Director J.J. Abrams told a news conference in Korea that his upcoming “Star Trek” reboot is not for longtime fans of the series, but for the next generation of fans.
“We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of ‘Star Trek’,” Abrams said. “The studio wanted to give the film a fresh start, and I was originally brought in as a producer, but upon reading the script, I saw so much potential and possibility that the original had failed to realize due to technological constraints, so I got very greedy and I decided to direct it myself.”
Abrams’ Captain Kirk, Chris Pine added, “I began watching the original series pretty feverishly, because I knew I only had a limited amount of time to prepare for the role, and after getting halfway through the first and second season, I wasn’t doing myself any favors by trying to pick up on the mannerisms of William Shatner and the minutiae of the Star Trek world.
“I would have created a character that was more impersonation than an original incarnation,” Pine continued. “J.J.’s prescription for realizing the role—and this goes for all of us—was to create our own and not worry too much about obeying the laws of the original Star Trek world.”
“Star Trek” opens on May 8.
Bill from Albuquerque says
Let the phaser fire begin…not the best way to endure yourself to a group of fans who have been waiting for one of these movies to come close to “Wrath of Kahn”
Bronzethumb from Australia says
I think it’s the smart move. This flick is going to be a gateway for those people who love science fiction but aren’t into Star Trek, or have never given the series or movies a proper go before. For the longest time I wouldn’t give Star Trek the time of day because my few exposures to the franchise were very dull and lifeless, but if this flick proves to be as dynamic and fast-paced as the trailers promise then I expect there’ll be an upswing in the popularity of the franchise.
Gregory says
I think the trailers for the new Star Trek look great. I’m not a die hard Trek fan, but I am really looking forward to this next installment.
Did you know that the son of the original Scotty has a role in this?
Casualobserver says
Some would argue that ‘Trekkies’ ruined the genre, consistently asking for the same product over and over until the ideas and product became stale. I’m more then willing to give Abrams the chance to restart Star Trek from a fresh and modern standpoint. Kudos for them being ballsy enough to take the risk.
Anachronite says
I’m a huge trek fan of old, and I have no problem with this reboot. I hope it kicks ass and takes names. fellow trekkies get over it. the franchise needs a jumpstart and this should do it! can’t wait!
the lows says
I knew it, when they put Abrams on this project I just knew they were making a mistake. He can’t wrap up Lost, Cloverfield was a major disappointment and now, “Let’s reboot this for the next generation.” News Flash, teens and younger are NOT interested in Star Trek.
I predict a epic fail here, we fan will be left out. And it will be just another “teen” movie. Pass hollywood, what else ya got?
Tim
kjk says
Well if hey, they might as well say they know they cant be “compared” so “f— it ” and go a completely different way. Wow.
Why not try to blend something for everyone?! Star Trek provides a reciepe for KNOWN success, why not latch on to some of that?
*Shakes head and wonders if completely different means; Kirk is Gay, Spock is a Tranny, and Sulu is really straight.* lol
Sam says
I am of the original “Trek generation” having been a late teen when the show originally aired in the mid 60’s. I welcome this new idea of Trek from Abrams. I love these characters and the actors who portrayed them…..but hey, I also believe there is only one James Bond (Sean Connery), but I also love Daniel Craig’s new take on the character and have room in my heart (and head) for both. I will give Abrams a chance, and from what I have seen so far, I think he will have a winner (not a loser) here that will (like the original) stand the test of time. The franchise needed a re-boot and Abrams is probably the best candidate for the job mainly because he comes to it without any 40-year baggage, but with enough respect for the franchise to do it justice and with an eye for its future success with new generations of viewers.
The reason Shakespere is still around has less to do with how great his work was….but with how great it continues being interpreted on film and stage by each new generation. The same can be said of Star Trek.
Wolfstan says
I find it funny that the original Trekkies kicked off about Zachary Quinto’s performance as Spock, they were saying it was too emotional. As far as I remember Spock in his early years walked a fine line between his two heritages, so this would be a true representation.
Robin says
I’m getting really tired of sci-fi projects denying their roots. “Star Trek isn’t for Trekkies.” That’s like NBCU’s assertion that “Battlestar Galactica isn’t science fiction.” Why do studios persist in placing a stigma on their most lucrative genre?
Star Trek damn well better satisfy Trekkies (or Trekkers, if you prefer), because they’re the ones most likely to see it repeatedly in theaters. They’re the ones who will convince uncertain friends to give it a shot. They are the one who will buy the merchandising and multiple copies/versions of the DVD. If this film doesn’t do well in the wake of Nemesis and Enterprise, it could very well signal the end for the franchise. With that in mind, Abrams really shouldn’t be turning up his nose at forty years worth of dedicated fans.
And BSG is absolutely science fiction. It airs on the freaking SciFi Channel. It also has really strong writing, acting, directing, and production. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the original series was made in an era when they were doesn’t detract from the quality of the current series. Sci-fi has grown up a lot in the last thirty-odd years, so stop trying to pigeonhole it as something frivolous and childish.
Casualobserver says
-Star Trek damn well better satisfy Trekkies…
See thats the kind of attitude that keeps certain properties from getting the update and fresh look they need. Films should be made to satisfy people first, fanboys second.
-Why not try to blend something for everyone?
Because then you create a bastardized version of Trek that doesn’t satisfy anyone.
-News Flash, teens and younger are NOT interested in Star Trek…
Thats because they have only seen the ‘old’ Trek. This film is an attempt to revive a dying brand, to create new memories, not to remind you of your childhood. Thats why the current ‘web’ projects (while great in their own right) will never get real traction, they are simply homages to the original, not a retelling with a new vision.
Face it Trekkies should not be catered too, they will never be happy because the original cast is gone.
the lows says
“See thats the kind of attitude that keeps certain properties from getting the update and fresh look they need.”
Good. Sometimes it’s not needed. Why reboot it when there are a host of rich stories that can be told? Why not a Klingon show? The history of the Romulans anyone?
Why reboot something for a new generation that has proven time and again not to be the least bit interested? It’s a lazy way to make money my friends, that is all this is about. Get creative Hollywood or go home. People disagree with me? What movie won the academy awards this year? Oh that’s right, a independant film. I heard more about what people were wearing than anything about the films themselves.
“Thats because they have only seen the ‘old’ Trek. ”
I would answer, point your remote to G4 sometime. And look at their running of the series along side a chat window. And these are the folks they are trying to get interested in the franchise? Please.
“Thats why the current ‘web’ projects (while great in their own right) will never get real traction, they are simply homages to the original, not a retelling with a new vision.”
Strongly disagree. Point your browser to Star Trek: Of gods and men, check it out and then see if you don’t change your mind.
There is simply no reason to keep doing these “retelling” of old shows and old movies other than it’s a way to make money without having to put any creative effort into it.
Tim
Robin says
@Casualobserver: “See thats the kind of attitude that keeps certain properties from getting the update and fresh look they need. Films should be made to satisfy people first, fanboys second.”
I’m not saying that the franchise shouldn’t be updated, or that it can’t appeal to a wider audience. But it has to be done well, or it won’t appeal to anyone. The main complaint I’ve heard about Nemesis is that it has the same basic plot as Wrath of Khan without the believable character motivations. In short, it was an update done poorly. Enterprise didn’t grab the fans because it contradicted the continuity of its predecessors, thus alienating the existing fans who would normally have been its biggest advocates.
Take Battlestar Galactica as a positive example. The “re-imagination” is an amazing series, and yet it’s taken four years of sci-fi fans convincing people to give it a try for it to gain acceptance among the general audience. This is after it won a really prestigious award and they tried re-airing the episodes on NBC proper. If you can’t capture the core fanbase, you’re not going to last long enough for other people to get over the sci-fi stigma.
I’m hoping that our culture can finally get over its prejudice against genre entertainment. Abrams almost got it right, but what he should have said was: “We made this film not just for today’s Trekkies but for future fans of ‘Star Trek’.”
Sci-fi fans can be a project’s most fervent loyalists to the point of basically providing free advertising (see: Browncoats), but they can also be vocal opponents or, possibly worse, silently indifferent. Word-of-mouth is just as important to the entertainment industry in the internet age as it has always been. Maybe even moreso. And very few audiences will tell you what they think as loudly as Trekkies. Ignoring that fact while promoting something you want them to like is misguided at best.
Casualobserver says
-Point your browser to Star Trek: Of Gods and Men…
Oh hell no you didn’t try and convince me that that ‘ungodly nightmare of a fan fake-off’ is evidence that Trekkies know what will work for a wide audience.
I don’t know what to say to you about a project that all of about 100,000 people (in the world) have seen or much less care about. Sorry, but that whole thing is EXACTLY what I meant. It’s trying to relive something that is gone… and is never coming back. Its cheesy, and as unoriginal as baked bread, save for the fact that the budget is about the same size, and will NEVER, EVER get ‘traction’ = IE ‘public attention past a convention booth and a few diehard trekkies on the ol’ interweb.’
You aren’t going to sit there and tell me that that ‘Enterpise’ will ever see proper funding from a real studio, or airtime on a major network, or even syndication, the quality is horrible, acting not even Voyager standard (and thats pretty low already) It’s like trying to open a coffin to find a supermodel. Star Trek needed to start over….not try to relive it’s past with a half-butt attempt in someones production trailer, with a bunch of cheesy knockoff actors trying to copy the original feel.
Not to mention that it took what 4 years to produce one movie, one 40 minute frackin’ boring movie!! Talk about bloated a waste of time. BTW, I’m not gonna sit here and apologize for shredding that cheesy fan flick, or waste time responding to ‘Well why don’t you make one and see how hard it is…’ or the time tested ‘your just jealous cause it’s better then anything you could make.’ They put their product out their and the public has decided…it ‘sucks’.
It takes guts and originality to come at the Star Trek Franchise and say, “I’m doing Trek ‘this’ way and if the Trekkies like it so be it.” The franchise will be better off without catering to fans who simply want to relive their childhood on screen. Wake up call you Trekkies … Movies have to be made for everyone to enjoy or they will fail, and then they won’t be worth the cost of producing.
Carry on…
Ralph says
A reboot would be cool, but this film isn’t really one. Its some kind of alternate universe thing. Are hollywood writers so untalented that they can’t right a true prequel that would obey continuitity, and make a great movie that would appeal to the general public?
The trekkies are not the problem with star trek. The problem is that star trek got way over cooked. With too many spin offs, and movies. Combine that with a probuct that just got crappy.
the lows says
How many time do you need to hear Kurt’s story? He’s wasn’t the only person that made up the Star Trek Universe. I was never a fan of the show or the films, but seriously; it’s the same as rebooting Superman over and over. Enough already.
Jenny
Rachel says
under no circumstances am i going to even entertain the thought of watching the new movie… y make a star trek film thats not going to satisfy fans… cos lets face it if your not into star trek your not going to go out of your way to see the film… those that are are the fans, its common sense surely!
Rachel xxx
GazerBeam says
My take on it is this… They *had* to reboot it if they were going to do a prequel. If for no other reason than the fact that a great deal of the technology (transporters and spaceships aside) that was “futuristic” in the 60’s is readily available now. (I’m looking at you, cell phones, data disks and super-fast computers with a voice.)
But putting the tech question aside, if they tried to follow the existing lore, they would fail horribly in the eyes of the hardcore fans because they’d get it wrong. Sci fans are great. I’m proud to count myself among the numbers, but we are a *very* picky bunch. I’ve heard people complain that small bits of dialogue in Watchmen didn’t make it from the page to the screen, so I can only imagine the fan outcry if they got bits of Star Trek wrong.
I applaud Abrams for trying a new look at Star Trek. I’m hoping it’s something we haven’t seen a bunch of times before.
-GB-
Arkle says
Very well put GazerBeam.
John says
I don’t necessarily agree that they have to re-invent star trek… If they want to make a sci-fi, why not come up with something completely new? How about a new star trek, deeper into the future, that further tests our own expectations and perspective? Granted, that would take a lot of work to accomplish, but it would be fresh. We could have a mainstream star trek in the threatres and a niche star trek on tv. There’s so much else they can do. Why use kirk? Why use spock? Why use these characters unless you’re trying to grab some of the fans of previous star trek films?
But, if it’s a good film then it’ll exist on its own.
Unfrozen Caveman Dawg says
I am a moderate Star Trek fan, I think the Next Generation TV Series (w/Patrick Stewart and a few of those follow up movies were good . From the original cast I liked the movies the Star Trek II, IV, & VI (i.e. Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and the Undiscovered Country), there were a few select episodes in the Old Series that were good but by and large everything else is pretty crappy. The new film is pretty good (you can definately tell that a concerted effort was made to make it more mainstream), but on the whole it was way way better than stuff like Deep Space Nine.
gregory says
Star Trek, I was watching the extra features and they said “what can we do to make this more like Star Wars?” What made Star Trek Star Trek was not the adventures to strange new worlds, or fights with evil foes, but what made it Star Trek was the exploration or ourselves, exploring the potenial of the human spirit. Gene had a vision of the future, it was a place were man put aside all thier differances and united together to EXPLORE the stars, not to Fight the Federation’s foes. Star Trek appealed to the people because it tackled social issuses and gave us possible answers, parables, when you watch ST: TOS and ST:TNG, you learn something, when I watch the new Star Trek movie, all I learned is how to effectively kill a foe who is far more advanced. Gene’s vision, and the appeal of Star Trek to the entire world was the exploration of our hearts and minds and the unknown of space. With JJ’s film, he tired to make it like Star Wars, he recruited a staff who knew nothing about Star Trek or it’s message, I believe all Paramount and JJ saw was $$$$$$
Paramount, give us a new Trek series, set after Nemesis and exploring the further unknown of space and the human heart, tackle our present day issuses of immagration, political and religous extremism, government control, the enviroment, unfaithfulness, stories that teach us leasons are the ones that remember for the rest of our lives, the better us, and they show us that we are all one, and that together we can reach the stars. so paramount, return Star Trek to it’s roots, put us on a five year mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilazation, and to boldly go where no one has gone before. Not to explore enemies’ defences, not to seek out new weapons and enemies, not to go where everyone has been before (meaning war).
The unknown is waiting for all of us…………………….