JJ Abrams: Star Trek must escape the shadow of Star Wars January 30, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Abrams, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Yesterday in his interview with the LA Times Star Trek director JJ Abrams got people buzzing about humor, trek purists and of course…nacelles. Tonight the LA Timeshas posted the second part of their interview with Trek’s new helmer, and this time he talks about Trek’s optimism, the story, a sequel, and most interestingly – how the new film relates to that other big ‘Star’ franchise, excerpt below.
JJ on Star Trek & Star Wars
Goto the LA Times for the full interview, below is an excerpt of the discussion where self-described Star Wars fan Abrams discusses how he tried to take lessons from that other franchise while not copying it:
LA Times: "Star Wars" vs. "Star Trek" is sort of a classic Beatles vs. Stones debate for sci-fi fans of a certain age. You have said you wanted to infuse your "Trek" revival with some lessons learned from the George Lucas universe. Can you talk about that?
JJ Abrams: Well, I’m just a fan of "Star Wars." As a kid, "Star Wars" was much more my thing than "Star Trek" was. If you look at the last three "Star Wars" films and what technology allowed them to do, they covered so much terrain in terms of design, locations, characters, aliens, ships — so much of the spectacle has been done and it seems like every aspect has been covered, whether it’s geography or design of culture or weather system or character or ship type. Everything has been tapped in those movies. The challenge of doing "Star Trek" — despite the fact that it existed before "Star Wars" — is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.
LA Times: How do you overcome that?
JJ Abrams: The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it’s a no-win situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me that the key to "Star Trek" was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the "Star Wars" film accomplished. For instance, we needed to establish that there are aliens in this universe and yet I didn’t want it to feel like every scene had four new multi-colored characters in it. That is something "Star Wars" did so well with its amazing creature design. The question is how do you subtly introduce the idea that there are different species here. And to also do it differently than the ["Trek"] TV shows, which basically had someone wearing a mask sitting in a chair [in the background]. It was the balance of doing what the story needed us to do but also not feeling like we were trying to rip off or out-do what Lucas did.
LA Times: It is a challenge. There’s an early scene in your film where you have a crowded bar, music is playing and your callow young hero walks in, rubs shoulders with aliens, and then ends up in a brawl. You have to know that a chunk of your audience will be thinking about the "Star Wars" cantina scene…
JJ Abrams: That cantina scene is obviously one of the classic scenes in "Star Wars" and it was such a wonderful introduction to how amazing, how diverse and how full of possibility this "Star Wars" universe was going to be. In the subsequent films, especially the last three, so many scenes have that feeling, that they are just expanding and expanding the worlds. That was definitely something where I felt the burden of "My God, they’ve done it all." And the challenge is how do you do it where it feels real and meaningful and not like you’re borrowing from someone else. That’s just one of our challenges.
——-
Goto the LA Times for the rest, including Abrams discussion of a possible sequel.
Loading ...
Comments»
Wow!!
Hopefully, infusing “Trek” with a little “Wars” will help it break away from the shadow of Lucas’ juggernaut franchise. Only time will tell.
God bless!
whats at “star war” ?
It will if they downplay the battle scenes from the new movie. So far it’s a dead ringer for a Revenge Of The Sith type battle.
I really hope that the Superbowl commercial doesn’t include it. In fact I’m dreading it. I want Trek to stand apart too, in the worst way. However highlighting the destruction of the Kelvin constantly does not get the job done.
Also the Ice monster scene looks vaguely reminisant of a scene from Attack Of The Clones.
Please Paramount, don’t put them in the spot!!!
Why can yall fans just wait till the movie comes out watch it in a theater an see how the story & the scenes are going maybe we fans might like the new movie I might B/C im goin to see it when it comes out it kicks ass.
He certainly gets what Star Trek is really about at it’s core.
The adventure, the optimism.
Wonder how he is going to do it, since he is making Star Trek look like Star Wars. JJ is getting to be annoying.
#6 You may just be right.
That’s why the less “Wars,” the better.
SW has been done- to death.
Now wait just a darned second,
by making Trek into Wars, Trek is going to stand out?
Space is huge, no real ship captains would ever get that close.
Lasers, phasers, disruptors, beam weapons, direct fire weapons, torpedoes, drones, seeking weapons, they are all effective at a distance.
In WW2, the tech was so poor that Dauntless fighter/bombers had to close in on Japanese ships, fly directly above them, DIVE diretly toward them, and drop their bomb at the last second and pull up all the while avoiding enemy fire.
Today, we launch cruise missiles from the comfort of our homes, in our jammies. Punk nose kids who failed high school but excel at video games launch hellfire missiles from predator drones in San Bernadino at targets in Afghanistan.
I repeat, STARSHIPS capable of translight speeds will be powerful enough to engage the enemy light years away.
There should be nothing in Trek that resembles a WW2 dogfight. Leave that to idiots who cant write, cant think, and steal all their ideas from movies that have already been made.
Lucas admits he stole everything and the dialog is lifted from WW2 movies. Remember when Gene threatened to sue Lucas for infringing on Trek? Now JJ wants to steal from Lucas?
Oy Gestalt
The last three Star Wars movies sucked. They were visually appearing, but the stories and characters were lacking.
This is from someone who loved the first two Star Wars movies (the originals,) and found The Return of the Jedi to be nominal.
You got a point on that one
Somehow I don’t see myself being too entertained by watching a ship sitting in the middle of screen firing at an unseen opponent. These things require dramatic license.
I think JJ makes a good point, and I don’t really see the concern that Trek is being turned into Star Wars just because it looks different and exciting.
He certainly makes a point that Trek must step away from Star Wars, but it should also (and this is a point a lot of the fanboys and canon freaks refuse to admit) step away – to a certain extent – from previous Star Trek efforts.
I don’t want this new movie to be Trek’s equivalent of a Jar Jar Binks introduction – should that happen, fans will assuredly be so vocal that JJ will wish he was “Lost.”
The problem is that Abrams is damned whatever he does. Often the same people saying ‘they don’t want to see so and so in it’ would be the same people saying ‘I want to see so and so in it’ if it wasn’t there, just because they want to complain.
And saying ‘It’s become Star Wars!’ because a couple of scenes just happen to have a vague similarity is insulting, self-righteous snobbery of a kind that seems to have overrun sci-fi fandom a lot recently.
If it has a battle scene, it’s star wars.
If it goes gritty, it’s BSG.
If it’s got a deserty-looking planet, it’s Firefly.
If it’s got time travel, it’s Doctor Who.
If someone’s writing it, it’s Transformers.
Hell, I could claim they’re stealing scenes from any movie ever written just from the same kind of ‘vague feeling’ people are claiming they’re getting about it being Star Wars.
And hold on just a minute, do people not want new people to become Star Trek fans? Is the fandom to be closed off to anyone new because they might have an idea… DIFFERENT to us? Heaven forbid a program about exploring strange new worlds might allow people to have positive or negative opinions contrary to one’s own. The very thought. A show about originality, but we can’t let it be original in any way that strays from what you want it to be.
#14
HELL YEAH!
I see we have a long way to go.
“Wonder how he is going to do it, since he is making Star Trek look like Star Wars. JJ is getting to be annoying”….well so much for optimism.
ok how is star trek looking like star wars…oh yeah space battles, that NEVER happens in the trek universe! Maybe that is something we must check. Time travel, ..not in star wars… EARTH not in star wars. UMMM vulcans, orion women and gasp the enterprise nope not star wars. A giant drill not in star wars but not in star trek either…hmmmm something a lil different. The last time i saw a giant drilling machine was in one of the matrix movies egads! It is star trek being more like the matrix! Look one thing is always constant in the world of creative thought…nothing is entirely original. So we can compare 2 minute scenes to every popular movie ever seen or we can just see the movie. Hey there may be some similarities with star wars with the excellent space battles, however I believe there is more trek. And there are enough sci fi nods to make people make a comparison to all sci fi movies. imo
Thanks Anthony for providing links to the full Abrams’ interviews with the Times. I’ve long been a fan of his work (as a straight guy over 30, I even enjoyed Felicity) and was pleased he was given the reigns for TREK. His work on Alias, Lost, and as a filmmaker on MI: III tapped into both a pop cult sensibility and a strong recognition of how Story is driven by Character and I hope that sensibility will be on fine display in May (and I say that personally while having problems with what increasingly sounds like an “alternate reality” story that will set the stage for the stories to follow). I appreciate what he says about STAR WARS as I’m as my much a fan of Lucas’ universe as I am of TREK (and am regularly pissed off by the unintelligent comments about those films that appear somewhat regularly on this otherwise fine site); he recognizes how deeply Lucas’ vision in all 6 movies has lodged itself in the public imagination and I believe he can work that perception with his smarts into something both honest-TREK and Abrams-ish (and I’m basically a ST purist).
Oh, and though they’re not doing one this week, I’m surprised no one has pointed out the Friday TV Club reviews of TOS over at The AV Club/The Onion. It’s a lot of fun.
This guy’s got it. He knows what he’s talking about and he knows how to make something entertaining. The entire idea of Star Trek makes it totally different from Star Wars. Just because a Star Trek movie has a lot of action and excitement does not make it Star Wars. If it did, then I suppose every action movie would be called Star Wars then, right?
TBonz! Haven’t seen you since Lower Decks! Hi…
This interview makes me far less comfortable than the priors… I am concerned how much he talks up the newer trilogy over the earlier. Modern Star Wars with its style over substance is not what I want to see emulated in my Star Trek. Hopefully it’s just me being too sensitive over my beloved Trek.
Just as long as JJ doesn’t get sucked into the trap of depending on special effects to make the movie interesting, instead of just telling the story with a little extra thrown in. Lucas in his last three films depended so much on effects, he lost the interest in the people and story in the films. The last film they did is a prime example of too much effects. Just tell a good story and allow the effects to help it flow, not take over the film entirely.
More evidence that the film coming out next may is Star Wars Episode VII
The problem with the Star Wars Prequels, in my opinion, INCLUDES the design… there is layer upon layer of detail in there and overuse of color that is simply there to stimulate visually… but there is no focus. No dramatic compositions that did the heavy lifting of subtle storytelling in the first two films… Now, there is hardly any time to sit still and enjoy a vista, because the camera is constantly flying around and the film is cutting back and forth so as not to bore younger audience members.
I’m seeing some of this visual mishmash in the new Trek… and I’m hoping it won’t distract from the experience.
When the heck did Star Wars get a monopoly, copyright, etc. on big special effects?!? Heaven forbid we should get a realistic look of what happening outside of the ship. Star Trek has always been about the characters, but honestly, people are not going to go see the movie if there aren’t many big special effects.
24, agree 100%. One of the things I loved about the original SW films was the fantastic model work and set construction. You could see the wear and tear on the objects, and that told you that these things exist in the physical world. They have substance, they have history- both within the fictional universe and in the “real world”. Then you go to the prequels, which, while being fantastic computer-rendered effects, lack that ‘real-world’ feeling you get when you watch the AT-AT get blown to bits in Empire Strikes Back, or when you feel immersed in the situation Luke and company are in when they’re about to be executed by Jabba in RotJ. You’re not distracted by how shiny the environment is; it blends seamlessly within that universe, and it pulls the viewer in without them ever realizing it.
re:24. darendoc – January 30, 2009
You hit several nails on the head there.
Trying not to out do anyone to me seems to be the right thing to do. When ever there is someone trying to make it bigger and bigger, is it really worth it? The objective should be trying to tell a story as best as possible.
Yup. Im there with you #24. I was trying to say all that myself. Too much special effects and not enough story.
I just wish they’d go back to using models in these movies. They always looked more real to me then anything I’ve ever seen with their computer effects.
Heresy!
And let us not forget Space: 1999 did Star Wars BEFORE Star Wars, blowing up uncounted Eagles in space, of which they had limited (yet somehow endless) supply. In fact it is those very sfx folks who went on to do Star Wars. And 1999 had a definite Star Trek legacy, they even shared an executive producer. So if anything Star Wars ripped off Trek utilizing 1999’s advanced sfx. Of course Star Wars ripped off WWII so did Roddenberry who was there! … unlike Lucas. I knew lots of kids who became fans of Star Wars first, but that’s only because it beat Trek to the punch and exposed a new generation of kids to SciFi before Paramount got their act together. That’s the whole reason STTMP was even made, to compete with SW. But it was too late … ST paled in comparison and was far too cerebral in comparison, in much the same way Space: 1999 failed to replace Trek.
The comparison is ludicrous anyway. Star Wars has a huge fantasy component that Trek never had and never will. The fact that both universes have aliens and battles is moot as a basis for similarity. Now, if Dr. McCoy whips out his new medical scanner and finds it now has a laser sword built-in, well then you know JJ’s gone too far.
Well, JJ just couldn’t be more wrong on this one.
Trek cannot be about aliens and effects and showing off cosmic minutia and mysticism.
Trek is about HUMANS. Humans exploring the frontier. People like you and me, like the pioneers, like the pilgrims. The movie needs to be about the lives and challenges of the pioneers and pilgrims, not the tribal rituals of the Indians and the migration of the buffalo!
“The HUMAN Adventure is just beginning….”. It’s about the adventure and journeys of HUMANs. What happens to us, where we go.
Trying to copy Star Wars and any other SF is going to kill Trek. They should be looking towards westerns and explorer stories for inspiration. Any successful Trek story should be able to be told on a Wagon Train or on Columbus’s ship. Whatever aliens or challenges they find are just MacGuffins, redressed for the era. Keep the focus on the CREW and not the set dressing.
Sorry #24 but you’re patently wrong.
The prequels are, if anything,even more carefully and ornately designed than the original films (and the original STAR WARS still stands as my favorite film). Lucas has always had a “graphic” sense of film that all his critics have never appreciated — the things you seem to criticize most , the color scheme and composition are paid an almost fetishistic attention in all six films, particularly the prequels…. in Episode I there’s a distinctly formal Kurasawa sense to almost every image right down to a shot of Padme/Amidala shifting her eyes while otherwise remaining absolutely still… the white on white clone factory in II makes everything almost transparent while the plot manifestations remain cloaked in secrecy…. the red, black, and gray color scheme throughout III (a film as nearly great as EMPIRE)… take a closer look and study the images and the sound design — I have high hpes for TREK since so many of those involved with the Prequels, Guyett and Burtt, are involved.
I don’t know… I just don’t know.
RTF!
Like it (33) or loathe it (24), production design seemed the last and only element of filmmaking that got any real attention in the Star Wars prequels. Otherwise it was down the rabbit hole with ever less interesting intricacies of obscure Lucas lore (mitochondrians, anyone?). Abrams’ talk about character makes me hope he’s not falling into that trap.
Mitochlorians. Forgive me.
I’ll take great Star Trek over great Star Wars any day. By every measure great Star Trek is superior, except special effects, and that’s no big deal.
I’m not buying it that Star Trek is in the “shadows” of anything.
Star Wars is for children.
#38- Exactly. Star Wars appeals more to kids and Star Trek was always more for adults. That’s the difference.
35. I respect your opinion but watching the entire 6 film SW series recently amazed me with its assured, cohesive storytelling. As much as the sound and fury amazes, Lucas tells a great story with a stunning kineticism and a strangely poetic sense of cinematic rhyme and thematic redemption. Criticize the films as much as you want but they are distinctly unconventional blockbusters, as much as they unintentionally set the paradigm for crappy Hollywood movies, and I find them involving in the way that only pure cinema can, on both a dream-like and dirt-under-the-fingernails epic scale.
39. That’s just dumb and reductive. And I love ST.
Dude..WHAT?
“Star Trek must escape the shadow of Star Wars”
JJ!!!! You got the guy who works of Star Wars Designs to make the new Enterprise. Pine says he is making Kirk more like Han Solo!
Nero is a guy (In the Comics and the movie) Who Starts out as a good guy and stuff happens to make him bad. Sound like Anakin Skywalker.
So you want to turn Trek into Star Wars (Which you seem to love) and that is how you are going to take trek out of the shadows of Star Wars.
Oh and for people who will say wait and see the movie. Let me tell you this. One if you pay and see the movie..Guess WHAT! Its too late, they have your money. You think they care what you have to say then. They got paid!
#24 & #33
Couldn’t be more RIGHT!!
The biggest flaw with Star Wars is it’s over produced attention to visual detail in lieu of focusing on the story, the characters & their portrayal.
When I saw JJ sitting down for coffee with Lucas, I knew we were in trouble here.
George Lucas is a mediocre effects producer & a terrible director, his advise should only be taken as a “what not to do” list.
Why couldn’t they give this to Peter Jackson or Quentin Tarantino; someone who knows how to make a genre film!
I don’t think the comparisons between Star Wars and Star Trek are apt.
These shows have their individual identities- mythologies built around a very different storytelling scheme. Yes, they both take place in outer space, but that’s really about it. There is no either/or thing to address. I hope J.J. doesn’t give Star Wars too much thought in creating this movie.
“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
If JJ thinks that the last three Star Wars movies were better than the originals, he doesn’t even get Star Wars, much less Star Trek.
Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is fantasy with a bunch of technology.
46- SChaos1701 is dead on. Science Fiction versus Space Fantasy.
This was NOT JJ’s best interview on this subject.
32. Odkin
Did you even read the entire interview? Because whatever you think you read, it wasn’t that. Everything that you just said Star Trek is about JJ said in the interview. Seriously, are you just dumb?
JJ is answering the questions that were asked to him. If he gets asked about the aliens, he’s going to talk about the aliens. If he gets asked about the story, he talks about the story. Nowhere in that interview does it say that he focused the movie on effects, aliens, and stuff. He was merely talking about it because thats what he was asked to talk about. He has stated NUMEROUS times that the key to a movie is the story and how everything else is just secondary.
Something that I have been discovering recently is that Trek fans seem to be either intellectuals or complete dumb-dumbs.
Oh. and regarding JJ’s comments on the last three Star Wars movies, he was referring to the last three in the SERIES, not the last three made.
The visuals on the last three Star Wars movies were spectacular, of course, but there was little emotional investment of the kind found in the three original movies. They became just a lot of pretty pictures that I didn’t care much about.
And #40, the cohesive storytelling you write about I just did not see. The way they literally tacked on Darth Vader, Tarkin, and the Death Star at the end was really jarring and clumsy, and anything but cohesive.
Again, if this is what JJ holds up as a shining example, Star Trek is potentially in much worse shape than I initially thought.
I know this is a little out of place to ask the question here, but any word on the supposed SuperBowl spot for Star Trek?
“In the subsequent films, especially the last three, so many scenes have that feeling, that they are just expanding and expanding the worlds.” That sounds like he is referring to the last three made.
OK. You’re right. He was talking about the latest trilogy, but he makes a very valid point that they were able to really depict in great detail the universe as a whole. Great spectacle only ads to a great movie. It doesn’t make a movie, but it can break it.
A guy in a mask, in the background?!!
Genius make up designers work for hours creating those make-ups on a tv show budget! The creativity to do that so well is far beyond that of throwinga bunch of cash at a team of former tech-support workers to animate a pixelated diner cook!!
Trek is about people, not creatures. In fact the best episodes show us that what seems to be a creature is a person.
Try actually watching it JJ!
…But most of what he was talking about was referring to the ORIGINAL trilogy.
I honestly don’t know why people direct their worries and angst towards the director. It’s not as if he has absolute control over everything. If there was a problem with the how the movie was going wouldn’t the supreme court thing stepped in and put a stop to it? JJ said it’s characters and story that come first. The visuals are just embellishment, and, like I said before, SW does not have a monopoly on visually stunning effects.
Star Wars? Never heard of it… Was it any good?
Comparisons are a disservice. I find that it is always better to judge something for what it is and not because of what it may remind you of. If you have trouble with this, just imagine that the movie you’re watching is the only movie ever made. Live in the moment and enjoy it for what it is.
Special effects should help tell a story, they should not BE the story. I do truly hope they are just using FX as embellishment. Story must come first.
Great spectacle and showing an expansive universe is great, and something Star Trek has definitely needed.
But if the story, the emotional core, is not there, like the last three Star Wars movies, no amount of spectacle will really matter.
Or if the story and characters are wrong, which I’m afraid may happen with Star Trek, the amazing visuals will be of a universe I know and care nothing about.
#57- The first half was.
“Star Trek must escape the shadow of Star Wars” is almost a non-sequitur. It is not in the shadow of Star Wars.
Star Trek is a Sci-Fi television show/series of films about human exploration, and humanity’s struggle to better itself in an increasingly diverse world.
Star Wars is a swashbuckling space adventure which eventually opines on the nature of good vs. evil, and relies on classical heroic themes and the nature of redemption.
It’s more about ships and space-battles than Trek. It is the undiluted vision of one George Lucas, whereas Trek has been a formula managed by many.
Star Wars has made phenomenally more money than Trek, and continues to spend money to guarantee its relevance with new generations of fans.
Star Trek runs on all thrusters until the gas runs out. Then it walks to the gas station, gets more gas, and gets started again, but finds it has to rebuild its base.
Culturally, at least in North America, I’d give them both equal weight.
Perhaps JJ wants to display the cojones to give his idol Lucas a run for his money. If he does, he cannot shut down the PR/merchandise machine when the last DVD is sold. Paramount/CBS must budget funds for Trek as a living entity, whether it’s toys, webisodes or eventually going back to TV.
14. Doomsponge is very right!
Perhaps the general Trek fanbase prefers to scorn the new iterations of our beloved franchise and then wallow in misery whilst reminiscing about the good old days (TOS, TNG… everyone has their own special affinity for a particular series). I hope that’s not the case… otherwise WE may very well be responsible for Trek’s downfall.
Nature has one very nasty, very applicable law to any multi-generation franchise. Evolve or die. JJ’s Trek is the next evolution of the franchise. It’s a modernized version of the ORIGINAL material with a budget that will hopefully help the movie REALIZE the vision and novelty of classic Trek. I really want this movie to succeed and be amazing and be true to Star Trek. So far I haven’t seen anything that makes me think it will do otherwise.
50. Vader, Tarkin and the Death Star was a grace note to connect to the original trilogy.
The cohesiveness I was talking about was the through line of Anakin story that lead to him becoming Darth Vader which, when you watch all the films, holds up with a clear sense of story and theme, notably in the way he substitutes his sense of desire for his mother to his lover and how his sense of possession for control over his life is mirrored in Palpatine’s manipulation of politics to satisfy his own misplaced desire for control over all other senses of reality. The prequels are kind of complex stuff in terms of narrative (sometimes to their detriment) but they really are tightly held held together.
He’s just tap dancing. Speaking without saying. And he’s good at it.
Don’t forget: “Star Trek” is owned by CBS and “Star Wars” is owned by Lucasfilm.
The only shadow cast by Star Wars is that it ushered in the era of special effects becoming the tail wagging the cinematic dog.
Guys, perhaps those who are changing their weekly “Star Trek isn’t/is about” definition to include “Star Trek isn’t about aliens” this week perhaps need to watch, you know, anything from the first two Star Trek series.
I apologize for making this in all caps but: “TO SEEK OUT NEW LIFEFORMS AND NEW CIVILIZATIONS.” So it absolutely astonishes me now how those who are just wanting to go against what J.J. says are basically withering down what Star Trek even is in their weekly “Star Trek is/isn’t about” little speeches. So, Star Trek was never about aliens and the unknown, gotcha guys!
#14 is dead on about the whole thing. Some fans like to complain just to complain I think.
In Star Wars, especially episodes I-III, everything is so conceptualized and storyboarded that there’s not much room for actors and directors to work. There was a scene in Episode II, for instance, where all the good guys were in a room, sitting in chairs, talking to each other… and it was like watching paint dry. Terrible writing, bad acting, virtually no direction. It was like watching a low budget one camera adaptation of a bad stage play.
(Sidebar – have you ever been able to watch Billy Dee Williams without whispering to yourself “How about a nice Colt 45.”)
Trek is traditionally much the opposite. The characters are plugged in to a certain situation, and they play the hell out of it. Most of my favorite Trek moments are quiet moments, when the characters are interacting with each other. As much as some of us worship the ships, it ain’t about ships.
My perception is that JJ understands. Sure, there will be lots of effects, but I am hoping there will also be some good quiet moments.
Star Trek already blatantly stole the cantina scene in Star Trek III. Abrams is following precedent here–Trek learns from the best, then turns it into Trek. Kudos to him.
#14, well said.
Well I have to admit, NOT one of JJS best interviews….His first and most important statement that Star Trek must escape the shadow of star wars, well, that statement only appears to be in JJS mind…..not anyone elses….Star trek at least up until now has never been confused with or stood in the shadows of Star Wars, except perhaps with tmp which was the only reason TMP was made…and then as others here stated time and again he seems to have gone overboard in making his version of Star Trek a lot more like Star Wars….hmmm…..I am confused by this doublespeak JJ!
On the other hand….Yes Star Trek does need to look more real…gritty…and more epic in scope and movement to broaden its appeal…as others have said scope and visual style may not make a movie popular but it can only add to a good movie…if the story and characters are good that is….And I applaud having some of the best Star Wars effex people helping JJ on Trek. I cant wait for instance to hear how good Star Trek will be with Ben Burrt Sound….BB has made the absolute best sound ever made for any scifi/fantasy movies…..the original sound design and level of the first 3 star wars movies (4-6) has never been equalled….the sounds BB came up were totally original and totally evoke and bring back the action and epic scope of those movies…..from the robots to the Light Sabers, from the JAWAs to the spaceship sounds….While the sound in the first three prequels, and effex too were never LESS impressive, they added up to less because the emotional commitment to the viewer is much less….the characters did not live up to the original trilogy and neither did the story….I am hoping JJ and Star Trek will not have this problem….that the story will be rich and real and Very Star Trek and that the sounds and effex will only add to our enjoyment…..I have not lost faith in JJ yet….but it sounds like he is still obsessing too much about Star Wars….and that worries me a litte………
ST and SW are two franchises that have always coexisted legitimately, only that ST came first. There are similarities, but at the same time they are sufficiently distinct not to get in each other’s way.
There’s a huge fandom for each, and there’s an intersection. Nothing wrong with that. This universe is big enough to accommodate both. ST never was in SW’s shadow, as it had a different target audience, a different gist and quintessence.
TOS is about people, the idea of brotherhood, of humans and humanity out there, in the unknown. It didn’t abide by the rules, it put people of all colours together, it militated against racism and ignorance. Considering the limited possibilities of the 60’s, it was state-of-the-art and showed us a whole new universe with “someone wearing a mask sitting in a chair“. The films further developed this approach, using advanced technology, but without losing sight of TOS’ original standard.
SW is about people, too, but IV was ten years later than TOS and had a different approach and different possibilities of presenting its vision to the audience. It didn’t make sense to compare ST and SW then, and it doesn’t make sense now. SW I – III may be of great technological complexity, but they’re lacking the coherence, the high level of identification the audience had with the protagonists in IV – VI. Maybe that’s the price you have to pay for “doing it all”.
The comparison with the Beatles and the Stones is appropriate, but for the wrong reasons. They both are great bands and they both will always have their fans. But while the Beatles started to experiment with “alien” instruments etc. at a quite early stage (with rather poor recording equipment), finding their apogee in records such as “Sgt. Pepper”, the Stones have always been more of a pure rock’n’roll band,
– both bands developing without gainsaying their origin. So, there wasn’t a real fight whatsoever, the rock universe has always been big enough for the two super groups, too.
As long as the cut the ‘buckle up’ line, I’ll be happy.
#14: Heck, how does Star Trek do a story without stealing from ITSELF?
I mean, more than 700 storeis on TV and movies have committed to film… and then that’s not even counting the nearly 1,000 novels published (canon, schmanon).
#71 – “well, that statement only appears to be in JJS mind…..not anyone elses….”
Well you can’t really say that though. That is speaking for everyone else here and their thoughts, which isn’t fair to do.
“but it sounds like he is still obsessing too much about Star Wars….and that worries me a litte………”
Go back to the article and tell us who is the one that brought up Star Wars? ;) Yeah, all he did was answer some questions. He isn’t going to a mountain top and screaming this.
McCoy has Gall Bladder issues for all the sour grapes he devours.
Guys it might also be worthy of checking out the rest of the interview, of course, I can’t wait to see the negative spins some of you bring out in that.
#4—the monster in the trailer…forget Attack Of The Clones…it looks like a cross between the Cloverfield monster and that snake demon thing from the Buffy The Vampire Slayer 3rd season “Graduation” finale…the so-called Columbine-like ‘banned’ episode
24. darendoc
WELL said man.
As an artist you can appreciate the beauty of everything you see, but there is no focus, no stillness, no awe, no realness, just bang bang bang pacing to placate the exponentially rising levels of A.D.D in today’s generation of viewers. Life has rythms, constantly changing rythms.
A perfect example would be the BEST film…Star Wars-A New Hope.
That iconic scene with Skywalker looking into the sunset with the 2 suns. If Lucas did it now that camera would be flying around all over the place saying “check out how seamless this looks!” or the scene where they showed the outside of the rebel headquarters before the mission briefing. It was just a quiet scene with birds chirping and morning dew, but it made the scene and planet, seem suddenly real by using a frame of reference we humans can understand.
This “let’s make the camera do this because we can” crap belongs in the deleted scenes menu of a DVD, not the final product. It’s simply experimentation, testing your technogical boundaries, but quickly deteriorates into complete self-indulgance if the effect doesn’t complement the emotional content of the scene.
All great films are about moments, and you can have any moments without focus.
: )
“Star Trek must escape the shadows of Star Wars.”
It’s the truth. Star Wars is the dominant science fiction FILM franchise. JJ’s out there to not win US over, but win NEW FANS.
Do you people realize that if a person isn’t a fan of Star Trek, they probably know very little, if nothing, about it? The only things they probably know is that there’s a guy Mr. Spock who has pointy ears, and there was a guy named Captain Kirk. And his first name is Captain.
As far as that person is concerned, Star Wars is THE film franchise. They are aware that Star Trek was on TV, but when it comes to the films, especially since the end of Star Trek VI, Star Wars stood out, where Star Trek faded into the sunset. Therefore, Star Trek lives in the shadow of Star Wars.
Star Trek hardly breathes realism any more. Star Trek: Nemesis was absolutely lame. When DS9 ended, the Dominion War concluded, and you never ever hear what happened since. Betazed was under Dominion occupation for crying out loud!
Star Wars always had a degree of realism. Lucas used setting to do this.
By the way, the last three movies are the last three movies. Not the first three.
Try to figure out that line. What are the first three? 1, 2, 3 or 4, 5, 6. What are the last three? 4, 5, 6 or 1, 2, 3. If you ask me, the last three are 4, 5, 6.
Yawn! Star Wars? Really? George directed one good Star Wars movie! The first one. The best of the sequels (arguably the best of the series) was directed by Irving Kirshner.
Sorry, but if the shadow of Star Wars, is silly dialogue, bad acting, and even worse characters (Jar Jar, Emo Anikin), I’d rather Star Trek stay in the shadows. I’ll take Vulcan’s and Klingons over Ewoks and Gungans any day! I’ll take beautiful, thoughtfully designed ships over oversized simple shapes with glaring design flaws (exhaust port). I’ll take substance over flash any day!
Yeah, I’m the old fan he’s going out of his way to ignore. Hate to say it, but if he was half the genius people think he is, he’d be able to bring in these mythical “New Fans”, without alienating the loyal fanbase that has kept Star Trek alive.
I’m trying to reserve judgement, but it’s been difficult when I see ship, prop and set designs that is just plain bad, and a trailer that seems to choose style and action over a good story. The casting is the only thing I’ve seen that’s been encouraging.
The new Enterprise? Ewwww!
The new Props? They look more retro and non-functional than the 60s originals!
The new bridge design? The Apple Store analogy fits! Deal with it! It’s brightly lit, white and shiny, and has retail laser checkout scanners scattered everywhere!
The Bridge has got silly glass panels that are purely there because they will look kewl shattering during the epic battle sequence! How imaginative! It’s the modern day version of the pane of glass sequence during a car chase! Now if they can just figure out how to add in the fruit cart, the cliche’ will be complete!
This new Star Trek is going be bright and flashy, but from what I can see, it will have none of the soul of Gene’s original.
@80
Actually, most non-Trek people I’ve met have heard about Kirk, Spock, and Khan. Everyone seems to know about Khan.
Understand, I am a fan of both Star Trek (which I used to watch on TV as a kid) and Star Wars which I saw in the theater at first release in ‘77.
I don’t know that the Star Wars and Star Trek debate will ever cease. I have to admit, though, when the subject comes up amongst friends or people I meet that are fans of sci-fi, if you ask a trekker/trekkie his opinion of the debate, you will usually get an opinion, naturally. You’ll hear things like, and I’m quoting you guys here “Star Wars? Never heard of it… Was it any good?” and “There should be nothing in Trek that resembles a WW2 dogfight. Leave that to idiots who cant write, cant think, and steal all their ideas from movies that have already been made.” and “Star Trek is science fiction. Star Wars is fantasy with a bunch of technology.” and other assorted ignorant things like these.
They are both Science Fiction by it’s definition. No dogfights in Star Trek leaves you with two (or more) big slow clunky submarines in space trying to outmaneuver each other, and everyone has heard of Star Wars. I loved Kirk vs Kahn at the end of STII, but I wasn’t exactly sitting at the edge of my seat while they slowly worked their way through a space-fart. Speeding up the action and making a fight look more like a fight will be a welcome addition to a movie about a federation of planets with enemies that want to kill them while they try to explore the universe.
You ask a Star Wars fan and you will more often than not get “I didn’t know there was a debate”. Sometimes you get a smart ass, but for the most part, that’s what you’ll get. A Star Wars debate is more like “who shot first Han or Greedo. In a Star Wars fans mind, there is simply no comparison. You know why? Because On a particular level, JJ is right about Trek being in the SW shadow, but not because one is better than the other. It’s simply this. Star Trek was a TV show that made a transition to film (thanks in part to the success of, you guessed it, SW) and had a slow, cerebral first movie that for the most part, bored a lot of people other than die-hard fans. Star Wars started in film and was like a rocket that took everyone that went to see it on the ride of their lives. It literally was unlike anything anyone had seen in science fiction using state of the art effects at the time. Hell, they developed a camera just to film some things they didn’t know how to film any other way (the Dykstraflex, which won him an academy award). People were on line to see the movie four, five, eight, ten times when it opened. How many times did any of you see STTMP at release? Get it?
When Abrams says Trek is under the shadow of Wars, he only means in size and scope, not quality. Lucas, in his savvy, turned a 10 million dollar movie into a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR FORTUNE! Trek has yet to do this. Lucas created a single story, and broke it into 6 movies. You go watch a Star Wars movie to see what happens next. You go see a Star Trek movie to see what happens “this time”. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s a big, big thing. It’s one long continuing story that encompasses hundreds of worlds, thousands of alien races, multitudes of ships and weapons, heroes vs villains, good vs evil, recurring characters that you can’t wait to see from film to film whether they are good or bad… All the things many of you are saying you never want to see in a Trek movie because you don’t want it “Star Wars’d” and that’s EXACTLY why there is a much smaller fan base for Trek than there is for Wars whether you want to believe it or not. Just do a google search for Star Wars opens in Japan to see what I mean. Star Wars was/is a worldwide phenomenon because the characters were lovable and memorable thanks to Lucas modeling them after particular archetypes (C-3PO and R2-D2 and Laurel and Hardy). Not so for Star Trek. Trek has fans, but plain and simple, There are more people that wish they were Boba Fett than wish they were Spock. There are more people that wish they had a lightsaber than wish they had a phaser. There are more people that wish they had an X-Wing fighter than wish they had an Enterprise.
/inhale
And in response to 9. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – January 30, 2009
…Are you kidding me? For real? Are you actually comparing the technologies we have today that we use for combat to the science fiction fantasy weapons on a TV show as the basis for why there should be no dogfights in space? By your own argument I’m led to believe you haven’t yet read what you wrote. So what you are saying is because technology was so poor during WWII that dogfights had to occur in order to ensure hitting your enemy, but today we can launch missiles from California to Afghanistan with the touch of a button from a couch, but in the FUTURE we will launch ships at light speed to engage the enemy? That’s backwards progress. If we can launch missiles from the comfort of our couch TODAY, then the FUTURE should allow us to launch something from Earth to wherever the heck we want in the galaxy, should we even be launching anything at all, since it would seem if in the future we are capable of doing anything at light speed we probably longer need to launch physical objects at something to attack it, no less a manned ship.
And incidentally, technology wasn’t poor, it simply wasn’t advanced, which is a big difference. We had the capability to destroy nations with atomic weapons. Sound poor to you? Why, because we didn’t have the capability to press a button and launch the bomb from a couch? It was the dawning of a new age and in 150 years some knucklehead will be making an uneducated crack on a blog much like you just did about how we were still sitting on couches pressing buttons like a bunch of archaic but cowardly war mongers because in THAT future bloggers world perhaps technology is so advanced they fire a laser from earth to destroy a planet 100,000 light years away. Does that make our technology today poor? No, just not as advanced as years from now.
And by the way, filming a dogfight in a science fiction movie takes the intelligent coordination of dozens of people from model makers, cameramen, computer effects people, directors and animators. There is nothing Intellectually lazy about it as you so ignorantly put it. You simply don’t want a dogfight in your Trek movie and that’s how you release your frustrations about it. By attacking. In fact, I would think there’s more brains behind coordinating something like the space battle at the end of ROTJ that there were at the end of STII as far as special effects are concerned.
Also while I’m pointing out some of the uneducated things you said. Lucas has never stated he “stole” anything. He is a film student that admired and emulated a lot of work, and was influenced by both World War II footage and Race Cars, much like every other film maker in Hollywood is influenced by something else. To say he stole everything is plain ridiculous. I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Gene Roddenberry didn’t invent spaceships in 1966. He STOLE the idea of making a show about space ships and space explorers from other science fiction novel writers and movies and formulated his own interpretation of such films and books into what became Star Trek. Now do you see how utterly silly saying something was stolen is? Lucas no more stole his ideas than Roddenberry did.
Yeah… Spock is right: JJ is getting annoying! I don’t want Star Trek to be infused with Star Wars! What a stupid idea!
#81 – “Hate to say it, but if he was half the genius people think he is, he’d be able to bring in these mythical “New Fans”, without alienating the loyal fanbase that has kept Star Trek alive.”
Hate to say it, but you don’t speak for me or the whole fanbase. So please don’t. BTW, Star Trek has been dying since First Contact. Loyal fanbase that kept it alive? Where are they?
“I’m trying to reserve judgement, but it’s been difficult when I see ship, prop and set designs that is just plain bad, and a trailer that seems to choose style and action over a good story.”
Yeah, you know it’s really too bad that a vague trailer shown in front of a James Bond didn’t show us the entire story. Good point.
“The new bridge design? The Apple Store analogy fits! Deal with it! It’s brightly lit, white and shiny,”
So was the bridge in “The Voyage Home.” Hmm. Deal with it.
“and has retail laser checkout scanners scattered everywhere!”
Now you are going wayyyy overboard in your mudslinging.
“The Bridge has got silly glass panels that are purely there because they will look kewl shattering during the epic battle sequence! How imaginative! It’s the modern day version of the pane of glass sequence during a car chase! Now if they can just figure out how to add in the fruit cart, the cliche’ will be complete!”
When you are out of ammo, just start making up absurd things I guess.
“This new Star Trek is going be bright and flashy, but from what I can see, it will have none of the soul of Gene’s original.’
And you based all of this on the designs.
Hmm. It’s awfully odd that some of the fans will say things like “It was never about the sets or ships, it was the stories and characters that were important,” and what’s the first thing those same people do? Go after the “unimportant factors” like the sets or ships. Funnily enough, J.J. has been adamant about how character development and making it about the characters and the heart that these characters bring. In fact his WHOLE POINT in that particular paragraph was that he didn’t want the visuals to overshadow the characters, the O-P-P-O-S-I-T-E of Star Wars. But in the negative spin room, some can’t see that…
#84 – Rather than following what another member said, perhaps you can give us details on how Star Wars is being infused into Star Trek in this movie, particulars etc, and what it is that you think is bad about it? You said enough to declare it was a stupid idea, so you obviously know the particulars. GO.
..erm…what is ‘Star Wars’?
Never heard of it.
:-p
At this point, I really don’t care what happens. I like what I’ve seen. There are only 3 sure fire things that are going to happen with this movie.
1. It’ll come out.
2. some people will hate it.
3. some people will like it.
Now which is the majority? Who knows. No really, Doctor Who frakkin KNOWS!! Someone catch that man and get him to talk! :)
I have been saying since the trailer came out that this movie LOOKS AND FEELS like a Star Wars movie.Not a Trek movie. It looks like it’s made for little kids.
In fact when I saw the trailer in the theatre some guy yelled out “hey it’s Star Wars.” Everyone in the theatre started to laugh. I put my head down in shame and shook my head because I love Star Trek. And what I saw that night in the trailer was not Star Trek.
#4 is totally right, it’s a dead ringer for Revenge of The Sith.
Escape the shadow of Star Wars? Yeah, way to go JJ.
1. The reason the aliens in Star Trek look like people with weird things on their heads is because, as Kirk said, “Spock, let me tell you something. Everybody’s human.” The aliens represent personality types of our humanity. When they need “otherness” they do it: i.e. horta, and “dirty bags of mostly water” come to mind
2. The reason nothing is broken in Star Trek is because it is about optimism. It may not be weathered like “real life” because it’s a goal.
3. “retail laser checkout scanners scattered everywhere”
(Gosh I’m glad someone else noticed! And the maître d’ stands…)
4. Star Trek was meant from the beginning to touch not only the emotions, but also the thought. It was about how Spock (Kirk’s logic) and McCoy (Kirk’s emotion) worked together. Kirk was the will, the decision. Roddenberry didn’t even have this quite together when he wrote his first few episodes, but he eventually got it running quite well. If you remove the thought (some call “cerebral”) out of it, you might as well delete Spock & call it Star Frak.
5. Getting out from under Lucas’s shadow? Um… you mean like the major disaster of “Indiana Jones and the psychic, interdimensional, cone-headed aliens?” Or how about Jar-Jar Binks? Gees, yeah get out of his shadow cause when he hits the ground it’s gonna be hard! Come on, Star Trek doesn’t need to become Star Wars to become validated! Their laser can’t even penetrate our navigational shields!
It is all in JJs answer to the first question. Asked about how he wants to win over sceptical fans, he invokes the Spirit of Roddenberry…
“I would think that especially fans of “Star Trek,” which is an optimistic universe, a universe about working together and the possibility of the human endeavor, you would think that people who appreciate that wonderful portrait of the future and that universe would be open to literally going to a place no one has ever gone before. I’m very optimistic that fans of the show, even the purists, will be willing to embrace the spirit of Roddenberry”
He gets the complaints, expected no less. But he appeals to the fanbase to stick to Genes values.
We should give him that chance.
I’m not sure how many people actually read what he said…
Read the title of the article, then read what he says again.
He’s NOT saying the new film has to be Star Wars, he saying it has to be true to Trek and is taking a different approach to a science fiction film than the outwards ultra-high gloss and untoppable special effects.
Which is what we want, correct? Of COURSE the film will look good, it’s a sci fi film made in 2008 with ILM effects. But that’s mainifestly NOT what he says it’s about. And he says it repeatedly.
I really don’t understand a lot of this criticism, sorry.
Great. That is something I don’t want to hear.
But I’ll stay optimistic … I’ll try.
“I really don’t understand a lot of this criticism, sorry.”
I don’t think some of the people doing the criticizing do either! Knee Jerk reactions without merit, sorry to say. And as you said, some people actually should *read* what it says, not just pick parts of it and twist it into their own criticisms.
I hope he means what he says regarding the characters.
Star Wars was always about the action, the fx etc. . The characters – especially in Eps 1-3 – strike me as quite hollow. That’s not a fault of the actors, since they are really good as they have shown in other films.
Though I am also a Star Wars fan, I never thought of Trek as being in it’s shadow. Trek is different and thankfully different in terms of production design. I never got drawn into the designs of Ep 1-3. They look exactly like the new E – overly artistic and without function. JJ probably won’t admit it, but the trailer looks a lot like Star Wars. The action, the fx, even the colouring scheme (at least during the space battle). One can only hope it still feels like Trek on the big screen. But we won’t know that unitl May.
Gonna go ahead and say that someone that seems to think that star wars is that much better than star trek seriously should not have been handed the movie that will make or break the franchise. And its even worse to see him talking about everything in the last 3 star wars movies, cause even though episode III wasnt too bad, I still say FAIL there. I hope he doesnt do what Lucas did with those last 3 movies, because this article makes it kinda sound that way. I see that a lot of people are down on us doubters, but I think, especially considering the hell star trek’s been though, that its justified. Its not like any of us want this movie to be bad, we all want it to be epic and great, but every article I read from JJ on this site makes me doubt the quality of this movie more and more. As weird as this sounds, I think Wil Wheaton should get a screening of this movie since he seems to be possibly the only trek person with enough guts to voice some serious doubts, and if he saw it and gave it the thumbs up, then I could relax.
I agree that JJ is annoying as hell.
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I can’t believe anyone would stick up for JJ. I mean, c’mon people, this is the same guy who wrote Forever Young for Gods sake. He’s probably the luckiest guy in showbiz considering his talent to compensation ratio.
But we’re all going to see his damn film anyway, aren’t we?
And ultimately, that’s all he and the studio care about. Us emptying our wallets and pocketbooks on tickets and merch.
#92 well said, a lot of people a attacking JJ and making all kinds of accusations and I don’t believe for a minute that they’ve even read the article.
The comment #32 attacks then as their argument repeats what JJ said! How crazy is that.
At looking at #97 it’s just down to petty personal attacks without any argument or justification just “jj sucks and this movie will too, bleat, bleat, bleat”
If all you want to do is attack people you’ve never met who have made a film that you’ve never seen go and start your own “we hate JJ for no good reason” forum and stop giving me a headache with all the unjustified bile you keep spouting
Maybe Adams is not the best pick for a Trek film, if he likes Star Wars better than Star Trek! Star Trek has an entirely different philosophy missing out on that would be like selling gingerbread at McDonalds instead of hamburgers. How arrogant can you get?`
My point is “Wars” is childish fantasy with no basis in reality
“TreK” was always about keeping it real.
Azimov himself was the science advisor for TOS.
“Wars” grabs you by the glands, “Trek” is for your cerebellum.
“Wars” is empty and shallow. “Trek” is so deep people are reading into what episode xyz “meant”. In a recent thread, someone brought up “Let that be your Last Battlefield” and why it was significant. What does “Wars” have to offer in this vein? What great message is there in “Wars?”
Salon.com wrote an article condemning Lucas for creating a monarchist, elitist. non-democratic universe. The only “democracy” quickly dissolved into Nazi Germany! Lucas is a rich, fat communist-shogun! The message of the prequels was, “Ordinary people cant be trusted to run a democracy, So elitist mystics/warrior monks (The Jedi) must be in charge to tell you right from wrong.” This is a mixture of “dictatorship of the proletariat, and the kind of modern shogunate that ran Japan in WW2.
In every TOS episode, our “benevolent militarism” of Starfleet must answer to the democratically elected Federation Council. In the movies, Kirk must answer to the council for his crimes. Kirk is neither Emperor Palpatine nor Yoda. Kirk is not Caesar. Kirk is a bad ass, but he’s still just a man, and not the law unto himself.
The message of Trek is liberté, égalité, fraternité
The message of Wars is “Let them eat cake”
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/
The Salon.com article for the Lucas kool-aid drinkers
jaar jaar beter be in this one if not i am never watching another star trek film again and as far as ime concerned george rodenberry has soled out and should of quit after the undiscovered county strikes back ROLFMAU!
Escape the shadow of Star Wars? Here’s a hint. Don’t make the main character of the series a non-likable, child killing, bad acting douche and than force us to like him.
Want another one? Don’t assume that you have a strong female character when all she does is pout and is so hopelessly in love with the worst form of decency ever and than die of a broken heart just because he misunderstood you.
Star Trek leaving the shadow of Star Wars? This isn’t going to be leaving the shadow of Star Wars, this is going to be a freaking spear to the heart of Star Wars!
*NOTE* I am a Star Wars fan. Always have been. I’m just not a fan of it post 97.
Star Trek -vs- Star Wars….
I have been battling this since May 25th 1977, which was my 17th Birthday. I was only a Junior in high school but was one of the best at computer programming. I was self taught and never took a class but was teaching the students programming tricks.
This one student Dallas Unger wanted help expanding his Star Wars Game, it was a text adventure program. He had many good ideas, even created a map of the Death Star. As a player you had to rescue Princess Leia and deactivate the Tractor Beam.
He was using in line code to do each room, I showed him how to use databases to replace the coding. The Death Star grew to 437 rooms and understanding almost English like text input.
Back in 77 computers were limited, only TTY typewriters, and improving modems to 1200baud to the Main frame school computer. I was a Trekkie have been sin 1969. The view I developed was Star Trek was like Apple Juice and Star Wars was like Orange Juice. They are nice to drink but who mixes Apples and Oranges to drink.
[note...] I’m allergic to Citrus and try to avoid OJ (both the drink and the Person) and thats why I placed Star Wars as Orange Juice.
Star Trek is for minds of those that can think of the World and nice things, and Star Wars is for smaller minds that like Action and War and Death, like most grade school kids smaller minds and Worlds tend to be.
[note...] I do not say that a Star Wars mind is automatically dumb, some minds may be far greater than a Star Trek one, I’m just doing statistical averaging. And there are more kids with smaller worlds to live in so they get tighter focused on less things. I hope this helps delay a Star Trek – vs- Star Wars war.
They are two different worlds so why can they not have different lives and Universes. It is not who is better than the other, that is for those that only think fighting first. Fighting is not first, more like last but when it can to be avoided it is needed. And to those smaller minds war comes first and rarely second and never last.
I think Star Trek is bigger than Star Wars but it needs not dominate over Star Wars, and in closing notice how in the second Star Wars trilogy they now have a Federation.
I don’t believe JJ understands Star Trek. Isn’t it funny that he continually talks about Star Wars and Galaxy Quest (in other interviews) when he’s supposed to talk about Trek?
Never ever have I engaged in any Trek vs Wars wars. I love both, even if I love Trek more. But I love both for what they are, and I don’t want any of the two to morph into the other.
Watch a japanese movie called, “Hidden Fortress” and then tell me what you think of “Star Wars”.
92, 98. Yes, well said.
Unless I missed something, Abrams isn’t saying, “Yupsters, I turned Star Trek into Star Wars.” He’s saying the opposite: That he knew he couldn’t out-do or re-do Star Wars, so he went back to Star Trek’s core elements: character, character, story, character, story. It seems to me he understands the true significance & appeal of Trek and only added Star Wars elements (glam effects, dogfights, funky aliens) afterward.
That’s my read on it, anyway.
104, Spockish. Abrams only brought up Star Wars because the LA Times asked him about it.
And I remember ‘77. I was already a certified nerd Trekkie. But I saw and loved the original three Star Wars movies anyway — not in the way I loved Trek, and for different reasons, but I still lapped them up. I saw Empire & Jedi at midnight screenings on opening night.
Why does it have to be either/or? Good grief. Science fiction is a big tent, folks.
For all the complainers:
Yes, Star Trek needs to be infused with something that will catch new viewers. As far as escaping the shadow of Star Wars, Abrams is 100% right — the only way to do it is restraint. How did so many of you miss that point? Because it wasn’t plainly written in a 1960s script?
It’s amazing to me how many Star Trek fans lack the ability to read things in context. As soon as someone says “Star Wars” their Histrionics Chips go out of control.
P.S., #108: Why does it have to be either/or? Good grief. Science fiction is a big tent, folks.
RIGHT ON.
This depends on which Star Wars we’re talking about. The brilliant original Star Wars concept? Or the bloated cash cow that Lucas continues to milk every ounce out of?
Are we talking about:
Wookees or Ewoks?
Yoda or Jar-Jar?
Harrison Ford or Hayden Christensen?
Special effects ahead of its time or CGI on steroids?
“Nero is a guy (In the Comics and the movie) Who Starts out as a good guy and stuff happens to make him bad. Sound like Anakin Skywalker. ”
He also sounds like a very interesting villain. Pretty amazing how not every bad person is born purely evil, but might actually make a journey that takes them there. What a pure rip-off on the part of the filmmakers. Warp drive, transporters, phasers and time travel I can buy. But a bad guy who started out good? That’s just pushing it.
#111 – thanks for proving my point. Dr. Soong is working on a replacement histrionics chip for you.
I just want an intelligent, mature, thinking-man science fiction movie. That’s where ST excels all over SW and that’s primarily why I like TREK over WARS–though I enjoy them both for what they are. It is there that SW is in ST’s shadow.
I have yet to get a feel as to what this new film is about. Is JJ going to make a juvenile, appeal-to-all, dumbed down cartoon film like SW? Certainly some of the dialogue that has surfaced from the film doesn’t make me feel too optimistic. He continues to say the film will stress character, but that doesn’t address juvenile tone, or dumbed down sensibility–something I don’t want in TREK. We already got that with VOYAGER. Guess I will just have to wait for the movie to come out, but would like to know, or at least get a sense of it now.
113 – do you take issue with my opinion? If so, are you able to refute it with a reasoned response, or are personal insults the height of your debating ability?
I see nothing ‘histrionic’ about my post. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
#38 Mazz- Exactly.
After Jedi came out, Lucas even commented in an interview that the saga was always meant to be “a fairy tale for children.” I believe it was in Cinefantastique, or perhaps Starlog.
This was his defense after the beating Jedi took in the press.
Trek should evolve, not devolve, the way Star Wars did after Empire.
#73-Spock — that “buckle up” line gives me total nightmares, can you imagine William Shatner’s Kirk saying that line? I don’t think so.
Now my two-cents. STOS at it’s ABSOLUTE BEST, especially season #1, was not so much science fiction, as it was “human drama set in the future”. Just look at some of the best episodes from season 1 — which was clearly the best…
1-Court-Martial
2-The Menagerie
3-Consciece of the King
4-Return of the Archons.
5-City on the Edge of Forever, etc. etc.
That is where Star Trek stood OUT!!! That drama, with characters who you could BELIEVE really existed in the future, was what MADE Star Trek. That is why to me STIIWOK is by FAR the BEST of the movies, because of ALL the movies it came the absolute closest to matching the “human drama” of STOS, especially season 1. If this new film is TO SUCCEED, in my opinion it MUST be true to that “human drama formula”.
Hey JJ,
How ’bout making a good Star TREK film, concentrating on Star Trek, and quit thinking about Star Wars. Quit referencing it. I’m tired of hearing that. Apples and oranges. Two different things. I’m not sure that franchise is even the best example to emulate anyway.
While it remains to be seen how good the new movie is going to be, there will always be some comparison to Star Wars when it comes to space battle action.
Being a life long fan of all the series, who doesn’t enjoy a good battle fight on the wide screen? The Reliant vs. Enterprise scenes in ST2? Kruge’s Bird of Prey and the Enterprise in III? And so on and so forth. What I hated the MOST about the ship combats are the facts that despite the Enterprise being one of the, or THE flagship of the Federation and having the most advanced technology and weapons in the fleet, that after only a few volleys of weapons exchange, the shields will suddenly drop “down to 10%”…or one of the reds will say “photon torpedo relay circuits are down..” etc. etc.
If they can’t work in something more sensible like back up super batteries to sustain a longer fight, then like film critic Roger Ebert and many have said, advance Trek many more years so that it is part of any battle scene. With Voyager’s return and its (ha!) assimilation of Borg technology, thanks to Seven, they should have regenerative shielding and weapons at the very least.
Going back to weapons, in one of the TNG episodes, they showed a photon torpedo that had the ability to ’split’ up and hit multiple targets. In a movie, this effect could be quite cool in say, obliterating a wave of say 40 enemy dogfighters. In this day of CGI, this should be more easily and cheaply accomplished as opposed to the older days of blue screen and compositing.
In the days of TOS tv, there was talk of the Enterprise being able to destroy planets with phasers. We’ve never seen anything on that level to depict the destructive power of the ship’s phasers. On TNG, we were able to see the result of a super charged weapon from the main deflector dish, but against a Borg cube, it didn’t work.
In the movies, it was rare to see multiple ship combats. First Contact had a great opening but, again, to me, it ran rather slow with these ships lumbering about for the best position to fire their weapons at the Borg Cube. DS9 and Voyager had the best ship battle scenes and they, even in its current form would look terrific on the big screen.
Another potentially cool movie sequence would be showing multiple star ships separating to form independent smaller ships for combat. The Prometheus in Voyager would be a good example, but not necessarily the template for how many ship pieces you’d have for fighting. You’d want larger pieces like say a saucer and star drive, each with say their own respective strengths. The star drive would be better at maneuverability and still have multiple phaser turrets while the saucer would say have a greater compliment of quantum torpedoes and a HUGE phaser turret for delivering a more powerful phaser blast.
Opening credits roll-
A Long Time From Now
In A Galaxy Real Real Close
STAR TREK WARS
I’m getting the feeling that the Robot Chicken Khan Opera bit is going to turn out better than this omage to all things Lucas.
#34 mang
correct
I don’t understand Jai-1138’s comments on Lucas’s genius in the prequels. Further explanation won’t help. I’m a big fan of Kurosawa, a big fan of early Lucas films like American Grafitti, THX-1138, that thing with just droids, and the original Star Wars film. I think there is too much in the scripts, the visual clutter and synthethic feel of those films that a kid will overlook and an adult would not. I think you have to love that universe to watch those films (and there are Trek films galore I would make that statement about).
I would worry about JJ’s comments except that:
1. JJ Abrams has bemoaned the overuse of computer special effects these days so it seems he will not be going anywhere near what the prequel films were doing.
2. It’s been reported elsewhere that JJ Abrams is a nice guy many places– could be he’s just being polite, especially if he’s having the odd meal with George Lucas.
3. He’s already got the Star Trek die hards issuing Fatwahs. Would he benefit by stirring up a blood feud with some of the Star Wars fans? I saw Star Wars Phantom Menace in the theatre. Some of the people there — who brought their own light sabers, robes, and were speaking along with the entire dialogue — they kind of scare me…
4. The work I’ve seen with JJ’s hand or Orci/Kurtzman’s hand in it really seems reverent to the original piece. Mission Impossible III and Transformers were very enjoyable, well written films and I would say that of the 3 Mission Impossible films that was the one most in keeping with the original series. I wonder if they actually take pride in that.
Regarding SFict vs. SFantasy. I watch Fantasy (Lord of the RIngs), Sci Fi (Star Trek) Sci Fantasy/morality play’s like Star Wars. I don’t think genre is relevant to a discussion of quality.
#45—”If JJ thinks that the last three Star Wars movies were better than the originals, he doesn’t even get Star Wars, much less Star Trek.”
He doesn’t say that anywhere in the interview.
To those who feel as though somebody’s ripping somebody else off: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV) In other words: Gene Roddenberry was influenced by “Wagon Train,” George Lucas was inspired by WWII movies, everybody is inspired by something.
To those who think space battles from light-years away would be boring: The world’s newest jet fighter, the F-22 Raptor, can shoot down enemies from dozens of miles away (while remaining outside the range of the enemy’s radar or weapons). Sounds boring, but it saves American pilots from having to dogfight. Standoff battles will be the wave of the future. Sci-fi space battles may be exciting (especially when done like a “Silent Running”-type, or “U-571″), but they’re unrealistic given the level of proposed technology being used. Come on, if long-range sensors can detect a planet with an oxygen atmosphere (and life) before the ship even enters the solar system, what makes you think they can’t see another starship from that far away?
To those who think “Star Trek” will suck – don’t pass judgment until the movie comes out.
To those who think “Star Trek” will kick ass – don’t pass judgment until the movie comes out.
“The challenge of doing “Star Trek” — despite the fact that it existed before “Star Wars” — is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.”
When you’re talking movies—-that’s absolutely true, IMO. The thing about Star Trek is that it is much more about the characters. I think JJ gets that.
The biggest difference, IMO, between SW and ST (beyond definitions of Sci-fi vs. fantasy) is that Star Trek depicts a possible future for us, whereas the Star Wars universe exists in pure fantasy land. I think JJ gets that as well.
I was a big fan of the first two Star Wars film, as was JJ Abrams. But I could never get lost in its mythology in the way I could with Original Trek.
But—in terms of scale and visual effects, Star Trek can benefit a great deal from those films. From most of what I have read of the reviews, it sounds as if—visually, STXI will outdo them both.
When I read some of these posts, It becomes obvious why being a Star Wars fan is a little more acceptable in public than being a Star trek fan, and I’m a fan of both. I hate having to post again, I have read so many ignorant posts since i posted last night I just had to respond.
First of all, there is nothing more “intelligent” or “cerebral” about Trek than Wars. For those of you that have deified Roddenberry in your narrow minds, try to keep in mind that in an interview with GR himself, he said they were simply trying to make a buck. That’s it. He had no great vision of the future or of the coming together of humanity in one giant collective single-minded consciousness. It was about making money. He’s a TV show producer and businessman, end of story. Couple that with the fact that Star Trek failed after it’s third season and you get what you have now…a cult following. After Trek ended in 69 it developed a cult following that eventually led (in part) to the films we have now. The hoo-doo of his great vision came only after the films started and it needed to be about something more than just selling commercial time to sponsors to keep the money flowing and ensure the shows survival. The messages delivered inthe TV show were brought mainly by individual writers of the show that may have had an ideal or thought they wanted to convey and used the show as a vehicle for it, especially using the medium to make a political statement which was big back then.
Where the differences between SW and ST are concerned, what we have now is essentially this, an exersise in you guessing which genre the following statement is about::
“_______ is not just about the exploration of our surroundings in space and the quest for peaceful coexistence with other worlds and alien races, but the inward journey, the self discovery of the human condition and in some cases the expansion of ones own abilities and consciousness, human or not.”
Guess what, it could be about BOTH genres. They are BOTH about seeking peace and human exploration, the discovery of worlds and alien life form, about the struggle of good over evil, of conquering the demons within each of us and discovering the hidden potential within each of us. They are BOTH powerful delivery systems for a positive message. And as for being more or less cerebral than Star Wars, the only kind of person that would say that is someone that has their nose so far up the butt of one, they no longer even see the other. Star Wars has it’s roots DEEP in cultures and mythology from the classic struggle of good over evil to the archetypes of wise old sage and master/apprentice relationships, fantasy steeped in high technology and the relations between races and species that cross the bridges of racism for a more harmonious living space, in this case, a universe. For those of you that never have, go see Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress for a good idea of where Lucas is coming from.
This argument about Trek and Wars with one being better than the other is so childish. It’s like kids in a sandbox arguing over which toy is the better hunk of plastic, the only difference being Star Trek fans (at least here to an extent) have so much to defend, apparently, that they feel the need to attack instead. You are all bashing the hell out of the last three Star Wars movies as being made for children, but if I recall correctly, on this very board, you guys describe in detail and at length the Star Trek curse, which is essentially every other Star Trek movie sucking, 1 then 3 then 5 then 7 and so on leading up to Nemesis. So if I’m not adding incorrectly, by your own figures, there are approximately 2 or 3 more movies out of the Trek genra that suck more than the last three Wars movies. That’s a 2:1 sucky movie factor than none of you seem to remember mentioning in your bashing of a film genre that has captivated millions, made billions, forges forward strongly without the wonder of whether or not the next movie will ensure it’s survival… like Trek… and is easy to predict as being here for the future, strongly. None of you can say the same for Trek, and I hate to have to be the one to bring it up because I love trek too, but you guys sound like a basket of rotten apples not being bought and blaming the shiny apples everyone else wants.
These guys even cited Master and Commander and TWOK in their interviews so they certainly KNOW what the audience expects of a Star Trek battle, how to make it exciting, are trying for realism (which means the peril the characters are in will be more palpable) and have put alot of thought and study into how to construct those scenes.
I think the space battles will be fun. TWOK was awesome. If that’s their benchmark, this film should rock!!!
If the new movie has a great script, intersting characters, engaging dialog, expansive scope, awesome effects, then you have a good movie… which is more than you can say for about half of the ST movies before it. What more would you want?
126— You use your tongue pertier than a 20 dollar whore!!!!
LOL @ Tman
Damn it. I want Star Trek to be Star Trek and Star Wars to be Star Wars.
I love both.
But you don’t mix them, they don’t fit to each other. Star Trek is more down to earth, more adult.
If you want to do Star Trek, then you have to do Star Trek and not Star Wars!
And for the aliens: Didn’t anybody ever watch DS9? There are thousands of “real” aliens. In DS9 they went as far as you can go without making it an CGI animation movie, without abdicating real actors.
#131—I think that Abrams wants to bring the “visual” elements that work so well in Star Wars to Star Trek feature films. He’s alos made clear that he understands how important it is to stay true to the characters, which were the heart of TOS.
I happen to like mixing peanut butter and chocolate!
Star Trek stands in the shadow of Star Trek.
Sometimes I think the media frames the questions in their interviews in such a way that the fanbase will get mad at JJ or whoever they are interviewing,
So that they have a “controversy” to write about.
I think the media likes to perpetuate the”rabid Fanboy” stereotype.
I’m really wondering why this movie is called Star Trek.
“It’s not your father’s “Star Trek” – J.J.
“It’s a parallel time line” – Bob Orci.
It’s a summer blockbuster.
It’s the Enterprise designed by Apple and built in Kanas.
Now it’s going to be as good as Star Wars. You know what? Objectively Star Wars in not the best film ever. Without John William’s music to tell you to take it seriously it would have been laughed off the screen.
J.J. seems to be saying Star Trek 2009 will be “everything to everyone”. I afraid it’s going to disappoint the real fans. But’s that’s just the voice of an old cynic who’s been disappointed by ever Trek film except Wrath of Khan.
107. Captain Dunsal – January 31, 2009
Watch a japanese movie called, “Hidden Fortress” and then tell me what you think of “Star Wars”.
>>> Better yet, watch the 1972 anime series BATTLE OF THE PLANETS [aka GATCHAMAN], which featured the the exact same cast as STAR WARS:
Mark – Luke ‘the idealistic protagonist’
TIny – Chewie ‘the big guy’
Keyop – R2D2 ‘the silly smart little one’
Princess – Princess Leia
Jason – Han Solo ‘the dark protagonist’
Zoltar – Darth Vader [both wear cowls and speak to a distant ruler via a staticky viewscreen]
In addition, in a ‘banned’ episode that was screened at San Diego ComiCon a few years ago, it was revealed that Zoltar is actually Mark’s father. Doh!
…
I reject the comparisons to STAR WARS and think JJ’s confidence with the media exceeds his understanding the two franchises.
SW is fantasy, not science fiction. SW is rooted in magic, takes place in the past, and its narrative is essentially a Campbell-ian hero’s journey. ST is rooted in science, takes place in our future, and its narrative is a journey of discovery and statecraft–like a Western or the Horatio Hornblower series.
The only shadow cast by STAR WARS is the shadow of crass commercialism and GenX childhood imaginations left in ashes.
Picking on the Prequels is like shooting fish in a barrel. But the truth is that SW is replete with stupid jokes and pandering gibber gabber. From whiny Luke to ‘who you calling scruffy?” to Ewoks whacking bad guys in the groin… the signs of George Lucas’s creative bankruptcy were always there. We were just too young to give a shit.
I don’t so much care about JJ’s redundant & pandering references to SW, but his chilly arrogance in talking of the challenges he’s overcome and politician-like tendency to say lots of words without revealing anything are
the reason to throw a flag on the field. [Bonus Superbowl reference].
Note to JJ: You’re a proxy for the people who thought they were too cool for ST. We get it. Move on. If you only understand SW references, then please recall the role that Pride plays in the fall of a Jedi.
126. Green-Blooded Bastard, I want to thank you for coining the term “sucky movie factor.”
A number of folks have noted Lucas’s debt to Kurosawa and other sources. Some (though not all) have made the observation as though there’s something wrong with paying homage to previous works.
Personally, I think we all need to take a step back, here. In every medium and genre, artists refer to and pluck from previous works; it’s how art forms evolve over decades and centuries. Not every mastwork is innovative. Among the greatest creative geniuses in history are those who sum up all that came before: J.S. Bach, for instance, was a genius at summation. He didn’t break new ground.
I’m not comparing JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” to the Mass in B Minor. I’m just trying to make a point about the evolution of art in the context of history. Call it paying homage or ripping off — the fact of the matter is, very little that’s created is completely new. Abrams is being remarkably candid about the need to acknowledge the influence of “Star Wars” while remaining true to the core principles of “Star Trek.”
IMHO.
I think people are greatly misunderstanding what J.J. means.
He’s not talking about Star Wars in a literal comparison, but as an example with certain attributes.
Star Wars and Star Trek do have a couple of things in comming:
- Action Adventure
- Well written core characters that are very likeable
- A universe created with a sense of wonder
At this point, I believe JJ is correct in his comparison. He has to make Star Trek deliver the adventure it has been hinting at ever since the Original Series.
Star Wars has a lot of alien creatures and creations, and strange planets, that show a fantastic world.
Star Trek needs to take the opening monologue, of Strange New Worlds, and boldly going where no man has gone before, and show some of that visually.
Star Trek is not based on the Flash gordon series of the 30s and 40s like Star Wars is, but we have a large portion of the galaxy to explore, and we should see something of the fantastic things that undoubtably exists in the Star Trek uniform.
JJ is speaking of the visual and stylistic approach, NOT changing what Star Trek is about at it’s core. He gets the optimism, he gets the interplay between the core characters. He has shown this in other interviews.
Lets not jump to the worst assumptions, and take what he’s saying in context.
This is the feeling I’ve been getting ever since we got that 1/4 of the story. It struck me as far more Star Wars than Star Trek.
and we should see something of the fantastic things that undoubtably exists in the Star Trek uniform…
Didn’t they show some of that in the trailer? — With Kirk hiding under the bed?
#135—”J.J. seems to be saying Star Trek 2009 will be ‘everything to everyone’.”
Then you’re not paying attention.
He has made it quite clear that he’s aware of the futility in trying to please everyone. That was never going to happen.
“But’s that’s just the voice of an old cynic who’s been disappointed by ever Trek film except Wrath of Khan.”
Even that film didn’t please everyone. Many had difficulty with the notion that James T. Kirk could ever have “cheated” on a command test. Others complained that TWOK depicted Starfleet as too militaristic. Still others complained that it disrupted the “fanon” notion that Chekov couldn’t have been aboard during the events of the first season. And let us not forget that it had been established in “The Changeling” that the Genesis Device, like Nomad, could have simply been transported off Reliant (whose shields were inoperative) on “maximum dispersion”, presumably rendering it as harmless as Nomad. There are still those who don’t care for that.
There has yet to be a “perfect” Star Trek film. I don’t expect this to be either.
What I am expecting is to be entertained—once again—by my favorite Star Trek characters.
I dunno. Sometimes I think Abrams gets it, and sometimes I don’t.
It’s clear that he’s only as much of a fan as he needs to be to sell this movie. Apart from that, he sees Trek as an opportunity to develop his own Star Wars-like franchise. He’ll do what he must to keep the fans appeased, but gradually, he’ll change it all to fit his barely unique vision (i.e., his Superman script from years ago).
(*POINT OF CLARIFICATION* This is not to be taken as another whiny remark from another whiny Trekker who will never be satisfied. I’m fully expecting the new movie to be great, but I’m fully expecting JJ to do whatever the heck he wants in the future with Trek, canon be damned.)
I’ve always felt that Star Trek was superior to Star Wars in just about every respect (obviously, the CGI effects and overuse of green screen being that one respect). Star Trek has better overall characters than Star Wars, better storylines, a more interesting universe, more possible story lines, better acting, etc.
For example, I enjoyed Nemesis more than I did any of the last three Star Wars movies combined. At least I didn’t feel like I had wasted my time when I left the theater (the feeling that hung over me when I saw Star Wars III, a steaming pile of crap). Nemesis wasn’t a great movie, but it wasn’t awful, like Star Wars III.
I think what Abrams means is in regards to the effects. Lucas does have Star Trek beat in that area, but my gosh, I’d rather have good characters and good stories than great effects. As a result, older movies don’t bother me as much as they do some of my contemporaries because I’m not focused on whether the rock Kirk is throwing looks real enough to come through my screen or whether the backgrounds look like painted backdrops or the real thing.
The story. The characters. The acting. Does it capture my attention? With Star Trek, yes. With Star Wars, not so much. A one-time viewing of each of them sufficed.
As far as the Star Wars franchise is concened, it needs to get away from itself. I agree with what has been stated before: Ep IV and Ep V are brilliant, Ep VI is nominal, And Ep I and Ep II are shite. Ep III is only barely redeemable. Maybe.
Oh, and while I’m at ranting and pointing out meaningless arguments, 100. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – January 31, 2009 , I gotta jump on you again for making absolutely no sense and bringing no facts to the table to support your argument.
“My point is “Wars” is childish fantasy with no basis in reality
“TreK” was always about keeping it real.”
Actually MGB, you are spectacularly wrong. NEITHER movie has it’s roots in ANY reality we currently share. They are BOTH Science Fiction movies. that delve into Fantasy. What the F does “keeping it real” mean in a fantasy world of laser guns and otherworldly aliens? that’s BOTH sets of movies, not just trek or Wars
“Azimov himself was the science advisor for TOS.”
Actually, no he wasn’t. Despite his PhD in biochemistry, he “earned a screen credit on Star Trek: The Motion Picture for advice he gave during production (generally, confirming to Paramount Pictures that Roddenberry’s ideas were legitimate science-fictional extrapolation)”. Note the word generally. No science there. Him and Roddenberry were longtime close friends and his job was simply to help make sure things didn’t get too outlandish for science fiction. He was NOT the science adviser on the film.
“Wars” grabs you by the glands, “Trek” is for your cerebellum.
Funny, but I only ever EVER hear this argument here at Trekmovie.com and from other Trek fans, never from Wars fans, as though that’s the only way to legitimize the argument over the two. As though Trek is for smart people and Wars is for morons. Unless by glands you mean nuts which would be funny coming from a guy that doesn’t want to see warring in his Trek movie. What do you consider “glandular”? Diplomatic peace negotiations? three Trek characters sitting around a conference table talking about things?
“Wars” is empty and shallow. “Trek” is so deep people are reading into what episode xyz “meant”. In a recent thread, someone brought up “Let that be your Last Battlefield” and why it was significant. What does “Wars” have to offer in this vein? What great message is there in “Wars?”
The great message is that good triumphs over evil and that hope always exists. That’s a pretty great message and has been the theme to thousands of movies and books since the development of the mediums. The idea that overcoming adversity to triumph despite the odds being overwhelmingly stacked against you is a universal message that is a part of the human spirit, not just a plot device. Matter of fact, i believe it’s also a part of the Star Trek message. Take a psych class at your local college to learn more.
Salon.com wrote an article condemning Lucas for creating a monarchist, elitist. non-democratic universe. The only “democracy” quickly dissolved into Nazi Germany! Lucas is a rich, fat communist-shogun! The message of the prequels was, “Ordinary people cant be trusted to run a democracy, So elitist mystics/warrior monks (The Jedi) must be in charge to tell you right from wrong.” This is a mixture of “dictatorship of the proletariat, and the kind of modern shogunate that ran Japan in WW2.
Okay, you not only have never seen a Star Wars movie, you have no clue as to the political mechanics of government (or Lucas for that fact). Star Wars was set in a Democratic Republic until a tyrant took over, much like Hitler. The “ordinary people” were fine running things until a charismatic leader connived and manipulated them into believing war was immanent and relegated power to him, much like what has happened to humans here on earth throughout the ages time and again, and he then used that power to overthrow a democratic senate and make himself sole leader with the arms and armies to back him up. As far as Lucas being a fat rich communist-shogun, if you knew what either were you would know you can’t be a communist and a shogun at once. he’s hardly a Commie and he will never be a shogun. He is not this dictatorial power-wielding madman, unless by that you mean only in your tiny little mind. Incidentally the Jedi were “keepers of the peace, not an army or military force”. This is why they were easily defeated. I’m still not convinced you’ve seen a Star Wars movie, or ever studied political science.
“In every TOS episode, our “benevolent militarism” of Starfleet must answer to the democratically elected Federation Council. In the movies, Kirk must answer to the council for his crimes. Kirk is neither Emperor Palpatine nor Yoda. Kirk is not Caesar. Kirk is a bad ass, but he’s still just a man, and not the law unto himself.”
A democratically elected Federation Council? Funny, in every episode of TOS I’ve ever seen, I’ve never seen elections. In fact, Trek has established there is a Federation president that presides over the Federation, and how he has attained that power is up for guessing. Did he seize it or was he elected? Was he elected by the people or by the senate? Incidentally, only the Emperor in Star Wars considers himself the law, not Yoda.
“The message of Trek is liberté, égalité, fraternité”
French for Freedom, equality, and fraternity (or brotherhood), common themes in Star Trek as that was what Trek was about.
The message of Wars is “Let them eat cake”
Hardly. the message of Star Wars is perseverance despite overwhelming odds, at least that’s how I interperate the message, seeing as both venues leave something up tot he imagination where interpretation is concerned. incidentally, you really show how little you know if you are going to apply the attitudes Mari Antoinette had towards her people that led to her conviction of treason to Star Wars. I fail to see your message comparisons.
It’s starting to sound like you really fave no argument, you just feel the need to “defend” Trek and have no real argument, so are throwing things off the top of your head. Grow the hell up.
#31 — You’re absolutely right about Space 1999! It’s a damned shame that season one of that series gets forgotten.
When I saw Star Wars, was actually not that impressed as I felt I had seen similar type effects in Space 1999.
Plus, let’s not forget Silent Running — which also had great special effects!
But, I don’t think any Trek film should ever really try to emulate Star Wars — except by maybe presenting epic vistas and production values. But that’s pretty generic of any great motion picture.
and if JJ didn’t do interviews and Bob Orci was not kind enough to join us here…. what would there be to moan about?
There will always be the Trek vs Wars debate.
#142—”I think what Abrams means is in regards to the effects. Lucas does have Star Trek beat in that area, but my gosh, I’d rather have good characters and good stories than great effects.”
I think you’re correct about what he means. If I can only have one or the other, I too would prefer the rich characters and intriguing stories. But why does adding great effects seem to prompt so many to believe that characters and story will suffer? I think that it is quite possible to have both, and quite frankly, I don’t expect the iconic characters of the TOS-era to suffer any loss of depth at the hands of special effects.
I think that Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman know and understand these characters, and Abrams, Lindelof, and Burk have done a fine job on their own of creating interesting characters on “Lost”. I might be inclined to be skeptical of the story—but I’m not, and I’ll tell you why.
JJ Abrams could easily have decided to merely produce this film. Why not? He was never that big of a Trek fan. But he didn’t. Something about this story prompted JJ to actually direct it. I don’t take that lightly. I also do not dismiss the fact that something about this script appealed to Nimoy as well. I have a feeling that we, as fans, are in for a treat—and so might the rest of the World.
I do not expect this film to be perfect. I have yet to see a Star Trek movie that was. But I think this film is in good and talented hands.
I think a lot of people are letting their fears get the best of them. Nowhere in that interview does JJ say he is turning Star Trek into Star Wars and in fact he says he is consciously trying to do something that isn’t just like SW.
I understand the concern and in fact I had some of those concerns before I saw the 20 minute preview. I wrote about that in my analysis:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/20/anthonys-thoughts-on-the-la-star-trek-movie-presentation/
let me quote myself, in a couple of pertinent places
1. the Bar scene
One thing I didn’t mention, but is worth noting is how they used aliens in that bar. While Kirk and Uhura banter there is this amazing alien sitting between them making all these (omg I wish these two would go away) faces. Some who saw it think that the character may be a nod to DS9’s Morn, although the face looked to be a mix of cgi and make-up effects. Instead of filling the bar with crazy aliens, they do this one, with great effect.
2. Kirk is not Solo
It is true that Chris Pine talked about Harrison Ford and that had me concerned, but that is not what we get. Again from my report:
In the 20 minute preview, where you saw the SW effect the most was in the space battle scene above Vuclan. There was a lot going on, but the main big ships (the Enterprise and Narada) were still not darting around like X-Wings. They still kept that Naval ship feel that we are used to, but there was also a lot of other activity, shuttles, space debris, etc.
I love Star Wars, I love Star Trek. I dont want Trek to become Star Wars, but I do believe that SW has had some elements to be learned from. The creature effects in Star Wars are fantastic, the effects are great, the action is fun, etc. But in a sense is that taking from Star Wars or taking from WW2 movies and Errol Flynn movies?
Again I understand the concerns, but after seeing the 20 minute screening, I didn’t see ST being turned into SW, but maybe a few touches where it raised the bar on effects, creatures, and action. And that’s OK with me.
122. tman, I respect your thoughts and will largely heed your advice as to the futility of explaining these things but as I want to avoid venturing into this territory on this site in the future, I just wanted to add the following….
I simply think its simply intellectually dishonest, and for the most part emotionally untrue, to dismiss the SW prequels with a kneejerk reaction of “it’s all a pile of shit and Lucas is an untalented hack” that so many people seem comfortable with out of either some rigid agenda or personal disappointment (again, not aimed at you, tman). Personally, while I like the prequels very much (but didn’t refer to them as all the stuff of “genius” though there’s a measure of genius in each, SITH in particular), they don’t stand in the same league with Lucas’ first three movies as a filmmaker — THX-1138, American Graffiti, and the ‘77 original Star Wars, three movies that are each a kind of pop masterpiece and true portents of, if not visionary, then truly original work. (And to assure you, I’m not some Lucas stooge — among my other favorite films and filmmakers are Robert Altman (MASH, Nashville), Kubrick (Strangelove, 2001), FFCoppola (The Conversation, Apocalypse Now). Also, I’m a filmmaker — larger because of Lucas’ influence that of these other talented artists.)
I just hold it a fair opinion to acknowledge the prequels as amazing, well-conceptualized and enlivened visions, modern pop epics that connect with their three predecessors/narrative follow-ups stylistically while differing in tone and content as they assume the shape more of “historical, costume pieces”, a shallow but genuinely cinematic “War and Peace” in outer space.
They heralded the power of digital moviemaking in ways many people don’t realize and, I think, they’re smarter in their sense of politics, history, morality and such inherently science-fiction themes as “mankind’s relationship to its machines” than many people give them credit for.
That’s it. That’s all. I’m sticking to all things TREK around here from now on (or at least til May) unless unduly provoked. May the Force Be with You all and I hope you all Live Long and Prosper.
I can see the sales pitch to the execs now:
“We’re making it look like Star Wars, but BETTER!”
How far sci fi has come from Asimov, Rodenberry, Verne and Doyle.
Lucas is not included. He stole from all of the above, even ripped off mythology and a Japanese book.
Please JJ, don’t let this movie suck.
Who is playing Jar Jar?
So let me get this straight, most fans are complaining because JJ Abrams has looked at Star Wars to seek inspiration. Whats so bad about that? He never once said, ‘ I know, I’ll make this more about special effects than the characters. I’m gonna pi$$ all over the optimism and essence of what Star Trek is ‘. Some of you fans need to get a grip.
If Star Trek is to survive, it needs to adapt to the modern times. If not, the movie will tank faster than the titanic. It needs to appeal to the average moviegoer. 40 – 90 million dollars is not enough these days nor should it be. Star Trek deserves a bigger canvas to say to people who think the franchise is dead, ‘ This is what star trek can be if given the budget and resources.’ Think about it, do fans really want glorified T.V episodes packaged as ‘movies’ all the time. If so then its bye bye star trek and the only source of future trek will be novels and fan movies.
I find JJ’s deference to Star Wars annoying not because Star Trek is a slam dunk as better than Star Wars, but because he does not seem to recognize or give merit to the aspects of Star Trek that make it superior in some respects (real world drama being one of them).
Star Trek has always been grounded in current day events best exemplified in the films by Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI. Star Trek IV has a high-minded message about environmentalism, a real world challenge. And Star Trek VI is a high-minded analogue to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trek’s human characters highlight human challenges, where Star Wars provides little more than an escape from reality. Trek is real sci-fi drama whereas Wars is sci-fi fantasy. That is Star Trek’s strength, and I wish JJ would speak more to Trek’s strengths over Star Wars than its superficial inferiority.
Also, I agree with posters like #24. Star Wars most recent visual effects have been so hyper-detailed as to make them a headache to watch. It is a chaos of visual glam in which little relation can be found between its protagonists and real human challenges.
Hopefully, despite JJ’s anti-Trek rhetoric, he will realize the best of both worlds. A *bit of Star Wars visual scale, and a lot more of Trek’s human drama.
I will say this.
If indeed it is a parallel timeline, then it doesn’t matter if it IS like Star Wars.
The new fans will be happy, and the old fans will keep their cerebral universe.
I really dont understand all the “Omg its going to be Star Wars VII” arguements, everything JJ says there is suggesting he is avoiding being like Star Wars, stating that while he can take the quality of special effects that Star Wars invented, he knows that Star Trek is sooo good because it is a focused, character driven piece, and thats what he is focusing on!!
I think people need to stop reading the odd word and panicing and rather read what he says carefully and accept that he knows what he is doing!
This IS going to be Star Trek…you need to accept that, and if you don’t like the moments that are different, which I am sure there’ll be very very few, then perhaps you have the problem, not JJ and his Trek team, and the majority of fans! Trek has to move on, and JJ is doing a good job of it!
Please people…instead of digging Star Trek an early grave, have hope that it will be the Trek we ALL love!
#153—”I find JJ’s deference to Star Wars annoying not because Star Trek is a slam dunk as better than Star Wars, but because he does not seem to recognize or give merit to the aspects of Star Trek that make it superior in some respects (real world drama being one of them).”
That’s probably because he isn’t speaking about anything but the visual appeal of Star Wars. He’s quite clearly talking about designs and visual effects.
The elements of drama and the fact that the Star Trek Universe is an extension of our own (a potential future for Humanity) wasn’t a topic of conversation here.
And there is no denying that, in terms of appeal at the box office, the Star Wars films were far more successful. Star Wars was, for many of us who are part of that generation, a very visual experience.
Frankly, I don’t see that adding that element into the Star Trek Universe is going to damage it.
Addition does not automatically mean subtraction.
“Star Trek is positing a future that is incredibly inspiring… there’s something very exciting about that. This is not ‘Star Wars’ which happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is us and our future.”—-JJ Abrams
“There is something about that spirit of innovation, collaboration, possibility, adventure and optimism that is inherent in what Star Trek was.”—JJ Abrams
“I watched episodes, I read up a lot, I watched the movies, I talked to people, whether it was our “Trek” consultant or one of the two writers [Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci] about what it would mean to do what we wanted to do. We have one producer, Bob [Orci], who is a complete Trekker and another in Bryan Burk who had never seen an episode of the show ever. And it was a great balance. We could make sure it passed the test of the ultimate fan and the ultimate neophyte and make sure that it was equally entertaining to both parties.”—JJ Abrams
“…the beauty of what Roddenberry created is there is such an abundance of opportunities with these characters and [deciding] which elements of the original series we want to revisit. There’s this great opportunity there for further stories and I would definitely be involved in that.”—JJ Abrams
He gets it. I have no doubt of that.
#148 Anthony.
Thanks for setting some things straight. Nice to hear from someone who actually HAS seen something of the film instead of hearing from “experts” who’s facts are based on assumption.
117. Sam Belil
“..HUMAN DRAMA set in the future…”
Exactly. People here seem to regard Trek as the epitome of science fiction. ST has never been Hard sci-fi. At its’ best, Trek has been a human drama that uses the trappings of science fiction as a means to let us look outside ourselves. The environment is different, but the characters are familiar.
I’ll be honest and say that I am very much looking forward to this movie, no matter what anyone says. I may be setting myself up for disappointment, but it’s mine to live with if I am. I refuse to be dictated by anyone else. I personally feel JJ’s made some good choices, being keenly aware some choices he has made have been met with resistance/disappointment/vitriol by the Trek faithful.
But I ask this: Seeing as how Trek fandom is so divided over what constitutes “good” Trek, is anyone here so ignorant enough to believe that Star Wars fans love all of Star Wars? I loved episodes IV-VI, thought Phantom Menace was okay, didn’t like Clones, and didn’t even bother to see RotS. Star Wars fans are as obsessed as we are with Trek, but neither side can see past the ends of their phasers, or lightsabers.
#158 – “who’s facts are based on assumption.”
Exactly. As well as putting words in people’s mouths and implying fallacies.
Even after it is has repeated numerous times that J.J. is only discussing the scope of how Star Wars protrayed its universe, there are still going to be some that will just repeat the same unmerited fallacies that have NOTHING to do with what he said.
I wish Abrams would shut his mouth. I completely disagree with everything he said Trek v Wars. I’m dreading what he has done to Star Trek more and more every day.
#161—Why would anyone be opposed to Abrams making the Star Trek Universe as visually appealing as Star Wars? I don’t get that.
It’s clear that he understands the difference:
“Star Trek is positing a future that is incredibly inspiring… there’s something very exciting about that. This is not ‘Star Wars’ which happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is us and our future.”—-JJ Abrams
Did you read the entire interview, or just the excerpt Anthony included in his article that talks about visual effects?
@ 161 – All he said was War has good visuals but Trek is the better character driven drama…I really dont understand how people are able to fabriacte what JJ says and can feel anything but positive about this Trek revival!
I dread what the fans that are fearful of change are going to do to Trek!
Seriously, If you honestly think that JJ is trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars then the word “ignorant” is an understatement when it comes to describing you.
It sounds like to me that JJ woke up each morning reminding himself that Trek must be different than Star Wars. That is a good thing. The philosophy is sound although I can’t see why the need to add SW elements would even come up (except from within himself).
However, Fringe seems like a good idea too…until you watch it. IMHO. The only thing that makes Fringe any different than what has come before is the attempt at shock value. The edits spend more time and close ups on the gore than previous mystery-solving TV shows. It’s as if the stories are contrived only to take us from one effects shot to another.
Wouldn’t it of been nice to get someone that prefers Star Trek to of done this? MI:3 was good but the rest of his stuff is meh. I hate what he did with the Enterprise. I’m going to see this movie more out of habit than being excited about this project.
Jai-1138
I think I pretty much agree with everything you said this time around. I really think Lucas was (and it’s buried in there somewhere) one of the greatest Directors and his influence on film-making with Star Wars, it’s byproduct (ILM), and it’s influence on the industry stand for themselves and I think anyone who belittles Lucas as a no-talent hack is not worth arguing with.
However, somewhere I found on the internet (maybe linked from SuperShadow) Lucas brainstorming with his audience about what he should have done different with his recent cartoons. The fact that he’s essentially a business owner trying to run a business comes across in Lucas’s own comments and, while I think that can be said about any successful filmmaker, it just seems like he’s managing the production from a board room with tremendous resources at his disposal; so the resultant film is more of a manufactured product to make a return on investment, than it also being an artistic product resulting from the natural collaboration of Director, Producer, writers and actors working to make something they are proud of under myriad constraints…
And for everyone else, I think some of his holding up Star Wars as a model may be more along the lines of the cliff-hanger action and the visuals. Visuals were discussed alot, but if you look at MI3, Cloverfield, Lost, Alias, and some of the other JJ properties (you will notice I don’t include Fringe…) they are great action for an audience to watch and the fact that he points out Wrath of Khan so much to me implies that he enjoys making action films. I think if you look at almost or all of the other Star Trek films, that excitement isn’t there due to some combination of budget constraints, bad script, the age of the actors, bad direction and editing.
#159 — Thanks Thomas, and think about some of the great/good actors of the time who also starred in those season #1 epsidoes, playing such memorable characters as:
1-Sam Cogley
2-Commadore Stone
3-Kahn
4-Edith Keeler
5-Commadore Mendez
6-Captain Pike (Jeffrey Hunter was pretty popular actor late 50s’/early 60s)
7-Miri…..just to name a few
THAT is what I want from this movie — GREAT STORY telling!
Is that asking so much? Think about the best epsiodes of TNG, DS9 — Yetserday’s Enterprise, Inner Light, The Visitor — they were GREAT DRAMA!!!
escaping shadow of Star Wars
To me it seems JJ is trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars.
I get frustrated by this guy.
“Meeesa tinks we betta go to warp now capeetayn!”
“Good idea JarJaaaar Bleenks, Warp Five!”
“Meeesa tinks dart Vadaaah eesa coming!”
“Shhh!! You mean the bad guys!”
“Okeee Dokeeeey!”
Star Wars? George Lucas doesn’t even know what Star Wars is anymore.
This is ridiculous.
No matter what JJ says, purist fans are going to find something wrong with it. Its like every word he says is being scrutinized in every possible detail.
I guess some people are naturally born cynical. Puzzling, as Star Trek was never suppose to appeal to the cynical type in the first place. All the people that complain about this not looking like the original or just being plain different are the ones who truly don’t get Star Trek. To the people that say that Roddenberry is rolling in his grave because of this new movie, you’re right, except its not because of the movie, its because of the fan reaction this movie has been getting. Even his own son said he would have approved of this movie, and his wife, the late Majel Barrett-Rodenberry, even took part in it.
#166. If I was a big director, and Paramount asked me to do this project, I’d be doing exactly what JJ’s talking about. For that matter, if I had the interview with the LA Times, and was ASKED THE QUESTION HE WAS ASKED, I would give probably the same response.
Star Trek is in need of change. Star Wars is better in some aspects. Star Trek is better in some aspects. Take the good aspects of Star Wars and put that with the good aspects of Trek, and you get a very fine Star Trek film. Star Trek needs realism in order to keep the audience in the film.
If the audience can’t connect to it, why bother? This is the problem with Star Trek 9 and 10. They had no connection to an outside audience. Why was First Contact so good? It dealt with the Borg and it had good writing. Insurrection was a two hour episode of Next Generation. Nemesis was outrightly bad. I’ve watched that movie twice. Once in theaters and once when I bought the DVD.
Unlike some of you people, I’m still supporting the franchise even if I don’t like it. I have HOPE that it’ll turn around. That’s exactly what we’re going through right now.
My favorite series is Deep Space 9. It was, by far, the best character-driven show of them all. It dealt with issues in the Federation that hadn’t been explored. Such examples include WAR. Fighting.
Do you people not watch Star Trek? Are you so self centered about Star Trek that you ignore the fact that Season 3 of Enterprise was a big conflict, the last episode of Voyager likely wiped out the Borg, that the Dominion War took place on Deep Space 9, and that Picard was tortured by the Cardassians on Next Gen?
It seems like a lot of us who are a bit reserved about falling in love with the movie before its out have been misunderstood here. I keep seeing people talking about how we say that he’s going to turn star trek into star wars, but I dont think that’s the point some of us are trying to make. What worries me is the idea that he seems so focused on star wars. And yes, the media does point that way, but if he wanted to he could get away from that stuff. I think it would have been best for him to have made this movie with out the notion of star wars in any way. I dont think for a moment that this movie is going to be going towards star wars, but I am worried that its going to take the same direction star wars did in 99. In a way, the first 10 movies were kind of like the first 3 star wars, not all of them perfect, but for the most part genuine. Then comes episode 1, which instead of going off of story telling goes more for just action and good cgi and things that are just catchy (to some at least). What I see in this article is JJ saying that he headed in the same direction as episodes 1-3, going off of good cgi and lots of action and catchy people in it, which doesnt mean true or deep. To me, trek films like TWOK, IV, and FC, did excel at grabbing the non-trekkie audience, and I think if some of the other films had been marketed better they could have done the same thing. I think JJ has ignored where the previous films did well and where they failed. But I do worry that though some alternate timeline thing he seems to be doing that he is going to morph star trek into his own vision that over a few movies will have nothing but names in common with the universe we all know. I really hope they wait for this movie to be out for a while before green lighting a squeal. Even if this does make good money and is enough to rez the franchise, it might be best to hand the torch off to somebody else for the next film…hopefully someone that doesnt rate star wars above star trek.
#169
“escaping shadow of Star Wars
To me it seems JJ is trying to turn Star Trek into Star Wars.
I get frustrated by this guy.”
So he’s differentiating Star Trek from Star Wars by turning Star Trek INTO Star Wars? That makes absolutely no sense.
161. Doug. Calm. Repeat after me: Ommmmmm. It will all be okay, I promise.
166, Critic. “Meh”? Did you just discount all of Abrams’ output as “meh”? I can mayyyybe understand people who criticize it for being too convuluted or overhyped, but. . . “meh”? It is definitely NOT “meh.” It’s not even “feh.” Or “eh,” if you want to know.
I haven’t yet grooved to “Fringe,” but “M:I:3″ was better than it had any business being. As for “Cloverfield” — well, I really liked it. And “Lost.”. . . I’ve said before and I’ll say again that “Lost” is the best !@@##$ thing on broadcast television right now.
If people are wigging out just because JJ admits he’s been a “Star Wars” fan since childhood, then they need to take a chill pill. It’s a long life, people.
I like Star Wars, and I like Star Trek. I think the original trilogy were the best three SW films. Also, the Star Trek movie franchise had a trilogy of it’s own.. 2-4. If JJ can capture the characters and dial down some of the Star Wars bells and whistles so they don’t take over the movie, I think we will be okay.
Star Trek may have saved the whales, but atleast it doesn’t have Jar Jar Binks ;)
#175 – Without sounding like I am being disrespectful of opinions, hardly any of the negative opinions make sense in this talk back section since I am not sure most of them know what he said, let alone what they are saying!
Well, the movie IS going to come out in May, and people ARE going to go see it, and most likely, all of these worries will completely dissipate and this movie will be loved and remembered. I think it will be funny, after everyone sees the movie, to go back and look at these discussions. To look at all these concerns and insults and praises and see just how either wrong or even right we were.
______
Its funny hearing people talk bad about Star Wars. When Star Wars came out, it was an instant success. When Star Trek came out, most people didn’t give a damn and most of its popularity wasn’t gained until reruns. So to say that Star Trek doesn’t need even an ounce of anything from Star Wars is a pretty close-minded idea. Plus, it doesn’t sound like this new Star Trek will be anything like Star Wars, so it doesn’t matter anyway.
142
“I dunno. Sometimes I think Abrams gets it, and sometimes I don’t.”
Pete Fernbaugh that definitely sums it up for me.
I believe I’m quoting myself from more than a year ago but I thought it was clever, if not apt, at the time…..I prefer my peanut butter and chocolate separate. Especially judging by the last three Reese’s peanut butter cups they released.
Aside from that…they’re two different things.
Again, I say to thee….”I dunno. Sometimes I think Abrams gets it, and sometimes I don’t.”
I like to discuss Star Wars and Star Trek as differing forms of poetry.
Star Wars is likened to the limerick in my comparison and, therefore, relatively easy to compose, perform and recall. Its rhyme affects the listener in a simple, basic way.
However, to me, Star Trek is more akin to a classic haiku. Therefore, it’s style is constricting and often more challenging to create with instant satisfaction for the larger audience. Special discipline and skill is required to craft and deliver this type of poetry to make it appealing to the masses
Yet it’s reassuring and gratifying that director-Abrams has repeatedly proven he’s in touch with the tastes of contemporary audiences in a way Roddenberry and Berman, god love ‘em, never were. And, FINALLY, Paramount Studios has stepped up-to-the-plate and provided adequate monies and production values to advance Star Trek’s success in a way they NEVER did for those preceding, disadvantaged-producers. Nevertheless, I do find it ironic, that the Studio has, once again, turned to a budget-conscious, TV-based talent to advance the Trek-franchise. Just as Roddenberry and Rick Berman and, most successfully, Harve Bennett were.
May I confess my preference for more “superstars” among it’s cast? I mean the first Star Wars featured Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness! Jack Nicholson’s Joker helped Tim Burton’s Batman initiate the rebirth of that franchise. The Dark Knight co-stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman. Harry Potter flix have their big-names as do the Spiderman and X-Men series (as did Lord Of The Rings, etc). The Day The Earth Stood Still remake even had Keanu Reeves (oops! I just disproved my point! Lol).
Of course, I am expecting fantastic surprises from this new cast. Yet there’d be more PROOF that Star Trek is seriously movin’ on up to the motion-picture “big leagues” if proven box-office names were attached to it. And the older-stars would contribute some gravitas to the performances, while simultaneously broadening the pic’s demographic-potential. This isn’t simply a Smallville-does-Star Trek effort, is it?
Yes, with screenwriters Orci & Kutzmam, Abram’s Transformer-features do achieve great commercial success with a profitably large, although limited, demographic. However, nothing could differentiate and distinguish a new TrekFilm more than to emphasize its intelligence, maturity and true sci-fi roots (while capturing its humanity and futuristic outlook). Remolding Trek into more fantasy-adventure retro eye-candy (merely populated with broad themes of loyalty and love and finding a purpose in one’s life) obviously turns Star Trek into Star Wars. To me, that’d be a cheat. With all that money, inexpensive-cast and lots of expensive-CGI, it’s so much easier to clone Star Wars. As opposed to, finally, making the new Star Trek REAL and entertaining to modern audiences. Just as the original series was during it’s appearance in the late 1960’s.
Will this TrekFilm, or it’s inevitable sequel, achieve Academy Awards nomination in MORE than simply the technical-fields (as Chris Nolan’s 2nd Batman flick has)? Is this gritty-007 with Daniel Craig or a lighthearted Roger Moore Bond-romp? Is JJ aiming high or low here?
Finally, perhaps they “boldly” went where no studio-trek “has gone before” and made Sulu gay in this alternate timeline? That would sure outdo Star Wars and make Star Trek contemporary!
LOL.
#9 McCoy’s Gall Bladder:
You are forgetting that ships that are so capable… would also be just as capable of dodging and avoiding fire from light years away.
One might need to engage close in order to get anything to land.
The Star Wars prequels, while ’satisfying’, were more like a video game trilogy. I still think good old fashioned MODEL ships (like in STII:TWOK) are FAR superior visually than anything they have with CGI today. Not saying that CGI isn’t getting better, or that it isn’t good NOW (and maybe for this new Trek movie), but the the Star Wars prequel trilogy??? No, it actually didn’t meet my expectations. Filming with real model ships, there’s always been a depth, scale, detail and realism that has always been lacking with CGI (IMHO). I think the space shots and battles in a movie like The Wrath of Khan still hold up quite nicely these days. I need to see REAL sets and REAL ships. I don’t think the Star Wars prequel trilogy is anything to strive for with future trek movies.
181. I’m spending way too much time on this board today, but you mentioned Alec Guinness, so I have to ask: Did anyone else hear Carrie Fisher on “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me”? She said Guinness paid Mark Hamill 20 pounds to go away.
And actually, Patrick, despite the 8 or 9 nominations, The Dark Knight earned most of its Oscar nods in the design & technical fields. Heath Ledger, yeah, and cinematography. But it didn’t score in the major categories. It wuz robbed, if you ask me.
No chance in hell a “Star Trek” movie would ever get nominated for best picture. I mean, I’d love to see the day, but I think the Academy’s a long way from nominating any kind of a genre flick in the top categories. Science fiction still doesn’t get much respect. Granted, The Lord of the Rings was a fantasy trilogy. . . . But that was based on a series of beloved books, not a TV show with styrofoam rocks. (But what exquisite styrofoam rocks they were!)
“The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it’s a no-win situation.”
On the contrary. Trek has always been about story and character. Star Wars was and has been since Empire, about selling a new toy.
Here we are 40 years later and TOS is STILL around because of the strong writing in many episodes. Star Wars just got worse and worse.
Now..if we could only get Quentin Tarantino to write and direct a Boba Fett movie THAT would revive the Star Wars films!!
some of your people are truly embarassing. Do you even know how to read? What exactly did he say that was so upsetting? I see nothing but good stuff in that interview?
I really think that some people made up their mind long ago and they just read the headlines and use that to trigger their knee-jerk hate fests…it is sad and pathetic.
No wonder people make fun of Star Trek fans, I don’t even want to be in the same group as some of you people.
The supreme irony is that JJ is actually giving Trek fans too much credit, here is something he actually said (not something that I made up to freak out about)
“You know, I would think that especially fans of “Star Trek,” which is an optimistic universe, a universe about working together and the possibility of the human endeavor, you would think that people who appreciate that wonderful portrait of the future and that universe would be open to literally going to a place no one has ever gone before. I’m very optimistic that fans of the show, even the pursuits, will be willing to embrace the spirit of Roddenberry and once they see these actors doing this extraordinary work, I think they will have to intellectualize it all, they’ll simply enjoy the experience.”
…That is certanly true of me. I feel sorry that some of you have lost the ability to read and are just in pure irrational freak-out mode
I wasn’t aware that Star Trek was in the shadow of Star Wars.
“Closettrekker” @ #156:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and I see your point given the context of the interview. However, I still hold reservations about an increased focus on visual effects. Not that I do not want the visual effects to improve, but the prequel Star Wars trilogy suffered as a result of the dominant focus on CGI. The original trilogy struck an appropriate balance in many respects; however, the new prequel series spent so much attention on the visuals that I believe the acting and the character moments may have suffered.
The previous Star Trek movies have not benefited from the same visual effects budgets as the Star Wars films. While additional visuals does not *necessarily detract from the movie, in the context of what has come before from Star Trek, there’s is a very real possibility it may detract. In many ways the limited effects budgets of the previous Star Trek films forced the writers to create more vivid characters and character moments. I’m thinking of scenes like Kirk’s birthday moments at the beginning of Star Trek II, or Kirk’s private chat with Spock in his quarters in Star Trek VI. I am not saying this translates into box office numbers, but I would rather have a richer character drama from Star Trek than visual eye candy.
Simply put, you’ve got 2 hours to tell the story. The more time that is spent on special effects shots and action sequences, the less time is spent on those character moments that I believe elevate Star Trek in some respects above Star Wars. Of course, this is largely a matter of personal preference. You may prefer the visual aspects of the movies than the character moments, but many Trekkies appreciate those character moments and are frustrated when they are cut for the sake of added visuals (Nemesis is a good example of this frustration).
“Here we are 40 years later and TOS is STILL around because of the strong writing in many episodes. Star Wars just got worse and worse.”
——————————————————————-
No you didn’t just go there. Star Trek has been on the decline since Deep Space 9 went off the air. Seasons 6 and 7 of Voyager barely held a candle to the last seasons of TNG or DS9. Enterprise was just a disappointment of a series, so badly managed that when it got good, it was too late.
Star Trek is on its deathbed right now. In fact, Star Trek DIED. But someone at Paramount used the defibrillator just enough times to get a weak pulse.
If this movie does well, Trek is back, alive and well. If it doesn’t, it’s a flat line and gone. Star Wars isn’t dead and it hasn’t been near death. The prequel trilogy may not be nearly as good as the original trilogy, but look at how it did in the box office. There’s a show on Cartoon Network. Eventually there’s going to be a live action show.
181- I don’t agree with your premise that big names are useful. Big names spend alot of the budget, help bring people into a theatre but also give an audience an expectation of who the actor is. If you look at a character like Obi-Wan or Tarkin in the original Star Wars they are archetypes and if a good actor is type-cast it helps but otherwise, you just need a good, experienced actor to own that role and deliver it. Sean Connery was a relative unknown in the 1st bond, Harrison Ford was in Star Wars. Noone in this cast is hurting in terms of acting credibility. They’ve got a stellar cast and probably spent far less to get them– heaven help the sequel if this one works.
188- I don’t think drama and effects are mutually exclusive. I think the last 30 minutes of 2001 are absolutely incredible in terms of both drama and effects. I think it’s just we’re so used to gratuitous effects that we forget that it can be done well….
#189- Well, Son, the difference is that Trek aims at an audience considerably older than, say, twelve.
Hence, a show on Cartoon Network is perfectly understandable.
Personally, I have always appreciated both franchises for different reasons. Star Wars is an exploration of myth against a sci-fi backdrop. It’s a dream, a fairytale, told in broad, iconic strokes set a long time ago and far, far away. Star Trek is a myth from the future, an exploration of what Roddenberry and those who came after thought we might be like a few hundred years from now.
And I would point out to Dr. Image that one of the many Star Trek spin-offs was an animated series. Animation and cartoons aren’t just for children.
189,191–
There’s a chat forum where George Lucas talks to his (well Star Wars equivalent of people like us…). There he was bemoaning the fact that he was forced to make a movie version of the TV show to please the people who wanted it to distribute, is feeling the heat from the poor appreciation of it, is whining (not being derogatory– just can’t think of a better word) that if he had made it more photorealistic depiction vs. the shading process that it used it would have cost too much and the project would not have been viable, and worrying whether the live action stuff will get picked up since people don’t invest after failure. I think he underestimates himself and his franchise, but thought it interesting to share.
I don’t think that Star Trek is aiming with focus at an audience older than 12 (I watch it with my 4 year old) but I think Dr Image’s comments are validated by George Lucas’s own comments with the release of the pre-quels where he was explicit to say (when he was criticized) that his films were never targetting an adult audience to begin with. If I’m wrong on this, it’s from my memory and from the heart so please, IF you want to make a cross and tack me up, use an interesting wood (olive comes to mind)…
Dr. Image – That doesn’t change the fact that Star Trek has been in decline since Deep Space 9 went off the air.
So what if they’re targeting a younger audience? Star Wars hasn’t or isn’t near death like Star Trek has been.
Frankly, I’m offended at your insinuation. I am a Trekkie. But I am a Star Wars fan. Am I a moron for liking both? Or should I not like Star Wars because it’s too low brow for the cerebral Trekkie?
Maybe that’s what’s wrong with Star Trek. It isn’t the show, it’s a portion of the hardcore fan base that’s isolated it.
“My name is Harvey Milk and I’m here to make fruit juice.” ~ Sean Penn
people will always hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.
I’m firmly rooted in reality these days.
I enjoyed Star Wars, but I never bought into it. I liked Trek because it is deep. The Haiku reference above is really apt. Haiku takes so much work to make images with only a limited number of words. AND it’s harder still in English. Japanese the word is also an image. How many of you know that an “A” is an upside down ox head or a “B” is a house? How often do you look at an A and think of cattle? or use an A to represent a bull?
What does this have to do with Trek09? Dunno, maybe there’s a deeper message in it.
So much is lost.
Peace and Chicken Grease
Then one day I got over it. I found out I liked kissing girls
#194: Actually a neat-o TrekMovie.com chart showed a few years ago that Trek has been in decline since TNG Season 6–the *start* of DS9.
Which proves that quality had nothin’ to do with it. :P
It will not be my favourite Trek movie but I believe I will enjoy it when it hits
152 Sci Fi Geek: “‘ This is what star trek can be if given the budget and resources.’”
I don’t think that budget and resources are sufficient. There are movies which had that and which suck bigtime nonetheless. You also need someone with a great Star Trek vision. It remains to be seen if JJ is such a person.
“Think about it, do fans really want glorified T.V episodes packaged as ‘movies’ all the time.”
I do.
“If so then its bye bye star trek and the only source of future trek will be novels and fan movies.”
You can’t predict that this would really mean bye bye. It depends on how well ‘glorified TV episodes’ are made. But should JJ really ruin Trek, novels and non-commercial Star Trek movies is what Trek is gonna be for me.
I simply don’t think that commercial success is the measure of all things.
On a second thought, maybe Phase II already IS Star Trek to me. At least I found myself ten times as excited waiting for Blood and Fire I than I ever was about JJ’s movie since the first details and JJ interviews came out.
I have to say that I am annoyed with the idea that Trek is in the shadow of Star Wars, especially hearing it come from JJ Abrams. Please. Each are different and fine in their own right. Star Trek should be respected and lauded for itself and its own accomplishments.
I see Star Wars as a Futuristic Fantasy and not Science Fiction. There’s no connection to us (as humans or our future as it happened long long ago in a galaxy far far away), nor any commentary on society and its issues (which is the definition of the sci-fi genre and not the trappings of aliens and technology). To compare the two is just wrong.
Trek is Sci-Fi in that it created allegories for current events using aliens to tell them in order for us to explore issues of the day more theoretically. That is what good science fiction does and is supposed to do.
The people who have made Star Trek have always said its about the people and the stories and not the cool tech or the awesome aliens. Mind you TOS didn’t have much of a budget, so that might have been a good spin… but it holds up and stands true to the genre of science fiction.
Now I am not disagreeing that there are things that Star Wars did right (Particularly Episode 4, 5 and 6). What Star Wars did right… and Lucas has publicly credited Joesph Campbell for this was the Hero’s Journey in the saga of Luke Skywalker.
Star Trek needs do to that for Kirk and Spock. If they do that well and successfully (which is what I hope they do in this movie) — Trek will have a true Renaissance. I hope to heck that JJ realizes that.
So, escape the shadow of Star Wars to JJ means make this is as lowest-common-denominator as possible?
Good job, dickweed.
Interesting. In past interviews he seemed to diss the last three Star Wars movies a bit. However, in this interview he seems to embrace them. In my view, they were awful films. CGI monstrosities; not “real” at all. Stilted dialogue and wooden acting. Why aspire to emulate THAT??? I did enjoy the first two of the first trilogy. They did indeed open up possibilities. But it must be acknowledged that those films borrowed heavily from Trek. So we have come full circle.
“The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it’s a no-win situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me that the key to “Star Trek” was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the “Star Wars” film accomplished.”
JJ gets it… it’s about Kirk, Bones, Spock… It’s about the Enterprise.
It is also about getting a generation that grew up with the fanciful but empty Star Wars eye-candy to come to our Franchise and say “Hey, this is cool.” I think JJ is right on here… From the inside out… the inside being the people that we’ve come to admire, the characters we love.
Tbonz: “The last three Star Wars movies sucked. They were visually appearing, but the stories and characters were lacking.”
THANK YOU. SOMEONE WHO KNOWS GOOD MOVIES.
You know, they were almost kinda like “Star Trek: TMP” (nobody shoot me!)
BUt, anyways, what’s this? A SHADOW? Nuh-uh. I beg to differ. Star Trek has been a phenomenon since the early ’70’s, if I’m not mistaken, and it started in ‘66. Maybe it’s been overshadowed in terms of special effects, but shame on JJ Abrams!! It sounded like he was baggin’ on Star Trek!
In spite of what some think, Star Trek’s popularity has definitely been sub-par with Star Wars. This is apparent in many ways, but here’s a couple: minimal Star Trek reruns, and shrinking space in bookstores. There was a time you could find Star Trek reruns on numerous local stations, playing at important time-slots. One of the local Boston stations runs TOS remastered at 2:30am on Saturday morning. Apart from VOY and DS9 on Spike (and they’ve just been dropped), and TNG and ENT on Sci-Fi (even here, Trek is waning), it is hard to find Star Trek on tv at a decent hour (I am certainly aware of TNG going back to syndication, and one can only hope it will achieve what TOS achieved in syndication). Of course, Star Wars has no tv programming to speak of, but Star Wars is a film franchise, unlike Trek, whose roots were always in tv (even the films had tv budgets). As for bookstores, both my local Borders and Barnes & Noble have reduced shelf space for Star Trek by more than half. Where there used to be several rows dedicated to every Trek series, now there are a handful of recent books. Whereas the Star Wars books are fully represented, taking over much of the space that used to contain Trek books.
Star Trek was suffering from overload and burn-out. Much of Trek had become familiar, worn and banal. Certainly, it was not always this way, but I ask you: if TOS began on tv today, what do you think would happen to it? Do you think it would gather the same sort of following it did during the 70’s in syndication? (It wasn’t a success during its original run, remember?)
I think JJ is a very smart guy who knows how to make movies and how to attract an audience. I still keep reminding all those who say, “JJ is not a Trek fan,” that it was JJ who made Star Trek part of his Paramount deal. He obviously believed that something could be done with Star Trek, and he’s doing what he does best: movie-making and attracting an audience. If Star Trek turns out to be a major hit, does anyone really think Paramount will worry about a minority of nay-sayers? The same sort of hard-core Trek fans who diss Star Wars never had any effect on the box office success of SW, so those who are dissing new Trek are unlikely to have any real effect on the box office.
@ 98. Mr Lirpa -
Lighten up, Francis… My God man, what’s with the “personal attacks”, “hate JJ” and “unjustified bile” stuff.
May I address these in no particular order?
I don’t hate Team JJ. In sharing my opinion, I am critiquing his body of work. It is certainly not a personal attack. Quite frankly, if you IMDB JJ and compare his body of work to let’s say, Kubrick, Coen Bros, Speilberg, or David Lean some may understand why I feel justified in my opinion.
My hypothesis is supported by the following equation:
FY + A4k = BR
Now let’s assign values to the following variables in the equation:
FY = Forever Young
A4k = AWESOM-O 4000
BR = Bad Robot
Now remember, this is just a hypothesis. Further testing is required before a real theory can be published. Future tests will determine it’s validity by swapping the “FY” variable with:
Am = Armageddon
MI3= Mission Impossible III
To be honest, I don’t think this alone will yield a Theory of Everything, if you will, until we factor in a Orci/Kurtzman variable.
Dude. It’s a joke, not an attack.
I’ve heard music critics say that the Rolling Stones should’ve stopped making records after the “Some Girls” album. Does that mean they’re attacking Mick Jagger or hate him? Doubtful. It’s just their opinion.
Here another music analogy:
TOS/Roddenberry Era is to the Van Halen/David Lee Roth Era,
as TNG/Berman is to the Van Halen/Sammy Hagar Era,
as the ST09/JJ Era is to Van Halen/Gary Cherone, Mitch Malloy, Who Even Cares Anymore Era.
BTW, that’s a joke too.
@ 201. Imrahil:
Very nice… Expect to catch flak. I always do, ha ha.
I most certainly hope that J. J. Abrams doesn’t make the same mistake that George Lucas did with his Star Wars prequels. The classic Star Wars trilogy is one of the greatest set of movies ever made. Both the characters and the plot were, in my humble opinion, very well developed and displayed. The prequels, on the other hand, more or less sucked. Lucas focused so much on the special effects and the background (which were very good in their own right) that the actual plot and characters were shallow and even pathetic. I’m sure most Star Trek fans will be interested in seeing all the new special effects, but not at the expense of the characters and the story. I hope that Abrams has learned from Lucas’ many recent follies.
@ P Technobabble
You are exactly right sir. While I have my reservations about this movie, I am hopeful that it will introduce a whole new generation of people into the wonders of Star Trek.
This is idiotic. Since when has STAR TREK even been in the shadows of STAR WARS? Both are the two biggest Sci-Fi franchises in the history of Hollywood. One could not overshadow the other if they tried.
The classic Star Wars trilogy is one of the greatest set of movies ever made. Both the characters and the plot were, in my humble opinion, very well developed and displayed. The prequels, on the other hand, more or less sucked. Lucas focused so much on the special effects and the background (which were very good in their own right) that the actual plot and characters were shallow and even pathetic.
Oh brother!
This sounds like the typical Star Trek vs. Star Wars CRAP I have encountered every now and then. Why in the hell must one franchise be better than the other?
Stat Terk Is BOREING Star Wars Bets out Star Terk Buy a long shot if need something help you sleep just put a Star Terk on that will put you a sleep.