A New Hope for Star Wars: How JJ Abrams Fooled Us All
- Thread starter m00se
- Start date
He didn't really do a good job of making Star Trek movie. He made a dumb action movie in space, and in place of good characterization he supercharged all of their personality traits and told the fans that kept the name going for decades to "Shut up, nerds! This isn't for you!"
He couldn't even tell a story without future spock telling the plot to the audience and why Khan's a bad guy.
Star wars isn't a sure thing here, and he'll be forever known as Jar Jar Abrams if he screws it up.
He couldn't even tell a story without future spock telling the plot to the audience and why Khan's a bad guy.
Star wars isn't a sure thing here, and he'll be forever known as Jar Jar Abrams if he screws it up.
I don't agree that he was just the 'wrong guy' for Trek. A good director should be able to understand what a 40 year old franchise is about. With the Star Trek movies Abrams showed didn't have the faintest idea what Trek stands for.
I see you are brave enough to praise Abrams' Star Trek. Well, I hope you're prepared for the comments of disgruntled Sta-
I agree that his 2009 Star movie was not much of a Trek and more Wars in anything but the setting, therefore not a good Star Trek. Well, if he messes up Star Wars at least SW fans and Trekies will finally share something - their fiery hate for J.J. Abrams.
Well, that was fast.Nurb said:
I agree that his 2009 Star movie was not much of a Trek and more Wars in anything but the setting, therefore not a good Star Trek. Well, if he messes up Star Wars at least SW fans and Trekies will finally share something - their fiery hate for J.J. Abrams.
How would he have fooled me? Dont get it. JJ is a mediocre film maker so nothing he directs excites me. I like watching his movies but they are forgettable. So, for me, his Star wars will be a fun and enjoyable time but not ground breaking.
You are not alone. Though I suppose "Trek fan" is a bit nebulous of a term these days.Exley97 said:
At the very least, Abrams' films are far from the worst Trek movies. I suppose I don't fully comprehend the prerequisites for a "true" Trek movie, but I thought that the first movie had all the mystery and intrigue nailed down to a tee. And the beginning of the second movie felt like classic Trek to me. And action and space battles and fist fights have always been a part of Star Trek (not the main point, of course), but I suppose all this newfangled CGI and lens flares makes it all terrible.
I think Abrams will do a good job on Star Wars. That said, since you loved Star Trek for the reasons you stated, you clearly don't really understand what Star Trek has always been about and how Abrams messed it all up.
Don't get me wrong, as movies I overall enjoyed the new Star Trek movies for the reasons you stated, but he fucked them up by simply throwing aside all that "annoying science crap". That is fine. I think he will do a fine job on Star Wars.
Don't get me wrong, as movies I overall enjoyed the new Star Trek movies for the reasons you stated, but he fucked them up by simply throwing aside all that "annoying science crap". That is fine. I think he will do a fine job on Star Wars.
Well....I'm not going to try to justify the lens flares. But still, I've been a Trek fan as long as I can remember, and like I said, I love the reboots. Absolutely love them, and I put them up there with Wrath of Khan & First Contact (nothing beats Khan, of course). The franchise was dead in the water, and at the very least Abrams modernized Trek and brought up the quality of direction, production and effects to somewhere that it hadn't been since The Motion Picture (we can argue the movie was slow, but the effects were excellent, and Robert Wise was a hell of a director). I mean, seriously the first 10 minutes of Star Trek 2009 are more heart-pounding and emotional than anything Trek movies had offered in more than 20 years. Abrams made the Trek movies exciting and enjoyable. I'm not going to fault him for that even if he had too many lens flares and went a little heavy on the action & a little light on the sci-fi.Mahorfeus said:
And if we're scoring Trek movies, I suppose I should confess my rankings/tastes are somewhat unconventional:
Wrath of Khan
2009
First Contact
Into Darkness
Search for Spock (vastly underrated)
The Motion Picture (yes, really)
The Voyage Home
Insurrection (yes, really)
Undiscovered Country (does not hold up)
Generations
Final Frontier
Nemesis (THE WORST. END OF DISCUSSION)
See, I disagree. Other trek films have tossed aside the "annoying science crap." Look at Undiscovered Country -- it was basically a cold war, geopolotical allegory that had next to no sci-fi elements. Ditto for Nemesis and Generations, outside of the Nexus crap.Baresark said:
Star Trek was a passable Star Wars movie, but as a Star Trek movie it failed in every way. Abram's Trek is like a parody of what a Star Trek reboot should look like, though why it would NEED a reboot given its very nature is beyond me anyway. Just take a ship, call it Enterprise, add a letter to the back of it and then have a cast. That's all you need. But no, they had to reboot it, they had to make the characters all one-note and uninteresting to the highest degree.
If there is any good to come of those movies, it's that they MAY help Trek get back on the air, though even then I'm not too keen on Renegades.
If there is any good to come of those movies, it's that they MAY help Trek get back on the air, though even then I'm not too keen on Renegades.
What does trek stand for? the Original series, Next gen and DS9 are all very different with me personally enjoying the reboot films as I felt they had a bit of DS9 with original series feel. Star Trek doesn't mean Next Gen only.Blood Brain Barrier said:
Why are you defending your enjoying the Motion Picture? it's a great film, Next Gen is basically based on how ST:TMP showed the trek universe they sure didn't take much from the original 60's series.Exley97 said:
That is an absolutely fair assessment. I can't disagree. You are right, they haven't all been about the science. But it also can't be stated that any of it was about blaster fights the hand to hand combat and the explosions. I do, however, stand corrected.Exley97 said:
Eh - it opens with an attack based on a new Klingon cloaking technology and ends with the protagonists defeating that tech with a new tracking device.Exley97 said:
Ugh. I don't doubt that Abrams is a competent director, and I believe that he does love Star Wars. As the article says, he loves it so much that he already tried to make it. And I will not argue with the thrust if the article itself.
But what I will argue is that Star Trek 2009 came anywhere close to being a successful Trek movie.
I feel like I need to write an entire essay on this. So forgive me if my thoughts seem disjointed and half-formed. I should sit down and really hammer these ideas out. But here's what you get:
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness are awful Star Trek films. The Final Frontier and maybe Generations are probably worse movies, but not even Shatner's vanity project managed to miss the point of Trek so disastrously. Star Trek is NOT about action. It is NOT about "being awesome." For sure, you can point at dozens of episodes that attempt to be exciting action set pieces, and a couple movies that run on the Rule of Cool. But God damn it, even at it's worst, pre-Abrams Trek tried to tell us something. All ten prior films, and nearly every episode, even the awful ones, were built around a theme of human significance, even if it was just to add a little development to a main character. If you doubt me, name any movie or any episode of any show (not Enterprise, that show never even existed, what am I talking about?), and I will tell you what it contributes to the thematic core of Star Trek.
Now, Abrams Trek is not thematically vacant, it has character moments and tells a story beyond explosions. But what exactly does it add? It isn't just a retread of the original characters, it's a redo on every hackneyed "bro movie" theme we've all come to expect. Kirk is a passionate guy who jumps into life without thinking, Spock is an uptight neurotic genius who thinks before feeling, they hate each other at first, but end up best bros after the main conflict is dealt with. EVERYONE who has ever seen a movie knows this arc, and it is tired and old and meaningless, and we've already seen these very characters do this before. Oh, and McCoy is the comic relief. And Uhura is the hot chick. THAT'S ALL they have to do.
Star Wars has easy themes, Good vs. Evil, Coming of Age, Explosions Are Cool, all things that are easy to appreciate and easy to explore. Star Trek aims higher and digs deeper. You can't tell me that even Nemesis, which EVERYONE hates for some reason, didn't try to get at more personal ideas of identity and whether we are born evil or become it. J.J. Abrams completely ignored everything Star Trek is about in favor of giving us a meaningless and familiar bunch of fluff.
But what I will argue is that Star Trek 2009 came anywhere close to being a successful Trek movie.
I feel like I need to write an entire essay on this. So forgive me if my thoughts seem disjointed and half-formed. I should sit down and really hammer these ideas out. But here's what you get:
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness are awful Star Trek films. The Final Frontier and maybe Generations are probably worse movies, but not even Shatner's vanity project managed to miss the point of Trek so disastrously. Star Trek is NOT about action. It is NOT about "being awesome." For sure, you can point at dozens of episodes that attempt to be exciting action set pieces, and a couple movies that run on the Rule of Cool. But God damn it, even at it's worst, pre-Abrams Trek tried to tell us something. All ten prior films, and nearly every episode, even the awful ones, were built around a theme of human significance, even if it was just to add a little development to a main character. If you doubt me, name any movie or any episode of any show (not Enterprise, that show never even existed, what am I talking about?), and I will tell you what it contributes to the thematic core of Star Trek.
Now, Abrams Trek is not thematically vacant, it has character moments and tells a story beyond explosions. But what exactly does it add? It isn't just a retread of the original characters, it's a redo on every hackneyed "bro movie" theme we've all come to expect. Kirk is a passionate guy who jumps into life without thinking, Spock is an uptight neurotic genius who thinks before feeling, they hate each other at first, but end up best bros after the main conflict is dealt with. EVERYONE who has ever seen a movie knows this arc, and it is tired and old and meaningless, and we've already seen these very characters do this before. Oh, and McCoy is the comic relief. And Uhura is the hot chick. THAT'S ALL they have to do.
Star Wars has easy themes, Good vs. Evil, Coming of Age, Explosions Are Cool, all things that are easy to appreciate and easy to explore. Star Trek aims higher and digs deeper. You can't tell me that even Nemesis, which EVERYONE hates for some reason, didn't try to get at more personal ideas of identity and whether we are born evil or become it. J.J. Abrams completely ignored everything Star Trek is about in favor of giving us a meaningless and familiar bunch of fluff.
Ya, right. My Star Wars is dead, and any hope that I could some how enjoy DU Star Wars died when I read this:
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/
Sorry. If this is accurate at all, it's nothing more than a grotesque twisting of the Legacy Era of the old EU. They really could have made nearly the same movie with what was already there, but with the gravitas of established history and a better setup.
They would still be severally hampered by the terrible casting choice for totally Not Jason in the Revan mask, but it would have been much better than this.
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/
Sorry. If this is accurate at all, it's nothing more than a grotesque twisting of the Legacy Era of the old EU. They really could have made nearly the same movie with what was already there, but with the gravitas of established history and a better setup.
They would still be severally hampered by the terrible casting choice for totally Not Jason in the Revan mask, but it would have been much better than this.
I sincerely hope that you only forgot about this part.Exley97 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RNsZvdYZQ
As far as I'm concerned, that scene with Lilly exposing Picard's need for revenge, and talking him down from blasting away with phasers, was at least the equal of the entire reboot movie. Into darkness? That shambles isn't even in the running.
He's already made 2 Star Wars movies - which were "Meh" and "Horrible" (in that order), so either "Third Time's a Charm!" or "Bring Back George."
Personally, I'm still leaning towards "Third Time's a Charm!". Nothing I've seen so far makes me worried about this movie - which I will qualify with "No Trailer" or other thing officially released about the film, and not reading any of the rumours surrounding it. I'm not expecting a great movie - none of the Original Star Wars movies were great movies - but I'm expecting a fun movie with lots of visual flare (pun intended) and a number of witty one-liners. I don't expect the story to be good - I'm actually expecting the story to be awful - I don't expect the themes to be deep or meaningful, or the movie to actually try to go into more mature territory. I'm expecting a Firework not a Grenade, so to speak.
We'll see when it comes out how close I was to what I wanted and what I expected.
Personally, I'm still leaning towards "Third Time's a Charm!". Nothing I've seen so far makes me worried about this movie - which I will qualify with "No Trailer" or other thing officially released about the film, and not reading any of the rumours surrounding it. I'm not expecting a great movie - none of the Original Star Wars movies were great movies - but I'm expecting a fun movie with lots of visual flare (pun intended) and a number of witty one-liners. I don't expect the story to be good - I'm actually expecting the story to be awful - I don't expect the themes to be deep or meaningful, or the movie to actually try to go into more mature territory. I'm expecting a Firework not a Grenade, so to speak.
We'll see when it comes out how close I was to what I wanted and what I expected.
Sorry, it's habit. During the TOS movie era, TMP was generally considered to be the worst/second worst of the original six. It's slow, long, and pretty much devoid of action. And as someone who worked on the film once told me, Kirk was not "Kirk" in the movie, which some people felt was a big mistake. And it IS an odd-numbered Trek movie, after all. But it's my first Trek movie and I fucking love it.P-89 Scorpion said:
Yes, it does, but I wouldn't exactly call that sci-fi on the level of TMP or The Voyage Home. It's probably closer to 2009, which involves creating artificial black holes that swallow entire planets and the invention of transwarp beaming.Pyrian said:
I did not forget about that scene, which is great though a little heavy-handed with the spelled-out Moby Dick reference. But it's not even my favorite scene in the movie (the deflector dish scene takes that honors). And for the record, I LOVE First Contact. I just think 2009 is slightly better.Wiggum Esquilax said: