Disclaimer: This article was first written by Ray DeRousse for what was then Obsessed With Film on May 18th, 2009. I have decided to re-run this article in the days after J.J. Abrams has reportedly offered the villain role in his Star Trek sequel to Benicio Del Toro. We sincerely hope the idea is for Del Toro not to play Khan but as the Internet explodes with fanboys claiming Khan’s return would be no different to The Joker’s re-use in The Dark Knight… I feel Ray’s words are still apt and accurate.
Enjoy…
Reboots and prequels are a bad idea for everyone except studio executives and their shareholders. Creativity is shackled to previously-formed ideas and developments, and everyone involved vainly attempts to recreate what everyone loved about the previous version.
Don’t get me wrong – J.J. Abrams did a pretty good job rebooting Star Trek. The alternate timeline gambit paid off, giving the movie a certain lift since it was no longer tied to the events of later years. This avoids what was, of course, one of the worst aspects of the Star Wars prequels, as well as the recent Wolverine abomination – you knew what was going to happen later, so everything had to play into that eventuality. It not only saps the movie of drama, but it also causes an instant comparison to previous films rather than create its own identity.
But I didn’t really care for all of the time travel nonsense in the film. While necessary for Abrams’ alternate universe idea, it came off as a convoluted gimmick. This was particularly true of Old Spock’s magical reappearance in the ice cave, thereby converging the two timelines in a ridiculously haphazard way. However, by the end of the film, I wanted the franchise to shake itself free of the former timeline and to boldly move into new territory.
But clearly Abrams and his writers are not willing to do that. In this recent interview, Abrams breathlessly discusses the possibility of including Old Kirk in the sequel via yet another time travel device (ugh), or possibly including the infamous Khan in it as well.
WHY???????
As I asked in my initial review of Star Trek, has there ever been a franchise that has crawled up its own ass as much as this one? For a series that is supposed to be about boldly going places, STAR TREK sure does spend a lot of time navel gazing at its own history. What good can possibly come of seeing a 70 year old William Shatner stuffed into a uniform, hamming up the place? It would be, in my mind, and affront to a cast that worked hard to carve out new identities in this reboot.
Even worse is the idea of bringing in Khan. Look, I loved Khan in the second Star Trek film, and it would be great to see that character again in some capacity. However, Ricardo Montalban is DEAD. And trust me, nobody can recreate that character in his place. EVER. Thanks to the television show, we’ve seen Khan as both a young man and an old man. What can possibly be done with this character again? Abrams would be wise to put that idea aside.
Of course, Abrams has to appeal to the Star Trek fanbase, which has all the imagination of ritualistically setting up a Christmas tree the day after Thanksgiving. In a poll on Twitter by Peter Sciretta of SlashFilm, the three most popular “ideas” by Trek fans were:
1. The Original Crew vs. The Borg
2. The return of William Shatner
3. Khan
Wow. Terrific ideas, guys!
Here’s a better idea: either don’t make a sequel (ha ha ha), or make something original for once!!! The sequel will have over a 100 million dollars to play with, and a clean slate. Come up with something new … fresh … exciting. I realize that, by doing this, Abrams would need to go out on a limb and release something that wasn’t test marketed into the ground, but that’s the beauty of having a job in the entertainment industry. The primary point of that position is to be CREATIVE.
So my advice to Abrams would be: Experiment! Create previously unseen villains! Explore strange NEW worlds, and NEW civilizations! Boldly go where no one has gone before!!!
It’s amazing how quickly everyone involved in this franchise forgets their own motto.
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
20 Comments
They should definately go in a new direction with it now but you just know that the Borg are going to turn up somewhere down the line and as for the Shat making an appearance, please no.
DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!!!!!!!
First: you’re right that the idea of Abrams including Kahn and Shatner the next time around is ridiculous, fan-catering nonsense that pretty much negates the beautiful simplicity of what Abrams created in ST just so that he could AVOID this exact thing.
But I think it’s just an idea floating out there and probably won’t develop. Remember 10 minutes after SUPERMAN RETURNS was released? They started talking about the sequel including Zod. I think that these knee-jerk reactions to reboot success, riding high the wave of fan approval, are inevitable and that it’s possible and even likely that cooler heads will prevail in the months of development to come.
But that having been said, on the second point you’re wrong: Khan could certainly be recast. Kirk has been recast; Bond has been recast; even Megatron (!) has been recast. There are very few roles anymore that can’t – and won’t – be recast. They’re not all successful, but some of them certainly are.
But ultimately, you ARE right. Abrams and company should simply come up with a more original idea for the future. I’m guessing that they will, with the requisite number of historic references, cameos and throwbacks. Did you catch the Tribbles sitting in a cage on Scotty’s desk?
@ The Glove – Amen, brother.
@ Burbanked – I thought you were dead.
You’re possibly right about the direction of the new movies, although Abrams is enough of a pop culture suck-up that I can’t see him passing on all the press a Shatner/Khan/Borg would surely provide.
I must have missed the Tribbles while I was sitting there, incredulous, muttering to myself, “So I’m supposed to believe that half of the Enterprise crew is found within a square mile of each other on a desolate ice world??”
Perhaps, Ray – but Abrams DID avoid the pop culture suck-up that including Shatner the first time around would have generated, instead putting story and character above it. That’s earned him some narrative credibility in my book.
And I just read a hilariously great line in Alexandra DuPont’s ST review here http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41016 that relates to your recasting question:
“The cast is a damned miracle. Really, “Star Trek”‘s biggest revelation is that these iconic characters — like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who — are open to interpretation; they’re no longer bound to the actors who originated the roles. Good Lord: They’re all Kirstie Alley now.”
I fail to see how abrams avoided it the first time around. Spock is in the first one.
@Michael Edwards: I’d suggest that if the publicity-stunt value of Shatner’s appearance had been important enough to Abrams’ aesthetic, he and Paramount would have somehow found a way to pay the fee. That simply wasn’t their priority, which is what I’m admiring.
@Ray: in some ways, Ancient Spock is indeed stunt casting – but whether one enjoys the time travel nature of the story or not, you can’t deny that Spock’s involvement in it is rather critical to the plot. It’s not really a cameo by an old hammy cast member who’s simply there to continue his campy legacy, but rather a connection of the alternate time threads that the movie’s story seeks to establish.
@Ray: “… but that’s the beauty of having a job in the entertainment industry. The primary point of that position is to be CREATIVE.”
No, sir. The primary goal in Hollywood is to 1) keep your job; 2) make a profit.
Unfortunately, we celebrate and reward mediocrity.
Mark
Ray, good point about the franchise needing to “pull it’s head out of it’s ass.”
Good advice to you too. Stop blaming the Trek fanbase for everything you don’t like about Trek -which seems to be everything. Trek fans have had the LEAST to do with what’s gone on in Trek the last 17 years. That’s Rick Berman you’re thinking about.
Or havne’t you noticed Trek went’ from being one of the top-rated shows when Rodenberry was alive to being disliked by even those who still had affection for the overall idea?
That means the Trek fans aren’t the drooling “fanboys” who will eat any turd Paramount lays simply because it has the name “Star Trek” on it, the way YOU drool for Star Wars and Spider-Man.
Trek fans have been among the most picky and the quickest to jump ship when Trek’s quality flagged.
And I didn’t see you blaming the “Trekkies” when Abrams decided to “reboots” things, and did it recycling the series most shopwork characters and employing the most-overused device in Trek history –time travel. What did the fans have to do with THAT?
Dump on Paramount, Abrams and Berman for the bad decisions, God knows they’ve made enough of them. But try to think for once before you blame Trek fans for anything, especially when you accuse them of being brandead zombies who will take any old crap Paramount throws them, when even you can’t deny that Trek fans abandoned ship over ten years ago, when they saw the studio was taking them for granted.
I give you the advice I give Matt. Swallow your petty hatred of Trek, and stop using the Trek fans as whipping boys for your own dislike of the franchise.
“I give you the advice I give Matt. Swallow your petty hatred of Trek, and stop using the Trek fans as whipping boys for your own dislike of the franchise.”
JaySmack: Just to clarify- knowing Matt personally as well as I do I dont know how you can claim that he also has a petty hatred of Trek (Ray’s disinterest is widely known though). Matt is a fan of the show, one of the biggest I know, so Im not really sure where your opinion has come from?
Anger is a path to the dark side.
Woooo … someone needs a sedative slipped into their Romulan ale.
Of that diatribe, I will only address one question:
“If he or Ray has indeed reviled Serenity over and over as inaccessible and enslaved to the fans then PLEASE show me where they said this even once, much less repeatedly, like they have with Trek.”
SERENITY is even more retarded than most other franchises. I have no interest in even typing its name, let alone discussing it. I really wish the three fans of that show would give it up already.
A long answer, but not one that addresses the only question I asked? How can you qualify him having a “petty hatred” of Trek? I didnt ask anything else…
Finally Ray, we agree on SOMETHING!
Simon, I did answer your question. You either weren’t paying attention to the answer, or you didn’t get an answer that you wanted.
If that’s not enough for you then I have no control over that.
@ JaySmack – On what do we agree? That you need a sedative?
LOL
Bringing back the classics, I see. I’m flattered.
Why cant we just let George Lucus tinker with it?
Let George Lucas tinker with what? STAR TREK? No thanks … it’s dumb enough without having Spock rip a fart or Kirk in some god-awful fireside chat.
@Ray – does it mean you are back to the site or are they just bringing your old articles? I might have often not agreed with you on many topics but you were an asset to the OWF.
Would love to have Ray back but from what I understand he doesn’t blog about movies much these days. Doors always open for him.
JJ’s Star Drek: Worst. Franchise. Reboot. In. Recent. History.
And that covers a lot of reboots. This Trek was awful. It has all been said by others, so I won’t beat it to death. It doesn’t need to be beaten to death. It is ALREADY dead to intelligent Star Trek fans.