Abrams dissing Star Trek... again

[Sci]

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...

Don't be absurd. Abrams's biggest reason for mentioning Obama while promoting the film abroad is to capitalize on Obama's popularity in Europe to associate this new American film with Obama rather than with Bush (as almost anything American was associated with Bush in European popular in the recent past). McCain doesn't have that sort of popularity in Europe; Abrams would never try to overcome European anti-American/anti-Bush sentiment by citing McCain.

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

Like I said, I want entertainment, not propaganda.

You say you want entertainment, not propaganda. Meanwhile, someone else says they want Trek that is deeper and deals with relevant issues.

All the while, Trek has a history of doing both, depending on the installment.

 

[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...

Don't be absurd. Abrams's biggest reason for mentioning Obama while promoting the film abroad is to capitalize on Obama's popularity in Europe to associate this new American film with Obama rather than with Bush (as almost anything American was associated with Bush in European popular in the recent past). McCain doesn't have that sort of popularity in Europe; Abrams would never try to overcome European anti-American/anti-Bush sentiment by citing McCain.

Oh come now, McCain was HUGE in Georgia! (the country, not the state) That *has* to count for something! If McCain were president and Abrams went to promote the film in Georgia...

 

[QuasarVM]

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...

Don't be absurd. Abrams's biggest reason for mentioning Obama while promoting the film abroad is to capitalize on Obama's popularity in Europe to associate this new American film with Obama rather than with Bush (as almost anything American was associated with Bush in European popular in the recent past). McCain doesn't have that sort of popularity in Europe; Abrams would never try to overcome European anti-American/anti-Bush sentiment by citing McCain.

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

Like I said, I want entertainment, not propaganda.

You say you want entertainment, not propaganda. Meanwhile, someone else says they want Trek that is deeper and deals with relevant issues.

All the while, Trek has a history of doing both, depending on the installment.

Why does a MOVIE have to be associated with a President? Any president? It's a MOVIE --- and it's not a Presidential biography.

That's all I'm saying...

 

[PhasersOnStun]

Oh come now, McCain was HUGE in Georgia! (the country, not the state)

Actually, I believe McCain was pretty popular in Georgia the state as well.

You say you want entertainment, not propaganda. Meanwhile, someone else says they want Trek that is deeper and deals with relevant issues. All the while, Trek has a history of doing both, depending on the installment.

I agree, and I think that it is precisely the fact that Trek does both that has kept it alive so long.

Star Trek was always to the left socially, and not afraid to show it. That doesn't mean it has to put modern American Democrat/Republican politics on the screen, it can be clever and subtle. But dealing with contemporary issues in a humanitarian way has always been a hallmark of Trek, and I very much look forward to the Abrams reboot continuing in that vein.

 

[iguana_tonante]

You say you want entertainment, not propaganda. Meanwhile, someone else says they want Trek that is deeper and deals with relevant issues.

All the while, Trek has a history of doing both, depending on the installment.

This post is made of win.

 

[QuasarVM]

Just as Kirk asked "Why does God need a Starship?", I am forced to ask "Why does a Star Trek movie need a President?"



Ignore me...but you know I'm right. Foo-els!

 

[Cyke101]

Just as Kirk asked "Why does God need a Starship?", I am forced to ask "Why does a Star Trek movie need a President?"

To get shot at, of course. Then the captain can do a sweeping spread-eagle tackle to save the President's life and say something smooth like "Kirk. Enterprise."

 

[Disillusioned]

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

*snipped*

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!

While "The Undiscovered Country" had plenty of action and was by no means perfect, it did have plenty of allegorical messages (some would argue a little too obvious) and philosophical discussion going on. I'm pretty sure the point he was trying to make is that Abrams's movie didn't really have any of that as it was mostly an action movie.

Do you think that Star Trek IV was preachy?

I actually do, and for me that made it somewhat grating, mostly because of the anvil-ish nature of a cause that was very much in vogue at the time it was made. Plus I doubt anyone would really disagree with the sentiment of wanting to save whales from extinction, so the preachiness of it was unnecessary.

 

[Sci]

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...

Don't be absurd. Abrams's biggest reason for mentioning Obama while promoting the film abroad is to capitalize on Obama's popularity in Europe to associate this new American film with Obama rather than with Bush (as almost anything American was associated with Bush in European popular in the recent past). McCain doesn't have that sort of popularity in Europe; Abrams would never try to overcome European anti-American/anti-Bush sentiment by citing McCain.

Oh come now, McCain was HUGE in Georgia! (the country, not the state) That *has* to count for something! If McCain were president and Abrams went to promote the film in Georgia...

Sure, but he's promoting the film in Germany.

Why does a MOVIE have to be associated with a President? Any president? It's a MOVIE --- and it's not a Presidential biography.

That's all I'm saying...

It doesn't have to be. But that's how he's choosing to promote the film -- using Obama's European popularity to overcome Europeans' anti-American-leaning associations of anything American with Bush. All I'm saying is, if McCain were President, Abrams would be using some other strategy to overcome European anti-American sentiment in marketing an American action film to them.

 

[Cyke101]

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

*snipped*

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!

While "The Undiscovered Country" had plenty of action and was by no means perfect, it did have plenty of allegorical messages (some would argue a little too obvious) and philosophical discussion going on. I'm pretty sure the point he was trying to make is that Abrams's movie didn't really have any of that as it was mostly an action movie.

Then he would have to point that out. Anyone can have an opinion as to whether the film is satisfying and I wouldn't argue that. But when one bases their complaints on things that happened before, then I've got to point that out.

ie "How dare they end the film with an explosion!" By itself, how is that any different than TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TFF, TUC, GEN, INS, and NEM? More thought, please. You can love or hate the film, that's fine, but a lot of the things he pointed out have happened before abrams came. It's akin to how quite a lot of people complained about last-minute rescues in ST09, apparently unaware that last-minute rescues are about as common in Trek as the transporter.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Do you think that Star Trek IV was preachy?

I actually do, and for me that made it somewhat grating, mostly because of the anvil-ish nature of a cause that was very much in vogue at the time it was made. Plus I doubt anyone would really disagree with the sentiment of wanting to save whales from extinction, so the preachiness of it was unnecessary.

The cause was in vogue because yes, there were (and are) people that disagree with saving the whales.

 

[Disillusioned]

Only the Japanese and Norwegians. Pretty much everyone else has signed a treaty banning whaling.

 

[kes7]

I did think "The Voyage Home" was needlessly preachy. Stop smacking us with anvils, we get it -- saving the whales is cool. No need to go all afterschool special on us over it.

 

[SFRabid]

Who is the Abrams, and why is his haters and fanboys so quick to go to war?

 

[Balthier the Great]

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.

Ditto. Have liked Star Trek since Nixon was in office.

I think trek has been around since Johnson. I like the Johnson era trek, but i didn't start watching it until 1992, which was Clinton era. So exactly what differnce does this make???

At any rate, I think he's talking about selling a hopeful movie during an era when the president is encouraging people to hope. Not that Bush was predicting the end of the world

 

[QuasarVM]

Don't be absurd. Abrams's biggest reason for mentioning Obama while promoting the film abroad is to capitalize on Obama's popularity in Europe to associate this new American film with Obama rather than with Bush (as almost anything American was associated with Bush in European popular in the recent past). McCain doesn't have that sort of popularity in Europe; Abrams would never try to overcome European anti-American/anti-Bush sentiment by citing McCain.

Oh come now, McCain was HUGE in Georgia! (the country, not the state) That *has* to count for something! If McCain were president and Abrams went to promote the film in Georgia...

Sure, but he's promoting the film in Germany.

Why does a MOVIE have to be associated with a President? Any president? It's a MOVIE --- and it's not a Presidential biography.

That's all I'm saying...

It doesn't have to be. But that's how he's choosing to promote the film -- using Obama's European popularity to overcome Europeans' anti-American-leaning associations of anything American with Bush. All I'm saying is, if McCain were President, Abrams would be using some other strategy to overcome European anti-American sentiment in marketing an American action film to them.

You still haven't answered the question.

The fact remains Star Trek and who is president at the time have nothing to do with each other.

And, I really don't appreciate JJ using Star Trek as some kind of political pawn. There is nothing about Obama in the film. There is nothing about Bush. There is nothing about McCain or George Washington.

And Obama's popularity in Europe is on the wane according to latest polls...so, this may actually backfire on JJ.

 

[Sci]

Why does a MOVIE have to be associated with a President? Any president? It's a MOVIE --- and it's not a Presidential biography.

That's all I'm saying...

It doesn't have to be. But that's how he's choosing to promote the film -- using Obama's European popularity to overcome Europeans' anti-American-leaning associations of anything American with Bush. All I'm saying is, if McCain were President, Abrams would be using some other strategy to overcome European anti-American sentiment in marketing an American action film to them.

You still haven't answered the question.

Yes, I did. You asked, "Why does a movie have to be associated with a President?" I answered, "It doesn't have to be." I then went on to explain that while it doesn't have to be associated with a President, Abrams is choosing to do so in order to overcome European anti-American sentiment.

And, I really don't appreciate JJ using Star Trek as some kind of political pawn. There is nothing about Obama in the film. There is nothing about Bush. There is nothing about McCain or George Washington.

There's nothing about Obama in the film, no. But I would argue that there is a certain optimism about the ability of humanity to overcome major social problems by working together rather than individually that has long been associated with both Star Trek and with American liberalism, especially as identified with John F. Kennedy in the 1960s. So while ST09 doesn't have an explicit political message, it does contain some of the same underlying assumptions about the human capacity for communal action that is found in American liberalism.

 

[Tom Servo]

He may not be dissing Trek per se, but Abrams is still an ignorant, self-serving douchebag.

Why? Because he made a film that would be successful and liked by critics and the public alike, and didn't treat the material as some holy bible?

Damn, Im glad we have him making these films.

 

[T'Girl]

The Obama campaign wasn't assured of victory until a point only about six or seven months before the release of the movie. There was no way Abram could of started production knowing who would be president when the movie opened in the theaters. When the script was finalize it just as easily could of been McCain.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Only the Japanese and Norwegians. Pretty much everyone else has signed a treaty banning whaling.

And there are plenty of Americans who believe that any environmental cause is detrimental to their perception of America. The phrase "saving the whales" was often used by them to mock and belittle liberals, similar to their use of "tree-huggers".

That's part of the reason that I say that Trek has always been political.