It's Kirk...Again
JJ Abrams reversed himself without saying so.
Not only is he revisiting the classic Trek era, but he's recasting Kirk. Rumors once pointed at Matt Damon, but he hasn't stated that he wants to sit in the captain's chair.
I wonder how far off a new Next Generation film with a new Picard and gang is?
It seems that Trek has reached the retread territory occupied by Batman, Superman, James Bond, and other franchises. Is it a good thing for Kirk, Picard, and others to be recast every 10 years, though?
Shatner made a recent announcement at a convention about how we can look forward to at least one more Kirk adventure.
IMHO, without new stories driving the Trek universe ahead, the Trek well is running dry. I therefore favor going forward or letting Trek go gracefully into the sunset.
The current Paramount studio leadership won't do either. They want to continue milking Trek as a cash cow, but won't take it forward into the future. And they decided to bring in JJ Abrams.
I was once a fan of Abrams, but after having seen how Alias ran in circles recycling its characters and storylines before getting itself canceled and Lost began to lose some of its mysterious allure, I seriously doubt he'll reboot the Trek franchise like what Chris Nolan did for Batman with Batman Begins. Barring a new film or series featuring a new crew and ship, it seems a good stand alone Kirk story is the best people can hope for.
Abrams says he wants to create a new generation of Trek fans. His method is finding new actors to play old characters. I wonder how well that'll work?
Before Abrams was brought in to helm the upcoming 2008 film, a prequel Romulan War trilogy was being considered. A first draft for the first movie was written by Erik Jendresen, who worked with Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan) on the epic HBO TV mini-series Band of Brothers. It was a critically acclaimed story of a WW II company of airborne infantry, 501st Easy Company, who fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and spearheaded the American drive into Nazi Germany. Jendreson said he had written his script with an eye to portraying a close-knit group of men and women defending Earth in tough conditions who were doing heroic things as a matter of course a la the Greatest Generation of Americans who won WW II. Speaking for myself, this vision appeals to me more than Abrams's plan of giving us Matt Damon in an unfilmed chapter of Kirk's life.
If DS9 alumni Ronald Moore (currently Battlestar Galactica), Ira Steven Behr, Michael Pillar, or Joss Whedon (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, & Serenity), or Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) were calling the shots on the new Trek film, I'd be less dubious than I am with Abrams at the helm. Another person I wouldn't have minded seeing in charge, but got passed over was Bryan Singer (X Men 1 & 2 and Superman Returns).
I wonder what part Abrams'll give his actor friend Greg Grunberg in the new movie?
Poor Furnace. Comparisons are...?
-
So, I said 300 gallons would be delivered yesterday? HA!
The fuel guy showed up with what he called a 'bazooka.' Since our whistle
doesn't work, since the...
10 years ago
10 comments:
MI:3 worked because it was so similar to Alias, and Alias fans knew what to expect.
Being a fan of Alias, and Lost, I can see your points, but if JJ is known for mixing and matching existing material, then perhaps (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate
here), he'll be just fine doing Trek. After all, it has HOW many years worth of television
franchinses and movies to draw from? The existing "world" is already there, and JJ just gets to
play in the sandbox. I think he'll be fine.
As Alias went on, Abrams fell below the standards he set for himself in seasons 1 & 2.
Reinventing classic Trek is a safe and conservative move that'll be
sure to appeal to existing fans. Matt Damon may make a good Kirk.
As for making it relevant to a new young audience, that's another
matter.
When I look back on Abrams' body of work to this point, he's been
able to start out with some good premises, whether derived or
somewhat original. But when taking them in new directions, he starts to run out of steam.
Abrams' reinvented classic Trek flick might be an OK standalone
story, but will it jumpstart the franchise for a new long-term run?
The main good thing I see from this so far is that Abrams isn't
trying to come up with a new crew and ship. Hopefully, others down
the line can pick up that baton and get things moving forward again.
I'm not sure that a director's past has to limit his creative direction, in part because (especially in television) how much creative control does he or she have over the material? Movies and television are a completely different medium from writing novels and stories and have much more money behind them and people to please.
Remember that Gene Roddenberry's own past was checkered and full of failures. The original t.v. series (which turned 40 years old this week) was canceled after 3 years. The first movie, which Roddenberry had the most creative control over, wasn't a success.
The franchise has succeeded because Roddenberry's ideas have been successfully retold by people like Harve Bennett, who had a better grasp of story-telling in movies and t.v. than Roddenberry.
Jim
Directors have a huge say in TV and film over the creative material, if they're also producers, which Abrams is. It's Abrams's idea to put a new Kirk story onscreen (with a new actor) and the studio heads decided to go for it.
Abrams's concept for the next film won't take Trek in a new direction so much as revisit its past and retread old ground.
Roddenberry's original incarnation struck a chord with its generation of viewers when it was first released. Does the classic Trek series have the same meaning for today's Generation X and younger?
Abrams will do what he wants, then we'll see how people take to the
new classic Trek film and whether it'll succeed unlike the "Nemesis"
film that told the last TNG story.
Boris,
Great SF becomes great because it strikes a chord with its readers or viewers. The question for the new movie is whether it can be made to strike another chord.
I suppose that the studio was leery of doing another Trek prequel because of how the last series fared. It's hard to sustain dramatic tension when you know the outcome of each "the world is threatened" scenario The Star Wars prequels suffered a similar fate. There wasn't enough theme to sustain either.
I don't think a new Trek movie featuring a younger Kirk needn't be dull, unless they're going to trot out another world-threatening plot sans theme. We know from back-story that Kirk led a rambunctious, mistake-prone life. If the new movie focuses on character, with enough exploration/battle scenes thrown in to make the SF moviegoers happy, there's no reason why the movie can't be successful.
Does Roddenberry's secular humanism still have the power to strike a chord? I think a script could be written that carries meaning for today's viewers. For example, a movie that deals with the ideas of terrorism, preemptive war, religious fundamentalism, and patriotism in wartime would certainly be topical to today's theatre-goers.
Star Trek has proven adaptable as a medium for expressing ideas. The first t.v. series dealt with 60's cultural values; the movies with the Cold War and detente, and TNG with 80's and 90's one-world culture, Why can't this new movie deal with today's issues?
I favor the movie dealing with today's issues.
I'm just dubious about reliving Kirk.
And I'm dubious about Abrams.
Though set in the present, MI:3 and Alias weren't topical so much as they were character dramas that also served as star vehicles for Tom Cruise and Jennifer Garner.
Since Abrams is staying mum about his story at this point, we don't
know what his film will deal with.
It'll be nice if Abrams's film turns out well. But will it be good
for the public to be fed a reinvented classic Trek cast for the next few years?
Will it be a good thing for Kirk and Picard to be recast every 10
years like Batman, Superman, and James Bond?
Trek also started out as a TV phenomenom. What about a new series
as opposed to the upcoming feature film?
I think a Trek series post DS9 and Voyager would have to deal with multiple problems.
1: Finding enemies more dramatic than the Dominion and the Borg.
2: Squeezing the series between after Janeway gets her crew home and before she starts zipping around in this timeship I heard about. (I missed the last few episodes of Voyager) Time travel stuff is, for me, the hardest stuff to pull off without colliding with my logic breakers.
3: If technology proceeds forward, then soon any and all medical and technological emergencies ought to be solved with transporter and replicator technology. Frankly, I think they already should have been, but who am I to say?
4: They need to figure out if Worf is the ambassador to the Klingons or a Star Fleet officer. Worf turned into one of the most dymanic characters in the Trek verse. Something ought to be done about him. Right now Paramount is acting like he's in a state of quantum flux depending on whether or not they need to borrow him for a movie.
5: The political fallout of the collapse of the Kardasian Empire, the slow decay of the Klingon Empire, and internal tensions of the Romulan Empire, all of which might be the only reasons why the bashed up Federation is the major power left standing.
6: Why senior officers keep going on away teams, besides saving money on casting?
Paul, who obviously spent too much time thinking about it.
Starting up a new series after DS9, Voyager, and TNG would be tough, but a worthwhile challenge IMHO.
>He mixes and matches other people's ideas, and occasionally turns out good stuff with them. He might turn out a good stand alone Kirk story, but it likely won't break a lot of new ground in the Trek universe.
Even if he doesn't it could still be good. Depending on what they do and at what age Damon plays Kirk, if he does play him. Who knows maybe they will do something different and bring out another son of Kirk. So Damon could play Kirk, but not James. :)
Louis
Hopefully this new Kirk story will turn out OK.
But how many stories can be told about Kirk, Picard, etc. before things start to seem stale?
It seems to me that Trek won't last long if the Paramount leadership continually spins stories off of Trek canon rather than plows ahead with new characters and storylines.
IMHO, Paramount revisiting Trek's past rather than moving forward into the future is a bit like a person refusing to graduate from college because he's afraid of what's going to come next.
Post a Comment