Abrams dissing Star Trek... again

[Joshua Howard]

I am reminded of TNG episode "Attached" wherein a planet is divided down the middle, and one half of it applies for admittance into the Federation. They insisted that they were fully ready and well evolved, but circumstances quickly made it manifest that they were still extremely obsessed with their own planetary non-issues.

The Spirit of Star Trek has nothing to do with who has the big chair here in the States. As a matter of fact, I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with who has the producer's chair, either. As long as the values of Star Trek are upheld, I am not going to be offended by Abrams' political conversations. Nevertheless, as a human race - in spite of all our amazing accomplishments - we still are amazingly self important. No getting around it; but the more we explore it and face it, the more evolved we become.

The sunny side? 60 years ago, the concept of religious and cultural diversity was foreign and under siege; folks with a non-mainstream faith or lack thereof were usually not respected; race and national boundry were considered acceptable factors in determining human value. The idea of a united world was a frightening and unwelcome concept. Today, 10% of our way into the 21st century, barriers of expression are finally falling. Whether you agree with his wording or not, I think that at least some of Abrams' statement isn't so bad after all.

 

[Sci]

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.

First off, bear in mind that ST09 is as much Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's baby as it is Abrams's. And they're both Trekkies.

Secondly, I don't think that's a fair characterization of Abrams, Orci's, and Kurtzman's approach to Star Trek films in general. Why? Because the purpose of this film was to set things up -- to affectionately reflect upon TOS and previous Trek while setting things up for this new Star Trek cast. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" doesn't have all that much philosophical or political depth, either. But first installments don't have to. They have to tell the origin story, not encompass the entirety of the Trek spirit.

Just like Batman Begins wasn't as deep as The Dark Knight, I fully expect the next Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman film to be deeper and more political. If it's not, then it's fair to criticize their vision of Trek as being generally shallow.

 

[Cyke101]

For some reason, the following reminded me not of ST09, but of another film...

Even involving politics cheapens the whole thing.

Like the Khitomer peace conference... "Just because we CAN do a thing does not mean we MUST do that thing."

Besides, JJ's trek is sooooooo philosophically bankrupt.

Or Spock force-melding Valeris...

Fast moving cameras,

Some nameless crewmen running away from an exploding deck right after the Excelsior enters the battle, another diving into his death with a fire extinguisher while Engineering is sealed off, yet another showing gasses venting from the warp core...

sexy chicks

Marta! As played by Iman aka Mrs. David Bowie...

angry posturing males

Chang during the trial...

and explosive endings.

Enterprise and Excelsior fire, Bird of Prey goes boom.

Demand for, and therefore supply of, ideological depth is at an all-time low in hollywood, and sadly that trend has reached Star Trek.

Funny, it sounds like this "idealogical depth" reached Star Trek back in 1991. And it has an 81% Freshness rating on rottentomatoes.com. Thanks, TUC!

 

[AJBryant]

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.

QFT.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Had you been watching in the Johnson-Nixon years you might have noticed that Star Trek is a "political" show, making comments on current events. It was very much a product of the New Frontier/Great Society ideas and ethos. So if Obama is the new "Kennedy", then Trek has come full circle.

And GR was never too shy about running off his mouth and spreading propaganda in the form of Star Trek. Again, full circle.

 

[clint g]

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!!!!

Thirded. It really does get old after a while

 

[Stardate]

"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"

What shame and depression is he taking about regarding Bush?. America was attack by Al Qaida on 9/11 and Bush hit back by throwing out the evil dictator Saddam Hussein from power and the barbaric Taliban in Afghanistan..

 

[Sci]

"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"

What shame and depression is he taking about regarding Bush?

The one that anyone who wasn't delusional experienced. To wit: the botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina; the more than 4,000 American soldiers dead in Iraq in an unnecessary war of aggression; the worst economy since the Great Depression after 8 years of mis-management; the damage done to the middle class by tax cuts targeted to benefit the rich; the acts of torture perpetrated in violation of U.S. and international law against suspected terrorists (many of whom turned out to be innocent); the disrespect shown to numerous other countries...

America was attack by Al Qaida on 9/11 and Bush hit back by throwing out the evil dictator Saddam Hussein from power

Which is a bit like attacking Mexico in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

and the barbaric Taliban in Afghanistan..

You mean that war against the people who had actually attacked us that we diverted resources from in order to launch a war of aggression against Iraq?

 

[James Bond]

Why does JJ keep putting his penis in people's childhoods?

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

What a toolbag.

 

[DevilEyes]

Why does JJ keep putting his penis in people's childhoods?

Please keep your porn fanfics in the fanfiction subforum.

 

[barnaclelapse]

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/

I'll agree that the guy's full of himself, but that's not exactly a new development, and I can't say it bothers me in any kind of particular way.

Try not to let the big, mean celebrity get you down.

 

[PhasersOnStun]

Spock force-melding Valeris...

Ah, the Vulcan Mind Rape. Or I guess another way to look at that scene is waterboarding, without the water or the board.

Either way, it was pretty clear the rest of the crew wasn't entirely comfortable watching it. The camera focused on Uhura, specifically, being disgusted with what she was seeing; obviously, we viewers were being lead to question if this was completely Kosher.

So there we have, in 1991, Star Trek including a forced, humiliating interrogation that not everyone is comfortable with. Much like our political battles 15 years later over CIA interrogations.

Just to point out, as others have done, Star Trek has always been political. Maybe JJ Abrams brought it up in marketing in a more overt, less artistic way. But Star Trek has always been "progressive" in its politics, and raised questions, from the first season of TOS onward.

 

[Mysterion]

I'll just say this:

Keep your politics out of my Star Trek, and keep Star Trek out of my politics.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Just a note to everyone to try to keep this discussion Trek-centered, and try not to get into TNZ territory with the politics.

That said, Trek was political back in the sixties. Why should that change now?

 

[Mr. B]

He may not be dissing Trek per se, but Abrams is still an ignorant, self-serving douchebag. Are we to believe that a McCain win would have made some difference in the reception of XI?

 

[Cyke101]

He may not be dissing Trek per se, but Abrams is still an ignorant, self-serving douchebag. Are we to believe that a McCain win would have made some difference in the reception of XI?

No, but something tells me that Abrams would still say the same thing, just replace Obama's name with McCain's. After all, one of the huge topics/controversies about the McCain campaign was how much of an improvement over 8 years of Bush his Administration would be. One of the talking points that he and Obama had in common in the campaign...

 

[kes7]

This is what has me concerned, when coupled with the above statements.

Like I said, I want entertainment, not propaganda. Trek has always been great at raising excellent ethical questions. Where it's fallen flat is the times it's taken the next step toward trying to definitively answer them and gotten preachy. It kind of sounds like that's the direction Abrams wants to take the next movie, and I'm really not in the mood for a rehash of how awful the Bush presidency was -- IN SPACE.

 

[Joshua Howard]

...Perhaps we are sometimes more comfortable with Star Trek tackling yesterday's ethical questions.

If Mr. Abrams would have said that he wanted STXII to avoid modern day issues, a great number of people - myself included - would be concerned with the prospect of a new ST project that gets sold like a mindless action flick.

Roddenberry - in my opinion a legend and a genius (though not a perfect man) - had a strong political agenda; there isn't anything wrong with Abrams having a political agenda as well. My main concern is that he tries to take the time to make his Star Trek say something, as opposed to just shooting for profits.

 

[Misfit Toy]

This is what has me concerned, when coupled with the above statements.

Like I said, I want entertainment, not propaganda. Trek has always been great at raising excellent ethical questions. Where it's fallen flat is the times it's taken the next step toward trying to definitively answer them and gotten preachy. It kind of sounds like that's the direction Abrams wants to take the next movie, and I'm really not in the mood for a rehash of how awful the Bush presidency was -- IN SPACE.

Do you think that Star Trek IV was preachy?