J.J. Abrams Delivers a Mid-Summer Star Trek Update

July 14, 2008

J.J. Abrams Star Trek

It's been quite a while since we've heard anything from J.J. Abrams about the upcoming Star Trek. And unfortunately Paramount decided to pull out of the San Diego Comic-Con, meaning we won't be seeing anything there either. Abrams was recently interview during the Television Critics Association's summer press tour (via SciFi) and spoke briefly about the film and their absence from Comic-Con. He didn't add much to what we already know, but Abrams did admit that he was "disappointed" to hear that he wouldn't be traveling down to San Diego to share some footage with fans. In turn, he talks about how important the characters are over the visual effects - definitely a good sign this is headed in the right direction.

Abrams explained to press that "our Star Trek is not parody, and so the idea of maintaining character relationships, the dynamic between the characters, [was key]. I never saw how Kirk and Spock became so connected. And that's what this movie does. And it does it with the entire family of the Enterprise." He also adds that "there's a certain thing that you can't really hold onto, which is… there's a kind of kitschy quality that must go if it's going to be something that you believe is real." So obviously Abrams is looking to go for the much more visceral and not as cheesy Star Trek that we all know. And for those who have been anxiously awaiting Abrams' version of Star Trek, this is definitely exciting to hear.

As for Comic-Con, Abrams explains somewhat why Paramount decided not to bring anything down. "Our visual effects, unlike something like Iron Man, we have well over 1,000 visual-effects shots. It's a huge thing. So I'm very disappointed, because the characters are so good, the actors are so good, that I would have been psyched just to show some of the stuff that's about the people. Because it's not really about the visual effects. But with so little done… And this was a big kind of strategic decision on [Paramount's] part. so I was disappointed." Alas, it's true that none of it is ready, but I would've liked to see some footage, too! It looks like we'll have to wait a little longer until we see a trailer or anything else related to Star Trek.

Star Trek is directed by J.J. Abrams (of "Lost" and Mission: Impossible III) and written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (of The Island, Mission: Impossible III, Transformers). The film is the 11th movie in the Star Trek universe. Star Trek arrives in theaters on May 8th, 2009.

Find more posts: Movie News, Opinions



darn. i was hopin for an ACTUAL teaser trailer

Josh on Jul 14, 2008


I think I speak for everyone when I say ....meh

Garrett.king on Jul 14, 2008



James on Jul 14, 2008


nope. u dont speak for me ; ) im actually excited i love star trek and love abrams. it's gonna rock

Josh on Jul 14, 2008


My thought is that it cannot possibly be as horrible as Enterprise. Abrams makes good intriguing stuff, I am excited to see his fresh take on the franchise.

interl0per on Jul 14, 2008


I hold a filmmaker to the same standards as I would the manufacturer of any other product. If LG burns me on a couple of monitors I'd never willingly contribute to their bottom line again. It's a rule that has saved me from ever wasting another penny on M.Night crap since Signs (for example). This project gets two stakes in the heart, one due to Enterprise and the overwhelmingly mediocre television episodes since Second Generation, and a second for J.J Abrams involvement. Never never ever will I waste another penny on his schlock.

RandyG on Jul 14, 2008


You kidding me? They can't even just show One Alien, or a few New Shots of the Enterprise being built, from the previous trailer??? I think that's B.S. Paramount pulling out of Comic Con basically says they don't care about their own goddamn success! That's like skipping the single most important Trade Show for your particular product. Bogus. Show us some BALLS Abrams! ...Oh, you're directing Star Trek, I forgot. That means you don't necessarily have any. What these guys have to realize is that the schlock & kitsch elements of the old series are what turned them into a franchise in the first place. Sci Fi fans dug it, but FAR more importantly, ordinary general audiences could laugh their asses off at it. If he's removed all the humor, he's in for one serious disappointment. The first trek film Star Trek the motion picture was dead serious too. And no one saw it, till they made the rollicking "tongue-in-cheek" adventure, the Wrath of Khan. Randy G: Just admit you're a nerd like the rest of us, if that's the way you look at film-makers. I'll admit it. I'm a nerd in denial. See, how hard can it be?

Adam Swartzburg on Jul 15, 2008


Adam, even nerds have to be discerning consumers. I'm not saying we all have to enjoy the same things, just that if something has proven itself to be insultingly stupid to us once we should realize it will continue to be in the future.

RandyG on Jul 15, 2008


I agree w/ you on M. Night. People should know better at this point. Basically, any film-maker who's worth their salt will be willing to try something completely new & shift gears to freshen up their craft & career. In Trek's case, they're obviously willing to try something new here, since their recent outings (like over the past decade) have only been enough to keep die-hard, introverted fans on board. I agree w/ you as well about next Gen. Basically, if you're not going to have a shakespeare worthy cast, you're not going to top that, and all the follow up shows fell far short. I will correct myself, however. This movie casts Simon Pegg as Scotty! That guy has to be one of the most talented, energetic comedians on planet earth. They're OBVIOUSLY not sacrificing ALL the humor. It's almost as if they should just make a really fucking hilarious film, and call it: "SCOTTY".

Django on Jul 15, 2008


I totally agree with number 6, Randy. I'm sick of J.J. Abrams flashy mediocrity...all toll with "Lost" season two, onwards! They end up asking more questions than providing answers. It gets boring. "Mission: Impossible 3" was a decent spy movie, but NOT a Mission: Impossible movie. They didn't even explain what that "rabbit's foot" was....what did that girl @ the beginning for?? - He's no treasure and I don't think we're going to find any on this voyage either...even where no man has boldly gone before.

Conrad on Jul 15, 2008


Let me reiterate the 'meh' from number 2 and number 3 above. Jar Jar Abrams is supremely overrated, and I doubt he's bringing anything to Star Trek other than a Ron Moore BSG-style franchise reboot. And let's ask this pertinent question: What "kitschy" qualities does he feel Star Trek has? 'Kitsch' can be defined as "art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an existing style. The term is also used more loosely in referring to any art that is pretentious to the point of being in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass." So, again, what about Star Trek is Jar Jar saying is 'kitschy'? Oh yeah, let's not forget who the writers are. They gave us "Transformers" last year, a movie with great special effects and lousy everything else.

Joe on Jul 15, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram