Last edited:
Here's the Entertainment Weekly article:
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
I didn't think so. He's coming at this from the POV that's most likely to make it work. He's never been a big Trek fan - well, that's probably good.
*sigh* The article is still highly inaccurate....the newer shows were at the top of their game production wise--award winners even--not "cheesy" they still seem out of touch with modern trek.
RAMA
That's not a matter of inaccuracy. It's a difference of opinion.
I like just about all "Star Trek," some of it more than other parts. That said, what they're doing here is at base what I hoped would happen after the last "Star Trek" TV series folded: they're returning to the core material that first defined Trek and casting off most of what came later.
Everything after the original television series is one lengthy elaboration of the original - and it's done. It petered out.
Abrams and Paramount are introducing a new version based directly on TOS. Not that they'll probably intentionally trip over any of the post-TOS continuity - they've evidently incorporated those parts of it that they can use in this story, and most deviations will most likely be both trivial and accidental (though not trivial enough to avoid much wailing and gnashing of teeth among hard core fans) - but it's just not important to what they're doing.
Needless to say, if the new "Star Trek" is a success then future productions will use it as their main touchstone and the whole Franchise will evolve off in an increasingly divergent way from pre-Abrams Trek.
Sorry for the double post, but I agree, all this re-imaging and new bridge and different look and storyline are just getting rid of the other stuff and getting to the core of what Trek is.
If we have to lose canon to get a good story and entertaining Star Trek, I say bring it on!
Its not opinion, it shows a complete lack of knowledge. Modern Trek's numerous award wins and nominations for its technical merit within the industry demonstrate they have a better understanding than the journalist who worte the article.
RAMA
No. Whether a lot of Trek looks "cheesy" is entirely a matter of taste and opinion, and the person who wrote this piece is far from alone among folks who have watched Trek and are familiar with it.
Awards are nice, but there is no "objective standard" for this kind of thing, sorry.
The Enterprise "E" and most all of the associated design - uniforms, etc. - has always struck me as nearly unbearably cheesy.
Technical awards aside, the author is still free to consider the shows to be "cheesy looking" if he/she wants to. That's a purely subjective matter. In any case, the only "cheese" reference I could find in the article was a reference to Trek as a whole becoming (in the writer's opinion) "retro Sci-Fi cheese". That refers to the author's view of the state of the franchise, IMO, not specifically to production values of the later series. Or were you thinking of a different passage?
Originally, TOS was all about the storytelling with the bonus of action. I think JJ Abrams may get is back to telling a good story with action.
When TNG came out I remember people crying that the bridge has too many chairs and it's too big and all the wrong colors... I'm sure many will say the same thing. When the new TOS movies came out they did the same. When Ent-E came along it was the same. We've already had cries on this board along this line, e.g.-that new standing station is all wrong; it's too bright; etc.
I think I'll just be patient and see what story JJ Abrams tells in his movie. Then I'll get used to whatever new design he uses and watch for new stories.
Meanwhile.... KOOL PICS!!! YO DUDE I'M PSYCHED!!!
When TNG came out I remember people crying that the bridge has too many chairs and it's too big and all the wrong colors... I'm sure many will say the same thing. When the new TOS movies came out they did the same. When Ent-E came along it was the same. We've already had cries on this board along this line, e.g.-that new standing station is all wrong; it's too bright; etc.
I think I'll just be patient and see what story JJ Abrams tells in his movie. Then I'll get used to whatever new design he uses and watch for new stories.
Meanwhile.... KOOL PICS!!! YO DUDE I'M PSYCHED!!!
Here's the bit that matters from that piece:
Abrams says he was also drawn to the project because he believed in — and wanted to evangelize — Trek's unabashed idealism. ''I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now,'' says Abrams, whose infectiously upbeat energy and disdain for cynicism are among his most marked attributes. (Not for nothing did Abrams give Randy Pausch, the now-late author of The Last Lecture and avowed Trekker, a cameo in the film.) That ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade's worth of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both presidential nominees run on ''hope'' and ''change,'' Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light. ''In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,'' Abrams says. ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''
Abrams says he was also drawn to the project because he believed in — and wanted to evangelize — Trek's unabashed idealism. ''I think a movie that shows people of various races working together and surviving hundreds of years from now is not a bad message to put out right now,'' says Abrams, whose infectiously upbeat energy and disdain for cynicism are among his most marked attributes. (Not for nothing did Abrams give Randy Pausch, the now-late author of The Last Lecture and avowed Trekker, a cameo in the film.) That ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade's worth of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both presidential nominees run on ''hope'' and ''change,'' Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light. ''In a world where a movie as incredibly produced as The Dark Knight is raking in gazillions of dollars, Star Trek stands in stark contrast,'' Abrams says. ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''
My point is he is talking about TOS and perhaps some of the early ST movies. He is dismissing later ST projects and doesn't really mention them in this context. It doesn't apply to later Trek Tv shows and movies, which were consistent with modern tech...and YES, I regard people within the industry as better judges than uninformed journalists.
RAMA
I'm not going to lie, continuity flaws I can live with. But ignoring post-TOS completely would be idiotic. Still, while EW is dissing post-TOS shows, I don't think that is Abrams' own total view. You have to remember that EW is trying to sell this movie (and article) to non-trek fans who probably raised their noses at TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
Ummmm....no....it's Trekkies. We're fans of a TV show, not hill-climbing adventurers (not mutually exclusive).
However this quote pleased me immensely:
I couldn't stand Dark Knight's dreary outlook and the amount of people that subscribed to it. I'm very glad that this movie may blow that away.
Ummmm....no....it's Trekkies. We're fans of a TV show, not hill-climbing adventurers (not mutually exclusive).
It's very sad that we live in a world where this quote is a good sign. It really hurts me that for Trek to be successful it has to be handed to a crew that can't take its canon & setting seriously. I know I'm being silly but hearing stuff like this really hurts; even for a guy who isn't a hardcore uniform-toting Trekkie.
However this quote pleased me immensely:
I couldn't stand Dark Knight's dreary outlook and the amount of people that subscribed to it. I'm very glad that this movie may blow that away.
Similar threads
