Abrams: Star Trek Is Hopeful July 21, 2008
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
There is yet even more from JJ Abrams from last week’s TCA event in Los Angeles. Deadbolt reports some of the same quotes, but also has a Abrams discussing the optimism (and darkness) of past Trek and how that is reflected in his new Star Trek movie.
The event was focused on JJ Abrams (and Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman’s) new X-Files-like show Fringe. The interview brought up Abrams other shows Lost and Alias as well as Trek. At one point he was asked "Why are you drawn to dark subject matter?", to which Abrams replied (bringiing up Trek):
JJ Abrams: It is funny. You know, looking at Trek, which has - there is some real weird and dark stuff that happens in it. But the truth is that Star Trek is so optimistic. There’s an optimism to Star Trek that is to me one of the things that was most appealing about the idea even of doing the movie, which is - while there is darkness that must be in contrast, and while there is real obstacle and an incredible villain and it’s terrifying and weird and creepy and scary and gross and all of the kind of things that you’d expect from this crazy sort of adventure, it’s also got a huge heart and a wonderful kind of family at the core of it. So while there are weird things that happen in Lost, Alias, and certainly in Fringe, something like Star Trek is ultimately, as I believe is the case with Fringe as well, a hopeful story.
There is no question that there is incredibly weird stuff that happens and people get tortured and hurt and the villains are evil and mean, but it’s part of defining who the good guys are. I think at the end of the day there are a lot of movies out there that are incredibly grim and very cynical and I don’t think that certainly Alias or Lost - and I can tell you with Fringe - these are stories that are ultimately very much about the people, totally humanistic emotional stories and good prevails. I’m always turned off by stuff that is too cynical and dark.
For more from Abrams check out Deadbolt
Loading ...
Comments»
Considering how dark and moody the sneak preview trailer for “Star Trek” was, I find JJ’s comments… interesting.
I don’t know, TNG didn’t show us a very merry future for the characters of TOS.
1
I didn’t think the trailer was that dark. I thought it was kind of connecting our world to the Star Trek world with all of those audio commentaries about space exploration. It was showing the literal construction of the movie and what is to come.
#2 Well considering it was 100 years or so later you wouldn’t expect them to be alive still.
#1 Scott
I didn’t find the trailer dark, other than the lack of light and I think that was to help highlight the torches and hide a few things.
Moody? Sorry, no agreement there at all. The audio clips of moon missions and space flights combined with Trek’s preamble and the swelling theme… nice.
Based on what JJ says here and on other interviews, he’s got it right. TOS Trek is very positive, hopeful and full of heroic figures there to save the day or explore that vast final frontier.
Hope, compassion, understanding, and accepting diversity were at the heart of Gene Roddenberry’s concept for Trek. It’s nice to see that Mr. Abrams seems to understand this.
Still no pics, still no trailer, still nothing…
I think Abrams understands the message of eternal optimism that Roddenberry was trying to convey, while also also being pragmatic about several millennia of actual human history. As so many people on that side of the pasture fence have been saying, they’re trying to keep it real without getting the message too muddied. IOW: this time around, Ensign Ricky makes it home to Mommy for Christmas, and the blonde that Kirk has been gamahooching gets vaporized in a plasma conduit rupture. Now, that is how it would ‘really’ happen.
If it’s so great give us a PICTURE!!!!
9. It’ll happen, don’t get antsy.
Has anyone else noticed that the poll currently adds up to only 99%?
The trailer wasn’t dark at all. It was very optimistic with the space travel quotes.
People getting tortured? On screen? Bring it on! Khaaaaann!
It’s going to be bad. I said all along that they will let it happen badly. Paramount wants Trek gone. Does anybody remember OptimusPrime stepping on the flowers outside that house? It was dumb. They ( the writers) don’t get it. Even Bob, doesn’t understand what it is about, I’m telling you, and I will have said it when all of you are going-, “Superman!? What happened?” Remember what happened when they let a young boy make a Superman movie? Ask us why? we are worried? I don’t want LOST IN SPACE.
14. Who says we’re getting Lost in Space? How do you know it’s going to be bad unless you’ve seen this movie? What makes it so bad?
Ah, people these days are too hard on movies. Not every movie has to be super hyper realistic. Come on. Lighten up a bit people.
I liked “Superman Returns” just fine, so I’m not going along with the “What happened?” litany.
#16
I agree. I go to the movies to escape my hum-drum reality. I want to be entertained with a good story, good characters, and fun…which comes in many different forms. I consider myself a true Trek fan and am holding onto the hope that this movie will fulfill all of the above.
OptimusPrime should never have been lurching around somebodies house without being detected. That’s all beside the point. MI3 blowed and that’s the only movie he made, it’s Hollywood, and the point I am trying to make is that they will pay millions of dollars to see it go away, just wait. If Trek is LIS (lost in space) or MI3, Jar Jar Binks.
9. KJTrek - July 21, 2008
“If it’s so great give us a PICTURE!!!!”
7. Green-Blooded-Bastard - July 21, 2008
“Still no pics, still no trailer, still nothing…”
You got poster ( and pictures) LAST WEEK!!!!
Dennis Bailey doesn’t know who Superman is.
I am so happy to have read that article!
Thanks TrekMovie.
And come on now. Was “Lost in Space the movie” that bad?
It was far and away better than the 60’s TV show.
Well, everybody loves a happy ending. But it sounds like, minus the ‘kitsch’ and ‘camp’, life just happened in front of J.J.’s cameras. It doesn’t mean that someone won’t have a reason to get up out of the dirt and keep on keeping on at the end of it.
14. Michael Adams - July 21, 2008
“It’s going to be bad. I said all along that they will let it happen badly. Paramount wants Trek gone.”
Huh?
Paramount can be goofy and bad at times, but not even they could find the logic spending $150M, selling the licensing fees and all the rest..
…just to make Trek “go away”.
If this is how “you get it” and all the rest “don’t get it”, maybe you better stick your head up, get some fresh air and get a look-see.
Sorry…
Next!
21. Michael Adams - July 21, 2008
Ok, now you are just trolling…
is this the same jj abrams who produced cloverfield lol
Just wait. “Lost” in space? I mean the TV show. They all ready tried it with Nemesis yo.
Lost in Space (the movie) wasn’t so bad. I expected it to be different and appreciated the nods to the original. That’s how I am approaching the new Star Trek. If I wanted, or expected, a clone i would just break out my DVD’s and be done with it.
Michael Adams, i don’t know if i speak for everyone else here when i say to hell with your “opinions”
So far the writers of “Star Trek” have done exactly what requires of them with each of the movies they’ve written;
MI:III - Its a Tom Cruise action adventure thriller - its based on a TV show that was pretty cheesy.
Transformers - IT”S A MOVIE BASED ON KIDS TOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!
with both franchises they wrote stories that was faithful to the source material.
you are not going to get Lost In Space, you are going to get “Star Trek” and from what we’ve seen in the trailer and from what the new posters look like - its going to be a gritty realistic however faithful to the original, feature film that is a lot bigger in scale than anything we’ve seen before in Star Trek - it’ll put Star Trek in a league where it has never been before, competing with the likes of the HUGELY SUCCESSFUL Transformers franchise, Indiana Jones, Batman and Star Wars.
go burry your head back in the sand because quite frankly that seems to be where you’ve kept it these past few months. ugh! =/\=
Ok Everyone lets be nice. he is entittled to his opinion as scotty would say and then of corse Scotty would just hit him with a right cross. But Abrams is right Star Trek Tos Was a gritty and wonderfull show with Good People doing inpossible jobs.It was fun and heroic and Upbeat and explored space and the human hart and thats what the great bird wanted. it was not about action and shootum up but did that when needed. it was about frendship and Love and great stories.I think Abrams has hit it dead center and Giving it the big budget and making it grand with a great story will be great. Just like the latest Batman movie the dark night. Great action and a great story to boot. heres to the next Star trek movie. Big budget and action and a great story.
lost in space season 1 was great, it was only when they changed format to the campy style is when it went down hill, with a few exceptions like “the anti matter man” great episode. Maybe netflix LIS season 1 and has a darker feel. As far as the Lis movie goes, I didn’t think it was all that bad. And maybe a reimagined LIS movie will pop up, with all the remakes, it will get there. John Woo tried a new lis tv pilot and it didn’t even make past the pilot.
As everyone knows, you can’t please all the people all the time, but only time will tell, we have barely seen a poster and a few quotes and some people are already flushing it down the toilet.
For GODS sale, give it a chance. And for all of you BSG lovers, didn’t we hear the same rumbling when the reimagined BSG was in production and well the rest is history, or at least 4.0 and 10 more episodes to go. BSG is the best show on TV, and hopefully the last 10 episodes will prove it.
When JJ was directly involved in lost, writing, producing etc the show was tops, but when JJ was more hands off, Lost lost it’s way.
Again for GODS sake, give ST 11 a chance, and stop bitching.
I hope so. I feel also that this is a different thing, than anything else they have done, but I feel that a forum has been established for the (Star Trek people) to hear what “we” have to say and it’s still early enough for them to correct any mistakes they might have made at this point. All those other movies were for children, but Trek is not. They are trying to make it for them this time.
I love my fellow Star Trek fans. Love!
32. Michael Adams - July 21, 2008
“I hope so. I feel also that this is a different thing, than anything else they have done, but I feel that a forum has been established for the (Star Trek people) to hear what “we” have to say and it’s still early enough for them to correct any mistakes they might have made at this point.”
If you think they still have time to correct things by listening to us here… why are you being so negative?
“It’s going to be bad”- Michael Adams, #14. Takes some advice from the name of this article please and give feedback instead of gloom and doom on a film you’ve not seen one frame of.
Yes, Xai - I know baby, I just love it too much.
I am hoping this movie captures the flavor of the morality plays that was such a vital part of TOS. The drama, the humor, heck…the humanity of what we all know and love about the original series without a lot of technobabble is the core of storytelling that I am anticipating.
That being said, I have to agree with Dennis Bailey’s comments and am, again, in Xai’s corner.
I have a lot of faith that Bad Robot will make a good flick that will satisfy on many different levels.
TOS was hopeful, but was also honest enough to show us humans who remained flawed and that bad things could still be done by humans, as well as other races. TOS was about the desire to improve ourselves.
TNG and its stablemates scare me because of the supposed ‘perfection’ of the characters. No wonder, eventually, that facade of ‘perfection’ had to be cracked!
As for this Michael Adams guy and his ilk. Crank out the mournful violin and whine it away! I’m gobsmacked at the utterly strange remarks certain people make about this film. The film is covered by a veil of secrecy because lot of us won’t be able to resist the spoilers if they’re out there. So certain people decide to pee on our bonfire because we’re excited about the film. Michael clearly hates the people involved in the making of this film, so perhaps he should go away and join a site like danielcraigisnotbond.com.
I mean, I don’t post on Doctor Who sites anymore, because I loathe the new show and especially the work of that talentless hack Russell T Davies. But at least I’ve seen enough of the series to know it’s unadulterated garbage and that the majority of critics and viewers are clearly deranged or brainwashed! ;)
I’m happy with my classic series DVDs, which are the sort of Doctor Who I enjoy and I live in hope that a new showrunner will move the series, stylistically, more towards the Who I enjoy! But if I keep going on to Who fora and moaning that I don’t like it, that makes me a troll . . . and believe me I have made the mistake of going on to these fora and ended up being rude to people!
Similarly here, people are dissing the new film when they know almost nothing about it. Hope is the key. Give these people a chance before you dismiss the film. And allow us to be excited about the film without trying to bring us down! It’s not about censorship of opinion: it’s about having good manners.
Mi3 was great. A fun thrill ride with nice stunts, and characters. Who didn’t like Phillip Seymour Hoffman? He was great.
37. Dom - July 21, 2008
Brava!
35. Michael Adams - July 21, 2008
Yes, Xai - I know baby, I just love it too much.”
Baby? Sorry, bud.
————-
#36 Tony
thanks for being in my corner.
“But the truth is that Star Trek is so optimistic. There’s an optimism to Star Trek that is to me one of the things that was most appealing about the idea even of doing the movie, which is - while there is darkness that must be in contrast, and while there is real obstacle and an incredible villain and it’s terrifying and weird and creepy and scary and gross and all of the kind of things that you’d expect from this crazy sort of adventure, it’s also got a huge heart and a wonderful kind of family at the core of it.”
Just as long as he doesn’t take it to the GR level of TNG where there can be no conflict between the characters.
Curious to see how Fringe plays out.
“these are stories that are ultimately very much about the people, totally humanistic emotional stories and good prevails. I’m always turned off by stuff that is too cynical and dark.”
>coughcough<
I am glad JJ has the massage of hope thing going on.
And re: #’s 14, 19, 21, 27, 32, 33, & 35….
I say, Mr. Adams, I don’t understand where you are coming from.
The quotes thus far from JJ, Orci, the cast, as well as the studio support Paramount is showing and fan reaction to all of this seem to differ from yours.
There is some room for concern I’m sure, but until I plop my bottom in the seat at the cinema and actually see this thing I reserve my judgment.
I’m excited about JJ’s movie and I feel like Trek is in good hands. I am trusting so far that we will get a labor of love that meets our expectations.
20. Xai - July 21, 2008
You got poster ( and pictures) LAST WEEK!!!!
Yes Xai we did, but we didn’t get the picture we really want. The one that will calm a lot of our fears.
SHOW US THE DAMN SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’ll get the ship and then you’ll want something else, the marketing on this movie has been very well timed, I know of no movies that have had much out this long before the opening, the problem is that they moved it back, so we have been waiting a lot longer than we normally would. But I think it is a good thing, as it will have a much better chance in the Summer.
We did get the ship! It was in the preview, Did everyone miss it?
44. Splurch - July 21, 2008
“Yes Xai we did, but we didn’t get the picture we really want. The one that will calm a lot of our fears.
SHOW US THE DAMN SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I really would like to see her too, but what if you DID get to see her now and didn’t like her? What would you do? Scream on an internet Trek site?
What fears? It’s a movie! There are far better things to be upset about. Relax.
Good Point #46…
there ya go Splurch…it’s covered.
I liked MI:III … was teh best of the trilogy by far. JJ brought something to the movie that wasmissing from the previous two.
And The Lost In Space movie .. hated it when it forst came out.. but love it now. I think taking it to a darker place was great.. made it less campy but still had the feel of the show.
As for JJ’s Trek… guys, come on.. why woul dyou tear aprt something you haven’t even seen yet?? You are ready to hate it without seeing it. You know nothing about it.. make speculation and critisize without seeing anything but a few things here and there.
I have been a Trek fan since I was 2… yes two… I have a B&W pic of me a s a kid watching TOS when it was being first run! I am excited about this movie after the let down of Nemesis. I am reserving my judgement until I have actually seen the movie. It like I tell my daughter when she won’t eat something.. how can you say you hate something if you haven’t tried it yet?
I do believe, however, that this is going to be a great movie. I like the recasting choices. I like the interviews so far.. I like what I have heard from the writers and JJ. I think they were the right choice to bring this franchise back.
All the nay sayers need to relax and chill til it comes out.. then if you don’t like it.. you’ve seen it and can form an opinion then.
I never did care for Trek episodes where our friends and hero’s got tortured. Not nice. I do hope it isn’t too expilicit.
From reading the interview, I got the impression the torture remark had to do with Fringe, and not with the new Trek flick.
Michael Adams (#35),
“Yes, Xai - I know baby, I just love it too much.”
1. We all love Trek here, Michael, but as Captain Kirk once said, “too much of anything, even love, is not necessarily a good thing.” Temper your emotional responses with some good old common sense.
2. Calling Xai “baby” = bad move. I’m surprised she hasn’t dropped the hammer on you big time for that. Better watch your back.
#1
On the contrary. In my opinion the teaser trailer was very hopeful and light hearted. It made me think: “how many things has humanity done, and how many things is humanity able to do with the right commitment.”
This is the first time I like what Abrams said. But in combination with all the cheesy crap he said before, I cannot bring myself to embrace what he’s saying now. His and his colleagues’ statements are just too inconsistent and too often sound pejorative for my taste.
Good he has got the optimism of Roddenberry in mind.
If the utopia of the future is not there then it will only be Star Trek in name only.
Thank god he knows that. One less knot in my stomach now
The main knot being the new actors, but hopefully this will leave in time
I’m glad to hear that J.J. Abrams knows that Star Trek is supposed to hopeful. An excellent article and it gives me a lot of confidence that this new film will be a wonderful addition to the Star Trek franchise! When I read articles like this I find myself wishing it were May 2009 already! Let’s hope it’s a huge success and brings the Trek franchise back to life.
55. captain_neill
TOS isn’t a utopia. There has been some attempt made to reconcile racial conflict on Earth, but prejudice is still there. There is also the slightly sinister implication in various episodes that the mentally ill get shifted off planet to keep them out of the way (Dagger of the Mind, Whom Gods Destroy.)
The only attempt at the Roddenberry ‘utopia’ was in early TNG. Eventually, the arrival of the Borg and characters such as Barclay, followed by the likes of DS9, shattered it. Arguably, the neural parasites seen in Conspiracy are the reason that the Federation is the repressive hellhole that we see in early TNG. When the parasites are dispensed with, people go back to being their normal selves!
Remember, a Utopia, drawing from the book by St Thomas More, is invariably a fascist or communist police state where people who don’t fit in are often persecuted or killed (you could argue that Barclay is a victim of that persecution, since there is an element of ‘lets all laugh at the freak’ in his early appearances, along with Data receiving similar treatment in his first couple of years.
As has become clear, Gene Coon was very much the man behind the relationships of TOS Trek characters and the universe they lived in. The Cult of Roddenberry is a TNG thing and not relevant to the TOS era. Gene Roddenberry didn’t have a ‘vision’ back then: he simply made a fun, futuristic sci-fi adventure series, which chucked in a healthy dose of philosophy.
Roddenberry’s later ideals came in part from him believing his own publicity machine, in part from Majel Barrett and his anti-religious views in TNG stem from his relationship with his assistant Susan Sackett, who is president of Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix and is on the Board of Directors of the American Humanist Association.
So when you say ‘If the utopia of the future is not there then it will only be Star Trek in name only. Thank god he knows that,’ you are wrong. Keep that knot right there, captain_neill, because a positive future where people are trying to get along is very different from the ‘utopia’ you seem to think the TOS era is about!
13: “People getting tortured? On screen? Bring it on! Khaaaaann!”
I would like to encourage you to look at your own comment and think a little bit about what you said!
58. Don’t be such a self-righteous misery! :p
#14 ” They ( the writers) don’t get it.”
But Leonard NImoy does. And he liked their story.
’nuff said.
58: I say what I think, just as you did in your post.
Oops, that for 59, of course, not for myself.
And I replied in a lighthearted fashion! Chill out! :)
My fave idea to torture a character is to beam them into the vacuum of space and back again very quickly to make them talk. Any other suggestions?
#57 Well said.
Watching Utopia can be very boring. Peace, love and harmony don’t make for gut wrenching, exciting, on the edge of your seat, or deep thought provoking stories. Tension, conflict, dedication, foolheartiness, passion, sacrifice, idealism, bizarrness, mystery, fear etc are a lot more exiting to watch. Star Trek is supposed to entertain us.
I just wish the haters would stop with all the doom and gloom. We have seen a trailer that shows the Big E being built and a movie poster that features 4 of the characters (and ZQ looks great as a young Spock) and I keep hearing how JJ is going to kill Star Trek. Yet from all of the former stars of Trek all we have heard is how JJ has a good handle on what Trek is suppose to be.
STOP HATING!!!!
Wait until the movie comes out to make your opinion, because if you go into a movie expecting it to be bad, it will be bad ……
I, for one, am hoping that this movie is a gigantic blockbuster because I want more Star Trek ….. I’m even hoping that this spawns a new show in the post Voyager era ….
I just want more Trek!
#14—”Paramount wants Trek gone.”
Yeah…that’s why they spent $168 million on this movie…to get rid of it.
I have not yet seen or heard anything which would lead me to conclude that this film is good or bad. All we have seen so far is a teaser trailer and a poster. All we have heard is the expected praise from the cast, production team, writers, and director. We have also heard some unexpected praise from some of the visitors to the set (like James Cawley).
The only “legitimate” criticism I have heard so far is from fans who believe that time travel stories are overdone in Trek (when in fact, it has only made up 20% of the existing film plots).
Although, in fairness, time travel makes up 50 per cent of the TNG films (ie the last four), so that kinda makes time travel fatigue inevitable! Still, the fact that the time travel element means that we get Leonard Nimoy back as Spock and see the return of the TOS crew in their youth can only be a good thing!
I have Time Travel and Holodeck fatigue but I’m with Dom…..it ain’t all bad if I get to see Mr. Nimoy don the ears one more time!
J.J.’s comments are welcomed. I just hope the set design reflects his optimism. I hated the dark “submarine” look of the ship interiors from the movies. I hope they went back to the well-lit look of the original series.
I hear it’s going to be rated R for ‘Fantasy Violence and blood’
#67—I thought FC was the only TNG film with Time Travel involved in the plot. I was only counting TVH and FC. Which other film involves Time Travel? I’ll admit I was never a fan of TNG or its movies, but I don’t recall actual Time Travel being a part of any of those films’ plots, aside from FC.
#68—I can certainly sympathize with “holodeck fatigue”. Holodecks, IMO, are one of the big turnoffs about TNG-era Trek in general.
However, I never felt that way about time travel being occasionally used as a plot device. Some of my favorite episodes (TOS- “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, TOS-”COTEOF”, TOS-”Assignment: Earth”, and TAS-”Yesteryear”) involve time travel, and TVH happens to be the only ST movie my wife will tolerate (as one of the more “crossover friendly” ST productions) outside of Father’s Day.
I understand that ENT’s “Temporal Cold War” arc has been some what maligned by traditional fans, and that it is probably the source of some of the “fatigue” you are referring to, but quite frankly, I cannot think of a better way to bring the 23rd Century “Golden Era” of the Star Trek Universe back to life on screen (especially including Leonard Nimoy as an older Spock).
Thank you Dom, Xai, Dennis Bailey and everyone else here who doesn’t think that the point of these forums is to bitch… endlessly… about the same things… over and over and over again.
I don’t want to see torture in this movie. I hated the torture scene in Casino Royale (there was NO excuse for it), and even in the hilarious Galaxy Quest, I thought torturing the little aliens was about as much fun as a razor sharp, jagged enema. It took that movie down at least a star for me. Torturing good guys, even if it’s the bad guys torturing, never works.
# 69 - absolutely right! Light that ship like there’s no tomorrow. One of my biggest problems with Generations– Kirks death included– was how darkly that thing was lit. Brighten it up. Seriously. Make a real villain with grotesque personal hygiene and a thirst for blood, but light the friggin’ Enterprise!
And what’s all this about utopia not really being in Trek or about utopia being boring? We need some new writers. Star Trek was best when all the heroes were at the top of their game, all of them good, all of them set with strong moral compasses… and the conflict came from what they met out there. The utopia needs to exist. The most painful part of the borg invasion, for example, was when Picard wrestled with his brother in the mud and began to explain what had happened with the borg. How they took him, removed his invidiuality and made him into a monster. “I couldn’t stop them.” That’s the tragedy.
Anyway.
“…and while there is real obstacle and an incredible villain and it’s terrifying and weird and creepy and scary and gross and all of the kind of things that you’d expect from this crazy sort of adventure,….”
Okay, now the 6 year old in me comes out and wants to know just what the “gross” part of Star trek will be.
For me, the optimism was all about the notion that human beings were still around in the 23rd Century. We did not destroy ourselves. There we were, still, exploring the frontiers before us.
It (TOS) never actually depicted a utopian universe or even a utopian Federation. People (even within Starfleet and Federation member worlds) still abused their power, thirsted for glory, compromised their ethics, murdered, tortured, and excercised predjudice.
There is a difference between optimism (or even good always triumphing over evil) and the existence of a utopia. Roddenberry may later have wished to see it as utopian, but he never actually built it as such. Human beings (and their allies) still had their darker nature to contend with, even in the 23rd Century Roddenberry Universe.
Really guys… to quote a very wise Vulcan…
“Really, Dr. McCoy, you must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing.”
Without any of us having even seen the movie I do not see how anyone could possibly be so hostile and say it will not be any good.
So c’mon guys, play nice… temper your words and be patient… May 9 will get here soon enough, and then we can discuss the merits of JJ Abrams’ vision for our baby. I, for one, have faith (another TREK axiom).
#73—”I don’t want to see torture in this movie…Torturing good guys, even if it’s the bad guys torturing, never works.” (Does that mean it is okay in your mind to torture “bad guys”?)
Really? It never works? You mean like in TWOK? In TOS- “Space Seed”? In TOS-”The Cloud Minders”? I could go on…
Unfortunately, there are still bad people in the Universe, and people (who think they are good) who still believe that torture justifes itself in achieving a positive end, even within the Star Trek vision of the 23rd Century…If this bold new Star Trek is to be relevant today, isn’t it logical that it should tackle controversial issues (like torture) which morally and ethically challenge our society today? Isn’t that one of the key ingredients in the acclaim we afford the Original Series?
As for “Casino Royale”, that is hardly the first time Bond was tortured on screen…
#74—”Okay, now the 6 year old in me comes out and wants to know just what the ‘gross’ part of Star Trek will be.”
Ceti Alpha eels? Transporter mishaps? Bring on the “gross”!!!
“#68—I can certainly sympathize with “holodeck fatigue”. Holodecks, IMO, are one of the big turnoffs about TNG-era Trek in general. ”
Yeah, they just over-used it. I was always thinking….with all the wonders of the Universe at their disposal, why the heck were they always in the Holodeck. Occasionally, fine but sheesh! I liked DS9 but was really over it when they spent so much time with the lounge singer during the last season.
As for time travel — taken individually there are a lot of eps I really like and I didn’t actually have a problem with the whole Temporal Cold War arc. I guess it’s just when you consider Trek as a while — all shows and movies — I see it as an easy go-to for a plot device. But as I said, anything that gives me Nimoy/Spock is a very good thing. :)
“the point of these forums is to bitch… endlessly… about the same things… over and over and over again.”
Sorry I still don’t get comments like. What else IS there to do but debate the merits of the movie and Trek in general? Wouldn’t it be rather dull if everyone came here and just loved everything and never disagreed or had a different POV? Oh, I’m not talking about the obvious Trolls who just try to rile people up, just some of us who are taking a wait and see approach.
#73
I’m not sure what Bond you’ve been watching, but the torture scene in Royale was 100% appropriate in the context of a story about spies and espionage. What did you expect they’d do to get the information? “Uhh, Mr. Bond, you’d better tell us that password or…uhhh…we’ll call you names! Or we’ll TP your mom’s house! And prank call your grandma!”
And of course, the testicle torture was straight out of the original book by Ian Fleming, so a lot of Bond fans felt it should be included.
As for its presence in Trek, one of the best episodes of TNG - ‘Chain of Command’ - featured the torture of Capt Picard, and is considered not only a fine moment in the series, but to be one of Patrick Stewart’s best performances. Simply showing something does not imply that the creators condone the act. IMHO, to ignore the common use of such methods would be a far greater crime.
#73—One more thing about torture…
I, like most of us, was rewatching “The Cloud Minders” a couple of Saturdays ago.
Kirk took a stance (albeit a relatively mild one) in confronting a Federation Member World’s government about its use of torture to extract information.
As I watch the news regularly, it has been weighing on my mind ever since. I am a combat veteran Marine—and dare I say a tough guy, but I cannot abide torture in any way. I have personally witnessed the effects of such attrocities as organized rape, torture, maiming, and attempted genocide.
To me, there is no fine line between “enhanced interrogation techniques” and outright torture. Sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and more conventional torture methods are just varying degrees of the same thing, IMO. Like both Senators McCain and Obama, I have some issues with my government’s stance on torture and its definition. I hope that torture IS depicted in STXI, and that it is used as a traditional, yet louder Star Trek social statement than we saw 40 years ago. This time, our heroes should speak louder, firmer, and take more action to exact justice upon those who inflict torture upon the helpless, and those who fail to see where “good” ends and “evil” begins as well.
I think you should be less concerned about whether torture is or is not depicted, but more concerned about how and in what context it is depicted.
#78—”…I see it as an easy go-to for a plot device.”
Maybe, but no more so to me than “the planet of the week”, or “a powerful alien species is once again putting our heroes in a situation where they have to fight against their will”. But sure, I hear you, and I agree.
#77 - no, torture isn’t fun to watch. Bad guys getting tortured is no different. In TWOK, putting those worms in the ears WAS uncomfortable. Even so, it wasn’t quite torture. And yes, the list goes on.
#79 - In Casino Royale, the ball torture was in the book, yeah, but that was a book. And I can make it look and sound and move any way I want in a book because that’s in my head. Seeing it on screen out of someone else’s head, and then having it go on too long without any pay-off was very nearly obscene. It could have been done differently, and it has been, in many movies for years. Back in the day, bond used to get tortured with a laser slowly moving up towards his crotch… that’s ok for me. It just doesn’t work. It always feels like excess. Sorry
73. pinky said: ‘I don’t want to see torture in this movie. I hated the torture scene in Casino Royale (there was NO excuse for it)’
ROTFLMAO! Are you yanking my chain? Seriously!!! Ian Fleming wrote a little book called Casino Royale in 1953 that depicted Bond having his genitals mutlilated and his hand slashed with a Smiert Spionam symbol.
Casino Royale, the 2006 film, is an adaptation of that book, so what do you flippin’ expect them to do? Remove a vital scene from the book, which leaves Bond traumatised and forms a big part of his psychological makeup? I’m hoping the subsequent rerelease of Casino Royal will be make that scene tougher than what we got in the UK release.
Torture has always featured in adventure thriller material, be it the damsel in distress tied to the railtracks in early cinema or Asami cutting up Shigeharu in Audition! Geordi was tortured in TNG, as was Picard. These things happen in drama. Deal with them or change channels and go back to watching The Care Bears Movie!
Kiri! Kiri! Kiri!
#83—”In TWOK, putting those worms in the ears WAS uncomfortable. Even so, it wasn’t quite torture.”
Really? It wasn’t “quite” torture? How exactly do you define torture?
This definition maight be helpful:
“Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is ‘any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person’…”
By my recollection, Khan was using the Ceti Alpha eels to intimidate, extract information, and coerce both Checkov and Terrell into committing acts against their will. Their use did indeed cause severe pain, both mental and physical in nature.
I am very interested in learning how exactly that remains outside of your view of torture.
Oh come on guys. You’re telling me you enjoyed Geordi getting kicked around by the Romulans or Picard screaming in agony without his shirt, shivering with his head against the table and his flesh blistered? Why the disagreement on this? It wasn’t nice, it was telling a difficult story, but it took me a long time to be able to sit through that one, yeah.
#83 - forget the dictionary definition of torture, man. I don’t care if James Bond has a conversation with Lady of the Day about how his balls were mauled. I care about seeing it up on the screen, and hearing it and having to sit through it for 10 mins. The Ceti eels were not torture in my books because, although they were used for the same ends as torture, they did not create a twisted, uncomfortable, absuive and cruel scene that made me itch for it to please, please end now– that’s enough. They were quick, more of an attack than a torture sequence.
Anyway, I don’t know… maybe I’m an idiot. Maybe I should sit through cute little aliens in a comedy being abused just because it seems realistic and was probably in the book… Ok.
#84—”The Ceti eels were not torture in my books because, although they were used for the same ends as torture, they did not create a twisted, uncomfortable, absuive and cruel scene that made me itch for it to please, please end now– that’s enough. They were quick, more of an attack than a torture sequence.”
What!?!? Are you serious?
The Ceti eels’ effects were so painful that they eventually caused one man to lose consciousness, and another to take his own life!
I’m sorry, but that is torture, my friend… and I won’t throw out the definition so that you can draw some imaginary fine line between extreme physical and mental discomfort and pain…especially given what is going on today within the United States Defense Department I served for many years. The moment we make exceptions to the definition we (as a people) have agreed to adhere to, we have devalued ourselves and our integrity.
I understand if it makes you uncomfortable to see torture. It is actually supposed to. If you find it so disgusting, you of course have every right not to watch it. By all accounts, this film will depict events more realistically than you have ever seen in a Star Trek film, so be aware of that going in. I just hope it is done in a manner which paints something as awful as torture for exactly what it is—regardless of whether the person committing the act considers himself righteous (as most villains do) or not.
And I hope our heroes take a tougher stance on it than they did on Stratos…Plasus should have been tried for crimes against humanity (or the UFP equivalent) for personally overseeing the torture of Federation citizens, not given a Shatner speech and some filter masks.
Since when is Star Trek not for kids?
And since wheb was there no conflict between characters on TNG?
What parallel TV universe are you folks living in?
84. pinky
Yeah, I did enjoy watching Geordi and Jean-Luc getting tortured! I love watching the good guys getting horribly mutilated, because that’s when you truly see their inner strength! Is there any greater moment for Picard than when he turns around and shouts at Gul Madred: ‘There are four lights!?’
For me that beats every speech he ever made. That’s when you know that Picard truly has balls of steel. Compare his behaviour with the petty, childish unprofessional behaviour of his (ex-)first officer on the Enterprise at the same time, who sulks because he doesn’t like the way Captain Jellico operates!
I think every hero should be tortured to within an inch of his or her lives in all TV shows, novels and movies. You know, in Lethal Weapon, that Riggs, for all of his craziness, and all of Murtaugh’s outward softness, that they’re tough as nails underneath when they survive the torture they’re put through in that film and its first sequel.
In an action film - and I do consider Star Trek, in its TOS iteration, to be action - your leads should finish up with their shirts torn, faces bruised, covered in cuts, sweating heavily, their shirts soaked pink with blood and sweat. Putting lead characters through the wringer sets an example to all of us to be strong and to be as brave as those heroes.
As for the villains, torture the hell out of ‘em, i say! They’re bad guys! ;)
#86—Star Trek should always be for all ages. The question to me is not whether kids should be exposed to images of violence, but in what context those images are presented. Pretending that evil does not exist does children (or adults for that matter) no good at all. As parents, we should guide our children to an understanding of what kind of people do it, why they do it, why it is wrong that they do so, and why we (as a society) should do something about it.
As for the conflict/lack of conflict between TNG characters, I haven’t a clue as to what you are referring. Sorry.
#84
I didn’t enjoy it in the sense that I somehow got off on seeing Picard tortured, but I admired the scenes and certainly Patrick Stewart for making me uncomfortable. The scene SHOULD be hard to sit thru. You SHOULD be uncofmortable with it. That’s the point. When you start sugar-coating it and doing everything off screen or in a milder form it’s making something truly appalling more platable, and I for one find that far more offensive. If you’re going to address it, then show it for what it is, don’t edit it for content. The act itself is what is offensive, and it should be shown for the sadistic barbarism that it is.
But come on…Galaxy Quest? Seriously?
Closettrekker - I was referring to two posts a bit further up the thread.
#32. “All those other movies were for children, but Trek is not.”
and
#41. “Just as long as he doesn’t take it to the GR level of TNG where there can be no conflict between the characters.”
Both of those statements struck me as being completely divorced from the reality of the Trek that has apepared on my TV and movie screens.
The only Dark and Moody Thing here is Michael Adams. the trailer was okay.
#90—Got ya… but I think #41 is referring to Ron Moore’s take on “Roddenberry’s Box” (that sounds a bit dirty, doesn’t it?).
I agree with #89 Starfleet characters in the 24th century couldn’t Fathom that Another Race Would use Torture, so when It happens it’s Sort of a wake up call for them to See that not every civilization is as evolved in sensibility.
90 The Underpants Monster
Actually, there ***was*** a Roddenberry edict that there be no conflict between TNG characters because Rodders believed that people in his idealised, ‘evolved’ communist/fascist utopia would be beyond such things. There was little conflict of any consequence in TNG until the arrival of Ensign Ro. The dissent didn’t really spread to the other characters until season seven, by which time TNG’s cast and crew were creatively burnt out.
Ron Moore, Robert Justman and others have discussed ‘The Roddenberry Box’ at length on this site!
“One more thing about torture…”
Maybe it’s the day I’m having but your line, Closettrekker, made me chuckle….
#90
I think #32 was referring to Transformers, which is very much for children with very little content for adults, whereas Star Trek has always been geared toward adults, but with enough elements that would typically appeal to kids also. But Trek isn’t truly ‘for’ kids. They would fail to grasp many of the themes being explored. I think that’s all that was being implied.
In terms of TNG, I think it’s a pretty fair statement. Closetrekker isn’t a big TNG fan, but I am, and I can honestly say interpersonal conflict was sorely lacking in the show. Most causes of conflict were almost always external - either due to alien influence, or infections or the like. In TOS, there were times when it seemed Kirk might actually come to blows with Spock or McCoy. That kind of thing never happened on TNG, save the times that, again, they had been taken over by aliens or Sarek’s katra was floating around the ship making people cranky.
#96—-”Sarek’s katra was floating around the ship making people cranky.”
LMAO. That just cracks me up.
“But Trek isn’t truly ‘for’ kids. They would fail to grasp many of the themes being explored”
True enough in that it would not all be completely understood. But that does not mean that kids are not entertained by it. I fell in love with TOS at age 6 or 7. Of course, seeing it again as a teenager and later as an adult produced very different internal reactions (some better, some worse), but even as a very young child, I understood some of its more basic messages and themes. My point is, while I do not disagree that some of it is too complex for small children, that does not mean that it is without any value to them.
2, agreed. The trailer was actually very uplifting. Mixed with the music, it brings out the construction perferctly. I can’t wait for the next one.
#94 - I’m aware that Roddenberry was against some extreme or gratuitous kinds of conflict within the Federation, because the changes which took place between our current society and one four hundred years in the future had reduced or eliminated the motivation for them.
While you have a right to your assertion that absolutely no confliict existed in TNG before the arrival of Ro, I have tough time believeing that anyone could really believe such a thing, so I’m assuming you were indulging in a bit of hyperbole.
The type of conflict between characters may not have been to your taste, but to assert that it didn’t exist strikes me as patently ridiculous.
There was no conflict permitted between the characters! Fact! I’m not indulging in hyperbole! This is well documented and was something the writers had to struggle hard with!
Read every article from that era all the way through to the present day. Read Ron Moore’s interviews. Read interviews with writers, directors and producers of TNG! Maybe you never watched TNG, but there wasn’t a single human argument in the show for years!
I’m not making this up! Neither is anyone else on this forum. And if you imply that again, the rest of us are going to get cross, because you would clearly be taking the pee!
http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-interview-ron-moore-on-breaking-out-of-the-box/
Read this, then come back to the debate!
#97
Oh, I agree 100%. I was just saying that the intent was not to make a children’s TV show/movie, whereas Transformers - for example - clearly was made and marketed to children directly. Even though adults might find some rewarding content, it isn’t made for them. Trek, on the other hand, was made for adults but could also be enjoyed by kids even if they didn’t ‘get’ all of it.
102. sean
I found some rewarding content in Transformers. it was called Megan Fox! ;)
52. Buckaroohawk - July 21, 2008
” Calling Xai “baby” = bad move. I’m surprised she hasn’t dropped the hammer on you big time for that.”
Especially since she is a he, and HE is me. I’ve checked, and yes I am a male, thankyouverymuch.
#100 - I don’t think that Ron Moore is averse to a bit of hyperbole, himself. I was, and continue to be, a regular TNG viewer, and as such was witness to the conflict between characters that existed from Farpoint on. It may not have been the grit and pessimism for grit and pessimism’s sake that Berman and Moore seemed to think was the only worthwhile way to tell a story, but I can’t deny the evidence of my eyes and ears enough to say that the conflict wasn’t there. But I assume we’ve both been viewers long enough to have made up our minds on the issue. I guess it’s like the famous optical illusion drawing where some people see a young girl and others an old crone.
#97 - it may not have been disigned as solely a kids’ show in the same way that, say, “Lost in Space” was, but I’ve never met anyone who grew up watching it in the ’60’s who would disgaree with the idea that young people were the core of the target audience, or whose parents didn;t thinkof it as a kids’ show. Also, grownups didn’t usually buy toys, er, I mean “collectibles” for themselves back then, so I don’t imagine that those early ones would have been produced if TPTB hadn’t known that a lot of kids were watching.
So does this mean he didn’t like No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood?
Both great movies. Both dark and different. Good didn’t win in either.