Star Trek Beyond

Re: New STAR TREK 3

enough of the darn love story the whole love angle of spock and uhura makes no sense at all never should have started to begin with
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

That’s a pretty broad 'hint', but perhaps this is the gleaning of the Prime Directive? Has Trek ever specifically had a date for when the Prime Directive was established or put officially into effect? I sort of remember it being addressed in the Enterprise series, but I don't remember specific implementation or what specific events prompted its observation for the Federation. I know the Vulcans already had this concept pre-Earth, but did they have an official policy? Anybody know?

Anyway, perhaps the moral dilemma they are talking about will involve that. Maybe it will refine it in some way.
 
Last edited:
Re: New STAR TREK 3

PotionMistress said:
That’s a pretty broad 'hint', but perhaps this is the gleaning of the Prime Directive? Has Trek ever specifically had a date for when the Prime Directive was established or put officially into effect? I sort of remember it being addressed in the Enterprise series, but I don't remember specific implementation or what specific events prompted its observation for the Federation. I know the Vulcans already had this concept pre-Earth, but did they have an official policy? Anybody know?

Anyway, perhaps the moral dilemma they are talking about will involve that. Maybe it will refine it in some way.
Click to expand...

There is rarely a good story in Star Trek that deals with the Prime Directive and Into Darkness is not one of them. As seen in many canon episodes, the Prime Directive has been stated that you cannot interfere with the natural progression of a pre-warp culture, even if that said culture is in danger of being destroyed by a natural event. Take that Enterprise show you brought up. Archer believed that it was important to allow an entire species to die out rather than give them a cure his crew developed. To him, the systematic extinction of an entire race is better than the possibility of them continuing to live on because he doesn't want to come off as playing god* with the galaxy. Yet the entire crew in Star Trek Into Darkness are all gung-ho at stopping a "natural" occurrence that would affect an entire culture's natural progression. I was expecting to see the crew being open about violating the prime directive when I heard about this since this act is the total opposite of what Archer did. But no, it turns out that the Prime Directive pretty much means "Do what ever the #$&! you want with pre-warp cultures as long as you don't show your big shiny ship to them", because that's exactly how it plays out. Spock, the person who is at the heart of this operation that will alter the course of this species forever, is willing to lay down his life rather than violate the Prime Directive in showing this culture the Enterprise. It's like.. a guy smoking in a non-smoking area preaching about how no one should smoke period.

If this new Star Trek film is going to dive into the Prime Directive again, expect a lot of incoherent nonsense. If there's one writer who's work gets worse as a series progresses, it's Roberto Orci, the one guy who just happens to be sticking around for this next installment while everyone else from behind the scenes has pretty much left Star Trek for good. With his "Star Trek called upon me to serve" ego, I'm betting he'll have a lot of power in taking anything good that JD comes up with and turning it into utter crap.

*Btw, when Phlox developed the cure, Archer was given the choice of deciding an entire species' fate i.e. Playing God. His speech about not wanting to play god doesn't work because he already made the godly choice regarding who lives and who dies.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I always assumed that the Star Trek series (Roddenberry) used the Prime Directive initially more as an explanation of why Earth had never been contacted by aliens before and used the fictional ‘warp capability’ as a pseudo milestone, (unreachable, of course) to rationalize first contact by Vulcans, rather than as an all-encompassing moral value, which came later and often was inconsistent with good storytelling. They sort of dug themselves a hole with it. But I don’t really hold them so close to the fire as you seem to do Jeyl, since it’s all just good science fiction to begin with.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I am reading the Cushman book "These are the Voyages:Season One", it's a meticulous breakdown of the first season of TOS by each episode production and the creation of the concept of the Prime Directive happened early in the series, in Return of the Archons, I need to go back and find his explanation of why they created it in the writing room.

*Gene **** created it, and for this episode gave themselves a loop hole that it only applied to thriving, growing cultures. That's the excuse given in the episode.
 
Last edited:
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I just finally got to watch Into Darkness today and it was awful like the first. I can't believe they're even doing a third. They need to just put the money into a new ST tv show. I have lower hopes for JJ doing SW now.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Sluis Van Shipyards said:
I just finally got to watch Into Darkness today and it was awful like the first. I can't believe they're even doing a third. They need to just put the money into a new ST tv show. I have lower hopes for JJ doing SW now.
Click to expand...

The folks who run the movies can't put it towards a TV show because the TV ownership belongs to CBS, and it looks like they're putting all their attention is being spent getting the franchise in High Definition (TNG BluRays) for the moment.

I think when the third movie starts rolling into preproduction, there's a good chance that we're going to have a staff and crew who want to take better care of the product that they have. Even though everyone was so darn proud of "Into Darkness" when they were making it, the post-release reaction seemed to be more trouble than it was worth for just about everyone involved in the high court. Accusations of sexism, lack of original ideas, irrelevant mysteries and having a story that did nothing but rehash everything that the last movie did. This was not the grand "The Dark Knight" sequel that the high court was hopping it would be and for some, enough was enough. Damon Lindelof, the man who even Bob and Alex pointed fingers at for insisting that John Harrison really be Khan (Or my personal favorite, insisting that a majority of the film take place on Earth), is not coming back as a writer or producer. Roberto Orci has lost his writing companion Alex Kurtzman which should lesson the "That's just brilliant" attitude they had when writing the films. JJ Abrams isn't coming back as director so anyone who takes over might actually be someone who gives a crap about Star Trek. The only real downside that this new take on Star Trek has right now is that Roberto Orci is still one of the head writers, and that's about it. Outlook is looking pretty good for an overall better Star Trek experience.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

"Another ST show is what we need", was my thought after having seen Into Darkness. Preferably set in late 2300's or early 2400's, so next generation era basically.

Jeyl said:
The folks who run the movies can't put it towards a TV show because the TV ownership belongs to CBS, and it looks like they're putting all their attention is being spent getting the franchise in High Definition (TNG BluRays) for the moment.
Click to expand...

and DS9, after that Voyager most likely.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Jeyl said:
Even though everyone was so darn proud of "Into Darkness" when they were making it, the post-release reaction seemed to be more trouble than it was worth for just about everyone involved in the high court. Accusations of sexism, lack of original ideas, irrelevant mysteries and having a story that did nothing but rehash everything that the last movie did. This was not the grand "The Dark Knight" sequel that the high court was hopping it would be and for some, enough was enough.
Click to expand...

Few outside of ST fandom hated this movie. The "high court" is ecstatic about Into Darkness's success. Yes, success.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

seelsa73 said:
Few outside of ST fandom hated this movie. The "high court" is ecstatic about Into Darkness's success. Yes, success.
Click to expand...

No one here is saying the movie wasn't a success. I'll even agree that it was both a critical and financial success. But when you look at how successful it was compared to the last movie, there's really nothing to be ecstatic about. The film didn't earn as much domestically as the last movie did, and the improvement overseas would undoubtably be associated with Benedict Cumebrbatch's international appeal and how focused the advertisement campaign was on his character alone. A character who they'll most likely never use again especially when you Benedict himself wishing they had just killed him off.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

The Terminator said:
"Another ST show is what we need", was my thought after having seen Into Darkness. Preferably set in late 2300's or early 2400's, so next generation era basically.
Click to expand...

At least with a series we'd get a little more variety in the story department instead of everything revolving around the "Kirk and Spock are really good friends" schtick. It's like no one wants to see these two characters work out a difficult situation in a professional manner and instead want EVERYTHING to either be a benefit or a hazard to their relationship. Plus a series would also give the secondary characters a couple of stories dedicated to them instead of being the helpful little spotlight. Cripes, even TNG dedicated an entire episode to characters who are normally just background material ("Lower Decks").
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci Splitting Up on Bigscreen | Variety

"Orci is currently laser focused on the upcoming “Star Trek 3.” He’s already been tapped to pen the picture along with Patrick McKay and John D. Payne and he’s heavily lobbying to direct the production. The film’s co-producers, J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot and David Ellison’s Skydance, appear to be in favor of that, but people familiar with the situation say that Paramount is being cautious. If Orci were to land the assignment, “Star Trek 3” would mark his directorial debut."

Come on Paramount, there has to be someone more qualified in Hollywood who can steer this Star Trek sequel in a better direction.

Please ***** Don't Let Roberto Orci Direct STAR TREK 3 | Badass Digest
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wakeem
Is Star Trek Dying?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
11,055
publiusr
P
RevelationSpace
New batch of Factory Entertainment studio scale Star Trek ships
Replies
8
Views
376
joberg
joberg
Astyanax
Star Trek Section 31 Reviews Are Starting to Roll In...
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6,873
blewis17
blewis17
PRFields
Star Trek: Starfleet Academy
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4,810
NakedMoleRat
NakedMoleRat
Captain Dunsel
“Dullcote” On Screen Used Star Trek TOS Props??
Replies
13
Views
1,355
AdmiralBaxter
AdmiralBaxter
Back
Top