It's Trek, Jim, but not as we know it: Star Trek XI preview
December 5th 2008 02:29
Let me just get this out of the way straight away. I enjoy Star Trek. Allow that concept to sink in for a moment. When pressed, I say I prefer it to Star Wars. Always have. Whereas most kids have fond memories of growing up with George Lucas’ galaxy far, far away; I was lost in the final frontier. I didn’t even see Star Wars: A New Hope until after I was already into all things Trek. Although I did love SW, and enjoy both of the two sci-fi series; it’s almost like Elvis and the Beatles (you can like both, but always one more than the other).
Trek is more intelligent, and there are more than three good movies in the franchise. Plus, there aren’t any Muppets, or Jar Jar Binks.
But for some reason, it has never quite captured the mainstream audience the way SW has. Whereas SW has crossed over to the general public, and appeals to kids and adults alike, ST still remains pretty much an underground cult phenomenon, despite having been around for 42 years. The average Joe on the street backs away when you say you’re a Trekkie. I remember the days of having to hide my Trek mags and books under my coat to avoid being bashed up by Neanderthals at school. It’s time for a change.
Next year sees the release of director J.J Abrams’ (Lost, Fringe, Alias, Felicity, Mission Impossible 3) high-budget movie reimagining of Star Trek. He’s taken things back to basics. No Next Generation or shiny gold androids, or bald Frenchmen captains (with curious English accents). No Barbie Borgs with large assets. It’s back to the original series, baby. Kirk and Spock. Funky retro aesthetics. Expendable redshirts. Every self-respecting sci fi fan knows that the original Trek is where its at. Over the years, much like Star Wars, the greatness of the original was overshadowed and diluted by reams of inferior sequels (and prequels. The SW prequels really weren’t a patch on the originals, whilst Enterprise really was not up to par as a Trek series). The fanbase became factionalised and fragmented. It’s time for a comeback.
I’m hoping this can be the movie to do it. If anyone can bring Trek to the mainstream, Abrams is the man. The movie needs to bring in a wider audience, and not just target the hardcore fans, because they alone aren’t enough to bring in the numbers at the box office. The film features a new, younger cast (including Heroes’ Zachary (Sylar) Quinto as Spock), a 150 million dollar effects budget, and a director who is a self confessed Star Wars fan. Hopefully this means that we’ll see more excitement and action in this one; more…epicness. Trek needs to feel big again. Unfortunately, the previous couple of movies felt like little more than glorified TV episodes with a slightly longer running time. I yearn for the days of great Trek films which were just good movies in their own right, like 1982s The Wrath of Khan. Trek used to be exciting and , for lack of a better word, ‘cool’.
Purists are going nuts on the Net forums. ‘Abrams is raping my childhood’, ‘The new Enterprise bridge doesn’t look exactly like it did in the 1960s version. I’m so gonna boycott this film’, ‘Who are these imposters? Where is William Shatner?’, etc. It’s like the reaction to Episode One all over again. I’ve accepted that this film isn’t so much the eleventh Trek movie, but a re-do of the whole saga, much like Casino Royale or Batman Begins. And you know what? Both of those movies, despite the concerns of naysayers, turned out to be pretty damned awesome. If a return to the drawing board, a proverbial ‘reboot’ or clean slate turns out to produce a good movie, I’m all for it. Reboots are kind of inevitable, really. It happened to Battlestar Galactica. It happened with Superman. And I’m sure that when George Lucas departs this mortal coil, we’ll get reimagined Star Wars. Clearly the Enterprise bridge isn’t going to look like it was made in the 1960s. It will look like a high budget 2008 film production. Trek for a long time was a slave to its own canon. It became more about connecting the dots between the various series than in producing quality stories. I must confess, being a big Bond fan, when I heard CR was going to be restarting Bond from scratch, I thought it was a bad idea. But I was very pleasantly surprised by the eventual movie. I’m hoping the same philosophy can work for this movie (simply called ‘Star Trek’, with no subtitles, or numbers). The film is being made for fans of movies, not just Trekkies. An injection of Star Wars style space battles and suspense could be exactly what Trek needs to hold its own in the 21st century. This film could be the one to bring back the feel of the original series, to return to what made the show such a phenomenon in the first place.
I still have a few reservations, though. The bitter aftertaste of Enterprise is still in my mouth. That series tried too hard to pander to the casual TV viewers, most of whom wouldn’t give any Star Trek show the time of day, no matter how different it was. Is Abrams fighting a losing battle? Is it just too late to make Trek relevant again? My brother thought that the publicity stills released so far for this remake look like a ‘cheap fan film’. If his attitude is indicative of all Gen Y teens, then Trek 2.0 may be dead in space before it even leaves drydock. The film will need good marketing, and good word of mouth if it wants to catch on the box office. Otherwise, we may not be seeing any new productions in the longest running US science fiction saga ever for a long, long time. (I said ‘US’ because the BBC’s Doctor Who, also similarly revamped recently, has been running for longer)
Secondly, even many ex-Trekkers seem to have gotten bored with some of the latest lacklustre offerings, and moved on to other shows (like nu-Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, Firefly, Buffy, Angel, Dr Who, Stargate SG 1) which satiate their taste for quality SF. Will this one be enough to court them back to the ailing franchise?
Also, I hope Abrams doesn’t make it unrecognisable as ST. Obviously, the formula needs to be changed to some degree (its what made it turn stale to begin with), but if he changes too much, it may just be a generic sci fi movie which happens to feature the USS Enterprise and Kirk and Spock. Improve the recipe, cut out elements that weren’t working, and try new flavours if necessary, but don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater. Although I suppose Trek really doesn’t have anything to lose by this point. They may as well go all out to make something new and different. As long as the heart of Trek remains there amidst all the FX and action, I don’t mind. The Star Wars prequels failed to recapture the magic of the originals because they just felt… soulless and empty. It was like a two-hour toy commercial, or a videogame on the big screen. I hope that doesn’t happen to this film.
Abrams has brought franchises back from the grave before (like MI 3), and he certainly knows what its like to produce a show with a fanatically loyal cult fanbase (Lost). So I trust him to know what he’s doing. We’ll see if he delivers the goods next May. Make it so!
Trek is more intelligent, and there are more than three good movies in the franchise. Plus, there aren’t any Muppets, or Jar Jar Binks.
But for some reason, it has never quite captured the mainstream audience the way SW has. Whereas SW has crossed over to the general public, and appeals to kids and adults alike, ST still remains pretty much an underground cult phenomenon, despite having been around for 42 years. The average Joe on the street backs away when you say you’re a Trekkie. I remember the days of having to hide my Trek mags and books under my coat to avoid being bashed up by Neanderthals at school. It’s time for a change.
Next year sees the release of director J.J Abrams’ (Lost, Fringe, Alias, Felicity, Mission Impossible 3) high-budget movie reimagining of Star Trek. He’s taken things back to basics. No Next Generation or shiny gold androids, or bald Frenchmen captains (with curious English accents). No Barbie Borgs with large assets. It’s back to the original series, baby. Kirk and Spock. Funky retro aesthetics. Expendable redshirts. Every self-respecting sci fi fan knows that the original Trek is where its at. Over the years, much like Star Wars, the greatness of the original was overshadowed and diluted by reams of inferior sequels (and prequels. The SW prequels really weren’t a patch on the originals, whilst Enterprise really was not up to par as a Trek series). The fanbase became factionalised and fragmented. It’s time for a comeback.
I’m hoping this can be the movie to do it. If anyone can bring Trek to the mainstream, Abrams is the man. The movie needs to bring in a wider audience, and not just target the hardcore fans, because they alone aren’t enough to bring in the numbers at the box office. The film features a new, younger cast (including Heroes’ Zachary (Sylar) Quinto as Spock), a 150 million dollar effects budget, and a director who is a self confessed Star Wars fan. Hopefully this means that we’ll see more excitement and action in this one; more…epicness. Trek needs to feel big again. Unfortunately, the previous couple of movies felt like little more than glorified TV episodes with a slightly longer running time. I yearn for the days of great Trek films which were just good movies in their own right, like 1982s The Wrath of Khan. Trek used to be exciting and , for lack of a better word, ‘cool’.
Purists are going nuts on the Net forums. ‘Abrams is raping my childhood’, ‘The new Enterprise bridge doesn’t look exactly like it did in the 1960s version. I’m so gonna boycott this film’, ‘Who are these imposters? Where is William Shatner?’, etc. It’s like the reaction to Episode One all over again. I’ve accepted that this film isn’t so much the eleventh Trek movie, but a re-do of the whole saga, much like Casino Royale or Batman Begins. And you know what? Both of those movies, despite the concerns of naysayers, turned out to be pretty damned awesome. If a return to the drawing board, a proverbial ‘reboot’ or clean slate turns out to produce a good movie, I’m all for it. Reboots are kind of inevitable, really. It happened to Battlestar Galactica. It happened with Superman. And I’m sure that when George Lucas departs this mortal coil, we’ll get reimagined Star Wars. Clearly the Enterprise bridge isn’t going to look like it was made in the 1960s. It will look like a high budget 2008 film production. Trek for a long time was a slave to its own canon. It became more about connecting the dots between the various series than in producing quality stories. I must confess, being a big Bond fan, when I heard CR was going to be restarting Bond from scratch, I thought it was a bad idea. But I was very pleasantly surprised by the eventual movie. I’m hoping the same philosophy can work for this movie (simply called ‘Star Trek’, with no subtitles, or numbers). The film is being made for fans of movies, not just Trekkies. An injection of Star Wars style space battles and suspense could be exactly what Trek needs to hold its own in the 21st century. This film could be the one to bring back the feel of the original series, to return to what made the show such a phenomenon in the first place.
I still have a few reservations, though. The bitter aftertaste of Enterprise is still in my mouth. That series tried too hard to pander to the casual TV viewers, most of whom wouldn’t give any Star Trek show the time of day, no matter how different it was. Is Abrams fighting a losing battle? Is it just too late to make Trek relevant again? My brother thought that the publicity stills released so far for this remake look like a ‘cheap fan film’. If his attitude is indicative of all Gen Y teens, then Trek 2.0 may be dead in space before it even leaves drydock. The film will need good marketing, and good word of mouth if it wants to catch on the box office. Otherwise, we may not be seeing any new productions in the longest running US science fiction saga ever for a long, long time. (I said ‘US’ because the BBC’s Doctor Who, also similarly revamped recently, has been running for longer)
Secondly, even many ex-Trekkers seem to have gotten bored with some of the latest lacklustre offerings, and moved on to other shows (like nu-Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, Firefly, Buffy, Angel, Dr Who, Stargate SG 1) which satiate their taste for quality SF. Will this one be enough to court them back to the ailing franchise?
Also, I hope Abrams doesn’t make it unrecognisable as ST. Obviously, the formula needs to be changed to some degree (its what made it turn stale to begin with), but if he changes too much, it may just be a generic sci fi movie which happens to feature the USS Enterprise and Kirk and Spock. Improve the recipe, cut out elements that weren’t working, and try new flavours if necessary, but don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater. Although I suppose Trek really doesn’t have anything to lose by this point. They may as well go all out to make something new and different. As long as the heart of Trek remains there amidst all the FX and action, I don’t mind. The Star Wars prequels failed to recapture the magic of the originals because they just felt… soulless and empty. It was like a two-hour toy commercial, or a videogame on the big screen. I hope that doesn’t happen to this film.
Abrams has brought franchises back from the grave before (like MI 3), and he certainly knows what its like to produce a show with a fanatically loyal cult fanbase (Lost). So I trust him to know what he’s doing. We’ll see if he delivers the goods next May. Make it so!
| 39 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
