"Star Trek" Director Talks Franchise Reinvention

LOS ANGELES — J.J. Abrams grew up more a fan of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo than of James Kirk and his Vulcan buddy Spock. So why is a self-professed "Star Wars" kid directing "Star Trek"?

"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," said Abrams, who recently finished shooting on "Star Trek," due in theaters May 8, 2009. "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. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

Abrams, creator of TV's "Lost" and "Alias" whose big-screen credits include "Mission: Impossible III," shared some "Trek" thoughts with The Associated Press in an interview to promote the DVD release of his monster movie "Cloverfield."

While he enjoyed the TV show about Capt. Kirk, First Officer Spock and their Enterprise crew mates, Abrams said he was not a rabid fan.

In this age of make-or-break opening weekends, the revival of the franchise seven years after the last movie ("Star Trek: Nemesis") flopped may depend on introducing a new generation to the exploits of the 23rd century explorers rather than just hooking old fans.

"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."

After the 1960s TV show went off the air, it remained alive in syndication, and the original cast led by William Shatner as Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Spock was reunited for six big-screen movies.

Four more movies followed starring Patrick Stewart and the cast of the 1980s and '90s update "Star Trek: The Next Generation," while the "Trek" universe expanded to include three other TV series.

Abrams' "Star Trek" takes the franchise back to its beginning, with a young cast re-creating the Enterprise crew: Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock, Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, Simon Pegg as engineer Scott, John Cho as helmsman Sulu, Zoe Saldana as communications officer Uhura and Anton Yelchin as navigator Chekov.

"It's a chance to see what Kirk and Spock would look like done now," Abrams said. "What's thrilling about it is how great the cast is, how remarkably talented and funny and just spot-on they all are."

Nimoy also reprises his role as the older Spock, though Shatner _ whose Kirk was killed at the end of the seventh movie, "Star Trek: Generations" _ does not appear.

Abrams would not share plot details, saying only that the movie would remain faithful to the original while breaking new ground in action, drama and visual effects, which are being crafted by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic outfit.

"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 can say the effects for `Star Trek' have never, ever been done like this. ... I can only tell you the idea of the universe of `Star Trek' has never been given this kind of treatment."

Comments

[mamacat]

It is difficult for me to imagine how this new movie will be appealing, but I certainly wish them luck.

One of the appeals of the original TV series was that is was innovative in showing a culture in which all people could get along. We saw all races and two genders working in harmony, equality, and with respect for one-another, something which at the time was as much the realm of science fiction as were the special effects.

We saw rules for dealing with "more primitive" societies, that attempted to ensure that they were not exploited by the more powerful Federation, even though it thought itself superior.

In an age where it has become socially respectable to be openly anti-intellectual and religous, will our society now be able to respect the ideals of Star Trek?

[Mykel]

All I want to know is if they're gonna go with 60's-esque costumes.

I'm serious.

I think it's safe to say we've all lived long enough to watch fashions get recycled. I mean, come on, today's teenagers can't get enough of 80's Members Only jackets and skinny ties. Surely beehive hairdos and Beatle boots could make a comeback 300 years from now, too.

Just sayin'.

[Mykel]

ps

www.debatebothsides.com

[auramac]

Star Trek was great for many reasons- the stories, concept, characters, of course- but also the irreplaceable cast. The Superman movies with Christopher Reeve were great, of course- but to me, George Reeves is still Superman. Sean Connery IS James Bond- the rest are merely a mix of good and bad films. We know who Kirk and Spock are. New cast? Could be interesting- though if they got Nimoy, they should've gotten, and resurrected Shatner as Kirk. Generations was the worst Star Trek movie ever made- Shatner should never have allowed them to kill Kirk at all, let alone with such a stupid, underwhelmingly dramatic plotline.

Otherwise, they should've been more inventive and gone yet another 100 years or so with an entirely new cast of characters, so that the audience could experience the joy of discovery more than the agony or ecstasy of comparison. Star Trek isn't Star Wars. It's not supposed to be.

[BlackJAC]

You're aware that both DeForrest Kelly and James Doohan are dead, right? And then there's the possibility that the rest of the cast might not want to do it anymore?

Bill Maher said it best: leave STAR TREK to the professionals.

[BlueHorde]

Of course Paramount is making this movie in order to cash in. That's show biz.

But it was the fans that made it happen.

Paramount had given up on the 'franchise' after Nemesis and 'Enterprise' (which was cancelled just as it was starting to get really good under the helm of Manny Coto). Meanwhile the fans were having none of it. If Paramount wasn't going to make the Star Trek shows they wanted to see, they would make their own.

Now there are about a dozen fan series being shown on the internet for no profit. The best of these is Star Trek Phase II (formerly New Voyages) which has seen well over 30 million downloads of it episodes of the "fourth season" of Classic Trek: http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html It's latest episode "World Enough and Time" is an award winner, having beat several professional Hollywood productions. These 'fanboys' and girls have proven to Paramount that there is still a hunger for new stories and that the fans would accept new actors in the classic roles.

[CFAmick]

"Paramount had given up on the 'franchise' after Nemesis and 'Enterprise' (which was cancelled just as it was starting to get really good under the helm of Manny Coto)."

Nemesis could have been a much better film, but it ended up being kind of blah. The third season of Enterprise as a metaphor for 9/11 blew me away. Ultimately the original ST was a platform to explore social issues, and we need that now more than ever.

[STParker]

I'm looking forward to this, but I'm a sucker for Star Trek. I can quite pin down the difference between the Trek movies that I enjoyed and the ones that I felt were subpar. I really liked II, IV, IV, Generations was pretty good, but First Contact was overrated. Frankly I think the series finale of TNG made a better movie than most of the actual TNG movies.

Having said that I am looking forward to the reboot. Story, acting and production values and yes a thoughtful (no cheesy) examination of the human condition is what seems to make the best Star Trek movies, but even they can be hit or miss. With a lot of miss over the last few productions.

I hope it has a good score.

[TakeSake]

Star Trek the original series has relevance due to the fair number of episodes that explore the timeless struggles that afflict individuals and empires. The setting in space is simply a good way to dissociate it from obvious comparisons in order to draw out the underlying moral or meaning. As time goes on this is what keeps it interesting for me.

[Wiredwilly]

Best news I've heard in months. Reminds me of a glorious time when America didn't torture people , the Smothers Brothers were on T.V., and George Bush was just a bad dream. I hope it works and they can regain the intellectual cheese that made the original such a hoot.
Live Long And Prosper.

[tinkaboutit]

I am SO there. I'll take any crappy series concept just as long as i get my trek swerve on.

[Igfee]

how can you beat flying pancakes for special FX? stop trying to re-invent the wheel

[Bart33]

Re-casting the entire original cast. For a show that is a *cult* hit.

At best this is called wanking. At worse it's one of the dumbest ideas a person can come up.

Remember Gus Van Sant's Psyhco?

[shinybear]

Except for "The Brady Bunch Movie"- but that was another story completely.

[BlackJAC]

Considering how two of the original cast are dead and the rest are well into their 70s? Remember the "STAR TREK XII: SO VERY TIRED" joke on THE SIMPSONS?

[GarysDiscardedCaps]

I am happy to say that as a kid I watched the original series on NBC from its start in the 60's and was glued to the TV every week.
The thing that made the show unique was the social commentary mixed into the story lines, something that was lacking in every endeavor, TV and movies, since that time.
This is not the fault of the writers or directors but can only be blamed on timing...being at the right place at the right time.
IMO this can't be recreated, kinda like trying to recreate Beatlemania, and seems to be the major flaw in the writers/directors approach to these movies.
i.e. Abbrams "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. To take it and apply it in a way that felt genuinely thrilling."

Best to let it die. Kinda like Lucas should have done with Star War 1-3. Just awful!

[AMonkey]

The original series was created in a time when infusing social commentary into entertainment was not popular. We now have ample freedom to speak, but we're up against the same Silent Majority/ Fox News mindset that was prevalent in the 1960's. Abrams could have stayed true to the original series by taking a few tips from Boston Legal.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series 2005 - William Shatner

[TurgidCaterwauling]

If, like the re-boot of James Bond, they get it right, it will no doubt be entertaining. Unfortunately,
the original group only got two of the films right. The rest were the quality of made for T.V. movies. I have no problem with a new and younger cast. Half the originals are dead and those still living would have definite credibility issues, even if they could persuade James T.J. Hooker Crane Kirk to make a cameo. Let's see what happens. I don't place much credence in the comments of those who have seen snippets.

[javaman]

"it's worse that, Jim, it's lame".

[Pantelleria01]

Cloverfield was mildly interesting but clearly a childish work by a child, a spoiled and clever little boy. Using Lucas for Star Trek is using a very ugly, ugly man with a rented soul to create something he not only can never understand, but has always rather hated in my view. Lucas is nothing. Looking at him I want to vomit. So between this little boy and this ugly man we should expect a good star trek film? One can hope. I love good science fiction but it has been a long time since anyone really did something good.

[LiberalBuzz]

I'm a fan of all the "STAR..." movies, and of course the best science fiction show of ALL TIME...>FIREFLY. BUT a friend of mine who does special effects in Hollywood saw some of the dailies and screenings of the new ST movie and he put it plainly...it sucks.

His qualifications are that he built the first BORG ship for ST-TNG. I saw the building of it and in the warehouse they had the huge saucer that the Borg drilled a compartment out of and he still has on his wall that compartment. He's a big fan of ST. He was just bummed at how the movie is done on such a bad idea and badly done at that.

The entire idea of going BACK to the early days of Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew was just horrendous. You have an entire universe to work with, you have more availability of storylines than just about anything you could do on Earth and THIS WAS THE BEST THEY COULD COME UP WITH??

KIrk as a young man at the academy???

I'm dreading how the reviews and fan feedback are going to seriously kill a great franchise because NO ONE HAD BETTER IDEAS???

[rektruax]

I'm an uber fan and I didn't understand why they're dragging out the Kirk saga again... A movie based on the latest installment "Enterprise" would have been a better choice in my opinion.

[peavydreamer]

I agree!

[wolfgangmo]

Yes,

Dear Paramount, I think I talk for many fans when I say that I will stay away from this movie until I hear the reviews. If it bombs it is not because ST is a bad concept, it is because you made bad choices. So if heads must roll, don't make it about ST, and roll the junior VP in charge of stupid decisions who put a self professed wanker in charge of a remake.

[BlackJAC]

I am so reminded of Shatner's apperance on SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE right when STAR TREK IV came out...