Abrams: My Star Trek Not Kitschy + Disappointed Not Showing At Comic-Con July 14, 2008
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Today at the Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills, Star Trek’s director JJ Abrams took some time out from promoting his new Fox show Fringe to talk a little Trek with SciFi Wire. Abrams talked about the ‘kitsch’ of Trek and also said he was disappointed he would not be showing a preview at Comic-Con.
Excerpts from SciFi Wire
Abrams on Star Trek kitsch
JJ Abrams and his Trek team have talked a lot about how the new Star Trek feature film will feel ‘realer’ than any other Trek film or series to date. Apparently this realness comes at the expense of Trek’s famed kitschiness:
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…Our Star Trek is not parody, 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.
Abrams also talked to SciFiWire about how he would have been "psyched" to show a preview of Star Trek at Comic Con in San Diego later this month, but that due to the number of visual effects shots ("well over 1,000") there just isn’t anything ready to be shown. He also noted other Paramount films were also not going to have panels either.
For more visit Sci-Fi Wire.
NOTE: More Star Trek related reports from Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Burk may come out of today’s TCA event (all are Fringe producers). If they do, we will update this article so check back.
Loading ...
Comments»
What?
No ‘Star Kitsch’?!?
Not disappointed.
It will be interesting to see what kinds of questions the crew answer over the day today and through ComicCon. Their desire to balance the secrecy of the film with their desire to keep the fanbase energized is, to say the least, tricky…
Here’s hoping that we’ll get some more info soon :)
Okay, no “kitsch,” which is fine….one question…what does he consider an example of “kitsch?”
Kirk
Is
The
Starship
Captain
Hero
If there’s no “kitsch”, no wonder it’s a Spock story!
So well have to wait for the Grand Slam next year for more, boy thats lame!
Kitsch. Just watch “Of Gods and Men”. Or, think Kirk in the Genesis Cave. Nuclear Wessels. Worf’s Foster-mother tugging his ear with a “Little Wittle Worfy” look in her eye. Much of Voyager. Cameos. Breaking the fourth wall.
Or at least, I figure that’s what he’s referring to.
Glad to see JJ lament not having something for Comic Con. This merely confirms that had they put this out Christmas 2008, there would have been *many* compromises in the imagery and final editing. This is going to give them time to already “remaster” it before it comes out.
However, there’s no reason they couldn’t have stills for ComicCon. Or people turning up (think The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) with all the men turning up in bowlers at the museum during the final setup) wearing the costumes of the new Star Trek… walking around ComicCon saying nothing, just going about wearing the new threads. Perhaps they could just hand out glossies of Pine, Quinto and Urban in costume. And pictures of the big E. That would be a great stunt. And kitschy. Movie can be kitsch-less… but the promotion of said movie should be full of it!
Abrams is likely to aware that there will be many who want to ask him for something from Star Trek.
This, to me, tells me that Paramount overruled him with the weirdest publicity decision they could make.
I’ll see if there is anything substantial in the publicity, like a rendered still of the Enterprise, or a picture of the crew on the Bridge in uniform (On-Set Publicity Still).
I feel for JJ and co at this point.
Star Trek has a campy style that was inherent in television shows in the 60s. Much of that actually went away with Star Trek: TMP onwards.
I like the fact that he’s treating it seriously, and not as a parody piece.
well, I guess that sums it up and hushes all the people that were saying they’d believe it when they saw it (regarding the no paramount at comic con).
O’well, I’m pumped about the movie, since they’re putting it in with canan and everything’s going to be fine and dandy.
No Kitsch? This is NOT a disaster!
what a piece of kitsch.
son of a kitsch
ok. I’m done
Yeah, Dave, I was thinking the same thing — please define “Kitsch”. Certainly, looking at the 60s version it’s seems that way to us NOW but they did their best for the time. I wouldn’t say the newer movies were kitschy at all.
I also ponder his statement: “I never saw how Kirk and Spock became so connected.”
We watched that friendship develop and mature for 3 years as they went through all their adventures. Heck, that relationship was what made me a Trek fan and what I watched for. The rest was gravy. I honestly never assumed there was a relationship between the two prior to Kirk taking command of the Enterprise either.
But at least he’s bummed that there isn’t a panel at Comic Con too.
“but that due to the number of visual effects shots (”well over 1,000″) there just isn’t anything ready to be shown.”
I’d be thrilled to see ANYTHING. Pull out a new phaser, tell me how the ‘new’ microtapes work, do your vocalization of the bridge door swoosh sound, give me the thread count on red velour underoos… SOMETHING!
So instead of self-consciously referencing 60s kitsch, he’s making something that will be unconsciously kitsch in ten years?
JJ is one sick filmmaker.
13. In this case, I think “kitsch” means making sure the sets, costumes, etc. are exactly as they were in TOS, probably even right down to the same materials. Let’s face it, some people won’t be satisfied unless everything was an exact replica of the TOS sets. I think the idea is that this movie is going to be like an ultra-refined TOS, taking that design sensability and bringing it into the 21st century.
Seriously? I wasn’t expecting anything to be SHOWN movie wise, except maybe a few PICTURES of the crew, or the Big-E. Maybe it’s all a ploy, and there’ll be some major suprise for us at Comic-Con (once again not attending. why must the job market suck in my area?!-=cry=-) Still, good to know it’s not going to be Camp, but a serious Trek film. Just not too serious, or it’ll be campy in spite of itself. Come on JJ, I’m giving you a lot of trust here, considering I haven’t seen jack s***t since the teaser. Do this thing right.
So why then are we still getting the miniskirts? I am a canonista when it comes to plot, but I’ve always understood visuals, ships, etc. must change with advances in technology. (They never needed to explain the Klingons — bigger makeup budget was pretty understandable to me!)
However, the miniskirt is definitely an element I would label KITCSCH now. Sure, it was a sign of empowerment for women at that time but it just really doesn’t work for a woman in the military now.
#15:”So instead of self-consciously referencing 60s kitsch, he’s making something that will be unconsciously kitsch in ten years?”
Yeah, you know – like “Star Wars.” ;-)
The ‘origins’ of how these characters became friends is perhaps left alone IMO. Look how the Star Wars prequels ruined the franchise by trying and failing to fill in the back story.
Just don’ t make Spock fly. (with or without rocket boots)
Harry#4- LOL!
Kitsch:
Eymorgs in go-go boots.
Space hippies.
Giant spears knocking off chunks of Styrofoam.
Traveling in a space amoeba that looks a lot like Jefferson Airplane’s animated backdrop.
Half-black/half-white actors providing hamfisted racial commentary.
Fuzzy lenses and swelling music whenever we see Kirk’s old flames.
Maybe that last one isn’t “kitsch” so much as it is just plain dated.
Look, I’m going to lay it on the line right here and now…
If they don’t bring back the Space Hippies, I boycott!
We Reach!
The kitsch will not be missed.
#23, #4: ROFLMAO! I must be preoccupied to have missed that (because I’m at work coding)…
#6 and BOBORCI: I have been wondering whether or not the pushing back of the release date will actually give additional time to the production. My assumption is that ILM was booked/scheduled for Star Trek through the end of this year and that they have other jobs lined up soon after. So, even though the actual release date has been pushed back, the main effects house working on the film will not be available to work on it. Is that correct? Is this a case of hurry up and wait?
19 – Miniskirts are pretty common these days. I’m not sure they’ll be quite as high as the Original Series, but I think it’s actually not unrealistic, and serves as an homage to the Original Series. Still, it is all a bit vague as usual ;-)
BobOrci: As much as I wished you guys had something to show, just make sure the movie is good. That’s what is REALLY important.
I still suspect there may be something more revealed with the publicity stuff at the Paramount booth at Comic-Con.
Star Trek 11:
The Wrath of Kitcsch
KKKKKIIIIIITTTTTTCCCCSSSCCCCHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#28: Miniskirts are in this movie for the same reason they were in TOS: To display great legs. Don’t forget that the prime demographic for Trek is a bunch of well-hormoned males.
I’d be stunned if the script does not include an early, witty and pointed remark by one of the female characters explaining why they’re all wearing the short skirts.
The simple truth of the matter here is that there is nothing wrong with the promotion of the new Star Trek film.
It still just under a year before it opens. You don’t promote the hell out of any film that almost has a full year to go before it opens regardless of anything the public wants.
As I’ve said here many times already, based on the release date….
You will see a teaser at the holidays (Thanksgiving / Christmas). You may see a longer trailer when the spring films start to open as a Trek trailer on any film with marginal hopes will bring the crowds in.
Prior to their start of the publicity machine over the holidays, you will in all liklihood not see any studio promotional pics from the film at all until the holidays.
Wishing for them and complaining will not make them appear any faster. The studio will promote these films the same way they have for 75 years. Being a Trek fan doesn’t mean they will change anything they do specifically for you no matter how much you or I desire it.
I have a 15 year experience with movie theaters (management and in-house promotions working with licensees) and I know how these campaigns work. It won’t happen any sooner then I’ve outlined above.
I am so glad he told the fans WHY they wouldn’t be showing stuff at CONNN!. His reasons and the fact it’s too early in the advertising/marketing cycle (even for fanboys and girls) makes sense. Hold onto the fun of secrecy just a while longer!
Well said Dave
According to Wikipedia:
Kitsch is a term of German or Yiddish origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an existing style.
By many of the posts I’ve read, I don’t think many people know what he’s saying.
Basically he’s saying that it’s not an exact copy of what was done before. And that changes have been made to make the TOS time period feel real.
The question is- how far does that go? I like the idea of modernizing the technology and doing away with the obvious soundstage planets and cardboard sets. But how far is he talking? Are we talking going all grungy and dirty to look real like Star Wars or Alien?
Will Kirk no longer seem like Kirk? Will Star Trek no longer even feel like Star Trek?
Who’s to know. It’s a very vague statement.
#31 Amen to that.
JJ Abrams is of the mind that “real men don’t eat kitsch”
Aw, most of you guys are probably too young to get the pun!
#34
So “A Piece of the Action” is not kitsch??? I thought I had this kitsch thing all figured out! Now I am really confused. Must..have more..Romulan Ale…
Hmmm… well it’s also used to mean popular, but a cheap and crude form of art… now if that’s really how he feels about Trek, boy I’m I glad Trek’s now in his hands (sarcasm).
KHAAAA……um, KIIIIIIIITSCHHHHH!
OK. I’ll leave now.
Kirk
Is
Toast,
Spock
Core
Hero
That would be just like Abrams to speak in code!
#3 echoed my sentiment exactly. Since I have no idea what Abrams considers kitsch about Trek, I don’t know what he’s actually saying about what he made effort to avoid.
If he just means no gold-skinned midgets wearing fezzes, then I’m okay with that. Only a small portion of my love for Trek depends on hoping to one day see another gold-skinned midget in a fez.
If he means something else, then … I dunno what he means :)
BREAKING NEWS
Check DRUDGE Report. Paramount financing deal with Deutch Bank falls through. Star Trek funding in Jeopardy?
No new footage. Oh well, perhaps this is a time to release some stills or something. Hopefully not another teaser poster. As cool as they’ve all been, I think we get the idea…Star Trek is coming soon.
I’ll have to admit that I am so done with reports on why there won’t be any news. As I said in the other CC article, I wouldn’t care if they didn’t show any clips or previews or brought out props or had a panel. No reason to fire up the engines on the marketing machine. But some news about something would be nice. I think too much secrecy in light of something so inherently unsecret could backfire. But nobody on this site can offer anything more than a theory one way or the other. Cloverfield’s veil of secrecy started to become annoying to many of it’s dedicated following after awhile. And after a big opening, it quickly lost it’s legs, in one part due to perhaps the tastes of filmgoers, and in part perhaps to the over-hyped secrecy. It’s almost as if the secret became bigger than the film, and thusly the film couldn’t live up to the secret. My fear is that Star Trek has to be better than great to live up to the measures of secrecy it has been shrouded in.
So can we see a picture of the Enterprise or the crew or something, please?
So I guess he wanted to show something at Comic-Con. ..
I was under the impression JJ was Mr Secrecy…
Perhaps to ease his disappointment, he could just provide Anthony with a couple of still shots so Anthony could in turn share them with us. That should make JJ “psyched”!
That would also make all of us very happy (and spike the web traffic here too!)
No need for a Comic-Con panel at all! The buzz would be huge and would be sustainable. We could live for weeks and weeks on just a pic or two…
#42 – And then there’s this:
“While Deutsche’s decision to close its film unit is a blow for Paramount, the films affected by the deal are still likely to be released as scheduled.”
#46 Lets hope you are right and we are not looking at another Star Trek V scenario!
#44 sez: “My fear is that Star Trek has to be better than great to live up to the measures of secrecy it has been shrouded in.”
Amen to that.
I understand there are those here on the boards who probably have a better idea of promotion and marketing sense than me. Maybe even professionals in the field. However, it just feels wrong to not have even a little representation at the world’s largest convention of it’s kind.
ARGH!!
But Kitsch IS canon!
:p
Well, this studio and this situation and the people involved have almost nothing in common with the people who did ST V other than being in the same business.
44 & 48 I’m definitely in agreement on the secrecy thing. They’ve gone way overboard. Exactly. A pic of the ship or the crew wouldn’t be too much to ask. JJ may be setting up the movie for a huge fall with all this expectation he’s building with the secrecy.
As for kitsch–I don’t like the term. To me kitsch is anything that snobs look down on.
#52 – Its not so much secrecy as I’ve said a number of times. Its a timetable.
When is the best time to release those photos and clips? Not a year before the film opens. It may please the fan boys, but it does noting when people stop talking about them four months before the film opens.
The marketing people know their jobs and they do them well. The material will be released as I’ve indicated above in #31.
People are mistaking secrecry for a well planned marketing campaign. Its not a matter of secrecy unless you are talking about no one revealing script details.
Keeping the script a mystery? That’s a secret.
Not releasing an image a year ahead of time… that’s marketing.
And think about this…. when new Trek series were premiering every few years… we never got to see images of the ship at all until roughly three months before the series premiered. We got to see the crew in costume shortly after that.
Holiday 2008 all will be revealed and not before. You can take that to the bank.
#20:
So are we getting an Empire Strikes Back or an Attack of the Clones? : P
#53 Fair enough, Dave, I’ll go with you on that and your expertise. But there is a “sense” of this long drawn out secrecy that people are feeling, and now that I think about it, most of it is probably from the movie being delayed.
When the release date was xmas of this year, I think I had it in the back of my mind that a lot of “stuff”—leaks, pics, or whatever, would be coming out this Summer, maybe by Aug. or Sept. In other words, things would be getting fun this summer. :)
But now with an additional 5 months…. well, you get the idea… the crickets are chirping…
Webster’s Dictionary definition of “kitsch”: art, writing, etc. of a pretentious but shallow kind, calculated to have popular appeal. Now in this sense, I would totally disagree that TOS was kitschy.
Curious that JJ says nothing can be shown because visuals aren’t complete. Hmm, somehow I imagine if the Premiere Date was still 12/08, we’d being seeing something at CC. At any rate, it makes my decision not to go to Comic Con easier. 2 cons in 3 weeks was going to be too hard on my job — heh, heh, I didn’t want to tell them why I HAD to be off. I’m a closet trekker as far as most of my co-workers are concerned.
#6 kirk is not caught in the nexus. he’s dead, the kirk in the nexus is just an echo. The only way to save kirk is to change history.
Sounds nice about the new movie. I trust Nimoy, that it will be a good movie.
DeadlineHollywoodDaily has an article about Paramount’s sudden financial crunch. Interesting reading.
It appears that Mr. Pascale was right and those other outlets were wrong afterall. There will indeed be nothing at Comic Con.
Why does anyone care if they are at comic con or not?
There will be plenty of time to hype this film over the next 10 months.
Hopefully Abrams’ definition of the ‘kitsch’ to be avoided extends to the melodrama and absurd lines of dialogue like, “You Klingon bastard!” (later satirized in a 90s alternative rock song) and “I’ve..had..enough of…YOU!”
Bob Orci, can I get an “Amen!” on this?
People care because comic con is the largest con in the world with every media outlet attending. It’s huge (120,000 last year!) and a usual stop for publicizing films of this nature. Some of us find it really odd that they are skipping it this year.
They did the 2 Spocks thing last year at CC….a good 1.5 years before the movie’s original release date and months even before principal filming was to begin. It was a smart way to ease the concerns about a reboot — having Nimoy on board appeals to diehard fans and then picking an actor known to genre fans to play the new Spock allays fears of miscasting. Lots of positive press resulted.
I could use more positive tidbits after reading this:
Paramount forced to suspend $450m financing
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles
Published: July 15 2008 00:12 | Last updated: July 15 2008 01:28
The credit crunch has hit home in Hollywood after Paramount Pictures, which has released a string of hit movies this year, was forced to suspend plans for a $450m film financing.
The studio has been working with Deutsche Bank on financing that would have provided funds for up to 30 films, including possible blockbusters such as the sequel to Transformers and a new version of Star Trek.
#61
Seriously? ‘You Klingon bastards’ is one of Shatner’s best moments! Plus it’s in the unfairly maligned Trek III, one of my personal favorites.
so, is me Horta tea cozy considered kitsch? So much fur seeing that in J.J.’s replicators…
arrrrrr…
i’m worried about this statement. i hope we are not going to see how everything fits with today so it will be outdated in 10 years. i liked the fact in TOS you didn’t understand all of the Tech or design.
#63 I totally agree. TSFS (despite some awkward dialog moments) is in very many ways superior to TWOK.
And JJ had better be VERY careful. We need a Trek film that will NOT end up looking dated, like TWOK.
Ironically, one like TMP.
Seems like the bigger story is Paramount’s financing woes, not whether or not somebody shows up at a convention, however large.
Can we get a thread on the Paramount mess? That ought to be quite a fear fest!
#63:
Yes, seriously. Bad writing compounded by overacting. Shatner’s best moments (and there have been many, I love the Shat) are when he turns it down a notch, and this was not one of those times. Star Trek III was one excess after another, and while I can enjoy Wagnerian opera on occasion, it seems out of place in the 23rd century (or the 24th). No thanks.
#66: “And JJ had better be VERY careful. We need a Trek film that will NOT end up looking dated, like TWOK.”
We “need’ a movie that’s a big success when it’s released. The future can take care of the future.
I can not wait until Comic Con is over and done with. It’s millions of attendees heading home, sated from a buffet of tastes and tidbits of knowledge about all things important in the worlds of the fantastic.
Then we can get on with the continued discussion of the most pressing question.
Are the bridge rails red? The first and ultimate fanboy question.
Bob Orci… here’s the chance. The fanboys will froth at the lips with one simple answer that revels so little.
Are the bridge rails red?
The bridge rails damned well better be orange.
are there bridge rails?…
Are they made of Deuterium Alloy?
Xai- I picture the bridge rails being a thick, red-tinted plexiglass of the same design as the original rails – opinion?
I’d been wondering a little if by next May, any movie was going to be able to generate big box office due to the financial woes of the world. Para’s financial worries might make the May release date idea seem even dumber.
#69- Big success? Hell yes. Not looking dated would be nice though too.
Bridge rails???!!
Please. Not red. Not orange. Not on an early starship…….
GAAA! Now you’ve got ME taking it seriously!!
#55 – Yes, i the film were coming out at Christmas as originally planned, material would be hitting at Comic-Con and we’d geting slammed by the publicity department. The change in release has tended to draw this feeling out of the studio keeping everything under wraps, but I assure you its the farthest thing from the truth.
#62 – According to Deadline Hollywood daily, Paramount walked away from the deal two weeks ago due to the rather uninspiring terms of the almost deal. Trek’s financing is secure as is the financing for Transformers 2. Those deals were in place long before this negotiation got started.
@59
I never said there would be ‘nothing’ for Trek at comic con. I only reported that they really meant it when they said ‘no panel’. Paramount are still saying there will be a ‘presence’ for Trek and as I reported before, I expect that to manifest itself in new marketing materials. I hope to have details shortly before SDCC
RE: Paramount Financial Deal
Oh boy….its funny how an obscure financial thing about corporate risk management can get turned into something alarming when put on the Drudge Report. I used to work in financial services, this is much ado about nothing.
Son-of-a-kitsch. I’m really getting anxious now.
#73 Oh I HOPE they aren’t made of Deuterium Alloy. Seeing as Deuterium is a hydrogen isotope that they use to react with the anti-matter.
I do suppose, though, that they could construct a containment field that would hold red Deuterium in the shape of the rails. They could even make it glow like a neon light! That would be the kitschist, coolest, railing ever! I could totally reach that. ;)
Kirk
Itches
Testicles
Sore
Chapped
Hemorrhoids
So glad there’s no kitsch. And by kitsch, I think Abrams means the awful Trek sense of humor at the expense of the characters’ dignity. When Trek humor was bad, it was really bad. Babylon 5 Humor Bad, sometimes.
I9
How could Abrams do this to me? Doesn’t he care at all what I want? If only he realized that I have accurately predicted the box office take on each Star Trek movie successfully since TWOK based solely on picures of ships and crews that were released 10 months in advance, surely he would let me have a peek.
Prediction: The bridge railings will be black. Or plexiglass. One of those two. But no matter what, all the internet shall resoundingly echo with the following four words:
THIS IS A DISASTER! (Do I get extra points for using a colon twice in one statement? And could you call this a bifurcated colon? Big shout out to my homies in 69 forward! Trekside, yo!)
THX- Yo (do you spell a singular “homey”?), my darling. And pass a “Yo, boooooy”! over to Mongo and the Ms.
The only trailer released by Paramount for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan didn’t even arrive at theaters for screening until roughly three weeks before the film opened.
I remember them delivering the shipping box into my little projectionist hands. I remember tearing it open and racing to theater #1 which was empty at the time. It had a seating capacity of 907 and fantastic sound.
I raced into the booth and put the trailer on a 20 minute reel and quickly loaded the trailer into the projector. I set it up to auto start and raced into the theater.
The Paramount logo came up and suddenly we were moving through space to the omnious voice of an announcer.
Suddenly Khan was firing on the Enterrpise. The phasers from the Reliant were carving up MY STARSHIP like it was a swiss cheese! I screamed out loud… “NOOOOO!!!!! NOT MY SHIP!!!!!!” And suddenly I heard a small bit of laughter coming from the back of the theater which had filled with my co-workers.
Then we all watched the trailer about ten more times before I attached it to the front of three different films.
Those were the days!
TOS was made out of thin air and it became the most iconic scifi show ever. Without it, Abrams wouldn’t be giving his mindless interviews today. #34 is right as to the origin and meaning of the word “Kitsch”. So, the word definitely doesn’t apply to TOS, as TOS didn’t copy anything, it was the first of its kind and in due course was copied. If he considers it “kitschy” in terms of plots, interior equipment, etc. – well, they created a universe with stone knives and bearskins – “kitschy” isn’t exactly the term that comes to *my* mind. Maybe Abrams is just a bit jealous, because whatever he‘ll manage to do with his $130 budget, he‘ll never be the original teller of that almost legendary story.
Furthermore, the term “Kitsch” implies “emotional hokeyness”. Tell us, Mr. Abrams, which part of TOS or the films did you find emotionally hokey? I for one can’t wait to hear it. And if Trek is “inferior and tasteless” for Abrams… well, we are all entitled to our own opinions, even the director of the film based on that kitschy crap.
He wonders how the crew all became connected? Why does obvious military loyalty to your Captain and “brothers” demand some stupid origin story?? It comes with the territory, or at least it better if everyone wants to live.
As for kitsch – maybe it’s just me but I like DRAMA. Theatrically acted, artfully lit, chock-fulla musical stings DRAMA. I hate dark, somber, pompous, sleepwalk-acted movies. I don’t care how cheap or cheesy they were, TOS or any Jack Klugman “Twilight Zone” has more entertainment value than 100 “Meet Joe Black”s, BSGs, or “Superman Returns”. or TNG for that matter. Trek needs to embrace the 1960’s storytelling ethic.
the more Abrams critiscies about the original Star Trek the more I get annoyed at him for completely changing Star Trek
The new kids won’t get the same Star Trek and after this movie he seems to be making sure they don’t watch other Trek because it will be so different to what he is doing.
I bet he wants to make new people think he did Star Trek rather than Gene Roddenberry.
It seems Abrams wants to make Star Trek his own.
Meaning the Abrams’ fans who go and see this movie will not be motivated to watch TOS and the other shows because he is making it sound too silly.
I want new fans to watch the Star Trek we watched and he makes comments like this and they won’t want to.
Well done JJ
#36 Ballz …….. Feirstein, right? as far as the “Kitsch” thing………
I don’t know…………….I’m really Starting To Lose interest in this Movie (IT’S STILL ABOUT A YEAR AWAY!!!!) and what do we Really know about it, Not Kitsch!! Zoë in the Mini Skirt, That’s kitschy enough for me.
I hope the Shat will be in the movie…wanna start this again?
Shatner gave Star Trek its theatricality and pulse.
Nimoy solidified it.
Kelly humanized it.
Doohan empowered it.
ad nauseum………
Sorry JJ, Star Trek in 1966-69 never seemed kitschy to an open-eyed 12 year old male.
Buck Rogers serials and Lost in Space seemed kitschy to me then.
re: 86. Iowagirl
“….definitely doesn’t apply to TOS, as TOS didn’t copy anything, it was the first of its kind and in due course was copied.”
I would direct your attention to the 1956 film “Forbidden Planet”.
*23rd century
*United Planets Star Cruiser
*Captain falls for the girl
*Hints of Shakespeare
*Extinct alien society but the machine still runs
Trek copied so much that I tend to think of it as existing earlier in the same time line…
89. captain_neill
“Meaning the Abrams’ fans who go and see this movie will not be motivated to watch TOS and the other shows because he is making it sound too silly.”
With all due respect captain_neill , Trek was silly many many times. Remember Harry Mudd?. Tribbles? All those “yucks” and fake smiles as the E sailed off into the sunset almost every week?…
Things can change a little and that’s okay…
I just thought he meant, he’s not making a kitsch redo such as Charlie’s Angels or Starsky and Hutch, this is a more respectful remake, which has realism and won’t have old cast characters turning up at the end to … hand.. the… keys… over…. emmmm.
Well, not in an *implausible* way, anyway…
(Nimoy Spock to Quinto Spock: “Here ya go kiddo, the keys to the Big E: Don’t go smashing her up now…”)
#87 makes a good point about how the crew really became “connected” – through their service together as shipmates aboard the Enterprise. While it is interesting to contemplate the histories of some of the characters prior to the Enterprise (I have no interest in learning what happened to Chekov prior to Roddenberry’s decision to capitalize on both Russian indignation and the popularity of the Monkees), an origin story is not needed to explain how these characters developed a bond while serving together on a hazardous, 5-year tour of duty. Further, watching the show, I had always assumed that Kirk and Spock had never even met before the Enterprise, and while it seemed possible that Kirk and McCoy might have, it could probably go either way.
#92
You have a good point there, Commodore Redshirt. Forbidden Planet surely was an inspiration for TOS and you point out the right parallels. But I still think that TOS did not copy it. TOS was the first series to introduce scifi AND sociocritical aspects as a combination on a weekly basis. Thus, it had a new concept and extended it week by week. There was the underlying visionary concept of a better future, of different people and peoples living together in peace, there was criticism of the actual social state, there was humour and fun, etc. In this spirit, I think it was “new” and this new concept was one of the main reasons for its enormous success (after some teething troubles;) and its survival to date.
Kitsch and how JJ refers to it, in tandem with his mantra – Keep it real – means no corny bits like littering the bridge with Klingon translation books a la Star Trek 6, no bad Russian accents, no incompotent starship Captains a la Harriman and the Enterprise B etc, etc
Very heartening to hear.
Now, if there was confirmation that Trekbabble is being kept to a minimum, one could extremely excited.
…the adventure continues….
#92 You’re correct to point out that Star Trek used archetypal story lines like that. I hesitate to call this copying, since there are only so many story types out there to use . . . but either way, it’s cliche. I have no problem with cliche, but it is effective kitsch.
What I have to say regarding copying & kitsch, though, is that it sounds like JJ is indeed copying age old cliche plots, himself. Granted, we don’t know the whole story . . . but it looks like we’ve got a rogue Romulan leader who is going back in time to cause some trouble. If I had a piece of latinum for every time something like that happened in Star Trek . . . JJ’s need to make this his own project, and to redefine Star Trek, may just be another one of many attempts by many people. In TNG, they got new writers in the 3rd season who changed the shape of the — dare I say — kitshy stories of the first two seasons. Then, when Gene died, the show (and all subsequent series) went in vastly different directions that redefined the show.
And look at how many people still love the good ol’ Kitschy TOS.
I hope this movie succeeds, even if it is different than what I’d prefer. I hope it is good. But I do think it is arrogant for JJ to think he can make it into his own, and I think it’s naive of him to think he is the first to try it.
And for the record, and perhaps in defense of JJ, he may simply refer to simple kitschy filming techniques. The lighting effects, for example, where a light was reflected to shine upon the eye of a character in a dramatic moment. That’d sure fit the definition of kitsch.
“there’s a kind of kitschy quality that must go if it’s going to be something that you believe is real…”
That is all that was said.. That’s it…. But once again, people are taking it completely out of context, twisting it and making it sound like doomsday! Well done!!!!
“Maybe Abrams is just a bit jealous”
“I get annoyed at him for completely changing Star Trek”
huh??? what was said??????
These comedy quotes are fun to read, because it just shows how closed minded people can be, and how they are seemingly reading what THEY want to read! I always thought that we, as Star Trek fans, were supposed to be the more enlightend and accepting of folks.. obviously the ideology and messages from Trek are lost on certain people… They are more concerned with showing a hatred and resentment for this new production.. not qualities that would fit into the ideologies of Trek!
I also find it amusing how people are comparing the aestetic qualities of the 1960’s tv series, with a 2009 motion picture release.. Of course we wanna see more realism, take advantage of the much larger canvas that is on offer!!!! It would be foolish not to!
And if this film gets a new generation interested in the adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and they in turn want to delve deeper and watch the adventures that we grew up with… is that really a bad thing???
However, we’ve been here before, and people will continue to turn harmless quotes into something more resembling Chinese whispers! Pathetic…
#87 “don’t care how cheap or cheesy they were, TOS or any Jack Klugman “Twilight Zone” has more entertainment value than 100 “Meet Joe Black”s, BSGs, or “Superman Returns”. or TNG for that matter.”
Thank you, I coudln’t agree more.
And as far as making Trek “real”. Fine, upgrade the sets, the FX, etc etc. But don’t do it at the expense of the fun. At the end of the day, despite a few explorations into social commentary, Star Trek was pure escapism masterfully presented in an hour of action and adventure. It was creative, imaginative fun.
I hope JJ and his crew never get so caught up pondering the “deep meaning of Trek” (like Berman did) that they lose sight of that.
#82: ” When Trek humor was bad, it was really bad. Babylon 5 Humor Bad, sometimes.”
*Nothing* is “Babylon 5 Humor Bad.” LOL
#92 – Yeah, the more one looks back on the productions over time the clearer it is that Roddenberry copied “Star Trek” pretty much whole cloth from “Forbidden Planet.” The similarities are numerous and the resemblance of “The Cage” to that film is thoroughgoing.
That’s not quite so true of the visual design, mind you, though it looks like Guzman may have been influenced by “The Silent Star” where the overall design of the bridge was concerned.
As each day goes by, I feel more and more like saying “Frak It!” and blow this movie off entirely. I am not psyched in the least bit, like I was for the previous 10 films.
I know Star Trek was silly at times but it was always good fun. Star Trek had fun episodes and serious episodes. It was a good mix
There is too much empathsis on realism
I hate the fact that JJ is going to go away from this. I thought he was a fan yet he is trying everythingto distance himself from the show
What the heck does “kitsch” mean?
And Abrams is totally lying about not having anything that’s fit to be shown yet – anyone remember that one reporter who was shown a few scenes from the movie?? You know, the “boarding the shuttles” scene, the “Abrams-style flyby” scene, and there was one other one if I recall. TrekMovie.com has the full story…
103: I’d have liked to be given a more precise definition of “kitsch”, too! Does Abrams mean the now outdated sixties-TV style of TOS? Or some of the character’s lines? Plots? The sometimes childish humor? All of the above?
#19 – female crew did not wear miniskirts. The bottom part of their uniform was actually like loose shorts. I have the original pattern and it makes this very clear.
Tho, given his apparent disdain for much of TOS, I’m sure Abrams will disregard this, and put the women in miniskirts.
Iowagirl – “Tell us, Mr. Abrams, which part of TOS or the films did you find emotionally hokey? ”
I’m not Mr. Abrams, but I find pretty much everything about TOS hokey and kitschy.
I love everything Star Trek, but you must admit that the production style of all the series pandered to the zeitgeist. Yes, TOS was new, but owed it’s style to other, pre – existing entertainment of the day. A blend of Spaghetti Westerns and Science Fiction. In that reagard, it was kitschy.
As for “hokey”, http://www.freedictionary.com defines it as this :
“Adj. 1. hokey – effusively or insincerely emotional; “a bathetic novel”; “maudlin expressions of sympathy”; “mushy effusiveness”; “a schmaltzy song”; “sentimental soap operas”; “slushy poetry”
kitschy, maudlin, mawkish, schmaltzy, schmalzy, bathetic, sentimental, slushy, soppy, soupy, mushy, drippy
emotional – of more than usual emotion; “his behavior was highly emotional” ”
This is TOS through and through. And I loved every moment of it all.
I will not judge Abrams’ version of Star Trek until I ripped my butt out of the theatre seat to which it will be glued in May of 2009. I hope it panders to todays zeitgeist with gusto!!
It is also entirely possible that J.J. Abrams has his own defination of kitsch…
For example the wooden divider that seperates the sleeping quarters from the work area… or the little knick knacks that litters the meager shelves in the crew quarters… or perhaps the ceramics class style mirrors that hung over the little hidaway dressers in the crew quarters….
or the lazer etched wall coverings that lined the access ladders around the ship…
He may not be using a traditional defination here and its important to also keep that in mind.
Star Trek kitsch is: Riker controlling the Enterprise with a joystick.
“You Klingon bastards…you killed my son!”
Joking on the bridge after a lot of deaths (Ult. Com.)
A boy genius at the controls of a starship.
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, it could have been worse: a boy genius controlling the Enterprise with a joystick. : )
#105
Whatever you want to call it, Uhura was showing a lot of her arse in it. My wife and I were wathcing our remastereds the other day and noticed while she was seated at her station that “skort” hem was up around her hips!
110 – Zoe Saldana showing legs …. Mmmmmm ;-)
OneBuck
If she wears something as short as Nichelle Nichols, legs is what you’ll see when she walks around normally. If she happens to sit or crouch a bit (or please God, bend over to pick something up) you’ll see heaven.
Sometimes this gets to be like “sesame street” in here.
The word of the moment is “kitsch”.
It never fails. JJ or Bob Orci says something…sometimes a single word, and some fanboys and girls get all worked up.
You’ve not seen the final work yet… noone has. Relax a little. It will get done even if they don’t consult you.
I think it’s all subjective. What one person percieves as “kitsch” another may not. And what some may think taints the series may endear it to others.
I think parts of TOS have a certain kitschy charm, but to lable the the entire series “kitschy” is a bit reckless.
#19—-”So why then are we still getting the miniskirts?”
It seemed clear to me from the beginning that minishirts would be a nostalgic injection to the scenery of the film.
#86—”Tell us, Mr. Abrams, which part of TOS or the films did you find emotionally hokey? I for one can’t wait to hear it. And if Trek is “inferior and tasteless” for Abrams… well, we are all entitled to our own opinions, even the director of the film based on that kitschy crap.”
Abrams did not say that at all. He used the word “kitsch”, which can mean formulaic and/or contrite imitation of someone else’s style. IMO, if Abrams wished to say that TOS was emotionally “hokey”, he would have…It is much more likely that he was using “Kitschy” to describe something as a “ripoff” of someone else’s style…
He did imply, however, that he wished to nail down exactly what shaped the friendship between Kirk and Spock to be so close. If anything, I would have expected you to react to that, rather than desperately picking one of a half dozen accepted definitions of the word “kitsch” to attack him with. I’m very disappointed in you.
#103—”What the heck does “kitsch” mean?”
“Kitsch” is a word (of German/Yiddish origin) which means a tasteless or contrite imitation of existing art and/or style. It can also mean imitation of tasteless art, but in this context, he is most likely using it in the form of describing the contrite and formulaic imitation of someone else’s style.
I interpret the statement as meaning it (STXI) will not follow the formulaic approach to past Star Trek series/films. We already know about JJ’s penchant for unconventional storytelling methods (non-linear storytelling, for example), so this is no big surprise at all.
- I’m still waiting the new trailer for..aaa.. STAR TREK – LEVEL 1..i just can’t wait to see the new boldie grandchildren of the romulans and remans…(this is just a kitschy joke …of course )……… :-D
#24 wrote: “Fuzzy lenses and swelling music whenever we see Kirk’s old flames.”
That’s what I see and hear when *I* see old flames. You got no romance in you, ety! :-)
As for the kitsch of TOS era, I’m with Bashir and Dax here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOnuI858kEQ
Embrace the kitsch! :-)
Scott B. out.
#115 “I’m very disappointed in you.”
Oh my. How will she sleep at night?
#32 Would you feel that way if you already had a plane ticket to San Diego? I bet not…
#118—I was being sarcastic…
#115
In obvious contrast to our dear Mr. Abrams, I know what Kitsch means, as I am also of German origin. “Emotional hokeyness” is a negative implication that is intrinsically tied to the word – you cannot ignore it just because you prefer another interpretation. Sorry to disappoint you again. As for Abrams not saying anything about “tasteless” at all; as you are stating yourself that Kitsch’s prime meaning is “tasteless”, I should assume that we agree that this is exactly what he said.
As regards his intention to nail down exactly what shaped the friendship between Kirk and Spock to be so close… I personally put it past someone to tell me *the* origin story, who thinks he must get rid of the “Kitsch” of the original in order to make “his” Star Trek. Combined with the fact that I’ve never been much interested in the origin friendship story of Kirk and Spock, I decided that this part of Abrams comment didn’t give me an adrenalin rush strong enough to comment on it. So, this additional comment of mine is exclusively for you in order to make up for your disappointment.;)
#118
- Oh my. How will she sleep at night? -
Saurian brandy, one hundred years old. :)
#120—”I should assume that we agree that this is exactly what he said.”
As I said before, one definiton is the imitation of tasteless art. Another is tasteless imitation of another’s art/style.
You are assuming that he meant the art itself is tasteless. I’m saying it is more likely that he meant the act of imitating it would be tasteless. Since we already know that Abrams has a style that is all his own, this statement is less than significant to me.
Either interpretation of the word would be equally correct. You simply chose the one with the most negative conotation (go figure). Given the continuity of his past statements on the style of “his Trek” and the current context of the statement, I find it much more likely that he used the word “Kitsch” to mean the imitation of someone else’s art and/or style.
88. CaptainNeill,
It took me awhile to personally realize the meaning of your concerns about this movie not being the kind of Trek that you and previous fans have gotten. I just had to understand it in my own way. The best thing I could associate with it for myself was the Spider-Man movies. I liked them (with the possible exception of 3) but they didn’t make me want to read the old comic books. I really don’t know if this movie is going to reinvigorate interest in Trek, even if it is a success.
I think the level of “emotional hokeyness” is dangerously high when Closet & Xai are here.
;-)
#123—I’m not even sure how to take that…”emotional hokeyness”? lol. But it’s nice to be recognized, anyway.
One thing I am sure of, though, is that the level of “negativity” is usually off the charts within an Iowagirl post— after any statement made from the Abrams camp, that is…
#118 If you really were going to fly to San Diego and pay for all the travel expenses associated with going to Comic Con (I have been many times so I know them very well) just to see one event that was never officialy scheduled anyway, I can’t have that much sympathy, sorry. However, I can suggest that Comic Con is not just about one panel, there are so many great events and the con floor that if you can tear yourself away from Trek for a few days you will have a great time. Check out the indy comic booths, there are always great new talent putting out very interesting material there.
#121
I hear what you say, but …“there is a kind of kitschy quality that must go if it’s going to be something that you believe is real”… implies that this kitschy element already exists and that he feels he must get rid of it in order to make his film seem real. But you are saying that he just wants to avoid imitating other persons/styles. No problem, he just can do that – he’s the director, remember? If he meant what you think he meant, his sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. And if I apply your interpretation to Abrams comment, he’s saying that this kind of imitating has been done before, that it even is a ST characteristic (”kitschy quality”). I don’t get it. I don’t see where and when that should have happened and who should have done such an imitation with respect to ST.
Fact is, I chose the negative interpretation (go figure), you chose the positive one (go figure). Probably Abrams was just adding fuel to the fire in order to keep people talking, or it was just bad wording, as usual (go figure). And at the end of the day, we all know a lot more about the origin and the meaning of this interesting word, than we did before this thread. :)
#124
Thanks a lot for attesting to me such a high level of constancy.
See, we complement each other perfectly. Abrams should be grateful to have an advocate like you. :D
It takes two poles to keep the world in balance.;)
#120—”‘Emotional hokeyness’ is a negative implication that is intrinsically tied to the word – you cannot ignore it just because you prefer another interpretation.”
Suggesting that I am ignoring it implies that there is actually something to ignore. I have yet to find the words “emotional hokeyness” anywhere in association with the word “kitsch”. If you mean that as something which is contritefully sentimental, then at least I could see where you got that from (although that is a much older use of the word, and one which was specific to 19th Century art, if I am not mistaken).
The truth is, that word was later used (much more loosely) to describe something (usually art) that is in poor taste. More recently, the contemporary use of the term has been one which evolved to mean tastelessly imitating another art form/style.
Abrams specifically said that STXI would not be a “parody”, and in the same paragraph, he goes on to say that it would not be “kitsch”.
Since “kitsch” can have multiple meanings, doesn’t it seem obvious to you that he means he is not imitating past Star Trek styles?
Here is a relevant excerpt from Wikipedia’s “Kitsch” article:
“Kitsch /kɪtʃ/ is a term of German or Yiddish origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an existing style.”
“It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art.”
Abrams’ Trek will be presented in a different storytelling style than has been previously done. That is all it means.
#126, #127—Agreed!
#128
RE: Emotional hokeyness
It’s actually the attempt of a translation from a German article on Kitsch, referring to the “ideal world” which doesn’t exist and the use of clichés instead of genuine emotions.
We probably won’t agree on how Abrams’ comment was meant (he’s the only one who actually knows, and even he has a pal who keeps saying “who knows” ;O), but at least we spent a nice evening on Kitsch, even reaching some common ground.
Cheers!
You put your Nimoy in, you take your Shatner out, you take the Starship Enterprise and shake it all about, you do the hokey pokey and you turn JJ around, that’s what it’s all about!!
123. Shatner_Fan_2000 – July 15, 2008
“I think the level of “emotional hokeyness” is dangerously high when Closet & Xai are here.”
;-)
Huh?
I’ve no idea what you went by that either, but if you are referring to the fact that we are the cooler heads as kitschy comments rain down through this thread… then yes, it is a good thing we are here.
You really think that squinty winky thing saves you each time after a poor attempt at a veiled insult?
Let me try it.
;-)
I tend to agree with trekee that the “kitsch” referred to is in not doing a comedic redo a la’ Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch. Or in repeating the kind of weak, stupid and emotionally-overdone-to-the-point-of-sheer-ridiculousness Star Trek V and Star Trek: Insurrection. (OR, to my mind, the most recent Indiana Jones.)
That said, I do have concerns with JJ. Said concerns mostly brought on by the fact that I’ve never been grabbed by anything he’s done up to and including Lost. (His take on Superman was even worse than the movie that was eventually made.) And I have problems with updating the Enterprise yet not the poorly designed original look of the uniforms, including the mini skirts. The alien make-ups I’ve seen are not very good (yeah, I work in the “industry”.) – And everything I’ve heard about the story from friends who have worked on the film (and signed non-disclosure agreements, so I won’t reveal them here) leaves me rather unexcited. Limp as it were.
However, I am still enough of a geek to go see the movie when it comes out — but only a matinee.
It’s funny…. I looked at the article title and knew even before reading the comments that there would be the usual self-important whining about how the new film won’t have “kitsch”… whatever that is.
Pathetic.
133. Matias 47 – July 15, 2008
So without “disclosing” secrets… what do you do and what have you done it on? We know his pedigree… what’s yours?
#132 .. Heh. Closet has learned that I really am kidding. You obviously take after Lt. Saavik: “Humor …it is a difficult concept…”
[smiley emoticon withheld to avoid confusion]
Then you obviously do not know all phases of “humor” yourself. I suggest looking up “Humor-dry”.
(squinty winky thing is so much more fun than Emoticon…it sounds like a Transformer. Right, Bob?…. Bob? Oh BOBBBBBB!!
“It seemed clear to me from the beginning that minishirts would be a nostalgic injection to the scenery of the film.”
You say “nostalgic”, I say kitsch and out of place today. As another poster noted above, it’s just a way to show some leg and appeal to the young male fans. Sure, women wear short skirts today, but they are civilians. Starfleet is a quasi-military organization and it’s silly to have women running around in them.
“I really don’t know if this movie is going to reinvigorate interest in Trek, even if it is a success.”
As much of a fan as I am, I wonder the same thing. Has time passed Trek by? The kids of today are so sophisticated and jaded. Things move at warp speed (no pun intended) for them. The movie could be a success but much like TNG turned out to be, just a passing fancy. I’m not sure we are ever gonna get die-hards of yesterday for any franchise.
Re: SFX Pedigree: Star Trek TNG, Babylon 5, Babylon Crusade, Stargate, Stargate SG1, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The X-Files, Angel, The Last Samurai, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, CSI, and helluvalot more crap over 16 years.
Although — my pedigree neither enhances nor detracts from my opinion — nor does it make it any better or worse than yours — it merely means: A) that I make my living in the effects industry and B) I have an opinion-which I stated above. If I were a banker, like my father, I would still have the same opinion of JJ and it would be just as valid as all of yours.
But — it’s only a movie, I hope it doesn’t suck. If it does, the world goes on, good happens, bad happens, people are born and people die. In the big picture, this is all, not meaningless, but very silly.
Myself included.
Here’s to love without blisters.
M47
thanks for the resume… thought it worth checking… and thanks for the NON-self righteous post.
Comic con has a nice 1+ page mention in the new TVGuide.
Ya know . . . I’m just going to come right out and say it. Star Trek is Kitsch. Period. It’s corny, it’s nostalgic, it’s nerdy, it’s fun . . . Each series delved into its own realm of kitsch. We all get a little embarrassed at some of the painfully bad episodes, but it is never enough to make us dislike Trek.
My question is this: why make a film about the original characters, if you are going to take away from the original feel? Why make a Star Trek film at all? He could just make a new Sci-Fi story for a new generation, separate from Star Trek.
Or does JJ’s creative genius not include the ability to make his own characters, create his own universe, etc? If he has to take well-established characters and time-honoured themes and replace them with *his* version . . . well . . . this begins to sound like a piece of Fan Fic, but with a ton of financial and legal backing.
Star Trek, despite its flaws, was always able to build off of itself and soldier on. It even made fun of its own kitsch. DS9’s Trials and Tribbelations is a good example — it embraced the corny side of Trek, we all had a laugh, and in the end there was a great episode. But now we have someone who comes along with a hubris that could rival Shatner himself, and he claims that he cares about Trek, and then basically suggests that it sucks and his new movie with a “real” feel will be better.
The modern prequel story where they explain how everybody met and came together has become quite kitsch, I think. It’s overly used, and overly predictable. I wonder how many people out there really felt Star Trek would be just so much better if we got to see how the crew came together all at once . . . But then again, this is *his* Trek.
You make some interesting points Cato. I’m a huge Kirk Spock fan but really had no desire to see it redone even before this movie. I also can’t help but wonder what might have been had JJ decided to create some NEW original Trek continuing onward from what we already had, rather than re-writing (re-imagining, re-booting, whatever) what came before.
#142—” I’m just going to come right out and say it. Star Trek is Kitsch. Period. It’s corny, it’s nostalgic, it’s nerdy, it’s fun . . . Each series delved into its own realm of kitsch. We all get a little embarrassed at some of the painfully bad episodes, but it is never enough to make us dislike Trek.”
First of all, I don’t think JJ intended to use the word “Kitsch” to mean what you have obviously interpreted it to be. I think he meant that his Star Trek would not be formulaic or tastelessly imitative. I think he meant that this movie will be unlike any Star Trek we have seen, and something that even geekless souls might enjoy.
#138—” it’s just a way to show some leg and appeal to the young male fans. Sure, women wear short skirts today, but they are civilians. Starfleet is a quasi-military organization and it’s silly to have women running around in them. ”
You know, maybe…just maybe…women in the 23rd Century no longer feel hindered, and even threatened, by their own sexuality…I look forward to it.
“My question is this: why make a film about the original characters, if you are going to take away from the original feel? Why make a Star Trek film at all? He could just make a new Sci-Fi story for a new generation, separate from Star Trek.
Or does JJ’s creative genius not include the ability to make his own characters, create his own universe, etc? If he has to take well-established characters and time-honoured themes and replace them with *his* version . . . well . . . this begins to sound like a piece of Fan Fic, but with a ton of financial and legal backing. ”
JJ Abrams did not write a Star Trek movie, nor did he ask Orci and Kurtzman to do so. Bob and Alex wrote a script and asked JJ if he would be willing to direct it. With that in mind, is your question really for JJ, or is it for Orci and Kurtzman?
Furthermore, there has been no indication that he has “replaced” well-established characters with his own. He is directing a film which tells stories about them that we have either not heard at all or no very little about.
Nor is he “creating his own universe” or changing “time-honored themes”. My impression is that he is doing what Star Trek has always attempted to do—make their stories relevant to the present. He hopes to make Star Trek more relevant than it has ever been before.
You can wish that they had simply moved forward from the Star Trek that has already been done, but this old-school TOS-era fan has been waiting for decades for the iconic original characters to be recast (since The Great Trek Turd of ‘89 and my disappointment with 24th Century Trek) and for Star Trek to return to the 23rd Century. I don’t need a nostalgic 1960’s feel, and I don’t need Shatner’s over-the-top dialogue delivery. I want Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in their primes. I want Scotty to save the ship in a pinch. And most of all, I want my kids to buy all of this the way I did decades ago.
Star Trek, IMO, has needed to go back to its roots for the last 20 years. It has never been as good to me as it was circa 1982, and moving forward has made it more and more stale. By the time Paramount really built up the guts to do something different (ENT) and return Star Trek to frontier-feeling starship adventures, even the Berman fans were suffering from VOY burnout, and younger and potentially fresh audiences had far too many preconceived notions about recent Trek for anyone to even bother to watch. Even many of us who would have watched couldn’t because it was on a network with limited access, and many Berman-era fans who did were not really prepared to accept something so different, and couldn’t even get past the theme song.
Now, here we are. For the first time since since the 1970’s we have had a significant period of time without any Star Trek in the works. Fans have been worried that Star Trek might be dead, and I will finally get my wish. Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Checkov, and Uhura have been recast. Star Trek WILL return to its roots, as it should be. It’s not JJ Abrams who will resurrect the franchise. It’s the iconic original characters being introduced to a whole new generation (without holodecks, children, artificial people, and Klingons on the bridge) that will breathe life back into the Universe I fell in love with, and later grew apart from.
“You know, maybe…just maybe…women in the 23rd Century no longer feel hindered, and even threatened, by their own sexuality…I look forward to it.”
Being professionally and appropriately attired has absolutely nothing to do with feeling threatened or hindered by one’s sexuality. (Sounds like a man’s argument to justify eye candy beyond it being well, eye candy.) I don’t see women running around in the Army, Navy or Air Force in miniskirt uniforms today. It’s unrealistic for EITHER sex simply due to the nature of the job. In the 60s the miniskirt did represent sexual freedom for women, however, it still was silly to see Uhura and the other women running around with their rears hanging out in the context of a military vessel. I think it takes a truly secure woman TO wear a uniform — to go without the very things that society deems feminine.
#145—-Miniskirts made Star Trek sexy. And just so you don’t feel it’s just about eye candy for men, take a second to ask yourself why Kirk’s shirt was often unnecessarily ripped open. And since when do women no longer wear skirts in the military. Granted, they are not “minis”, but the female Service Alpha uniform IS a skirt. I am a former US Marine officer, and I can assure you that the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines still dress women in skirts in both service and dress uniforms. The only uniforms that women wear which are not skirts are the utility uniforms (those for everyday wear). The only difference in the skirts you see today and those in Star Trek is the length.
Abrahms is the master of secrecy!
Bucking the trend of showing trailer after trailer, clip after clip to the point that we know almost everything about a movie before it comes out (ala The Dark Knight) – Abrahms is using every tool in the book to keep Star Trek XI under wraps. Hell it doesn’t even have a title yet!
Always leave ‘em wanting more? – Abrahms keeps us wanting ANYTHING!
Genius.
Though I’ve voiced some of my concerns about the upcoming movie, I would like to say that I’m not totally against changing actors or even moving the timeline to a prequel status. Though I think many would agree the cast, especially rapport shared by the big three, will be difficult to recapture. These are good characters and I think they have more stories in them. It all depends on how they’re done. Prequels in and of themselves are not a bad idea — we can’t judge all prequels by what George Lucas did to Star Wars or what Rick Berman did with Enterprise. The Lord of the Rings books were done before the Hobbit. Michael Moorcock did many stories with his Elric character that were prequels to the first Elric story. Harry Harrison did an extremely funny prequel to the Stainless Steel Rat. I realize that these are literary prequels, but what the hell.
Another example: My first professional art job was in comics (I did very few before moving to FX). And in comics they’ve been changing artists and writers on iconic characters for years — after all, Superman was created in 1938 — Batman ‘39. Some of these artists and writers did a lousy job, some were brilliant. And Shakespeare’s plays have been being reinterpreted for hundreds of years. I look at this change of creative control in the same light.
I sincerely wish for the best. I like good movies and I like Star Trek.
But now let my continuity-squid side appear — why is Chekov in this movie? Shouldn’t he be a good ten years away? After all, if Kirk is a Lt., he’s been out of the first round of the academy for 2 to 4 years (as he would have been an ensign upon graduation) and now has gone back for officer’s training — hence the KM test. Chekov came on board the Enterprise as an ensign in Kirk’s second (at least it season 2 of the show) year as Captain, which means he’s got to be a young kid of about 12 to at most 16 at the time of this movie.
And, yes, before anyone asks, I did have problem with Khan recognizing Chekov in STII. It should have been Sulu.
I know, I know — I’m being picky. I HAVE admitted that I’m a squid.
Closettrekker– Yes Kirk’s shirt was off — a fact of which I was most appreciative of — however, his uniform included a shirt as standard attire. As for women — you made my point for me — They DON’T wear MINIskirts. I’m in Criminal Law. A female attorney who comes to court in a short, short skirt is not taken seriously because she isn’t taking herself seriously. Miniskirts are something that should have been left in Trek’s 60s history. I’m disheartened to see the stereotypes continue when they put a Borg in a catsuit, a Vulcan in a tight jumpsuit or keep the women in minis for this new movie. I was glad to see that they put the women in pants for the Trek 1-6 and gave Uhura longer skirts. It looked professional.
SHOW US THE DAMN SHIP ALREADY!!
Skirts look more feminine when worn with a uniform that pants, simply as that. I hate the PC unisex look which simply means women dress like men. Anyway we see a plainer dark grey uniform which includes pants for women that I presume is a more practical uniform. incidently the skirts women in the modern armed forces wear would have been viewed as indecent 100 years ago.