Lack Of 'Star Trek XI' At Comic-Con Disappoints Abrams

[TrekToday]

J.J. Abrams would have liked to have seen some Star Trek XI promotion happen at the upcoming Comic-Con.

As reported by Sci Fi Wire, not having Star Trek XI at the large convention is disappointing. "'[Paramount] said they're not going to take anything," said Abrams. "G.I Joe's not going. Transformers 2's not going. ...This was a big kind of strategic decision on [Paramount's] part, so I was disappointed."

Star Trek XI is not ready to be shown, although according to Abrams, snippets could have been prepared as was the case with Iron Man last year. "Our visual effects, unlike something like Iron Man, we have well over 1,000 visual-effects shots," Abrams explained. "It's a huge thing, so I'm very disappointed, because the characters are so good, the actors are so good, that I would have been psyched just to show some of the stuff that's about the people. Because it's not really about the visual effects. But with so little done..."

Abrams went on to discuss Star Trek XI, maintaining that Star Trek XI was a movie meant to be taken seriously. "Our Star Trek is not parody," he said. "And so the idea of maintaining character relationships, the dynamic between the characters, [was key]. I never saw how Kirk and Spock became so connected. And that's what this movie does. And it does it with the entire family of the Enterprise."

To read more, head to the article located here.

[MattJC]

Since when was Star Trek a parody?
And what as it a parody of?

[Bad Bishop]

So no Star Trek at this year's con. That's a huge disappointment.

[ancient]

I don't understand Paramount. That REALLY SUCCESSFUL promotional opprotunity we took advantage of last year? Pfft. What-ev-ar, man.

[Pioneer]

Abrams plays his cards close to the vest and now he complains when his movies aren't being properly promoted. Nothing's stopping him from releasing the same material out on the Internet. So he's "very disappointed", is he? Well, his fans are very disappointed that he chose to keep ST-XI details a big fuck*ng secret. So, how's it feel, J.J.?

[Broccoli]

MattJC wrote:

---

Since when was Star Trek a parody?
And what as it a parody of?

You are mis-reading him. He didn't say that Star Trek was a parody. He's saying that the movie he is making (ie. "our Star Trek") is not going to be a parody and that it is meant to be serious when dealing with the characters and relationships.

Pioneer wrote:

---

Abrams plays his cards close to the vest and now he complains when his movies aren't being properly promoted. Nothing's stopping him from releasing the same material out on the Internet. So he's "very disappointed", is he? Well, his fans are very disappointed that he chose to keep ST-XI details a big fuck*ng secret. So, how's it feel, J.J.?

See, there is a difference from just going "Here, Internet...have fun" and having a venue for it. Judging from his comments, I would almost gather that he was banking on Comic Con to be the first major release of information (hence why the secrecy around the movie). But that is just a guess.

Personally, I'm surprised that there, seemingly, isn't anything going on at the Vegas Trek convention (besides an appearance by Quinto).

[number6]

Broccoli wrote:

---

You are mis-reading him. He didn't say that Star Trek was a parody. He's saying that the movie he is making (ie. "our Star Trek") is not going to be a parody and that it is meant to be serious when dealing with the characters and relationships.

That's what I got out of that article. Matt's living in his own private Idaho. Nothing is going to change his POV. I've given up.

See, there is a difference from just going "Here, Internet...have fun" and having a venue for it. Judging from his comments, I would almost gather that he was banking on Comic Con to be the first major release of information (hence why the secrecy around the movie). But that is just a guess.

Personally, I'm surprised that there, seemingly, isn't anything going on at the Vegas Trek convention (besides an appearance by Quinto).

I was hoping for a big splash of previews for Comic Con. That wouldbe the perfect place for some kind of announcement or some hints of info. I would also hope to see something at the Vegas con, because that is the Mack Daddy Long Legs of Trek conventions. So far, other than the roster of guests, there doesn't seem to be much info about what will be going on there...unless you want to talk about the Klingon Blood Brunch.

[Temis the Vorta]

I did find Abrams' comments a bit off-kilter. Just transporting TOS from the 60s to now would make it look like a parody but there has been plenty of Star Trek in the intervening years, including many TOS movies that dispensed with the parodic elements (bright colors, beehive hairdo's), not to mention several other Trek series that took the updating even further, for better or worse.

Either Abrams is familiar only with the three season run of TOS or he's assuming the audience is. He's probably afraid of the reactions of people who haven't seen anything of Star Trek and think of it as just some guys in velour running around fighting other guys in gorilla suits and having paper mache boulders tossed at them.

The new Star Trek movie is not ready for prime time yet. Huge numbers of old time Trek fans just are not impreseed or excited.

With all respect to Abrams and the Trek VI fans, I belive that interest in this from Paramount and large numbers of Trek are simply not in the "Its a Block Buster Best ever Trek" movie mode.

[MattJC]

Garrovick wrote:

---

The new Star Trek movie is not ready for prime time yet. Huge numbers of old time Trek fans just are not impreseed or excited.

With all respect to Abrams and the Trek VI fans, I belive that interest in this from Paramount and large numbers of Trek are simply not in the "Its a Block Buster Best ever Trek" movie mode.

Abrams is not interested in the Star Trek fans.

[number6]

MattJC wrote:

---

Abrams is not interested in the Star Trek fans.

If that were true, I don't blame him.

[Swarles Barkley]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

I did find Abrams' comments a bit off-kilter. Just transporting TOS from the 60s to now would make it look like a parody but there has been plenty of Star Trek in the intervening years, including many TOS movies that dispensed with the parodic elements (bright colors, beehive hairdo's), not to mention several other Trek series that took the updating even further, for better or worse.

Either Abrams is familiar only with the three season run of TOS or he's assuming the audience is. He's probably afraid of the reactions of people who haven't seen anything of Star Trek and think of it as just some guys in velour running around fighting other guys in gorilla suits and having paper mache boulders tossed at them.

I think his concern comes from the fact that they are going back to the pre-TOS timeframe, and whether or not that is going to necessarily entail using those "kitschy" design elements and some of the more backward social positions that the show had as a result of being a product of its time. (No female captains, for example.) It's the same sort of prequel problem that the producers and writers of Enterprise had to deal with. (I hope he deals with these issues better than ENT did!) Abrams is saying he's not going to hew closely to those things, because the movie would come off to contemporary audiences like a parody if he were to do so. I think what we're going to see is (in Abrams' eyes at least) a "respectful updating" of Classic Trek with modern sensibilities. It seems to me that's what he was trying to get across, admittedly in a somewhat clumsy fashion.

[ancient]

Yeah, Abrams's comments make perfect sense. He's remaking an olde show, but wants people, especially non-hardcores to know that he isn't going to be carrying over any of the outdated over-the-top elements.

Like constant panty-shots.

Or a 'futuristic' computer that is clearly (and noisily) analog.

Or WWII circuit boards in engineering.

Sometimes a faithful redo ends up looking like it's making fun of the original. For example, when they did the Justice League episode "Legends" a lot of people thought they were mocking Golden Age comics, even though it was just a loving recreation.

[JonathonWally]

number6 wrote:

---

If that were true, I don't blame him.

I wouldn't be interested in Star Trek fans either. Stay within the established universe with reguards to characters, but make an epic movie that you want to appeal to everyone.

Too many "Star Trek fans" are fucking loons anyway.

[Jack Bauer]

I'm not sur many are fucking but many sure are loons.