The SHAPE of the new enterprise? Things to come...
- Thread starter Plum
- Start date
On the subject of Valis (and whether an adaption would be better than Abrams' film) I rather like Tod Machover's Valis: An Opera. I suspect I will prefer it to Abrams' film, even if that film is good. The opera, however, does demonstrate the difficulties in adapting the novel, as it condenses the narrative and drops nearly all of the many bizarre discursions that make the book so engrossing. Naturally, it retains the discussion of Parsifal, which is ripe for musical exploitation, but many of the others fall by the wayside - there's no mention of Kevin and his cat, for example.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. As Sharr Khan observed, Abrams isn't trying to be a visionary. He may think he's good, but I doubt he's very pretentious in his ambitions for this film. At best, it will be an entertaining action-adventure spectacle, so this is probably not a fair comparison.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. As Sharr Khan observed, Abrams isn't trying to be a visionary. He may think he's good, but I doubt he's very pretentious in his ambitions for this film. At best, it will be an entertaining action-adventure spectacle, so this is probably not a fair comparison.
I'm sure he (not to mention his bosses) think he's "good" or none of this would be happening.
I do wish we as a group would move past the equation:
Ponderous niche' scifi equals "good"
Action packed, popular action adventure equals "bad" or vacant science fiction.
The second need not be "dumb" by any stretch, but aside from that Star Trek as a whole could do with a little mundane (none elite) popularity at the moment. If it manages that not such a bad thing.
Sharr
You know, as much as I object to TOS-R on principle, they have done an absolutely lovely job with the E in recent episodes. Is it really so much to ask to see that on the big screen, with the concomittant increase in resolution and quality that implies? Some say "yes, this is a 2008 movie." To which I say, "Fine, then make a film out of a new idea rather than something that was already a little old-fashioned and (delightfully and wonderfully and perfectly) corny and cheesy in the 1960s (cf. 2001--not coincidentally, also hopelessy dated, btw)." But really, I no longer give much of a damn. Trek XI may succeed in doing something 14+ seasons of second and third rate Trek and several lackluster movies have failed to do for me: put Star Trek into perspective as just another overmined pop culture commodity.
Damn, growin' up do suck.
Damn, growin' up do suck.
If I've given the impression that was my view, then evidently I have misrepresented myself. (I need a better publicist, but I disgress...) Action-adventure sci-fi is all well and good when it's well made. By and large, the original Star Wars trilogy is an excellent example of this.
But there's a lot of it, it's become too dominant in sci-fi film, and there the list of cliched, idiotic, derivative sci-fi action adventure is as long as the ears of Liu Bei. And it's not necessarily as interesting as the well-presented alternative.
Nail. Head. Hit. Hard.
It's as if we are living in the Matrix at times, stuck in the 80s and still watching the same movies, but remakes. The mainstream is about franchising, so it makes sense (to them).
At least this franchise is finally getting a face-lift. It will certainly not be 'original' but does benefit from being a re-imagining of a true original. I guess.
At least this franchise is finally getting a face-lift. It will certainly not be 'original' but does benefit from being a re-imagining of a true original. I guess.
Quite. A while back there was a miniseries about Spartacus (which I haven't watched and therefore cannot judge for quality), and it's byword was to be more faithful to the Howard Fast novel than the original Kirk Douglas Spartacus, which was based on that source.
Which leads to the obvious question: Why not, uh, be more faithful to the historical record instead? At times there seems to be something reductive about Hollywood, the important thing is the sources and the materials that have worked before.
At least this franchise is finally getting a face-lift. It will certainly not be 'original' but does benefit from being a re-imagining of a true original. I guess.
It's the best shot at originality I feel the franchise has got since 1987. It's going to be as a complete break from the past as TNG was from TOS and her films - in fact, even moreso, with the absence of any creative old guard to shepherd it over. New talent is certainly what this franchise needs, it remains to be seen whether this is the talent required.
Brutal Strudel said:
You know, as much as I object to TOS-R on principle, they have done an absolutely lovely job with the E in recent episodes. Is it really so much to ask to see that on the big screen, with the concomittant increase in resolution and quality that implies? Some say "yes, this is a 2008 movie." To which I say, "Fine, then make a film out of a new idea rather than something that was already a little old-fashioned and (delightfully and wonderfully and perfectly) corny and cheesy in the 1960s (cf. 2001--not coincidentally, also hopelessy dated, btw)." But really, I no longer give much of a damn. Trek XI may succeed in doing something 14+ seasons of second and third rate Trek and several lackluster movies have failed to do for me: put Star Trek into perspective as just another overmined pop culture commodity.
Damn, growin' up do suck.
But at the same time, if it introduces new viewers to Trek and the franchise, then Paramount probably won't care if a small number of viewers feel Trek has breathed its last. I keep comparing it to the revival of Doctor Who, and that's intentional because I believe that's the gold standard Abrams needs to aim for (NOT Lucas' Star Wars prequels which, while generally popular, show no signs of substantially reinvigorating the SW franchise beyond the diehards who either loved the prequels or rejected them and embraced anything to do with the OT and its aftermath). There are factions of DW fans who feel it too is an overmined pop culture commodity, what with 3 series and 2 (possibly 3 if Torchwood Declassified comes back) behind the scenes series, and another K9 series in the wings ... yet the shows currently on are extremely popular (if controversial in the case of Torchwood) and there's overwhelming evidence that the revival accomplished its mission, by introducing the DW to a new generation of viewers, many of whom weren't even born when the show was last on the air in 1989.
Trek XI faces a similar challenge, but it's actually a bit tougher because the goal is to introduce it to new audiences, many of whom weren't even born when Star Trek IV was in the theatres and there was no such thing as "TNG-era Trek". For them Trek has always been in the background (well, up until early 2005, anyway) and these folks need to be convinced to give the new Trek a try. Because there simply aren't enough of us "diehards" left to allow a $200M movie like this to turn a profit. They need the kids to go see it, as well as those who chose the J-Lo movie (and LOTR) over Nemesis last time.
Cheers!
Alex
Similar threads
