What?! that makes no sense. We have two designs based on the original design of Matt Jefferies. Their place in the canon is irrelevant.
Why does Abrams keep playing it safe?
- Thread starter brian577
- Start date
What?! that makes no sense. We have two designs based on the original design of Matt Jefferies. Their place in the canon is irrelevant.
Who said anything about canon?
I'm just saying the nuEnterprise is representing the TOS Enterprise in the movie, not the refit Enterprise.
I'm just saying the nuEnterprise is representing the TOS Enterprise in the movie, not the refit Enterprise.
I can only assume based on experience. And experience seems to indicate that when movies are redone (rather than literary sources being readapted), the new version very, very rarely has an original enough or creative enough new perspective to warrant redoing the thing. As a result, I can only assume that the motive was economical. (See any of the hundreds of remakes of horror movies from the last decade, for pertinent examples.) Off-hand, the only example I can think of where a remake of a movie, rather than a readaptation of a literary text, had something different and original enough to say to warrant the remake, is the Denzel Washington version of Manchurian Candidate. But, as I say, 90% of the time, the resulting piece clearly indicates that the motive was economical.
In any case, I have read the many responses to my original point, and many of the counter-arguments sound valid. Is a remake of a visual, commercial medium like film somehow a lesser art form than a new adaptation of a literary text? My gut tells me so. My gut also tells me that novelizations of movies are a lesser art form than filmed versions of novels, and granted, perhaps I don't have the logical arguments to explain why precisely my gut feels that way. Is it arbitrary, this distinction? I don't know. I don't think so. And I'm sure, nevertheless, that most of us will agree that the novelization of, say, Back to the Future II, is not an attempt to create great art.
My argument, even if based on my gut feeling, is not based on nostalgia. I have no nostalgia for the original Star Trek, having not been born yet when it first aired. It is based on my understanding of how different mediums work. Characters in literary texts, it has been said, are nothing more than "bags of bones," waiting for some actor, director, costume person, etc, to bring them to life. Characters that originate on screen, however, don't have that kaleidoscope quality. Somehow, casting a new Miss Havisham feels like a valid artistic endeavor, while recasting Khan feels like someone playing dress up. If there's anyone here who senses what I'm saying, and can perhaps find the logic to support the gut feeling I'm describing, then I'll be happy to hear it.
On another front, anyone arguing that Khan is a highly literary tragic character is clearly stretching things a bit. Wrath of Khan is by no means a great movie because of the intensity of the villain (that misreading of the film has lead to two or three disastrous Star Trek movies in a row now, trying to recapture a movie's success without having a clue why it works so well in the first place.) Wrath of Khan is fantastic because of the relationships between the three leads, because of the intense connection between theme and action, because of the depth of those themes about growing old and regret and feeling out of touch, and because of the tone of the film. Khan may be iconic, sure, but iconic status by no means implies high literary merit. Jim Carrey singing out of his ass is also iconic, and it's admittedly funny as hell, but there is no high artistic ambition there.
Abrams needs to reinvent what Star Trek MEANS. He needs to reinvent the kinds of stories the franchise can tell. He needs to tell stories that the franchise has never told before. Otherwise, the whole project is nothing but a massive plunge into nostalgia.
I'm still having trouble grasping how Comics and Graphic Novels created stuff is in the "Text Only, so OK to remake over and over again" pile of art, rather than in the "Movie/Telvision, can't be remade over and over again, because it's visual and not just text" pile of art. Comic Books and graphic Novels have pictures, jsut like movies and TV.
Additionally, look at, for instance Wizard of Oz, or Manchurian Candidate, Battlestar Galactica, or even Star Trek - How many folks who watch the latest versions today, are even aware previous filmed versions exist, let alone can't relate to the recast of the latest version because they are so familiar with the previous versions?
Additionally, look at, for instance Wizard of Oz, or Manchurian Candidate, Battlestar Galactica, or even Star Trek - How many folks who watch the latest versions today, are even aware previous filmed versions exist, let alone can't relate to the recast of the latest version because they are so familiar with the previous versions?
Yep...and the TOS lower engineering hull is indeed somewhat smaller in diameter, relative to the saucer, than the ST:TMP ship's proportions. The JJPrise looks very much as if the artists started with the TOS ship as their primary reference for the overall shapes and look, then incorporated a few design cues and textural details from later versions.
Believe it or not, there were people who didn't realize that the latest True Grit was a remake.
But that movie is another good counter-example. At the time, I remember people insisting that nobody could ever replace Wayne's iconic performance in the first movie, but I think the general consenus is that the remake was a damn good movie--and Bridges was nominated for an Oscar.
And, yes, I'm aware that both films were based on a novel, but you could argue that the Wayne film was much better known than the book at the time the remake was made. Which raises the question of how crucial this whole literary-vs. non-literary thing is when the original story has been eclipsed by a classic movie version.
I suspect that very few people are even aware that "The Fly" was based on a short story. Ditto for Hitchcock's "The Birds." And how many modern moviegoers have ever read the largely-forgotten short story that inspired "It's A Wonderful Life"? Is Jimmy Stewart's performance as George Bailey somehow less iconic than, say, Ricardo Montalban as Khan just because he was playing a character that had first appeared in prose?
I'll refrain from commenting on the whole novelization thing since I'm obviously biased there!
Abramprise is Abramprise. It does not replace or represent anything.
True but it's also longer relative to the saucer. The reduced Beam length is what give Abramprise that stunted appearance.
It looks like a fan made kitbash with no sense of balance or flow. Every angle of the ship has some odd angle or curve jutting out.
Yea, that's another thing, most viewers aren't even aware of a book source for most movies.
Believe it or not, there were people who didn't realize that the latest True Grit was a remake.
But that movie is another good counter-example. At the time, I remember people insisting that nobody could ever replace Wayne's iconic performance in the first movie, but I think the general consenus is that the remake was a damn good movie--and Bridges was nominated for an Oscar.
And, yes, I'm aware that both films were based on a novel, but you could argue that the Wayne film was much better known than the book at the time the remake was made. Which raises the question of how crucial this whole literary-vs. non-literary thing is when the original story has been eclipsed by a classic movie version.
I suspect that very few people are even aware that "The Fly" was based on a short story. Ditto for Hitchcock's "The Birds." And how many modern moviegoers have ever read the largely-forgotten short story that inspired "It's A Wonderful Life"? Is Jimmy Stewart's performance as George Bailey somehow less iconic than, say, Ricardo Montalban as Khan just because he was playing a character that had first appeared in prose?
I'll refrain from commenting on the whole novelization thing since I'm obviously biased there!
And, since I'm not a writer, I will comment on Novelizations. Most Novelizations, I believe, since they are not limited to a 2 or 3 hour running time and the difference in story flow of visual versus text media, actually have more detail, characterization and a richer story
Relying on old material is not what drove Star Trek down. Lack of imagination in using that material is what killed it - just hashing over the standard episode types that were already overly familiar from TNG and VOY.
Manny Coto's fourth season of ENT made use of pre-existing ideas like Section 31 and the turtle-head/smooth-head Klingon conundrum, and crafted those ideas into good stories, making the fourth season by far the best of the series and frankly the only one worth watching.
There's no reason Abrams couldn't take Khan and craft a new and excellent story around him. It doesn't have to be the same story as TOS did. However, the main reason for using Khan would be that he's one of the few elements of Star Trek that is well known to the general public.
So screwing around with the core elements of Khan really makes no sense - it will cause confusion. Khan is supposedly a genetically engineered super-being, so he should look the part. Some fugly pasty white guy does not visually communicate genetic perfection, not unless he got some quick plastic surgery before shooting started.
Without the genetic-perfection angle, who is Khan? Just some random guy from Earth's history. Who cares? Khan's a good character for a movie, but not with the guy they cast as the chief antagonist.
Manny Coto's fourth season of ENT made use of pre-existing ideas like Section 31 and the turtle-head/smooth-head Klingon conundrum, and crafted those ideas into good stories, making the fourth season by far the best of the series and frankly the only one worth watching.
There's no reason Abrams couldn't take Khan and craft a new and excellent story around him. It doesn't have to be the same story as TOS did. However, the main reason for using Khan would be that he's one of the few elements of Star Trek that is well known to the general public.
So screwing around with the core elements of Khan really makes no sense - it will cause confusion. Khan is supposedly a genetically engineered super-being, so he should look the part. Some fugly pasty white guy does not visually communicate genetic perfection, not unless he got some quick plastic surgery before shooting started.
Without the genetic-perfection angle, who is Khan? Just some random guy from Earth's history. Who cares? Khan's a good character for a movie, but not with the guy they cast as the chief antagonist.
You know, the more I think about it, the literary adaptation thing has almost nothing to do with whether a certain actor's performance as a fictional character is seen as iconic or untouchable or whatever.
I think most of us would agree that Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak is, like Khan, a tough act to follow. Any actor who tackles the role in the future is invariably going to be compared to McGavin--just as any new Khan will be compared to Montalban or Bridge's Rooster Cogburn was compared to Wayne's.
But, wait, the original Night Stalker tv-movie was based on a novel by Jeff Rice. So does that make McGavin's performance somehow less iconic? Are viewers going to cut the next Kolchak more slack because, hey, Kolchak first appeared in a novel?
I don't think so. Indelible performance are indeliable performances, regardless of whether there's an old book or short story in the mix.
(And, again, I don't remember folks around here cutting the PLANET OF THE APES remake any slack because of the existence of Boulle's novel. People still thought Mark Wahlberg was no match for Charlton Heston!)
I think most of us would agree that Darren McGavin as Carl Kolchak is, like Khan, a tough act to follow. Any actor who tackles the role in the future is invariably going to be compared to McGavin--just as any new Khan will be compared to Montalban or Bridge's Rooster Cogburn was compared to Wayne's.
But, wait, the original Night Stalker tv-movie was based on a novel by Jeff Rice. So does that make McGavin's performance somehow less iconic? Are viewers going to cut the next Kolchak more slack because, hey, Kolchak first appeared in a novel?
I don't think so. Indelible performance are indeliable performances, regardless of whether there's an old book or short story in the mix.
(And, again, I don't remember folks around here cutting the PLANET OF THE APES remake any slack because of the existence of Boulle's novel. People still thought Mark Wahlberg was no match for Charlton Heston!)
They have already copied Khan and failed at it. No reason to believe, assuming that Khan is in STXII, that they will succeed during their second attempt. Not that I blame them, I would laugh off my ass if I could get away with the third Trek movie in a row that features a variation of Khan.
As Ubik has pointed out, Khan is not what makes TWOK a great movie and the writers who lack this insight which is hardly arcane are, to express it mildly, the very opposite of excellent.
As Ubik has pointed out, Khan is not what makes TWOK a great movie and the writers who lack this insight which is hardly arcane are, to express it mildly, the very opposite of excellent.
It doesn't matter what the source material is - TV, books, etc - what matters is whether the re-imagining of a character makes sense according to how the character is written and cast.
Casting Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead antagonist role means that either he's not Khan, or he's a character named Khan that is strikingly different from the one Montelban played (meaning, they're just using the Khan name for its name recognition).
Not Indian, not anyone the audience will be asked to accept as a genetic superman who is scary in his perfection. As long as the actor and the character match, and the character is a good basis for a story, it can work just fine.
And Star Trek has always been governed by crass business decisions. There's never been a time when it was run by some kind of independently wealthy eccentric who did whatever he liked regardless of whether people would like it. If you want to see how that works out, watch the Star Wars prequels. I'll take crass capitalism over self-indulgent bullshit any day.
I honestly don't think he can do that with movies. Look at the movie industry today. All the movies with big budgets are shallow action fests. They vary in the degree to which they are shallow. Some, like The Avengers, are noticeably less shallow than others, but only relatively so.
Abrams has pushed Star Trek into the less-shallow end of the popcorn movie gene pool. He's done what he can do, without risking financial failure, which would wound the franchise, perhaps fatally.
Someday I hope Star Trek will become more ambitious and interesting. It will need to get back on TV to do that - on cable, which is the only place a nichey genre like space opera would have the chance to survive anyway. Cable TV is doing vastly more interesting stories than big-budget popcorn movies.
Casting Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead antagonist role means that either he's not Khan, or he's a character named Khan that is strikingly different from the one Montelban played (meaning, they're just using the Khan name for its name recognition).
Not Indian, not anyone the audience will be asked to accept as a genetic superman who is scary in his perfection. As long as the actor and the character match, and the character is a good basis for a story, it can work just fine.
And Star Trek has always been governed by crass business decisions. There's never been a time when it was run by some kind of independently wealthy eccentric who did whatever he liked regardless of whether people would like it. If you want to see how that works out, watch the Star Wars prequels. I'll take crass capitalism over self-indulgent bullshit any day.
I honestly don't think he can do that with movies. Look at the movie industry today. All the movies with big budgets are shallow action fests. They vary in the degree to which they are shallow. Some, like The Avengers, are noticeably less shallow than others, but only relatively so.
Abrams has pushed Star Trek into the less-shallow end of the popcorn movie gene pool. He's done what he can do, without risking financial failure, which would wound the franchise, perhaps fatally.
Someday I hope Star Trek will become more ambitious and interesting. It will need to get back on TV to do that - on cable, which is the only place a nichey genre like space opera would have the chance to survive anyway. Cable TV is doing vastly more interesting stories than big-budget popcorn movies.
Thing is, if they do do Khan in the next movie, the likelihood that it will be as close to TWoK character as Praetor Shinzon or Nero is pretty damned slim, IMHO. If they use Khan, it will be a totally different story. There is no long burning revenge angle, since they've never even met Khan.
I think your perception of the film is colouring your opinion of the design of the ship.
Except a number of novelizations are actually BETTER than the movies they're based on.
Especially any adaptation done by Alan Dean Foster.
Well, we shouldn't fall into trap of assuming that Art and Commerce are diametrically opposed, and filmmakers can only be motivated by one or another.
In real life, and especially when you're getting into popular entertainment like Star Trek and such, most filmmakers want to make a hit--and they want to make the best movie they can. It doesn't have to just one or another.
Nobody ever made a Star Trek movie or tv show that wasn't meant to attract audiences and make money. But that doesn't mean that every Star Trek movie is nothing but a cynical cash-grab. The people involved probably take pride in their work and want to make art--or they wouldn't have become filmmakers in the first place!
And any long-running, continuing series is going to have to strike a balance between giving people what they expect and surprising them with something new. Familiarity is a big part of the appeal of any venerable series. Nobody goes to Star Trek #12 expecting something completely new and unexpected.
It's a balancing act. Regurgitate the past too much and people will think that they've already seen this show before. But try something completely new and people will complain "That's not STAR TREK!"
It has to be the same--but different. Which is just as tricky as it sounds!
In real life, and especially when you're getting into popular entertainment like Star Trek and such, most filmmakers want to make a hit--and they want to make the best movie they can. It doesn't have to just one or another.
Nobody ever made a Star Trek movie or tv show that wasn't meant to attract audiences and make money. But that doesn't mean that every Star Trek movie is nothing but a cynical cash-grab. The people involved probably take pride in their work and want to make art--or they wouldn't have become filmmakers in the first place!
And any long-running, continuing series is going to have to strike a balance between giving people what they expect and surprising them with something new. Familiarity is a big part of the appeal of any venerable series. Nobody goes to Star Trek #12 expecting something completely new and unexpected.
It's a balancing act. Regurgitate the past too much and people will think that they've already seen this show before. But try something completely new and people will complain "That's not STAR TREK!"
It has to be the same--but different. Which is just as tricky as it sounds!
Last edited:
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
What is pathetic are a certain group of Trek fans who don't seem to understand a basic theme of Trek in that antagonists are generally not "evil" for the sake of being evil.
Then they compound the error by sneering down their noses at the rest of us.
I would say the same thing about you. I'm talking about aesthetics and to me it's a joke to compare Abramprise to the refit-Ent. Refit-Ent is still one of the best looking Enterprise. It's a perfect merger of Jeffries principle of function determining form with the principles of art-deco design that dominated in the 50's. People have often claim that Abramprise follows the design aesthetics at Apple but I've never seen Apple make a product that looks so disorganized. What look like what happened is the designer merged several silhouets of various Enterprises especially the D and the E to form Abramprise. That's why I call it a kitbash because that what it is.
This wouldn't be an issue if you know they created something NEW but it's all about the brand. That's all Star Trek is these days a brand and some tropes you can string to together to form a spectacle you can charge $12 for .
Similar threads
