J.J. Abrams Turned Down Directing New Star Wars Movies

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

erttheking:
Can someone tell me why the new Star Trek was shit again? I thought it was pretty good.

Story doesn't make sense. At all. As I said in an earlier post:

That is a huge plot hole. And it means that objectively, the entire story doesn't make sense. The entire thing is simply an illogical sequence of events that have no real relation to each other, and are nothing more than random sci-fi tropes thrown together in order to appeal to the 'geek' demographic.

That's just one of the issues with the plot. There are others as well, like:

The whole story is just an incoherent mess. If you shut your brain off, then yes it can be a bit of enjoyable fluff, but any actual thought about the plot shows that it has all the strength and consistency of wet tissue paper.

That's just the plot-holes. There is also the terrible dialogue, terrible direction (LENS FLARE EVERYWHERE) and utter lack of any of the moral/philosophical conundrums that typify the best of Trek...

In short, it was a plot-hole ridden mess that had nothing to do with Star Trek other than the names of the characters.

wait that was supposed to be vulcans moon? they had been at warp speed for ages at that point, even at impulse drive they would have been way beyond any moon. i just thought they messed up the size of vulcan in the sky when it was imploded.

another thing that got me was the massivly differing times it took the take out the federation ships. the first ship lasted for ages they had whole conversations and whatnot and still had time to go ramming speed. then what 20/25 years later it takes out the rest of the fleet of brand new ships in the few seconds it took the enterprise to catch up.

Well that's a real downer. Considering how well he did with the new Star Trek movie (And how good the next one looks, from the trailers) he would have done a great job with new Star Wars movies. But I'm sure they'll still be good. Disney wouldn't screw up something so big that they paid so much for. The only thing I'm worried about is lowered expectations. After the disappointing results of Star Wars I and II, I can only imagine that it won't take much to look good next to them.

Greg Tito:
On the other hand, with Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3) picked to write Star Wars Episode VII, I'm not sure the new film will be what fans really want.

I wouldn't be getting too worried about Arndt being at the helm of the script. Just because the guy wrote 'Toy Story 3', it doesn't mean that 'Star Wars Episode VII' is going to be in the same vein. It's a different movie, and will get different treatment. Professional writers of such caliber are usually relatively versatile, and are known for their ability to adapt their style to the tone of the project that they're working on.

Writers aren't incapable of turning their hand to different genres. A lot of the time, they can produce brilliance in different fields. For example, 'Johnny English' was co-written by the same people who co-wrote 'Skyfall' - Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. Although it was done alongside different co-writers (William Davies and John Logan respectively), it's still impressive that the bulk of the 'Johnny English' writing team are the main contributors to the superb 'Skyfall' script, albeit with the help of Logan's expertise. But his filmography is also worth looking at for the purpose of this discussion. Other than 'Skyfall', he has writing credits on 'Rango', 'Sweeney Todd', 'The Aviator', 'Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas', 'Coriolanus', 'The Last Samurai' and 'Gladiator'. How much more diverse can we get here?

And he's not the only one. Akiva Goldsman, who wrote 'A Beautiful Mind' co-wrote 'I, Robot' and 'Batman Forever'. One can argue the quality of the latter two, but at least it shows he's capable of breaking out of one genre and into another. Guillermo del Toro is another name that springs to mind. He alternates between mainstream action and dark horror/fantasy, and handles each one skilfully. And now he's working as a screenwriter on 'The Hobbit' trilogy, and seems to be doing a fine job so far, if I am to be the judge. My point is that writers' past works don't necessarily indicate or dictate the style of their future works.

Heck, JOSS WHEDON - one of our 'fan-favourites' - co-wrote the FIRST 'Toy Story' movie! This should be reason alone not to place too much doubt on Mr. Arndt. You're free to have your misgivings, of course, but I feel that the lack of confidence people have towards this man is quite undeserved and a little silly. 'Toy Story 3' is his biggest writing credit, but it's not his only trick. It's amateurs that can't branch out from a single style, not Academy Award-winning professionals.

Again, let's not get too worried. If 'Oblivion' is poorly handled in the writing department, THEN we may worry. But until then, I say we withhold any judgment.

chiefohara:
Well they can't possibly make Star Wars any worse than the last three movies,

So disney's first one is a kind of freebie for them...

Like the idea of Josh Wheedon in charge though.

Yeah they could have. I don't like the prequels, but they could have been worse. As it stands I regard them as Bad not horrid.

When I saw the article title in the sidebar all I could read was "
J.J. Abrams Turned Down Directing New Star..." and for a second I was like "Yes! He's leaving Star Trek alone, maybe there's hope now..." and then I saw the "Wars" part and my heart sank.

I went to see ST2009 expecting a standard sci-fi action flick with some cool space battles maybe that is Trek in name only and even with personal expectations set so low I was still very disappointed. Like someone mentioned it's just a bunch of sci-fi tropes strung together with no regard to pretty much anything and some scenes ripped from Star Wars films.

To be fair to J.J. a lot of it is the script's (writers) fault. Still, he should stick to SW if he's such a fan of it or better yet, keep his paws of either franchise.

J Tyran:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Star Trek reboot nitpicks

In a series of films where flying around the sun can send you forwards or backwards in time, where a torpedo can suddenly turn bare rock into a whole ecosystem and all the other countless nonsensical plot lines the 2009 Star Trek fits right in. Thats not even starting with the TV series.

Ugh... now I feel like I have to nitpick your comment to show that j-e-f-f-e-r-s comment was not a nitpick.

The problem isn't "we do stuff with weird results". The problem is that "we do stuff with results that conflict with A)results seen in the previous TV shows / movies or B)results seen in the very same movie". Hell, according to this movie, Vulcan wasn't destroyed, it just went back 200 years further + created a separate dimension. Spock will find his mother's body preserved somewhere in "Into Darkness". 'Cause if a ship can survive the trip through a black hole, a planet should too, right?

P.S. The whole "flying around the sun to go back in time" was established in the TV series first, thereby making it an appropriate vehicle in "Voyage Home". I think that fewer fans would have had a problem with this series if they had just avoided the time travel aspects altogether and done a complete reboot.

saintdane05:

Remus:
You forgot 2 things about J.J. Abram's movies:

Lens Flares
image
and LENS FLARES!
image

I wouldn't dare let him near the Star Wars franchise. 5 seconds with a lightsaber and the whole world would go blind.

You know why he did that, right? It was to make it look futuristic. Heck, I never noticed until rabid fanboys pointed it out.

Well, it's a good thing he put it in. All those aliens and starships and futuristic technology would NEVER have convinced anyone we could be in the future!

*smh*

Greg Tito:
-snip-

In what universe did Abrams "deftly handle" the Trek reboot? Unless "deftly handle" is now some kind of media code phrase for "stripped the franchise of all meaningful content, mummified the haggard remains in an insulting and nonsensical plot, and then nearly blinded the audience with lensflare".

Abrams is a hack, but I suppose at least I'm thankful that he's limiting himself to raping only one of my favourite franchises at a time.

Rogue 09:

J Tyran:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Star Trek reboot nitpicks

In a series of films where flying around the sun can send you forwards or backwards in time, where a torpedo can suddenly turn bare rock into a whole ecosystem and all the other countless nonsensical plot lines the 2009 Star Trek fits right in. Thats not even starting with the TV series.

Ugh... now I feel like I have to nitpick your comment to show that j-e-f-f-e-r-s comment was not a nitpick.

The problem isn't "we do stuff with weird results". The problem is that "we do stuff with results that conflict with A)results seen in the previous TV shows / movies or B)results seen in the very same movie". Hell, according to this movie, Vulcan wasn't destroyed, it just went back 200 years further + created a separate dimension. Spock will find his mother's body preserved somewhere in "Into Darkness". 'Cause if a ship can survive the trip through a black hole, a planet should too, right?

P.S. The whole "flying around the sun to go back in time" was established in the TV series first, thereby making it an appropriate vehicle in "Voyage Home". I think that fewer fans would have had a problem with this series if they had just avoided the time travel aspects altogether and done a complete reboot.

My point is that whatever happens on screen in Star Trek (TV & Film) is little more than a plot device. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it usually doesn't. In the reboots case the black holes and red matter and everything else only provided the circumstances that would test Spock and Kirk and establish their relationship.

The 2009 ST was a lot like the original series in that way too, the special effects where crap and the story was often bizarre but it did its job and the show was about how Kirk and the crew dealt with the problems they faced. Star Trek lost its way, it became more about how accurate and feasible the technobabble was. The Original themes of character stories and morality was lost behind the canonization of pseudo science. The ship flew through the black hole because it needed too and the planet fell apart because it had too, thats all that matters in a Star Trek story.

J Tyran:

Rogue 09:

J Tyran:

In a series of films where flying around the sun can send you forwards or backwards in time, where a torpedo can suddenly turn bare rock into a whole ecosystem and all the other countless nonsensical plot lines the 2009 Star Trek fits right in. Thats not even starting with the TV series.

Ugh... now I feel like I have to nitpick your comment to show that j-e-f-f-e-r-s comment was not a nitpick.

The problem isn't "we do stuff with weird results". The problem is that "we do stuff with results that conflict with A)results seen in the previous TV shows / movies or B)results seen in the very same movie". Hell, according to this movie, Vulcan wasn't destroyed, it just went back 200 years further + created a separate dimension. Spock will find his mother's body preserved somewhere in "Into Darkness". 'Cause if a ship can survive the trip through a black hole, a planet should too, right?

P.S. The whole "flying around the sun to go back in time" was established in the TV series first, thereby making it an appropriate vehicle in "Voyage Home". I think that fewer fans would have had a problem with this series if they had just avoided the time travel aspects altogether and done a complete reboot.

My point is that whatever happens on screen in Star Trek (TV & Film) is little more than a plot device. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it usually doesn't. In the reboots case the black holes and red matter and everything else only provided the circumstances that would test Spock and Kirk and establish their relationship.

The 2009 ST was a lot like the original series in that way too, the special effects where crap and the story was often bizarre but it did its job and the show was about how Kirk and the crew dealt with the problems they faced. Star Trek lost its way, it became more about how accurate and feasible the technobabble was. The Original themes of character stories and morality was lost behind the canonization of pseudo science. The ship flew through the black hole because it needed too and the planet fell apart because it had too, thats all that matters in a Star Trek story.

Except that's a crock. TOS did what it had to do in order to get on the airwaves, it cloaked its high-concept stuff in a spaghetti western because studio executives are mewling idiots who can't grasp what sci-fi is beyond "alienz and lazor beeeeeeeemz!", and that's fine, but it's not a virtue of the programme, it's a necessary evil. TNG was perhaps the worst offender of all the Treks for technobabble, yet it's still the show that gave us the very best of exactly what you claim Trek is about; ethics and characters. "The Drumhead", "Measure of a Man", "Hide and Q", "The Offspring" etc etc etc.

Having an internally consistent set of fictional rules is not a flaw, no matter how much post-modernist crapademics try to cast it that way, indeed for many of us it's not merely an asset but a necessity in order to aid in suspension of disbelief - no, Star Trek physics are not realistic, as a physicist I know that better than most, but as a construct they are plausible and consistent, and that means I spend far less time being jarred out of the important parts of the story, the characters and the ethical quandries, than with other more recent attempts at sci-fi(*cough* Battlestar *cough* Continuum *cough*).

But even if we accept your premise, which I do not, it relies on the assumption that the reboot Trek movie had set aside "technobabble" or indeed any semblance of rationality whatsoever, in order to more easily present its complex tale of characters and morality - and what would that be again? The story of the 2009 Trek is an amateurish pastiche, cobbled together from a caricature of TOS and the abused corpse of Star Wars, set in a flying Apple Store, with an implausibly young cast, and about as much emotional weight as a wet fart.

Even Voyager managed to rise to the challenge and be engaging and thought provoking sometimes, this film can't even manage that - it's a popcorn flick, all lensflare, no substance.

Magichead:

J Tyran:

Rogue 09:

Ugh... now I feel like I have to nitpick your comment to show that j-e-f-f-e-r-s comment was not a nitpick.

The problem isn't "we do stuff with weird results". The problem is that "we do stuff with results that conflict with A)results seen in the previous TV shows / movies or B)results seen in the very same movie". Hell, according to this movie, Vulcan wasn't destroyed, it just went back 200 years further + created a separate dimension. Spock will find his mother's body preserved somewhere in "Into Darkness". 'Cause if a ship can survive the trip through a black hole, a planet should too, right?

P.S. The whole "flying around the sun to go back in time" was established in the TV series first, thereby making it an appropriate vehicle in "Voyage Home". I think that fewer fans would have had a problem with this series if they had just avoided the time travel aspects altogether and done a complete reboot.

My point is that whatever happens on screen in Star Trek (TV & Film) is little more than a plot device. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it usually doesn't. In the reboots case the black holes and red matter and everything else only provided the circumstances that would test Spock and Kirk and establish their relationship.

The 2009 ST was a lot like the original series in that way too, the special effects where crap and the story was often bizarre but it did its job and the show was about how Kirk and the crew dealt with the problems they faced. Star Trek lost its way, it became more about how accurate and feasible the technobabble was. The Original themes of character stories and morality was lost behind the canonization of pseudo science. The ship flew through the black hole because it needed too and the planet fell apart because it had too, thats all that matters in a Star Trek story.

Except that's a crock. TOS did what it had to do in order to get on the airwaves, it cloaked its high-concept stuff in a spaghetti western because studio executives are mewling idiots who can't grasp what sci-fi is beyond "alienz and lazor beeeeeeeemz!", and that's fine, but it's not a virtue of the programme, it's a necessary evil. TNG was perhaps the worst offender of all the Treks for technobabble, yet it's still the show that gave us the very best of exactly what you claim Trek is about; ethics and characters. "The Drumhead", "Measure of a Man", "Hide and Q", "The Offspring" etc etc etc.

Having an internally consistent set of fictional rules is not a flaw, no matter how much post-modernist crapademics try to cast it that way, indeed for many of us it's not merely an asset but a necessity in order to aid in suspension of disbelief - no, Star Trek physics are not realistic, as a physicist I know that better than most, but as a construct they are plausible and consistent, and that means I spend far less time being jarred out of the important parts of the story, the characters and the ethical quandries, than with other more recent attempts at sci-fi(*cough* Battlestar *cough* Continuum *cough*).

But even if we accept your premise, which I do not, it relies on the assumption that the reboot Trek movie had set aside "technobabble" or indeed any semblance of rationality whatsoever, in order to more easily present its complex tale of characters and morality - and what would that be again? The story of the 2009 Trek is an amateurish pastiche, cobbled together from a caricature of TOS and the abused corpse of Star Wars, set in a flying Apple Store, with an implausibly young cast, and about as much emotional weight as a wet fart.

Even Voyager managed to rise to the challenge and be engaging and thought provoking sometimes, this film can't even manage that - it's a popcorn flick, all lensflare, no substance.

We will just have to agree that we disagree, you do not like the reboot. Fair enough but I do like it, the series was reclaimed from the trekkies and taken back to its roots. All of this "plausible" and "consistent" pseudo science was a construct of the trekkies never the show. A plot device or piece of technobabble and other Deus ex machina would be simply be there to advance the plot, it rarely made sense and it would often only appear that one time in that episode. It was often completely contradicted in another series or circumstance.

Somehow for some fans the pseudo science became more important, now if you want to discuss about how the characters where unengaging or how annoying the lens flare was it is a fair argument but its a different point to the one I was making. I simply wanted to point the nitpicks posted about the technobabble "not making sense" posted earlier in the thread.

J Tyran:

Magichead:

J Tyran:

My point is that whatever happens on screen in Star Trek (TV & Film) is little more than a plot device. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it usually doesn't. In the reboots case the black holes and red matter and everything else only provided the circumstances that would test Spock and Kirk and establish their relationship.

The 2009 ST was a lot like the original series in that way too, the special effects where crap and the story was often bizarre but it did its job and the show was about how Kirk and the crew dealt with the problems they faced. Star Trek lost its way, it became more about how accurate and feasible the technobabble was. The Original themes of character stories and morality was lost behind the canonization of pseudo science. The ship flew through the black hole because it needed too and the planet fell apart because it had too, thats all that matters in a Star Trek story.

Except that's a crock. TOS did what it had to do in order to get on the airwaves, it cloaked its high-concept stuff in a spaghetti western because studio executives are mewling idiots who can't grasp what sci-fi is beyond "alienz and lazor beeeeeeeemz!", and that's fine, but it's not a virtue of the programme, it's a necessary evil. TNG was perhaps the worst offender of all the Treks for technobabble, yet it's still the show that gave us the very best of exactly what you claim Trek is about; ethics and characters. "The Drumhead", "Measure of a Man", "Hide and Q", "The Offspring" etc etc etc.

Having an internally consistent set of fictional rules is not a flaw, no matter how much post-modernist crapademics try to cast it that way, indeed for many of us it's not merely an asset but a necessity in order to aid in suspension of disbelief - no, Star Trek physics are not realistic, as a physicist I know that better than most, but as a construct they are plausible and consistent, and that means I spend far less time being jarred out of the important parts of the story, the characters and the ethical quandries, than with other more recent attempts at sci-fi(*cough* Battlestar *cough* Continuum *cough*).

But even if we accept your premise, which I do not, it relies on the assumption that the reboot Trek movie had set aside "technobabble" or indeed any semblance of rationality whatsoever, in order to more easily present its complex tale of characters and morality - and what would that be again? The story of the 2009 Trek is an amateurish pastiche, cobbled together from a caricature of TOS and the abused corpse of Star Wars, set in a flying Apple Store, with an implausibly young cast, and about as much emotional weight as a wet fart.

Even Voyager managed to rise to the challenge and be engaging and thought provoking sometimes, this film can't even manage that - it's a popcorn flick, all lensflare, no substance.

We will just have to agree that we disagree, you do not like the reboot. Fair enough but I do like it, the series was reclaimed from the trekkies and taken back to its roots. All of this "plausible" and "consistent" pseudo science was a construct of the trekkies never the show. A plot device or piece of technobabble and other Deus ex machina would be simply be there to advance the plot, it rarely made sense and it would often only appear that one time in that episode. It was often completely contradicted in another series or circumstance.

Somehow for some fans the pseudo science became more important, now if you want to discuss about how the characters where unengaging or how annoying the lens flare was it is a fair argument but its a different point to the one I was making. I simply wanted to point the nitpicks posted about the technobabble "not making sense" posted earlier in the thread.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. You talk about agreeing to disagree, then belittle a group of people you disagree with. You claim that Star Trek's pseudo-science is a construct of the fandom, which is patently daft and incorrect since it was present in TOS, it simply made less sense and was less coherent, and has been present in every show since - the fans didn't produce the show, they were not technical advisers, or writers. You talk about taking the show back to its roots, but that's also absurd, since you've focused on one single aspect of the show and decided that is the defining characteristic, despite the fact that said characteristic was a contrivance to allow the show's creators to slip a high-concept ethically-driven sci-fi show past television executives who would otherwise have flat out rejected it.

As for your claim that you're only responding to technobabble nitpickings; rubbish. Most of the complaints you're referring to regard plot and characterisation, not technology, and even those that do are fair points because they relate to plot points which don't even make sense within the context of the story being discussed, nevermind in relation to other Star Trek properties.

If you enjoy brain-dead money-grab vacant summer popcorn flicks, more power to you, I enjoy them as well sometimes, but that's not Star Trek and it never was.

Magichead:
then belittle a group of people you disagree with.

Please quote exactly where I belittled any group, I just made a reference thats all. Why would I judge or put somebody down for the way they celebrate a franchise? I am a fan of stuff myself. Any negative thoughts where in your own head.

J Tyran:

Magichead:

We will just have to agree that we disagree, you do not like the reboot. Fair enough but I do like it, the series was reclaimed from the trekkies and taken back to its roots. All of this "plausible" and "consistent" pseudo science was a construct of the trekkies never the show.

Come again? Are you telling me the 'roots' of the original Star Trek were high-budget action with rubbish dialogue and no thought provoking story to speak of?

Are you sure you haven't confused Star Trek with the original Battlestar Galactica?

A plot device or piece of technobabble and other Deus ex machina would be simply be there to advance the plot, it rarely made sense and it would often only appear that one time in that episode. It was often completely contradicted in another series or circumstance.

Except that the plot device, in the original run of Trek, would at least require the characters to deal with some rather difficult ethical conundrums and moral quagmires?

You remember how Mass Effect was originally praised for the way it forced players to make difficult ethical choices? How not every decision was an easy one to make? That is the influence of the original Trek, right there. Can you give me even a single instance of a similar ethical dilemma in the Star Trek reboot?

[quote]Somehow for some fans the pseudo science became more important, now if you want to discuss about how the characters where unengaging or how annoying the lens flare was it is a fair argument but its a different point to the one I was making. I simply wanted to point the nitpicks posted about the technobabble "not making sense" posted earlier in the thread.

It still doesn't. The fact that earlier series had different explanations for time travel doesn't change the fact that, in this film, the main villain gets sucked back in time, then refuses to do anything to prevent the destruction of the planet which caused him to get all mopey in the first place.

That's just bad writing.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Can you give me even a single instance of a similar ethical dilemma in the Star Trek reboot?

Kirk deciding Spock was compromised and seizing command from him, also deciding to go straight to Earth instead of regrouping with the fleet. Both decisions could have gone wrong and killed the entire crew.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
It still doesn't. The fact that earlier series had different explanations for time travel doesn't change the fact that, in this film, the main villain gets sucked back in time, then refuses to do anything to prevent the destruction of the planet which caused him to get all mopey in the first place.

Expecting rationality from a crazy guy is pretty irrational, Nero was so far gone he probably didn't even think about doing that. He just wanted to hurt Spock as much as possible, his home world probably didn't enter his mind. Besides the destruction of Romulus was over a century away, he could burn Spock in revenge for his failure and still warn the Romulan high command. Plenty of chance for him to sort that out after his entertainments.

Magichead:

J Tyran:

Magichead:

Except that's a crock. TOS did what it had to do in order to get on the airwaves, it cloaked its high-concept stuff in a spaghetti western because studio executives are mewling idiots who can't grasp what sci-fi is beyond "alienz and lazor beeeeeeeemz!", and that's fine, but it's not a virtue of the programme, it's a necessary evil. TNG was perhaps the worst offender of all the Treks for technobabble, yet it's still the show that gave us the very best of exactly what you claim Trek is about; ethics and characters. "The Drumhead", "Measure of a Man", "Hide and Q", "The Offspring" etc etc etc.

Having an internally consistent set of fictional rules is not a flaw, no matter how much post-modernist crapademics try to cast it that way, indeed for many of us it's not merely an asset but a necessity in order to aid in suspension of disbelief - no, Star Trek physics are not realistic, as a physicist I know that better than most, but as a construct they are plausible and consistent, and that means I spend far less time being jarred out of the important parts of the story, the characters and the ethical quandries, than with other more recent attempts at sci-fi(*cough* Battlestar *cough* Continuum *cough*).

But even if we accept your premise, which I do not, it relies on the assumption that the reboot Trek movie had set aside "technobabble" or indeed any semblance of rationality whatsoever, in order to more easily present its complex tale of characters and morality - and what would that be again? The story of the 2009 Trek is an amateurish pastiche, cobbled together from a caricature of TOS and the abused corpse of Star Wars, set in a flying Apple Store, with an implausibly young cast, and about as much emotional weight as a wet fart.

Even Voyager managed to rise to the challenge and be engaging and thought provoking sometimes, this film can't even manage that - it's a popcorn flick, all lensflare, no substance.

We will just have to agree that we disagree, you do not like the reboot. Fair enough but I do like it, the series was reclaimed from the trekkies and taken back to its roots. All of this "plausible" and "consistent" pseudo science was a construct of the trekkies never the show. A plot device or piece of technobabble and other Deus ex machina would be simply be there to advance the plot, it rarely made sense and it would often only appear that one time in that episode. It was often completely contradicted in another series or circumstance.

Somehow for some fans the pseudo science became more important, now if you want to discuss about how the characters where unengaging or how annoying the lens flare was it is a fair argument but its a different point to the one I was making. I simply wanted to point the nitpicks posted about the technobabble "not making sense" posted earlier in the thread.

There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to start. You talk about agreeing to disagree, then belittle a group of people you disagree with. You claim that Star Trek's pseudo-science is a construct of the fandom, which is patently daft and incorrect since it was present in TOS, it simply made less sense and was less coherent, and has been present in every show since - the fans didn't produce the show, they were not technical advisers, or writers. You talk about taking the show back to its roots, but that's also absurd, since you've focused on one single aspect of the show and decided that is the defining characteristic, despite the fact that said characteristic was a contrivance to allow the show's creators to slip a high-concept ethically-driven sci-fi show past television executives who would otherwise have flat out rejected it.

As for your claim that you're only responding to technobabble nitpickings; rubbish. Most of the complaints you're referring to regard plot and characterisation, not technology, and even those that do are fair points because they relate to plot points which don't even make sense within the context of the story being discussed, nevermind in relation to other Star Trek properties.

If you enjoy brain-dead money-grab vacant summer popcorn flicks, more power to you, I enjoy them as well sometimes, but that's not Star Trek and it never was.

J Tyran - You're constantly belittling "trekkies" by saying they're responsible for the "Pseudo Science", that we're just in it for the "technobabble", and that we're responsible for Star Trek "losing it's way".

MagicHead - I agree with completely everything you have said. Thank you for saying it in a way that is both intelligent and concise. Much appreciated!

J Tyran - I'm not sure why you think that he's crazy. He does crazy things, sure, but his is a viewpoint of a Romulan who has lost everything. If he was truly foaming at the mouth mental, you think his crew would have mutinied. This can actually be explained away pretty easily though: Bad Writing.

The whole movie is full of it. To giving the flag ship to a cadet, having captains go over to a clearly hostile ship several times, Nero not going over to Romulas and building an army with his technology with which he could take over the entire galaxy... Did he know Spock was going to show up with Red matter? Is that why he just sat around for 20 years?

We didn't even need bad science to explain any of this! Just a total reboot: Here is young Kirk, he's in charge of the enterprise, and some stuff is different. Fine, whatever. I'm okay with it. Now give me a villain I can enjoy and delete any "car in the valley" scenes.

There had to be someone more qualified left in the Federation to take command of the Enterprise! Even Spoke was more qualified, they wouldn't have just moved him aside because he got too emotional about his entire planet being destroyed.

No... There was nothing about this movie even salvageable. Deny it's from cannon, and start a new reboot. That's the only answer at this point.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here