However, the recent photos and EW article confirm what I've suspected most about this film and about JJ's involvement: No one involved in this film believes in any part of "Star Trek," from the original to it's later spin-offs.
I know you did not intend it as such, but I find this a contradictory statement. The fact that this movie exists at all shows that quite a few people believe in it, not the least of which is the studio that is putting a fairly large sum of money behind it. J.J. Abrams is an avowed Star Wars fan, and yet he found the interest in it to take on a project that is taking up a good chunk of two years of his life. Many quotes form Zach Quinto have shown he is very much interested in the role of Spock (and lobbied for it). Other actors such as Simon Pegg have stated they want to do justice to the original roles as set down by the cast of TOS without relying on mimicking their predecessors. All this sounds like a lot of "believing" in Star Trek to me.
This film is coming across as nothing more than an excuse to re-use the name, iconography and the pull of a "modern" director and producer to get the franchise to be "in" again.
Sure, and what exactly is wrong with that? In order to be successful, all franchises must appeal to a current audience to grow. Adam West's "Batman" ruled the school in the 60's, but it's "The Dark Knight" that ruled this past summer. Such a success often applies just what you said, namely: a known brand name, iconic imagery, current Hollywood talent. Batman got Nolan, we got JJ. May JJ's success mirror that of Nolan's, I say.
Why then, I ask, does this appear to be exactly like every "modern" sci-fi and pop action movie that's been coming out as of late?
I cannot think of one sci-fi movie out right now that shares a premise similar to what "Star Trek '09" is promising. What I have come to expect based on the articles and images released thus far is an adventure set in the "Star Trek" universe of starships and the Federation that focuses on how the crew of the original series came together before the original five year mission. Among current scifi movies (using the definition rather loosely) I can think of are "Death Race", "Babylon A.D.", "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Which "modern" sci-fi movies are you equating "Star Trek" to?
Why did you take so much time to create a respectful and imaginative take on Kirk's uniforms, and yet throw everything else out and instead create an environment that doesn't appear as if they should inhabit the same universe?
In my view, the photos we have seen of "Star Trek" so far show that it is no more of a departure from what we've seen before as TOS to TMP or even TMP to ST2 or STIV to TNG. Each incarnation of Trek has managed to take certain iconic imagery, but then put it's own spin on it. This one is no different. To me, all the photos we've seen so far look like they could easily be part of the Trek universe we have come to know and love. Saucer and nacelle ships? Check. A round bridge with a railing and center viewscreen? Check. Nice big center seat? Check. Of the imagery we have seen so far, I don't find any of it outside the possibility of existing in the universe we have seen in the past.
Why bother with keeping any of the tropes of the original (humanoid aliens, "clean" sets and vehicle design, colored tunics, miniskirts) when you outright claim that this isn't going to be anything like what has come before, except in "spirit?"
I might be misinterpreting your statement, but I think you are taking their statements out of context. What they are saying is that they are respecting some aspects of Trek while presenting something new that can be successful. This is the same concept as TNG managed to respect the ideals of a Utopian civilization, optimism and exploration while setting its own visual style.
Why do you outright proclaim that this "isn't for Star Trek fans" and is instead for "movie fans?"
The two are not mutually exclusive are they? I believe the best way to read that line is that "Star Trek" isn't
just for hardcore Star Trek fans, but rather for a mass audience - something it has needed to be for a very long time now. That's how I interpret the intent anyhow.
I know that hordes of people are going to blast this response as the reason that Abrams made this film the way he did,
No, I believe he made it the way he did because he felt that Trek needed to be revived using a fresh vision. Paramount tapped him and he said "Ok guys, this is how we're going to do it." and they agreed. From an exciting story to a new visual style, he is trying to bring new things to the table in hopes of making this a success. It has nothing to do with fans complaining on a BBS IMO.
