Abrams dissing Star Trek... again

[M'Sharak]

In a recent interview that JJ Abrams gave to an Italian sci-fi magazine, called Ciak, he made the following comment:

"We're lucky that Star Trek is reborn in the era of the new president" […] "The new Star Trek has the same enthusiasm of the new America of Obama, after the frustation, the depression and the shame of the old one, the George W. Bush one"

Now is it just me or is this guy just full of himself? I must admit I’m no fan of his Star Trek movie and I generally feel this guy is about as shallow as a puddle on a sunny day. But if he seriously thinks that the Star Trek that was made before he stepped in equates to “depression and shame” at a level that equals Hollywood’s contempt for the previous president then he is suffering from a messiah complex. Also, such a disdain of the material he is or was supposed to engage in makes me wonder why he was given the job after all? Yeah we get it, Enterprise and Nemesis weren’t great, but give it a break already!!! It’s not as if 40 years of Star Trek were crystallised in these 4 meagre years.

For the original source go to: http://zach-quinto.net/wp/articles/ciak-april-2009/

It's just you. There is nothing in the passages you selectively quoted nor is there anything in the complete paragraph, as quoted and translated by iguana_tonante, which can be interpreted as being critical of Star Trek in any way. You're trying to assign to his words a meaning which is neither contained in nor implied by the text.

 

[CaptainStoner]

A lot of my fellow Americans are eternally in denial about the Bush Years, the torture, the outright disdain of Geneva Conventions, Blackwater, the using of 9/11 to secure oil fields for corporate interest, and unfortunately, equate even mentioning these things as "leftism".

But I am no leftist either, and I share any concerns of heavy political vibes tainting future work. TOS was able to strike a remarkable balance - even in campy eps like "The Way to Eden", to comment on politics, yes, but not preach a particular side other than the basic virtues of freedom of thought. To explore an issue, like we explore strange new (and familar - class M, society reminiscent of 20th Century Earth, Captain...) worlds.
Star Trek has got to retain its sense of exploration. Roddenberry may have been a humanist, an idealist, yes, but nor did he or other Trek writers claim to have all the answers. TOS is at its heart an optimistic exploration, not a soapbox. Let's hope JJ gets that.

 

[trevanian]

Abrams dissing Star Trek... again

Again? When was the first time?

Pretty much always. The always talking about SW being his thing when discussing TREK always read like an implying dissing.

 

[trevanian]

I don't see any dissing of Star Trek, and even if he did who cares? It's a TV show. The man is free to hate whatever entertainment he wants to hate.

It's more akin to the Ken Ralston thing. Ralston supervised vfx for ILM trek films while hating the weight AND design of the movie Enterprise, during the period when ILM started throwing out the compelling design notions on other stuff in the TREK universe and substituting their typical 'big and gray' approach, which was a disservice to TREK (esp that dock of theirs.) Hey, nobody twisted Ralston's arm to take the job, let somebody who likes the thing shoot it.

Same for Abrams ... make up your own universe to play STAR WARS in, and leave TREK to somebody who doesn't need to WARSify it. Even though he did a great job on SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, you wouldn't ever hire a solid director like Martin Ritt for a Bond movie, he'd be politically AND stylistically unsuitable.

 

[Gepard]

Pretty much always. The always talking about SW being his thing when discussing TREK always read like an implying dissing.

Only if you're a Trek fan with Wars penis envy.

 

[Disillusioned]

It's somewhat awkwardly worded, but I have to agree with the others who have said he was referring to America under the Bush years and not Star Trek. I'm hardly an Abrams fan either, and I happen to disagree with him about Obama's administration and his new movie, but what he's expressing is the standard view of things in Hollywood. In any case he isn't bashing Star Trek here.

 

[Sharr Khan]

All I know is I'm really sick of EVERYTHING being filtered through the political lens. Trek and Obama have nothing to do with one another, and just because Abrams feels a certain way doesn't mean everyone shares his opinion.

I liked Trek in the Reagan years, through the first Bush, in the Clinton years, the second Bush, and now that Obama is occupying 1600 Penn. Ave. NW, I still like Trek. If McCain was president, it wouldn't have spoiled my enjoyment of the new movie.

However, if Abrams keeps running his mouth about this too much, it might prevent my enjoyment of the next one. I like entertainment, not propaganda.

I agree. In many ways the soapbox is what made me fall away from liking TNG. Too preachy...

Keep it an action adventure don't screw up the success of the first movie just to be "relevant".

Rick Berman = Bush
JJ Abrams = Obama
----
A reasonable analogy.

No TNG was the most preachyr and Left-minded of ALL TREK EVER. So the analogy is not at all reasonable.


Sharr

 

[PhasersOnStun]

Yep. After reading the article in the original language, I can confirm it's the actual meaning....

Thank you for the translation!

Critical of Bush? Yeah. Dismissive of Star Trek? Not at all.

And as Sci already said, when JJ Abrams is giving interviews to press, he is doing marketing. As such, everything he says needs to be understood in that light. That's not to say that he's not being honest, I'm sure he believes every word he said. But it means that he's a smart enough man to try and frame his message so that the specific audience that he's addressing will respond favorably.

 

[iguana_tonante]

We are here to serve.

 

[Mach5]

Rick Berman = Bush
JJ Abrams = Obama
----
A reasonable analogy.

No TNG was the most preachyr and Left-minded of ALL TREK EVER. So the analogy is not at all reasonable.

Depends on the POV. I never implied that Berman was a right wing conservative, even though he is an alleged homophobe.

To me, Berman represented the old way of thinking, thinking inside the box. Hell, Berman was the box!
Abrams, on the other hand, represents rejuvenation, a breath of fresh air. This is what I meant by a reasonable analogy.

 

[QuasarVM]

All I know is I'm really sick of EVERYTHING being filtered through the political lens. Trek and Obama have nothing to do with one another, and just because Abrams feels a certain way doesn't mean everyone shares his opinion.

I liked Trek in the Reagan years, through the first Bush, in the Clinton years, the second Bush, and now that Obama is occupying 1600 Penn. Ave. NW, I still like Trek. If McCain was president, it wouldn't have spoiled my enjoyment of the new movie.

However, if Abrams keeps running his mouth about this too much, it might prevent my enjoyment of the next one. I like entertainment, not propaganda.

AMEN!!!! SAME HERE!!!!

 

[QuasarVM]

I don't see any dissing of Star Trek, and even if he did who cares? It's a TV show. The man is free to hate whatever entertainment he wants to hate.

It's more akin to the Ken Ralston thing. Ralston supervised vfx for ILM trek films while hating the weight AND design of the movie Enterprise, during the period when ILM started throwing out the compelling design notions on other stuff in the TREK universe and substituting their typical 'big and gray' approach, which was a disservice to TREK (esp that dock of theirs.) Hey, nobody twisted Ralston's arm to take the job, let somebody who likes the thing shoot it.

Same for Abrams ... make up your own universe to play STAR WARS in, and leave TREK to somebody who doesn't need to WARSify it. Even though he did a great job on SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, you wouldn't ever hire a solid director like Martin Ritt for a Bond movie, he'd be politically AND stylistically unsuitable.

I remember that BS from Ralston...I'll never forgive him for ruining the paint job of the model from TMP. Dulling it down and basically making the thing flat gray/white!

While he's a talented guy, I'll always think of what was done to the Enterprise model on his watch as one of the stupidest things I've read about on the making of a movie.

The question is, why didn't he just switch to using a black screen as Trumbull had? Why spray dullcote all over a gorgeous paint job like that?

Anyway, Ralston Purina's idea of great starship design was that hideous Excelsior -- that ugly pregnant whale with a saucer and squatty nacelles.

Am I the only one who didn't think Nilo Rodis-Jamero was a good designer?

I never cared for the Bird of Prey either to be quite honest. Give me the old Bird of Prey from Balance of Terror or the D-7 Klingon Cruiser any day...the K'Tinga was the way to update the D-7. They didn't reinvent the thing (thank Jeebus!).

Anyway, JJ needs to shoosh. Star Trek doesn't have any more to do with Obama than it did with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Carter...etc.

 

[trevanian]

Pretty much always. The always talking about SW being his thing when discussing TREK always read like an implying dissing.

Only if you're a Trek fan with Wars penis envy.

'wars penis envy' is a contradiction in terms ... Lucas may be a dick, but his franchise lacks balls and substitutes a light saber for the rest.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's very dangerous to ascribe significance to political comments from people living in the liberal Hollywood bubble. Abrams did a nice job with Star Trek but I wouldn't vote for him for municipal dogcatcher.

However, if this was all just bullshit to pander to an easily bamboozled paying audience, more power to him. Selling his wares is his job, and he wouldn't be the first marketer to do so in a less than scrupulously honest manner.

The irony here is that the gung-ho, we're-always-right, interventionist/imperialistic philosophy of TOS is a better match for Bush's worldview than Obama's. Bush's worldview would be a very popular and fun thing to watch unfold on-screen, just as long as there are screenwriters to contrive things so that they all work out in the end. Bush's problem was that he didn't have screenwriters to alter reality to suit his preferred plotline.

Imagine Star Trek where the screenwriters didn't always save the characters' butts from their own folly. Oh right, that's Ronald D. Moore's BSG. Just look at the ratings - who the hell wants that?

 

[trevanian]

The irony here is that the gung-ho, we're-always-right, interventionist/imperialistic philosophy of TOS is a better match for Bush's worldview than Obama's.

But the moments of TOS where that gung-ho 'tude didn't hold sway is what makes the show great ... ERRAND OF MERCY, the very end of PRIVATE LITTLE WAR, shoot, on TNG they even had a moment of clarity with Q WHO when Picard admitted shortcomings.

As aired, THE ENTERPRISE INCIDENT would probably define Bush the First, though I doubt during his reign at CIA that they'd ever managed to pull off an intelligence coup as great as Kirk's.

Based on what I know of Trek 11, I wouldn't want to characterize it to be Obama-esque in the slightest ... 'sure, we lost a planet or two along the way, but we'll be fine, because the future is so bright, I've got to wear polarizing material' ... now there are folks who would LOVE to characterize his presidency in that fashion, I'm sure, but discussing THAT really would be going afield ...

 

[QuasarVM]

It's very dangerous to ascribe significance to political comments from people living in the liberal Hollywood bubble. Abrams did a nice job with Star Trek but I wouldn't vote for him for municipal dogcatcher.

I think that's true of most all Hollywood idiots.

 

[DevilEyes]

The irony here is that the gung-ho, we're-always-right, interventionist/imperialistic philosophy of TOS is a better match for Bush's worldview than Obama's.

If TOS were a good match for Bush's worldview, there would have been no Prime Directive to being with, and Federation Starfleet would be invading every planet and setting up new governments there under the motto that they needed to "bring them democracy", or that they that they were allies of the Klingons or presented a danger to the Federation.

As it is, only "The Apple" comes even remotely close to that, and it still doesn't fit the bill since there is no war and no invasion.

Unless you are referring to the Terran Empire from the Mirror Universe?

Imagine Star Trek where the screenwriters didn't always save the characters' butts from their own folly. Oh right, that's Ronald D. Moore's BSG. Just look at the ratings - who the hell wants that?

Much as I love BSG, it did its fair share of saving the main characters' butts from their own folly.

 

[DevilEyes]

I'm hardly an Abrams fan either, and I happen to disagree with him about Obama's administration and his new movie, but what he's expressing is the standard view of things in Hollywood.

Yep.

FedCon May 2009: a Trek actor expressing graphically how he feels about Obama (at 5:47 - 6:28 in the video):

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbJRBUMV2FA[/yt]

 

[Bones2]

It's very dangerous to ascribe significance to political comments from people living in the liberal Hollywood bubble. Abrams did a nice job with Star Trek but I wouldn't vote for him for municipal dogcatcher.

I would, if it kept him from directing any more Trek.

 

[John O.]

Not to mention that politicizing Star Trek is pretty freakin base. IMO, the Trek world was and always has been pretty much a socialist utopia... but the point is that Roddenburry knew better than to ever even approach the topic, regardless of what his personal feelings were. He either understood that it was up to the individual fan to decide how they viewed the world, in terms of politics, OR, that it just plain didn't matter to the storytelling.

Even involving politics cheapens the whole thing. Besides, JJ's trek is sooooooo philosophically bankrupt. It's basically as gut-reactionary as the Fast and the Furious. Fast moving cameras, sexy chicks, angry posturing males and explosive endings. Demand for, and therefore supply of, ideological depth is at an all-time low in hollywood, and sadly that trend has reached Star Trek.