'Star Trek 2': How Will It Go Down?

Lately, there has been a lot of talk stirring about the upcoming Star Trek sequel. Most of it seems to be spawned by the recent string of interviews that have been given by writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (due to promotionals for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which they have co-written.) While the plans are not even close to being set in stone, it seems that the creative team is at a crossroads about how to approach the film. As the duo comments in an interview with Sci-Fi:

"The debate is do you do a story where you go through some familiar things from the series, but now their outcome can be a little bit different, or do you just make it totally new? That's what we're kind of debating right now," Orci added. "We're kind of going through everything we know and love and making sure we don't leave any unexplored gems. And then also simultaneously trying to think of new things completely. So we'll see. The best idea wins, original or old."

By "original or old," it is being speculated that the ongoing debate revolves around the idea of the film's villain(s), which would define the direction. As the duo told Collider in another interview:

"The exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary or the villain model. That’s an active discussion we’re having right now. In terms of thinking about more than one movie, we want the movie to be self-contained in a way, but we’re discussing the idea of having a couple of threads where if the second movie works, you could pick up into a cohesive whole”

In the spirit of the films being accessible, I would agree with the idea of the films being "self-contained." However, the concept of "the unknown and nature" being "the villain" has been done in some form or another with Star Trek: The Motion Picture with its long and drawn-out, "trippy" scenes and somewhat with the pseudo-religious themes explored in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. For the most part, those films seem to be regarded among the worst of the series due to lack of compelling conflicts and drawn-out, indulgent plot ideas. That is not to say that it would be fair to immediately assume that Orci and Kurtzman have something like that in mind, but those films should be kept in mind as examples of how ambitious ideas can be self-destructive.


Therein lies the quandary: Going with the familiar vs. taking chances with something new. The creative team certainly did take a chance with the first film, risking fanboy backlash to alter the Star Trek narrative into a form that was more accessible for mainstream audiences. Barring a few constructive inconsistencies, it succeeded for the most part in attaining that goal, and would not have been able to do so if they had taken the "safe" route and took the typical Trek approach. (See Star Trek: Insurrection.) However, one must wonder if there is a line between taking a new approach with the intention of shaking things up/reinventing ideas AND simply taking a new approach for the sake of trying to be original. On one level, the old adage "no risk, no reward" undoubtedly holds true. However, when the concept of "trying something new" itself becomes a formulaic action that is expected, then, paradoxically, you are NOT taking a risk by going with new concepts, you are unwittingly going with the norm.

Personally, (in an example of shameless self-promotion,) I still maintain that a film inspired by the original Star Trek episode, "Space Seed" would be the perfect choice for the sequel. Not only would it be an excuse to work in the most famous Star Trek villain of all time (Khan), but it would also be an opportunity to shift focus on the new Enterprise crew by bringing them together for a more personal battle with Khan and his genetically-enhanced minions. Such a battle, full of personal interactions would provide much more character-building opportunities than having them sit in their stations for the whole movie, staring at "anomalies," "black holes," and "giant jellyfish" for two hours.

However, as Orci and Kurtzman would go on to tell Sci-Fi:

"I think because the track base is broader and more rabid than I think any franchise in the history of time, we were pretty worried that we were going to get skewered, even though we felt like we were making choices that we felt were honoring the canon," Kurtzman says. "We really spend so much time thinking about both the fans and what Trek meant to us and what it means to stay true to canon."

Staying true to the canon and spirit of the Star Trek mythos is all well and good. However, there are so many elements that the Star Trek series offers (especially when it comes to the idea of exploring the unknown, etc.) They work well in the context of a television series, but frankly, make for a boring film. I think we're at a point where there has been enough trial and error to see what elements make good Star Trek movies, and what elements should be avoided. However, having seen the first film, I wouldn't say I'm too worried about the project, as we know it's in good hands.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696791/Star-Trek-2-How-Will-It-Go-Down.html#ixzz0JIYcc4PB&D"">
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696791/Star-Trek-2-How-Will-It-Go-Down.html#ixzz0JIYcc4PB&D