It’s official; Star Trek as we knew it is dead. New Star Trek is here. Is that really a bad thing? I don’t think so. Star Trek was creatively on its way down in Voyager. Too much techobabble; a lousy, contrived finale; and a huge missed opportunity of showing what happens to the crew and the ship AFTER returning home put Star Trek down the slippery slope.
Enterprise had a chance to put things back on the right track by showing Trek history we’ve never seen before, a greater emphasis on TOS events/characters/species, and a new design ethic that would show the way to TOS design. Unfortunately, none of that happened with Enterprise until it was too late. Enterprise rehashed old plots and enemies (ferengi/borg/etc), and played fast and loose with canon. It didn’t live up to it’s potential until the last two seasons.
And now there are new powers-that-be behind Star Trek, and a radical reinterpretation of the design ethos. Finally, some real story points and images from the movie are coming out. What they make clear is that anyone hoping for a faithful but updated rendering of TOS, combined with a respect for the canon, will probably be disappointed.
But let me say one thing – I like what I see. The cast, uniforms, bridge and ship designs we’ve seen so far look nice. Do they look like the Star Trek we know? No, not in my opinion. Aside from the great looking uniforms and the general ship designs we’ve seen it is clear that they did not take a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach. I’m sad that Wah Chang’s excellent designs for phasers, communicators, etc are likely to be cast aside.
Here are a few excerpts from the Entertainment Weekly article that show how things are changing: The phasers are now sleek silver gizmos with spring-triggered barrels that revolve and glow in the transition from ''stun'' to ''kill.'' Sounds like prequel Star Wars more than Star Trek. Put Han Solo’s gun next to Jango Fett’s and I suspect we’ll be able to make the same comparison.
Abrams says that creatively, he was engaged by the possibility of a Star Trek movie ''that grabbed me the way Star Wars did.” Um, Star Trek is not Star Wars, nor does it need to be to find appeal. This approach worries me.
Quote: More ambitiously, the movie subversively plays with Trek lore — and those who know it. The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''
If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does.
One thing that you would assume they would screw with as little as possible for Star Trek fans is TOS Enterprise. Several people have posted versions of the ship in the art forum here that show a more updated and credible Enterprise that appears to be far truer to the TOS ship than the one Abrams has created (based on what we've seen so far), and they look great. If you haven’t seen Vektor’s reinterpretation of TOS ship you’re missing out. Per the article: case in point: The Enterprise still has a saucer front section and pronged rear engines, but now comes tricked out with credibility-enhancing details. Can’t wait to see those.
''There were days when I would look around the set, with all these tattooed faces and pointy ears, bizarre weaponry and Romulan linguists, with dialogue about 'Neutral Zones' and 'Starfleet' — and I would start sweating,'' he says. Why? I don’t think Robert Wise or Nicholas Meyer started sweating it. Those things are part of Star Trek, part of the mythos. Embrace them, respect them, don’t reject them.
So, I think at this point it is pretty obvious that Star Trek as we know/knew it is gone. And that’s fine. It had some real problems towards the end, but it seems in trying to get past those that Abrams and crew might have rejected or redone a lot of things that didn’t need it. It’s no wonder they used a time travel story, despite how severly overused it has been in Trek. They need that opening to change the Trek universe.
I’m heartened by a few things. One, they said they’re more concerned with simply making a good movie. Good to hear. Too bad every filmmaker doesn’t look at it that way. Two, there will be a lot of Trek tidbits that we’ll pick up on and enjoy. And three, I’m happy to revisit TOS characters. I think the Kirk/Spock/Bones dynamic is the most interesting and important in Star Trek.
Abrams proved to me with MI-3 that he’s a good director, and can get good things out of talented actors. I fully expect this to be a good movie, and if we look at it as Star Trek 2009 instead of Star Trek I think we’ll all walk out happy.
Enterprise had a chance to put things back on the right track by showing Trek history we’ve never seen before, a greater emphasis on TOS events/characters/species, and a new design ethic that would show the way to TOS design. Unfortunately, none of that happened with Enterprise until it was too late. Enterprise rehashed old plots and enemies (ferengi/borg/etc), and played fast and loose with canon. It didn’t live up to it’s potential until the last two seasons.
And now there are new powers-that-be behind Star Trek, and a radical reinterpretation of the design ethos. Finally, some real story points and images from the movie are coming out. What they make clear is that anyone hoping for a faithful but updated rendering of TOS, combined with a respect for the canon, will probably be disappointed.
But let me say one thing – I like what I see. The cast, uniforms, bridge and ship designs we’ve seen so far look nice. Do they look like the Star Trek we know? No, not in my opinion. Aside from the great looking uniforms and the general ship designs we’ve seen it is clear that they did not take a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach. I’m sad that Wah Chang’s excellent designs for phasers, communicators, etc are likely to be cast aside.
Here are a few excerpts from the Entertainment Weekly article that show how things are changing: The phasers are now sleek silver gizmos with spring-triggered barrels that revolve and glow in the transition from ''stun'' to ''kill.'' Sounds like prequel Star Wars more than Star Trek. Put Han Solo’s gun next to Jango Fett’s and I suspect we’ll be able to make the same comparison.
Abrams says that creatively, he was engaged by the possibility of a Star Trek movie ''that grabbed me the way Star Wars did.” Um, Star Trek is not Star Wars, nor does it need to be to find appeal. This approach worries me.
Quote: More ambitiously, the movie subversively plays with Trek lore — and those who know it. The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''
If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does.
One thing that you would assume they would screw with as little as possible for Star Trek fans is TOS Enterprise. Several people have posted versions of the ship in the art forum here that show a more updated and credible Enterprise that appears to be far truer to the TOS ship than the one Abrams has created (based on what we've seen so far), and they look great. If you haven’t seen Vektor’s reinterpretation of TOS ship you’re missing out. Per the article: case in point: The Enterprise still has a saucer front section and pronged rear engines, but now comes tricked out with credibility-enhancing details. Can’t wait to see those.
''There were days when I would look around the set, with all these tattooed faces and pointy ears, bizarre weaponry and Romulan linguists, with dialogue about 'Neutral Zones' and 'Starfleet' — and I would start sweating,'' he says. Why? I don’t think Robert Wise or Nicholas Meyer started sweating it. Those things are part of Star Trek, part of the mythos. Embrace them, respect them, don’t reject them.
So, I think at this point it is pretty obvious that Star Trek as we know/knew it is gone. And that’s fine. It had some real problems towards the end, but it seems in trying to get past those that Abrams and crew might have rejected or redone a lot of things that didn’t need it. It’s no wonder they used a time travel story, despite how severly overused it has been in Trek. They need that opening to change the Trek universe.
I’m heartened by a few things. One, they said they’re more concerned with simply making a good movie. Good to hear. Too bad every filmmaker doesn’t look at it that way. Two, there will be a lot of Trek tidbits that we’ll pick up on and enjoy. And three, I’m happy to revisit TOS characters. I think the Kirk/Spock/Bones dynamic is the most interesting and important in Star Trek.
Abrams proved to me with MI-3 that he’s a good director, and can get good things out of talented actors. I fully expect this to be a good movie, and if we look at it as Star Trek 2009 instead of Star Trek I think we’ll all walk out happy.
