Will ‘Star Trek 2′ Look To Today For A Futuristic Story?

Posted by Rob Hunter (rob@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 17, 2009

startrekfight

A recent Hero Complex blog over at LATimes.com has revealed a somewhat minor (and fairly predictable) bit of news on the inevitable Star Trek 2. And no, it doesn’t involve a retread of The Wrath of Khan or the Borg…

JJ Abrams and Star Trek co-writer Robert Orci were asked about their plans for the sequel’s storyline, and they acknowledged that the first film’s main goal was to (re)introduce the characters but that the follow-up would have a very different mission.

[The sequel] needs to do what Roddenberry did so well, which is allegory. It needs to tell a story that has connection to what is familiar and what is relevant. It also needs to tell it in a spectacular way that hides the machinery and in a primarily entertaining and hopefully moving story. We got a lot of fan response from the first one and a considerable amount of critical response and one of the things we heard was, ‘Make sure the next one deals with modern-day issues.’ We’re trying to keep it as up-to-date and as reflective of what’s going on today as possible. So that’s one thing, to make it reflect the things that we are all dealing with today.”

I’m kind of torn on this… I realize that social and political commentary is a common thread throughout the Star Trek universe and in science fiction in general, but I worry about the potential to go too far (and too far to the left… this is Hollywood after all). Future worlds and times will have new issues and conflicts… do we need to continue rehashing the same problems over and over? Will the crew of the Enterprise discover that dilithium crystals are a non-renewable resource and that the universe is running low? Will Starfleet battle a looming healthcare crisis? Will Sulu get himself in trouble at the VMA’s by dissing a white woman in favor of an Asian goddess? I don’t actually expect any of these to show up in the sequel, but any of them would be preferable to a storyline about torture and the treatment of prisoners of war… god, can you imagine how dated and obvious that would feel?

Orci was asked if the sequel might “see Starfleet grappling with the ethics of torture or dealing with a rising terrorist threat or perhaps a painful, politicized war with the Klingons.” His response? “Well yeah, those are the kind of issues we’re talking about. Wow, you’re good! But seriously that’s the way we’re thinking, that’s an approach.”

Well shit…

What relevant topic from today do you want Star Trek to tackle? Or should they avoid commentary and just give us more action, sexy shenanigans, and Tribbles?

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

Phil Jackson

I just hope, like you mentioned, that they don't try and hit you outside your head with the moral/modern conflict.

Aleric

Yeah, unlike the first movie that didnt have enough holes in the story to fly the Enterprise thru. I have complete confidance that they will be as consistant as they were with the last movie.

tysonatthemovies

This is not the 1960s. More action and war with Klingons and less political stuff.

RobertFure

ugh. Sounds like shit. "Hey everyone loved how light hearted and fun our first movie was so in sticking with that lets talk about race, torture and how real life sucks dicks all the time."

No thanks. More explosions. More hot girls. More kicking of ass. Torture has been done to death (zing!) already. Let's not put 24 in space, ok? What other modern topic can they deal with? We're talking about a UNITED EARTH, not a United States. We're also focusing on its Military, not its civilian population. Racism? PLEASE they fuck aliens. That is the zenith of tolerance.

Phoghat

I agree. A movie is first of all ENTERTAINMENT. "District 9" was good in spite of its preaching not because of it. It told a story and did that very well. No retreads of old "Star Trek" plots either. When the first movie with the old series characters came out it was a "Vejer" all over again.
Oh, and no more artsy fartsy lens flares. Gave me a headache.

morbiousfod

I like Star Trek, I don't mind the preachyness of the original series or even the movies, but if we are going to play politically biased games with this franchise then maybe it would be best if it were dead and well remembered. Don't take the lessons learned from District 9's success, ignore what made it that success, and turn the next Trek into a left wing or even a right wing party propaganda piece. This is escapism after all, we get enough of the battling parties in our everyday lives, leave the biased propaganda to the likes of Michael Moore.

Aleric

What most people cant seem to grasp is that both of the Roddenberry's are gone and no longer involved with the current batch of films. They will never be like the original series or even the past television series, we have to accept that.

What I would like to see though is a little more maturity in the film series and better use of the story line and characters involved. Better writers and especially those that can write true scifi would be a big plus for the series.

Will ‘Star Trek 2′ Look To Today For A Futuristic Story?

Related Topics:

Related Reading: