JJ Abrams Exclusive Star Trek Interview

Great little interview. Abrams is a cool guy. Love the idents too!

When is the next instalment?

Written by Rod Hell on May 7th, 2009 at 16:28

This is cool. Well done LWLies. Onwards and upwards! x

Written by Graham Fjord on May 8th, 2009 at 06:34

For someone who dreams about making movies he should try watching some, he might learn something, like shot structure, composition, dolly tracks, steadicams, how to shoot and stage basic scenes, you know, important stuff like that. Go back to TV, there's no place for you on the big screen.

Written by Shane on May 8th, 2009 at 09:30

More, more more..give us freakin' more, I tell you!!

Written by Jimmytwoshoes on May 8th, 2009 at 08:32

Yeah ribs. That's quality.

Nice little idents, is that the ever talented Paul Willoughby in action?

Written by adhesif on May 8th, 2009 at 08:33

Just out of interest, what's your cross-article beef with Abrams & Star Trek? I mean i can understand finding Abrams films somewhat dumb (in a harmless way) but they never strive to be more than that, nor do they attempt to stand as pinnacles of technical proficiency. Much like Michael Bay, he has a scrappy action-orientated style which is kind of charming in a no-brainer gung-ho way.

Maybe Lost really pissed you off though.

Written by Matt Poke on May 8th, 2009 at 12:55

"shot structure, composition, dolly tracks, steadicams, how to shoot and stage basic scenes"

I didn't notice any of those things while watching the film which makes me think they were OK. I thought it had a fun directorial style with lots of energy. But then again, I wasn't concetrating too much about the dolly tracks for most of it.

Written by Bobby_Floyd on May 8th, 2009 at 14:21

Feel free to like or dislike Star Trek, or indeed anything else that JJ Abrams has made for either the big or small screen, as you please – but it is a much harder sell to persuade people (especially people who know a thing or two about films and filmmaking, including most of LWL's readership) that his direction is essentially incompetent (which is what you seem to be implying, if not outright asserting, here).

Also, for the record, stuff like "shot structure, composition, dolly tracks, steadicams, how to shoot and stage basic scenes" is in fact just as important to television as it is to cinema.

Written by Anton Bitel on May 8th, 2009 at 14:34

I think JJ Abrams is several notches higher than Michael Bay on the 'hecanmakefilmsometer' precisely because he does have a natural instinct for shot structure, framing, pace and geography – specifically in terms of shooting large, complex action sequences. Like Jonathan Crocker says in the mag, he's a master at 'layering' action sequences, much like, for instance, Spielberg is.

Written by Andrew Tarvin on May 8th, 2009 at 17:06

But he isn't. This is my point. Both Star Trek and Mi3 were an absolute mess. I had no idea what was going on for most of them. The action scenes consisted of waving a camera about in front of people and then fixing it in the editing room (badly). I can't think of any shot in Star Trek where you could see the director consider the shot composition and what he hoped to achieve through it. There was barely a time when they managed to get the actors in the frame.

The film in general, I thought, was moronic on just about every level and much of the blame can be placed on Kurtzman and Orci, the writers. But this is Big. Widescreen. Sci-fi stuff. Even the 'glory' shots of the ships in battle were all close ups. He just shoots everything the way he'd shoot an episode of Lost and the result is mediocre and un-cinematic. Frankly i'm getting tired of all these tv directors getting big screen gigs wothout undertsanding how to shoot and compose for the big screen.

Moviemaking (in Hollywood) is at an all-time low at the moment and Star Trek is a prime example of it.

Written by Shane on May 8th, 2009 at 18:46

Whether one likes the shaky-cam aesthetic or not, Abrams' decision to shoot (mostly) up close and personal is a stylistic choice that should not be confused with directorial incompetence. There were plenty of establishing wideshots in the film that demonstrated Abrams' ability to compose at scale – but, rather refreshingly to my mind, he bucked generic expectations by focusing more on the disorientation of leaps through space (and time) than on the sort of interstellar awe (and foregrounded SFX) that have become something of a cliche in space opera. This is SF Bo(u)rn(e) again – and while it might be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing (like most blockbusters), it all drives forward (and backward, given its warped chronology) at a gripping pace, with a commendable focus on character – and some very funny lines. Best of all, the script found an ingenious way to liberate the prequel (and even subsequent sequels) from the burden of all that is known to come next. Kirk may end up Captain of the Enterprise, but nothing that follows need be Star Trek as we know it…

Written by Anton Bitel on May 10th, 2009 at 20:42

The 'shaky-cam' asthetic as you put it, IS bad film-making. 100 years of film-making and the one constant was 'do not shake the camera about…ever' The effect is nauseating when blown up on the big screen. Why do you think the steadicam was such a momentous creation. This 'aesthetic' has come from tv directors landing movie gigs and jumping in with little to no knowledge of shooting for the big screen. Whats worse is that its now become the norm. It's putting me off going to see films because I know i'm not going to enjoy the experience.

Written by Shane on May 10th, 2009 at 21:03

Cinema has evolved *since* as much as *with* the 'momentous creation' of steadicam – in the same way that not all films are now silent or in black-and-white. I understand and appreciate that you do not like 'shaky-cam', but that does not make it bad, pure and simple. Every tool in the filmmaker's arsenal has its place – and filmmakers have been turning against the so-called rules of their art ever since such rules were formulated.

Written by Anton Bitel on May 10th, 2009 at 21:22

What is the cinematic benefit of not being able to tell what's going, feeling nauseous and getting a headache. I just sit in the cinema confused and emotionally detached from the film. That, to me, is simply bad film-making. But you jiggle a camera about, stick it all together so quickly no one notices that the stuff you've shot is crap, and bang in a few flashy cg trailer shots and suddenly you're the new Speilberg. A fuckin' monkey running loose with a camera could make a Hollywood blockbuster these days.
Clearly, very few people seem to mind this though. Which is bewildering to me.

Written by Shane on May 10th, 2009 at 22:14

"That, to me, is simply bad film-making."
Accepted – but there is an important distinction to be made between what is 'simply bad-filmmaking *to you*' and what is 'simply bad-filmmaking' period. If some of us happen not to feel nauseous or get headaches watching Star Trek, and find it relatively easy to follow what is going on, that does not somehow make us inferior, uncomprehending viewers who fail to appreciate the difference between good cinema and bad, or the inner workings of art in general. And in any case, if we are seriously going to invoke the century-long history of cinema, since when has narrative/visual clarity been an essential criterion of film quality? Often films that make the viewer work hard at discovering what is going on turn out to be the most involving and engaging – and leave viewers with something to take home. And again, hyperbole aside, if you are likening Abrams' direction to "a fuckin' monkey running loose with a camera", I suggest that you are confusing a particular filmmaking style (one that clearly is not to your personal taste) with general incompetence. I would not claim that Star Trek represents some sort of celluloid acme, but there were some things that made it stand apart from its overcrowded genre, and one of those was its visual and editing style – quite unlike *any* other SF I've ever seen. In finding new ways to envision 'the final frontier', Star Trek should certainly be noted, and perhaps even commended (if evaluation is your thing).

Written by Anton Bitel on May 11th, 2009 at 10:46

On the topic of the camera shake, there was one scene (and only one) where I found this frustrating- just after Kirk's barfight when he is being mentored by Captain Pike, the need to have the camera hovering around whilst adhereing to the 180 degree rule of conversation was baffling and distracting. There was just no need for it.

However, some might call it lazy and obvious but I believe that Abrams style is a lot better suited to capturing the frenetic and immediate action that was needed to revive this franchise. If putting it in those terms disgusts you then fine but that was always the intention and Abrams did it well. I especially agree that it was ingenious to essentially wipe the Star Trek history slate clean the way he did. You would be hard put to argue that a more composed style would be more dynamic. This was never going to be Malick in Space.

Written by Matt Poke on May 11th, 2009 at 12:46

Why not? Why does it have to be brain dead fodder, aimed at the lowest common denominator. Is it too much to ask that a film is intellectually as well as visually stimulating. Flinging a camera about is 'style' over substance. The bar fight in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to name but one, is vastly more exciting and memorable than the one in Star Trek, yet, Spielberg relied on cinematic technique and imaginative composition and editing to achieve those results. Are you suggesting that that film would have been improved if it was shot in hand held close-ups and edited like a music video. I would hope not.
The shaky-cam catastrophe is a recent blight on cinema and, I think, is connected to small screen directors, Like Abrams, Peter Berg etc, landing movie gigs but not changing their shooting style to accomodate the big screen.
And Anton, there's a world of difference between trying to comprehend one of Eisenstien's montages and simply not being able to follow the onscreen action because it has been poorly, shot, staged and edited.
Now if you guys are all happy to munch popcorn and stare at the pretty pictures as they flicker past, then feel free to keep feeding the machine, i'm sure they'll just keep churning them out for you.
I've just got the Blu Ray version of Wrath of Khan so i'm gonna go watch an exciting Star Trek film where I can follow the well staged action and revel in the engaging storytelling. You guys are welcome to your films which are 'relatively easy to follow'

Written by Shane on May 11th, 2009 at 13:03

Good call, Poker, that scene was totally annoying.

Written by Jonny on May 11th, 2009 at 13:15

I'm sorry but I think it's naive to think that a film made to make hundreds of millions during the Summer Blockbuster run would be made with an emphasis on being intellectually stimulating. It seems that a lot of people have found it visually stimulating anyway so it's up to you what judgements you make on them. I understand why you want more from the film but it simply isn't the reality of what the majority public want and what the studios want (as evidenced by the sizeable bank its making). I really can't think of any summer blockbuster Sci-fi films that have ever met the standards you are calling for. Maybe 'Moon' will be more up your street.

Written by Matt Poke on May 11th, 2009 at 13:25

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Apollo 13, Every James Cameron movie (apart from Titanic), most of Speilbergs, Master and Commander, Die Hard etc. None of those films insulted my intelligence in the way that Star Trek (and the rest of Kurtzman and Orci's ouevre) did. Big summer movies don't have to be stupid. Hollywood shouldn't be playing down to the stupidest audience member, they should be trying to make the stupidest audience member smarter. Fingers crossed that Cameron's Avatar shows everyone what an event pic is capable of.

Written by Shane on May 11th, 2009 at 13:33

Also this idea that carefully considered composition will make a film more intellectually stimulating is precisely the kind of style-over-substance attitude accepted by the faux-intelligentsia that threatens to bog down the entire european independent system. There is a miriad of films out there with long takes, sweeping landscape shots, close-ups of emotionless faces that infer depth etc. but in their very centre there is nothing but hollowness. If you ask me there's too many people trying to be Tarr or Tarkovsky. Making something 'easy to follow' is not, nor has ever been, a crime.

Written by Matt Poke on May 11th, 2009 at 13:37

I'll agree that James Cameron has got it right a few times. Spielberg's sci-fi has been pretty bad for a while though. I would happily sit through Star Trek again over A.I. or Minority Report.

Written by Matt Poke on May 11th, 2009 at 13:42

Shane is, of course, right. The big summer action movie has died a death since the corporations took over and started hiring morons to make them.

All eyes on James Cameron and 'Avatar'.

Written by Mark on May 11th, 2009 at 13:44

There is indeed a world of difference between trying to comprehend one of Eisenstein's montages and simply not being able to follow the on screen action because it has been poorly shot, staged and edited. I just don't see either of these as a model for, or accurate characterisation of, the experience of watching Abrams' Star Trek – which I suggested was 'relatively easy to follow' only in response to your own repeated suggestion (bizarre, to my mind) that it was incomprehensible. You seem to be asserting, on the one hand, your own inability to keep up and, on the other hand, the stupidity of anyone who can – or who is less prone to headaches than yourself. I don't think either the new Star Trek or for that matter Wrath of Khan is exactly earth-shattering stuff (despite their planetary scale), or indeed particularly intellectually stimulating, any more than I think Raiders is, and I have not implied otherwise. Every one of these is, after all, a popcorn film that 'feeds the machine'. I just fail to understand the extremity, and the categorical nature, of your objections to Star Trek. I agree about the exciting way in which the barfight in Raiders was put together – but perhaps you might concede how unexciting it would be for the barfight in Star Trek to have been shot in exactly the same way. Spielberg is already perfectly good at being Spielberg, and Malick does a fine job of being Malick – I don't particularly want Abrams (or any new director) to be either, or indeed to be thoroughly enslaved to the representational modes that were current several decades ago, in rather different films…

Written by Anton Bitel on May 11th, 2009 at 13:47

It's funny the way that, because we all like to consider ourselves intellectuals, we feel this defensive need to justify being entertained by a film as somehow also being intellectually stimulated.

Written by Anton Bitel on May 11th, 2009 at 13:59

I'm not suggesting that all movies have to be profound and deep. Like Mark pointed out, in the last decade or so, movies seem to have been created to appeal to the dumbest audience possible. Star Trek is just the latest in a long line. Cheap laughs and statements are used in place of wit and character driven dialogue. Now, most of you guys don't seem to mind this, but some epileptic camera work and over excited editing isn't enough for me to overlook this. The fact that Abrams is being considered as some kind of Speilbergian whiz-kid is gob-smacking.

Written by Shane on May 11th, 2009 at 14:55

There are the countless films that get made, and then there is the much smaller set of films that get remembered – and memory is highly selective (and not always reliable, let alone predictable). In fact *every* decade of cinema has been full of (some) big dumbassed movies that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' (itself a constituency whose boundaries are culturally defined and as such constantly shifting), but we conveniently forget all of the crap, and so imagine, nostalgically, that the cinema of the past was a Golden Age compared to now (when we are still stuck at the coalface, so to speak). I seem to recall that there were many critics at the time of the release of Raiders… who decried it as another nail in the coffin of all that was good in cinema… If we can't have a fair-minded, non rosy-coloured perspective on the past, what hope do we have in the much more difficult task of getting a grip on the present?

Written by Anton Bitel on May 11th, 2009 at 15:11

There's bad films Anton and there's badly made films. I've seen my fair share of Bad Films over the years, Independence Day etc, but, loath though I am to admit it, they were at least, well put together. At risk of repeating myself, I just find this current crop of hand held, shaky-cam, all close ups, film-making bordering on incompetent. If i'm sitting in the audience and I can't work out who's doing what to whom, or where they are in relation to everyone else, then you have failed as a story-teller. I'd much rather be shown something exciting (see Spielberg) than be told something must be exciting because its cut really fast.

But, i'm clearly shouting into the wind and i'm getting a sore throat but that's my opinion on Star Trek and the recent spate of Hollywood 'action' flicks. Feel free to debate amongst yourselves, you make for good reading around here.

Until, the next time I get irate about something,

Have fun.

Written by Shane on May 11th, 2009 at 15:48

wow. I thought it was a blast!

Written by indigo-sol on May 12th, 2009 at 12:44

See, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think it's wrong and frustrating that 'summer blockbuster' has become synonymous with 'brain-dead rubbish' when it wasn't always thus, and that the longer we accept this as a normal state of affairs, the longer we'll simply be fed the same old rubbish. We get the films we deserve.

The point we disagree on is that I don't think JJ Abrams is guilty in this regard. I'm really surprised to hear that you think Star Trek is a difficult film to follow because of the steadicam. I consider Star Trek (and M:I:III) to be a great example of a modern action film shot with a great sense of geography, pace and spatial relationships, and edited with an eye to comprehension, rather than frenetic speed.

As I said before, Michael Bay is the most obviously guilty abuser of the steadicam working today. The man couldn't compose a sensibly framed shot if his coke stash depended on it.

I'm interested to know what you think of people like Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron and Chris Nolan. I think Bloody Sunday, shot almost entirely handheld, is one of the most rigorous and brilliantly directed films I've ever seen. Do you consider it to have an appalling TV aesthetic? Likewise, Children of Men – the steadicam work in that film elevates it to another level, in my opinion. Whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are classic examples of the kind of filmmaking you despise.

Written by Andrew Tarvin on May 12th, 2009 at 15:08

J J Abrams is alright. So what if he doesn't produce pithy and nuanced scripts with a French neo-realist subtext that you can wank off to?

Cloverfield was quality all out entertainment, and Star Trek is as well. Lighten up!

Written by shenkling on May 15th, 2009 at 11:11

The great comedian Bill Hicks once told a story about a waitress in a waffleshop.

He was engrossed in a book when she came up and her first question was: 'What you readin' for?'
Not, What are you reading? But, what are you reading FOR?
He pondered the question for a moment and then replied: 'So I don't end up as a fuckin' waffle waitress!'

Find the metaphor in that and you'll understand my reasoning against Star Trek.

Written by Shane on May 15th, 2009 at 11:27

You're worried that watching Star Trek might induce a spontaneous career/sex change?

Written by Anton Bitel on May 15th, 2009 at 11:34

Actually I was suggesting that shenkling was a moron. I was just being a smart-ass.

Written by Shane on May 15th, 2009 at 11:37

moron: classy!

Written by bartender on May 19th, 2009 at 14:19

LWLies TV HQ – MORE PLEASE! x

Written by Natasha H on July 3rd, 2009 at 22:42

I have to agree with Shane. I saw a DVD rip of this film and genuinely believed it was a copy someone had made in the cinema with a hand-cam. Then I slowly realized that the awful image clipping and camera shake were deliberate. I'm not a film snob by the way – this simply looks bad.

Written by Tony Bandero on October 30th, 2009 at 08:27