aridas sofia wrote:
But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over.
I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.
For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek
was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.
And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek
, audience expectations did.
In particular, I meant the Universe post Kirk's birth. That most notably includes what gave rise to Trek to begin with -- TOS. It includes all of Roddenberry's Trek. And to the extent that what gave rise to the phenomenon still beats at its heart, it dumped its heart. Does "heart" mean being aimlessly "cerebral"? Or does it mean mixing action with being focused on this thing Roddenberry kept calling "the human condition"? I think the latter, framed in the perspective of of a humanist fueled by early 1960s optimism.
A lot of that stuff is as long gone as Roddenberry, which probably explains why it was dumped. But that doesn't mean that when you reinvent Star Trek for the current market you just glom off the endless action-adventure trend and ignore your "cerebral" heart. From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.