"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

[Nita]

Forgive me...yes. Zachary Quinto. Thank you for correcting me. I have been known to be a pedantic dick about things as well...touche, WW.

[Rainne]

Kill it with fire.

That is all.

[bitguru]

Who knows what he'll actually come up with, but JJA has been saying the
right things about respecting the history of trek. Plus, he's been very
careful on casting, which is a good sign.

I wouldn't say I've kept absolutely on top of things with respect to the
JJA trek movie, but I've read a dozen or two JJA quotes on the topic over
the last few months, not just the one you present here, and (as I said
before) he has been saying the right things. The others balance out the
few words in this one that could otherwise be considered worrying.

[queentess]

I'm hoping "reinvent" and "make the movie accessible for non-franchise people" means something along the lines of what Goldeneye and Casino Royale did for Bond. Those movies aren't just good Bond movies, they're good movies in their own right and just happen to be Bond movies. I'd like to see something like that for Star Trek. As you say (and I agree), most of the movies to date have been crap.

[Wil]

@queentess: Exactly. That's what I was trying to say.

@Shane Nickerson: Dude, that's awesome.

Regarding my ranking of the Trek movies: I'm going to keep that to myself.

[VT]

I really hope that the focus is on telling a good, solid story which happens to be set in the Star Trek universe. If that's 'reinvent'? Rock on.

What would the Trek equivalent of Jar-Jar be, anyway?

[zizban]

Re-imaginings can work. BSG and the rebooted Batman franchise among others.

I trust JJ on this. I think he'll make a fine movie and I think he wants to make it accessible to a wider audience. Go him. It may work, one never knows.

[dake]

VT, I really, really don't want to find out.

I'm with you on this one, Wil, really hoping that it won't suck, but totally afraid that it will.

If they had made the TNG movies better, we wouldn't be in this situation. But no, they had to try to turn Picard into Kirk, which he never was and was never meant to be. The only TNG movie that I like is First Contact, and even that has problems for me... I liked small bits of Insurrection. Nemesis was just a giant disappointment, unfortunately... despite your best efforts, Wil... but I don't think even giving you a bigger part could've saved that storyline... it was just- too obvious is the word, I think... but, then again, as a life-long Trekkie, I approach the movies like Charlie Brown and the football... Ever hopeful, ever fearful, ever knowing, that you're probably NOT gonna get the chance to kick it... but you always gotta try one more time...

[watcher652]

Offtopic, do you want to go to the moon?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html

My name is on the Mars Sojourner and I get the warm fuzzies whenever Mars is in the news.

[Ian Coomber]

I have to admit that the more I hear about the new movie, the more I fear it will be less like the Trek I know and love, and more like the shoddy classic-series-f*cked-up-film a la Charlies Angels and Dukes Of Hazzard.

And do tend to agree, most of the Trek movies only get watched because they're Trek.

[jtoc72]

Come, come Mr. Crusher - young minds, fresh ideas and all that.

Seriously, though - I doubt that JJ at his worst could be more lethal to the whole Trek franchise than B&B were during their Voyager/ST:X/Enterprise crap-fest years.

Honestly, how much worse could *anything* be than Enter-shit was?

[Alan]

Based on Lost and Alias, I am expecting a convoluted plot with a lot of surprise twists.

Politics would provide a good backdrop.

How about the story of how Earth transitioned from a fragmented set of independent and warring countries to a united planet ready to found an interplanetary Federation?

Maybe the whole thing happens due to one man who orchestrates a takeover liek Peter Wiggin does in Ender's Game.

The crew of the Enterprise is a pawn in this game with much of the drama coming from difficult situations created when they lose contact and support from Earth. Maybe the destruction of the Enterprise is planned to unite Earth under the banner of war.

Maybe the crew figures out what is going on and stops the would-be dictator from completely rising to power, but not preventing the uniting of humanity.

Maybe this is the point where the dark mirror universe diverges from the good universe.

[Rook]

You know, I was going to get all uppity and demand Wil put his money where his mouth is and name the two "great" Star Trek movies. But, first I figure I better read the comments. Be right back.

Okay, so he didn't come out and say which is what. However, I have to admit I hated the first TOS movie. It was horrible. TROK managed to salvage the series. TSFS actually is a better movie than most give it credit for. IV is the shits. As in great. V, watched once, thanked God Shatner was never given another chance at directing. VI. Never really watched it a second time. Generations....WTF? First Contact, I should have it in the library, but don't. Insurrection was insufferable. Never watched the last movie.

[Tallis]

While I won't judge until we actually see the movie, I recall how Harve Bennett "reinvented" Star Trek after the disaster that was The Motion Picture, and the result was Wrath of Khan and a revitalized franchise. (Said revitalized franchise leading to a new series called TNG and a regular paycheck for a certain young actor of our acquaintance.)

As one of the geezer fans that have watched since 1966, I'll only observe that reinvention isn't necessarily teh evil and that the franchise is tougher than you think - if it can survive the likes of He Who Shall Not Be Named, it can survive anything.

[Wil]

Everyone is making outstanding, thought-provoking points here, both for and against.

I remain as ambivalent as ever, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the conversation.

[Andrew]

I've already made my feelings known on Twitter (summary: it's about 10 months too early to be freaking out over this), so I'll add content here by giving my capsule reviews of the ten ST movies:

01: An inventive 48-minute TV episode wrapped in a monotonous screen saver. Very beautiful (especially in the newest DVD edition), but when you can skip entire chapters of the DVD and not miss ANY of the story, something's wrong.

02: Practically perfect. 'Nuff said.

03: I like this a lot more than some people seem to. Sure, it had its flaws, but it treated the characters right, and that's sadly rare.

04: I used to rank this very high on my list. Last time I watched it, I realized it hadn't grown on me. I don't have any real desire to watch it yet again.

05: I'm sorry, was there a fifth movie?

06: Like 04, this one seemed a lot cooler on first viewing than on a revisit. The allegory is so thick you can cut it with a bat'leth, and the attempts at humor were drastically uneven.

07: I really wanted to like this one, but the plot doesn't hang together and it sets the pattern for the rest of the TNG movies: they're about Picard and Data with the rest of the crew along for the ride.

08: Very cool, but not 02 cool. (Best opening scene EVER, though.)

09: I don't own this one. 'Nuff said.

10: I think the idea was interesting, but...there are just too many things that don't work for me, starting with Hardy's acting.

[Klopfer]

I don't really care if everything's canon in the "reinvention". I liked "Enterprise" and was sad to see it go so early before it was able to reach its prime.

But I am really worried if JJ Abrams is able to extract the main ideas from Star Trek. And I don't mean the "take 3 characters with a special relationship and write many funny scenes with them arguing" idea. I want an optimistic approach to the future. I am so sick of SF which circles around the "oh noes, mankind must defend itself against evil aliens and we are sooo weak and can only fight like rebels" idea. Most SF makes us look like we don't have a single clue, are weak and quite stupid while all the other alien races are smarter, more advanced, stronger and have super powers that would make even Superman envious. And coincidentally those super aliens use their advantages only to make mince meat out of every life form they find, without the option for diplomacy. Star Trek is different. Enemies in Star Trek are hard to beat too, but most of the time it's like a war between the USA and Imperial Japan or Nazi-Germany and Russia, not like a fight between a toddler and Mr Universe.
I don't want aliens to be evil or good just for the sake of the plot. Often Star Trek doesn't allow painting everything in black and white because motives and beliefs must be taken into consideration. I think that's important, although it might be a reason why Star Trek isn't that interesting for many people who just want to hate the enemy on the screen.

Sorry if my sentences are hard to understand, English isn't my first language.

[macshaggy]

This could be a good thing or really a bad thing. So far I'm not an Abrams fan. He tends to try to create mystery but the real mystery is to himself.

I was disappointed when on Alias I had figured out the entire mystery of the show two years before it appeared that the characters had which felt anti-climatic.

Lost feels exactly like Alias so I haven't cared to watch it.

And if Abrams does for Star Trek what Ron Moore did for BSG then maybe thats not a good thing.

BSG has had ample opportunity to truly develop the cylons and yet who and what they are kept in subtext. And when Moore finally tells us that the cylons are really us and the human race living in harmony on Earth we will still not have a complete picture of the reinvention.

Just my prediction hopefully I'm wrong and hopefully the full nature of the cylons will be revealed before the show ends.

But will I go and watch the new Star Trek film more than likely I'm still a Trek Geek if anything.

[tanyak]

JJ read the handbook on how to talk about movies based on movies and things people always love... step #1 reassure fans that the film will satisfy them ... step #2 be sure to tell people who don't know what the hell Star Trek is that they'll like the film too..... I mean when was the last time you read an interview for this type of film and the director said "I made it for the fans, I don't give a fuck if the rest of the people know what the hell is going on!"?
We won't know how it is until we see it.

Ummm... I found the term "Trekker" reassuring... someone at least told him not to call them Trekkies... they hate that...

And I agree, let's move Trek forward, leave the past in the past...

[Magic_Al]

Obviously the two that are mainstream are the two my mom saw: The Voyage Home and First Contact. One of the two greats is The Wrath of Khan. Nearly unwatchable (by cringe-inducing content) are Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, The Final Frontier, and (in hindsight) The Undiscovered Country, so the parlor game is whether The Motion Picture or The Search for Spock is great or unwatchable. Could go either way!

[Craig Steffen]

My assessment of the movies that I've seen agrees almost exactly with Andrew's above; I have a couple of minor additions.

3: I have to say that I like Star Trek III. It had a good villian, interesting challenges, and it came right out and made the statement that the people are what's important, not the ship, and the audience was too busy cheering for the good guys to notice.

5: Pile of suck. However, it makes an interesting exersise in that it has some really good scenes--and thus illustrates that good scenes do not a good movie make.

6: I think I like this one a bit more than Andrew. Not too bad for the last (real) outing for these characters.

[prof_rocko]

As long as the re-inventors love and respect the existing franchise, everything should be OK. This is how is worked out so well for Russell T. Davies and Doctor Who in 2005 (everyone on the project grew up fans of the show), and this is a fan base at least as old and fanatical as that of Trek.

[There's a big discussion going on over at badastronomy.com about io9's suggestion, btw.]

[John Welch]

I must be the only ST fan who thinks that IV was...meh. It tried hard, but holy crap, it made so many of the characters look kinda lame.

It was the third - worst in terms of Kirk, and I can't think of any character that came out of that well.

Still think that II was the best damned one of the bunch, followed by First Contact then Insurrection. I would have picked Insurrection over First Contact, but for the damned *JOYSTICK* for "Manual Control".

Um...no. No, no, no.

The problem was that II was just such a damned great ST movie in so many little ways. Like the fact that they show people *cleaning up*. Or that little "I have GOT that superior bastard" smile Shatner has when Spock points out Khan is thinking in 2-D. It was...subtle. To get subtle out of *Shatner*? Damn dude.

and the score ruled. Much better than anything Goldsmith ever came up with.

[malty]

I've often been disappointed with ST films, especially TNG ones-- it was like they took everything I liked about the show, and just shat on it, and topped the whole mess with this palpable feeling that the studio didn't trust Trek fans to enjoy the movie unless they made it violent/fast/dark-- and had characters doing all sorts of atypical things.

Also, since this is my first time commenting here, (and I've seen over and over again that you actually read the comments)I want to let you know that I always got a big kick out of Wesley's character-- it was nice to see someone about my age getting to roam about the Enterprise! You must be a pretty good actor, too... I can still remember feeling sort of embarrassed for Wes in one episode where he was rather short with his mom. Ha! It's amusing how we can become so emotionally invested with these characters, isn't it?

[Krewell]

I think we all have to take a deep breath and repeat after me: it couldn't get any worse than it was. OK, so maybe it probably won't get any worse than it was (or most especially V)

BTW, I just rented and saw Clovefield. I REALLY hope the ST isn't going to be filmed in shaky cam. And I don't want to see any mystery hatches at Star Fleet Academy.

Let's hope for the best.

BTW, maybe Abrams could re-invent Star Wars next :-)