New JJ Abrams interview

[controlfreak]

JJ seems to want to make a good film first and foremost. This is what he said about the first movie as well. Not sure why people are so bitterly offended by Abrams wanting to make a good film, but then I am not so sure why some of these people post here as they clearly seem to hate everything about Star Trek and this is supposed to be a site for fans.

 

[DalekJim]

He's entirely right, the movie isn't aimed at Star Trek fans. It's aimed at the type of person that would watch Star Trek and get bored shitless because it was slow and talky. It's aimed at the type of person that would leave the cinema, forget about the movie instantly and then go watch Transformers 2.

We now have a Star Trek franchise aimed at people who wouldn't like Star Trek. That is the root of our problems and why we're so screwed.

 

[Garak]

"This movie was not made for 'Star Trek' fans; it was made for movie fans.

Someone should tell this asshole to stop repeating that shit like a braindead parrot. It's annoying, and borderline disrespectful.

I applaud him for saying it. Some Trek fans need a swift kick in the nuts and to wake up and smell reality.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Star Trek Fandom: Needlessly Taking Offense Since 1966.

You know, a lot of the folks who lay the failure of Enterprise and later Trek movies to issues of quality turn around and praise DS9 as the pinnacle of what Trek ought to be...which is fine except that they ignore the fact that the collapse of Trek's television ratings began with episode 2 of DS9 and continued on a chartable curve with DS9 and Voyager in virtual lockstep for audience loss - and all that happened in the case of Enterprise is that the decline continued on the same curve, flattening as it hit bottom.

Yup..

People think that DS9 was the pinnacle of quality Trek TV. It wasn't. For it to be qualitative, it needs to be entertaining, which entertainment should provide. DS9, VOY and ENT utterly failed in that regard. ST'09/STXI revamped the franchise by making it accessible and entertaining for everyone except the hardcore ST nerds that want cardboard sets to keep their precious authenticity.

 

[DalekJim]

Deep Space Nine didn't fail as entertainment at all, it hooked me and many others for 7 long seasons. It didn't need to shine lens flare in our faces to keep us hooked at all, that's a cheap trick and treats it's audience like a group of morons.

No, it just had the confidence to tell an interesting story. In terms of villains alone, we've gone from the fascinating, morally ambiguous Gul Dukat to Eric Bana's gormless, motivationless "FIRE EVERYTHING!" caricature in the 2009 movie. It's pretty depressing.

Some of us find thinking entertaining and find noisy explosions and flirting kinda boring. I love Star Trek because it doesn't resemble all that other bland crap I avoid. JJ Abrams has made it so that Star Trek slots in with all that the lowest common denominator popcorn slush like Transformers or the latest Tom Cruise noise-fest. It's pretty irritating, I'd rather somebody else were in charge and I'm tired of fans telling me off for not liking something I've tried my hardest to accept.

I have no idea how somebody could look at The Cage, then look at the Abrams reboot and not notice a SERIOUS decline in intelligent storytelling. Enterprise and Voyager were bland Star Trek but at least they WERE Star Trek. With this new franchise I may as well have Abrams repeatedly call me an idiot while shining a torch in my eyes. It's the same experience.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Then don't accept it and move on.

 

[DalekJim]

Well, this is as far as I know a forum for debate and discussion so unless a moderator/admin tells me otherwise I'll post what I like. Not liking the same movies as you doesn't make me worthy of contempt or rudeness.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, this is as far as I know a forum for debate and discussion so unless a moderator/admin tells me otherwise I'll post what I like. Not liking the same movies as you doesn't make me worthy of contempt or rudeness.

Works both ways. You can stop being rude an contemptuous of people who liked it.

Not telling you what to post, but it seems to be a waste of time to spend so much time and energy on something you don't like. Me, I don't like Voyager, so I don't post there, because I cant see the point in doing so. I leave it for the people who like the show.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I have thought the following for years, since DS9 was on the air. That show was aimed squarely at existing Trekkies. Similar to how comic fans will read multiple books within the same universe. Where even following the stories mean having a thorough knowledge of that world. Delving into the complexities. So clearly it has it fans who love it. But it was never going to appeal outside of that core fan base. Same thing with most of TNG movies and VOY and ENT.

 

[Edge of Forever]

He's entirely right, the movie isn't aimed at Star Trek fans. It's aimed at the type of person that would watch Star Trek and get bored shitless because it was slow and talky. It's aimed at the type of person that would leave the cinema, forget about the movie instantly and then go watch Transformers 2.

We now have a Star Trek franchise aimed at people who wouldn't like Star Trek. That is the root of our problems and why we're so screwed.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on this simply due to personal experience. I can't watch Transformers, fell asleep during the first one, left halfway through the second one. I grew up with Star Trek, I've been watching it since I was 3, that's 16 years where Star Trek has been a surrogate family to me and when I saw Star Trek 2009 in cinemas I loved it. Completely loved it.

Same deal with my mom, she hates all these kinds of films. Hell, she hated Iron Man, The Dark Knight and all those stuff but she loved the 2009 film. Again same with my dad, he just hates Hollywood, any film made in Hollywood he will instantly hate and pick out every bad thing about it and even he left the cinema admitting that he liked the 2009 film (although it was through gritted teeth).

To drop JJ Abrams Star Trek down to the level of Transformers is hyperbolic to say the least. You may not like it, that's your choice, but to say that JJ's Star Trek is not something that can be enjoyed by Star Trek fans and is not something made for Star Trek fans is just wrong.

It's not aimed at people who don't like Star Trek, it's just not aimed exclusively at Star Trek fans anymore and that's fine, because nothing can find success if it's aimed exclusively at one group.

 

[DalekJim]

No, you're right. Deep Space Nine was obviously never gonna be a gigantic mainstream success.... but why does Star Trek have to be that? The more people you aim to please, the more boxes you try and tick, the more demographics you try and cater to... the less interesting your final product will be.

I think Star Trek on TV had the right idea in terms of audience really. Make a comparatively successful sci-fi show that gets solid enough ratings. It isn't Doctor Who or Star Wars, franchises that can easily adapt to being gargantually populist while still retaining their core ethos. Star Trek just... isn't for everybody. And that's fine. It should be alternative programming, something that is there for as a counterpoint to the mainstream sci-fi action shlock of the day. Not the most vanilla, accessible and inoffensive thing going.

Just my two pence.

To drop JJ Abrams Star Trek down to the level of Transformers is hyperbolic to say the least.

For perspective I view Star Trek 2009 and Transformers 2007 as about equal in quality. Both are empty, pointless, mindless shlock with the most cookie cutter of story beats possible. In fact, Kirk's character and Shia LaBauef's character in Transformers have the exact same story arc. Complete with famous family history. Megatron and Nero have about equal character development too.

To say they're not comparable is hyperbolic.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek was created with the idea that it would appeal to wide audience. Most network shows are. Studios, networks and advertisers don't write big checks for niche audiences. Diminishing returns on investment is why Trek isn't on TV right now.

 

[DalekJim]

We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.

 

[The Castellan]

No, you're right. Deep Space Nine was obviously never gonna be a gigantic mainstream success.... but why does Star Trek have to be that? The more people you aim to please, the more boxes you try and tick, the more demographics you try and cater to... the less interesting your final product will be.

I think Star Trek on TV had the right idea in terms of audience really. Make a comparatively successful sci-fi show that gets solid enough ratings. It isn't Doctor Who or Star Wars, franchises that can easily adapt to being gargantually populist while still retaining their core ethos. Star Trek just... isn't for everybody. And that's fine. It should be alternative programming, something that is there for as a counterpoint to the mainstream sci-fi action shlock of the day. Not the most vanilla, accessible and inoffensive thing going.

Just my two pence.

Yep. And for making Trek for movie fans......nowadays it's either mindless action flicks, bad romantic comedies with Jennifer Aniston, the comic book hero film of the month and obligatory remakes. And given the fact a lot of the same folks tend to watch stuff like Kardasians and Honey Boo Boo, making films catering to that sorta crowd is not exactly comforting a thought. Just because something is a 'mega success' does not mean it's quality, I mean all these reality TV shows gets ratings, but I don't watch them because I still value my brain cells and don't want to spend several weeks trying to regain the IQ lost from viewing them.

He's entirely right, the movie isn't aimed at Star Trek fans. It's aimed at the type of person that would watch Star Trek and get bored shitless because it was slow and talky. It's aimed at the type of person that would leave the cinema, forget about the movie instantly and then go watch Transformers 2.

We now have a Star Trek franchise aimed at people who wouldn't like Star Trek. That is the root of our problems and why we're so screwed.

EXACTLY. This is what irks me. I myself am just fine with slow and talky, I like slow and talky. It's getting to a point where everything needs to be homogenized so every joe sixpack out there watches it. It's like things have to be converted to keep joe sixpack watching because his attention span's shorter than that of a goldfish on Alzheimers.

Joe Sixpack: Boring, too much talk.......OOOOOWWWWWW, FIRE/BOOBS!

He knows the Star Trek fans will watch it no matter what, so he doesn't need to encourage them to go and see it and we, as fans, should not be so precious as to not realise this.

The people he does need to attract are the non-fans, so he tells them what he has to, to get them to watch it.

When you look at all the nods to the old series in the last film, and the faithful way in which they have recreated so much of it, and the time the writers take to converse with the fans, you'd have to be absolutely bonkers to think this isn't a film for fans of Star Trek.

Remember as well, that they could have totally pissed over every fan going by just rebooting everything in the last film, but they chose not to, by coming up with a convoluted time-travel story featuring multiple universes. Who did they do that for? Not the casual movie-goer.

Well, I did not pay money to see the first, I only saw it when someone working on the DVD sent me a pre production disk (has the title menu but extras take you no where), glad I did not pay money to see that. And seeing as how things are going, I'm not watching this one, not even for free. I don't go for something because it's called this or that. I love Transformers, but had no interest in the Bay-films. Same for Doctor Who, the Moffet era stuff does nothing for me.

Did not see too many nods in the first film that impressed me. Plus IF they did the alternate universe thing, I still see no original universe Trek, apart from novels and the online game. I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it felt more like a bait and switch since this sure feels like a remake to me, and if they keep doing all future Trek in this universe, and no more of the original, than it's a reboot.

I'll stick to Phase 2 myself.

 

[The Castellan]

We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.

You and me both.

I say make something good, than I'll be speaking praise. But that cesspit of laziness that is Hollywood has yet to make anything. Only films I liked was Lord of the Rings, and that was made by a guy who was obviously a fan of Tolken and wanting to make a film that fans would love, and still have Joe Sixpack watch it....it can be done, it just takes this little thing called hard work, something Hollywood gave up on long ago.

Star Trek was created with the idea that it would appeal to wide audience. Most network shows are. Studios, networks and advertisers don't write big checks for niche audiences. Diminishing returns on investment is why Trek isn't on TV right now.

Well, considering that stuff like X-Factor, Judge Judy, The Kardasians, Jersey Shore, Honey Boo Boo, amongst a sea of other similar junk, anything remotely like Trek would just cause mainstream TV goers' heads to implode.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We're all here because of a 60s show that got unceremoniously cancelled during it'd 3rd season because of low ratings. To this day, I'll never understand why Trek fans maintain an interest in Trek aspiring to be mainstream.

It can't be mainstream without cutting off a huge part of it's soul. It's why the movies (TMP excluded because it's incredible and not a dumb action movie!) are so inferior to the show. We'd never get The Inner Light as a movie because for some dumb, greedy reason these movies have to aim for the widest audience possible. So Trek becomes a mediocre action movie franchise to appease the masses, which was just about tolerable when the films were an alternative to the show in the 90s but now this is all the Trek we have and it's a sorry state of affairs.

I don't like being the negative voice but this is how I feel and it's nice having a place to vent it.

TNG was the top rated syndicated show for most of its seven years on the air. It was pretty mainstream. The shows that followed didn't perform as well. The ratings took a serious nose dive and kept falling.

Mainstream success means more Trek. That's why fans like the idea.

TMP, by most accounts, is dumb in-action movie.

 

[DalekJim]

I'm aware that 99% of people on this planet would consider me insane for thinking The Motion Picture is the best Trek film bar none and a classic of science-fiction cinema, while the Abrams reboot film is idiotic slush.

Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm not right though .

 

[Edge of Forever]

To drop JJ Abrams Star Trek down to the level of Transformers is hyperbolic to say the least.

For perspective I view Star Trek 2009 and Transformers 2007 as about equal in quality. Both are empty, pointless, mindless shlock with the most cookie cutter of story beats possible. In fact, Kirk's character and Shia LaBauef's character in Transformers have the exact same story arc. Complete with famous family history. Megatron and Nero have about equal character development too.

To say they're not comparable is hyperbolic.

I actually never said they weren't comparable. I just said that Star Trek is not as stupid as Transformers.

You may not like it but when you take a step back and view it as a film, not a Star Trek film but just as a film (without your bias about Star Trek getting in the way) the quality of Star Trek 2009 is substantially higher than that of Transformer.

The writing is of a higher degree, the characters come across as characters rather than the caricatures, the actors in Star Trek actually act, there a genuinely emotional moments (Papa Kirks death, almost every exchange between Sarak and Spock, Old Spock and Kirk, etc) and there is genuine humor to it. In comparison Transformers (from what I watched) had no real dialogue, had no acting, no plot (pretty much just a premises), no character development, no character moments and had no real humor. To say both were of a similar quality what you look at Star Trek as just a film is not an opinion I can agree with in any way.

I will agree however that Star Trek 2009 lost (in relation to the TV show) a meaningful look at the human condition. However only 3 of the first 10 Star Trek films managed to do that in a successful way (I'm thinking Wrath of Khan, TUC and First Contact) and even with all of those the plot, the characters and most of all the fun of story came before discussing the message. Every other Star Trek film has either been fun (Voyage Home- and yes, it had message about whales but it didn't explore the concept or stop the film being pretty stupid when wanted to be funny or move the plot along), mediocre or pretty/really/very bad.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm aware that 99% of people on this planet would consider me insane for thinking The Motion Picture is the best Trek film bar none and a classic of science-fiction cinema, while the Abrams reboot film is idiotic slush.

Just because I'm crazy doesn't mean I'm not right though .

It's not that high. Most people on the planet don't know that Star Trek the Motion Picture exists.

I watched TMP in the theater numerous times ( mostly in row) when it first came out, so perhaps that has clouded my judgement. But I can't see what makes such a derivative work a classic.

 

[DalekJim]

You may not like it but when you take a step back and view it as a film, not a Star Trek film but just as a film (without your bias about Star Trek getting in the way) the quality of Star Trek 2009 is substantially higher than that of Transformer.

Disagree. If one is better than the other then it isn't by much.

The writing is of a higher degree

Disagree. Both films emphasize terrible humour, pointless vengeance filled caricature villains and random titillation (Megan Fox on the car, Uhura stripping off) in the exact same way.

the characters come across as characters rather than the caricatures

Disagree. Both Spock and McCoy are repeatedly given their most famous catchphrases and both actors playing them are doing impressions of the original actors.

the actors in Star Trek actually act

The actors actually act in Transformers too.

there a genuinely emotional moments (Papa Kirks death, almost every exchange between Sarak and Spock, Old Spock and Kirk, etc)

Trite, dumbed down soap opera nonsense to appeal to a wider audience that has zero interest in sci-fi or fantasy. Spock hugging Uhuru isn't emotional, it's stupid and out of character to please the female audience and tick more boxes.

there is genuine humor to it.

Wow, Kirk's hands grow really, really big. Comedy gold.

I will agree however that Star Trek 2009 lost (in relation to the TV show) a meaningful look at the human condition. However only 3 of the first 10 Star Trek films managed to do that in a successful way (I'm thinking Wrath of Khan, TUC and First Contact)

The only Trek film that examined what it meant to be human in any real way was... The Motion Picture. Hence why it's the best .