EI: Why do you think this Star Trek universe still exists, when some of the topics that made the original series so special, like the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement, are somewhat outdated?
JJA: Well, first of all, while the fear of the Soviet Union has gone away, there are fears of many other things that have taken its place. The Civil Rights movement may not be where it was in the ’60s, but it still has a long way to go. I would argue that the sense of optimism that Star Trek naturally has the idea that it’s not a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but in our future — certainly a fantasy, but a vision of our future that we thrive towards together, inter-culturally, inter-spatially. There’s an optimism that is necessary when times are tough. The ecomomy is what it is and there is fear and uncertainty. To see something that’s not a post-apocalyptic vision — not a grim, pessimistic view of the future — that’s not a bad thing. That’s one answer. The other is that there’s a studio that has a property. Cynically, they want to exploit the property. The key is not to make the film because of it. That can be the agenda of the owners of the copyright, but the filmmakers need to make the movie because they care and because it’s their passion. I met with Chris Nolan before he made Batman, and that guy had a vision — he loves Batman. He had a feeling for what that world should be. It was clear in the film that his vision was realized. It’s a darker view of our world, but it was nice to see somebody do something, because I’m sure WB was saying, “Oh, we need another Batman movie,” and then marrying that with a filmmaker who was completely passionate about the project and made it work.
