New JJ Abrams interview

[Edge of Forever]

TMP had some great scenes- the first reveal of the Enterprise for example. But it suffered from one major problem in that it felt like an episode rather than a film. It was about the idea and had no real execution to it.

In my opinion, if it had been an episode or a two part episode then it would have been iconic and spectacular but as a film it falls flat due to a lack of pacing and quite a bit of padding.

EDIT: DalekJim, we'll have to agree to disagree then. All I know is that I fell asleep during the first Transformers and couldn't sit through the second while I've seen the 2009 Star Trek about 10 times.

 

[Dick Whitman]

DalekJim, So you are happy that Star Trek has continued all these years. But its only lasted because of a studio that has occasionally changed it in order to continue to make more money for them. Which justifies its long life. But you want them to pay for a product that appeals only to a small niche audience. How about this read, the novels or watch the fan films?

Star Trek has not survived due to its core fan base alone. Some Trekkies are the most selfish fans in history. Most other fans would give anything for their favorite shows to have the number of films, spin-off shows, books, etc, etc that Star Trek has gotten. But what do some Trekkies say "its not tailored to my personal tastes"

 

[DalekJim]

I'm not the most selfish fan in history for wanting the only Star Trek available to be... enjoyable. That's just absurd and you're being too precious.

For what it's worth I do think STID will be an improvement on the anti-intellectual depravity of the 2009 film. It looks to be influenced more by The Dark Knight than the slush that inspired the previous film. TDK was an intelligent action film with ideas behind it. Cumberbatch looks like he'll be an intense, charismatic villain unlike Nero who is just about the worst character in the history of Star Trek.

I'd just like to explore some strange some new worlds damnit.

 

[Dick Whitman]

THe point is no one owes us anything. Don't like it, move on to something else. I done it for things that changed away from what I use to like. In all of those cases there are still people who like it without me. That is life.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not the most selfish fan in history for wanting the only Star Trek available to be... enjoyable. That's just absurd and you're being too precious.

For what it's worth I do think STID will be an improvement on the anti-intellectual depravity of the 2009 film. It looks to be influenced more by The Dark Knight than the slush that inspired the previous film. TDK was an intelligent action film with ideas behind it. Cumberbatch looks like he'll be an intense, charismatic villain unlike Nero who is just about the worst character in the history of Star Trek.

I'd just like to explore some strange some new worlds damnit.

Anti-intellectual? Seriously? Hyperbolic much?

 

[controlfreak]

"Anti-intellectual depravity??" Seriously? I think someone got coal in their stocking. By the way, the 'Slush" that inspired the 2009 film was a little TV series from the 60s called Star Trek. You should check it out. Lots of fist fights with bad guys and hot alien space babes in gogo boots. I loved it when I was 10.

 

[Rhodan]

"Anti-intellectual depravity??" Seriously? I think someone got coal in their stocking. By the way, the 'Slush" that inspired the 2009 film was a little TV series from the 60s called Star Trek. You should check it out. Lots of fist fights with bad guys and hot alien space babes in gogo boots. I loved it when I was 10.

I guess people have today problems with comparing 60´s television format without CGI with blockbusters of the present. By today´s eyes it might seem a lot more intellectual, than it actually is.

However, even with cheesiness of TOS, and I am apologizing in advance for disrespect, ST09 feels to me more like a Voyager movie, only substituing Borg with tattooed Romulans. Fortunaly, Abrams is master of exucution and execution is almost everything.

Given the Cumberbatch´s character, my guts telling me that STID, on the oher hand, might be actually closest to DS9 movie as we get and that gives me a hope. It´s just that in moment Harrison says that he "will take his ¨vengence", a lot of us probably cringed becouse we see how filmmakers are playing it safe with a formula.

 

[Devon]

We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

Fans, well most anyway, want to see their favorite franchise thrive. Do you know why? Because it means it will continue.

We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible.

I know, thousands of fans have been clamoring for a movie based on "The Inner Light." I know this is going to be shock, but Star Trek is the property of a Corporation. It has been for 46 year now. Corporations like to make money because that is how they survive and keep many many many people gainfully employed. I really don't know too many people who like to aim for the smallest audience possible, do you?

So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

Sorry state of affairs for whom? (I'll give you the answer: No one.)

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the 2009 Star Trek movie, something which actually exists, with the enduring myth that any incarnation of Star Trek ever was focused on intellectual, thought-provoking science-fiction. Yes, there have been elements of smarter-than-average science-fiction in Star Trek through the years, but they were few and far between, and not representative of the tone of the franchise as a whole, no matter what the rose-tinted glasses brigade may pretend.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Know what happened to the "classic" Star Trek that the 2009 haters loved?

People stopped watching it so they stopped making it and it went off the air. Enterprise ended not with a bang but with a gurgle.

We as fans of the franchise get what we get (which also happens to be aimed at putting the most butts in the most seats, which means the most dollars in the right pockets) or we get nothing. That's the way the film and TV industry works, for better or worse.

Of course, it is absolutely okay to prefer no Star Trek to "bad" Star Trek...

 

[donners22]

Geez, sometimes I wonder if many people here actually like Star Trek as a whole! One group bashes the current movies, and the other defends the movies and then goes on to bash other series (generally Voyager and Enterprise).

This place really makes for depressing reading at times.

 

[Rhodan]

Geez, sometimes I wonder if many people here actually like Star Trek as a whole! One group bashes the current movies, and the other defends the movies and then goes on to bash other series (generally Voyager and Enterprise).

This place really makes for depressing reading at times.

Becouse, IMHO, is pointless talking about "Star Trek as a whole" Yesterday´s Enterpise was product of kinda different direction than the one that gave us Unimatrix Zero or In the Pale Moonlight or perhaps A night in Sickbay. Obviously, all series had all kinds of quality, but it´s impossible or maybe just impractical to think about them as a whole just becouse of name of the franchise.

 

[donners22]

Geez, sometimes I wonder if many people here actually like Star Trek as a whole! One group bashes the current movies, and the other defends the movies and then goes on to bash other series (generally Voyager and Enterprise).

This place really makes for depressing reading at times.

Becouse, IMHO, is pointless talking about "Star Trek as a whole" Yesterday´s Enterpise was product of kinda different direction than the one that gave us Unimatrix Zero or In the Pale Moonlight or perhaps A night in Sickbay. Obviously, all series had all kinds of quality, but it´s impossible or maybe just impractical to think about them as a whole just becouse of name of the franchise.

Indeed, but the same could be said for each series. Yesterday's Enterprise was also a product of a different direction to TNG's first season, for instance.

I suppose it's just frustrating to see people casually scorn an entire series, especially when they are doing it because they are annoyed at someone dismissing something they like. It just creates a very negative circle of responses, IMO (says he complaining about the posting style of others, and thus perpetuating the issue. Sigh...)

 

[F. King Daniel]

I will agree however that Star Trek 2009 lost (in relation to the TV show) a meaningful look at the human condition.

Spock came out of the closet in the last film, TOS allegory style. Last time Trek went near that kind of story, it ended in a condemnation and reprogramming (Next Gen's "The Outcast")

 

[DalekJim]

Geez, sometimes I wonder if many people here actually like Star Trek as a whole! One group bashes the current movies, and the other defends the movies and then goes on to bash other series (generally Voyager and Enterprise).

This place really makes for depressing reading at times.

Well, I enjoyed going through Voyager and Enterprise despite their warts and don't consider the Jar Jar Abrams film to even be Star Trek so I'd say I like pretty much all Star Trek really .

Know what happened to the "classic" Star Trek that the 2009 haters loved?

People stopped watching it so they stopped making it and it went off the air.

After 30 seasons and 10 movies! Hardly a flop? People were always gonna stop watching one day. It seems odd to consider "classic" Trek a failure by any measure. It just needed a rest for a while as the audience had become fatigued and took it for granted. It didn't need to be this obnoxious "BUCKLE UP! FIRE EVERYTHING!" monstrosity we've got on our hands.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Trek needed an entire change in direction. People stopped watching it because various producers had wrung so much out of that format that most people were bored.

There's no reason to believe that large audiences would return to a "faithful" version of Star Trek after a "rest." None at all.

If you'd rather have no Trek than one that's changed in this way - that's understandable, and there's no reason to put yourself through the exercise of seeing the movie or talking about it in advance. If you're waiting for oldTrek to return - that wasn't going to happen and it's not going to happen.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It didn't need to be this obnoxious "BUCKLE UP! FIRE EVERYTHING!" monstrosity we've got on our hands.

Let's focus on the positive for a moment and forget about the histrionics. Had you been the movie's producer or director, what would it have been like? How would you have revitalized Star Trek and how would you have brought it back for a new audience and a new century?

 

[BillJ]

How would you have revitalized Star Trek and how would you have brought it back for a new audience and a new century?

Even though I'm lukewarm to Star Trek 2009, if I had been a writer/director, I'd have done exactly what Abrams did. Because my job is to get a good return on the studios investment.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

How would you have revitalized Star Trek and how would you have brought it back for a new audience and a new century?

Even though I'm lukewarm to Star Trek 2009, if I had been a writer/director, I'd have done exactly what Abrams did. Because my job is to get a good return on the studios investment.

Presumably there were more than one way to achieve that.

 

[Edge of Forever]

DalekJim, if you think Star Trek should just be one thing, or just be a very small number of things, then I don't think you get what Star Trek is at all. Despite what you say Star Trek has never just been a deep look at the human condition, that's just been a small fraction of what Star Trek has been. Star Trek can be hundreds of completely different things and it's proven that in over 700 episodes. This isn't the first time we've had fun action Star Trek and it won't be the last time we have it.

The best of Star Trek hasn't always been something that explores deep philosophical ideas, heck some of those episodes really really really suck (like the one where Quark gets a sex change, da hell was that) and Star Trek 2009 is not unintelligent just because it doesn't explore these things. (Seriously, likening J.J to Jar Jar is one of many inane hyperbolic statements that you've made and using crap like that doesn't give your argument any kind of creditably or substance, it just makes you look bitter and butthurt).