"reinventing?" uh-oh. i'm not sure how i feel about this

Wired says that JJ Abrams promises to "reinvent" Star Trek:

"Effects for Star Trek have never, ever been done like this," says Abrams, who credits George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic for the visual fireworks.  

Abrams was fanatical about Star Wars as a kid. But Star Trek? Not so much. Directing the new movie, he tells the Associated Press, "was an opportunity to take the characters, the thoughtfulness, the personalities, the sense of adventure, the idea of humanity working together, the sense of social commentary and innovation, all that stuff and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

Without a lot of context, it's tough to puzzle out exactly what this means for guys like us who've loved Trek forever and ever. If he's just talking about bringing modern special effects to Star Trek, which totally would make it more thrilling to watch, this is great news.

However, if this "reinventing" -- which is such a loaded term in this post-Episode One world (5-19-99 never forget!) -- extends to some of the fundamentals of the Star Trek mythos, and if he wants to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, we could be looking at the biggest geekriot in history.

On one hand, this could be Abrams saying, "I'm going to take Star Trek and make it relevant to an audience that hasn't loved it and watched it for 40 years." That's not necessarily a bad thing.

On the other hand, it could be him saying, "Look, Trekkies, I know you've been watching this show for 40 years, but I'm JJ Fucking Abrams and if I want to 'reinvent' this thing that means so much to you, I'm going to do it. So don't get your spacesuits in a knot when I put turbines on the Enterprise, okay? They look cool!" That would be a very bad thing.

Speaking as a lifelong geek, my knee-jerk reaction when I hear someone talking about "reinventing" something like Trek is that it will be a tower of suck, built out of an endless supply of Jar-Jars and midichlorians.

However! Ron Moore reinvented BSG, and it's the greatest thing ever, so reinventing things isn't automatically horrible. In fact, if the article had been titled "JJ Abrams promises thrilling effects for Star Trek movie" I'd be celebrating right now. Language is important, as they say.

I guess it comes down to who is doing the reinventing, and if their vision builds upon the existing foundation in an interesting way, instead of pulling a massive, insulting retcon on us all. In his favor, JJ Abrams is really, really good at starting things (not so much with the keeping them awesome after one season, sadly,) but absolutely awesome at starting things. Since this is the beginning of Star Trek, I'm hopeful. Apprehensive, but hopeful.

So, yeah, not entirely sure how I feel about the "reinventing." At least the people who totally fucked Star Trek up aren't involved, but why does anyone need to "reinvent" Star Trek at all? There's a good reason it managed to endure through four decades and several generations of Trekkies and casual viewers alike. I hope JJ Abrams groks that, because I really want to like this movie.

Oh, how about an almost-instant update:

JJ Abrams also says:

 

"It was an opportunity to take what I think has been a maligned world _ to sound crass, a franchise _ and treat it in a way that made it something that I wanted to see"

[...]

"The whole point was to try to make this movie for fans of movies, not fans of `Star Trek,' necessarily,'" Abrams said. "If you're a fan, we've got one of the writers who's a devout Trekker, so we were able to make sure we were serving the people who are completely enamored with `Star Trek.' But we are not making the movie for that contingent alone.

 

"You can't really make a movie for them. As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you're in trouble. You have to make the movie in many ways for what you want to see yourself, make a movie you believe in. Then you're not second-guessing an audience you don't really have an understanding of."

That makes a lot of sense, but, uh, JJ? You should probably understand Trekkies if you're making a Star Trek movie. Seriously, have one of your minions make you a quickstart guide or something; it's not that tough.

Anyway, making it for fans of movies instead of exclusively for Trekkies is something I can completely agree with, and shows that he understands the massive challenge that making a movie like this brings. That's real good news, as long as he doesn't go turning Star Trek into Attack of The Four Toed Statues or something.

He also says:

"I feel like this is so unlike what you expect, so unlike the `Star Trek' you've seen. At the same time, it's being true to what's come before, honoring it," Abrams said.

I'm going to commit heresy right now and say what few people are willing to say out loud: most of the Star Trek movies are absolute garbage. There have been ten Trek movies, and I'd say that two of them are accessible to mainstream audiences, another two are great, and the remaining six are nearly unwatchable. If JJ Abrams wants to make his new Trek movie unlike the 80% of Trek movies that aren't that good, that's just fine with me. Not that my opinion means anything, you understand, but rambling on and on about things like this is the price of being a geek, and I regret nothing. NOTHING!

Comments

[akbar56]

If the rumors floating around are true, then we can easily assume he is pulling the "I am JJ and I can do what I want" thing.

I just honestly have to ask...if he is not making a movie for Trekkies, and is making a movie for the general movie person, is there really an audience there? Is the general movie going public going to care about this?

[Coyote Seven]

After Lt. Commander Locke has a crisis of faith and locks himself in engineering, he deliberately fails to input the correct sequence in the main computer. This almost causes a warp core breach, but ensign Hume saves the day at the last moment when he puts his life in peril while attempting to engage the failsafe.

[Pockafwye]

Ramble away, Wil. It's not the price of being a geek. It's darned near your duty as a geek to ramble on and on about such things when the situation calls for it, as this one obviously did.

[Sandra L.]

Heh - I'm having a bit of a chuckle here over you worrying about someone "reinventing" Star Trek. I remember a time...oh, about 21-22 years ago (egads, was it really that long?) when another group of people announced that they were going to reinvent Star Trek and make it more relevant for new viewers. My first thought was "Oh man, this is going to suck! They're going to ruin Star Trek forever." (Hey, it was the 80's. That was a reasonable fear.)

Of course, that didn't stop me from dropping everything to watch the first episode, and when it was over, my initial response was, "Okay, that didn't suck." (It took a few more episodes to get to "pretty darn good, actually".)

Hmm, come to think of it, though, Gene Roddenberry was still alive then. Maybe we should be worried after all...

[Roosterfeet]

We need WW reviews of said Trek movies. And perhaps the 6 Star Wars films. And maybe a few other scifi/fantasy films that are important to Wil. Then he should put them in a book and trade them to us for shiny gold rocks. [MrBurns]Yess, Exxcellent![/MrBurns]

[linkerjpatrick]

In some ways TNG was Gene's way to reinvent Star Trek but in some ways it was the way he wanted to do it from the beginning. TNG seems to have more in common with the original pilot than the official series. Star Wars itself was a reinvention of the original Sat. morning serials that were seen in the 30's and 40's and Indiana Jones the same thing.

Personally I'm looking forward to see what JJ does with it. "Reinventions" have been done a lot before in other mediums like plays for example. We seem to have no problem seeing plays done by other actors or done in a different setting. i.e. Shakespeare done in a WW setting, etc. It seems as if Trek's canon has been taken too seriously to a point that it has stifled storytelling. Let's see what's out there!

[ZB]

Would anyone other than JJ be able to get away with this?

I still don't understand why anyone thinks he is even remotely capable of creating anything with a plot. Or simply anything with a beginning and an ending.

I honestly think he's a total hack who got lucky.

[Nita]

Me and a lot of my Trek-loving compadres are definitely awaiting to see what JJ is able to do with this. We all have our doubts as well. So far, I'm totally loving Sylar as Spock. It's a great cast choice. I would like to feel secure in the fact that he's hired him a Trekkie, but we will see. If this Trekkie is a douche, everyone loses.

[AJ]

The most encouraging aspect of the whole enterprise (ahem) is that ST is still well-respected enough, as a franchise, to warrant a studio throwing some bucks at it for another go.

Hollywood, there still may be hope for ye yet.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Most of the TNG films are unwatchable ("First Contact" being the exception). Most of the TOS films are watchable ("The Final Frontier" aside), even if as you said only two of them are accessible to mainstream audiences.

I think the new film will either be awesome or a disaster, with no room in-between.

Though in some ways it feels like Trek is going in the wrong direction. I'd rather see the fictional universe moved forward instead of rehashing TOS.

[Wil]

If I could be a pedantic dick for a moment: It's not Sylar as Spock. It's Zachary Quinto playing Spock. There's a pretty significant difference, that I always feel compelled to point out.

[R]

I think you're right on here, Wil, and as soon as you linked to the story in your tweet, I was hoping you'd talk more about it. Reinventing is certainly a double-edged sword, and there's something about the way JJ is talking about it that is a little off-putting. If he can pull it off, though, more power to him.

[Wil]

Also, JJ has to talk about it as a filmmaker who is responsible for hundreds of millions of studio dollars, while we can talk about it as fans. I think it's unavoidable that when he talks about it, it's going to be a little off-putting to us.

Of course, I don't think I ever recall being put off by Peter Jackson or Jon Favreau, so take that for what it's worth.

[angie k]

I agree with your comments and assessments. Personally, I'm just going to wait until it comes out or until more substantial public visual components exist to decide if I'm all for this movie or not. I think some of the casting is great and it sounds like it's going to be a good movie and I think he could go a great job reinventing Star Trek. Or, no matter how good the cast, it could blow. However, I remember thinking when I heard about this for the first time I was wary of anyone trying to "remake" the original cast. I wish they'd make new Trek that is set after the TNG/DS9/VOY timeframe. I like stories that advance the world into the future, not keep plugging away at the past.

Without a lot of context, it's tough to puzzle out exactly what this means for guys like us who've loved Trek forever and ever.

Hey! I believe you mean, "Without a lot of context, it's tough to puzzle out exactly what this means for guys AND GALS like us who've loved Trek forever and ever." :) (I know your use of "guys" is meant to be inclusive of both sexes but I had to correct that sentence. :))

P.S. Coyote Seven FTW!

[Luke M]

Mainstream:
IV, VIII

Great for fans:
II, VI

Bad:
I, III, X

Awful:

V, VII (I refuse to accept this is even canon), IX

Right?

[SandieK]

May the Fourth be with you. Heh. Anne rocks.

Now thats out of my system. Reinvention of anythings immediately makes me groan. Sure, he could pull a BSG (never seen it before, so I dont know) and make it awesome as everyone seems to claim...but more than likely? No. The previews dont say much yet, and I dread to see what he's done. Mostly

[Wil]

@angiek: "guys" is a non-gender specific word for me. Always has been, always will be.

[John Fiala]

Well, now I'm curious how Wil rates the various movies.

[Anna Harriman]

I quote my own Twitter post:

If J.J. Abrams fucks up Star Trek, the wrath of a million Trekkies will fall upon him! That, and we'll all kick him in the shins. :-D

[Brian Greenberg]

Is it just me, or does it bother anyone that he called his Star Trek expert a Trekker and not a Trekkie?

Doesn't bode well that he's actually listening to said Trekker/ie...

[Shane Nickerson]

I had one of those "only in Hollywood" moments a couple of months ago when I ran into Zachary Quinto at a friend's party. After the initial "holy crap, it's Sylar and he's going to laserfinger my skull in half and eat my brain" reaction, I had a chance to talk to him casually, but at length about the new Trek.

According to him, it's going to be really, really awesome. He wasn't forthcoming with a whole lot of details (and I didn't ask), but there was something about the excitement in his eyes when he described the work environment on the set that was contagious. It made me feel like maybe we're all in for something special with this film. Between that and the fact that it's J.J. at the helm, I have faith that it really will be. Shit, if I can get through three-ish seasons of Enterprise, I'm up for just about anything even close to good.

(No offense Scott Bakula)

Plus, as much as fans fear change, sometimes it's just what a franchise needs as long as it doesn't invalidate or compromise the mythos.

[Steeljack]

Other recent "reinventions" that come to mind as having conspicuously not sucked: Warren Ellis's Iron Man, which, though it was not adapted directly into the excellent film, certainly influenced it heavily, and Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins.

Our heroes are our myths: we are constantly reinventing them because we care, because we love them, because we want to keep them relevant.

This is not to say that Abrams' reinvention is destined to be good, just that reinvention isn't a dirty word. But you knew that.

[misterfusion]

The problem, as I see it is that one cannot make everybody happy with 're-invent". The practice alienates both communities initially. But, time will tell if it is successful or not, a la BSG or the aborted Nic Cage Superman movie...

[Backpacking Dad]

i09 wants to reinvent Star Trek and CSI...with YOU as Grissom.

IN SPACE!!!

[Matthew J. Sanderson]

I'll be honest with you, the only Trek movies I really don't like are V, IX, and X. I'm really pretty okay with them, and I'm honestly still a little pissed that there will never be a DS9 movie.

That said, I'm concerned about the new movie simply because it's futzing with the old characters as a prequel. I mean, J.J. is seriously putting himself in the crouched, ready-to-shit-on-the-fans position just on that fact alone. And the only franchise of his that I'm interested in is Lost. So... Yeah. Apprehension, I haz it.

Is it my imagination, or has the Star Trek franchise backed itself into a corner and it doesn't know how the fuck to get out? And it thinks that, in order to get out, it has to keep walking towards the corner. With its eyes closed. And it's duct-taping itself to the wall. With nails. And glue. I'm done.