Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jack Briggs
Jason Seaver: Would you kindly share with us your thoughts about this whole thing? Do you like what Paramount has announced? Thank you. JB
|
Honestly, I think this has been a long time coming. I think I started kicking the idea around with friends as something nifty to do for the 25th anniversery (I think we had Keifer Sutherland cast as Kirk in our heads), and that was sixteen years ago. I never liked the idea of moving Trek forward into the 25th Century; I think that the technology in the 24th had reached the point where it was too abstract to be used for creating tension.
As to Abrams specifically, I like the choice. He's mentioned before that Kurtzman & Orci are big-time fans, and that the plan is to do something that is non-contradictory but not continuity-focused. My only real concern is that he'll get it in his head to do a trilogy, because as much as I like
Mission: Impossible 3 and some of the big episodes of
Alias, his long-form storytelling is awful (I bailed on
Lost after the second-season premiere, and yeah, I know his involvement has been minimal since he signed on for
M:I 3, but Lindelhoff is involved too).
In terms of re-establishing the "Star Trek" brand (and as a fan I feel a little dirty for typing that sentence), this is the best thing Paramount can do. Creating entirely new casts of characters has reached a point of diminishing returns. When someone says "Star Trek", the majority of men on the street word-associate Kirk and Spock, so why not give them that?
I do admit, I'm curious to see what the group will do design-wise. I think
Enterprise had the right idea of working forward from today rather than backward from TOS, so I hope the producers don't try to go retro-futuristic on us. Take a great deal of design influence from the original series, but make sure it passes muster for a possible future in the twentieth century.