Mon
Mar 21 2011 2:38pm
Where No Plot Has Gone Before: Why the New Star Trek Movie Doesn’t Need a Villain

Kirk takes his pizza to go

Since the instant the lights came up in Earth-based movie theatres back in May of 2009, trekkies, trekkers, and normal people alike (I consider myself all three) began speculating as what elements might make up a sequel to the Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof mega-hit. Will it revisit old characters? Will Shatner be in it? Will there be a new Khan? What about the Klingons? What if Owen Wilson played Gary Mitchell? Or Owen Wilson as Khan? Will Hayden Christensen play Charlie from “Charlie X?” What about everyone else? Should they use a new villain or an old villain? Will we get to know the crew better? Where’s Nurse Chapel? Okay, what about Owen Wilson as the voice of the first tribble in Starfleet?

And as fun as these questions are, they are still the wrong questions. The right question is this: what will the interesting science fiction premise be?

At the beginning of the justly derided Star Trek: Insurrection, Captain Picard briefly complains that the Enterprise no longer seems to be on a mission of exploration, but rather constantly running intergalactic chores for the Federation. I always took this as one of those meta-fictional moments where Picard the character had become self-aware and was like, “Get me out of this terrible movie! Let me get back to meeting interesting aliens and solving ethical dilemmas without pointing a gun at somebody!” I am certainly not the first to point out the inconsistencies in tone between the more contemporary Star Trek films and the various TV programs from which they derive. Red Letter Media’s tongue-in-cheek Plinkett reviews constantly illustrate the fact that things that happen in the TNG films would never happen on the TV show. The summation of this premise is this: Trek TV is more classy and thoughtful than many Trek films.

Golden Eye finaleBut the 2009 Star Trek movie fixed this, right? Well, not really. At its core Trek ’09 has the same basic plot conflict as Nemesis. Despite being a much better film in almost every single way, the premise still boils down to fairly uninteresting baddie with a doomsday device that’s going to destroy Earth. Looked at from this angle, the climax of every single Trek film from Generations until now all have the same elements of the big climax of the James Bond film, GoldenEye. You’ve got usually two to three guys fighting on some kind of raised platform either outdoors or inside of a spaceship that is sort of big so it seems like it’s outside and they can jump around a lot.

In Generations there was a missile that needed to be stopped, in First Contact a spaceship was going to be blown up, and in Insurrection, Nemesis and Star Trek a planet was going to be destroyed. From a unique science fiction angle, GoldenEye is actually a more interesting movie because the doomsday weapon was going to knockout all electronics in a specific target zone. There was actually a little bit of science fiction social commentary going on with the GoldenEye satellite. Are we too reliant upon our technology? Is a weapon that destroys our technology more dangerous than a big bomb? And while this is not a remotely complex metaphor or plot concept, it is more thoughtful than “red matter.”

Jump Kirk jump

Anyway, many people will tell you this is neither here nor there because apparently everyone agrees Star Trek was a solid action movie. This is probably true. But honestly, who cares? As a kid I didn’t get into Star Trek for all the badass action. If that were the case, I’d be a fan of violent movies, which I’m not. Now, I’m guessing most Star Trek fans are with me when I say that the Star Trek movie that is most in the spirit of ALL the TV shows is The Voyage Home. This movie has a fun science fiction premise and is totally something the shows would want to do, but couldn’t because the scope of it is too large. And what’s the best part of The Voyage Home? There’s no bad guy. Even The Wrath of Khan, arguably the best Trek movie has an interesting science fiction premise with the Genesis Device. Without the scientists on Regula I, the entire plot of Wrath doesn’t happen. The interesting science fiction premise drives this movie. And yes, I know the movie is really about Khan, Kirk, and Spock, but it’s not super transparent about it. Star Trek (2009), while very fun to watch, doesn’t even bother with originality.

Sturgeon in OrbitNow, I’m not saying these guys don’t have it in them or that it’s a lost cause. Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman are famously fans of the whole Star Trek thing. They probably know that what has made Star Trek great in the past is good science fiction writing. The 1960s Star Trek had top SF writers doing scripts for the show. Names like Theodore Sturgeon, George Clayton Johnson, Harlan Ellison, Dorothy Fontana and more! The Next Generation actually accepted spec scripts while it was on the air, and a hot young writer named Ronald D. Moore found his way into the industry from selling one of his scripts to Trek. An established writer named Nicholas Meyer helped save Wrath and also contributed story elements to three subsequent Trek films. All of these writers had good ideas, and weren’t necessarily looking to make a crowd pleaser; they were looking to tell a story.

Voyager episode Blink of an EyeAgain, I don’t think the creative team behind the new era of Star Trek are hacks or anything like that. It’s just in almost every single interview; they discuss or mention things about the possible villain for the movie. It’s as if they and many fans can’t conceive of a science fiction plot without a villain. Who is the villain in “City on the Edge of Forever?” What about the TNG episode “Darmok?” Or the DS9 episode “Far Beyond the Stars?” How about the Voyager episode “Blink of an Eye?” Hell, if we’re talking about a character piece; who is the villain in “Amok Time?”

As of this moment, though the new film is supposed to be filming this summer, nobody seems to know anything about the script. Further, it’s not even clear if J.J. Abrams is returning to direct. All the cast members seem to have just as many opinions as the fans. Zoe Saldana wants Uhura to “kick some ass.” Simon Pegg wants Nick Frost to play Harry Mudd. None of this should matter. What should matter is an awesome and original science fictional premise. You made a crowd pleaser last time guys, give us something more thoughtful this time.

In short, give us Star Trek.


Ryan Britt is a regular blogger for Tor.com. He has also written commentary about science fiction for Clarkesworld Magazine. His other writing has appeared with Nerve.com, Opium Magazine, and elsewhere. He lives in Brooklyn. He thinks the current Star Trek people seem like nice guys and are free to contact him for story ideas.

26 comments
E M
1. herewiss13
To be fair, the villian in 'Darmok' was that invisible monster they had to join together against...but I see your point.
Philip Thomann
2. normalphil
To be fair, the villian in 'Darmok' was that invisible monster they had to join together against...but I see your point.

In point of fact, that was a conversation piece.
Septemous
3. Septemous
Agreed 100% :)

The TNG ethics dilemas were always the best - this was a show about human exploration and growth - let's see some problem solving on the humanist front.

Thanks you!
Septemous
4. Stefan Jones
I agree, but as for that actually happening . . .

Fat. Chance.

Movies need to make a lot of money. To make a lot of money, these days, they have to play well overseas. Cerebral, thoughtful stuff just doesn't play well internationally. Crowd Pleasing with a sellable brand name is just what the studios want.

So, we'll get more chop-socky, more leering ugly villains, more broad slap-sticky stuff like the ludicrous Engine Room Full of Glass Tubes gag, more giant explosions.
Bob Gallo
5. StormbringerGrey
While I loved the reboot the content creators for Star Trek (in any media) should be contractually banned from using time travel or similar plot devices (like cryo-sleep), it’s getting a little old. Nevermind that City on the Edge of Forever was the best TOS episode and First Contact the second best movie (behind Khan), it’s still time to move on ;-)
Septemous
6. Jaquandor
I, too, found a lot to enjoy about "Trek '09" -- it hit my "explodey-spaceshippy-goodness" sweet spot pretty much dead-on. But if a great, or even serviceable, SF concept is what we're hoping for from the current creative team, I'm afraid we're going to be deeply disappointed. Not only do I not think these guys are likely to produce anything interesting on the SFnal front after bizarro-time travel, "red matter", "supernovas destroying the entire galaxy", and all the rest of it, I'm not even sure that these fellows really understand the characters of Star Trek in the first place. What irritated me most about "Trek '09" is the way they seem to think that Original Series Trek was about Kirk-and-Spock, to the point that they pretty much shoved McCoy into the background with the rest of the Uhuras and Sulus. And besides, "Trek '09" made me feel as if the only familiarity they have with TOS Trek is "Wrath of Khan" and little else.

I'm hoping for another fun-to-watch space adventure, because that's what I'm sure we're going to get, at best. Cinematic Trek will surely never produce a good SF story, and the Trek films that actually tried to do just that (TMP, STV:TFF) are not exactly viewed with fond memories....
Septemous
7. GHBlue
Spot on. It's funny to think about it, but are you so right: the Voyage Home is actually the most Trek like of all the movies. Despite being generally regarded as the opposite.
rob mcCathy
8. roblewmac
I liked the reboot A LOT why? It played a tricky game of saying "yes there is 40 years of backstory but here's a new movie written Without the task of being "the final word on STAR terk"
the last two (or three I cant even remember which was which) thought I cared a lot more than I do about Data having sex, kirk riding horses and Picrad going to the Dickens fair. I liked that it felt like somthing actully made to enterain me rather than a footnote to STAR TREK
Septemous
9. TerilynnS
And there (^) is the reason why I fear that the Trek we know and love, and which you write so lovingly about in your article will likely never see the light of the screen again.

Too many people crave to be "entertained" as opposed to being challenged to use their brain and THINK.

Science fiction was a genre meant to do nothing but challenge a reader/viewer's perspective on their surroundings. Nemesis changed all that for Trek, leaving us with the bland "action-popcorn" flick we were subjected to by STXI.

Stories - real stories - aren't the interest of the studios (or even many publishers) any more - when there is a thicket of people yearning to pay for explosions, fart humor and side-boob.
Septemous
10. cranscape
I think the 2009 Trek earned enough credit with me I'll let them have another go at it without prejudging things. For a movie that was launching a new timeline among other things I didn't mind it focusing on Spock and Kirk the most. There are only so many minutes to go around. I'd rather have a tight story than give everyone their ten minutes. In a 20 episode season you can divvy things out differently of course and perhaps with a second movie where there is less intro we can see more of the rest of them.
Septemous
11. jamespyles
I remember watching the original series when I was a kid. The special effects sucked by today's standards, but the writing *made* the show. Having a Star Trek writing "team" isn't horrible, but actual science fiction writers think of things in really strange and unpredictable ways. If you want to take Trek back to its roots, hire an actual science fiction writer and let him or her create some magic.
Ryan Britt
12. ryancbritt
I think there is a way to do a cool science fiction plot that is actually original and risky and at the same time make a movie that earns a lot of money. There's a reason that after adjustment for inflation, The Voyage Home was the number one most succesful Star Trek Movie in terms of ticket sales for a long, long time. Yes, the new one is now in the top spot, but still.

But the movie that probably had the most "risky" plot was the big winner in terms of box office numbers for a really long time.

It can be done!

Thanks for all the positive comments! I'm glad I"m not alone on this. I also don't dislike the new Star Trek movie from 09. I just want a cool story next time! I think they really have a chance to make it great. Like many of you, I sort of don't expect that to happen, but one can hope...
Septemous
13. Star Trek Producer
Well, look around the world at Star Trek fan episodes. It originatesd in many places. Non USA Star Trek fans haev even more appreciation of Trek than most US fans that I know.

Your mission: seek out new sources of Star Trek from the various fan groups. It may just surprise you!
Michael Burke
14. Ludon
I agree with you but I think there's a little more to it. First, let me say that I enjoy watching the new Star Trek but it doesn't make me think the way a lot of other Trek does. The new Star Trek is in the category I call "Turn your brain off, eat popcorn and watch the pretty things explode."

(Warning: There are one offensive slur below. It is not my view, I'm citing things I've heard people around me say to make my point.)

Now. To what I see has happened to Star Trek. The Star Trek that we grew up with - be it TOS, NextGen, DS9 or Voyager - has fallen out of step with the mindset of the American viewer. The franchise started falling out of step with the build-up to Desert Shield and Desert Storm. During that build up I became alarmed at the nastyness I was seeing and hearing in the people around me. The softest example I can cite is hearing someone - whom I had thought to have been a fairly even-handed guy - after hearing a news report whoop it up and say "Alright! Lets go shoot some towel-heads." Not fun times for me. The various episodes of Star Trek (new and re-runs) on TV helped me stay rooted in some sanity.

Look at the series Enterprise. Most people seem to hate it but, from my point of view, those hating it can be split into two groups. Those who hate it for not being like their beloved Star Trek and those who thought it was too liberal for their tastes. (Really listen to the comments and think beyond the storytelling issues often cited.) I liked the series but there were things that bothered me for being out of step with what I liked about Star Trek. It is my beleif that the series 'failed' because it tried to cater to both extremes. Neither side could feel comfortable caliming it as their own. (I think this too is part of why there is such strong disagreement over the new BSG.)

Now. Let's look at what was running while Enterprise was in first run. Stargate SG-1. Danial Jackson - the Liberal - could win fans by looking for the diplomatic way out while O'Neill and Teal'c entertained everyone else by blasting the crap out of the Goa'uld. Why could this show win while Enterprise 'failed'? Simple. Here was a show that didn't have to carry the baggage of a long running franchise while trying to bring in a new and larger audience base.

Add to that the fact that people have been coming to expect more bang for their buck in the theaters. Maybe the producers of the movies felt that the Next Generation crew would be able to make the transition (which the original series crew couldn't fully make) to the new taste in Sci-Fi Action Adventure. I still found things to love in First Contact and Inserrection. I loved the world-building and I found characters that held my interest. Nemesis left me feeling flat. It was the leat Trek of the Star Trek films for me. I had picked up the soundtrack before seeing the movie but I just couldn't get excited about getting the DVD.

As I said above, the new movie entertains me. Maybe they are really trying to throw off that old baggage and re-launch the series for the new viewer. Will I still be comparing it to my old Trek? Yes. But, this Trek is not really for me. This Trek is for the younger viewers and this could become their TOS. I'd like to think that this could lead to something good again, but then I keep thinking about Alias. Change-the-rules-as-you-go storytelling. Not my cup of tea.

Oh well. I guess I should get off of my soap-box now.
j p
15. sps49
The villain in Amok Time is T'Pring.

The villain in Star Trek (2009) is J. J. Abrams, whose work I otherwise usually enjoy.

I don't want to get into it again, see

tor.com/blogs/2009/05/star-trek-for-dummies

for more.

But, yes- this isn't a superhero movie, why is a villain needed?
Marcus W
16. toryx
The only thing I liked about Star Trek ('09) was Karl Urban as McCoy. Bones was always my favorite and he was so thoroughly brought back to life by Urban that I actually saw the movie three times for him alone.

Anyway, I agree that we need a Star Trek movie that focuses on story first. I also agree that it will never happen. Not because of overseas sales, but because Hollywood doesn't believe Americans like to think. Unfortunately, the box office tends to reinforce that.
Septemous
17. SoSFSam
Amen and Amen Ryan.
rob mcCathy
18. roblewmac
I'm getting the idea that I'M in the minorty in liking this film a good deal better than ANYthing after Wraith of Kahn.
I do agree they need to Explore more. Maybe even meet races that only exist in timeline (it must happen right?)
I also agree that they don't need a villian. Athough I see why it is done. It gives the viewer an ending rather than a reason to "tune in next week."
But you can't win. Defending a movie you like that has been branded "Not thoughtful" You're already on the wrong side. God help us you like being "enterained" when you go to movies. tisk tisk.
I see why you might not like it I also hear "thoughtful like TNG" and think "great so playing Sherlock Holmes on the HOLDECK."
James Hogan
19. Sonofthunder
Agree with you toryx about Karl Urban. Actually, I really liked all the characters in the movie, as well as all the little references to TOS. But yeah, the story was somewhat stupid and the villain was ill-conceived. Still enjoyed the movie(and bought the DVD!) I would love for ST to go back to its original mission, but well, that didn't work out too well for ST I, did it?

Random aside, that screencap you used is a rather odd choice, Ryan. Just saying!! ST IV always has been my favorite of the movies, and I think it is because, once again, the crew of the Enterprise is put in an alien environment. When I think of Star Trek, I think of Kirk, Spock and McCoy beaming down to a strange planet with weird things going on. Saving the world/galaxy/universe? Maybe once in a while...but it can't be an every-movie event.

So all these words just to say that I solidly agree with you, Ryan. I'm not even asking for a hard science fiction story(we all know how solid the science in TOS was!!), but just an insightful story. One that gives the characters a little more to do than just run around and shoot their phasers...
Ryan Britt
20. ryancbritt
@Lundon-
Wow! I think you may be on to something with this notion of conservative versus liberal characters in SFF movies and TV. I felt totally similar about the new Star Trek movie. However, I think BSG balanced this well in a non-pandering to either side sort of way. Still. Good stuff to think about.

@roblewmac I like Sherlock Holmes on the Holodeck. And I am shameless about that. Sure, it's silly. But, prior to that I had never seen a story about a robot pretending to be a famous detective in a holographic setting. So, I suppose, I find that a little more interesting and creative than planets blowing up. :-)
Ryan Britt
21. ryancbritt
@Sonofthunder- I choose that screencap because I think The Voyage Home is a great example of a entertaining and wonderful science ficiton movie that does not have a villain. And I like that particular scene. :-) "I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space."
rob mcCathy
22. roblewmac
ha! fair enough. See I just hate Holodeck stories! and I think it's pretty damn thoughtfull that Spock MET HIMSELF! That would make me THINK!
Ryan Britt
23. ryancbritt
@roblewmac I have to say I did like Spock's take on the whole "meeting yourself" situation. I like how he didn't make a big deal out of it and tricked Kirk into thinking it was a big deal. That was awesome.

See, I liked a lot of things about Trek09! As I said in the piece, it is a better movie than Nemesis (and almost all the TNG movies) in nearly every single way. :-)
Septemous
24. TCharlesB
Well done Dude!
Septemous
25. crzydroid
"All of these writers had good ideas, and weren’t necessarily looking to make a crowd pleaser; they were looking to tell a story."

This is the failing of most movies today, not just the Star Trek film. Most of what you see is either a reboot or a rip-off. Good films like Christopher Nolan's Batman series seek to tell a compelling story about Batman, not make money off of a Batman franchise. With the first Star Wars, George Lucas was seeking to tell his story and fully expected the movie to not make ANY money.

I kind of wish film were seen as a medium for writers/artists to express themselves, and that people would want to make a movie because they want to tell a story. Unfortunately, it's an industry, and so people make movies to make movies and to make money. It's not even just a fair amount of money, but to really maximize profit. I could get on a soap-box about housing inflation in California and a bunch of other things, but I don't feel like it here. In any case, I think there's an over-saturation of movies that contributes to it. How many movies are there coming out at anyone time? Why do we need theatres with 20+ screens?
Septemous
26. Sassy
I found the movie to be a drag. I found the plot tired, old and predictable.
The characters were 1-dimensional and a slap in the face to our much beloved characters from the classic series.
My question to Abrams is this. What the heck did Real Star Trek fans ever do to you and if we apologize will you stop turning Star Trek into a parody of it's former self? When most Real Trekkies think of Homer, we think of the Iliad and the Odyssey.
But when these wanna-be Trekkies think of Homer, they ONLY think of Homer Simpson. Nothing wrong with the cartoon guy but it does show a lack of any intellectual depth.
I found the ending preposteroius. Old Spock just showing up at the end and just handing Kirk all of the answers? Did no one else find that to smack of the gods of Mt Olympus descending down to save the day after the unimaginative writer or story teller has boxed his characters into a corner with no way out?
I for one will neither waste time nor money on that dreadful 2013 movie. and most certainly not with any tv series based on this laughable parody. And hopefully, no one else will either.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment