Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:

[Galen4]

New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes

HOP TO

 

[Jon1701]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

I disagree with just about every point in your post. Star Trek has been dying for years, and finally...finally they are making an attempt to try and make this thing popular again.

Just how exactly has he displayed contempt? And what's wrong with appealing to the masses? The LOTR trilogy had worldwide success and those films were shit weren't they

I'd love to hear your opinion on how it should be "done right"...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Berman and Braga had been involved in Trek for over a decade when the quality plummeted.
J.

Common enough perspective, but that don't make it correct IMO.

No; the fact that it's true makes it correct.

If it had been any other show, on a regular network, TNG would have been cancelled LONG before Piller got there...

Unsupportable nonsense. TNG was making money hand-over-fist for Paramount in its first two years (somewhat to their surprise; Harris didn't really expect any more than breaking even in the first year) and the fact that it wasn't on a network was by design - not an accident or freakish happenstance.

"TNG would have been cancelled in its first year if it had been launched in the late 1990s on ABC opposite 'Seinfeld' on Thursdays" would be just as true and just as nonsensical as the "any other show, on a regular network" assertion. Although this kind of "analysis" may make some fannish critics feel all warm and clever, it is of course irrelevant to what actually took place.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Abrams is simply the latest link in the fecal chain originally forged by Freiberger (although that was, admittedly, GR's fault) and continued by Bennett, Nimoy and Berman. Why were you expecting anything better this time around?

TGT

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

And that excuses turning the Enterprise into an interstellar hair salon.....how?

You sound like you feel you're owed something.

That's exactly how it sounds.
It reminds me of Comic Book Guy.


J.

It's this attitude of ownership and entitlement from fandom that's sullied the "franchise." All it's done is result in the bullshit rhetoric of "canon" and adhering to an aesthetic that's over 40 years old.

The original Trek is always going to be my favorite. I love the uniforms, the ship, the set designs and the stories (even the bad ones). However, what I love most is the sense of adventure and the characters. I want that back. In the course of 40 years, that sense of fun has gotten diluted by "playing it safe" to the point where Trek became the McDonald's of science-fiction television. Tasty, but not really satisfying and occasionally leaving you with indigestion.

I was thrilled with DS9 because it tried to take Trek into different areas but it still played it safe. VOY was a disappointment because the conflict it set up was dispatched by the third or fourth episode. I had high hopes for ENT because I wanted that show to forge its own unique identity rather than adhere to the "canon." I wanted Trek to remove the albatross that had been hung around its neck. An albatross that grew bigger and bigger with each passing series and movie to the point where that was all that remained--canon and pedantic fans who pray at its alter.

Now, I've enjoyed the novels and how they've navigated that canon while still being able to tell enjoyable and challenging stories. But as far as filmed Trek is concerned, it's time for change.

From what I've seen in these pictures, it seems that Abrams and company have captured the flavor of the original while not being too beholden to the outdated look of the 60s series. I love that look and I'm glad it's been replicated in fan films such as Exeter and Phase II/New Voyages. But it's time for change. And as Captain Kirk said in TUC, "People can be very frightened by change."

I want to boldly go again with Kirk, Spock and McCoy on board a ship called Enterprise. I want there to be a good story with good characters on an adventure in the Final Frontier. As long as it has those elements, the rest be damned. Screw canon! Screw uptight fandom that don't think their shit stinks!

 

[Jon1701]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Given that Gene has been dead for quite a bit TGT (and, one suspects, will remain dead), is there any circumstance upon which you could enter any new Star Trek endeavor into your own personal canon?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You sound like you feel you're owed something.

That's exactly how it sounds.
It reminds me of Comic Book Guy.


J.

It's this attitude of ownership and entitlement from fandom that's sullied the "franchise." All it's done is result in the bullshit rhetoric of "canon" and adhering to an aesthetic that's over 40 years old.

This is true, but the good news is that it's way past making any difference now. Despite the "echo effect" of Internet boards, there just aren't enough people who are so invested in that narrow vision of what Trek ought to be for them to be influential any more where the studio is concerned - and the numbers are of course dwindling further with the passage of time.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

^Let it be so Starship Polaris. Let it be so!

 

[Joker]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed.

Wrong forum.

 

[ST-One]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes

HOP TO

Abrams is simply the latest link in the fecal chain originally forged by Freiberger (although that was, admittedly, GR's fault) and continued by Bennett, Nimoy and Berman. Why were you expecting anything better this time around?

TGT

You two seriously need to get over yourselves.

 

[Data Holmes]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes

HOP TO

Abrams is simply the latest link in the fecal chain originally forged by Freiberger (although that was, admittedly, GR's fault) and continued by Bennett, Nimoy and Berman. Why were you expecting anything better this time around?

TGT

You two seriously need to get over yourselves.

TGT at least is fun about it... CRA is annoying.

 

[ST-One]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes

HOP TO

Abrams is simply the latest link in the fecal chain originally forged by Freiberger (although that was, admittedly, GR's fault) and continued by Bennett, Nimoy and Berman. Why were you expecting anything better this time around?

TGT

You two seriously need to get over yourselves.

TGT at least is fun about it... CRA is annoying.

True

 

[MarianLH]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

I'd love to hear your opinion on how it should be "done right"...

I wouldn't.

Wrong forum.

QFE


Marian

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Given that Gene has been dead for quite a bit TGT (and, one suspects, will remain dead), is there any circumstance upon which you could enter any new Star Trek endeavor into your own personal canon?

Nope. Aside from my feudal belief in creative ownership (to quote the dearly departed TrekBBS.com member Zero Hour), what today passes for MediaSF has - thanks to "The Star Wars Effect" for lack of a better term - diverged to such an extent from LitSF that there is simply nobody in early 21st century Hollywood equipped to execute a Trek pastiche I could conceivably see myself enjoy and, just as importantly, respect.

TGT

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I didn't think so. He's coming at this from the POV that's most likely to make it work. He's never been a big Trek fan - well, that's probably good.

Look how well it worked with Berman & Braga.

Berman and Braga had been involved in Trek for over a decade when the quality plummeted. J.J. has a different perspective. Will you like it? Well if you're one of those complaining that the bridge is killing your hopes and dreams, then no. Nothing he will do would make you happy.

J.

TNG was never all that great (maybe ten episodes were truly good, over a 7 year run, as opposed to 30 or so from TOS's 3 years) and Voyager was a monstrosity from the get-go. DS9, wchich had the least input from Berman and none from Braga, was pretty good and ENT, which was entirely their baby, made Voyager look good. So I have to disagree with you on the "over a decade" thing.

And, while I find this new bridge to look silly (I kinda like silly, btw), it's not my biggest worry. My biggest worry is the story, which--from the time travelling Romulan element to the track records of the guys putting it together--looks to be plenty awful.

You may say I have little to go on and that may be true. I say that I have as much on which to base my expectation that the film will be crap as you do that it will be gold. We won't really know till May and, even then, we may still disagree. I can dig it.

 

[Data Holmes]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

Given that Gene has been dead for quite a bit TGT (and, one suspects, will remain dead), is there any circumstance upon which you could enter any new Star Trek endeavor into your own personal canon?

Nope. Aside from my feudal belief in creative ownership (to quote the dearly departed TrekBBS.com member Zero Hour), what today passes for MediaSF has - thanks to "The Star Wars Effect" for lack of a better term - diverged to such an extent from LitSF that there is simply nobody in early 21st century Hollywood equipped to execute a Trek pastiche I could conceivably see myself enjoy and, just as importantly, respect.

TGT

TGT, you should write a paper on "The Star Wars Effect". I'd love to read it.

 

[ancient]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

My fears have been confirmed. J.J. Abrams and the studios have this idiot conception that ST has to be "revived" and “re-imagined” to appeal to a "wider audience" instead of understanding that it just needed to be done right.

In other words, ST is about to become lowbrow entertainment that appeals to the lowest common dominator.

One does not logically follow the other. In any case it's just entertainment. Enjoy it or watch something else.

To say nothing of the complete contempt that Abrams has displayed towards a millions plus fan base that has sustained the franchise thus far.

The reason they're making this is because old Trek ran out of steam and died.

Remember how Mission Impossible went from being a smart TV series to a brainless action movie showcasing Tom Cruise?

ST is next.

Wait, Tom Cruise is gonna be in this?!

Well, it was good while it lasted. Rest in peace old friend.

We're baaaaack.

 

[Amaris]

TNG was never all that great (maybe ten episodes were truly good, over a 7 year run,

as opposed to 30 or so from TOS's 3 years) and Voyager was a monstrosity from the get-go. DS9, wchich had the least input from Berman and none from Braga, was pretty good and ENT, which was entirely their baby, made Voyager look good. So I have to disagree with you on the "over a decade" thing.

I'm talking about when Berman stepped in and was wholly in control once Gene had passed. That would be late 1991 to 2001. You can watch over that decade as the quality slipped little by little, and then just plummeted toward the end.

And, while I find this new bridge to look silly (I kinda like silly, btw), it's not my biggest worry. My biggest worry is the story, which--from the time travelling Romulan element to the track records of the guys putting it together--looks to be plenty awful.

You may say I have little to go on and that may be true. I say that I have as much on which to base my expectation that the film will be crap as you do that it will be gold. We won't really know till May and, even then, we may still disagree. I can dig it.

However, I don't expect it to be gold. I hope it will be gold. I hope it'll be diamond platinum substrate. I want it to do well, so obscenely well that it makes Iron Man look like Plan 9 From Outer Space. But most importantly, I want a great story, I want friendship, and I want it to work, but I have no such expectation. I am excited for the movie, I want to see it, and it's making me feel like a kid again to see all of the things they're doing. I hope it all comes together. I am being very optimistic, because for me, that optimism is at the heart of Star Trek.


J.

 

[RoJoHen]

Re: New trek film: dumbed down for the masses

I'm really glad we have about 15 threads on this exact same topic sprinkled across 3 different forums.

 

[DarthPipes]

The revisionist history displayed by the writer was inexcuseable and completely undercut the story. This part in particular...

But since the box office peak of the original film series in 1986, the Trek brand has devolved into a near-irrelevant cultural joke, likely to inspire giggles and unprintable curses from even its most ardent supports. After a succession of contrived TV sin-offs (the last, UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise mustered only a feeble 2 milion viewers in its final seaosn) and medicore features based on the best of the bunch (Star Trek: The Next Genration), even people who built their entire careers around Trek could see the writing on the wall.

Excuse me but Star Trek The Next Generation was NOT a contrived spin-off. It took a little while before the show founds it legs but TNG was a major hit (its ratings in syndication beat out a lot of the popular show on regular television at the time) and was received very well by critics, with its last season being nominated by the Emmys for Best Dramatic Show. The TNG movies were a mixed bag indeed but First Contact (which was a really good film) grossed over $250 million dollars worldwide. Entertainment Weakly is the last group that should forget about the popularity of TNG...they had a cover story on the final episode of the show in 1994 for God's sake!

Deep Space Nine might have been the black sheep of the ST franchise but it was arguably its best show. It also produced Ron Moore, who went on to produce the amazing BSG.

It was after First Contact's success in 1996 that the show began it's decline. But EW's writers are douches to begin with and too lazy to write that.