The Los Angeles Times posted the second part of their extensive interview with Star Trek movie director J.J. Abrams and here are few excerpts. (beware of minor spoilers)
GB: Is it your sense that you are winning over skeptical fans to this point?
JAA: You know, I would think that especially fans of "Star Trek," which is an optimistic universe, a universe about working together and the possibility of the human endeavor, you would think that people who appreciate that wonderful portrait of the future and that universe would be open to literally going to a place no one has ever gone before. I'm very optimistic that fans of the show, even the pursuits, will be willing to embrace the spirit of Roddenberry and once they see these actors doing this extraordinary work, I think they will have to intellectualize it all, they'll simply enjoy the experience. It's a cliche now to say "Where no man has gone before" because it has been the vernacular now for more than 40 years but if you actually think about it -- and actually remind yourself that we live on this planet and we are creatures inhabiting in this space with undefined limits and with technology that will invariably come -- "Star Trek" is positing a future that is incredibly inspiring. If you can get past the cliche and make it real and relevant, there's something very exciting about that. This is not "Star Wars" which happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is us and our future.
GB: Can you talk a bit about the story of this film?
JAA: This story is ultimately about a guy who is full of unbelievable potential but he is aimless, he is lost. He ends up finding a path that takes him beyond his wildest dreams. It helps him find his purpose. That's a great story in any situation, in any culture. There is something about that spirit of innovation, collaboration, possibility, adventure and optimism that is inherent in what "Star Trek" was.
GB: "Star Wars" vs. "Star Trek" is sort of a classic Beatles vs. Stones debate for sci-fi fans of a certain age. You have said you wanted to infuse your "Trek" revival with some lessons learned from the George Lucas universe. Can you talk about that?
JAA: Well, I'm just a fan of "Star Wars." As a kid, "Star Wars" was much more my thing than "Star Trek" was. If you look at the last three "Star Wars" films and what technology allowed them to do, they covered so much terrain in terms of design, locations, characters, aliens, ships -- so much of the spectacle has been done and it seems like every aspect has been covered, whether it's geography or design of culture or weather system or character or ship type. Everything has been tapped in those movies. The challenge of doing "Star Trek" -- despite the fact that it existed before "Star Wars" -- is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.
GB: How do you overcome that?
JAA: The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it's a no-win situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me that the key to "Star Trek" was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the "Star Wars" film accomplished. For instance, we needed to establish that there are aliens in this universe and yet I didn't want it to feel like every scene had four new multi-colored characters in it. That is something "Star Wars" did so well with its amazing creature design. The question is how do you subtly introduce the idea that there are different species here. And to also do it differently than the ["Trek"] TV shows, which basically had someone wearing a mask sitting in a chair [in the background]. It was the balance of doing what the story needed us to do but also not feeling like we were trying to rip off or out-do what Lucas did.
http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/01/...ranchise.shtml
GB: Is it your sense that you are winning over skeptical fans to this point?
JAA: You know, I would think that especially fans of "Star Trek," which is an optimistic universe, a universe about working together and the possibility of the human endeavor, you would think that people who appreciate that wonderful portrait of the future and that universe would be open to literally going to a place no one has ever gone before. I'm very optimistic that fans of the show, even the pursuits, will be willing to embrace the spirit of Roddenberry and once they see these actors doing this extraordinary work, I think they will have to intellectualize it all, they'll simply enjoy the experience. It's a cliche now to say "Where no man has gone before" because it has been the vernacular now for more than 40 years but if you actually think about it -- and actually remind yourself that we live on this planet and we are creatures inhabiting in this space with undefined limits and with technology that will invariably come -- "Star Trek" is positing a future that is incredibly inspiring. If you can get past the cliche and make it real and relevant, there's something very exciting about that. This is not "Star Wars" which happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. This is us and our future.
GB: Can you talk a bit about the story of this film?
JAA: This story is ultimately about a guy who is full of unbelievable potential but he is aimless, he is lost. He ends up finding a path that takes him beyond his wildest dreams. It helps him find his purpose. That's a great story in any situation, in any culture. There is something about that spirit of innovation, collaboration, possibility, adventure and optimism that is inherent in what "Star Trek" was.
GB: "Star Wars" vs. "Star Trek" is sort of a classic Beatles vs. Stones debate for sci-fi fans of a certain age. You have said you wanted to infuse your "Trek" revival with some lessons learned from the George Lucas universe. Can you talk about that?
JAA: Well, I'm just a fan of "Star Wars." As a kid, "Star Wars" was much more my thing than "Star Trek" was. If you look at the last three "Star Wars" films and what technology allowed them to do, they covered so much terrain in terms of design, locations, characters, aliens, ships -- so much of the spectacle has been done and it seems like every aspect has been covered, whether it's geography or design of culture or weather system or character or ship type. Everything has been tapped in those movies. The challenge of doing "Star Trek" -- despite the fact that it existed before "Star Wars" -- is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.
GB: How do you overcome that?
JAA: The key to me is to not ever try to outdo them because it's a no-win situation. Those movies are so extraordinarily rendered that it felt to me that the key to "Star Trek" was to go from the inside-out: Be as true to the characters as possible, be as real and as emotional and as exciting as possible and not be distracted by the specter of all that the "Star Wars" film accomplished. For instance, we needed to establish that there are aliens in this universe and yet I didn't want it to feel like every scene had four new multi-colored characters in it. That is something "Star Wars" did so well with its amazing creature design. The question is how do you subtly introduce the idea that there are different species here. And to also do it differently than the ["Trek"] TV shows, which basically had someone wearing a mask sitting in a chair [in the background]. It was the balance of doing what the story needed us to do but also not feeling like we were trying to rip off or out-do what Lucas did.
http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/01/...ranchise.shtml
).
Comment