J.J. Abrams Boldly Going to New Frontiers with Star Trek?

So, J.J. Abrams is leading "Star Trek" into the franchise’s future as producer and director; this is good news. Isn’t it? It was great when the news first broke, because Paramount had been sitting on "Star Trek" as a vessel that has remained docked, allowing it to collect spacedust for a little too long. A fresh blast of warp drive into a new movie with new stars to revitalize and revisit our favorite original characters is just what the doctor ordered. However, Abrams just replaced set designer Herman Zimmerman who has been on deck for 19 years with Scott Chambliss who did production design on "Mission: Impossible III" for him. J.J. Abrams is a director, not a doctor; so why is he performing such (seemingly unnecessary) surgery after getting his hands on the helm of the ship? Is he a George Lucas when we need a Gene Roddenberry?

With talk of bigger budgets and the replacement of talent that’s been working behind the scenes since "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in 1988, a change in off-screen talent reported by IGN.com, Abrams might sound like he’s coming from a more Michael Bay school of direction than Jonathan Frakes. Let us assume this is not a bad thing. After all, change can be scary, especially when you are gutting a franchise that has been around for just over 40 years, and Trekkies everywhere are watching your every move with a magnifying glass. You can’t please all of them all the time, right? And, some new blood is probably vital to the revolutionary "Star Trek: The Original Series" prequel, even if you are getting rid of someone who brought great vision and unique definition to the Enterprise and all the places she went (not to mention that Zimmerman co-wrote the "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual").

At what point, does it become too much? Where does it stop resembling "Star Trek XI" and start sounding like "Star Wars: Episode 0"? Is Abrams spreading himself a little thin these days? Because his hit series "Lost" has taken quite a tumble in the ratings over the past year, and it’s been quite a rollercoaster ride through a lot of mediocre highs and frustrating lows, and viewer disillusionment is setting in for a lot of devoted fans of his show. Movies might be a good place to turn. "M:I-3" certainly was a brilliant choice, but that’s Abrams in his element; action spy thriller full of pyrotechnics and special effects with a lot of sleek and curvy plot.

That’s wonderful, because I love that as much as the next fun-seeking moviegoer, but I would like to believe that Abrams knows this won’t cut it in the "Star Trek" universe. The last thing Roddenberry’s legacy needs is a prequel that turns out to be heartbreakingly overestimated, like many feel is the case with another "Star" franchise. So, I’m imploring Captain Abrams to go boldly but tread carefully, because it’s not a popcorn space adventure. "Star Trek XI" is the hope of a dying breed, and this epic saga has potential that is not to be taken for granted.