JJ Abrams on the direction of Star Trek 11

The more I see and read about this project, the less interested I get.

 

What exactly about his statement do you not like?

 

I hate to imagine how you'll react when we actually see anything of substance that allows us to make an informed decision.

 

I'll have a bowl of popcorn at the ready.

 

It's not only his statement, it's the whole thing about a recycled TOS which will not be the same as the "real" TOS. I get the impression that there will be a lot of action, banging and shooting and effects and actors who don't look or act like Kirk, Spock and the others but are supposed to be those characters. I also get the feeling that the spirit of Star Trek, the whole premise with good stories and good characters will be lost in an attempt to attract a new audience.

And no, I'm not gonna bash the movie (or admit that I was wrong) before I've watched it so number6 better save the popcorn for some other day.

 

but some of tos itself including several of the classic episodes had a lot of action plus great character moments.

from what jj is saying he is hoping to deliver both.

and notice the quote was about the movies and not the series.

though i wonder when was the last time he saw khan or undiscovered country.

 

Absolutely. I strongly suspect that you'll be able to put ST-II and ST-XI together as "bookends" of sorts... each stands on its own but watching either with knowledge of the other one ought to make for a fuller experience.

I see this as being where Kirk is where Saavik is during TWOK, essentially... except that while she got a "plum assignment," Kirk (as a result of really pissing some folks at the Academy off during his Kobayashi Maru test) gets the worst possible assignment for his evaluation cruise.

 

Hmm, weird. I don't get what you're saying. A 'federation' is a generic thing, you know. It's not a copyrighted Star Trek word. It's like the words: nation, democracy, confederation, empire, state, etc. Further, it was the "Trade Federation", not the "United Federation of Planets".

As for it not being mentioned in the original films, I don't see a problem there either. It's understood that the Star Wars universe is vast and complex, with thousands of years of history. Within it there would undoubtedly be countless empires, nations, federations, unions, and so on.

As for only using things mentioned before when doing prequels: notice how in Return of the Jedi no mention was made of Wampas or Taun Tauns, and in the Empire Strikes Back no mention was made of Uncle Owen or Biggs? But if RotJ had been made first, and then they made ANH as a prequel, people would be asking, "how come we never heard of this best friend of Luke's?? Biggs dies and they never speak of him again, that's unrealistic! Why are there suddenly man-crushing trash compactors on this previous death star when they were never mentioned in the second death star in RotJ? So, we hear Darth Vader always saying "Obi-Wan has taught you well" yet now we find out that he taught him for, like, 3 hours on a ride to Alderaan! This New Hope prequel is just senseless and doesn't fit. Don't give me this 'convenient' rationalization about Vader not knowing that Luke was actually trained by Yoda either!"

Anyway

 

I just hope JJ can hold true to putting the original Roddenberry vision back into Star Trek. If there is anytime we need Gene's optimism for a bright future, it's right now.

 

It's not inconceivable that Abrahms could pull off what Sam Raimi did with Spider-Man or Chris Nolan did with Batman Begins, but I think it's more likely you'll get something more like the recent Fantastic Four movies.

 

Spammy spam spam

[No. Links deleted. - M']

 

Interesting article on Sci-Fi Wire today about Star Trek XI writers doing a balancing act so that the movie appeals to longtime fans and attracts a new audience while rebooting the franchise.

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=54410

(sorry if already mentioned)

 

I still don't understand where people are getting these "impressions" from when we haven't even seen a single frame of the movie. Not one indication have we seen of which this movie will be like. And if when the movie appears all these wild guesses are accurate, the posters making them still can't claim much credit for making them.

As for actors not looking like Kirk, Spock, etc., we've already seen that the actors are probably as close as we are likely to get without cloning the originals. And bear in mind Abrams is a movie director, not some fan on a website, and has a much better eye for actors than we do. Have you SEEN how much Simon Pegg looks like Scotty with the correct hair style?

 

For one thing, I notice it says the Romulans are trying to wipe out 'their Vulcan cousins', and Earth won't cooperate.

Nobody should have known the Romulans were related to the Vulcans, since nobody SAW a Romulan until Kirk's era.

For them to already be telling Earth "Give us your Vulcans...they must die" would have been a pretty major ret-con. It would have also cut the heart out of the BALANCE OF TERROR episode.

 

Absolutely Right(TM). The FF movies were great. If Abrams' movie is as good (I expect it will be a great deal better) then Trek fans will be getting a lot more than they have any right to expect this late in the day.

 

I can no longer take anything you say seriously.

 

You mean as in having some?

 

Not my problem.