My
friend and regular reader, Lionel, calls my attention to Peter Jackson and J.
Michael Straczynski, and wonders about these artists in regards to the Star Trek
movie franchise.
He
writes: “I've imagined what these two
guys could do if they were put in charge of a Star Trek movie;
what do you think of the idea, and would it work?”
Hi
Lionel, you know I’m a sucker for these questions!
I look
back at science fiction history and wonder things like: what if John Carpenter
had accepted the offer to direct Star Trek: The Motion Picture
(1979)? Or what if Steven Spielberg had
directed The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)?
Alternate
movie history, I suppose you would call it. It’s a fun parlor game.
Regarding
your notion, if I understand correctly, you are thinking of a Star
Trek movie directed by Jackson and written by Straczynski.
First,
if memory serves, JMS had a notion to re-boot Star Trek for television with
Bryce Zabel some years back, so you have some factual history underlying this
notion. I understand the idea was a re-boot of the
original series, but one (like the Abrams films…) that would have left the
original universe intact too. I don’t
know that I’m summarizing it correctly, but JMS’s version of Star
Trek would have seen the Enterprise on its five year mission, but also
a secret mission, collecting important artifacts from an ancient civilization.
I love
that idea. And I think it would be a great basis for a movie.
I would
definitely be in favor of JMS’s involvement. I suspect that the man who gave us Captain
Power, The Real Ghostbusters, the Twilight Zone 1980s remake, and Babylon
5 would be up to the challenge of rethinking Star Trek for the present
day. He would be a good choice because he’s done
both solid genre work, and well-respected out-of-genre work such as
Changeling (2008). I believe
that JMS would be respectful to Star Trek canon and still tell a new
story in the best -- human -- spirit of the franchise.
Most importantly, because JMS is a science fiction writer with vast experience, I believe he could construct a story that isn't simply another variation of The Wrath of Khan, or that suffers from generic block-buster-itis. I love both Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness (2009) -- an allegory for our War on Terror -- but the third film is a really important one for the franchise, and I think it is incumbent on the makers of the films to tell an original science fiction story. JMS could do that.
Peter Jackson
is a consummate, dynamic visual director, and so I believe Jackson would be a good choice,
assuming that he had a very strong producer/editor on board. I occasionally find his films over-long, and a bit undisciplined, and a good editor could tackle that problem and keep him on track.
So, I
could definitely live with a Star Trek movie scripted by JMS, and
directed by Peter Jackson. Such a project makes for interesting speculation, to be certain!
Concerning your reviews of Abrams’ two Star Trek films, I’ve tried to just leave well-enough alone. I’m glad you enjoyed them. I thought they were shit; the last one, particularly, was downright offensive to me (artistically speaking, of course). I think very, very little of Abrams as a filmmaker to begin with–a sentimental version of Michael Bay who only manages to cannibalize movie culture instead of truly contributing to it. He also has no real...oh, I’m already bitching too much.
ReplyDeleteI never heard of J. Michael Straczynski until now, though I am obviously familiar with his work. At this point, any writer who isn’t Alex Kurtzman or Roberto Orci (or even Lindelof, for that matter) would be an improvement to the franchise. Again, I know, I’m ranting.
As for Peter Jackson ...huh. Never considered that before. Jackson seems instinctively geared towards ghosts 'n' ghouls, fantasy and periodism of some sort or another. He’s a sentimentalist, too, but the idiosyncraticies of his low-budget roots have blossomed into, what I consider, some genuinely imaginative cinema, albeit wild and unruly. Not all of Jackson’s films work -- The Lovely Bones was misguided while King Kong, his worst to date, missed the point entirely -- yet there is nonetheless verve to his filmmaking that doesn’t feel barrowed or manufactured, but rather organic to the Weta Workshop experimentalism that inspired such early mad endeavors as Bad Taste and the great Meet the Feebles; that same brazen visual stimuli caffeinates even his latest The Desolation of Smaug.
The notion of him venturing into science fiction, let alone Roddenberry’s cerebral, utopic futurism, seems rather unfitting. Put it this way: Jackson directing a Star Trek film would be not unlike Guillermo del Toro directing a Star Trek film ...or Joe Dante. Yeah. Exactly. Still, it’s a notion worth entertaining precisely because the results seem so out of whack. Realistically, though, it’ll never happen because the guy has got his hands full with wrapping up the Hobbit trilogy, which I’m currently enjoying more than The Lord of the Rings, a Tintin sequel in the pipeline and possibly a remake of The Dam Busters. I just don’t think Star Trek is his bag (end).
I think J. Michael Straczynski could deliver a worthy third film script. John you are right this film is important to the Star Trek film series.
ReplyDeleteSGB
JMS has an impressive list of credits. It's impossible to be an child of the 80s or 90s without being familiar with his work. Yet...I know of no single person who "loves" him. A lot of his stuff just seems workmanlike at best, and crass commercialism at its worst. His recent line of comics (I keep giving the guy 2nd chances) are low-quality post-modern junk that might have seemed edgy in the early 90s. I admit I have not read Rising Stars or seen more than a few episodes of B5 (not for like of trying, though). Really, his success is a mystery to me.
ReplyDeleteIf there's good JMS stuff people could recommend, I'd be willing to check it out.