‘Star Trek’ Is For Everyone
By Ian M. Cullen
The news issue of Empire Magazine just out in the UK features a brief preview of the new J.J. Abrams ‘Star Trek’ movie.
The article which features a couple of quotes from Abrams tells of how the new movie will be a Batman Begins style reboot of the Star Trek franchise – intended to appeal as much to the mainstream movie audience as it will to the fans. The idea being that no one gets excluded.
“The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of Star Trek necessarily,” he explains. “It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world and treat it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.”
To date very little has been revealed about the movie – other than a few sneaky photographs and a small report by Harry Knowles of popular internet website Ain’t It Cool News. All fans have had to go on is a brief movie promo, which is a camera, panning across the saucer section of the Enterprise while it is being constructed – and in spite of this fans seem to be very supportive of Abrams.
“We’ve made sure we’re serving the people who are completely enamoured with Star Trek.” Abrams insists. “But at the same time, this film is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the Star Trek you’ve seen. I can tell you that the idea of the universe of Star Trek has never been given this kind of treatment.”
As ever Abrams is careful not to give too much away – which to my mind is encouraging.
Comments (17)
With each passing day with everyone involved in this movie saying more and more especially the “Transformer Twits”. It is quite apparent this movie is going to be dumb down to the “American Idol” audience and be a total bomb!
Quote:”The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of Star Trek necessarily”
Make a movie that doesn’t want to use the fan base as its financial foundation? Is this smoking crack? So this moron thinks that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears fans are going to suddenly want to see “Star Trek”? After 40 years people KNOW the name. They associate it with being “Sci Fi”. People who do not like Sci-Fi will not suddenly go see this movie. I am sure the other idiot who said “A movie your mother will love” literally meant it. This movie will be as stupid and bland as “Transformers” and the “Star Wars prequel”. All flash no substance.
Quote:”It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world and treat it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling.”
By going backwards and giving us STXI:90210? Get off the crack pipe!
Quote:”We’ve made sure we’re serving the people who are completely enamoured with Star Trek.”
I don’t recall Trek fans demanding to see “Kiddie Kirk” and who Kirk took to his Federation Prom! This is all BS. They are clearly jumping on the Star Wars prequel bandwagon. Instead of giving us a new cast and new ship we get “tiny toon TOS”. This is clearly another case of morons at Paramount “thinking” that they know what fans want but clearly don’t.
Quote:”But at the same time, this film is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the Star Trek you’ve seen. I can tell you that the idea of the universe of Star Trek has never been given this kind of treatment”
The most disturbing comment in this whole piece. If this movie is anything like Abrams incredible stupid “Superman script” then Trek fans will see first hand the final death blow to Star Trek. Abrams couldn’t screw up Superman so he got to nail Trek instead. The over dose of special effects will be the only thing that saves this mess.
Star Trek RIP!
How about you watch the movie first before you indict it?
The Star Trek fan base has been dwindling rapidly for years. Whether you think it’s because ST: Voyager and Enterprise sucked, or the movies after First Contact sucked, or that folks are just sci-fied out, that portion of the market is saturated with Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, etc., the point is the same.
The Star Trek franchise was dying. Hell, even Star Trek: The Experience is closing in Las Vegas.
The reboot could kill the franchise once and for all, or rescue it. But geez, how can you bash a movie you haven’t seen?
And take a look what Abrams did with Mission Impossible III, and what he continues to do with Lost….the guy ain’t a hack.
So lighten up. The future of Star Trek isn’t worth getting your knickers in a bunch over, Scorned. Just relax, and wait for next summer.
How about your stop burying your head in the sand and face some reality?
DZ, yeah I hear you…. speaking only for myself, I have liked the early ST and SOME of later ST… but I am not a fortune teller who can look into the future and say something is going to be bad or good. LOST and MI3 were/are solid movies/TV so heck, he is doing something right. I do PLAN to go and enjoy STXI…. after all, It’s ONLY a movie… but only I can be a judge of what I like.
Folks, please remain seated while the “MOVIE PLAYING” light is on and enjoy the show!
Before I put in my two cents, let me just say that I’m glad for this open forum. Dedicated fans deserve an opportunity to let off some steam in a constructive manner (not at all like the death threats the writers received when they killed James Kirk in Generations).
And speaking of Generations, one has to consider that, based on what I heard, no one in TNG cast wanted to continue with their roles as Enterprise crew. So it can be argued that, from a story-line/character familiarity standpoint, there was no place else to go. It IS logical, but it does leave a gaping hole in the Star Trek continuum, especially post-Dominion War annals and the “death” of Lt. Comdr Data.
Personally, I’ve eagerly anticipated another Star Trek Movie sequel since Nemesis (with which, like most fans, I was a bit disappointed). Of course, what I didn’t expect was a glimpse into the past life of Kirk and the launching of the Enterprise (B?) itself. Now, I won’t complain about a movie that I haven’t even seen yet, but in my heart I believe that this peculiar attempt at revamping the Star Trek francise is tepid at best.
In the first place, blasphemous as it sounds, not ALL Trekkies are particularly enamoured with James T. Kirk or The Original Series – myself among them. I suspect that new audiences will find it unappealing because, even if they enjoy the special effects, they probably won’t comprehend the historical frame of reference. I somehow doubt they’re going to run out and purchase TOS box set to fill in their missing knowledge.
Second, and I’m inclined to agree with Scorned – although with considerably less passion – if you are making a new Star Trek Movie, it must be not only consistant with it’s predecessors but also dynamic in it’s purview. The scope should not be limited to “Star Trek, Before the Music,” so to speak. That was my whole problem with the “Enterprise” series. It was entertaining but it didn’t attract a new fan base and ultimately it flopped. Intellectually, I don’t mind a prelude to TOS but i think it lacks creativity and imagination. I hope that I am wrong.
It appears that the only way to enjoy the continuing saga of the Star Trek Universe is to read the novels. The chronicles of Capt. Rikers’ vessel, the USS Titan are quite good and move chronologically FORWARD. Isn’t that the vision that sci-fi enthusiasts want? A glimpe into a possible (if improbable) FUTURE?
On no no no… LOST is so great and Felicity rocked. That means that Abrams (Mr.Superman script) can give a great movie (which he never wrote) and make a lot of money.
A budget of $150 million dollars (it has gone up to $162 now for those who are counting) is being spent on what? Nimoy is getting $15 million for approximately 7 minutes worth of screen time. So after Abrams and the transformer twits get their slice what do you have left? A great deal of money to spend on special effects so that you can sugar coat a silly movie. Make a movie that “your mother will love” is a movie that is dumb down to the American Idol audience. Which one of the characters is going to be the “comic relief” character? Which one is going to be the “serious one”? It is just that simple. Star Trek has become a great big joke! A Star Wars wanna be prequel, throw in the time travel plot with a touch of First Contact and then get the guy whose movies you want to copy (George Lucas) to do the special effects. Oh yes it just says “original”. hahaha
Shinobi,
You can stick around. You less passionate view is appreciated and well thought.
I initially wasn’t that enthused about the new movie – more a case of oh crap not another battlestar galactica which will be loved by the critics and a small 2 million strong audience and not so much loved by the vast majority out there.
I was also a tad dissapointed in that they were not going to do one more TNG movie as well – Nemesis was a massive let down – but it was all to do with Stuart Baird not knowing or appreciated Trek or respecting the actors and their takes on the characters.
I’ve personally spoke to both Nichelle Nichols and LeVar Burton. Nichelle really appreciates how J.J. Abrams is going about rebooting trek. As in he has literally gone round the original series cast asking for their ideas and advice on how they think he should move foreword. Hardly the method that a careless 90210 spotty wet behing the ears type of producer would go about things – further more he is not obligated to do that – it is something he chose to do out of respect for Star Trek and the original series actors. So that in and of its self is a reason to be somewhat more optimistic.
Anyway thanks for your input and feel free to post on any number of the other stories that I run around here. I appreciated you balanced view and well consider response.
I happen to get scorns concerns to a point – but I feel he is letting his passion rule him a little too much. I will answer his 15 hour post now – because he missed my point entirely.
I appreciate your statements, Ian. It’s easy to write about something you love. In fact, for some time now, I have earnestly considered writing a ST novel of my own. There’s a sense of legacy involved that I find very appealing. And creatively speaking, even within defined parameters such as those established within the Star Trek Continuum, there’s so much freedom! And loyalty among fans. Whatever direction this STXI takes, I know, without a doubt, I’ll be there opening night.
Christie Golden, whose works I have often enjoyed, thanks her editors and research staff on many occasions; who provided her with the necessary series episodes, technical manuals, chronological summaries, and of course, previous novels involving her choice of established characters, antagonists, or settings.
The idea of that much comphehensive work entailed in “getting it right” must have been both exhausting and daunting. And all this for the purposes of maintaining accuracy and comphrensive depth. She, and many other authors, manage to do so in a manner that pays homage to previous contributers and still creates something new and exciting. It’s worth reading.
If authors must combine substantive collections of story arcs and character data, necessarily, into their finished product, doesn’t it reason that J.J. Abrams and fellow co-writers did much of the same? Fan or not? You are in a unique position to answer such a question so I thought I’d pose it.
In the dialogue between you and Scorned, Ian, I was facsincated to read your opinions about particular ST writers and directors.
“If authors must combine substantive collections of story arcs and character data, necessarily, into their finished product, doesn’t it reason that J.J. Abrams and fellow co-writers did much of the same? Fan or not? You are in a unique position to answer such a question so I thought I’d pose it.”
Shinobe, it does indeed and from what have been hearing they have taken steps to respect cannon – and have scattered refferences throughout their movie. I was told just this last week by someone more in the loop than I am that both Orci and Kurtzman our life long fans of Star Trek and have been for some time – one is more a TNG fan while the other is a TOS fan – so that kind of bodes well for the production.
Furthermore both also read the various Star Trek novels.
BTW have read Christie Golden, Peter David and Diane Carey. All were favourites of mine when I read the Trek novels. I haven’t read a Star Trek book in a year and a half because have moved onto reading other things.
Am also working on a few none trek related stories of my own between working on the site.
As to directors – well am more a fan of writing, and tbh the lack of shakespearian refferences in dilogue was sadly missed during Voyager and Enterprise.
I loved many of the threeway conversations between kirk, spock and McCoy where you’d get refferences to classic lit thrown in. For example the part in Star Trek 6 where McCoy quotes ‘Hamlet’.
I’m a lover of language.
I personally feel that Nick Meyer saved Star Trek – don’t get me wrong I loved the motion picture – but can see why it would not appeal to the broader audience given that it had a quite cerebral plot – but Wrath Of Khan to this day remains my favourite of the movie series – it had everything in it that I love in a good Trek story.
I am still to develop any excitement about this flick partly because I am unsure as to what narrative and plot developments we will get with Abrams, plus when it boils right down to it as a keen Trek fan I just can’t envision different actors playing the TOS crew. Rebooting a series or franchise (by the way I HATE that term franchise, makes Trek sounds like a fast food chain!) has arguably been done before (e.g. Nick Meyer’s “Wrath of Khan”…and I agree with Ian’s comments here… ST:DS9), but what we are probably going to see with this new film is something which empties out a lot of standard and long term icons within the Trek universe and replace it with something that could be good or could be abysmal.
What is definitely a concern for me is that Abrams’ previous work (whether we’re talking writer or director) hasn’t really given me any pleasure. “Lost”, “Felicity”, “Alias” all left me cold. In fact I’d have to go back to “Regarding Henry” as the last Abram’s efoort I enjoyed.
When it does get released (here in Australia) I will probably go and see it which is ultimately the goal of the film makers and the studio. But whether I will be reinvigorated or fall in love anew with Trek because of this film…nah, I don’t think so. And whilst a core fan like me is important to the progression of Trek as a cultural phenomenon, what is arguably more important is Trek is brought a new audience that may not have the same preconceptions as us devotees.
The next question then would be…should Star Trek even be rebooted or continued. I’m sure several fans would have said no before TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise…
Scorned is a well-known histrionic troll who’s been banned from Trekweb, TrekBBS and every other community whose bridges he’s tried to squat under. Pay him no mind.
Hi Eusebius,
Great post – and though you are unsure about the new flick its nice to see that you are open minded about it.
To be honest when this project was first announced last year – I myself was a tad concerned about the affect new poeple coming in to play Kirk and so forth would have on Star Trek.
I was never a huge Kirk fan – so we shall get that one out the way from the get go. My favorite TOS characters were Spock and McCoy – to me Kirk was the idiot who picked their brains lol – then balanced their advice with his own instincts and got the job done.
I think we have some pretty good choices in the new cast – the only one I’m unsure of is Chris Pine who plays the new Kirk – but that’s because I haven’t seen him in that much in order to make any real judgement.
I do not think that this movie will be detrimental to the Iconic nature of the original nor the original actors.
Fact is one of the first people to play Tarzan in the speaking Tarzan movies was Johnny Weissmuller – who today is somewhat of an iconic name when it comes to the movie history of Tarzan.
When you look at William Shatner he in many ways has transended Captain Kirk – yet Kirk will always be linked primarily with him.
Fact remains any reboot or reimagining to coin a phrase I really hate – has a big job to live up to in regards to the expectations of the established fan base – trouble is how is Abrams going to draw those new fans in.
Fact is even today if your a Trek fan that does conventions and goes as far as the sterotype as depicted in trekkies – it is still stared down upon by the mainstream – yet the cold harsh irony is that Star Trek now needs the mainstream in order to try and win over a few million new fans to secure its financial and commercial future.
TOS and TNG was really good for the fan base – at DS9 the fans started to fetter off – by Voyager they started to dwindle more. By time Enterprise came along the audience dwindle more.
In answer to your question – I think this movie is coming out way too soon. I’d have been happier if Star Trek had took a longer break of 10 years before coming back.
To give a point of refference. Here in the UK we have a show called Doctor Who. The original show of Doctor Who ran from 1963 until 1989 with only a 18 month break – over this time the show constantly reinvented itself – and survived due to this. What killed it was one man – the BBC head of programming Sir Michael Grade who in 1989 put Doctor Who up again the UKs most popular soap opera – the show was axed.
17 years went by – the books, toys and all the merchandise thrived – we had radio plays and the fans kept the spirit of Doctor Who alive.
In 2005 the show returned reinvigorated and won over new fans while retaining a fairly large percentage of the older fans who grew up watching the originals.
I guess what am trying to say if that – perhaps Star Trek needs to be missed for awhile longer – so that when it does come back the fans can appreciate it more – after all absence does make the heart grow fonder.
Hey Guy’s,
I have been a fan of Star Trek Since I saw the ORIGINAL SERIES in The mid 60′s ( I was 8 years old ) I still read a LOT of Star Trek novels.. Been to the Vegas Exibit..A Few Conventions…( I did see Shatner, Nimoy & Kelley LIVE on stage )
And I think we should at least give the New Movie a CHANCE before we condem it or EVEN comment on it, If anything..I hope that J.J.Abrams Does A FINE job with the Ideals that trek has put forth. New actors ! Oh MY God !, Come on ALL the actors that have done T.V. & Movies are getting old now…Maybe it’s time for some NEW BLOOD ? I also understand that ILM Will be using there NEWEST version of 3D CGI to do this movie.
I For One am looking foreward to a NEW trek, It’s time has come. Paramount had NEVER opened the purse strings to let the Special effects be given there due..( Look at ST5 and what Shatner had WANTED to do…) I still think of all the movies The Wrath of Khan was the best followed by The Undiscovered Country. The stories are there..let them be told. Roddenberry’s universe has different Ideals than ours. It makes for good story telling points. Mankind has matured and gone into the universe seeking out new life..ect…I hope the stories go on with the new crew.
Boldly GO!
Zajbo
Yeah I don’t know….the movie won’t be canon…people just aren’t going to care.
You’re right, Star Trek needs to be missed for a long time.
Star Trek is dead unfortunately. They need to do something huge in the future to get it going…like when TNG came out…new technology and ships….that’s really what we need…
This movie is likely to flop and it makes me sad.
Sorry, but Kirk is the “Chuck Norris” of the Star Trek universe. I just don’t see this movie cutting it…there’s canon issues and if it makes money, it’ll be b/c it’s a special effects light show. It won’t honor the vision of Star Trek nor give us old fans a “warm fuzzy” Star Trek feeling in the gut…*tear*
RIP Star Trek…you’ve boldy went….
I think Ron Moore is basically right. Star Trek has become such a relic of the past. The franchise feels tired and formulaic. And quite frankly, it doesn’t connect with contemporary audiences.
In fact, the outdated nature of Star Trek becomes glaringly apparent whenever it declares itself “edgy.” When Enterprise finally did an AIDS episode in 2003 (Stigma), I distinctly remember Rick Berman and Brannon Braga referring to it as “groundbreaking” television. Initially, I laughed at this unintentionally humorous statement. And then, like most of the audience, I simply yawned.
Stigma might’ve been a provocative and innovative episode for TNG in the 1980s. But to call it “groundbreaking” in the age of Reality TV and HBO belies the incredible ignorance of TPTB.
I have been a fan of the original show since it was out. I’m 47, I have my opinions about the later shows. I liked what they did with voyager, Enterprise was alot better than I thoght it would be, { I didnt watch it before it was cancelled}. And the borg are the coolest thing to happen to the show since it started. I hate what they did to Godzilla,[ as far as making a new movie out of an old show], But I really liked Batman begins. So… I for one am looking forward to a new Star Trek , I hope I like it. I have wanted to see a new darker version of the show since they are makeing so many remakes. p.s. i think the new Battlestar Galactica show is very cool.