Abrams: ST is silly and ridiculous

[Basil]

Austin Powers more or less imitated the style of late 1960s spy shows and movies and was a blockbuster that spawned two sequels. Attempts to "reimagine" other properties with a more contemporary aesthetic, such as The Avengers, Lost and Space, and Bewitched, all did lousy box office.

The aesthetic might not work on many now-senior citizen Baby Boomers who were around the first time and the snarkiest of Gen-Xers who automatically label anything like that "campy," but hip Gen-Y is big into "retro," which is why mid-century modern furniture, buzzcut, mod, and Princeton hairstyles, go-go boots and mini dresses, and thick-framed glasses, among other things from the era, have made a big comeback. In fact, I doubt this film would even have been made had Hollywood not essentially decided to write off the other two generations in favor of hoping to appeal to the retro chic attitudes of the youngest and now largest of U.S. generations.

I do think Abrams was talking about the whole of Star Trek and not just the costumes, in part because he comes across with that stereotypical Gen-X quality of crapping on things from on high and in part because the comparison to Galaxy Quest doesn't work -- if anything, its ship designs, special effects, and muted costumes poke fun mostly at the films and later Star Trek series than the more colorful original series.

 

[ancient]

Abrams is very aware of Trek's more camp aspects - largely the rainbow colors and very simplistic, dated tech. Also the large number of camp stories.

We may like it, but the general audience largely can't see beyond the extremely camp parts of TOS. Abrams is saying he is tweaking or changing those parts - and lists a few very good examples.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anyone who approached this project with enormous reverence for and no perspective on the kitschy aspects of the original series would simply bungle it.

 

[Cryogenic]

Abrams' breathless arrogance is captured in this Entertainment Weekly article with a staggering juxtaposition:

Enter Abrams, 42, whose knack for mainstream genre fare (see: Alias, Lost, and Mission: Impossible III) has elevated him to visionary status in Hollywood. His Trekker credentials? Nonexistent. ''I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore,'' he says, sitting outside his editing suites at Paramount, sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with a cartoon question mark.

Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html

I wonder if half of these magazine writers are aware of what they write?

 

[Basil]

Abrams is very aware of Trek's more camp aspects - largely the rainbow colors and very simplistic, dated tech. Also the large number of camp stories.

We may like it, but the general audience largely can't see beyond the extremely camp parts of TOS. Abrams is saying he is tweaking or changing those parts - and lists a few very good examples.

Perhaps -- but I think those of us who are over-the-hill (read: not Gen-Y) may also be projecting our assumptions on a generation that could reject our aesthetics as much as, say, many Baby Boomers rejected the 1940s and 50s sensibilities of their parents or Gen-Xers rejected the wilder aspects of the 1960s and 1970s. To be hip is to be different, and in the same way that color and flair found its way back into fashion, the "general audience" may be much more tolerant than the oldsters want to believe.

 

[Saul]

Perhaps you could cite your source?

In any event, whether or not he _should_ be helming this picture...it's a bit late now.

http://www.trektoday.com/news/281008_03.shtml

...The article in Empire includes an interview with J.J. Abrams. In part of the interview, he discusses the challenges of making the 1960s boldly-colored uniforms palatable to today's audiences. "For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project," said Abrams, "which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary color costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially clichéd as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?"

so that equals "ST is silly and ridiculous"?

Humm let me try

"For me, the costumes were a microcosm of the entire project," said Abrams, "which was how to take something that's kind of silly and make it feel real. But how do you make legitimate those near-primary color costumes? How do you make legitimate the pointy ears and the bowl haircut? It's ridiculous and as potentially clichéd as it gets. How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?"

"For me Galaxy Quest feels real and legitimate. But how do you make the bowl haircut and potentially pointy ears ridiculous and silly?"

 

[Cyke101]

Also, you want to talk about silly in Star Trek? One word for you: Threshold.

Oh, that's bad silly. I want good silly!

 

[xortex]

I can accept this as adifferent version of TOS but it should not be called a cononic prequil, that is all.

Let's just say JJ had stated in a media release that this film was not a "canonical prequel", and when it came out fans realised that nothing in the story clashed with existing canon. Then we'd have people saying that JJ lied to the fanbase and made us think that this new film was a complete reboot when, in fact, the story fits with the existing timeline perfectly.

How many 'prequels' are they gonna do before they start messing with canon ?

 

[SonicRanger]

So next time I see "Hamlet" performed, I should complain about how disrespectful it is to Shakespeare because the sets and actors are different than the previous time? Should I scream that women shouldn't be playing Gertrude and Ophelia? Should I complain that the theater isn't outdoors or that the stage is lit by light bulbs? Or should I just realize that the director made a few different choices but that these are still the same characters in the same story?

 

[T'Bonz]

To be hip is to be different, and in the same way that color and flair found its way back into fashion, the "general audience" may be much more tolerant than the oldsters want to believe.

THAT I doubt. If it's not modern and up-to-date, it'll be ridiculed. I doubt some of today's audiences can look past the dated feel of a show like Twilight Zone and see how good some of the stories were. Many won't even WATCH TOS because it's "cheesy." A set is just dressing. A powerful story can make you be able to get past any flaws in the dressing, like a set that was made in a time when things were simpler and looks like it's a fake set.

 

[Basil]

To be hip is to be different, and in the same way that color and flair found its way back into fashion, the "general audience" may be much more tolerant than the oldsters want to believe.

THAT I doubt. If it's not modern and up-to-date, it'll be ridiculed. I doubt some of today's audiences can look past the dated feel of a show like Twilight Zone and see how good some of the stories were. Many won't even WATCH TOS because it's "cheesy." A set is just dressing. A powerful story can make you be able to get past any flaws in the dressing, like a set that was made in a time when things were simpler and looks like it's a fake set.

Actually, I've shown old episodes to younger people, and they really get it. "Eye of the Beholder" and "Time Enough at Last" are the favorites, though "The Invaders" and "Masks" also made an impression. I think us geezers may not fully appreciate how what was ridiculed by our contemporaries might in fact seem more interesting to many younger people. But we also need to make a distinction between the sci-fi geek and the general audience -- I think the former is actually more likely to get hung up because something looks "dated" than the latter who might see it instead as "retro," assuming it is treated with a degree of respect and not ridicule by the people making it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, I've shown old episodes to younger people, and they really get it. "Eye of the Beholder" and "Time Enough at Last" are the favorites, though "The Invaders" and "Masks" also made an impression. I think us geezers may not fully appreciate how what was ridiculed by our contemporaries might in fact seem more interesting to many younger people.

Yeah, the original "Twilight Zone" is remarkably well appreciated by young people. And it's in black and white, yet.

 

[Basil]

I think the Bond films are a good example of the aesthetic schism that might exist between previous and current expectations -- the 80s and 90s featured a blow-dried Bond, whose mannequin-esque physique and reliance on increasingly more trivial gadgets was in keeping with what then young Gen-Xers and then middle-aged Baby Boomers were thought to value. The films had as much in common aesthetically with the Connery ones as The Dark Knight does with Tim Burton's take 20 years before. But Casino Royale -- much to its credit in spite of the incessant criticism of the choice of Daniel Craig to take over from Pierce Brosnan -- tossed much of that aesthetic out. Here, Bond looks like the love child of Steve McQueen and Sean Connery rather than a model for a Macy's circular (and even wears the same polo shirt and walks like Connery in one scene), eschews gadgets for more traditional brains and brawn, and reverts back to the hard-drinking fellow who though imperfect was the best agent out there. Casino Royale even filmed a black and white sequence using 40-year-old film stock, and had a very retro credits animated sequence. The result was the highest-grossing Bond film of all time and a bonafide critical hit -- with some critics even suggesting Oscars beyond the typical technical ones. It's sequel, Quantum of Solace, has gone so far as to take its production design cues from those of the great Ken Adam in the 1960s, resurrect a SPECTRE-like organization (last seen officially in 1971), and once again keep Bond grounded rather than make him a cartoon. To younger people, this is all fresh, and suggests it's certainly possible to resurrect design and story cues if they're treated seriously and with respect rather than contempt by the film makers.

 

[M'Sharak]

Abrams' breathless arrogance is captured in this Entertainment Weekly article with a staggering juxtaposition:

Enter Abrams, 42, whose knack for mainstream genre fare (see: Alias, Lost, and Mission: Impossible III) has elevated him to visionary status in Hollywood. His Trekker credentials? Nonexistent. ''I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore,'' he says, sitting outside his editing suites at Paramount, sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with a cartoon question mark.

Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html

I wonder if half of these magazine writers are aware of what they write?

Really? From one quoted sentence -- "I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore[sic]" -- you can infer breathless arrogance? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

But whatever. It's Entertainment Weekly, for crying out loud; it's like People magazine reaching for the lofty realm of Daily Variety or The Hollywood Reporter and coming up short. Were you really expecting incisive journalism?

 

[SalvorHardin]

Abrams' breathless arrogance is captured in this Entertainment Weekly article with a staggering juxtaposition:

Enter Abrams, 42, whose knack for mainstream genre fare (see: Alias, Lost, and Mission: Impossible III) has elevated him to visionary status in Hollywood. His Trekker credentials? Nonexistent. ''I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore,'' he says, sitting outside his editing suites at Paramount, sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with a cartoon question mark.

Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html

I wonder if half of these magazine writers are aware of what they write?

Really? From one quoted sentence -- "I don't think people even understand what Star Trek means anymore[sic]" -- you can infer breathless arrogance? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

What I get from that statement is the same thing most of us see
That people besides us fans think Trek is an irrelevant, cheesy, laughable old show watched only by nerds with no lives.

They don't get anything about all the messages or any other positive things Trek has to offer.

 

[dkehler]

Austin Powers more or less imitated the style of late 1960s spy shows and movies and was a blockbuster that spawned two sequels. Attempts to "reimagine" other properties with a more contemporary aesthetic, such as The Avengers, Lost and Space, and Bewitched, all did lousy box office.

The aesthetic might not work on many now-senior citizen Baby Boomers who were around the first time and the snarkiest of Gen-Xers who automatically label anything like that "campy," but hip Gen-Y is big into "retro," which is why mid-century modern furniture, buzzcut, mod, and Princeton hairstyles, go-go boots and mini dresses, and thick-framed glasses, among other things from the era, have made a big comeback. In fact, I doubt this film would even have been made had Hollywood not essentially decided to write off the other two generations in favor of hoping to appeal to the retro chic attitudes of the youngest and now largest of U.S. generations.

I do think Abrams was talking about the whole of Star Trek and not just the costumes, in part because he comes across with that stereotypical Gen-X quality of crapping on things from on high and in part because the comparison to Galaxy Quest doesn't work -- if anything, its ship designs, special effects, and muted costumes poke fun mostly at the films and later Star Trek series than the more colorful original series.

Well, you might get a successful Star Trek comedy if you went that route, but personally, I'd rather they made Star Trek a bit more serious and more importantly, relevant again.

 

[Basil]

I don't think a retro aesthetic and being serious and relevant have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[dkehler]

I don't think a retro aesthetic and being serious and relevant have to be mutually exclusive.

Well, then your example of Austin Powers really doesn't help your case.

 

[Baldus885]

What I get from that statement is the same thing most of us see
That people besides us fans think Trek is an irrelevant, cheesy, laughable old show watched only by nerds with no lives.

By jove, I think you've got it. Many people's recent memories of Trek are a crap movie with two bald guys and that cancelled show with Scott Bakula in it. Trek has to change in order to become relevant, non-laughable and successful again, it's just a pity it's gong to lose some die-hard fans as it does so.

They don't get anything about all the messages or any other positive things Trek has to offer.

Reading this forum lately, I don't think anyone gets anything about the messages or positive things Trek has to offer.

 

[Basil]

Of course it does -- it was in response to an earlier comment that nothing from the 1960s would work. My point is that Austin Powers clearly shows such a position to be untrue; the fact that when successful 1960s properties like Lost in Space were indeed updated but box office bombs also shows that contemporarizing does not automatically make them successful. I wasn't commenting on making Star Trek a spoof.