Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

[Danger Ace]

Just read the following: "‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Trailer: Will Kirk’s Mistake Doom the Enterprise?"

It got me wondering, with the frenetic energy of JJ Abrams "Star Trek" (2009) and promises of more-of-the-same in "Star Trek Into Darkness," can it be sustained or will it lead to burn out (the "candle that burns twice as bright but half as long" syndrome)? Can TPTB successfully shift gears (can't always throw fastballs) to prevent this from happening?

Based on past performance, I don't think so. A third-film won't be able to successfully sustain the frenzy. Abrams is playing all his trump cards with no regard for the future health of this franchise. You can only go bigger so much before the ballon pops. And even if this film is it for him before he goes over to "Star Wars" the same problem will exist for whoever takesover - where do you go next?

 

[section9]

Nonsense. Paramount could do something shrewd and hire Bay or, horrors, even Spielberg to do the final installment. Story and Directing is everything here.

 

[BillJ]

If they give me three entertaining films, I'll be more than ready for the next reboot.

 

[SalvorHardin]

where do you go next?

To the Borg and making them a terrifying force again.

 

[bullethead]

where do you go next?

TV and/or video games.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Eventually they'll come a "Batman and Robin" moment where there's this weird dichotomy of the money still rolling in at obscene amounts but also a critical mauling and growing sense of dissatisifaction with the formula. That's probably the model now Star Trek plays with is major league, and tentpole for the studio higher stakes. Probably not until the third has come and gone though.

 

[davejames]

I don't see a problem. These movies only come along every 3 or 4 years, so there's plenty of time for audiences to decompress and get ready for the next one.

Of course unlike others here, I don't see these movies as a bunch of mindless, Michael Bay-style action spectacles anyway. As "frenzied" as they may be, I still think Abrams manages to make them about a thousand times more engaging and compelling than the typical Bay movie.

 

[AggieJohn]

I really think it depends. One we don't know how good STID is going to be. It looks great but you never know. Two is if JJ is going to still be a part of Star Trek now that he is doing Star Wars. I expect him to step back but his influence would be much appreciated. It looks like, as much as its a go big movie, with cool CGI, there is also a strong moral, ethical, character driven story there as well. That can definitely be sustainable. That has been the driving force of Star Trek.

 

[Danger Ace]

I don't see a problem. These movies only come along every 3 or 4 years, so there's plenty of time for audiences to decompress and get ready for the next one.

Well, it is not just a case of decompressing per se, but more a feeling of sameness. Abrams filmmaking is in danger of coming off as cynical and one-note. I don't believe "Star Trek" has to be stripped of all meaning to be successfull.

... still think Abrams manages to make them about a thousand times more engaging and compelling than the typical Bay movie.

Right now, I tend to agree, however, my fear is that what Abrams gave us in 2009 represents the sum total of his "vision" as to what "Star Trek" could or should be - and those restrictions will get passed onto whomever follows.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The people in charge never gave much thought to Trek's "sustainability" when they were cranking out the TOS-based movies in the '80s. That worked fine; this looks to be working even better.

 

[Kruezerman]

Sustainability?

What is this? Organic farming?

Trek is Trek, always will be till the end of time. And then some.

 

[Gojira]

The only problem I see is that JJ has raised the bar as far as quality goes and the next person to take the helm of Star Trek will have a lot to live up to.

 

[Danger Ace]

The people in charge never gave much thought to Trek's "sustainability" when they were cranking out the TOS-based movies in the '80s. That worked fine; this looks to be working even better.

I disagree. If you look at all the TOS films of the eighties you'll see a variety of styles and stories. They actively sought not to repeat themselves. The two most successful films were "The Wrath of Kahn" and "The Voyage Home" both very different in tone and temperment.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" looks highly polished but ultimately very similar to "Star Trek" (2009) and that makes me a wee bit sad and trepidatious. Of course, "the proof of the pudding" lay in the film we are given and we won't know that until it is released.

 

[Gojira]

"Star Trek Into Darkness" looks highly polished but ultimately very similar to "Star Trek" (2009) and that makes me a wee bit sad and trepidatious. Of course, "the proof of the pudding" lay in the film we are given and we won't know that until it is released.

While I do see that Into Darkness and Trek 09 are higly polished I think Into Darkness has really cranked up the action to where Trek 09 will seem dull and plodding.

 

[Danger Ace]

The only problem I see is that JJ has raised the bar as far as quality goes and the next person to take the helm of Star Trek will have a lot to live up to.

Abrams did raise the bar, however, Paramount never allowed the previous productions the time, resources and unabashed support. My dislike of the last two TNG films stem directly from Paramounts attitude of the day regarding the Trek franchise. Since then they've reconsidered their position and that is what had paved the way for Trek's elevation.

I would hate for TPTB to feel that Abrams not only raised the bar, but created a single, unalterable templete by which all future Trek's must conform.

 

[BillJ]

I would hate for TPTB to feel that Abrams not only raised the bar, but created a single, unalterable templete by which all future Trek's must conform.

That only happens if the next director has no testicles. *cough*Jonathan Frakes*cough*

 

[Third Nacelle]

The problem is the Abrams-era movies are watered down (all looks, no substance) Trek designed to appeal to mass audiences who aren't traditional Trek fans. Those fans might stick around for two or three films, but eventually their short attentions spans will move on to something shiny and new.

Then what? Reboot again? Cast preteens in the main roles? Have 90 minutes of planets imploding? The reboot was a nice way to make a summer blockbuster, but eventually cheap tricks like that reach a point of diminishing returns. I seriously doubt 30 years from now anybody will look back and remember ST09/STID the way we remember the first six films or even the TNG films.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The problem is the Abrams-era movies are watered down (all looks, no substance) Trek designed to appeal to mass audiences who aren't traditional Trek fans. Those fans might stick around for two or three films, but eventually their short attentions spans will move on to something shiny and new.

Then what? Reboot again? Cast preteens in the main roles? Have 90 minutes of planets imploding? The reboot was a nice way to make a summer blockbuster, but eventually cheap tricks like that reach a point of diminishing returns. I seriously doubt 30 years from now anybody will look back and remember ST09/STID the way we remember the first six films or even the TNG films.

What's a traditional Trek fan?

I remember a couple of good films, several mediocre ones and couple that were really bad.

 

[Third Nacelle]

The problem is the Abrams-era movies are watered down (all looks, no substance) Trek designed to appeal to mass audiences who aren't traditional Trek fans. Those fans might stick around for two or three films, but eventually their short attentions spans will move on to something shiny and new.

Then what? Reboot again? Cast preteens in the main roles? Have 90 minutes of planets imploding? The reboot was a nice way to make a summer blockbuster, but eventually cheap tricks like that reach a point of diminishing returns. I seriously doubt 30 years from now anybody will look back and remember ST09/STID the way we remember the first six films or even the TNG films.

What's a traditional Trek fan?

I remember a couple of good films, several mediocre ones and couple that were really bad.

Yes, but even the bad ones held onto what Trek is: a cerebral science fiction series for people who like to think. That sort of thing doesn't translate well from TV to the big screen, but when they got it right, they got it RIGHT. The last movie completely erased that and turned it into an action movie. A very entertaining and beautiful action movie, but it wasn't really Trek.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The problem is the Abrams-era movies are watered down (all looks, no substance) Trek designed to appeal to mass audiences who aren't traditional Trek fans. Those fans might stick around for two or three films, but eventually their short attentions spans will move on to something shiny and new.

Then what? Reboot again? Cast preteens in the main roles? Have 90 minutes of planets imploding? The reboot was a nice way to make a summer blockbuster, but eventually cheap tricks like that reach a point of diminishing returns. I seriously doubt 30 years from now anybody will look back and remember ST09/STID the way we remember the first six films or even the TNG films.

What's a traditional Trek fan?

I remember a couple of good films, several mediocre ones and couple that were really bad.

Yes, but even the bad ones held onto what Trek is: a cerebral science fiction series for people who like to think. That sort of thing doesn't translate well from TV to the big screen, but when they got it right, they got it RIGHT. The last movie completely erased that and turned it into an action movie. A very entertaining and beautiful action movie, but it wasn't really Trek.

Surely you're not serious. Even the good films weren't that.

Star Trek was an action-adventure TV show. That's why they had stuff blow up, fights in most episodes and a whole lot of shaking going on. The new film followed that well established pattern, while mixing in some nice character moments.