Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[mos6507]

brian577 wrote:

---

Even the most superficial of Star Trek movies (Nemesis) has some philosophy to it. In the case of the above movie it's about Nature Vs. Nurture. TWOK and FC both have shades of Moby Dick and the nature of revenge albeit told from different perspectives. They manage to put those elements in the movie while telling an entertaining story for the most part. The same IMHO can not be said of Star Trek XI it's all about explosions and lens flares.

Almost every Trek film was approached, to a greater or lesser degree, as if it was going to be the capstone in the Trek franchise. As such, they tried to make sure that it hit every button (humor, pathos, action, philosophy). So there may be an A plot or theme but there is also a B theme or even a C theme.

This is certainly true of Khan. At a superficial level, the movie is an excuse to construct an over-the-top villain in which to hang action set-pieces. But at a deeper level, you have the character arc of Kirk getting older and facing mortality. It is basically a TMP do-over where Kirk starts out an Admiral and reassumes command, but this time with all the character interactions done right.

As someone entering into mid-life myself, I find the themes Kirk wrestles with in Khan to be increasingly relevant and thought-provoking. Kirk's line "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life" is the deeper theme of the movie, which then plays out to its conclusion with Spock's sacrifice. "The needs of the many..." line is nice, but I find Spock's line "I never took...the Kobayashi Maru test. What do you think of my solution?" to be the more poignant. It is contrived, yes, but so satisfying.

Khan is an excellent example of classic Hollywood filmmaking where everything is there for a reason and the questions that it raises all get answered by the end of it.

It is really an excellently written movie.

The problem with popcorn flicks is that they are basically porn. They dazzle the senses, which is fine, but there's nothing else there. JJ Trek pays lipservice to Trek's themes. Even the flashback scenes of Spock being badgered as a kid. They just don't seem sincere or at all integral to the plot. JJ is all about spectacle, not character, and he paints-by-numbers out of the superhero playbook, right down to establishing Kirk's moses-like special origin. It makes for big box-office but it is not what Trek was ever supposed to be.

[BillJ]

I think if you're a fan of something you can be too close to it to make unbiased choices.

As far as Star Trek 2009 goes... some of it works, some of it doesn't. Not my favorite Trek movie, not my least favorite.

[Jax]

J.J is right to turn Star Wars away, Trek fans are anal S.O.B but Star Wars fans their pure zealots. Also I feel the ST universe has a greater scope for story telling while the SW universe feels bloated and weighed down by the god awful expanded universe.

[Gojira]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

As I understand things, Abrams turned Star Wars down (or more accurately declined to puruse it, do we even know if he was offered or in serious consideration?) becuase he's too much of a fan that he didn't think directing a Star Wars movie would work out.

And I hate to say this (I really do. Really do) but he's right. Having a fan in power either as a writer or director is rarely a good idea, and can be worse depending on how much a fan they are. Take Superman Returns for example, directed by Superman uberfan Bryan Singer. That's not exactly the most popular Superman movie out there. Hell, it's taken seven years for the next Superman movie and that's a bloody reboot of the franchise.

The new Godzilla movie is being directed by a big fan. I really don't think being afan should automatically exclude a person.

[King Daniel]

mos6507 wrote:

---

Khan has more substance to it than JJ Trek, despite the action. If you fail to see the gradations, then you have a pretty binary way of looking at films. You don't need to have My Dinner with Andre for a movie to have some depth to it.

Really? I've got old Best of Trek books from the 80's, calling Wrath of Khan a shallow Star Wars rip-off. And look how the fans of today see it...

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I wouldn't want the same guy doing Star Wars and Star Trek anyways. Too much good talent out there to bring them both under one creative voice.

[The Wormhole]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Having fans in charge hasn't done the revived Doctor Who any harm.

Doctor Who is the exception to the rule. But even then, RTD made sure he had a non-fan as an executive producer who had veto authority, Julie Gardner. Interestingly enough, some of the more fanwanky things done during RTD's era (like seeing Gallifrey or a montage of all the Doctors) were actually Gardner's idea.

Moffat on the other hand has made Doctor Who less accessable to non-fans. Hell, he's even made it a bit too confusing for fans.

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I'm not seeing a downside.

Well, I worry Abrams and his hombres might be trying too hard to make STID like The Dark Knight and in the end will result in a subpar imitation. The Dark Knight was trying to be its own movie, not imitate anything.

Gojira wrote:

---

The new Godzilla movie is being directed by a big fan. I really don't think being afan should automatically exclude a person.

Depends on the circumstances. While having a fan in charge doesn't always result in disaster, most disasters are a result of a fan in charge.

[EnsignRicky]

From the never gonna happen department, but still good news just the same.

This guy's already raped the hell out of the other half of my childhood as it is.

[Aragorn]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Star Trek isn't about "space shots". And "exploration" is just a story springboard not a story in its self.

Some people really beat the "wagon train to the stars" line into the ground to the point where they hate Deep Space Nine because it wasn't about showing up at a random planet, telling the people there to "be more like us," and then leaving without having to deal with the consequences or ever seeing them again.

[kirk55555]

This is great. I hate Abrams and his horrible Star Trek movie, so its awesome to hear that he won't be anywhere near Star Wars. But, with my luck, that means they'll hire Michael Bay instead

[SalvorHardin]

I hope Abrams reconsiders at some point after a few years. He can direct the 9th one after he does a couple more Trek movies.
The internet would explode with awesomeness if it would happen.

[JarodRussell]

I can't wait to see Abrams suddenly bash those nerdy Star Wars geeks, praising his Star Trek to be a movie for the general cool audience.

[wissaboo]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Star Trek is a show about a group of people that travel the stars.

that's how I felt about ds9. Turned out I was wrong.

I don't understand what people are watching when they go on and on about the philosophy in star trek in relation to the movies. Are they watching the same movies I did? I saw TMP on opening night and left the theatre fighting back tears. It was cold and empty. I still don't see anything redeemable in that movie.

JJ's trek at least had the theme of people overcoming difficult circumstances to achieve what they were supposed to achieve in life.

Sure, Star Trek has some great philosophical messages. Sometimes....
On tv....
But Star Trek is at it's best on tv. There is really no reason to make it into a movie unless you are going to have a lot of big explosions and high budget special effects that can't be done in a tv budget and would be wasted on the small screen.

[JarodRussell]

wissaboo wrote:

---

that's how I felt about ds9. Turned out I was wrong.

They didn't travel the stars in DS9?

[J.T.B.]

It's also a boring, poorly written 2001 wannabe that's further away from Star Trek than Abrams film could ever be.

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

I've seen those kinds of comments fairly frequently and never understand them. Back in 1979, "Star Trek" was 78 episodes of reruns and a Saturday morning kid show. What was the "essence" that TMP was far away from or should have aspired to be? TMP was consistent with the tone and themes of several TOS episodes; in fact it was criticized as being a retread of a couple of them.

TMP ended up a mess but there are undeniable building blocks there that bespeak a movie crafted to be something thoughtful and substantial as well as entertaining. I'll take that over a movie as profit-maximizing product any day, imperfections and all.