sequence is probably the best in all the prequels - it feels like a different level of filmmaking, really.

The prequels really lacked 'the Mos Eisley Cantina' aspect. In the originals, when Luke went into the cantina it felt like your were glimpsing this much larger universe. In Attack of the Clones when they go into the bar on Coruscant, there's lots of cool stuff but we never get to really savour or explore it.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Sep 2009, 11:42pm

Post 32 of 33

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Staff Only wrote:

Tarn wrote:

I really liked Scarecrow's cameo in TDK - while it was small, it hinted at 'more stuff' going on around the edges of the film, which makes the fictional world feel bigger, rather than being 100% plot focused.
Good point. I think this is also somewhere The Prequels could have improved. They tried so hard to be "grand", but ended up being an enormous world seen with a really narrow vision. The most utilized the universe and "war" ever was was in the short Order 66 montage in Revenge of the Sith when they cut to all the places the Jedi Masters were betrayed (which happens to be one of my favorite moments in the film. The Williams score is awesome).
Absolutely. That sequence is probably the best in all the prequels - it feels like a different level of filmmaking, really.

The prequels really lacked 'the Mos Eisley Cantina' aspect. In the originals, when Luke went into the cantina it felt like your were glimpsing this much larger universe. In Attack of the Clones when they go into the bar on Coruscant, there's lots of cool stuff but we never get to really savour or explore it.
Mainly because my eye was drawn to all that CG. It hurt my eyes. The CG, while undeniably good, gave all the prequels a oversaturated, sort of cartoony look. I began to wish they'd just use a set.

IMO, the main problem with the prequel trilogy was the huge change in attitude from likeable characters, enthusiastic filmmaking, and, like you said, a very open and vast universe to a wimpy emo kid (whom nobody likes) running around bashing things with a Glow-stick. He made almost literally no correct choices in the entire trilogy. And to top it all off, many of the lines were dry and stereotyped, the acting was too extravagant to be really good.
Nearly every character seemed to be a tool so to speak, introduced to further the plot and then dropped as soon as they aren't necessary anymore. And even those who remained, like Mace Windu, were hard to connect with. I think Obi-Wan was the only really well-developed and really interesting character in the trilogy.

/endrant

But I liked the Order 66 scene. It was one of the few scenes that actually made me a little thoughtful and wasn't just indulgent melodrama.
Posted: Thu, 24th Sep 2009, 2:10pm

Post 33 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Tarn wrote:

The hints the writers are dropping so far seem to be angling towards some kind of Iraq/Guantanamo/terrorism metaphor, which is all well and good but, well....Battlestar Galactica's already done it pretty much perfectly. Be interesting to see if they can bring anything new to a sci-fi dissection of the thorny topic.
Sorry to quote myself, but rather curiously Total Film magazine have just put up an article about this exact topic:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/15-lessons-star-trek-2-could-learn-from-bsg

Interesting read, especially if you're into a) Star Trek or b) BSG!