Kurtzman and Orci Have Broken Star Trek
Speculation is still rife about what exactly is going to happen in Star Trek 2b, with little bits and pieces leaked out to tease us. There are two main things that seem to have been agreed upon by those of us who write rumors about each others' rumors. First, it's not going to have Khan in it. Second, it's supposed to be bringing back an antagonist from the original series.
So the LA Times interviewed Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci about the next film and got this gem: "Well, we have broken the story, which is very exciting."
Ok, I get from the context that they're using "broken" in terms of a particular idiom that basically means the exact opposite of what "broken" means in colloquial English. But it makes for a great out of context quote, which judging by cable news, is at least 3/4 of professional journalism these days anyway. What, you hated the new Star Trek? Well Kurtzman and Orci did admit that they broke it. And that they're very excited about having done so. Come on guys, you're professional writers, you of all people should appreciate the power of word choice.
What else do we learn? Nothing.
It's a brief interview, but other than a couple of interjections, this was what the interviewer went for:
"It's early days on the "Star Trek" sequel, but is there anything you can tell us about the story direction, tone or even the types of challenges you're anticipating with this next-step project?"
Not a bad question to lead with, and the two writers give some vague discussion which leads to the follow up of:
"Is your approach to this going to follow the lines of something like "The Empire Strikes Back," where it's essentially a second act and everything the heroes have built up in the first film is taken away from them and there's doubt and despair before the resolution of the third film's final-act story? Or, with that episodic heritage and optimistic spirit of that classic "Trek" archive, do you see these movies as more like self-contained adventures?"
Not a terrible question, but the answers given are again just terribly vague and so our intrepid interviewer goes in for the jugular:
"Your great advantage going in is the chemistry between this bright, young cast. It must be a treat to write for an ensemble that has already shown a lot of spark, humor and nuance."
... That's it? Two vague questions that the interviewees can just ramble through and then a "totes awesome cast, amirite?" Come on man, you've got the LA Times name at your back and get to sit down with Kurtzman and Orci and this is what we get? I'm not saying every interview has to be Nixon vs. Frost, but don't just let them coast on through. A reporter has got to have some sadism lurking underneath, has got to be willing to not be friends with the subject. If there are honest and interesting questions that seriously make you question whether this person would ever consent to another interview if asked, then those are exactly the questions you need to ask.
(source: LA Times)