Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?
- Thread starter Danger Ace
- Start date
^I'll bet you $10.00 that JMS & Jackson wouldn't be getting half of the acid being spat at them as Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman have had; fans would be saying how intelligent a Star Trek movie/TV show is.
To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of, say, the novel The Galactic Whirlpool instead of another thriller for the third (and it seems last) movie. But, a thriller is what we'll be getting, it seems.
BTW, even socialists had a problem with the 2009 movie: Star Trek: Boldly going where no man has gone before, again
To that end, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of, say, the novel The Galactic Whirlpool instead of another thriller for the third (and it seems last) movie. But, a thriller is what we'll be getting, it seems.
BTW, even socialists had a problem with the 2009 movie: Star Trek: Boldly going where no man has gone before, again
Last edited:
You underestimate the fannish mindset. Haters will rise to the top. Even now there are folks who shudder at the prospect of a JMS helmed Star Trek. (hey I'm one of them).
I haven't read the The Galactic Whirlpool in decades. Without clicking the link I don't even recall what its about. Though having clicked the link I see a role for Levar Burton, that might get him to shut up,
^Okay (with all apologies for asking again), why so much hatred for Babylon 5 by you? Also, why so much hate for LeVar?
I shudder too at the thought of Trek helmed by JMS and it has nothing to do with Babylon 5. It has to do with the pitch that made it to the internet that was plain terrible.
B5 just didn't strike a cord with me. Part of it was the clunky dialog and mediocre to bad acting. I find it overrated on the "intelligent SF" scale.
I don't hate Levar, it's just that some of his recent comments about ST09 have been ill informed and without merit.
Well, I showed the latest trailer to my mother. She replied, "Too much violence and explosions. I don't know what the story will be about." This is from someone who isn't into Star Trek. If JJ Abrams films are to be sustainable, they need to be able to communicate to someone like my mother what their film will about. I have seen the trailer for the next Superman, which I feel is a better trailer, and I can name the conflicts in that film. I am not sure what is the conflict in the next Star Trek film, other than Kirk getting busted for doing something wrong and having to prove himself yet again to his superiors. Didn't we go down this path before? Oh yes, in the last film.
For myself, I think that Superman may be the better film. I am weary of conspiracy-tainted films and shows. I like the simplicity of films where there is no conspiracy. There are the bad guys and there are the good guys. Like Star Trek used to be. I go to films to escape the complexities of the Real World where there are no set boundaries between the good and the bad.
For myself, I think that Superman may be the better film. I am weary of conspiracy-tainted films and shows. I like the simplicity of films where there is no conspiracy. There are the bad guys and there are the good guys. Like Star Trek used to be. I go to films to escape the complexities of the Real World where there are no set boundaries between the good and the bad.
It's funny the different reactions people get.
My nineteen year old daughter likes Trek but wants nothing to do with the Abrams movies. My seventy year old Mother-in-law is eager to go see it. So much so, that she's going to the theater even though she rarely goes out.
I doubt your mother is the target audience. I know my mother has no plans to watch Star Trek or Superman. She doesn't watch any "Science Fictional" films and no amount of advertising will change that.
Isn't that a theme that Star Trek has explored from time to time?
Well, I may have overstated my case a wee bit.
I enjoyed "Star Trek" (2009), and it impressed me greatly ... the crux of my point in this thread is that I would hate to see this franchise become one-note.
Honestly, I was not too familiar with Abrams prior to the last Trek film, and since then I watched a couple of his films - that is what first inspired my worry as he appears prone to repitition with an overt, even distracting "house style."
Seeing the previews of STID looking a bit "more of the same" with respect to the preceeding film was the second thing that struck a chord of worry.
J.J.'s confession that he was more excited and interested in working on "Star Wars" than "Star Trek" was the third item that invoked fear and worry within me.
On the flip-side, Mr. Abrams strikes me as a very talented individual who leads a magnificent crew of equally talented fellows. I would just like to see him throw something other than a fastball by giving us more of a finesse game to which Trek is uniquely suited.
Of course, I may very much be alone in my appraisal and fear, but it is an honest and sincerely held point-of-view on my part. STID maybe more then the previews would thus far indicate (I hope and pray).
Also, Peter Jackson is (or at least was) in talks (initiated by him) to direct an episode of "Doctor Who" as he is a big fan - I hope it works out.
I read that. I always felt JMS did it just to "goose" Trek fans. He knew it was silly and not likely to be acted upon.
Oh, please. Within thirty minutes, there would be people declaring in alarm that "Jackson is going to turn Trek into Tolkien! The Hobbit is fantasy, damnit; what does Jackson know about real, serious science fiction?"
Heck, there are still people on this very board who insist that DS9 isn't proper Trek because it compromised Roddenberry's utopian vision. Or that Enterprise disrespected the sacred continuity and maligned the Vulcans. Etc, etc.
And the idea that most fans are "spitting acid" at the reboot is widely overstated. Contrary to myth, the last movie was not "universally despised" as some guy on Facebook was insisting the other day. Most Trekkies are not up in arms over the new regime . . . and are looking forward to the new movie.
Whoever is running things at any given time is going to take flack for changing things--or not changing them enough!
"Balance of Terror" comes immediately to mind. And "Arena."
I never thought that clear-cut distinctions between Good Guys and Bad Guys was a defining characteristic of Trek, but this does go to show how different people look for different things in Trek. And can sometimes seem to be watching a entirely different series!
Some people are primarily into the characters. Some people are into the science and technical manuals. Some people want adventure and excitement. Some people just want to escape to a future where people are nicer and smarter than they are today. Some people really like the Klingons and dressing up at conventions.
Star Trek is a big tent. So it can be presumptuous to assume that everybody has the same vision of what Trek should be.
(Oops. Sorry for the double post. I thought somebody had posted something else in the interim.)
^^Fair enough-I just threw that out because of what I've seen said about the 2009 movie by fans elsewhere on the 'Net. I myself have no problem with the 2009 movie or the upcoming one, but at the same time, what I said about novels like The Galactic Whirlpool being adapted still stands-I'd like to think that a story like that could be the basis for a movie (since it couldn't be the basis for an episode of the various TV series.)
Please god know his idea sounds boring as hell and is just The Chase dragged out for 5 years.
Hell I got warning bells when I read he was confused about why the Enterprise would be exploring the galaxy for 5 years and came up with this stuff to explain it.
And no it wasn't becuase of some lack of understanding about the trekverse it was mostly concern that he was going to build up something that pretty much existed as a reason for them to be out about running into weird stuff into some attempt at a mega epic that takes over the show (which from the treatment its does) instead of focusing on the stuff that made the show fun.
Also I thought this pretty much covers why the Enterprise is on a 5 year mission and doesn't need to suck up valuable screen time to explain.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7DEw70LVWs[/yt]
And I will concede that there are certainly some fans who have issues with the latest cycle of Trek films. I just find that the Loyal Opposition tends to overstate how widespread this attitude is sometimes . . . and often forgets the equally vehement fannish controversies of the past.
And Lord knows I have nothing against the novels. Or Babylon-5, for that matter.
(Although I was always more of a Farscape guy.)
I have to disagree. At least not on the internet I know and love. This is an utopian cyber-culture where we are all linked in a mutually supportive mass mind of nurturers .
Just kidding.
I agree there is a certain "Kobayashi Maru" aspect to signing on to helm "Star Trek." "Good" and "bad" reactions though are fine ... it is the "no-reaction" that is feared.
Also agree. Just like the second "Star Wars" trilogy. Some "fans" tried to disparage them yet most of the devotees and general audience members alike they loved them.
Starting in the late 1990s and picking up steam after 09/11, there were shows where the protagonists were, in the course of solving local issues, attempting to investigate and uncover a broader conspiracy that had global or galactic influence. Think Enterprise and the Temporal Cold War. For me, this is the kind of thing I can live without. It isn't that the idea is bad; it's the execution that is bad. The best of these shows, according to some, is Lost - a show that JJ Abrams had a hand in. Even in that show, they didn't answer all the questions.
I have to ask, are we watching the Bondization of Star Trek? Every Bond film has the same elements. The difference between these films is in how the elements are integrated. Some work better than others. I feel already that I will be watching a repeat of the film from 2009 when I see this new film in 2013. The question for me, is this, how integrated are the elements, and will they work?
I have to ask, are we watching the Bondization of Star Trek? Every Bond film has the same elements. The difference between these films is in how the elements are integrated. Some work better than others. I feel already that I will be watching a repeat of the film from 2009 when I see this new film in 2013. The question for me, is this, how integrated are the elements, and will they work?
You are never going to get all of fandom being "pleased" about the same version of a "Star Trek". 100 fans = 100 opinions.
Similar threads
