I tend to agree.
Abrams: ST is silly and ridiculous
- Thread starter I am not Spock
- Start date
I tend to agree.
I don't see how one can even compare a 2 hour movie with a TV series that lasts tens of hours and several years...
Amen. I can easily recognize how silly Star Trek is (and I include not only TOS but TNG and DS9 and VOY and ENT). The acting is mostly bad (Jonathon Frakes anyone?). The direction is often terrible. The writing could be utterly ridiculous (do I have to invoke Spock's Brain?). At the same time it is full of interesting ideas carried off with conviction and commitment (mostly - Shatner had a bit of tendency to wink at the camera from time to time), which is tremendously enjoyable and inspiring in an innocent sort of way.
Now, personally I'm worried about Abrams for a variety of other reasons, but the fact that he can acknowledge the silliness of Trek and TOS' look isn't one of them. The fact that recognizes how the assumption of Trek's camp has become a cultural icon in and of itself thus why he references Galaxy Quest - a successful comedy even for people who were not Trek fans because the tropes of Trek's camp were so well known in pop culture - only shows that the man is in touch with the pop culture zeitgeist, even if he articulates it with all the sophisticated vocabulary of a frat boy.
i don't see what's wrong with that. he's right though. looking back now on the old version it just seems silly, as do many things. all he's trying to say is how do you make something that you know looks odd to not look so odd right now. how do you make it currently relevant and believable/acceptable. people have come to expect more out of their scifi. he just wants what's in the movie to mean something not just cause that's what it was before. it's like what they did with superman and wonder woman. they used to just mean "american" as that's what they were invented for, but over the years people have remade them and re-established what they symbolize. even down to their colors and their emblems. instead of the S in superman to just stand for "superman" they've reworked it to mean more. just things like that. i actually support him for thinking about the little things too.
And he's absolutely correct!
Yeah! Star Trek sucks!
In 1992, I was beginning my second year of graduate school at the largest university in the U.S. Artsy girls, who were in the minority there, wore house dresses, black shirts and pants, combat boots or stilettos, and had straight hair or no hair at all, but the vast majority of students did not own flared pants, have sideburns or straight hair, or wear mod shirts or dresses, though a few sported tatoos -- I didn't start seeing those styles en masse until at least five years later. In fact, most of the students wore straight-legged Levis (acid wash was even still around) or chinos with pleats, miniskirts (but the 80s-style, usually jean), Reeboks, pumps, and penny loafers, and rather ordinary shirts of the polo, T and button down variety. Men's hair wasn't buzz cut or bald yet and a lot of the girls had that wall-of-hair thing going on. In fact, my girlfriend at the time still styled her hair with a curling iron.
If I recall correctly, doesn't Smith kill somebody in the Lost in Space pilot episode?
Abrams never said that. You can't possibly not see the elements of Trek that Abrams is worried about. Notice he only mentions things that he KEPT. The uniform design, the ears, and Spock's hair-cut. Those are the things he's talking about, the things that are not that different.
This is like in Batman Begins (I know, overused example). They kept the silly concept of a grown man running around in a bat helmet. But they explained it to death so people would take it more seriously, and they changed the surroundings - Gotham - to make it feel more real.
That doesn't mean Nolan thinks Batman sucks, does it?
All depends on the execution.
There's no reason that Wah Chang's unique version of a ray gun couldn't still be used, provided it was done with care and serious attempt. We even already have evidence of that: The costumes for Star Trek XI -- except for the rank insignia, so closely resemble those of the original show that I would say they're consistent enough to get a pass. If the TOS moments were to take place in the later years of the five-year mission, I'd even say they're perfect for the natural evolution of the uniforms.
(The funny thing is I don't think what I've seen so far really has a 2009 aesthetic anyway. The Kelvin looks very 1980s movie to me, the cadet scenes looks straight out of Starship Troopers, and the shuttle design and interior look closer to TOS than to anything I saw in TNG and beyond.)
I was just thinking the same thing about the bridge. Similarly, Nero's ears look more like halloween costume accessories than any Romulans I've seen before. It makes the comments in this interview seem a little odd. It looks to me like Abrams may actually agree with your position on 'retro' styling the movie, and wants to have a little fun by ratcheting up the sillier elements.
Lucas tried something similar with the last Indy movie and '50s sci fi. And to a larger extreme, Sin City used a totally absurd aesthetic without quite becoming a parody. May not be the best comparisons for what you're talking about, but I think a retro Star Trek could work.
Ditto. Which is why I'm ashamed why we had to "reboot" such a great franchise to begin with. It didn't need a reboot, just a good series with good potential, like DS9.
I don't want to sound cynical here, but there comes a time when potential is not enough. Not when it doesn't translate into greenbacks.
Well I wasn't trying to discredit ST:XI. If it wasn't for Leonard Nimoy being in the film, I don't think it would of received the credit it has. I realize a lot of the new actors are getting recognition on this board then Nimoy himself, but I still wonder what we would be discussing if the movie didn't have any of the old TOS characters in it.
I guess I was just hoping for a series from the 25th century and beyond.
Heyheyhey, Frakes wasn't that ...
(remembers his trombone playing)
...nevermind. Carry on!
The designs of TOS are iconic. I disagree with the notion that they're inherently dated in anything but coloration and perhaps materials used. The overall designs are timeless.
However, because they are so iconic and timeless, they've been copied over and over again. Dozens of low-budget sci-fi shows over the years have emulated, or outright copied Treks designs and design ethic. Because of this, and through no fault of their own, the designs have become overused and clichéd.
The designs weren't/aren't at all silly, but they've been put to silly uses over the years, by others, and have unfortunately come to be associated with such silliness by many. Silliness like the Trek parody episodes of "Night Court", "The Wonder Years" and "Seinfeld". Silliness like the White Castle ad with the Enterprise at the drive-up window of a K-7 style White Castle space station, to the remarkable KFC commercial with the astounding character look-alikes. The result of associating these designs with parody and other such silliness is that many in the mass audience have come to associate Trek's designs more with parodies of Trek, than with Trek itself.
J.J. Abrams recognizes this. He realizes that he walks a very fine line between being true enough to the designs that the spirit of Trek isn't lost, yet not so true that he ends up producing an unintended parody. He doesn't believe that Trek is silly or ridiculous, but that the potential for both is strong and must be carefully avoided. He is, in his admittedly clumsy way, trying to reassure the naysayers that he's trying to not let the material come across in a silly or ridiculous way.
However, because they are so iconic and timeless, they've been copied over and over again. Dozens of low-budget sci-fi shows over the years have emulated, or outright copied Treks designs and design ethic. Because of this, and through no fault of their own, the designs have become overused and clichéd.
The designs weren't/aren't at all silly, but they've been put to silly uses over the years, by others, and have unfortunately come to be associated with such silliness by many. Silliness like the Trek parody episodes of "Night Court", "The Wonder Years" and "Seinfeld". Silliness like the White Castle ad with the Enterprise at the drive-up window of a K-7 style White Castle space station, to the remarkable KFC commercial with the astounding character look-alikes. The result of associating these designs with parody and other such silliness is that many in the mass audience have come to associate Trek's designs more with parodies of Trek, than with Trek itself.
J.J. Abrams recognizes this. He realizes that he walks a very fine line between being true enough to the designs that the spirit of Trek isn't lost, yet not so true that he ends up producing an unintended parody. He doesn't believe that Trek is silly or ridiculous, but that the potential for both is strong and must be carefully avoided. He is, in his admittedly clumsy way, trying to reassure the naysayers that he's trying to not let the material come across in a silly or ridiculous way.
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
And now everybody knows how the fans of Battlestar Galactica: TOS felt what the new show came on the air, and how it was ridiculed.
What Abrams is saying is that certain aspects of the look of the original series are "silly and ridiculous". Frankly, if I saw anyone older than the age of 16 with a bowl cut nowadays I'd do a double take too. The point is, he realized that for the mass audience, there are certain elements that need to be kept and others that can be reworked.
Sadly, this is true. I've brought up Trek to many people (when discussing upcoming films) and their first response to learning about a new Trek? Giggling. Chuckling. A few times some imitations of Shatner followed. It is considered a very niche and nerdy franchise, and it needs to rise above that if it is to survive.
Right, which saddens me. Surprisingly (or not), the original poster fails to mention this quote in the EW article:
Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light. "In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast," Abrams says. "It was important to me that optimism be cool again."
This is one of Trek's strongest points, and something that was drilled into me over and over again by various interviews and convention appearances by Trek staff and actors over the years. There's a wonderful message in Trek about optimism, cooperation, strength, loyalty, friendship and honor - but it all can easily get lost in a universe of Tribbles and space Nazis.
And you're right, and Abrams obviously agrees. His use of the retro uniform (despite the skirts making no practical sense whatsoever) and hairstyles clearly shows that he knows there are some elements of the classic Trek aesthetic that need to be kept while others can be changed.
Amen.
Which episode of Seinfeld would that be? I don't recall any episode where the look of the original series was parodied.
I'm a huge fan of TOS - and lots of TOS was "silly" and "ridiculous". So, too were parts of each ST movie. So too were parts of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
Parts of "Lost", "M:I 3" and "Cloverfield" were "silly" and "ridiculous". They are also very popular and successful, moreso than VOY, ENT, "Insurrection" and "Nemesis".
Similar threads
