View Single Post
Old April 6 2013, 06:31 PM   #128
Danger Ace
Danger Ace's Avatar
Location: California
Re: Has star trek changed

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
If you don't think that he was the right choice, then who exactly should have been that choice? Something bold was needed, and Abrams was the person to make that choice.
JJ Abram's may end up being the best illustration of my answer on this - though we will need to see how the old Star Wars episode VII turns out, why? Because of his statements to the effect that "Star Trek" was just a job while "Star Wars" is a dream come true.

Whether the next person charged with extending the Trek franchise is a name with fanboy cache or not is immaterial. What is in important is how much they believe in the property. First and foremost, they have to believe in it.

Whoever is given charge of "Star Trek" must embrace and uphold the integrity of its internal reality. In retrospect, I believe, we can discern the good, bad and indifferent Trek films by that standard.

For example, Robert Wise (a legendary talent) did not have a real feel for the material. The Motion Picture suffered because, despite his ability, he tried to overcome his unfamiliarity and disconnect by forcing it to transform into something it wasn't in order to make it more comfortable.

Now, JJ Abrams is another talented director. I mean there is no doubt that he knows his stuff on a technical level. There is no doubt he loves directing. On top of that love of duty and craft he is downright great at both. But, to me, he doesn't really come across as believing in the world of Star Trek required to give the wooden boy a soul.

Don't get me wrong, the last "Star Trek" film was a fun, slick romp. A technical triumph. Abrams knows how to manipulate his audience like few others, but in a generic, almost cynical way. It is not a secret that there are recipes out there for how to make an entertaining film. There is a rhythm to it and if you are in-tune with mordern audiences you can crankout some chart-toppers one, two, three. They maybe be bubble-gum and hollow but they'll make you money.

My favorite Star Trek films (II, III, IV, VI) had an organic quality to them that resulted from an emphasis on character and chemistry (though with a side-order of action). These films were nurtured and grown rather than the results of artificial insemination. The problem with I, V, VII, IX, and X, as I see it, was simply that TPTB felt they could take short-cuts and fake the sincerity.

Look at Star Trek: Nemesis - that one failed simply because everything about it smacked of a test-tube created regurgidation of "The Wrath of Kahn." I mean after 7 seasons of production those in-charge could find nothing in TNG's history to play off of? Then we get Brent Spiner, Pat Stewart and the rest going to "cons" scratching their asses in confusion as to why folks, for the most part, didn't embrace their big-screen adventures.

Guess what, the one motion-picture the audiences did love from the TNG group was "First Contact," why? You guessed it ... it was culled and cultivated from their unique history and played to the characters and the relationships we loved. It was sincere. It was honest. It was real.

Anyway, all in my opinion and your mileage may very.
Danger Ace

Yes, Virginia, this post is an expression of my opinion.
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote