J.J. Abrams Signs Up To Direct Star Wars VII

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Doug:

Indeedie - I do think Abrams had at least some understanding of Star Trek (a hell of alot more than the people who did all the previous Star Trek next-gen movies), and I certainly think he understands more about the appeal of Star Wars than George Lucas ever did.

I think that by this point, just about everyone has a deeper understanding of the appeal of Star Wars then George Lucas.

Awe nuts, I was really counting on Joss Whedon to do this. I still need to see the Star Trek '09, but if Abrams does this anything like Lost, than you have to watch the first 5 minutes of the movie or it will never make sense at all. Well, only time will tell if this works or not.

Just gonna say it: At least it's not Lucas again.

I don't think we can say J.J. Abrams saved Star Trek because the property just sits dormant between films. People might show up to watch the Star Trek movie but it seems to be forgotten as soon as the next big Hollywood film comes out.

I think the new Star Wars films should be better than the prequel films, but I'm not sure if Abrams will make it anything more than your standard action film that just happens to be set in the Star Wars universe.

Let's just hope that when Disney was writing up the contract they put in a stipulation that lens flair can not be used in the film.

Ninjamedic:

Magichead:

As a fan of both franchises, people who like 'Wars aren't dismayed at the prospect of JJ "Directing? What's that? MOAR LENSFLAREZ!" Abrams because he also directed 'Trek, they're dismayed because he directed 'Trek badly.

Considering that the film franchise before '09 was 60% bad, the whole franchise was killed by two bad shows and two bad films, I refuse to believe that he defiled sacred ground.

Trust me, Rick Berman saw to killing Star Trek long before Abrams ever got near it.

OT: Well I thought his handling of Star Trek could be better, but I'm waiting for Darkness to make my judgement on this.

So the fact that the Bastardly B's(Berman and Braga) already had a solid crack at ruining Star Trek somehow excuses Abrams' failure? If anything, it makes it more pronounced; Abrams was given a franchise that was fairly aching to be revitalised, a franchise dripping with potential, and he cacked out a mindless summer action flick with all the emotional and ethical impact of a sheet of wet cardboard. Even the grammar makes me cringe("May I ask a personal query?" - no, Spock, no you may not, you may ask a personal question, or you may make a personal query).

And where are you getting the 60% bad thing? The only genuine stinkers in there are Generations, Final Frontier, and Nemesis; sure Search for Spock and Insurrection felt more like a TV two-parter than proper films, but they weren't bad, and the others were all great in their own ways.

Apologies in advance for obnoxious post carving.

Magichead:

So the fact that the Bastardly B's(Berman and Braga) already had a solid crack at ruining Star Trek somehow excuses Abrams' failure? If anything, it makes it more pronounced.

"I refuse to believe that he defiled sacred ground." Also, I disagree that 2009 was a bad film in the franchise going by its standard. Lets take your description of the film shall we?

a mindless summer action flick with all the emotional and ethical impact of a sheet of wet cardboard.

Now aside from that I disagree that '09 was devoid of ethical or emotional impact, do you think that your description of 2009 doesn't describe Voyage Home, First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis? While the former two films may have had their moments, their main plots are no smarter or complex then 2009's. And Insurrection was just a dull summer film that falls apart the instant you think about the Baku.

If I was even slightly less charitable, your description of the franchise as "a solid job of integrating high-concept sci-fi with character drama and even action" really only fits two films in the series (Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country).

And where are you getting the 60% bad thing? The only genuine stinkers in there are Generations, Final Frontier, and Nemesis; sure Search for Spock and Insurrection felt more like a TV two-parter than proper films, but they weren't bad, and the others were all great in their own ways.

See the above. This brings me to my main point, while you may have disliked the Abrams film, you can't claim he ruined the franchise given the hit and miss quality of it. (Also, everyone forgets that The TOS Films, TNG and The TNG films all had shaky or terrible starts before becoming good).

I'm not too biased towards him directing this film since I'm not a crazed Star Wars fan,but I'm also not impressed with a large majority of his films either...and the Star Wars films are legendary sooo as long as he lives up to the expectations of George Lucas it's A ok!

_ | |
// \\ |***| |
\\_// | | *

Oh terrific, another opportunity to rape the Star Wars franchise of what little dignity still remains. At this point the plot may as well be pulled together by having people randomly pic ideas out of a hat, good move Disney. This movie has the potential to be about as entertain as watching a time team omnibus whilst having Margret thatcher attempting to give a lap dance.

Casual Shinji:
So every part of the review where he criticized the movie was genuine, but the numerous parts he displayed affection for it were tongue-in-cheeck? Saying it was a "guilty pleasure", that it was "well shot, well light", and "a pretty darn good action movie".

Sounds like you're simply ignoring every arguement you didn't agree with.

I didn't hear many arguments for why it was good. "guilty pleasure", "good action movie", "well shot" aren't arguments but statements that need to be proven. What I heard was over an hour long of arguments as to why it sucks, why it isn't a good Star Trek movie, why it doesn't make any logical sense and why it is a dumbed down cash-in for brainless mass-market audiences that need everything spelt out for them.

SkarKrow:

floppylobster:

SkarKrow:

I really enjoyed the star trek reboot, sat down my my good friend with a beer and watched it. Was a damn fine movie.

And Zachary Quinto was in it.

What, do you have a crush on him? That's no reason to like a bland action movie masquerading as sci-fi.

I did at the time being a dumb teenager, but he's a pretty good actor, he was great in Heroes.

I honestly just enjoyed the movie, it wasn't anything amazing but it was entertaining and very watchable. I haven't seen the original star trek films and I probably never will, since I'm not big on movies and I very rarely watch them, it's only on rare occasions that I go and rent a film.

I prefer to play games or watch anime, things like that.

I can see the appeal of the movie to those not familiar with Star Trek. (To be honest I've only ever watched a handful of episodes and most of the films myself). But I was really bothered by the lack of depth in that film. It was basically a revenge plot where Star Trek movies are usually known for exploring something much more interesting and deeper in human nature (through science fiction). I get that it was entertaining though. I just hope Abrams brings the heart George Lucas put in to the original trilogy. If he dumbs it down or does not have the openness, purity of honesty of George then, like all Abrams other work, it's going to be 'good enough for a night out', but no where near the cultural phenomenon that Star Wars became.

For the record, I just watched Episode I /again/ tonight. I stand by my statement that I like it more every time I re-watch it. I have no idea why it's so hated, let alone why so many people think Episode II was better.

Covarr:
I can't speak for Star Trek or Lost, not having seen either one, but Fringe was an amazing show almost the entire way through, and if Abrams can keep that quality level I'll gladly watch and enjoy new Star Wars movies.

P.S> Thanks

I'll second that.

Owyn_Merrilin:
For the record, I just watched Episode I /again/ tonight. I stand by my statement that I like it more every time I re-watch it. I have no idea why it's so hated, let alone why so many people think Episode II was better.

You and me both. Personally, I think Episode I is the only good Star Wars prequel.

I'll warrant it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The midichlorians explanation is stupid, Amidala is a deadpan statue, and implying that Anakin is "space Jesus" just doesn't work. However, it's easy enough for me to overlook/retcon these elements (for example, I tell myself that the Jedi had it backwards: midichlorians are a byproduct of the Force instead of creating it) and enjoy the rest of the film as a whole.

Hell, I even like Jar Jar Binks.

TheVampwizimp:
snip

You know, logic is a pretty big thing to throw around once you start talking about a series which includes spaceships, interstellar travel, time travel and in general, technology that we don't even know if it's ever gonna exist.

Abrams has consistently saved 3 franchises and made a kick ass series (apart from the finale, which was, you know, a bit of a cop-out). Abrams' Star Trek could not include the whole canon of the series it was based on, simply because it was a cinema release. What would everyone have to do, watch the entire series in order to understand what the hell is going on ?

You are actually saying that to gain the favor of the Trekkies, the rest of the world would have homework assignments. That's nice.

This will be interesting. Not really for anymore Star Wars movies but I think he will be better than Ben Affleck but Faverau would have been a good pick as well. Can't believe Affleck was in line before Joss Whedon, that is just wrong.

Am I actually the only Star Wars blindingly following into dark pit of commercializm Fan who actually looks forward to the New star wars movie... Hope it would be a prequel like about the old republick times or future whith jaden solo...

floppylobster:
It was basically a revenge plot.

The Star Trek film argued to be the best by many fans was a revenge plot. In fact many of the films heavily featured revenge plots, either as the main plot or a sub plot.

floppylobster:

SkarKrow:

floppylobster:

What, do you have a crush on him? That's no reason to like a bland action movie masquerading as sci-fi.

I did at the time being a dumb teenager, but he's a pretty good actor, he was great in Heroes.

I honestly just enjoyed the movie, it wasn't anything amazing but it was entertaining and very watchable. I haven't seen the original star trek films and I probably never will, since I'm not big on movies and I very rarely watch them, it's only on rare occasions that I go and rent a film.

I prefer to play games or watch anime, things like that.

I can see the appeal of the movie to those not familiar with Star Trek. (To be honest I've only ever watched a handful of episodes and most of the films myself). But I was really bothered by the lack of depth in that film. It was basically a revenge plot where Star Trek movies are usually known for exploring something much more interesting and deeper in human nature (through science fiction). I get that it was entertaining though. I just hope Abrams brings the heart George Lucas put in to the original trilogy. If he dumbs it down or does not have the openness, purity of honesty of George then, like all Abrams other work, it's going to be 'good enough for a night out', but no where near the cultural phenomenon that Star Wars became.

Don't get me wrong it wasn't amazing and it was hardly cerebral, but I certainly enjoyed watching it and it made for part of a decent night in.

I've still not seen the last couple of star wars films that came out to be honest, I haven't seen those special editions either I just liked the original trilogy a lot when I was a kid. Hopefully it's good, then I might bother to watch them. So long as he channels the goodness of the indiana jones movies and star wars we'll be fine, if he looks anywhere else in George's library for inspiration then the movie will be doomed from it's inception.

2fish:

ZippyDSMlee:
hidden snip roll 20+ to see

Can we count star wars episode VII oops we left the lens cover on the whole time and all you get is the audio as worse and blame it on the director?

Wouldn't that be an improvement over the last one?

I'm fine with Abrams. He's not the best possible choice, but not the worst either. I'm curious if he'll bring Michael Giacchino aboard as his composer or if he'll ask John Williams. I like both composers, so at least I'll enjoy the soundtrack.

kajinking:
...is this going to be an issue for the fans?

Yes.

Though they could announce God is going to be writing and directing and at every showing there will be complimentary fellatio (or cunnilingus, im not sexist)and people would still have an issue with it.

I'm becoming rather fed up of the vocal minority within geek culture who profess to love something but do nothing but bash it. Not constructively, just with idiot comments like "OMFG! LENS FARE A NEW HOPE AMIRIGHT?!"

If people genuinely think everything in movies and games and such sucks so much these days why not piss off outside and play sports or something?

Ninjamedic:
Apologies in advance for obnoxious post carving.

Magichead:

So the fact that the Bastardly B's(Berman and Braga) already had a solid crack at ruining Star Trek somehow excuses Abrams' failure? If anything, it makes it more pronounced.

"I refuse to believe that he defiled sacred ground." Also, I disagree that 2009 was a bad film in the franchise going by its standard. Lets take your description of the film shall we?

a mindless summer action flick with all the emotional and ethical impact of a sheet of wet cardboard.

Now aside from that I disagree that '09 was devoid of ethical or emotional impact, do you think that your description of 2009 doesn't describe Voyage Home, First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis? While the former two films may have had their moments, their main plots are no smarter or complex then 2009's. And Insurrection was just a dull summer film that falls apart the instant you think about the Baku.

If I was even slightly less charitable, your description of the franchise as "a solid job of integrating high-concept sci-fi with character drama and even action" really only fits two films in the series (Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country).

And where are you getting the 60% bad thing? The only genuine stinkers in there are Generations, Final Frontier, and Nemesis; sure Search for Spock and Insurrection felt more like a TV two-parter than proper films, but they weren't bad, and the others were all great in their own ways.

See the above. This brings me to my main point, while you may have disliked the Abrams film, you can't claim he ruined the franchise given the hit and miss quality of it. (Also, everyone forgets that The TOS Films, TNG and The TNG films all had shaky or terrible starts before becoming good).

I would be grateful if you could describe to me exactly what emotive or ethical message JJ Trek was attempting to convey. There was bloody product placement in it ffs.

You really are a fan of the strawmen aren't you. First, to your last point; I didn't claim JJ Trek ruined the franchise, just that it's an average movie, and a shit Star Trek story. At most, I would claim he has ruined the massive opportunity he was given, and in so doing ruined the interest a lot of people, myself included, had in seeing Star Trek on the big screen(or indeed any screen) again.

As to the films you listed, we can begin with the fact that throwing Insurrection and Nemesis at me is pointless, seeing as I already made my feelings on them pretty clear when I labelled Nemesis as "a stinker", and equated Insurrection as, at best, a two-parter TV show not a movie.

The other two? You're flat wrong, there's no other way to say it. Voyage Home had an obviously lighter tone than the previous three films, but I'm struggling to see how anyone could think it had no ethical aspect given that it fairly clobbers the viewer in the face with it's anti-whaling message, and if you find no emotional weight in Kirk's almost desperate attempts to reconnect with Spock, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you would actually place in that category.

As for First Contact, I take it you studiously avoided noticing Picard's obsession/revenge arc, Cochrane struggling to internalise the concept that he is destined to become a major historical figure, and all the scenes with Data in them after the first act? The fact that they managed to integrate those things into the framework of a standard sci-fi action film doesn't diminish First Contact, it proves that the very thing JJ Trek failed to do is eminently possible.

katsabas:

TheVampwizimp:
snip

You know, logic is a pretty big thing to throw around once you start talking about a series which includes spaceships, interstellar travel, time travel and in general, technology that we don't even know if it's ever gonna exist.

Abrams has consistently saved 3 franchises and made a kick ass series (apart from the finale, which was, you know, a bit of a cop-out). Abrams' Star Trek could not include the whole canon of the series it was based on, simply because it was a cinema release. What would everyone have to do, watch the entire series in order to understand what the hell is going on ?

You are actually saying that to gain the favor of the Trekkies, the rest of the world would have homework assignments. That's nice.

Wow. You have managed to completely miss what I was actually complaining about, propped up Abrams' other work, and and make it sound like I am being unreasonable in a relatively short post. Good job.

No where have I suggested anyone has to have previous knowledge of Star Trek to make sense of a Star Trek movie. Ever seen ST:II The Wrath of Khan? That is a self-contained film maintaining its own internal logic and plot construction, with no expectation of previous knowledge of the series in order to enjoy it. And that's the one where the villian is actually from an episode of the series. And it still doesn't require you to know who he is.

ST '09 makes no attempt to uphold the franchise' principles. It is 80% action, 10% lens flare, and 10% character development of people that the fans already know, so the development is bland, omnidirectional, and contrary to what we already know and love. Granted, Abrams didn't give a damn about Star Trek to begin with so it's no surprise he pulled stupid shit like having Spock and Uhura together, or making Kirk out like a selfish preening twat, so I'll drop that argument.

What the movie does fail to do is make any internal sense. How do YOU explain how Nero disappeared for a quarter century between the opening and the second act? How do YOU explain why Old Spock was on the exact same desolate planet that New Spock stranded Kirk on? How do YOU explain what the fuck Starfleet is going to do about a black hole orbiting the earth, causing massive gravitational disturbances on humanity's home planet? How does it make any sense to YOU that Kirk gets promoted from a cadet, currently on trial for cheating on an important exam, straight to CAPTAINING THE GODDAMN FLAGSHIP. Really, I would love to hear how any of this makes sense to someone.

And finally, how do you explain turning a forty-plus year franchise with a reputation for strong character drama, scientific inquiry, moral quandaries, and a pretty consistent tone of all this throughout its history, into a familiar sci-fi action romp with only tangential relation to its characters, core principles, and story design? I'm sorry, but it's hard for a lifelong fan to just let these things go because Hollywood's latest darling thinks they mean nothing.

Wow... lots of really stupid things being said here. I mean a lot. First of all, the idea that Abrams is somehow going to 'destroy the canon of Star Wars because he doesn't care' blah blah blah is easily the most idiotic thing being thrown around. Look at the damn title of the article, he is the director. Not the writer. He has little to no influence on what is in the script (and therefore if they follow cannon). Second of all, the lens flare thing, while there is SOME validity to what you are saying that is really more of the cinematographer's 'fault' (honestly, while they hay have gone a bit overboard I thought the movie looked really nice). However, Abrams did give the OK for the flares and it is POSSIBLE he could try to get the Star Wars cinematographer to do the same thing, but considering the fact that he already did this on Star Trek even if for some reason he wanted to do it on Star Wars I highly doubt Disney would even let him. Remember, he signed on to be the director, not the writer or the producer.

Anyways, the ignorance is strong if this forum.

Hutzpah Chicken:
Awe nuts, I was really counting on Joss Whedon to do this. I still need to see the Star Trek '09, but if Abrams does this anything like Lost, than you have to watch the first 5 minutes of the movie or it will never make sense at all. Well, only time will tell if this works or not.

As much as I love Joss, he wouldn't be the right choice for this. He's good at making "group" films/series, about a group of close knit, or to be close knit people, and the dynamics between them. And he's REALLY good at it, but I don't think he would be cut out for something the scope of Star Wars, it's more of an epic journey than a group dynamics film, sorta.

Personally, aside from the lens flare, I liked Star Trek '09, they pointed out several times that it was a new universe, and they achieved wide appeal, while managing to stay mostly accurate to the general sci-fi science.. I don't understand the hate for that film.

TheVampwizimp:
snip

Everything you question can be explained in generic sci fi terms. Maybe Nero time traveled. Since we are talking about the same person and Spock was from the future, he somehow knew. Kirk getting promoted is the classic 'sped up life achievement' most people have come to expect. As for the hole, hell if I know. Never bothered with it. You think about this sort of stuff way too much and let them get in the way of you enjoying a movie. Fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it.

As for the chars, they are NOT the ones you expected to see. Why ? Different universe. You've never heard of parallel universes ? The fact that you and a lot of others ST fans don't like it is kind of eclipsed due to the fact that you could not be pleased in any way possible. Not in a movie that spans a bit over, what, 2 hrs ? You expect a, like you say, 40 years franchise to be somehow toppled by a modern remake ? Or the remake to be as good as the series ? Sure, cause things that take so long to come out never blow up in our faces.

I saw character development and I liked both Kirk and Spock. So boo to you, there are different tastes out there. What a surprise, huh ? So what if the fans didn't like it ? The rest of the world did and now they are paying a lot more attention when someone says Star Trek.

I think its a good choice. Rather then find someone who will try to engage the underlying philosophy or character bull that has been so badly miss-handled with the more recent movies they got someone who will just make a compitant action movie involving lightsabers. A good starting point I would be willing to buy a ticket to see.

katsabas:

TheVampwizimp:
snip

Everything you question can be explained in generic sci fi terms. Maybe Nero time traveled. Since we are talking about the same person and Spock was from the future, he somehow knew. Kirk getting promoted is the classic 'sped up life achievement' most people have come to expect. As for the hole, hell if I know. Never bothered with it. You think about this sort of stuff way too much and let them get in the way of you enjoying a movie. Fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it.

As for the chars, they are NOT the ones you expected to see. Why ? Different universe. You've never heard of parallel universes ? The fact that you and a lot of others ST fans don't like it is kind of eclipsed due to the fact that you could not be pleased in any way possible. Not in a movie that spans a bit over, what, 2 hrs ? You expect a, like you say, 40 years franchise to be somehow toppled by a modern remake ? Or the remake to be as good as the series ? Sure, cause things that take so long to come out never blow up in our faces.

I saw character development and I liked both Kirk and Spock. So boo to you, there are different tastes out there. What a surprise, huh ? So what if the fans didn't like it ? The rest of the world did and now they are paying a lot more attention when someone says Star Trek.

I will give the movie credit for this: an aquaintance of mine who had never seen Star Trek in any form watched the movie and decided to give the shows a shot, and ended up loving them. So it is at least keeping Trek in the minds of modern audiences.

I don't want to attack anyone who liked the movie. It's all up to you to make your own opinions about it. I'm just sort of confused about why someone would enjoy it in any capacity beyond a dumb action flick. Plot holes matter a lot less when you are being entertained by lasers and explosions, for sure. My problem is that Star Trek is not about sacrificing story structure and logic in favor of action set pieces. It actually makes an attempt to be coherent (unless you're watching Voyager). I think too much about the plot holes? I want to get more out of Star Trek than I would get from "Transformers 3." I can't just forgive and forget incredible mistakes in the very premises of the plot if I want to be intellectually engaged.

As to why the characters are different...When I first saw ST 2009 I didn't hate it. I liked seeing my old favorite characters back on screen, and kept an eye out for all the little nods to the continuity that reboots usually include. It was fun to watch. The only thing that really bothered me at first was the way the timeline reset. It meant everything about the original ST continuity was either erased forever, or was inconsequential because it's hard to care about anyone when there are infinite parallel universe copies of them.

I have since gotten over this. TNG did episodes like that a lot, with copies of crew members and forays into alternate timelines and universes. So I would have to be bothered by TNG as well, and I can't stay mad at that show. I got over it. But the more I watched ST 2009 and the more I thought about it, the more I see mistakes that are not covered by the parellel universe excuse. The point of a parallel universe is to ask "what if?" To see our favorite familiar characters in either a new situation, or with a new personality, such as the evil Kirk & Co. in the episode "Mirror, Mirror."

This reboot does not do that. It does address the issue of what would happen if Kirk grew up without a father, so him I can forgive. But why is Spock suddenly such an emotional prick because of the single event Nero changed that would have had no effect on him at all? How could anyone be okay with his bizarre, out-of-left-field romance with Uhura? Scotty is now a cheesy comic relief character, apparently. Chekov shouldn't even be on the ship at this point, but of course they weren't going to leave him out. And the casting is a problem too. I'm not sure I like Chris Pine as Kirk. Zachary Quinto is a decent actor, but his Spock is too much like Sylar from "Heroes." Just a bit creepy and flippant; he doesn't have the ability to pull off what Leonard Nimoy did, and be charismatic even without emotion. John Cho does not work for me as Sulu. I do appreciate Karl Urban trying his damndest to pull off a convincing Dr. McCoy. Simon Pegg, though; I love the guy, but he is certainly no Scotty. And Tyler Perry is the Head of Starfleet? Now I think I've seen everything.

The first duty of a franchise remake or reboot is to get the tone and the familiar elements right. The fans are the people you need to please. Both for financial purposes and because it's just fucking polite. How many game series have dumped their fanbases in favor of wider appeal? It's a dick move, plain and simple. This is what the creators of ST 2009 have done. And I am righteously pissed off.

Drew Karpyshyn, author of the Darth bane Triology NYT best seller and the author of KOTR xbox games, let him write and direct the movies!

Holy crap seven pages of hate? I can't believe this many people are still passionate enough about Star Wars to give a damn.

Honestly I am not surprised. I seem to recall an interview I read somewhere where JJ Abrams said he was a bigger fan of Star Wars than Star Trek, and that's obvious from his (IMO horrible) handling of Star Trek-It feel far more like a Star Wars Prequel movie than a Star Trek movie (much less the Star Trek Series). As many complaints as I have about his handling of Star Trek (and there are many) I can't see him screwing up Star Wars to the magnitude he did Star Trek, as he obviously holds it in a much higher esteem (just read his comments on being chosen for the Star Wars sequels). Besides, considering how unbelievably popular his Star Trek movie was even with all of its glaring flaws, and consdiering how much money the Star Wars prequels made despite the widespread dislike for them-I really can't see the Star Wars sequels beign commercial failures even if they were absolute cinematic garbage. At least with this news I can hope for JJ Abrams to be slowly seperated from the Star Trek franchise so It can get a more respectful revival.

J Tyran:

floppylobster:
It was basically a revenge plot.

The Star Trek film argued to be the best by many fans was a revenge plot. In fact many of the films heavily featured revenge plots, either as the main plot or a sub plot.

Right. So we've seen that, we've explored that. It's been done.

Although Wrath of Khan was more about Kirk being an asshole for most of his life and it all catching up with him. Because of that, it felt it had more weight because it was Kirk's own selfish history that ended up putting his crew (and eventually his family) at risk. And included a scene of his best friend being completely unselfish to counterpoint his actions. Plus it had the whole genesis angle which was interesting.

Abrams Star Trek was just more like, 'you killed my daddy so I'm going to kill you'. The ensemble cast was good, there was action, comedy and it all move along at a pace. It just felt a little hollow. I don't outright hate Abrams I just find him a little safe and predictable which doesn't lend itself well to Star Wars.

Ha Ha! Both Star Wars and Star Trek tremble before the might that is Indiana Jones!

image

TheVampwizimp:

katsabas:

TheVampwizimp:
snip

Everything you question can be explained in generic sci fi terms. Maybe Nero time traveled. Since we are talking about the same person and Spock was from the future, he somehow knew. Kirk getting promoted is the classic 'sped up life achievement' most people have come to expect. As for the hole, hell if I know. Never bothered with it. You think about this sort of stuff way too much and let them get in the way of you enjoying a movie. Fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it.

As for the chars, they are NOT the ones you expected to see. Why ? Different universe. You've never heard of parallel universes ? The fact that you and a lot of others ST fans don't like it is kind of eclipsed due to the fact that you could not be pleased in any way possible. Not in a movie that spans a bit over, what, 2 hrs ? You expect a, like you say, 40 years franchise to be somehow toppled by a modern remake ? Or the remake to be as good as the series ? Sure, cause things that take so long to come out never blow up in our faces.

I saw character development and I liked both Kirk and Spock. So boo to you, there are different tastes out there. What a surprise, huh ? So what if the fans didn't like it ? The rest of the world did and now they are paying a lot more attention when someone says Star Trek.

I will give the movie credit for this: an aquaintance of mine who had never seen Star Trek in any form watched the movie and decided to give the shows a shot, and ended up loving them. So it is at least keeping Trek in the minds of modern audiences.

I don't want to attack anyone who liked the movie. It's all up to you to make your own opinions about it. I'm just sort of confused about why someone would enjoy it in any capacity beyond a dumb action flick. Plot holes matter a lot less when you are being entertained by lasers and explosions, for sure. My problem is that Star Trek is not about sacrificing story structure and logic in favor of action set pieces. It actually makes an attempt to be coherent (unless you're watching Voyager). I think too much about the plot holes? I want to get more out of Star Trek than I would get from "Transformers 3." I can't just forgive and forget incredible mistakes in the very premises of the plot if I want to be intellectually engaged.

As to why the characters are different...When I first saw ST 2009 I didn't hate it. I liked seeing my old favorite characters back on screen, and kept an eye out for all the little nods to the continuity that reboots usually include. It was fun to watch. The only thing that really bothered me at first was the way the timeline reset. It meant everything about the original ST continuity was either erased forever, or was inconsequential because it's hard to care about anyone when there are infinite parallel universe copies of them.

I have since gotten over this. TNG did episodes like that a lot, with copies of crew members and forays into alternate timelines and universes. So I would have to be bothered by TNG as well, and I can't stay mad at that show. I got over it. But the more I watched ST 2009 and the more I thought about it, the more I see mistakes that are not covered by the parellel universe excuse. The point of a parallel universe is to ask "what if?" To see our favorite familiar characters in either a new situation, or with a new personality, such as the evil Kirk & Co. in the episode "Mirror, Mirror."

This reboot does not do that. It does address the issue of what would happen if Kirk grew up without a father, so him I can forgive. But why is Spock suddenly such an emotional prick because of the single event Nero changed that would have had no effect on him at all? How could anyone be okay with his bizarre, out-of-left-field romance with Uhura? Scotty is now a cheesy comic relief character, apparently. Chekov shouldn't even be on the ship at this point, but of course they weren't going to leave him out. And the casting is a problem too. I'm not sure I like Chris Pine as Kirk. Zachary Quinto is a decent actor, but his Spock is too much like Sylar from "Heroes." Just a bit creepy and flippant; he doesn't have the ability to pull off what Leonard Nimoy did, and be charismatic even without emotion. John Cho does not work for me as Sulu. I do appreciate Karl Urban trying his damndest to pull off a convincing Dr. McCoy. Simon Pegg, though; I love the guy, but he is certainly no Scotty. And Tyler Perry is the Head of Starfleet? Now I think I've seen everything.

The first duty of a franchise remake or reboot is to get the tone and the familiar elements right. The fans are the people you need to please. Both for financial purposes and because it's just fucking polite. How many game series have dumped their fanbases in favor of wider appeal? It's a dick move, plain and simple. This is what the creators of ST 2009 have done. And I am righteously pissed off.

TheVampwizimp is being a lot more polite than I would be after that complete asshole response.

For your 1st point: You use a lot of "maybe" and "somehow" in your response. You know why? It wasn't explained in the movie. It wasn't explained because it was a movie meant to be entertaining for those people who don't like to think during a movie. For everyone else, it was torture. If you prefer not to think "fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it".

For your 2nd point: Of course he's heard about parallel universes. TheVampwizimp is thoroughly versed in all Star Trek, and yeah, they've had them in the past. The problem is, time travel doesn't work the way the movie says it does in the Star Trek Universe. Yes, the timeline diverges into separate lines with each decision made... but changing something in the past changes the way YOUR timeline unfolds. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you or anyone who isn't a fan of Star Trek, but it's a big deal for people who care about the franchise.

You have a Spider-man logo, so I'm going to assume you're a big fan. Now, imagine Peter Parker changed time in some way... oh, let's say he made a deal with the devil to save someone. Now, the way that the timeline unfolds, he never marries Mary Jane and loses his unborn child. Wouldn't that be a huge slap in the face to the fans? Thank God they'd never do that!

For your 3rd point: There was no character development in the movie. Kirk is no different than his 8 year old self who threw the car into the valley. He's a giant dick, with no worthwhile qualities. Spock was going through everything logically, and finally had enough of dick Kirk to want to punch his lights out (after initially trying to murder him by abandoning him on a planet of ice and monsters). I wanted to punch his lights out too. The Spock / Uhura relationship added nothing to the plot other than giving the actress more screen time (which should have gone to Bones).

See, in the TV show every character on the ship had nothing but complete and devout respect for Kirk. Only 1 man in 1 million could effectively command a ship, and Kirk was the best of the best. He earned his way up and forged meaningful relationships along the way. This Kirk was a bozo who was inappropriately promoted beyond his station. If this was a complete reboot that just started with Kirk in command and no mention of any other Star Trek, I would have had no issue with the movie (most of the plot holes would probably be gone). They didn't do that. They shat in our faces. This is why we're pissed. So boo to you, sir.

*Sigh* And to think I actually had hope for the sequel trilogy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

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