In 2005, “Star Trek” was actually dead. The most recent series, “Star Trek: Enterprise”, was canceled after four inconvenient seasons, falling three years from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” and “Star Trek: Travel”. The series was never as widely loved as these, emerging like the sheep of the franchise. In addition, the 2002 film “Star Trek: Nemesis” was the film “Star Trek” the cheapest to date, drawing the adventures of “next generation” characters “with an equally precipitable closure. It seemed that the dark world chased by war after September 11 was no longer in a mood for a science fiction series that preached pacifism and diplomacy.

Advertisement

But then, “Star Trek” returned to rummer in 2009 with a restarted feature film directed by JJ Abrams. The new film, just called “Star Trek”, returned to the original Starship company, and followed the familiar characters from Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc., but now played by more recent, younger and sexier actors. Abrams has also accelerated the action, transforming the philosophical series usually into a simple turner. The film was filled with Hollywood Super-Slick action violence, and the public loved it. Over a budget of $ 150 million, “Star Trek” earned more than $ 387 million worldwide. / The film loved.

Of course, trekkies at the old school in the MUD – and I am one of them – understood that the abrams film was very far from the egalitarian spirit of the franchise. The old “Star Trek” generally focused on working relationships, science fiction concepts and ethical dilemmas. The new “Star Trek” had none of these things, preferring to be a more predictable thriller, based on revenge and at Haut Octane. And then, imagine the indignation of Trekkies when Abrams, just a few days before the release of the film, guardian That never obtained “Star Trek.” He had always been more a fan of “Star Wars”, connecting with action and thrills on cold logic and scientific thinking.

Advertisement

It must be remembered that “Star Trek”, while seeing its share of phaser battles and hand -to -hand combat, has never been based on action. The creator of the Gene Roddenberry series has envisaged a post-capitalist, post-religious future future, in which all humans had set their differences aside and worked together-and devoted all their technologies and talents to-the common good of galaxy. The triumphs of “Star Trek” came when the war was avoided, not when an enemy was beaten.

Advertisement

Abrams, however, didn’t like it. In his speech with The Guardian, he complained that “Star Trek” was too much talked about and did not have the kind of wild adventures he preferred. In his words:

“”[‘Star Trek’] I have always felt like a silly and campy thing. I remember enjoying it, but I felt that I didn’t understand it. I felt that it had not given me a path. Maybe I was not smart enough, maybe I was not old enough. But “The Twilight Zone” which was obsessed with me. I loved it. “”

To be fair, “Star Trek” had its share of silly and camping moments. The episode “Spock’s Brain” comes to mind, or perhaps “The Way To Eden”, which presented a musical whole led by hippies. In addition, Roddenberry may have been very progressive in some respects, but he has also taken care to write in some of his own sexual personal fantasies in the series (women all wear mini-meliists, for example), which makes many dated sexist vienes. “Star Trek” was released in 1966, and it is certainly a product of his time.

Advertisement

But it was exasperating that Trekkies hears that Abrams did not only like “Star Trek”, but did not even bother to know it.

Abrams has been able to snap several decades of existing “Star Trek” tradition via a vanity of the parallel universe somewhat. Thanks to a time portal, a super advanced Romulan ship traveled in time when James T. Kirk was born, killing his father and modifying the chronology. Abrams applied that Kirk would grow up to look like Chris Pine, and that he and his business crew companions would be more emotional versions of themselves. In a fatalistic turn, the characters would end up serving together on the USS Enterprise, now a much larger ship. Abrams was not concerned, however, of what was preceded. He leaned in his ignorance of “Star Trek”, and produced the film he wanted. He said:

Advertisement

“I did not know that there had been 10 films! I still haven’t seen them all. I did not want to become a student of” Star Trek “. I felt that it was in fact one of the few advantages I had.

Abrams also directed the “Star Trek” suite “Star Trek Into Darkness” in 2013And he only moved away from the central intellectualism of the original series. He has once again delivered an actuator based on high octane and based on revenge and has earned even more money, which earns more than $ 467 million worldwide. This film, however, is now considered one of the worst in the series. Abrams moved away from the 2016 follow -up “Star Trek Beyond”.

Abrams had a different attitude towards his 2015 film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”. He grew up watching “Star Wars” and always loved it, saying that it always left him an impression. He felt that the world was crowded and rich and full of possibilities, emotions and dreams.

Advertisement

He never said anything about it about “Star Trek”.