BySarah Gibson, writer at Creators.co
Follow @sarahmoviepilot
Sarah Gibson

There's a whole load of Trektrivia in the new issue of SFX, but before you get there, we've got a little summin'-summin' to whet your Trekkie appetite.

In the most recent edition of the mag, Abrams teased us with this little revelation:

I wouldn't say that the first movie is an absolute Star Wars derivation. The irony of course being that Star Trek came out before Star Wars. We're inheriting Star Trek, so we're allowed to do space stuff. Of course when Star Wars came out, people referred to Star Trek, because it was spaceships. Everything is sort of a derivation of everything else. Just the way Star Wars was of Flash Gordon and of dogfight war films in the TIE Fighter sequences. Everything has something it borrows from.

He then went on to tease the direction he's taking the story in Star Trek Into Darkness:

Where this story goes, if you're going to go to a place that's as intense as some of the stuff is in this movie, I think you need balance. And so while there are moments that are pretty dark and crazy, those scenes just won't matter to you – you won't care about them – if you haven't been laughing along the way and rooting for these characters you have to feel for. The idea is to try and balance it, not to have it be one thing or the other.

I dug that Abrams' Star Trek was nothing like the others and I'm hoping for more Star Trek style moral dilemmas in the next one. But, what Abrams doesn't seem to get is that Star Wars and Star Trek are not interchangeable; start blurring those and you have one mass of undifferentiated sci-fi goo.

What do you think of Abrams's 'deriving' talk? Let us know below.

Latest from our Creators