Well put Bosco. I could not have said it better. There were choices that were made that I did not agree with, but that did not take away from the story. These were his choices to make and his story to tell. He told HIS story well. I remember being in this place with Battlestar and their decision to make Starbuck a woman and Tigh White. While I still think that moore has some issues with Blacks and screwed up the finale, he told his story well and the casting decisions proved to good ones.
I think Abrams bristles at some of the hardcore trekkers/trekkies reactions and sometimes goes out of his way to alienate them in his interviews and some of the marketing. I also think that some of that dynamic in going on with his bizarro relationship with Shatner. I like Shatner, but he sometimes does appear to have some type of Star Trek god complex going on. If Abrams is the type of person who does not brush off his shoulders when outsiders tell him they think he is wrong, then that might explain some of his actions. I think Shatner going public with his crusade to be on the show, guaranteed his fate. It was tacky and idiotic to take the casting issue to the public. I too found that a tremendous amount of work and care went into breathing life into a dying franchise, by evolving it into something new, a wonderful hybrid of new and old,while staying true to some many of the aspects that are important to trekkies. I was home again. I saw flaws, but overall after years of missteps with Trek films over the last decade or so, (First Contact being the exception) Abrams delivered the goods. I also saw improvements. In my mind, I hated that Uhuru, Sulu, Scotty and Chekov were glorified extras. I see potential for more character development with their characters. In a way, there was more character development for them in two hours than in the entire three years the series was on. Showing more of the internal batter with being both human and vulcan was also an interesting move in my opinion. Just remember, two years ago, we did not know if or when there would be a new trek film or show. Now, thanks to Abrams, we have Trekkers 2.0 with new fans that are hooked on the Trek mythology. We are likely to have guaranteed at least a decade of trek films and there is a Trek series in the works with a really good producer with great scifi production credentials. we also will likely see even more scifi movie productions. With all the money that will be made, if there are ways to keep production casts down, networks will open up again to more scifi series. The man gave us a gift. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Bosco Bosco <ironpi...@...> wrote: > > Keith > > One of the things I love about this list are your posts. I'm saying that up > front because I am gonna respectfully disagree with you.I LOVE the new Trek > Film. I will say without question it's the best Trek Film EVER. It's not > lazy. That's partly because it's Trek and partly because it's not. It's not > lazy. It's just not what you want. It's clear that a tremendous amount of > research, thought and work went into this film. Because Abrams made choices > you would not have does not make him a lazy story teller. > > I have always loved science fiction because it creates other possibilities > and amazing worlds > of "what if." The constraints of reality have always been cast away for > better story telling. That's exactly what the new Trek film DOES WELL!!! > > I've also made no secret of late that one of the things I love about the new > Trek Film is the way it INFURIATES the Trek nerds. It's freakin awesome that > it has been so successful, so good and produced a reaction so strong. > Indicative, I think, that Abrams got it EXACTLY right in order to breathe > life into the franchise. Let's face it, it WAS DEAD, Jim. The fact that some > of the older generation of Trek fans can't let go of the bloated corpse of > what was, simply makes me giggle. I'm sorry for your loss but unless some > "Trekditionalists" get a bunch of funds together to make another in long line > of generally subpar science fiction films, it's Abrams world now and we're > just visiting. Time to find a way to move on. > > Bosco > --- On Sat, 5/16/09, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@...> wrote: > > From: Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@...> > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Star Trek' Director Open To Sequel With William > Shatner Or Khan > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Cc: ggs...@..., cinque3...@... > Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 10:52 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but every time I listen to Abrams make statements like "The > old continuity was restrictive" , it angers me. That's just lazy film making. > The Trek universe spans five series, ten movies, and --including "enterprise" > --about two centuries. You're telling me he couldn't find something in *all > that* to fuel new, action-driven stories? He couldn't have brought together > this crew in the movie in any way other than to reset the timeline? Why not > just have told the previously untold story of how Kirk assembled his crew in > the original continuity in this movie? It's not exactly as if anyone's ever > said there was only one way that could have been done. > > My point is there is no reason to change history just to use young cast > members. Kirk in the movie is about 2 -3 years younger than Kirk was in the > original timeline when he became captain, but you can work around that. We > don't know the backstories of how Bones, Uhura, and Scotty were brought to > the Enterprise, so you can write that story. Just because Chekhov never > showed up in season one of the OS doesn't mean you can't finesse things a bit > and bring him in for the movie. Only three of the original five years of > Kirk's original mission were shown on TV. Nothing there to mine? > > Like them or not, Brannon and Braga jiggered Trek continuity a bit for > "Enterprise" : the Xindi attack on Earth...the Borg sphere found on Earth > (something blamed on "First Contact).... And while some of that made some of > us howl, as the series got better toward its end, we saw it was okay. Indeed, > we liked it precisely because it was exploring the themes from the OS that > had always been there. So, they changed things a bit, but at least they > explored the original universe, and to their credit, when B&B got it right, > they did a great job of updating the old, but staying true to it. Thus, we > all loved the storyline revealing the secret of the Green Orion > "slaves"...the Augment storyline, which continued the story of the Eugenics > War, and set the stage for Data's creation someday....the study of how Vulcan > pulled itself back from the brink of becoming violently emotional again, to > embrace Surak's teachings anew...the dude who was a disciple of Colonel > Green's xenophobia and racism-- All good stories, all told in *original* > continuity for the most part. > > I keep struggling to understand why we have to kill Kirk's father--oh, it > just makes it easy to create a young punk Kirk for contrast with the later > hero he'll become...why > we had to destroy Vulcan.--oh, I guess it makes Spock's feeling of being lost > and alone more poignant..why we had to make Spock act like he's > undergoing ponfar all the time--oh, so we can really get the struggle, as I > guess the OS didn't do a good enough job of presenting that. > > Abrams just > didn't like old Trek and he wanted to eliminate it to recreate it. There is > no reason at all you can't tell new fresh stories in Trek within the original > continuity. I have felt all along that we we've had is a guy who thinks Star > Wars is superiour to Trek, who comes from the hit-you-over- the-head school > of filmmaking. Thus he all but destroys the Vulcan race and sees it as > opening up things, rather than a critical blow to what makes Trek, Trek. > > I haven't seen or heard yet one thing to make me understand why you have to > destroy the past rather than honor it. Why you tear down the old instead of > building upon it. How eliminating forty years of great storytelling is > liberating. > Sorry: just lazy filmmaking from guys who just don't get it. >
