Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

IMO, the watering down of Trek is...

-Giving Romulans brow ridges so audiences don't confuse them with Vulcans.

-Making all alien species into monocultures that look, act and dress exactly alike.

-Making all technology uniform, so all Federation tech looks the same, as does all Klingon or Romulan or Cardassian tech as if only one manufacurer builds every spaceship or piece of equipment for an entire planet or empire.


These things were all introduced in The Next Generation.

 

The monoculture thing goes back to TOS.

 

Yeah, TOS was the worst perpetrator of the monoculture, not TNG or the other series. But I forgive TOS for it. They didn't know any better.

 

'Watering down' would imply adding more of the bad part. That can hardly be said of these movies. It's really the opposite. JJ Trek is like Everclear Trek.

 

They also had no money.

Nothing scares me more than the thought of Michael Bay taking over the Trek movies. Whatever layers are in the Trek movies now will be replaced by slo-mo artsy beauty shots and Steve Jablonsky music. I'd take Brett Ratner first.

I'm not too worried as long as (if ID is good) the same writers are on board next film. This trilogy, if it is one, seems to be about "watching Kirk grow." What happen in this film will no doubt play into the next. Why don't we see Into Darkness before we wonder about movie #3?

 

Amen.

I'll worry about the next movie after I see the new one.

Although I do admit to breathing a sigh of relief when I found out that they were actually going to make another Trek flick after movie #5. That had me worried at the time! I really didn't want Star Trek's long and glorious history to end with "Row, row, row your boat."

 

I'm not sure it was so much not knowing better, they had to realize that in the grand scheme of things monocultures were not realistic, not to mention unsavory from the point of view of stereotypes. Still, there were practical limitations that existed in story-telling and budgets. It was probably easier to make an alien race a simple metaphor for some specific human trait than try to develop a complex alien society with unique looks for every weekly 50 minute story.

 

I'm fan of the first movie and practically drooling for Into Darkness, but my answer would have to be "no".

The franchise had stumbled and faltered. It need a kick in the pants. Abrams is doing that. I'd like to see the third movie out by 2016 for the 50th anniversary (good grief...), but then get it back on TV where Trek belongs. Learn the lesson of the movies, you need action and Big Damn Heroes, but then mix back some of the thoughtfulness of TNG and some of the "dirty hands" feel of DS9 and tell some amazing stories every week.

 

If these three movies are all big successes then Paramount will want to make whatever adjustments are necessary - recasting, another reboot, whatever - to extend the movie franchise. Doing otherwise would be like Warner Bros surrendering the Harry Potter franchise one moment before they were forced to - and they wound up splitting the final chapter into two movies just to delay that.

As a movie company, Paramount has minimal interest in seeing a new Trek TV series in any event. CBS might be interested if they could make the costs come out right.

 

Well, for me, the films would be more interesting if JJ Abrams was capable of doing something new. With his two films, I have seen the Enterprise wrecked, I have seen San Francisco in the path of destruction, and I have seen a monstrous ship piloted by the baddies. Are they able to break the mold?

 

You've just seen the one film, actually, haven't you?

 

Are you trying to say that after two films, only one of which anyone has seen, that JJ's version of Star Trek has alreaqdy grown stale?

 

I've felt that way off and on for 33 years.

 

Now that you mention it, it wouldn't have been a bad thing if our time with Kirk, Spock and McCoy ended on that note. Good times... Life goes on... The adventure continues, and all that.

 

The sentiment was right, but three grown men of heroic stature in their late fifties and early sixties sitting around a campfire singing Row, Row, Row Your Boat of all songs? Does that really happen? Grown men camping together sing that song? It was hard to feel the effect trying to be conveyed while snickering at the screen.

On topic: Given the effect we have on Trek (zero), I think it's best we all borrow a line from Captain Renault in Casablanca, "I'll take what comes."

 

I prefer SNL's take on it way back when (paraphrased):

"Paramount today announced that production has begun on Star Trek VI: The Apology."

The Undiscovered Country was the dramatic sendoff the TOS cast deserved, not marshmallows and campfire songs . . . .

 

Let me summarize how "cerebral" each and every Trek movie 1 through 10 was:

- TMP: Aliens are hard to understand, maybe shooting at them isn't the best first reaction.
- Wrath of Khan: Seeking vengeance leads to nothing good. Basically Moby Dick in space, but with an aging subplot.
- Search for Spock: Man playing God, science gone amok.
- The Voyage Home: Environmentalism.
- The Final Frontier: Televangelists are bad.
- The Undiscovered Country: Racism is bad.
- Generations: Honestly, I don't even know.
- First Contact: Moby dick, again.
- Insurrection: Placating the majority at the expense of the minority is bad.
- Nemesis: Nature vs. Nurture.

None, literally none of these concepts are difficult to grasp if you're above the age of 10. Just because concept is worth understanding and building a story around doesn't make it particularly deep, or revelatory.

No, when the TOS and TNG movies were at their best were when the characters came face to face with their own mortality, and when they learned a thing or two about their place in the cosmos. This is something that ST09 had as well, while simultaneously dispensing with the pointless and transparent so-called "cerebral" elements that were never all that cerebral to begin with.

 

What he said!

(Generations: The hurt and pain of reality v. the appeal of a life of fantasy.)

 

Ah yes, that's a good point. It might have been more convincing too, if Picard had actually been convinced of it at any one point. Alas, his "I'm Picard, I don't need your fantasy" reaction kind of discredited it.