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.
While you characters unbunch your panties, here’s a thing to consider: Abrams as a kid didn’t like Star Trek for being too philosophical. That’s an entirely legitimate reason for never having watched Star Trek as a kid. Abrams as an adult made a massively successful - both commercially and critically - Star Trek movie, which was both a sequel and a prequel and a reboot of a franchise dying on its arse.
I submit that the two are not entirely unrelated.
In fact, I’d go as far as to say that much - if not most - of the success, on every level, of J. J. Abrams’s Star Trek is precisely down to him not being a lifelong fan of the show.
When you cry and complain that Abrams shouldn’t have been allowed to make Star Trek films because he isn’t ‘one of us’; when you mock or criticise someone because their worldview isn’t yours, and you say it shouldn’t be allowed to intersect with yours; when you denigrate, rather than celebrate, diversity; when you desperately try to keep your part of the world clean and safe for yourself and don’t let the outsider and the alien in…
Then maybe the philosophy of Star Trek hasn’t taught you as much as you like to think it has.