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

[Mr. Adventure]

I have a feeling this next Star Wars film is not going to be too great. It seems they want this thing on the shelf whether it's fully-cooked or not.

Maybe it's because I'm not a huge fan of Abrams Trek but it does seem like what he did with Trek would translate better to a Star Wars picture. I suppose if you asked a 100 people you'd get a 100 different answers but I didn't really see the unique qualities of Trek coming through in the last picture.

[Nerys Myk]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

If they only had been portrayed like those characters... I don't see any resemblance in any of the characters, and I'm not talking looks.

Hmmm.

Kirk-Brash, cocky and determined.

Spock-Cool and emotionally distant, except when he isn't.

McCoy-Cranky, cantankerous, acerbic and emotional

Scotty-Technophile with an odd sense of humor.

Chekov-Young and enthusiastic, but a little wet behind the ears.

Uhura and Sulu are pretty much blank slates. Anything would be an improvement over their TOS characterizations or lack there of.

Perhaps they showed a different version of TOS in Le' Europe?

Yminale wrote:

---

Basically what we got were carricatures of TOS characters. It wasn't Kirk, Spock and McCoy. It was stupid man-whore, pissed off Vulcan and irrate drunk.

And a different version of ST09 where ever Yminale lives.

[davejames]

Well to be fair, even the original actors were doing caricatures of their TOS characters in the movies. Scotty was never as wacky in the series as Doohan made him later on, and Kirk usually felt much more like Shatner in the movies than he did the original Kirk.

What this new cast is doing doesn't seem any more exagerrated to me.

[The Stig]

davejames wrote:

---

That was just a storytelling conceit to allow them to write new stories for this crew. For all intents and purposes, these are still supposed to be the same characters as in TOS. And I have no problem accepting them as such.

Besides, no matter how they got to that point, the idea of starting fresh with the TOS crew is a really exciting one, I think. And much better than simply dragging out the existing continuity for even longer.

The 'continuity' was always the worst thing about Trek. Once the franchise stopped being about people and became this hide-bound keeper of Trek history, it was finished.

What worked so well in Trek '09 was the reverence for the characters. It was literally a love-letter to Trek '66 and it played out with such care and affection that I can scarcely believe it when I see people complain that they cannot recognize the characters.

[Aragorn]

The Stig wrote:

---

What worked so well in Trek '09 was the reverence for the characters. It was literally a love-letter to Trek '66 and it played out with such care and affection that I can scarcely believe it when I see people complain that they cannot recognize the characters.

There are also people here who think the 2009 Enterprise looks 100% different and unrecognizable than what the "real" Enterprise is supposed to look like.

[The Wormhole]

I agree the Trek XI just presented carricatures of the TOS cast, but especially Scotty and Chekov. Scotty was not a comedic character in TOS, he was a serious character who happened to also be funny. Trek XI overdid the whole V/W reversal with Chekov. Every line of dialogue included a V or a W just so he could pronounce it the opposite way. The V/W reversal wasn't focused on in TOS at all, with the exception of Trek IV. And that's why the Nuclear Wessel line stands out so.

[DalekJim]

Pegg is terrible but the character has gone through severe character degradation since TOS anyway. The movies made him increasingly incompetent (Remember Star Trek V?) and in the TNG episode Relics he's just a weird goofy slob.

[Alidar Jarok]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Never really understood that argument myself. Having a fan who cares about things like continuity is always going to be preferable to me than some random media tool who is doing it for the cash being the writer.

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

I think Doctor Who is a good example. It's not being a fan per se that's a problem, but it's an unwillingness to shake things up that is. RTD killed off all Time Lords and made the show center around modern day Earth. That upset a lot of people. But he also liked the original show and used it as inspiration. Moffat, likewise, hasn't undone those aspects of RTD's time. Nor has he returned to the half-hour serial model. In fact, Moffat is an even bigger fan of an ongoing story arc rather than self-contained stories. Finally, neither one has seemed to care about continuity unless it is useful. So, while the show having a fan in charge hasn't been harmful, it hasn't seen the supposed advantages of having a fan in charge either.

Anyway, I think Abrams takes two elements from the original series and uses them well. One is a sense of adventure, which, admittedly, is in Star Wars as well. However, the other is an established organization and crew. While he breaks the rules to put Kirk quickly in charge, I think he does that well also (and it isn't something that fits Star Wars). The rest was as much fan wishful thinking as true (while there are plenty of good episodes that stand for more, there's also Omega Glory, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, etc.).

[Turtletrekker]

Abrams Trek had some slight themes of friendship and destiny, but largely the story was very thin and Abrams and crew have admitted as much.

Santa Kang wrote:

---

The films since TWOK have always been action oriented.

The Voyage Home?

[Turtletrekker]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

(while there are plenty of good episodes that stand for more, there's also Omega Glory, Let that Be Your Last Battlefield, etc.).

I'm reminded of what Fry from Futurama said about Star Trek--"79 episodes, about 30 good ones".

[davejames]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Pegg is terrible but the character has gone through severe character degradation since TOS anyway. The movies made him increasingly incompetent (Remember Star Trek V?) and in the TNG episode Relics he's just a weird goofy slob.

Yeah, Pegg was the only casting that I'm still not crazy about with the new movie. The other actors did a pretty good job blending in with their characters, but Simon Pegg just stood out like a sore thumb, and didn't really feel much at all like Scotty.

[Nerys Myk]

Turtletrekker wrote:

---

Abrams Trek had some slight themes of friendship and destiny, but largely the story was very thin and Abrams and crew have admitted as much.

The Voyage Home?

An exception, but not without action elements. Whale Probe attacking Earth. Chekov on the Enterprise. The BOP vs the whaler. The BOP landing in the Bay.

[BillJ]

Aragorn wrote:

---

There are also people here who think the 2009 Enterprise looks 100% different and unrecognizable than what the "real" Enterprise is supposed to look like.

I thought they were close to giving us a really nice looking ship, just some issues with how its proportioned and the nacelles needed a little more space between them.

[Alidar Jarok]

The Voyage Home was character-driven rather than action driven. I don't think that can be denied. However, I also think it had the thinnest themes of any with the possible exception of The Final Frontier. I don't think it can be a model either unless the audience loves all the characters (it's too soon for that). If not Trouble with Tribbles, it's still reminiscent of one of the lighter TOS episodes.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They tried to use TVH as a model for the next film and wound up with the worst Trek movie ever.