STAR TREK by JJ Abrams - new photos

[A Passing Maniac]

Shakespeare wrote plays, a medium that is designed to be staged repeatedly. I have seen lots of Shakespeare and love it, but when I see a Shakespeare play I am listening to the exact plot, characters, and dialogue as originally written. Now Shakespeare was a great writer and his plots and themes have been used over and over by many writers but when Shakespeare is rewritten it needs to have its name changed. West Side Story is based off of Romeo and Juliet but they had the respect to rename it when they did.

I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

How are plays substantially different from television or film scripts in that regard? They're all performed fiction.

Television and Film scripts have always been designed to be single use items, plays are designed to be staged multiple times with multiple actors and directors. Television and Film are often written for particular actors and those same actors play an equal role in creating the character that is presented. In addition the sets and cinematography in television and films is much more an integral part of the overall product and form part of the experience in a way that far exceeds set creation in theater. I go to theater to see the dialogue as presented by the actors, I watch TV for both the visuals and the words.

I can't speak about the performances you've seen, but I can tell you that isn't generally true with theater. Different productions use the same words to produce different characters (and meanings). For example, in some performances Hamlet's a sly and cunning genius while in others he's a nut.

But they are the same words though. When a play is written it is assumed that different actors and directors will interpret things differently. If the writer is concerned that a character or scene be interpreted in one particular way they will include set directions or notes as to how it should be performed.

In theater the playwright is generally considered the owner of the concept and is the one recognized for a particular work. In film and television the writer is often considered a disposable part of the creation process. Some scripts are rewritten dozens of times by dozens of writers before being accepted. In film the director is usually given credit for the work and practically no-one knows who the writer is.

Since I consider Film and TV a more visual medium I would compare it more to artwork. Would those who are into remakes be equally enthused with remakes and reinterpretations of things like the Mona Lisa and consider them on the same par as the original?

 

[DonTadow]

I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?

I"m all for making a remake, but Star Trek is one of those things you don't remake because it has an established universe that is iconic. Not only that, it has 3 somewhat sequal series that has established a canan history. To remake it is worse than adding three prequels to your movie. Essentially you are taking the world that has been created for decades out back and saying it never happened this is what really happened. I think someone mentioned earlier, like Highlander 2.

This movie is like publishing fan fiction. Interesting story, b;ut doesn't fit in the universe.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I think Umbran's point was that Shakespeare's works were often based on existing stories. Shakespeare's Hamlet or Othello or Romeo & Juliet are, basically, remakes of the earlier stories, legends, and plays about the same characters and events; you object to different takes on the same material on principle, but what makes Shakespeare any different from J.J. Abrams in this case?

But them Shakespeare took those plots and themes, remade them in the way he wanted and Gave Them Their Own Unique Name and did not try to represent what he did by pretending it was the same as what came before.

 

[Mallus]

Just like bacon and monkeys, everything needs riding chickens.

So true.

But Advent Children managed to get away with not having them!

I believe I'll add Advent Children to my Netflix queue.

 

[Mallus]

Television and Film scripts have always been designed to be single use items...

And this is evidenced by the fact that television and film scripts never get rewritten or remade. Hey wait a minute...

Would those who are into remakes be equally enthused with remakes and reinterpretations of things like the Mona Lisa and consider them on the same par as the original?

I would. Art's a conversation. Sometimes a topic from the past gets brought up again and is restated in a startling way.

 

[Mallus]

I"m all for making a remake, but Star Trek is one of those things you don't remake because it has an established universe that is iconic.

I don't mean to sound mean, but the idea of a sacrosanct, iconic, canonical universe is the most toxic part of genre fandom. The only way to breathe new life into the franchise is to, well, breathe new life into it; approach the material in a new way, disregarding canon when necessary.

I think someone mentioned earlier, like Highlander 2.

Highlander 2 isn't bad because it violated Highlander's canon. It's bad because it did it badly.

 

[EricNoah]

I'll be very interested to see if they can breathe a spark of life back into the ol' girl, remind me what I liked about the series and the characters, etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.

In this case in particular there is absolutely no need to redo the past when there are thousands of possible stories that can be set in the current universe.

As far as I understood, it's not a remake, it's a... prequel. A story set before TOS.

Aside from this, as a big fan of Battlestar Galactica TNS, I think sometimes remakes are a very good idea. For example if the first run wasn't really good, or does no longer hold up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

People shouldn't make remakes, period. If you want to make something using the same themes as something else that is fine but give it another name.

Not even Battlestar Galactica?