Related Sections: Interviews Movies News
Orci & Kurtzman: How Star Trek deals with Kirk, Spock and McCoy
Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, co-writers of J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek movie, told SCI FI Wire that they view the film as both a prequel and a sequel, that they strove not to violate canon and that they focused on the central characters at the heart of the story.
In this second part of a three-part exclusive interview, Orci told us, "It's 43 years of material, multiple television shows, 10 movies. And ... when we went back to look at all the material, we realized that no one had ever really done—at least at any of the shows or movies—the first adventure of how the starship crew came together. So when we found that, ... we realized that's going to be the way to both please fans—who've been ... stewards of this franchise for so long, because it's a story they've never seen, so it's not merely a remake."
Following is an edited Q&A with Orci and Kurtzman. Star Trek opens May 8. (You can read the first part here and the third part here.) (There may be spoilers ahead!)
What, in your mind, in broad terms, was crucial to keep in order to make it feel like Star Trek, and what did you feel you could change or alter or get rid of and not lose what was Star Trek?
Kurtzman: Tone was a big part of it. ... There were certain elements that seemed very ... universal in all Trek iterations that we felt ... needed to be represented in our version. Certainly, the bridge crew as a family was one of them.
Orci: You mean, too, their specific characters. We didn't feel that we could change their characters very much. Spock had to be Spock, Kirk had to be Kirk, Bones had to be Bones, Uhura had to be Uhura, Scotty Scotty, Chekov Chekov. ... So it was "Just how do you keep the same character in a new situation?"
Kurtzman: Also, Trek in all forms, despite dipping into darkness here and there, is ultimately a very optimistic vision of the future, and that is something that we felt we needed to preserve.
There was an inherent difficulty, of course, in the initial premise that Gene Roddenberry set out, which is if you have a utopian Earth society, you don't have opportunities for much dramatic conflict unless you're running into hostile aliens or something. Did you find the same kind of issue in approaching this kind of story, or did you just not think about that part of it?
Orci: Well, the world that we render in terms of the world that we all live in in Star Trek is, I think, in our version, a little bit closer to our world today than it is to a utopia. Now, that doesn't mean that it's not optimistic, but I don't think that it's quite as utopian as it's been imagined in some iterations. And across canon you can see that the utopia is relied upon to varying degrees, and sometimes not at all through the movies. So we wanted the world in which our movie begins—and you can see this through some of the trailers that have been selected, the idea of young Kirk driving a car on the road—imagery that you're not even sure if you're in the future for a minute. So it was very consciously trying to make the world as close to ours as possible with, you know, significant advancements toward utopia, but not utopia.
Let's talk about the three central characters and how your approach prefigures the characters people know and the arcs that they will travel to get there. The first character being Kirk, played by Chris Pine.
Orci: Well, the great thing about Kirk is that when you first meet him in the show he's already captain. And he is already extremely disciplined, and he has already kind of drunk the Kool-Aid of Starfleet. So knowing that's where you're going to end up, we realized, "Well what a great opportunity to see exactly how he gets there. And if that's where you end up, what does the drama require?" Well, it requires you to start the character ... as far away from where he ends up as possible. So that prescribed an approach to the character that allowed us to see Kirk in a way that has never been seen, but that hopefully is going to connect back to the Kirk you know.
Clearly there have to be some character elements of the Kirk we know, even in the early person.
Orci: The Kirk we know was always brilliant. The Kirk we know was always fearless. The Kirk we know has always had a slight problem with authority, unless he himself was the authority. The Kirk we know had a healthy libido. The Kirk we know had a sense of humor. So all of those things are still part of who he is.
He was also kind of a hothead.
Orci: Yes and no. Again, he's a hothead when he's not in charge, or when he is cornered.
Next is Spock. And you have the advantage in this film of having the two Spocks. You see where he's going to end up (Leonard Nimoy), and you've also got the Spock (Zachary Quinto) before he becomes the Spock we know.
Orci: True, although it's a tricky thing there. But, similarly, with Spock we pick up before you ever met him. As a kind of a half-human son of a human mother and a Vulcan father.
Kurtzman: That was really interesting to us, because it felt like that had never fully been exploited. The conflict of the character being born of two worlds and being torn between them felt like an extremely rich territory for a character who had not yet fully accepted which half he was going to be, if either. And, you know, in a movie that's about, in many ways, these people becoming the characters that we know, he should not have been in a contented state of existence yet. You know, so that struggle just felt like a perfect starting point for us. ...
And McCoy, played by Karl Urban?
Orci: McCoy in a way represents for us, or represented for us, the extremes of Kirk and Spock. If Spock is extreme logic, ... extreme science, and Kirk is extreme emotion and intuition, here you have a very colorful doctor, essentially a very humanistic scientist. So he, in a way, is literally and figuratively a representation of two extremes that often served as the glue that held the trio together. So knowing that as an end point, it becomes a question of ... "What would you believe are the sufficient first circumstances in which you would see McCoy, A, bond with Kirk and become his friend, and, B, also be able to see the side of the friendship that Spock brings to it, despite a potential bias?"
We always knew that Bones was a little dismissive of his alien friend. And yet, when the going got tough, Bones was fair, and he actually was a potential arbiter between the two of them. So knowing that's where we were coming at it from, to find this situation and be moments in which you would believably see that grow, again, once it's done you feel like you're sort of watching history happen.
By Cobalt-Blue at 7:39 AM ON 03/25/09
Are these two idiots for real? The idea of Spock being of two worlds never exploited- Did they watch the original series? Did they read any of the novels. Who turned someone this brain-dead loose on Star Trek?
Not knowing about Kirk's rebellious youth and his relationship with his father? Gods of my Ancestors! These guys are totally clueless. They are just another representation of just how vacuous Hollywood has become. ARRRGGG!
By hatersgoaway at 8:15 AM ON 03/25/09
Some people are going to complain no matter what these guys say. I, for one, have been a fan of Star Trek for many, many years, and I'm extremely enthusiastic about this movie.
By GreenwoodKevin at 8:15 AM ON 03/25/09
Actually, if I recall correctly, it was Spock and Bones who were the opposites. It was frequently KIRK who kept the two of them in line. This interview makes it sound like Kirk and Spock were at odds and Bones had to be the arbiter.
I'm starting to get concerned that JJ Abrams & Co didn't quite understand the original series...
By hatersgoaway at 8:17 AM ON 03/25/09
Some people are going to complain no matter what these guys say. I, for one, have been a fan of Star Trek for many, many years, and I'm extremely enthusiastic about this movie.
By Fizbin at 8:23 AM ON 03/25/09
I totally agree, Cobalt! I'd also like to know why Sarek now has a British accent.
By Justo at 8:37 AM ON 03/25/09
Jeeze, it's just a movie. It's you super nerd fans that ruined the franchise, they catered to you guys and made it completely out of touch with anyone that didn't have detailed schematics of warp cores and that crap. You've got decades worth of Star Trek that followed this narrow, out-dated brand of scifi, it's time for it to change. If it doesn't change then it's done. Either this movie happens or Star Trek is dead and gone. Take it or leave it. I for one am for the first time in my life actually interested in something Star Trek.
By Informed Misery at 9:09 AM ON 03/25/09
Uh, no. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga ruined the franchise. The drove Star Trek into the ground with generally bad writing and by drifiting away from the original Roddenberry vision to what they thought Trek needed, culminating in the abomination that was Enterprise. Everything I hear about the new movie reminds me very much of the attitude that went into Enterprise.
Star Trek has been dead awhile. It really should be left to rest in peace. But if it's going to rise from the ashes, this isn't the movie to do it. The attitude that has gone into this movie, as expressed by the people involved and the clips that have been shown, is the reason Trek is dead not the glimmer of hope for its survival.
By Eldon at 9:10 AM ON 03/25/09
You said it, Justo.
By dakalmog at 9:11 AM ON 03/25/09
I agree with Justo. Star Trek's inability to evolve (starting with the travesty that was "Voyager") has killed the franchise up to this point. Abrams & Co. have a unique opportunity to reboot Trek, bring in new audiences, and thrill new generations. I'm not clinging to the past - I'm excited by what the future might hold.
By Where's my Remote at 9:58 AM ON 03/25/09
I'm a long time trekkie. I actually watched the premiere of TOS back in the day. Yeah, telling my age there.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this interpretation. Even though it is a bit difficult to get my imagination around these new characters, I will give them a chance. Based on the interviews I've read I think the writers and producers have made an effort to remain true to the mythos of Star Trek.
Honestly the entire deal with Star Trek has been slap dash with the continuity, all trekkies know that. So I will give this film a chance and try to remain level headed about it all. I wish them luck.
By billhedrick at 10:54 AM ON 03/25/09
OK, show of hands: who of the commenters have seen the whole movie? Ahhh I thought so. So you are dismissing it out of hand because you don't think the clips you've seen or the interviews you have heard are satisfying. Well, sure that's possible.
But it is a fine movie tradition to not tell you the whole movie until you lay down your $10 to see it. I have a novel idea, why don't we review, condemn or praise the movie AFTER WE HAVE SEEN IT?
By richard at 11:03 AM ON 03/25/09
I have been a star trek fan my whole life.I have been to conventions, watch the shows, an the movies, I read the books, and play the video games, and I have to say I am really looking forward to this movie. Sure they may change a thing or two, and how much are they changing? well we wont know till we see it. Sure what do you expect they gotta change and update the look some. and sure a couple thins will change , I mean come on the bad guy is going back in time to wipe out Kirk.He is still going to be Kirk and become a starfleet Captain its not like they are turning into the mirror universe or bizzaro starfleet. I think that even if this is not the BIGGEST movie of the summer , it will be the BEST !
By scoob958 at 11:07 AM ON 03/25/09
I remember several times that McCoy bridged the gap between Kirk and Spock. One such instance was Star Trek 5 when Kirk was pissed about Spock not shooting Sybok and McCoy told Kirk to leave him alone because Jim couldn't shoothis own brother any more than Spock could or something along those lines. And I recall several times in the eps as well. So the writers are correct in that.
By voltaires_farm at 11:12 AM ON 03/25/09
To be fair, I can understand an avid fan’s protectiveness of their particular understanding of a story. What I fail to understand is how a mythos as simplistic and insultingly naïve as Star Trek has consistently produced such a wide-spread and devoted fan base in the first place.
By DrW at 11:23 AM ON 03/25/09
I can wait for Star Trek, I can't wait for Doctor Who! Doctor Who is more about Treking (adventuring instead of fighting) than Star Trek is. Doctor Who is better, Doctor Who is the best.
By Zaphod at 11:28 AM ON 03/25/09
I can't say I would have wanted the job of Abrams and the others because no matter which way they go, they will be flamed for it. Stray from what the rabid Trek fans want (and I include myself among this group, up to a point) and they will crucified. Make a movie that's inaccessible to the public after spending over $100 million and, well, studios will quit jumping at the chance to fund your movies.
They say they stuck to Trek canon, but that must have been an interesting trick. the "canon" contradicts itself even if you stick to the different series and the movies. The books, where everyone picks up the stories of Kirk's troubled past, conflicts with his father, etc. make it even more so. Plus, it's my understanding that by The Powers That Be (whom ever they are) the books and the animated series aren't canon.
Plus, lets face it, Roddenberry's vision of the future, while inspiring, doesn't necessarily lend itself to great storytelling. The main characters had to be unequivocal good guys. There could be no gray areas or people who walked the line. You couldn't have on going, unresolved conflicts between the main characters and everything had to have a happy ending.
I like the idea of bringing a little bit of reality into Roddenberry's Utopian vision. I liked the conflict and behind the scenes turmoil in Starfleet that was injected into DS9 and, less successfully into Enterprise. I hope that's one of the things that this crew is doing with the new movie.
Do I have concerns? Absolutely. After Nemesis (which has bumped The Final Frontier off the bottom of my least favorite Trek movies) I really wonder if new life can be breathed into the franchise. After the way Enterprise was treated, I wonder if there's really a lot of strong interest at Paramount to do what's necessary to truly revive the franchise. And I worry that the writers may not completely "get" what makes Star Trek "Star Trek."
I'm hopeful that this will be a good, exciting film and that the new actors will bring the classic characters back to life. I look forward to it and hope it's not only a success with the fans, but with the general public as well.
Until May 8, I'll just keep my fingers crossed.
By Will at 11:47 AM ON 03/25/09
I don't recall Kirk personally insult Spock like that, he tended to be inbetween Spock and Mccoy. Don't get me wrong i'm excited to see what they do with this movie, trailers look incredible.
By Will at 11:51 AM ON 03/25/09
This part got cut off.. I was saying i seem to recall Bones calling Spock a "Pointy eared green blooded..whatsit"
By scoob958 at 12:17 PM ON 03/25/09
They didn't say Kirk insulted Spock. Kirk didn't insult Spock. Yeah Bones did insult Spock but Bones did mediate some real disputes between Spock and Kirk on more than one occasion. Spock and McCoys things were more playful insults than anything.
By wordwitty at 12:32 PM ON 03/25/09
I agree with Informed Misery that Berman and Braga drove the franchise into the ground. Enterprise and Voyager lacked passion. The characters had no vices, even minor ones. They hardly seemed human, even in Enterprise, which took place years before the dispassionate advanced humans of Voyager an TNG. Kirk liked to win and chase women, Scotty liked to drink, Sulu fenced, Uhura sang and played the lyre... these were all people we could recognize. I think JJ and company are bringing back that passion that Roddenberry had for life and these characters. These characters are more interesting than anything Berman and Braga put to the screen recently. Let's just see if the plot holds up.
By MisterSpawk at 12:46 PM ON 03/25/09
Has everyone seen this old STAR TREK intro that just popped up on YouTube?:
By Fizzben at 1:21 PM ON 03/25/09
I think they've nailed it spot on. It seems some folks are going to hate these guys regardless of how they do it. I agree that the Berman/Braga duo nose dived the franchise into the ground because they got too cocky with the success of TNG and figured anything with Star Trek stamped on it would be gulped up by the fans. What is happening to Trek now is exactly what is needed, otherwise it's forever dead and gone.
By abramsloverskissmyass at 3:51 PM ON 03/25/09
I am so sick of hearing from idiots how this movie will be the best thing since sex. Guess what? It's not Star Trek. It's a flashy trashy go-go movie from a hack director using the name Star Trek to get people to go see it. It will never be Star Trek. Losers, get a clue!
By Atomicsteve at 4:48 PM ON 03/25/09
When we talk about catering to the fans, let's be real. Voyager and Enterprise did not play to fans, they insulted them. Enterprise only decided to start "catering" in season 3, when every episode had something fanish in it. Before that Enterprise did everything it could to alienate fans and disparage continuity. Despite what people think, it is possible to do excellent work, and still stay faithful to continuity. As an example, I might point out the mainstream comic work of Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman, who on characters as diverse as Batman and Swamp Thing, never insulted the fans, violated continuity (without a reasonable explanation) or delivered a sub par story.
By jbs780 at 6:20 PM ON 03/25/09
NEWS FLASH: NITS DROPPING DEAD WORLD WIDE. AUTHORITIES BLAME MASSIVE "PICKING" EPEDEMIC FOR DEATHS
PEOPLE! PEOPLE!
For Heaven's Sake! GET OVER IT! All the Nit picking about canon this and canon that! How childish is this! This IS STAR TREK. It may not be what you want STAR TREK to be, but it is STAR TREK...now. You CANNOT possible know if it is good or not. None of us can. WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET!!!
If YOU don't want to see it...well that is certainly YOUR choice. Don't go see it.
While you are not at the theatre...consider this...even if its not STAR TREK...it MAY still be a very good movie...and it could BE STAR TREK all over the place...and be a complete stinker. We'll all...those of us who go see it...start finding out May 8
The rest of you...well...have fun with your LOST IN SPACE reruns that night.
And another thing...I am really having a hard time getting my head around the idea that someone with a completly CLOSED MIND is calling open minded folks "idiots" and "losers" and tell those folks to "get a clue!"
Can someone expalin THAT line of reasoning to me...without the flames...don't need the aggrevation.
By thanatos at 6:22 PM ON 03/25/09
Ya got it wrong about who's refereeing who. Each of the 'big 3' represent a school of Greek Philosophy: Kirk is Epicurianism, McCoy is Cynicism and Spock is Stoicism. The three play off of each other in a series of checks and balances.
McCoy doesn't call Spock a "Pointy-eared Green Blooded Vulcan" out of hate, anger or even dislike. He uses that wording to get an emotional response from Spock. McCoy questions everything.
Spock won't betray his emotions because doing so could hurt those about whom he cares. Presumably this *did* happen between "The Cage" and "The Man Trap" as Spock was quite emotional in the former.
Kirk fears neither God nor Death knowing that Good is plentiful and Bad can be endured until it passes.
I find it interesting that only the interviewer, not Orci or the other one, invoked the GBotG's name.
By burymylovely at 6:49 PM ON 03/25/09
GBotG?
By Rob at 7:03 PM ON 03/25/09
Great Bird of the Galaxy, AKA Gene Roddenberry.
By Joe B. at 8:15 PM ON 03/25/09
"they strove not to violate canon..." ... I still haven't heard how they are going to explain the Enterprise being built on Earth...everyone knows these ships were built in the spacedocks orbiting Earth.
By Locke at 8:39 PM ON 03/25/09
Star Trek isn't about starships or aliens or canon or time travel, it's about family, a crazy mixed up family made up of people who ultimately don't feel at home anywhere but traveling through space on board the US Enterprise. As long as the new movie develops the characters in a way consistent with the original, it will be great. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
By Tamcamry at 10:08 PM ON 03/25/09
I'm not a rabid Trek fan and I'm looking forward to this movie. Someone earlier hit the nail on the head that each series has lost some passion. That is really true. The passion is what makes you care about the story. The effects are great and all, but look at the first movie versus the second, passion made the difference.
PS As far as books being cannon-They're not. Gene Roddenberry said when refferring to the books what happens on screen is real, what happens in the books is fiction.
By Fizzben at 9:38 AM ON 03/26/09
Can someone explain to me how they know the starships of the series were build in space and not on Earth? I mean the plaque on every starship gives its location of construction. The Enterprise clearly says San Francisco Ship Yards, that's not space thats a place on the surface of the planet. Just because all we've seen are repairs or pre-shakedown cruise scenes in space dock doesn't mean they were'nt built on the surface. It sure as hell would be an easier construction, just more difficult to get them into space, but I'm guessing they're employing some sort of anti-gravity device to accomplish that. And as for those call us idiots and clueless for accepting this movie all I can say is it takes one to know one .
By ranjur at 10:42 AM ON 03/26/09
I assumed that the ground construction of starships was due to the destruction of the Kelvin. Perhaps they felt that starship construction on the ground would be less vulnerable with some enemy threat looming out there.
By watchmen301 at 2:14 PM ON 03/26/09
When will you uber-nerds back off and realize there is NOTHING wrong with creating a new Star Trek? Why can't you take TOS as one chapter, TNG as another, and this as yet another? Why the hell does EVERY single little thing have to match perfectly? It's parents-dwelling fanatics such as yourselves who helped drive this series into the ground. You are the same people who didn't like "Enterprise" because it was dark and gritty after it found it's legs in the last season. Kudos for finding a new audience. Back of and enjoy it because it's a MOVIE meant to entertain. Live long, prosper, rock 'n roll, the truth is out there, and don't fear the future.
By Spaceman Spiff at 6:21 PM ON 03/26/09
The reason we get worked up over the fact that this movie doe not match the Trek Canon or that it has illogical inconsistencies is because it displays in my opinion bad film making. And by canon I do NOT mean that a botton is in the wrong place or a wall panel is the wrong color. I'm talking about the established continuity of Trek history.
Instead of working within the confines of the world that Roddenberry created Abrams and his writers created a plot device that allowed them to change whatever they wanted.
That is lazy writing and shows a marked disregard for the fans who made Trek what it is.
And if you believe we are all the stereotyped version of the Trekky fanboy who loves in his parents basement then you don't know trek fans any better than Abrams does. If you don't want to read our ranting about this movie? Then don't.
By JUSTATHOUGHT at 9:25 PM ON 03/26/09
Well said Spaceman Spiff!
By Whisperfoot at 10:13 PM ON 03/26/09
Every Trek movie I've seen, including Star Trek II, ended with someone standing up at the end and declaring that it sucked. Ever. Single. One. And there's only been two I didn't catch in the theaters: Star Trek TMP, because I was too young, and Star Trek Nemesis, because I had read the script a year before release and got on the suckage bandwagon.
Everything about this Trek movie looks good to me. I plan to go see it and when I stand up and some Trek nerd stands up and starts talking about how bad it sucked, I'm going to give him the infamous Whisperfoot special. Don't let that be you!
By boborci at 6:58 PM ON 03/27/09
Can't wait till the movie is out already so we can have real debates.
By jbs780 at 7:57 PM ON 03/27/09
"Can't wait till the movie is out already so we can have real debates"
I WOULD agree with you here...but the problem is...the haters will either NOT go see the movie and hence will still not know what is in it....OOOOOOOR they will not care what is in the flick. With thier minds closed and already made up, it just will not matter wheather the movie is any good or not. They will have nothing good to say regardless of what the reality is. And yes, it COULD be bad, but it could ge very good also...but them folks will NEVER admit it if it is.
Captcha FAILS 100% of the time...Sci Fi Wire...I ask again...When...WHEN will you fix this thing???!!!???
By Boborci at 9:35 PM ON 03/27/09
True, but at least I won't have my hands tied behind my back because I dont want to gve away the movie.
By RandomTrekkie at 4:06 PM ON 04/19/09
Hey, I ain't complaining. Most of what I read in these interviews is pretty dead-on (as to characters and such). If they keep to what they've said here, i'm going to be 100% happy. As far as I'm concerned, all the Trek movies stunk (except for the fourth one), so this movie should be a refreshing change.
All I have to say is: if Abrams can satisfy the Trekkies, the movie will be good. But if he can make non-fans happy with this movie, I will have great respect for him as a director. I might actually watch some of his stuff. (I've only seen MI:III, but that was a long time ago...)
Anyway...to scifiwire: Thank you for the article!!
By Pike Me at 11:02 AM ON 05/14/09
These guys are idiots if they think Spock's duality has never been dealt with.
They are hack sci-fi writers who confuse travel through a wormhole a la DS9 with a Black Hole, something most 7 yr olds are familiar with.
ANd theyre lazy hacks because "that they strove not to violate canon" is total BS. They couldnt come up with anything imaginative so they went for destroying Vulcan instead. Thank god no canon was violated there..
By Traky67 at 7:47 PM ON 05/15/09
I Have Watched Star Trek all My life.... Never Cared Much for all the Spin Off Shows! But This New Movie Bring in the Missing Blance, and spunk that my Fav. show always had just under the edge! Im looking Forward to... A nice Long run of New story lines and intrest built in to the always Loved Star Trek! I feel all Chosen as Main Chast Members will make this Great . while Putting much More Love back in to the 30 year fan bace it has keep going!
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
Traky67:
I Have Watched Star Trek all My life.... Never Cared Much for all the Spin Off Shows! But This New Movie Bring in t...More »