Abrams: ST is silly and ridiculous

[I am not Spock]

Wow. Should he really be the guy helming this picture, with an attitude like that? A self-confessed Star Wars fan who thinks Trek is silly?

We would have roasted B&B alive for making comments like that when ENT was in production. But for whatever reason, J.J gets a free pass. Weird.

I am willing to give this film the benefit of a doubt. But Abrams' arrogant comments do give me pause.

Trek is Trek. Wars is Wars. Neither needs to be like the other.

 

[DonIago]

Perhaps you could cite your source?

In any event, whether or not he _should_ be helming this picture...it's a bit late now.

 

[TeutonicNights]

I wonder what is meant by the Star Wars comment.
Big explosions, lots of action, huge battles- Star Trek has had them
Simplistic good/bad scheme, Witty one liners, Jar Jar joke and Ewok cutesieness- Star Trek doesn't need them
More "muppets" and mor impressive, bigger sets and production value overall- I hope he meant that, because I want this movie to be huge

 

[gastrof]

Perhaps you could cite your source?

In any event, whether or not he _should_ be helming this picture...it's a bit late now.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/281008_03.shtml

...The article in Empire includes an interview with J.J. Abrams. In part of the interview, he discusses the challenges of making the 1960s boldly-colored uniforms palatable to today's audiences. "For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project," said Abrams, "which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary color costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially clichéd as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?"

 

[Cyke101]

A little perspective, guys: sci-fi is inherently silly. Fantasy is silly. Escapism is silly. And that's what makes it worthwhile. Silly means you're able to think in very unorthodox ways and not be bogged down by the unoriginal. Silly means you're willing to explore things that few others would.

Heck, four years ago, I would've said optimism is silly.

Star Trek has giant amoebas, children with adult voices, spirits from wormholes, little furballs that threaten a warrior empire. The most variety we see among sentient species all involves the forehead. The greatest enemy of the Federation rides around in a giant box, and every alien race just happens to have one exaggerated human trait.

Stretch this out more: Jaws is silly. Indiana Jones is silly. The Birds is silly. Terminator is silly. The Dark Knight is silly. They're all regarded as classics, and rightfully so.

But the important thing to remember above all else is that if it's fine entertainment, then that's great. If you get a kick out of it, if you learn from it, if your mind is somehow enhanced by it, then the movie has done its job.

The instant Star Trek takes itself too seriously is the day Star Trek stops being fun.

 

[gastrof]

A little perspective, guys: sci-fi is inherently silly. Fantasy is silly. Escapism is silly. And that's what makes it worthwhile. Silly means you're able to think in very unorthodox ways and not be bogged down by the unoriginal. Silly means you're willing to explore things that few others would....

That's not at all what he was saying. He implied that OTHER scifi is doable, but that Trek was a challenge because to start out it's "silly and ridiculous".

I'm just surprised we even GOT something close to the original uniforms, with his attitude. Not surprising the bridge is changed. I'm ready to close my eyes and have to start peeking when we get our first look at the Enterprise, with his mentality.

 

[TeutonicNights]

.

 

[Kelso]

We do need someone who understands Star Trek's faults and can make a film that ordinary people won't laugh at.

 

[James Bond]

Perhaps you could cite your source?

In any event, whether or not he _should_ be helming this picture...it's a bit late now.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/281008_03.shtml

...The article in Empire includes an interview with J.J. Abrams. In part of the interview, he discusses the challenges of making the 1960s boldly-colored uniforms palatable to today's audiences. "For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project," said Abrams, "which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary color costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially clichéd as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?"

And he's absolutely correct!

 

[xortex]

I never laughed at Star Trek, well the movies, yes, groaned more like it.

 

[SonicRanger]

Re-read that quote. It is only about how TOS looks are dated and would look "silly" to modern audiences and the new viewers they're trying to lure. He doesn't say the stories were silly. Or the characters were silly. Just the looks. The '60s esthetics. Even Roddenberry realized he couldn't just put the sets and models from the show and put them on the big screen.

And "Galaxy Quest" mocked the whole Star Trek paradigm... So his challenge is to make a Trek movie that doesn't come off like, say, the awful Starsky & Hutch movie. He wants to make a "serious" Trek movie, not a parody of the original that makes people feel like they're watching Saturday Night Live.

Get over your indignation and actually read what Abrams said.

 

[CommanderTrip]

Hmm.... I would say it's not that big of a deal.

And I'm spent.

 

[PixelMagic]

Right on SonicRanger, that's exactly the point.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Wow. Should he really be the guy helming this picture, with an attitude like that? A self-confessed Star Wars fan who thinks Trek is silly?

He means this.

 

[gastrof]

Re-read that quote. It is only about how TOS looks are dated and would look "silly" to modern audiences and the new viewers they're trying to lure. He doesn't say the stories were silly. Or the characters were silly. Just the looks. The '60s esthetics. Even Roddenberry realized he couldn't just put the sets and models from the show and put them on the big screen.

And "Galaxy Quest" mocked the whole Star Trek paradigm... So his challenge is to make a Trek movie that doesn't come off like, say, the awful Starsky & Hutch movie. He wants to make a "serious" Trek movie, not a parody of the original that makes people feel like they're watching Saturday Night Live.

Get over your indignation and actually read what Abrams said.

What Abrams said has been read, and understood.

He feels that TOS looks silly. The uniforms look silly, Spock (and Vulcans?) look silly, and the whole thing is ridiculous.

No.

It doesn't and isn't.

I read what he said.

I don't like what he said.

I disagree with what he said.

He's wrong.

What I don't understand is how someone who agrees with him can at the same time be a fan of the original. I mean, isn't it "silly" and "ridiculous"? Isn't it lacking in quality and somewhere along the lines of a "B" scifi movie from the 50s?

No.

It isn't.

If someone feels that way about TOS, then maybe it's not the thing for them to be working with.

If someone feels that way about TOS, then them being a fan is...umm...very much in doubt.

You can't be a sincere fan with an affection for a piece, and at the same time feel it's stupid. That's a bit contradictory.

I'm a bit sad about how this has turned out, the deceptive "politics" used to try and keep fans on their side, and the fact that more of us don't feel this is "wrong".

Does this make me a bad guy? No.

It means I like what we had, and it's being overwritten.

As I said in another post, I just hope that even the different look of the bridge will be (in the movie) attributed to the earlier attempts by the Romulans to alter the timeline, meaning that this really IS being acknowledged as "changed". In some small way, it'll mean this is still "our" TOS, and 'the Romulans are to blame'.

 

[Sector 7]

HWGA...

 

[SonicRanger]

What Abrams said has been read...

Right.

... and understood.

Wrong.

He feels that TOS looks silly.

Right.

The uniforms look silly...

Right.

Spock (and Vulcans?) look silly...

Right.

... and the whole thing is ridiculous.

Wrong.

You can't be a sincere fan with an affection for a piece, and at the same time feel it's stupid.

Thinking the costumes were "silly" does not mean thinking the whole series was "stupid."

Was Robert Wise a TOS-hater because he changed the look?

Was Nick Meyers a TOS- and TMP-hater because he changed the look?

 

[TheRealNaveed]

Oh god. So, in order to like something, I have to like everything about it? Here's something. I'm a fan of Star Trek. I am fan of about 20% of the stories, I think the other 80% are crap. I think the sets and design are pretty crap by today's standards. Bowl-cuts and primary coloured costumes are ridiculous and silly. The stories that really shine, the times the dialog really works between the characters - those episodes that rise above TOS's inherent silliness and camp - are what make me a fan of the series.

 

[M'Sharak]

A little perspective, guys: sci-fi is inherently silly. Fantasy is silly. Escapism is silly. And that's what makes it worthwhile. Silly means you're able to think in very unorthodox ways and not be bogged down by the unoriginal. Silly means you're willing to explore things that few others would....

That's not at all what he was saying. He implied that OTHER scifi is doable, but that Trek was a challenge because to start out it's "silly and ridiculous".

Did he really?

 

[Ovation]

Oh god. So, in order to like something, I have to like everything about it? Here's something. I'm a fan of Star Trek. I am fan of about 20% of the stories, I think the other 80% are crap. I think the sets and design are pretty crap by today's standards. Bowl-cuts and primary coloured costumes are ridiculous and silly. The stories that really shine, the times the dialog really works between the characters - those episodes that rise above TOS's inherent silliness and camp - are what make me a fan of the series.

Traitor!!!!!

To the naysayers (you know who you are): Clearly some people have a better grasp of what Abrams is saying than others. And, to those who erroneously think otherwise, being critical of some aspects of Trek (or anything else, for that matter) is not equal to "hating it" or "not being a fan". I've been a fan for longer than the majority of people at this board (including a strong percentage of the naysayers) have been alive and I will not let their narrow-minded fundamentalist attitude dictate whether I am a fan--it isn't up to them. I am a fan of Beethoven (but I don't like all his sonatas). I'm a fan of the Montreal Canadiens--but I don't like all their players. I'm a fan of the musical group Genesis--but I don't like all their songs. See a pattern?