# For the Star Trek Fans: Fade In: The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 24, 2010)

Ain't It Cool News Link to the book

This one is for all of the Star Trek fans.  Michael Piller wrote a book about the writing of Star Trek: Insurrection that Paramount refused to let him publish.  It is now available online.  The link above links to the Word file from TrekCore.

Insurrection was a pretty terrible movie, and the book gives insight into how it got that way, and what the warning signs were that they were making a terrible movie.  What's really fun is that as you read it you get an insight into Star Trek: Nemisis, which is never once mentioned in the book.  However, you begin to see that elements of Insurrection that were rejected as being bad ideas ended up forming the basis of Nemisis.

The most dissapointing thing about this to me is learning that the scene where Picard learns to control time was added so late in the game.  That to me was one of the most interesting things in that movie and I've always felt that with a good rewrite Insurrection could have shown us the origin of the Q and suddenly become a much more interesting film.

Regardless, if you've got an afternoon to waste on Star Trek, give it a read.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks!

But, shoot!  I clicked on the link to get the book and got a 404.

No go.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 24, 2010)

Jim, I can't hold her.  She's breaking up...


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 24, 2010)

Blast it.  I was worried that Paramount would make sure it got pulled.

The quick version:

Pillar sat down to write a story about Picard faced with hunting down an old friend who has gone rogue to protect a Fountain of Youth planet from the Romulans and rebels from Starfleet while Data is forced to deal with younger less advanced androids.  Troi is hit on by the big bad guy, Riker gets uncomfortable, and Worf gets in a duel or two.  Picard's (now young) friend dies and the Next Gen rush the Fed Council like the end of Star Trek VI to set things right.

Paramount, Patrick Stewart, and Brent Spiner all hated it.  Spiner specifically asked to get killed off in Insurrection.  Stewart wanted an action film and hated including the Romulans.

So they rewrote it a bunch of times.  Over an over.  And basically every time they thought they had a good script they'd show it to someone else and that person would hate it.  In trying to make everyone happy they lost the movie.

What's hillarious is that it all leads into the next one.  Stewart wants to be an action hero?  We get the ridiculous scene in Nemisis with the dune buggy.  Data wants to get killed off.  Wham.  Data interacting with stupider androids?  Nemisis.  Romulan bad guys?  Nemisis.  Troi and the bad guy?  Nemisis.

If I see it pops back up on the net I'll post a new link.  It's not too brutal on Paramount, so I was hoping it'd stick around.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 24, 2010)

MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service

This claims to be the document, but click at your own risk.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 24, 2010)

From the book:



			
				Patrick Stewart said:
			
		

> In my first response I started out by referring to the first two TNG movies.  I think it is worth repeating that a large measure of the satisfaction Rick and I got out of First Contact was that we had pragmatically assessed the weaknesses of Generations and strived to address them.  With Brannon and Ron I think we did pretty well.  One aspect we sought to improve was a feeling we had that Generations in tone and style reflected the series rather than a movie.  Issues, relationships, emphases that were appropriate in a weekly series just could not take up screen time in a movie.  Often during the seven years I remarked that we were telling a story that would only be concluded when the last episode aired.  In Generations we carried over too much of our series style and the film suffered for it.
> 
> One deliberate change we made was to Picard.  We toughened him up, chipped away at his smooth surface, roughened and intensified his feelings.  Shifted him from Captain/ Diplomat/Philosopher to Captain/Rebel/Activist.  He could still be thoughtful but now it came out of the action.  He became more unpredictable and I felt filled the big screen in a more dynamic and interesting way.  These changes were reflected in other areas of the movie.  The gritty reality and humor of Lily and Dr. Cochrane, the steely, ambitious, ruthless and sexiness of the Queen.  We saw a new kind of Troi and - refreshingly - Riker.  Worf seemed changed by his time at DS9.
> 
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Sep 24, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service
> 
> This claims to be the document, but click at your own risk.


Thanks.  I took the risk and it was OK.

Thanks for the reading material.  I sent it to my Blackberry so that I can read it while out and about, too.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Sep 25, 2010)

unless they put Trek into the hands of someone who knows how to write for Trek.....it may be over.....they even let the Novels die.....and the B&N guy by my house said Trek novels always sold well.....


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 25, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Ain't It Cool News Link to the book
> 
> This one is for all of the Star Trek fans.  Michael Piller wrote a book about the writing of Star Trek: Insurrection that Paramount refused to let him publish.  It is now available online.  The link above links to the Word file from TrekCore.
> 
> ...



I'm a Star Trek fan and I'm ashamed to say I've been disappointed with all of the movies. They seem more a social/political commentary then a Sci-fi flick. The simple fact that Star Fleet is based out of that loony bin called San Francisco is a prime indicator. 

If the writers had focused on more action rather then trying to teach us about diversity and all of the other favorite liberal issues the films would have been more successful. Vulcans are a good example of this. A violent society that has given up all irrational thought in hopes of saving their race from extinction. So they remove all emotion from their lives to find peace. Then you have Klingons who put emotion in everything they do. They're the bad guys. These are great ideas but shouldn't be the only focus.

By trying to show us the evil of being human the writers forgot the number one rule in movie making....entertain rather then lecture your audience. They paid for a mindless escape from reality. 

The success of the new Star Trek film is a testament of what you can do if you think outside the box. The film had to go in a different direction to be successful. The only negative of the film is the simple fact that they couldn't find a convincing replacement for Spock. His interactions with Capt Kirk are the driving force throughout the series and was lost in the later films. They pretty much exploded what worked by making Spock and Kirk enemies and by introducing a love affair between Spock and Lt. Uhura.


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 25, 2010)

This is what I saw was wrong with the films:

*Star Trek: The Motion Picture* - They spent half the film staring in awe at the inside of this huge machine. Practically put me to sleep.

*Star Trek II: The Wraith of Khan* - Best movie entertainment-wise of the films. Not much wrong with this one. Spock gives his life to save the lives of everyone on board which people were talking about for years. It provided emotional content that was missing in all of the other films. Kirstie Alley is introduced as a young female Vulcan Star Fleet Academy student and practically steals the movie from everyone else. William Shatner playing now Admiral Kirk shows his solid leadership abilities, his intelligence, his originality, and his dogged refusal to lose in any endeavor. It's what makes him the best Starfleet captain in the fleet.

*Star Trek III: The Search For Spock* - They couldn't get Kirstie Alley to come back and probably because she saw that the script sucked and backed out. 

*Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home* - This is the first film where you only get a glimpse of the Enterprise but it doesn't seem to matter because this film was more light-hearted and entertaining. Unfortunately the crew has to go back in time to find Humpback Whales and bring them back to the future to save the Earth from another giant machine that threatens the planet. A notch below STII but still the threat could have been more original.

*Star Trek V: The Final Frontier* - This in my opinion was the worst Star Trek film of the batch. Spock's half-brother is trying to discover God and instead they find some blue being acting like a God and has amazing powers yet needs a ride aboard the Enterprise. Silly. It would have been better if Spock's brother had been a violent psychopath rather then some super smart guy....best in his class.....just looking for truth. The opportunity to show how bad a Vulcan can be was lost.

*Star Trek IV: The Undiscovered Country* - Klingons are dying and Kirks wants to help them but Spock, who has left the Enterprise is now an ambassador between Star Fleet and the Klingon Empire, wants to foster peace. Problem is extremists torpedo the peace process and set Kirk up as a murderer. Kirk saves the ship by surrendering himself into the hands of the Klingons. A renegade Klingon going around murdering innocent civilians would have been more compelling then what was presented here. 

*Star Trek Generations* - The new crew is introduced and the old is ushered out. The storyline is something one would like to put in a couple of TV episodes but not something worth basing the entire film around. Oh...and the Enterprise is destroyed which seems to happen in just about all of the later films. 

*Star Trek First Contact* - The Borg is introduced and destroyed in the same film. One of the more interesting bad guys the Borg are invulnerable in the TV show but because Picard knows their weaknesses, which he learned from the time he had been assimilated into the collective, they are able to destroy a Borg ship that's attacking Earth.  Chasing a smaller Borg ship containing the Borg Queen (and central brain behind the Borg) into the past the Borg attempts to change history. Picard treats the destruction of the Borg like that of Captain Ahab vs Moby Dick. It's too damned obvious to sell it. Also it's next to impossible to turn a prissy like Picard into a ruthless single-minded killer. The inventor of Earths Warp Drive technology is introduced and most of the stupid scenes of Enterprise crew-members fawning over this unwilling hero pretty much drive the film over a cliff. It could have been so much better.

*Star Trek Insurrection* - A study on saving the planet from human kind. Also the Prime Directive is broken at the behest of a long lost relatives of peaceful humanoids who are attempting  to spy then later steal the benefits of rings around the planet that heals and produces long life to the planets inhabitants with the help of some members of Star Fleet. Data rebels and acts as a whistle blower. Not very original.

*Star Trek Nemesis* - A genetic double using Picards' DNA and Remian DNA is using a huge powerful ship to wrech havoc on Romulus and on Star Fleet. Of course the new version of the Enterprise is destroyed because the only way they can defeat this ship is by ramming it. This is akin to Super man being hurt by throwing a gun at him yet bullets can't. Focused Phasers and Proton torpedoes can't do it but ramming it with a Starship can.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 25, 2010)

Mudwhistle,

I definitely think that Number 2 and Number 6 were the far and away best films.  Ironically, everything I've read indicates that those are the ones that Roddenberry hated the most.

I think that Star Trek works in small segments (TV episodes) because its hard to go over the top on driving home the moral of the story.  And there was always a moral in the Classic Trek, just like in the Twilight Zone.

In a movie, you either lose that moral over the course of the two hours, or you lose the best part of the movie trying to moralize and lecture the viewer.  Not good.


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 25, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Mudwhistle,
> 
> I definitely think that Number 2 and Number 6 were the far and away best films.  Ironically, everything I've read indicates that those are the ones that Roddenberry hated the most.
> 
> ...



Why moralize at all?

I don't want to hear about how we're screwing up the planet. 

There's plenty of fodder for story-lines that could have been used...but instead we got pacifist lessons and saving the planet. We needed action and chess matches between aliens and the crew of the Enterprise. There was plenty of that in the series as well.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 25, 2010)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Pillar sat down to write a story about Picard faced with hunting down an old friend who has gone rogue to protect a Fountain of Youth planet from the Romulans and rebels from Starfleet while Data is forced to deal with younger less advanced androids.  Troi is hit on by the big bad guy, Riker gets uncomfortable, and Worf gets in a duel or two.  Picard's (now young) friend dies and the Next Gen rush the Fed Council like the end of Star Trek VI to set things right.



Did they even consider a Dominion War plotline for the movie?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 26, 2010)

Kirstie Alley demanded 2 much green  to return according to the books I have read .


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 26, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Pillar sat down to write a story about Picard faced with hunting down an old friend who has gone rogue to protect a Fountain of Youth planet from the Romulans and rebels from Starfleet while Data is forced to deal with younger less advanced androids.  Troi is hit on by the big bad guy, Riker gets uncomfortable, and Worf gets in a duel or two.  Picard's (now young) friend dies and the Next Gen rush the Fed Council like the end of Star Trek VI to set things right.
> ...



No, not during the writing of it according to the book and everything else I've ever read.

That isn't that surprising as what I've read indicates TPTB hated the Dominion War.  It cost Ronald Moore his place in Star Trek.

Pillar indicates that in hindsight he should have played the Dominion War and it's effects on the Enterprise into the movie as a motivation for what happens in Insurrection, but they never decided to make a Dominion War movie with the next gen crew and that's a pity.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 26, 2010)

The answer to your question is Roddenbery and his legacy.  Gene Rodenberry had almost nothing to do with Wrath of Khan after ST:TMP and that film is all the better for it.



mudwhistle said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Mudwhistle,
> ...


----------

