The Next Star Trek Is About AI: A Theory

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Spoilers for the new Stark Trek movies ahead, especially Into Darkness

Obviously, there's going to be another Star Trek movie in the Abram-produced run, possibly due in 2016. This movie will have to deal with the fact that Into Darkness has totally buggered the canon 6 ways from Sunday, stringing together cool action sequences and ending up with a rather awful movie with the cohesion of an anarchist union. However, I think that I've come up with a way for the new movie to actually use a lot of what Into Darkness spawned, rather than having to sweep it under the rug and pretend all of it didn't happen or face massive fridge logic. There's three key things that ID introduced that can all be tied together:

1) Instant Communication. At one point, Scotty and Kirk have a conversation while one is in a bar on Earth and the other is in orbit around the Klingon homeworld half a galaxy away. There's no lag on their call, and no apparent difficulties with Scotty using the equivalent to a cell phone. Clearly, interstellar communication is instant and easy. Savvy? Here's where it gets fun.

2) Instant Transportation. Khan has a "portable transwarp beaming device", a suitcase-sized box that can teleport him from Earth to the Klingon homeworld without needing a transporter pad at either end. Early on, it falls into the hands of the Enterprise's crew (it gets left behind when someone teleports). Once it's reverse-engineered (which shouldn't take long considering Star Fleet built a lot of it) there's nothing stopping them from having everyone teleport everywhere. Why bother with big, expensive ships when you're a push of a button away from any given destination, even on different planets?

3) A Cure for Death. McCoy injects a dead tribble with Khan's blood for... reasons, and it brings the creature back to life. He does the same thing to a dead Kirk, and gets the same results. And guess what? They've got 72 eugenics experiments just like Khan sitting around in cryotubes. They can harvest plenty of blood from them, or just use replicator technology. Now no one can ever die if part of their body survives (Kirk was baked in radiation, and if the blood can cure all that then there's no limit I can think of to it's power).

So where does that lead? Obviously, to Skynet.

The movie ends with the idea that the Enterprise is going on a 5-year mission to explore, but that doesn't make any sense in the long term. Star Fleet can now explore every bit of galaxy easily: they send out swarms of automated probes (which are a lot cheaper than building or running ships like the Enterprise) that catalog everything and instantly send the results to Earth. If it's interesting, the best people possible can deal with it. Find an unusual quasar? The best astrophysicists in the world can investigate firsthand and still be home in time for lunch. Meet a new species? The President of the Federation will be there to say hello. People are too busy enjoying their new immortality to want to spend years locked in a spaceship hoping something interesting happens, specifically something related to the field they have spent their lives studying. As long as the drone ship has a supply of portable transporters to send people back (or a transporter pad using the transwarp technology) there's no problem. No problem, that is, until the ships start to think for themselves.

Star Trek has a long history of AI, and people love movies about computers becoming aware and turning on mankind. When there's a network of drones with instant communication technology feeding information to a central computer from every corner of the galaxy, it doesn't take that much science fiction gobbledygook to have it become self-aware, at which point it will obviously try to kill everyone (as computers are wont to do).

The movie practically writes itself: The Enterprise, now a glorified maintenance crew for the drone fleet, goes out to investigate a string of accidents. A depressed Kirk discovers that the drones are killing various important people (through transporting them into dangerous places, or messing with the immortality serum), and jumps at the chance to be the hero again. He fights the system trying to prove that Star Fleet Automated Exploration System (tm) is killing people deliberately, the computer tries to take him out in retaliation, and it ends in the big explosions and phaser fights that Abrams loves. The canon can approach something resembling Star Trek once again as the immortality serum and transwarp transporting are outlawed, and everyone rejoices.

Anyways, that's my theory. Any comments, ideas or insult you want to send my way?

 

[Zontar]

So basically, turn it into Stargate.

On a serious note: I love the idea. It's better then just abandoning the new cannon altogether, and it also works for both the casual audience which made the two movies profitable, coupled with the Trek audience which made those movies possible in the first place. The only real thing I have against the idea is: only keep the one good writer from ID (of the 3, you can see who's work was actually a good idea and whose was one which begs the question of how writers find work in Hollywood) and lose Abrams. He hates Star Trek and Star Trek hates him. There are plenty of directors who would love to do it, and I'd nominate Burton. The guy did great work directing episodes, and it's both maddening and insulting he, with his awards for directing, was not chosen to direct Nemisis over a guy who's only work had been editing.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

So basically, turn it into Stargate.

On a serious note: I love the idea. It's better then just abandoning the new cannon altogether, and it also works for both the casual audience which made the two movies profitable, coupled with the Trek audience which made those movies possible in the first place. The only real thing I have against the idea is: only keep the one good writer from ID (of the 3, you can see who's work was actually a good idea and whose was one which begs the question of how writers find work in Hollywood) and lose Abrams. He hates Star Trek and Star Trek hates him. There are plenty of directors who would love to do it, and I'd nominate Burton. The guy did great work directing episodes, and it's both maddening and insulting he, with his awards for directing, was not chosen to direct Nemisis over a guy who's only work had been editing.

I'd prefer that Abrams wasn't involved either, but he seems to be confirmed as a producer. Roberto Orci is going to direct, and I'm not too thrilled about that, but at least this kind of generic conspiracy-theory stuff is up his alley. I don't know if this would be a good movie, but I think it's the bones of a coherent one.

 

[MidnightSt]

the computer tries to take him out in retaliation, and it ends in the big explosions and phaser fights that Abrams loves.

right there is your problem. having this as the climax means too little screen time for lasers and explosions, most of your suggested story seems to be much more suitable to a standard ST:TNG investigative/conversational format, and there's only so much lens flare can do to keep audience's attention during conversations, certainly not enough for this kind of story.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What I don't get is why Abrams is praised of bringing Trek back to the everyman while making the most convoluted, confusing mess of a film than any other of the ST movies or episodes. At least the technobabble had some kind of logic, Into Darkness was just all flashy "wtf" making no sense to my brain whatsoever. I fail to see where it was accessible.

To me, the series just needs to get back on solid ground, because the old predictable Trek was way WAY better than Abrams version. Obviously the best option would be Nicholas Meyer back but Roberto Orci would be a safe choice and hell, I'd be happy with Frakes back in the driving seat. Just please, no more Abrams.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

the computer tries to take him out in retaliation, and it ends in the big explosions and phaser fights that Abrams loves.

right there is your problem. having this as the climax means too little screen time for lasers and explosions, most of your suggested story seems to be much more suitable to a standard ST:TNG investigative/conversational format, and there's only so much lens flare can do to keep audience's attention during conversations, certainly not enough for this kind of story.

I'm not a screenwriter so I'm not sure about the pacing, but they could have the computer start moving against the protagonists at the beginning of the second act; maybe it makes some doctored footage of Kirk burning down an orphanage for blind puppies, and the Enterprise spends the rest of the movie on the run from Federation agents. Into Darkness is ostensibly about tracking and capturing a lone terrorist, and they managed to put plenty of action sequences into that. Plus, I think that the audience can be trusted to follow a rather simple "evil computer wants to take over the world because evil" plotline. People love the Bourne movies, and those have really intricate conspiracy plots studded with big action scenes.

 

[YuberNeclord]

... a guy who's only work had been editing.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I'm sorry if it's just me reading it that way, but it sounds to me like you are degrading the role of an editor.

As a film editor who has also been a writer, director, cinematographer and a bunch of other film roles I don't care to name, let me say this;

Editing is the most difficult, complicated role of the bunch.

Why? Well if you are a director theoretically you can get by knowing nothing but how to work with actors, if you are a cinematographer you can theoretically get by knowing nothing but cinematography, if your a writer all you need to know how to do is write a script.

But an editor needs to know all of those things. An editor needs to be able to spot the difference between a good performance and a bad performance. An editor need to know cinematography so they know what is the best shot for any given moment. An editor needs to know about story structure, pacing and character in order to create a compelling edit.

And not only do they need to know all of that shit, but they also need to know all of the stuff that is part of an editors role. Which is a long list of stuff to remember all on its own.

 

[faefrost]

The movie practically writes itself: The Enterprise, now a glorified maintenance crew for the drone fleet, goes out to investigate a string of accidents. A depressed Kirk discovers that the drones are killing various important people (through transporting them into dangerous places, or messing with the immortality serum), and jumps at the chance to be the hero again. He fights the system trying to prove that Star Fleet Automated Exploration System (tm) is killing people deliberately, the computer tries to take him out in retaliation, and it ends in the big explosions and phaser fights that Abrams loves. The canon can approach something resembling Star Trek once again as the immortality serum and transwarp transporting are outlawed, and everyone rejoices.

Anyways, that's my theory. Any comments, ideas or insult you want to send my way?

I see a flaw in your theory.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0649460/

Note this is the Dirctor. He has never directed a single film before, but he's written quite a few. He seems to stick to familiar themes. So if the crew will be facing evil AI's it will quickly become the Borg and Locutus of Borg vs the Borg Queen. The Borgification will turn the ships and tech into Transformers. Federbots vs Decepitiborgs. Giant Humanoid Federation Starships punching animal Shaped Romulan Warbirds. Watch the Starship Enterprise kick a Klingon in the wrecking balls. Finally faced with no options Kirkorg orders the ship to warp into the past, where the no tech cowboys, Indiana Jones and James Bond can defeat the alien robots.

 

[Zontar]

... a guy who's only work had been editing.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I'm sorry if it's just me reading it that way, but it sounds to me like you are degrading the role of an editor.

As a film editor who has also been a writer, director, cinematographer and a bunch of other film roles I don't care to name, let me say this;

Editing is the most difficult, complicated role of the bunch.

Why? Well if you are a director theoretically you can get by knowing nothing but how to work with actors, if you are a cinematographer you can theoretically get by knowing nothing but cinematography, if your a writer all you need to know how to do is write a script.

But an editor needs to know all of those things. An editor needs to be able to spot the difference between a good performance and a bad performance. An editor need to know cinematography so they know what is the best shot for any given moment. An editor needs to know about story structure, pacing and character in order to create a compelling edit.

And not only do they need to know all of that shit, but they also need to know all of the stuff that is part of an editors role. Which is a long list of stuff to remember all on its own.

My point was they got someone who had never directed a movie or a show before to take the final movie due to their reputation as an editor. This was while ignoring a cast member who had stated they would have liked to have been given the role, who was at that point already an award wining director and all of this was done as a part of a franchise which had allowed cast members tend to be given a movie to direct if they had gone down that career line after the show had ended. (hell, the most financially successful movie at that point had been directed by a cast-member-turned-director)

I'm not saying anything against editors, but just like Kubrick showed us the best director of all time could have trouble making a screenplay, or that Lucas showed us why it's not a good idea to have the writer, producer and director be the same person, Stuart Baird showed us being good at editing doesn't mean you should be given a $60 million science fiction movie as your first directing role. I'll cut the guy some slack on account of it was his first time in the director's chair, but I do believe he shouldn't have been in it for that movie (hell, the guy couldn't even remember Burton's name right and stated he didn't know that much about Trek, not exactly first choice material)

 

[YuberNeclord]

My point was they got someone who had never directed a movie or a show before to take the final movie due to their reputation as an editor. This was while ignoring a cast member who had stated they would have liked to have been given the role, who was at that point already an award wining director and all of this was done as a part of a franchise which had allowed cast members tend to be given a movie to direct if they had gone down that career line after the show had ended. (hell, the most financially successful movie at that point had been directed by a cast-member-turned-director)

I'm not saying anything against editors, but just like Kubrick showed us the best director of all time could have trouble making a screenplay, or that Lucas showed us why it's not a good idea to have the writer, producer and director be the same person, Stuart Baird showed us being good at editing doesn't mean you should be given a $60 million science fiction movie as your first directing role. I'll cut the guy some slack on account of it was his first time in the director's chair, but I do believe he shouldn't have been in it for that movie (hell, the guy couldn't even remember Burton's name right and stated he didn't know that much about Trek, not exactly first choice material)

Ok, fair enough. Yeah sorry I just get a bit worked up about editing sometimes, because I do run across people who either seem to think editing is easy because "all of the hard work has been done" or they are unaware of how complicated the editing process actually is.

 

[Zontar]

Ok, fair enough. Yeah sorry I just get a bit worked up about editing sometimes, because I do run across people who either seem to think editing is easy because "all of the hard work has been done" or they are unaware of how complicated the editing process actually is.

I can understand that. The role of an editor is hard (as are all the other critical roles in a movie), but it's not one that requires the same skills as a director does. Sure you can beet a good director and editor, but the skills don't translate as well from one to another like being a producer, which despite being pretty different from both is an easier job to do with no previous experience. That's not to put down producers either, it's just that that role that writers and editors tend to get into more easily then directing.

 

[YuberNeclord]

...but it's not one that requires the same skills as a director does.

Eh, yes and no. Like I said before, you have to at least have an understanding of performance to be an editor. But you're right, even if you have that, it's doesn't mean that you can direct. Because directing actors involves a hell of a lot more than just spotting a bad performance. Even just a basic example, you have to be able to work with people to be a Director, whereas an editor you can get by working (mostly)alone. In fact that's why a lot of people fall into editing, they are quite introverted and they would rather work (mostly)alone.

Sure you can beet a good director and editor, but the skills don't translate as well from one to another like being a producer, which despite being pretty different from both is an easier job to do with no previous experience. That's not to put down producers either, it's just that that role that writers and editors tend to get into more easily then directing.

Yeah, I will say one thing, of all of the film roles I've done I find directing the hardest. And It all comes down to the fact that you are working with people, and people are far more complicated than cameras or editing suites will ever be.