Abrams says original Trek inaccessible?!

[M'Sharak]

Re: JJ didn't identify with the characters??

I'm still trying to figure out what this putz has even done to merit this project...what alias?? Felicity??? WHATTTTTTTTTTTT??????????

[...] And, most importantly, he made a pitch to Paramount that they liked.

No, actually -- he didn't pitch it to Paramount; the important part is that they asked him to do it.

 

[Australis]

Skipping a bunch of posts.

Ummmmm, he's a SW fan, yes? Didn't we see a bunch of species and cultures co-operating in SW? Wookies for a starter, and the fish=headed Admiral that advises it is a device for the capture of our heroes?

Once again, I think the phrases using storm and teacup, and wait and see, apply.

 

[Cyrus]

Re: duplicate topic - merged

It says on the official site and TrekWebthat JJ didn't identify with ANY of the characters in TOS.

I have heard that the Trek character JJ identifies with is Neelix.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Y'know, I enjoyed the hell out of Star Wars and its sequel The Empire Strikes Back, but I was an adult when the first movie premiered. I'd been a hard-core trekkie since the beginning (before anyone called us trekkies). I suppose if I'd been twelve years old instead of twenty-three when Star Wars launched I might prefer it.

I'm lucky. I was two years old when Star Wars came out. I was also two years old when I first started watching Star Trek. I remember seeing I, Mudd and being terrified when Norman opened his chest revealing his circuitry. I'm pretty grateful to be in the right age group that doesn't get the whole Trek vs. Wars rivalry.

I mean how can there be a rivalry between the two? Trek is science fiction. Wars is space opera. Other than both being set in space it's like the difference between Gomer Pyle and Full Metal Jacket. The trappings are similar but the genre is different. There's just no comparison.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I on the other hand identify strongly with the mentally unstable but brilliant mad scientist, his estranged son and an FBI agent who shares her mind with her dead lover as they investigate paranormal phonemena.

Trekkies have become a funny lot, they hate the fans, they hate Roddenberry, oh well...

 

[Aragorn]

Re: JJ didn't identify with the characters??

I'm still trying to figure out what this putz has even done to merit this project...what alias?? Felicity??? WHATTTTTTTTTTTT??????????

The only new hires Paramount should make when it comes to Star Trek are people with prior Star Trek experience.

Just no one should be allowed to be President of the United States unless he or she has already had experience as the President.

 

[Captain Pike]

Skipping a bunch of posts.
.. and the fish=headed Admiral that advises it is a device for the capture of our heroes?

Akbar. Mentioning his very name means I now have to quote..

..."IT'S A TRAP!"

 

[Cheapjack]

The thing is though, I would have thought, is that it is the characters who MAKE ST. That's what I would have thought, over the last 40 years.

To hear him say that he doesn't identify with them makes my jaw drop. But, I suppose, that's one new fresh perspective- ST without the characters!

Starship is right. This film has been made and either a lot of people will come to see it, or they won't. They'll do a survey if it doesn't succeed and try to find out why and then they may or may not do another one.

 

[The Academic]

Memo to J.J. Abrams:
Open mouth, insert foot.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Trekkies have become a funny lot, they hate the fans, they hate Roddenberry, oh well...

"Trekkies" are johnny-come-latelies - we didn't have a name when I started watching. We just liked the damned show.

 

[Cyke101]

The thing is though, I would have thought, is that it is the characters who MAKE ST. That's what I would have thought, over the last 40 years.

To hear him say that he doesn't identify with them makes my jaw drop. But, I suppose, that's one new fresh perspective- ST without the characters!

Starship is right. This film has been made and either a lot of people will come to see it, or they won't. They'll do a survey if it doesn't succeed and try to find out why and then they may or may not do another one.

As a writer myself, I can honestly tell you that you don't have to make characters you identify with in order to tell a character driven story. For example, Silence of the Lambs has characters of both unrealistic evil and unrealistic wit (even for fictional FBI agents), but it's still very much a classic because the twists and turns were all character driven as opposed to "Bam! Surprise!" that many plot driven stories are prone to. But I've never heard anyone say Starling or Lecter identify with them.

Or, to bring in a more Trek example: In the Pale Moonlight is regarded as a modern classic. It has its fans and its detractors, and to this day the morality of the episode tends to bring some fierce debates. But when all is said and done, while some sympathize with Sisko, while some condemn his actions, no one has said they identify and feel what he feels, because frankly, Sisko's dilemma is out the scale of what the vast majority of viewers feel. No one identifies. And yet it's still considered a masterpiece and very much more character driven than most Trek episodes.

Also, really, how accessible can it be if it's a period piece? Whether it be the 13th Century or the 23rd Century, there's going to be some disconnect. In a world like Trek, sometimes that disconnect is needed, unless you can tell me what it's like to be an emotionally-suppressed Vulcan who beams from ship to planet on a routine basis.

Now can we all stop hiding thinly veiled cynicism by thrashing easily malleable comments?

 

[Cakes488]

I'm still trying to figure out what this putz has even done to merit this project...

Maybe he just didn't run away fast enough when Paramount threw out a net trying to catch someone willing to risk their career by wasting time on the worn-out, passe Star Trek franchise.

LOL risk his career....that was funny! You made an LOL!! But look at this.... I agree with you that ST is a tried franchise that they've mismanaged and ran into the ground. If they can't come up with any riveting NEW characters and storylines then they should just leave "well enough" alone. But instead they'll manipulate and do whatever they need to do to tell this "new story". Yeah JJ couldn't outrun the promise of a big paycheck(s)..that's all he cares about because obviously he doesn't really care about Trek from that absolutely ridiculous article that I just read yesterday.

The thing is though, I would have thought, is that it is the characters who MAKE ST. That's what I would have thought, over the last 40 years.

To hear him say that he doesn't identify with them makes my jaw drop. But, I suppose, that's one new fresh perspective- ST without the characters!

Starship is right. This film has been made and either a lot of people will come to see it, or they won't. They'll do a survey if it doesn't succeed and try to find out why and then they may or may not do another one.

As a writer myself, I can honestly tell you that you don't have to make characters you identify with in order to tell a character driven story. For example, Silence of the Lambs has characters of both unrealistic evil and unrealistic wit (even for fictional FBI agents), but it's still very much a classic because the twists and turns were all character driven as opposed to "Bam! Surprise!" that many plot driven stories are prone to. But I've never heard anyone say Starling or Lecter identify with them.

Or, to bring in a more Trek example: In the Pale Moonlight is regarded as a modern classic. It has its fans and its detractors, and to this day the morality of the episode tends to bring some fierce debates. But when all is said and done, while some sympathize with Sisko, while some condemn his actions, no one has said they identify and feel what he feels, because frankly, Sisko's dilemma is out the scale of what the vast majority of viewers feel. No one identifies. And yet it's still considered a masterpiece and very much more character driven than most Trek episodes.

Also, really, how accessible can it be if it's a period piece? Whether it be the 13th Century or the 23rd Century, there's going to be some disconnect. In a world like Trek, sometimes that disconnect is needed, unless you can tell me what it's like to be an emotionally-suppressed Vulcan who beams from ship to planet on a routine basis.

Now can we all stop hiding thinly veiled cynicism by thrashing easily malleable comments?

I mean thank you...what else can I say...well said and you're spot on...why couldn't you be doing the interview with that Abrams guy???

 

[scotthm]

I remember a certain fellow by the name of Nick Meyers who didn't like the TOS at all and I think that worked out pretty well now didn't it?

I'd gladly give up the whole TOS movie series for one more good first season episode.

---------------

 

[Sector 7]

Trekkies have become a funny lot, they hate the fans, they hate Roddenberry, oh well...

"Trekkies" are johnny-come-latelies - we didn't have a name when I started watching. We just liked the damned show.

I am one of those pre-Trekkie fans. I have been a fan so long that I can remember when being a fan meant being- GOD forbid!- an optimist.

 

[stonester1]

I began watching in the mid 70s on a small BnW TV in our living room. The ep was WNMHGB. The scene was that recorder bouy from the Valiant, when it began transmitting, beeping and that light on top flashing.

I was hooked.

 

[Cheapjack]

The thing is though, I would have thought, is that it is the characters who MAKE ST. That's what I would have thought, over the last 40 years.

To hear him say that he doesn't identify with them makes my jaw drop. But, I suppose, that's one new fresh perspective- ST without the characters!

Starship is right. This film has been made and either a lot of people will come to see it, or they won't. They'll do a survey if it doesn't succeed and try to find out why and then they may or may not do another one.

As a writer myself, I can honestly tell you that you don't have to make characters you identify with in order to tell a character driven story. For example, Silence of the Lambs has characters of both unrealistic evil and unrealistic wit (even for fictional FBI agents), but it's still very much a classic because the twists and turns were all character driven as opposed to "Bam! Surprise!" that many plot driven stories are prone to. But I've never heard anyone say Starling or Lecter identify with them.

Or, to bring in a more Trek example: In the Pale Moonlight is regarded as a modern classic. It has its fans and its detractors, and to this day the morality of the episode tends to bring some fierce debates. But when all is said and done, while some sympathize with Sisko, while some condemn his actions, no one has said they identify and feel what he feels, because frankly, Sisko's dilemma is out the scale of what the vast majority of viewers feel. No one identifies. And yet it's still considered a masterpiece and very much more character driven than most Trek episodes.

Also, really, how accessible can it be if it's a period piece? Whether it be the 13th Century or the 23rd Century, there's going to be some disconnect. In a world like Trek, sometimes that disconnect is needed, unless you can tell me what it's like to be an emotionally-suppressed Vulcan who beams from ship to planet on a routine basis.

Now can we all stop hiding thinly veiled cynicism by thrashing easily malleable comments?

I think that the fact that James T was a car thief in his youth and doesn't know what he wants in life at first, means that this character is VERY identifiable to the youth of today!

I don't identify with that. I'm just going to see it hoping that he will mature into the character that I watch it for, that I try to be when I make decisions in life about my career, or women, or whatever. I'm not a starship captain travelling the Galaxy, but that's what I watch it for in this down to Earth reality.

 

[pookha]

well he was a car thief in the series

 

[ST-One]

LOL risk his career....that was funny! You made an LOL!! But look at this.... I agree with you that ST is a tried franchise that they've mismanaged and ran into the ground. If they can't come up with any riveting NEW characters and storylines then they should just leave "well enough" alone. But instead they'll manipulate and do whatever they need to do to tell this "new story". Yeah JJ couldn't outrun the promise of a big paycheck(s)..that's all he cares about because obviously he doesn't really care about Trek from that absolutely ridiculous article that I just read yesterday.

Yeah, indeed.

Roddenberry also should have just stopped making Star Trek after WNMHGB. I mean if they couldn't come up with NEW characters for each episode...

Come on! Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of the gang are something like cultural icons. They ARE Star Trek.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I still stand by my position that some of you are looking for something to get your panties in a twist, no matter how small it is, and have found it. Just because you can look at the TV and say, "Oh yeah, Kirk kinda represents me!" or "Holy crap! Bones is going through some of the same stuff I am!" doesn't mean that every one can. Give it a rest... how about you get the lynch mob ready after you have something "lynchable", like him screwing up the movie instead of a silly little quote that basically comes down to, "JJ didn't feel about these characters the way I did.".

I can't say I really identified with any of the characters either... am I still allowed into the theater? Do I need to hand in my Trekkie card?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Referencing this news item:

[You mean this news item? - M']

Watching the original series was enjoyable to Abrams, who liked the idea of different species working together, but he didn't feel that he was part of that universe. "I always felt like I missed the way in," he explained. "I enjoyed the idea of [Star Trek]. I thought the notion of this group collaborating, various cultures and races and species working together, not conquering but exploring and discovering, there was something inherently, obviously interesting. but... I felt like, well, you missed me."

This guy has got to be joking.

Just look at Lost.

Last I knew, that show is one gigantic convoluted mess. I jumped in with it at the start and greatly enjoyed the first season, considering it some of the best TV I'd ever seen, with diminishing returns as the seasons progressed. The more they tried to explain mysteries, the worse it got. The interconnections and links built between characters grew to an unbelievable, incredible amount.

And then, at one point, I missed one - just one - episode, and bam, it was completely impossible to follow the show anymore and I gave up watching it. And I don't miss it.

So for him to say the original Trek was not accessible, or that people couldn't relate to it, rings absolutely hollow with me.

P.S. Anyone want to buy a Lost Season 1 DVD set? Just kidding.

Well..I like LOST. And I think ABBRAMS is in a different league when compared to BERMAN..IMO...

Rob