He said Star Trek is too “philosophical”? Screw that noise.
I don’t know when this interview happened but I AM SAD AND ANGRY NOW
The philosophies in Star Trek are kinda part of the actual setting. If you don’t get that, why are you allowed to make Star Trek movies.
Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.
And thus it all becomes clear. He disdains the philosophy that is the underpinning of Trek, therefore hasn’t bothered to try to understand it or engage with it critically.
What gets me is the arrogance of this. If Star Trek is too philosophical for you, if you cannot connect with its fans, if you don’t have an understanding of the foundation of it, let alone a love for it, why do you agree to take it on? Why don’t you say “you know, maybe I’m not the guy for this job, maybe someone who’s always felt connected to this material should be the one to bring it forward in time.”?
And this guy gets to do Star Wars too.
What pop director in their right mind would turn down a reboot of Star Trek? In the words of Krusty the Klown: “They drove a dumptruck full of money up to my house! I’m not made of stone!” Even if he wasn’t a fan of the source material, he’d still do it. Hell, if I were him, I’d direct a reboot of Casablanca if they paid me for it.
Trek as a show has been philosophical, but the movies? Not quite so much, because when you have a big budget spectacle movie, you have to deliver the big budget spectacle otherwise no one will show up.
I guess I’m sort of accidentally defending Abrams here. Which isn’t intentional, because I agree with the feelings of WTFitude expressed above. I just don’t think we should be surprised. I’m gonna treat it like Indy 4, post-2000 Die Hard movies, and the Star Wars prequels: really expensive fan-films.