It doesn’t take a genius or nerd to figure out that the STAR TREK movie directed by J.J. Abrams in 2009 was not a straight up prequel to the original series, it was set on an alternate parallel universe. Kirk was not exactly the same Kirk.
The movie was spectacular and it was well-received but some purist original series fans weren’t too crazy about the concept. Abrams explained to nerdist.com, via startrek.com, that his intention was not to insult fans of the original series at all..
“The notion that when this one character, Nero, arrives in his ship, that basically the timeline is altered at that moment, so everything forward is essentially an alternative timeline. That is not to say that everything that happened in The Original Series doesn’t exist. I think, as a fan of movies and shows, if someone told me the beloved thing for me was gone, I would be upset. But we didn’t do that. We’re not saying that what happened in that original series wasn’t good, true, valid, righteous and real. Let people embrace that. We’re not rejecting that. That, to me, would have been the big mistake. We’re simply saying that, ‘At this moment, the very first scene in the first movie, everything that people knew of Star Trek splits off into now another timeline.'”
I’d have to agree..
Abrams’ Kirk may not have been the same Kirk, the crew may not have been exactly the same, they have different backgrounds and personal dilemmas but the essence of their personalities and teamwork are still there.
I enjoyed Abrams’ version of Star Trek because it was refreshing and it connected with today’s generation who, let’s face it, are not familiar with Nimoy and Shatner’s version.
The movie made geeks and new fans out of those who didn’t grow up with the series.
Abrams also explained that the reason he used that timeline approach so that it could give him a chance to be a fan of something that he was never a fan of growing up..
I was, frankly, never really a fan. I never really got it. I never really cared much about it. Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was. I kept trying… and I couldn’t get it. I didn’t care about it. It felt stilted. It is ironic because a lot of the tone and techniques and some of the writers as well were from The Twilight Zone. When you watch it, you’d go, ‘God, there is that same kind of melodramatic vibe.’
…”There’s a version of it that I could see getting interested in.” And it was weird, because I couldn’t tell you what it was. I just knew that if Star Trek were done in a certain way, with an approach that somehow let me in more… I was actually being given the opportunity to at least attempt to do something that I wished had existed for me as a kid trying to get into it, which is a way in, which is an emotional way in, that was not was not about the Enterprise or Starfleet or the Prime Directive or any of that stuff, that was completely emotional. I thought if that existed I probably would have found a way in. Now, maybe I saw the wrong episodes. Maybe I wasn’t in the right frame of mind as a kid. I don’t know what it was. I have since watched a number of them and actually have actually come to really appreciate the show.
Abrams’ stated that Khan will not be the villain in STAR TREK untitled sequel, it goes to show that they’re going to continue with this alternate timeline approach and give you a new villain, a new story, a new adventure for the crew, which is fine by me.
STAR TREK untitled Sequel will be shot in 3D and then it will go through 3D post conversion. They’re talking about the possibility of shooting some of the sequences in IMAX.
Abrams co-wrote the script with Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci
All of the key cast members from the alternate prequel, will reprise their roles.
Joining the cast are Peter Weller and Alice Eve playing a brand new character
Oscar winning composer Michael Giacchino (Pixar’s Up, Let Me In, TV’s Lost) that he will return to score the untitled STAR TREK Sequel which arrives May 17th, 2013