Monday, July 24, 2006
This One's for the Non-Fans, Part 8
Many moons ago, we heard that J. J. Abrams would be helming Star Trek 11: Wherein A Dead Horse Is Beaten Yet Again, and there was a fluttering of hope throughout the Trek fandom. Abrams is, after all, king of rabid fanbases. Wait, that's Joss Wheadon. Abrams is the, um, Prime Minister of rabid fanbases. First there was Felicity, then Alias, then Lost. We all know he likes scifi and weirdness and isn't afraid to go wayyyyyyy over the top. He's intensely loyal to his characters and, for that matter, the actors that play them--Greg Grunberg, anyone?
That's why I was surprised to see him use the same old, tired line that every Trek producer uses prior to filming:
"We absolutely feel beholden to the fans, but at the same time, we have to recognize that you can't only go out and make a movie or TV shows for a group of people that live and breathe a show," Abrams says. His goal: to make a pic that "simultaneously speaks to the people who hold 'Star Trek' close to their heart and at the same time tell a story that resonates" with new fans.
Pardonez moi, Mr Abrams, but that is pretty hilarious coming from someone who created a spy show anchored in layers and layers of hidden agencies, triple agents, and mystical ancient religions. One could never become a "new" fan of Alias, because you were already 4 years into a mythology that eluded even the most faithful fans. By the series' close, we still had no idea what was going on.
Then there's Lost. Knowing your penchant for alienating outsiders, ABC insists on playing summary shows every half-season to catch everyone up on what they missed. Even still, we rarely know what's happening one show to the next or understand the sometimes-meaningful-sometimes-not symbolism you buried in the scenes.
Now you're trying to feed us the ol' "Sure we love the fans, but what about the newbies?!" line, and here's the thing: What about the newbies? Star Trek premiered in the 60s. That gives you 45 solid years of fandom. It is an industry unto itself. There were even enough fans to keep Enterprise going for 4 years, as horrible as it was. FOUR YEARS of Jonathan Archer! That tells you right there how crazy we are.
Let me ask you something. When you finally make your Alias movie in which Sloane arises from his tomb of everlasting life, Lena Olin is resurrected, Sydney and Not Michael Vaughn bust out their dayglo wigs, and zombies wander the streets under the dripping light of yet another Rambaldi doomsday machine, are you going to waste one teenie tiny second on the non-fans?
That's what I thought.
Here's what happens when you make a movie for fans that "live and breathe a show"-- Star Trek II: Khaaaaan! It jumped right into a character left behind during the original series which was, by that point, 20 years prior. TWENTY YEARS. Besides a little monologuing, no time was wasted on the non-fans. Yes, there were lots of explosions, but every character remained him or herself, nobody did anything out of line, nobody married their lifetime love on a cheesy Holodeck and nobody who formerly wore a banana clip on their face got new eyes between movies. They did kill Spock, but hey, then we had Star Trek III: Just Kidding Spock Lives. Again, nobody wasted film trying to explain who Spock was, and it was great. Sadly, after that every movie progressively got farther away from the canon and away from the true fanbase.
The tricky thing now is, ST XI is in the past, which is actually a good thing. All the silliness and plotholes laid out in the movies can simply be ignored. You know who the characters are, and you know they are destined for greatness. All you have to do is show us how they got that way. That's all. They have their personalities and their paths. Do. Not. Re. Write. Them. Some traits are just in the soul--Kirk's wiley heroism, McCoy's sarcasm, Spock's deadpan condescension... No need to show the day Kirk learned to objectify women, or that secretly, he's actually very understanding and respectful. 'Cause, no.
Now, JJ, you can do one of two things. You can raise Trek from the dead and bring it back to life in an X-Files way, which is to say, it's alive but it's wandering around with the tire marks still across it and flies buzzing around its eyes until someone finally, mercifully, puts it out of our spitting, hissing, Abrams-deriding misery.
Or, you can recognize that there is no more rabid, knowledgeable, broad, money-spending fanbase than Trek fans and send the franchise off into what will probably be oblivion in the form of a loveletter. You will be revered and praised by a group who would normally look at you like a Johnny-come-lately hack, and we will give you all our money, because we are good like that.
Choose wisely, JJ. And, please, nobody wants to see Greg Grunberg playing Kirk. 'K, thanks.
PS For more pictures on what you get when you cross JJ Abrams and Star Trek, visit my graphics page.
That's why I was surprised to see him use the same old, tired line that every Trek producer uses prior to filming:
"We absolutely feel beholden to the fans, but at the same time, we have to recognize that you can't only go out and make a movie or TV shows for a group of people that live and breathe a show," Abrams says. His goal: to make a pic that "simultaneously speaks to the people who hold 'Star Trek' close to their heart and at the same time tell a story that resonates" with new fans.
Pardonez moi, Mr Abrams, but that is pretty hilarious coming from someone who created a spy show anchored in layers and layers of hidden agencies, triple agents, and mystical ancient religions. One could never become a "new" fan of Alias, because you were already 4 years into a mythology that eluded even the most faithful fans. By the series' close, we still had no idea what was going on.
Then there's Lost. Knowing your penchant for alienating outsiders, ABC insists on playing summary shows every half-season to catch everyone up on what they missed. Even still, we rarely know what's happening one show to the next or understand the sometimes-meaningful-sometimes-not symbolism you buried in the scenes.
Now you're trying to feed us the ol' "Sure we love the fans, but what about the newbies?!" line, and here's the thing: What about the newbies? Star Trek premiered in the 60s. That gives you 45 solid years of fandom. It is an industry unto itself. There were even enough fans to keep Enterprise going for 4 years, as horrible as it was. FOUR YEARS of Jonathan Archer! That tells you right there how crazy we are.
Let me ask you something. When you finally make your Alias movie in which Sloane arises from his tomb of everlasting life, Lena Olin is resurrected, Sydney and Not Michael Vaughn bust out their dayglo wigs, and zombies wander the streets under the dripping light of yet another Rambaldi doomsday machine, are you going to waste one teenie tiny second on the non-fans?
That's what I thought.
Here's what happens when you make a movie for fans that "live and breathe a show"-- Star Trek II: Khaaaaan! It jumped right into a character left behind during the original series which was, by that point, 20 years prior. TWENTY YEARS. Besides a little monologuing, no time was wasted on the non-fans. Yes, there were lots of explosions, but every character remained him or herself, nobody did anything out of line, nobody married their lifetime love on a cheesy Holodeck and nobody who formerly wore a banana clip on their face got new eyes between movies. They did kill Spock, but hey, then we had Star Trek III: Just Kidding Spock Lives. Again, nobody wasted film trying to explain who Spock was, and it was great. Sadly, after that every movie progressively got farther away from the canon and away from the true fanbase.
The tricky thing now is, ST XI is in the past, which is actually a good thing. All the silliness and plotholes laid out in the movies can simply be ignored. You know who the characters are, and you know they are destined for greatness. All you have to do is show us how they got that way. That's all. They have their personalities and their paths. Do. Not. Re. Write. Them. Some traits are just in the soul--Kirk's wiley heroism, McCoy's sarcasm, Spock's deadpan condescension... No need to show the day Kirk learned to objectify women, or that secretly, he's actually very understanding and respectful. 'Cause, no.
Now, JJ, you can do one of two things. You can raise Trek from the dead and bring it back to life in an X-Files way, which is to say, it's alive but it's wandering around with the tire marks still across it and flies buzzing around its eyes until someone finally, mercifully, puts it out of our spitting, hissing, Abrams-deriding misery.
Or, you can recognize that there is no more rabid, knowledgeable, broad, money-spending fanbase than Trek fans and send the franchise off into what will probably be oblivion in the form of a loveletter. You will be revered and praised by a group who would normally look at you like a Johnny-come-lately hack, and we will give you all our money, because we are good like that. Choose wisely, JJ. And, please, nobody wants to see Greg Grunberg playing Kirk. 'K, thanks.
PS For more pictures on what you get when you cross JJ Abrams and Star Trek, visit my graphics page.
Comments:
Post a Comment
