JJ Abrams on the direction of Star Trek 11

[Franklin]

I don't think I'm the only Trekkie like this.

You are most definitely not.

No. He's not. I feel the same.

I mean, I don't want any huge canon gaffes that will do irreparable damage to the other shows or anything like that...but I don't care about what size the Enterprise is, or what the transporters will look like, or that every detail of ever minor character's backstory is canonically correct, etc.

A good, well told and well acted action/adventure story is much more important to me. Because that is what is gonna save Trek from a more permanent hiatus.

Orci has said any differences in Trek lore are not out of ignorance. I can't see them playing any more fast an loose with Trek's vision and canon than Berman et al did with FC, or Roddenberry himself did when the very first TNG episode established that Earth did not make it through the atomic era without a war. This was in direct counterpoint to the overall optimistic theme of our future -- overcoming our atomic demons -- that TOS presented in the Cold War 1960s. That optimism was part of the attraction of the show. Maybe by the 1980s that view was considered naive.

So, like these other posters, I can stand tweeks of canon, some reinterpretations or redirection of Trek history, and so on. However, I would draw the line at a 3000 foot or whatever Enterprise.
Sure nothing established concretely that the Enterprise is 947 feet long, but we do see exterior shots in TMP that establish scale. We've also seen ships from this era in TNG episodes next to TNG ships. By that scale, are we to believe Enterprise-E is 6000 feet long?

Stylistic changes are fine, good, and actually necessary. But I guess I'd have to say that messing with the scale of things qualifies as a major canon gaffe to me.

 

[Tralah]

I'm pretty sure in TOS there was mention of World War III and of course we cannot forget the Eungenics War, so I don't think TNG's implication was without precedent.

 

[Franklin]

I'm pretty sure in TOS there was mention of World War III and of course we cannot forget the Eungenics War, so I don't think TNG's implication was without precedent.

True. I'd say it was "tweeking," though. Making it even darker. Part of the cache TOS built over the years was that it didn't present a dark apocalyptic view of the future. Yes, there was a Eugenics War and a reference to WWIII (and subsequent debates among fans about whether or not they were the same thing). But the point was mankind overcame his demons. He didn't destroy himself. And, it wasn't really only by luck. In "Encounter at Farpoint" we find we just may have been lucky to survive. That's the tweek.
Threads have been done specifically on this subject. I guess my point regarding this thread is whatever direction Abrams decides to take Trek, he has plenty of thematic variance to choose from, and can probably take no more thematic or historical license with what went before (or was suspected to have gone before) than anyone else in charge of Trek has ever done.

 

[Vektor]

Although I understand that lots of people would love to see a new Trek series, including me, I just don’t see any indication that it’s likely to happen any time in the near future. I don’t care how successful the new movie turns out to be, that does not automatically translate into a ready television audience for a new Trek series, especially when that series would most likely have only a peripheral connection to the movie at best.

There seems to be a growing dichotomy between what people like to watch in movie theaters and what they like to watch on television. These days, the big money makers at the box office are sci-fi/fantasy movies, superhero movies, action/adventure movies and horror movies, but you find very few highly popular shows in similar genres on television, and when you do, they are typically relegated to niche cable channels with loyal audiences but relatively low ratings. I think people are attracted to the epic storylines and sheer spectacle of the movie blockbusters, but they require other things to hold their interest in a weekly television show, like deeper characterization and serialized plots.

I think that’s why sci-fi, particularly of the space opera variety, is no longer very popular on television, because once the pure novelty of it wears off—which it did at least a decade ago—the only real advantages the genre has left are epic storylines and spectacle, and those things are far better suited to the big screen than the small screen. I just don’t see any burning desire on the part of general audiences to see Star Trek or any other futuristic, space-based sci-fi show back on the weekly television schedule and I don’t expect the upcoming movie to change that no matter how well it does.

If I had to make a prediction, I would say that if Star Trek ever does return to the small screen, it may be in an entirely different format. I can foresee Paramount eventually spinning off a series of direct-to-DVD movies or maybe even pay-to-download extended episodes similar to what is already being done for fan films. Something that would not have to be produced on a weekly schedule or be limited by the hour-long format, and that could recoup its production costs through direct sales. The way things are going, I honestly think that television as we know it may be heading in that direction anyway.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And so, Vektor pretty much nailed the difference between skiffy TV and the movies.

TNG was a big hit for seven years because it managed somehow to straddle "space opera" like TOS or B5 and those kinds of dramas and soap operas that really do pull audiences in week after week for years. For whatever reason, ten to fifteen million people wanted to hang around once a week on that very attractive flying hotel of a spaceship with those slightly goofy characters.

 

[Cranston]

Although I understand that lots of people would love to see a new Trek series, including me, I just don’t see any indication that it’s likely to happen any time in the near future. I don’t care how successful the new movie turns out to be, that does not automatically translate into a ready television audience for a new Trek series, especially when that series would most likely have only a peripheral connection to the movie at best.

There seems to be a growing dichotomy between what people like to watch in movie theaters and what they like to watch on television. These days, the big money makers at the box office are sci-fi/fantasy movies, superhero movies, action/adventure movies and horror movies, but you find very few highly popular shows in similar genres on television, and when you do, they are typically relegated to niche cable channels with loyal audiences but relatively low ratings. I think people are attracted to the epic storylines and sheer spectacle of the movie blockbusters, but they require other things to hold their interest in a weekly television show, like deeper characterization and serialized plots.

I think that’s why sci-fi, particularly of the space opera variety, is no longer very popular on television, because once the pure novelty of it wears off—which it did at least a decade ago—the only real advantages the genre has left are epic storylines and spectacle, and those things are far better suited to the big screen than the small screen. I just don’t see any burning desire on the part of general audiences to see Star Trek or any other futuristic, space-based sci-fi show back on the weekly television schedule and I don’t expect the upcoming movie to change that no matter how well it does.

If I had to make a prediction, I would say that if Star Trek ever does return to the small screen, it may be in an entirely different format. I can foresee Paramount eventually spinning off a series of direct-to-DVD movies or maybe even pay-to-download extended episodes similar to what is already being done for fan films. Something that would not have to be produced on a weekly schedule or be limited by the hour-long format, and that could recoup its production costs through direct sales. The way things are going, I honestly think that television as we know it may be heading in that direction anyway.

Excellent points all around .

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Although I understand that lots of people would love to see a new Trek series, including me, I just don’t see any indication that it’s likely to happen any time in the near future. I don’t care how successful the new movie turns out to be, that does not automatically translate into a ready television audience for a new Trek series, especially when that series would most likely have only a peripheral connection to the movie at best.

It's important to bear in mind that PPC, and CBS-TV, both are for-profit organizations. (Yeah, I know... "duh"... but follow along, 'K?)

The point I was trying to make was that right now... based upon the level of success of the last few Trek endeavors... the folks running both the movies division and the TV division look at recent Star Trek as UNPROFITABLE... ie, as a bad investment. They're making a RISK INVESTMENT right now, based upon their faith, not in Trek, but in Abrams, to put out a profitable film.

The thing is, this movie's success or failure will either reinforce, or contradict, the current financial impression. If you see a new Trek, just done by different folks, turn out to be a spectacular success, the argument that "Star Trek is worn out and needs to be put out to pasture" will be disproven.

Given that, the door is opened for the possibility that, given a sufficiently interesting proposal, the TV network might become convinced that they can turn a profit off of a Trek show, other than simply by remastering old shows with a few new effects.

In other words, I'm not saying it GUARANTEES a new series. I'm saying that a box-office failure by this film practically guarantees NO new series, and that a massive success by this film would re-open the door towards a new series. A door that, right now, is closed, locked, deadbolted, chained, and has a bunch of stuff stacked up against it!

There seems to be a growing dichotomy between what people like to watch in movie theaters and what they like to watch on television. These days, the big money makers at the box office are sci-fi/fantasy movies, superhero movies, action/adventure movies and horror movies, but you find very few highly popular shows in similar genres on television, and when you do, they are typically relegated to niche cable channels with loyal audiences but relatively low ratings.

The thing to realize here is that the ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT MODEL IS IN FLUX. Get a big 60" flat-panel with a 7.1 speaker system and you get a far better experience at home than you do at the theater... and you have the option of pausing, rewinding, whatever!

Look at how TV content is starting to be provided "on-demand" instead of by a set broadcast schedule. And consider the way that internet, telephone, and entertainment technologies are converging.

In a few more years, I really expect that the "big screen theaters" will really start to suffer, as home "big screens," and even portable (headgear-based) systems that have the same visual impact become much more cost-effective and higher quality. Movie theaters as we know them will go away... I'm sure of it.

Conventional broadcast TV will also go away, though. What you're going to have is super-high-speed digital content provided on-demand, in your home or on your portable headset or whatever.

Come home from work, and instead of going to the theater to catch the new movie release, you go into your entertainment room and watch it then and there, without having some punk kicking your seat or dropping popcorn over your shoulder, or talking back to screen!

Then, switch over to the live broadcast news... then to the video phone... all on the same device.

I see your point, Vektor, really, I do. But I don't see the separation between "at the movies" and "at home" viewing becoming WIDER... I see it as going away altogether.

The only real issue is the size of the production. There, at least, I think both you and Dennis have a point, though I think that the point might be overstated a bit. I really don't think that it's going to be so costly as to be economically non-viable to do a Trek series. But Dennis's point is correct... it's a lot less expensive to make many other types of series. So the Trek series would have to bring in a lot more money to justify its existence.

The real issue, then, remains... can PPC, and can CBS-TV, become convinced that Trek can be sufficiently viable to be worth the investment... or will they think that it's not quite good enough to justify making IT, instead of another "shot on a shoestring" series.

This movie is central to determining that.

 

[Vektor]

The point I was trying to make was that right now... based upon the level of success of the last few Trek endeavors... the folks running both the movies division and the TV division look at recent Star Trek as UNPROFITABLE... ie, as a bad investment. They're making a RISK INVESTMENT right now, based upon their faith, not in Trek, but in Abrams, to put out a profitable film.

The thing is, this movie's success or failure will either reinforce, or contradict, the current financial impression. If you see a new Trek, just done by different folks, turn out to be a spectacular success, the argument that "Star Trek is worn out and needs to be put out to pasture" will be disproven.

Given that, the door is opened for the possibility that, given a sufficiently interesting proposal, the TV network might become convinced that they can turn a profit off of a Trek show, other than simply by remastering old shows with a few new effects.

The point I was trying to make is that Trek is not a monolithic entity to which all of the same rules apply no matter what venue it appears in. The formula required to make a successful movie these days is not at all the same formula required to make a successful TV series. When you try to apply one to the other in either direction, the result is usually a disappointment. It can be argued, for example, that the last two Trek feature films fell on their faces largely because they were little more than extended television episodes released in theaters. On the other hand, you have a Trek series like DS9 that was downright cinematic in its scope and spectacle, some might even say epic, but never managed to drag itself out of the ratings basement.

In other words, I'm not saying it GUARANTEES a new series. I'm saying that a box-office failure by this film practically guarantees NO new series, and that a massive success by this film would re-open the door towards a new series. A door that, right now, is closed, locked, deadbolted, chained, and has a bunch of stuff stacked up against it!

I’m more inclined to believe that a massive film success will clear away the stuff, break the chain, release the deadbolt and unlock the lock, but that the door itself will remain closed until or unless there’s some indication that Trek’s renewed popularity extends to anything other than the film franchise.

There was a time when every successful movie had a spin-off TV show, i.e. Alien Nation, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Highlander, MASH, The Odd Couple, Stargate, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and Working Girl, to name a few. Many of them were quite successful, but that has not been the trend in more recent years. No one in Hollywood today seems anxious to produce a new series based on Batman or Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Pirates of the Caribbean or Harry Potter. We have gotten Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Blade and a few others, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars is on its way. There is also the Star Wars live-action series now slated for 2010, but Lucas himself is probably the only person who would even try to pull that off, and its success or failure remains to be seen. In the meantime, the huge, big-budget blockbusters this new Trek film is seeking to compete with just don’t seem to be popular candidates for small screen adaptation. Even Nimoy acknowledged this when he said this movie was so huge and so epic that he couldn’t imagine any Trek inspired by it ever returning to television.

Get a big 60" flat-panel with a 7.1 speaker system and you get a far better experience at home than you do at the theater... and you have the option of pausing, rewinding, whatever!
In a few more years, I really expect that the "big screen theaters" will really start to suffer, as home "big screens," and even portable (headgear-based) systems that have the same visual impact become much more cost-effective and higher quality. Movie theaters as we know them will go away... I'm sure of it.

I’m not convinced of that at all. There are aspects of the theater experience that will never be replaced by home entertainment systems. In fact, I believe that is what is driving the dichotomy I spoke of between the types of entertainment being produced today for the “big screen” vs. the “small screen.” Theater attendance may decline, but I’m willing to bet they will still be around in some form as a significant entertainment venue 50 years from now.

Conventional broadcast TV will also go away, though. What you're going to have is super-high-speed digital content provided on-demand, in your home or on your portable headset or whatever.

Come home from work, and instead of going to the theater to catch the new movie release, you go into your entertainment room and watch it then and there, without having some punk kicking your seat or dropping popcorn over your shoulder, or talking back to screen!

I agree that broadcast TV’s days are numbered, as I indicated in my original post. I think we will continue to see “made for television” productions, but not necessarily on a weekly schedule or in a one-hour format. TV shows will have release dates rather than air dates. Again, I think the distribution model currently being used by the fan films may be a strong indicator of things to come.

As for loud-mouthed, popcorn spilling, seat kicking punks in theaters, I personally have had very little trouble with that kind of thing and I think it tends to be overblown by people who have particular pet peeves about it. I love seeing movies in theaters, and the crowd experience is often a big part of the enjoyment for me. I think an awful lot of people feel the same way and that there will probably always be enough of us to keep movie theaters in business.

The real issue, then, remains... can PPC, and can CBS-TV, become convinced that Trek can be sufficiently viable to be worth the investment... or will they think that it's not quite good enough to justify making IT, instead of another "shot on a shoestring" series.
This movie is central to determining that.

It may be central in that, if it flops, we may never see new Trek on television or anywhere else again; but even if it’s a smash hit, I think TPTB will be far more interested in all the money they can make with more films than the uncertain profitability of another TV series, especially one expensive and ambitious enough to even come close to the level of the feature film.

 

[Franklin]

In response to Vektor and Cary, I think the social experience of going to the movies will always be around, but theaters have already taken hits from the home entertainment industry. Theather technology will not stand still as home TV technology improves. There will probably always be some reason to see a movie in a theater over seeing it at home.

It's hard for something to be epic in scope on the TV screen. A 60" TV and 7.1 sound is still not the same as the silver screen. Also, HDTV may be great for sports, but it's problematic whether or not it's good for film. Some would say the slightly blurry aspects of film compared to tape or HD actually enhance viewing and can add to the epic quality by adding depth and dimension a sharp picture can't deliver.
It's also hard for a TV show to be epic in scope every week -- or even every two weeks or once a month. Even if the stories are strong, the economics of production will not allow it. It can also be argued that episodic TV itself is endangered.

It's true that what it takes to succeed on film is not the same as what it takes to succeed in a TV series. That's true for most things, not just sci-fi or fantasy. But the last two TNG films didn't fall flat simply because they were extended TV shows. TWOK has been said by some to have been of no more intensity than a good TV movie. TVH hardly felt epic. The only Trek movie that really even tried for an epic scope was TMP, and it's arguable whether or not it succeeded.

As far as a Trek TV series goes, I'm sure that's the farthest thing from Abrams' mind right now. Probably Paramount's, too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As far as a Trek TV series goes, I'm sure that's the farthest thing from Abrams' mind right now. Probably Paramount's, too.

Absolutely Right(TM).

 

[thumbtack]

How the success of a TOS movie could lead to a return to the 24th century on tv is beyond me. If Dark Knight makes money, no one at Warners is going to say, "Wow, that did well! Let's make another Catwoman movie!"

Trek XI's success may only reinforce Par's view that only this particular set of characters have any kind of enduring appeal with the mainstream.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

How the success of a TOS movie could lead to a return to the 24th century on tv is beyond me. If Dark Knight makes money, no one at Warners is going to say, "Wow, that did well! Let's make another Catwoman movie!"

Yep - extra points for style, there.

 

[T'Cal]

How the success of a TOS movie could lead to a return to the 24th century on tv is beyond me. If Dark Knight makes money, no one at Warners is going to say, "Wow, that did well! Let's make another Catwoman movie!"

Trek XI's success may only reinforce Par's view that only this particular set of characters have any kind of enduring appeal with the mainstream.

While you may be right, I would be surprised if JJA or someone at Paramount that he reports to isn't thinking about the future of this franchise. That likely includes a return to TV in some form. TNG was the most successful so that's not too unlikely a theme being considered. I'm not saying that that's exactly the current scenario, I'm just saying it's not an unlikely one at all. Personally, I would like to see JJA continue to be in charge of the films and I would want TPTB to bring Frakes and or Burton back to run Trek TV. I would want a series or mini-series set post-NEM by a dozen or so years with a few characters from TNG, DS9, and VOY as the leads with some new ones. Ah, to dream!

 

[EyalM]

I would be surprised if JJA or someone at Paramount that he reports to isn't thinking about the future of this franchise. That likely includes a return to TV in some form.

Since JJA and Paramount won't see a single dime from a TV Trek show (which will be owned by CBS), I don't see why they'll bother even thinking about it.
I can see someone at CBS trying to capitalize on the movie's success though.

Personally, I would like to see JJA continue to be in charge of the films and I would want TPTB to bring Frakes and or Burton back to run Trek TV.

What makes Frakes or Burton good candidates to produce a TV show?

 

[Cranston]

Conventional broadcast TV will also go away, though. What you're going to have is super-high-speed digital content provided on-demand, in your home or on your portable headset or whatever.

I agree that broadcast TV’s days are numbered, as I indicated in my original post.

I agree with you both on this point, and it reminds me of something that occurred to me a few months ago while thinking about this. In the TNG episode "The Neutral Zone," produced way back in 1987 or '88, Data tells one of the unfrozen 20th century people that television ceased to be a significant form of entertainment by 2040.

At the time, I thought it was preposterous that TV would disappear so soon. But now, it's starting to look like Data actually overestimated TV's longevity by at least 20 years.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I would be surprised if JJA or someone at Paramount that he reports to isn't thinking about the future of this franchise. That likely includes a return to TV in some form.

Since JJA and Paramount won't see a single dime from a TV Trek show (which will be owned by CBS), I don't see why they'll bother even thinking about it.
I can see someone at CBS trying to capitalize on the movie's success though.

Personally, I would like to see JJA continue to be in charge of the films and I would want TPTB to bring Frakes and or Burton back to run Trek TV.

What makes Frakes or Burton good candidates to produce a TV show?

I second that question. And for the record, I think both of those guys are pretty good (ie, not the best in the biz, but better than average for Hollywood!).

I just really think that Trek needs "New Perspectives (TM)" in order to stay fresh and lively. Not "new perspectives" in terms of reimagining stories and designs that have already been done, but in terms of coming up with new and interesting stories that aren't weighted down, not by "canon" but by PERSONAL STYLES that have become too familiar and too ... drab and stuffy?

Frakes and Burton should work on other stuff.. and I'll enjoy it. But I want to see new people go into the familiar sandbox and see what they can come up with.

The thing that killed latter-day Trek, in my opinion, was the tendency to "stick to formula." Formula for music (even while they "broke formula" for the THEME for "Enterprise," the episodic music was "generic TNG-era Trek music"), formula for SFX, formula for casting, formula for makeup, formula for writing, formula for EVERYTHING. I could usually predict everything in a Trek show based upon the first ten minutes. (Deep Space 9 got good when it started giving us the "unexpected," but many of the "comfort fans" didn't like it for that very reason!)

Bringing anyone... even the really, really talented folks... from the TNG-to-NEM-era Trek into the NEW stuff simply guarantees that some amount of formula... not CANON but FORMULA... is inevitable.

Canon is good. Formula is bad.

 

[T'Cal]

I would be surprised if JJA or someone at Paramount that he reports to isn't thinking about the future of this franchise. That likely includes a return to TV in some form.

Since JJA and Paramount won't see a single dime from a TV Trek show (which will be owned by CBS), I don't see why they'll bother even thinking about it.
I can see someone at CBS trying to capitalize on the movie's success though.

Personally, I would like to see JJA continue to be in charge of the films and I would want TPTB to bring Frakes and or Burton back to run Trek TV.

What makes Frakes or Burton good candidates to produce a TV show?

Some of the best TNG episodes along with FC, inarguably the best of TNG movies, were directed by Frakes. He knows the characters, the relationships, and the history as does Burton, who has successfully done a few other Trek series' episodes. These guys respect the the franchise. They are the most capable of stepping up to being executive producers of the next form of TV Trek, IMHO.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

How the success of a TOS movie could lead to a return to the 24th century on tv is beyond me. If Dark Knight makes money, no one at Warners is going to say, "Wow, that did well! Let's make another Catwoman movie!"

Who said anything about the time period? Did I miss that part of the conversation?

Trek XI's success may only reinforce Par's view that only this particular set of characters have any kind of enduring appeal with the mainstream.

I s'pose that's possible, but I don't think it's true. Because... really... these aren't the same characters. I mean, they're the same names, and they'll be playing roles intended to be very similar to the guys we've known for 40+ years, but the more we see of them, the harder it'll be to accept that they're "the same guys."

In other words... call them whatever you want, if we see much of these new, recast versions... they will be DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. Not really Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et-al, at all! Just another set of different guys having the same names as those other guys...

Also... in reference to another comment from above, I agree wholeheartedly that a new series is "the furthest thing from JJ Abrams' mind." I'd go a step further and say "a movie series is the furthest thing from his mind." He's making one movie... and I'd be stunned if he planned to become a "franchise babysitter" like Berman did. Abrams is actually well-known for getting things started, then walking away from them ("Lost," anyone?) Kind of a short-attention-span guy, in that sense. He has a Trek story he wants to tell... and once that story's told... I fully expect him to walk away from Trek. Whether other folks involved in this production stick around and make more (Orci as a producer?) is a whole 'nother question, of course.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Ron Moore should run the franchise.

 

[Therin of Andor]

these aren't the same characters. I mean, they're the same names, and they'll be playing roles intended to be very similar to the guys we've known for 40+ years, but the more we see of them, the harder it'll be to accept that they're "the same guys."

Julie Newmar was replaced by Lee Meriwether as Catwoman (in the old theatrical version), returned to the role on TV - and then transformed into Eartha Kitt - and she was still the same Catwoman. A few episodes later, the character was being played by a Caucasian extra. You just need a little suspension of disbelief.

Every actor who's ever played Batman is still playing "the same guy".

Soap operas have been switching actors for decades! A few years ago, on "Days of Our Lives" (according to what I think I recall from the magazines), the actor who once played Chris Kozachek returned as Roman, but now playing in scenes opposite another actor who used to play Roman!