Star Trek XI Not A Parody

[Carpe Occasio]

"I feel like there's a certain thing that you can't really hold onto, which is... there's a kind of kitschy quality that must go if it's going to be something that you believe is real," Abrams said..."

"Our Star Trek is not parody," added Abrams... "And so the idea of maintaining character relationships, the dynamic between the characters, was key. I never saw how Kirk and Spock became so connected. And that's what this movie does. And it does it with the entire family of the Enterprise."



http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=57630

 

[MattJC]

That moron Abrams doesn't even get understand the original Star Trek. It wasn't meant to be a parody. Except for a couple episode they were mostly playing it straight.
The jerk is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And you clearly don't understand what he said.

I'm certainly glad that he's not treating the kitschy aspects of the original "Star Trek" as if they're necessary to the core of it. That would certainly play as parody.

 

[MattJC]

I understood exactly what he said.
For someone who claims to be a fan of TOS, he has a very condescending attitude towards that show.

 

[M'Sharak]

That moron Abrams doesn't even get understand the original Star Trek. It wasn't meant to be a parody. Except for a couple episode they were mostly playing it straight.

If you'll read the article, he did not say, nor did he imply, that it was parody.

What he does say is that in order to make this movie true to that universe and to those characters inhabiting it -- in order to make it real for today's audience -- he needed to let go of a quality in the Original Series which belonged to series television of that time but which would today be perceived as parody. It's not the mid-1960s any more and he's smart enough to realize that he can't possibly make a movie for an audience of 40-plus years ago; he's making the movie now, for people as they are now (or ten months from now) to watch.

Is it so important to you to be offended and angered by Abrams and this movie that you must read in things which aren't there? Seriously, Matt -- is it?

 

[MattJC]

He implied the original series was a parody.
It was not.
If he was such a fan, he would have known that.

 

[Supervisor 194]

He implied the original series was a parody.

Sometimes I weep for the loss of reading comprehension today.

 

[M'Sharak]

He implied the original series was a parody.
It was not.
If he was such a fan, he would have known that.

That moron Abrams doesn't even get understand the original Star Trek. It wasn't meant to be a parody. Except for a couple episode they were mostly playing it straight.

If you'll read the article, he did not say, nor did he imply, that it was parody.

[...]

(emphasis mine)

Read the article again, please. He does not so imply.

 

[MattJC]

"Our Star Trek is not parody,"

That quote implies that his movie is not like the original series.
It implies that he thinks it was a parody.

 

[M'Sharak]

"Our Star Trek is not parody,"

That quote implies that his movie is not like the original series.
It implies that he thinks it was a parody.

If you won't read the article, then read what I posted above, by way of explanation to you.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

He did not say Star Trek was parody, he said his Star Trek is not parody.

 

[MattJC]

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

 

[M'Sharak]

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

Why? Please cite something which shows that you evaluated what he said rationally, rather than flying off the handle at the one sentence and ignoring the entire balance of the text.

"I'm certain he thought" is the same thing as claiming to know what J.J. Abrams thinks, based upon... what? How can you be so certain?

 

[SonicRanger]

How can the original be a parody? Of what what is a parody?

A parody requires an original work at which to poke fun.

Only something that follows the original work can be a parody.

Abrams said that he chose not to make the film a parody.

parody - a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation.

For example, the film version of Starsky and Hutch could be considered a parody of the original series. But as campy as it was, the original Starsky and Hutch series cannot be considered a parody.

Or how about this? The original Casino Royale film was a parody. The new version isn't.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

"Our Star Trek is not parody,"

That quote implies that his movie is not like the original series.
It implies that he thinks it was a parody.

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

Your own quote from the article says it all -

"Our Star Trek is not parody"

Nothing more. He didn't say TOS was parody. All he said was his Star Trek wasn't parody.

He did say it had a certain kitsch, defined as follows -

"A tacky or lowbrow quality or condition"

TOS has that look now, 40 years later. In other threads we've argued whether STXI should have the TOS look or not. Abrams said in the article it has a more real look.

 

[MattJC]

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

Why? Please cite something which shows that you evaluated what he said rationally, rather than flying off the handle at the one sentence and ignoring the entire balance of the text.

"I'm certain he thought" is the same thing as claiming to know what J.J. Abrams thinks, based upon... what? How can you be so certain?

The kitsch remark also sounds pretty condescending to me don't you think? He won't give TOS a break at all.
It's not Roddenberry and companies fault they didn't have CGI and all that crap back then.
They did pretty darn well with what they had to work with.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

Why? Please cite something which shows that you evaluated what he said rationally, rather than flying off the handle at the one sentence and ignoring the entire balance of the text.

"I'm certain he thought" is the same thing as claiming to know what J.J. Abrams thinks, based upon... what? How can you be so certain?

The kitsch remark also sounds pretty condescending to me don't you think?

See above.

 

[Swarles Barkley]

I did read the article and I'm certain he thought the original Trek was a parody.

I really think you're missing the gist of what Abrams was saying. My interpretation is that he was saying there were essentially two ways he could have gone with this film: One was to embrace the 60s production values (the "kitsch" as he called it), and sort of run with that, which would have pushed the film into "parody" territory. The other was to let go of that 60s sensibility and explore the core of what made TOS so good, which was those essential character relationships (especially the origins of the Kirk-Spock relationship), which would definitely not be parody. Either way, I don't think he was saying that he felt that TOS itself was a parody. If you honestly feel that way, then if Abrams is really saying TOS was a parody, what exactly was it a parody of? I don't think he's dissing TOS at all. I just think he's discussing one of two directions his own film could have taken, and (thankfully) explaining how he chose not to parody TOS.

 

[MattJC]

Why? Please cite something which shows that you evaluated what he said rationally, rather than flying off the handle at the one sentence and ignoring the entire balance of the text.

"I'm certain he thought" is the same thing as claiming to know what J.J. Abrams thinks, based upon... what? How can you be so certain?

The kitsch remark also sounds pretty condescending to me don't you think?

See above.

He was acting like arrogant snob who thinks he could do better with the material then the original creators.

 

[pookha]

What he does say is that in order to make this movie true to that universe and to those characters inhabiting it -- in order to make it real for today's audience -- he needed to let go of a quality in the Original Series which belonged to series television of that time but which would today be perceived as parody. It's not the mid-1960s any more and he's smart enough to realize that he can't possibly make a movie for an audience of 40-plus years ago; he's making the movie now, for people as they are now (or ten months from now) to watch.

Is it so important to you to be offended and angered by Abrams and this movie that you must read in things which aren't there? Seriously, Matt -- is it?

i think he understands it better then a lot of fans.
as wondful as most of the series was it did have its out of place moments
.

just think of all the times we just saw this hyper serious episode were millions of people died and they ended the show with one of those feel out of place
joke sessions.

the show wasnt perfect.

it sounds like abrams is trying to say he takes all this very seriously.
he isnt going to make a parody of the show.
but rather treat it with the respect that he feels it deserves while keeping those things he felt worked best.
for instance the interaction between the characters during the rest of the episode.

that is how i read it.

He was acting like arrogant snob who thinks he could do better with the material then the original creators.

frankly a lot of people could do better with a third to half of rhe third season when the show often dwelled in self parody.

the children shall lead especially looks like a parody.