Abrams: ST is silly and ridiculous

[dkehler]

Of course it does -- it was in response to an earlier comment that nothing from the 1960s would work. My point is that Austin Powers clearly shows such a position to be untrue; the fact that when successful 1960s properties like Lost in Space were indeed updated but box office bombs also shows that contemporarizing does not automatically make them successful. I wasn't commenting on making Star Trek a spoof.

I'm not following you at all. You're saying that a movie that basically ridicules the James Bond/spy movie clichés somehow shows that 60s design elements work on the big screen in this day and age? Again, maybe, if what you're looking for is your audience to laugh. I don't think that's what we want for Star Trek.

 

[Basil]

Of course it does -- it was in response to an earlier comment that nothing from the 1960s would work. My point is that Austin Powers clearly shows such a position to be untrue; the fact that when successful 1960s properties like Lost in Space were indeed updated but box office bombs also shows that contemporarizing does not automatically make them successful. I wasn't commenting on making Star Trek a spoof.

I'm not following you at all. You're saying that a movie that basically ridicules the James Bond/spy movie clichés somehow shows that 60s design elements work on the big screen in this day and age? Again, maybe, if what you're looking for is your audience to laugh. I don't think that's what we want for Star Trek.

No. Since you're reading out of context, I'll break it down: Despite the earlier poster's comment about 1960s aesthetics being a barrier, Austin Powers showed the opposite; in fact, its look was integral to the film's enormous success.

While the movie was a spoof, its fashions were taken seriously, as they spawned interest in the trend that immediately followed: flared pants, mini dresses, mod styles, flower power, etc. These things were not popular prior to Austin Powers but became the rage immediately after it, not unlike 1940s leather jackets and fedoras when Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered in 1981.

The fact that Austin Powers was a comedy had nothing to do with it -- people didn't adopt the fashion in an attempt to be funny or ironic. Instead, a younger generation saw the clothes as cool and hip, part of the reason the styles still influence fashion almost a decade later, even if their elders did not.

Conversely, if updating aesthetics is so important to a film's success, then all of the reimaginings of successful 1960s properties like Bewitched, Lost in Space, The Saint, I Spy, Car 54, Where Are You?, The Avengers, etc., shouldn't have tanked.

 

[Aragorn]

Really? From one quoted sentence -- "I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore[sic]" -- you can infer breathless arrogance? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Stretching it? On the internet? No way!!!!

 

[starburst]

The difference is Austin Powers was set in parts during the 60s, where as Star Trek is supposed to be in the mid 23rd century.

Things like computers which sound like they are typewriters wont stand up today, the costumes are obviously in with some changes, as is the bowl hair and the pointed ears...why in the hell are you complaining he kept the really important parts!

 

[Qonos]

Of course it does -- it was in response to an earlier comment that nothing from the 1960s would work. My point is that Austin Powers clearly shows such a position to be untrue; the fact that when successful 1960s properties like Lost in Space were indeed updated but box office bombs also shows that contemporarizing does not automatically make them successful. I wasn't commenting on making Star Trek a spoof.

I'm not following you at all. You're saying that a movie that basically ridicules the James Bond/spy movie clichés somehow shows that 60s design elements work on the big screen in this day and age? Again, maybe, if what you're looking for is your audience to laugh. I don't think that's what we want for Star Trek.

No. Since you're reading out of context, I'll break it down: Despite the earlier poster's comment about 1960s aesthetics being a barrier, Austin Powers showed the opposite; in fact, its look was integral to the film's enormous success.

While the movie was a spoof, its fashions were taken seriously, as they spawned interest in the trend that immediately followed: flared pants, mini dresses, mod styles, flower power, etc. These things were not popular prior to Austin Powers but became the rage immediately after it, not unlike 1940s leather jackets and fedoras when Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered in 1981.

The fact that Austin Powers was a comedy had nothing to do with it -- people didn't adopt the fashion in an attempt to be funny or ironic. Instead, a younger generation saw the clothes as cool and hip, part of the reason the styles still influence fashion almost a decade later, even if their elders did not.

Conversely, if updating aesthetics is so important to a film's success, then all of the reimaginings of successful 1960s properties like Bewitched, Lost in Space, The Saint, I Spy, Car 54, Where Are You?, The Avengers, etc., shouldn't have tanked.

Actually Vintage clothing and retro were the reasons they DID Austin Powers not the other way around. Mike Myers even said that they did it for fun, Austin Powers was a comedy and it was campy and lovable, but it didn't come from a property that has become more serious than it started. Star Trek matured into serious and engaging sci fi, dumbing it down to a lower level with a retro look may not be the way to go. Especailly since the underlying message of Trek was to show a positive future with the world working together. You have to remember that movies tell a story first. If the story fits campy visuals then by all means we should have them.

The visuals aren't what hurt Lost in Space. Lost in Space was so far removed from the television property it was made from that it forgot the point behind it. Lost in space was a movie about a family dealing with being lost in space, The movie tried to add suspense elements and mutated Dr Smith into a monster. Taking what Smith was in essence a coward who was orginally a sabatour of the program and discarding his growth into an actual member of the crew in later episodes of the show.

Smith was not a bad guy in the television series, he was comic relief...

That's why Lost In Spoace failed. It took the story and like Starsky and Hutch and the Avengers changed it into something it shouldn't have been.

 

[Basil]

The difference is Austin Powers was set in parts during the 60s, where as Star Trek is supposed to be in the mid 23rd century.

Things like computers which sound like they are typewriters wont stand up today, the costumes are obviously in with some changes, as is the bowl hair and the pointed ears...why in the hell are you complaining he kept the really important parts!

Hmm. Well, I'm guessing that this is directed at me.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the flaws in assuming that audiences today outright won't accept a 1960s aesthetic or that a contemporary aesthetic automatically equates with box office success because both simply have proven to be untrue.

Since we haven't made it to the 23rd century yet, I'm not sure how having an aesthetic closer to the one we currently live in naturally is better, either. In fact, my guess is that any interpretation will be wrong because I honestly don't see that 200 years into the future we will be sitting behind consoles and looking at TV screens, nor do I expect caucasians to be in the majority since they're in the world minority now (only 10-15% of the world population). So what the future will look like is anybody's guess.

 

[Basil]

I'm not following you at all. You're saying that a movie that basically ridicules the James Bond/spy movie clichés somehow shows that 60s design elements work on the big screen in this day and age? Again, maybe, if what you're looking for is your audience to laugh. I don't think that's what we want for Star Trek.

No. Since you're reading out of context, I'll break it down: Despite the earlier poster's comment about 1960s aesthetics being a barrier, Austin Powers showed the opposite; in fact, its look was integral to the film's enormous success.

While the movie was a spoof, its fashions were taken seriously, as they spawned interest in the trend that immediately followed: flared pants, mini dresses, mod styles, flower power, etc. These things were not popular prior to Austin Powers but became the rage immediately after it, not unlike 1940s leather jackets and fedoras when Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered in 1981.

The fact that Austin Powers was a comedy had nothing to do with it -- people didn't adopt the fashion in an attempt to be funny or ironic. Instead, a younger generation saw the clothes as cool and hip, part of the reason the styles still influence fashion almost a decade later, even if their elders did not.

Conversely, if updating aesthetics is so important to a film's success, then all of the reimaginings of successful 1960s properties like Bewitched, Lost in Space, The Saint, I Spy, Car 54, Where Are You?, The Avengers, etc., shouldn't have tanked.

Actually Vintage clothing and retro were the reasons they DID Austin Powers not the other way around. Mike Myers even said that they did it for fun, Austin Powers was a comedy and it was campy and lovable, but it didn't come from a property that has become more serious than it started. Star Trek matured into serious and engaging sci fi, dumbing it down to a lower level with a retro look may not be the way to go. Especailly since the underlying message of Trek was to show a positive future with the world working together. You have to remember that movies tell a story first. If the story fits campy visuals then by all means we should have them.

The visuals aren't what hurt Lost in Space. Lost in Space was so far removed from the television property it was made from that it forgot the point behind it. Lost in space was a movie about a family dealing with being lost in space, The movie tried to add suspense elements and mutated Dr Smith into a monster. Taking what Smith was in essence a coward who was orginally a sabatour of the program and discarding his growth into an actual member of the crew in later episodes of the show.

Smith was not a bad guy in the television series, he was comic relief...

That's why Lost In Spoace failed. It took the story and like Starsky and Hutch and the Avengers changed it into something it shouldn't have been.

Again, I'm referring to design aesthetic, not story or how serious it was or wasn't. Retro clothing was not popular during that period of time -- only a handful of people were wearing vintage clothing and the masses had not yet adopted it. But it certainly became popular after, showing that styles openly rejected in the 1980s and most of the 1990s as silly, campy, and ugly were "hip" again.

And though, again, I'm talking about aesthetics, Smith was conceived as a villain originally, and he is significantly moreso in the early, black and white episodes. In fact, he was supposed to die after a few episodes, if I recall correctly.

 

[starburst]

I wasnt saying anything about aesthetics anyway, for all we know Sharpe era fashion may be back even in 300 years!

There are many other details which are more deffinatly dated than some of the 60s styling.

 

[Qonos]

The difference is Austin Powers was set in parts during the 60s, where as Star Trek is supposed to be in the mid 23rd century.

Things like computers which sound like they are typewriters wont stand up today, the costumes are obviously in with some changes, as is the bowl hair and the pointed ears...why in the hell are you complaining he kept the really important parts!

Hmm. Well, I'm guessing that this is directed at me.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the flaws in assuming that audiences today outright won't accept a 1960s aesthetic or that a contemporary aesthetic automatically equates with box office success because both simply have proven to be untrue.

Since we haven't made it to the 23rd century yet, I'm not sure how having an aesthetic closer to the one we currently live in naturally is better, either. In fact, my guess is that any interpretation will be wrong because I honestly don't see that 200 years into the future we will be sitting behind consoles and looking at TV screens, nor do I expect caucasians to be in the majority since they're in the world minority now (only 10-15% of the world population). So what the future will look like is anybody's guess.

And yet you missed the point on why certain things failed and others succeeded....

The reasons alot of things from the 60's and 70's failed is the people making them, WRITING THEM. Wrote them as comedic fluff and they were that property in name only.,. The reasons why McHale's Navy was a mild success is because it was a comedy based on a comedy. With Car 54 that failed because well the story sucked. Avengers failed be cause it was too gadget driven, Starsky and Hutch, a good show that while it had humor was not an outright comedy, and Ben Stiller and Owen wilson were also a factor in it's failure. Starsky and Hutch actually had the LOOK of it's show progenitor but it just failed story wise.

This could be the best trek ever, this could be the worst trek ever we will find out in 2009

 

[Basil]

The difference is Austin Powers was set in parts during the 60s, where as Star Trek is supposed to be in the mid 23rd century.

Things like computers which sound like they are typewriters wont stand up today, the costumes are obviously in with some changes, as is the bowl hair and the pointed ears...why in the hell are you complaining he kept the really important parts!

Hmm. Well, I'm guessing that this is directed at me.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the flaws in assuming that audiences today outright won't accept a 1960s aesthetic or that a contemporary aesthetic automatically equates with box office success because both simply have proven to be untrue.

Since we haven't made it to the 23rd century yet, I'm not sure how having an aesthetic closer to the one we currently live in naturally is better, either. In fact, my guess is that any interpretation will be wrong because I honestly don't see that 200 years into the future we will be sitting behind consoles and looking at TV screens, nor do I expect caucasians to be in the majority since they're in the world minority now (only 10-15% of the world population). So what the future will look like is anybody's guess.

And yet you missed the point on why certain things failed and others succeeded....

The reasons alot of things from the 60's and 70's failed is the people making them, WRITING THEM. Wrote them as comedic fluff and they were that property in name only.,. The reasons why McHale's Navy was a mild success is because it was a comedy based on a comedy. With Car 54 that failed because well the story sucked. Avengers failed be cause it was too gadget driven, Starsky and Hutch, a good show that while it had humor was not an outright comedy, and Ben Stiller and Owen wilson were also a factor in it's failure. Starsky and Hutch actually had the LOOK of it's show progenitor but it just failed story wise.

This could be the best trek ever, this could be the worst trek ever we will find out in 2009

I don't think I missed the point because I was never commenting on those issues -- my comments were in reaction to the notion of 1960s aesthetics being a barrier. Plot, etc, is another discussion.

There are a bizillion reasons why something may or may not work at the box office, but all of the trumpeting that a 1960s design aesthetic would automatically kill this film is as unfounded as a 2009 design aesthetic automatically making it a success.

 

[Qonos]

No. Since you're reading out of context, I'll break it down: Despite the earlier poster's comment about 1960s aesthetics being a barrier, Austin Powers showed the opposite; in fact, its look was integral to the film's enormous success.

While the movie was a spoof, its fashions were taken seriously, as they spawned interest in the trend that immediately followed: flared pants, mini dresses, mod styles, flower power, etc. These things were not popular prior to Austin Powers but became the rage immediately after it, not unlike 1940s leather jackets and fedoras when Raiders of the Lost Ark premiered in 1981.

The fact that Austin Powers was a comedy had nothing to do with it -- people didn't adopt the fashion in an attempt to be funny or ironic. Instead, a younger generation saw the clothes as cool and hip, part of the reason the styles still influence fashion almost a decade later, even if their elders did not.

Conversely, if updating aesthetics is so important to a film's success, then all of the reimaginings of successful 1960s properties like Bewitched, Lost in Space, The Saint, I Spy, Car 54, Where Are You?, The Avengers, etc., shouldn't have tanked.

Actually Vintage clothing and retro were the reasons they DID Austin Powers not the other way around. Mike Myers even said that they did it for fun, Austin Powers was a comedy and it was campy and lovable, but it didn't come from a property that has become more serious than it started. Star Trek matured into serious and engaging sci fi, dumbing it down to a lower level with a retro look may not be the way to go. Especailly since the underlying message of Trek was to show a positive future with the world working together. You have to remember that movies tell a story first. If the story fits campy visuals then by all means we should have them.

The visuals aren't what hurt Lost in Space. Lost in Space was so far removed from the television property it was made from that it forgot the point behind it. Lost in space was a movie about a family dealing with being lost in space, The movie tried to add suspense elements and mutated Dr Smith into a monster. Taking what Smith was in essence a coward who was orginally a sabatour of the program and discarding his growth into an actual member of the crew in later episodes of the show.

Smith was not a bad guy in the television series, he was comic relief...

That's why Lost In Spoace failed. It took the story and like Starsky and Hutch and the Avengers changed it into something it shouldn't have been.

Again, I'm referring to design aesthetic, not story or how serious it was or wasn't. Retro clothing was not popular during that period of time -- only a handful of people were wearing vintage clothing and the masses had not yet adopted it. But it certainly became popular after, showing that styles openly rejected in the 1980s and most of the 1990s as silly, campy, and ugly were "hip" again.

And though, again, I'm talking about aesthetics, Smith was conceived as a villain originally, and he is significantly moreso in the early, black and white episodes. In fact, he was supposed to die after a few episodes, if I recall correctly.

I beg to differ during that time the most popular store in my area was the Salvation Army. In 92 the year I graduated many, MANY of the girls were into vintage clothes, and I live in the boondocks. I don't know where you live but during that time and the years after where I live Vintage was big.

Yes, but he was a bumbling villain not as sharp and polished as the Smith we got in the movie. HE WAS NOT truly evil he was basically a dark Gilligan in the show. His schemes usually ruined but the BGotW and in the end he ended up helping the Robinsons foil the BGotW. Then his character evolved. In the movie they took one of the most important characters of the tv show and changed what he was, changed his essence and killed him off (the future him) Leaving unresovled how they were going to fix the past him who was STILL INFECTED BY THE SPACE SPIDER VENOM. The visuals had NOTHING to do with the failure of the movie as Lost in Space was just Ill conceived and badly ochrastrated... The visuals were actually the best part of the whole movie were as the story and the destruction of the characters was one of the worst parts of the movie.

 

[Qonos]

Hmm. Well, I'm guessing that this is directed at me.

I'm not complaining, but I am pointing out the flaws in assuming that audiences today outright won't accept a 1960s aesthetic or that a contemporary aesthetic automatically equates with box office success because both simply have proven to be untrue.

Since we haven't made it to the 23rd century yet, I'm not sure how having an aesthetic closer to the one we currently live in naturally is better, either. In fact, my guess is that any interpretation will be wrong because I honestly don't see that 200 years into the future we will be sitting behind consoles and looking at TV screens, nor do I expect caucasians to be in the majority since they're in the world minority now (only 10-15% of the world population). So what the future will look like is anybody's guess.

And yet you missed the point on why certain things failed and others succeeded....

The reasons alot of things from the 60's and 70's failed is the people making them, WRITING THEM. Wrote them as comedic fluff and they were that property in name only.,. The reasons why McHale's Navy was a mild success is because it was a comedy based on a comedy. With Car 54 that failed because well the story sucked. Avengers failed be cause it was too gadget driven, Starsky and Hutch, a good show that while it had humor was not an outright comedy, and Ben Stiller and Owen wilson were also a factor in it's failure. Starsky and Hutch actually had the LOOK of it's show progenitor but it just failed story wise.

This could be the best trek ever, this could be the worst trek ever we will find out in 2009

I don't think I missed the point because I was never commenting on those issues -- my comments were in reaction to the notion of 1960s aesthetics being a barrier. Plot, etc, is another discussion.

There are a bizillion reasons why something may or may not work at the box office, but all of the trumpeting that a 1960s design aesthetic would automatically kill this film is as unfounded as a 2009 design aesthetic automatically making it a success.

The 1960's Future Asthetic would be something that would take me out of this movie, because I've seen the advancement of what movies can be. Updating the TOS bridge and leaving it mostly as it was as some people want would take people out of the movie. The vibrant colors of the show which were used to show off Color TV are garish. The hokey plastigun phasers look like a kids toy compared to what we have right now. It would look like the future went backwards. What we got on TV was a TV asthetic, and the people who fail to see that really seriously need to step back and think. No a new asthetic is no guarantee that the movie will be a success. The most important thing is to get your story a decent story across to the people while emmersing them in a comfortable and "believable: atmosphere. I'm of the opinion that the 60's tv set would NOT be able to accomplish that except for a few die hards who are very in love with the TOS Set designs. What Abrams has done is redecorate Trek so that he is comfortable producing and directing it. Seeing as we have a Veteran Star Trek Designer on the movie staff, it shouldn't be a big issue.

But on the happier side, if bitching about the look of the movie is the biggest bitch we have right now, my hopes are high for this film...

 

[ancient]

I don't think I missed the point because I was never commenting on those issues -- my comments were in reaction to the notion of 1960s aesthetics being a barrier. Plot, etc, is another discussion.

There are a bizillion reasons why something may or may not work at the box office, but all of the trumpeting that a 1960s design aesthetic would automatically kill this film is as unfounded as a 2009 design aesthetic automatically making it a success.

Unfortunatly, you just cannot do a sci-fi movie in a serious fashion with something that looks like TOS anymore. It's not just a question of fashion, in this case we're talking about huge candy-colored buttons and extremely boxy 2x4 construction. It won't look advanced, which is what Trek traditionally is supposed to look like.

You could keep the 60's look, but I don't buy for a second that the audience would buy it as a serious movie about the future. It could work as a cheesy wink-at-the-audience sort of deal possibly, but that is not what Abrams wants to do. He wants a 100% serious version. The elements he has kept, such as the spock elf look are what he is concerned about, since those elements were a part of the actual character, which he is not changing.

Having a modern look doesn't automatically make the movie a success, but it is absolutely required for a serious version of the story. Frankly, to me, the female uniforms look really camp, so maybe he hasn't dropped all the campy elements, just tried to justify them a bit better.

 

[Koinek]

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

I agree with him.

No.

Yes

It doesn't and isn't.

It is today.

I don't like what he said.

That sucks man.

I disagree with what he said.

Ok.

He's wrong.

No he isn't.

What I don't understand is how someone who agrees with him can at the same time be a fan of the original.

Not all of us are.

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?

Yes it is.

No.

Cookie?

It isn't.

Sure, whatever you say.

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

I think it's a Star Trek movie not just a TOS movie.

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

Actually, I'd be more concerned with how he feels about the other 80% of the source material.

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.

Actually there is nothing wrong with recognizing the faults in something you like. Blind devotion is sort of annoying to everyone else.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

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?

I don't care what he says if the movie turns out to be good.

Now, if his version of Star Trek turns out to be silly or ridiculous, then he's just a hypocritical dick.

 

[blockaderunner]

Actually, I've shown old episodes to younger people, and they really get it. "Eye of the Beholder" and "Time Enough at Last" are the favorites, though "The Invaders" and "Masks" also made an impression. I think us geezers may not fully appreciate how what was ridiculed by our contemporaries might in fact seem more interesting to many younger people.

Yeah, the original "Twilight Zone" is remarkably well appreciated by young people. And it's in black and white, yet.

Yeah, but that's comparing apples with oranges. TZ was in black in white, but it was how it was shot in black and white that has made it timeless and transcend its era. TOS, with it's bright primary colors and horizons only 10 feet behind the actors, is painfully dated. But if you don't like the changes, I'll make it easy for you, don't watch Trek 2009, it will fail, and we won't have to worry about any Trek revival.









Ever!

 

[kissthestar]

Plus, you know, television technology today shows much more detail, so the TOS less realistic images of costume, makeup, etc are revealed. Shows made now take that super definition into account.

 

[Lord Garth]

Star Trek is schizophrenic, that's what it is. It's silly and serious, it can be valid and ridiculous. Those who see the good in Star Trek see where it can transcend limitations while others who only see the bad don't think it can possibly transcend what they think it is.

There's not much room to doubt what type of shows Battlestar Galactica and Lost In Space want(ed) to be. Star Trek is a different story and that's reflected in the movies too.

Someone can say Star Trek is ridiculous and someone else can say it isn't, and they'll both be right.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Someone can say Star Trek is ridiculous and someone else can say it isn't, and they'll both be right.

Well, I'd rather that the guy who says Star Trek is ridiculous not be the same guy who's making the next Star Trek, but who knows, it worked pretty well with Ronald D. Moore and Battlestar Galactica.

All of this is speculation, of course, until we see the movie.

 

[Lord Garth]

Personally, I doubt I'll think ST XI is as good as nBSG. It might just be a good way to kill two hours.