Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek isn't 2001, so shouldn't aspire to be. It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars either.

[RandyS]

You know what would really be funny? If Disney hired Rick Berman and Brannon Braga to make the next few Star Wars films.

Or, would that be ironic?

[DalekJim]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

It shouldn't aspire to be Star Wars

Well, finally we agree .

Though the Into Darkness trailer shows that there's much, much more of a The Dark Knight influence this time round. Worked for Skyfall I guess.

[Nerys Myk]

I'm not seeing a downside.

[DalekJim]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I'm not seeing a downside.

Well, having no space shots at all in a trailer for Star Trek is an issue for me. As I said before, I like the exploration part of Star Trek more than the action part. Just personal preference. I could see people fighting a vengeance filled baddie in any franchise. Few other franchises do the types of sci-fi stories I'm drawn to.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Well, having no space shots at all in a trailer for Star Trek is an issue for me. As I said before, I like the exploration part of Star Trek more than the action part. Just personal preference. I could see people fighting a vengeance filled baddie in any franchise. Few other franchises do the types of sci-fi stories I'm drawn to.

Star Trek isn't about "space shots". And "exploration" is just a story springboard not a story in its self.

[DalekJim]

Star Trek is a show about a group of people that travel the stars.

So, it irritates me that we're just getting two movies from Jar Jar Abrams about heroes in familiar locations shooting at a baddie who has a doomsday device and a vendetta against the Federation. It seems repetitive and a complete waste of the precious little Star Trek I am able to get in the current time.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Star Trek is a show about a group of people that travel the stars.

So, it irritates me that we're just getting two movies from Jar Jar Abrams about heroes shooting at a baddie who has a doomsday device and a vendetta against the Federation. It seems repetitive and a complete waste of the precious little Star Trek I am able to get in the current time.

Then TMP is a waste of time to since its the Changeling meets 2001.

Really, it all in the execution. I'll watch 10 movies with similar plot elements if they're well done.

[brian577]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.

Even the most superficial of Star Trek movies (Nemesis) has some philosophy to it. In the case of the above movie it's about Nature Vs. Nurture. TWOK and FC both have shades of Moby Dick and the nature of revenge albeit told from different perspectives. They manage to put those elements in the movie while telling an entertaining story for the most part. The same IMHO can not be said of Star Trek XI it's all about explosions and lens flares.

[DalekJim]

I'd say Generations was the most superficial Star Trek movie before the Abrams reboot. Both movies have no real themes or content to speak of. They're just.... eerily empty.

I'd rather watch Insurrection than either. It's a complete mess but it has some ideas in it at least.

[Nerys Myk]

brian577 wrote:

---

Even the most superficial of Star Trek movies (Nemesis) has some philosophy to it. In the case of the above movie it's about Nature Vs. Nurture. TWOK and FC both have shades of Moby Dick and the nature of revenge albeit told from different perspectives. They manage to put those elements in the movie while telling an entertaining story for the most part. The same IMHO can not be said of Star Trek XI it's all about explosions and lens flares.

Then you probably weren't paying attention.

[DalekJim]

Yeah man, you thought all that lens flare was a patronising way of keeping the audience distracted by the shiny things waved in front of them so they wouldn't notice the lack of plot or substance?

It really alluded to Nikolai Karamzin's theory of a conservative Russia.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Yeah man, you thought all that lens flare was a patronising way of keeping the audience distracted by the shiny things waved in front of them so they wouldn't notice the lack of plot or substance?

It really alluded to Nikolai Karamzin's theory of a conservative Russia.

The plot and substance was there. You'll find it if you watch and listen. I think you might be the one easily distracted by shiny things, if you missed it.

Like I said, Star Trek isn't all that deep. But if thinking that liking Star Trek makes you "intellectual" helps you make it through life, go right ahead.

[Kegg]

inflatabledalek wrote:

---

His loyalty to Trek could simply be down to them being a gainful source of happy employment. He doesn't have to have been a pre-existing fan to have developed an attachment to where he works.

Frankly I think it extends beyond the whole Trek/Wars argument entirely.

Abrams currently has a good working relationship with Paramount, which he's had since Mission Impossible 3. Cloverfield, Super 8? Paramount.

Making Star Trek films is only part of that relationship, although it's the one tentpole franchise he's attached to directing so it's not a small part.

[mos6507]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.

Khan has more substance to it than JJ Trek, despite the action. If you fail to see the gradations, then you have a pretty binary way of looking at films. You don't need to have My Dinner with Andre for a movie to have some depth to it.