New JJ Abrams interview

[M'Sharak]

controlfreak wrote:

---

Hahahaha... Hilarious because it epitomizes the "True Fan!!"

Also less of this. No one needs to be taking pokes at other fans or groups of fans.

DalekJim wrote:

---

Not to seem dumb but what forum rule would that be breaking exactly? Unless there's a genuine rule about not merging Star Wars and Star Trek related names together.

No, I don't believe you're dumb at all. You'll get it if you put your mind to it.

[BillJ]

I think you've lost the argument when you say that Nemesis is a better movie...

[DalekJim]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think you've lost the argument when you say that Nemesis is a better movie...

I don't think so. Both are crappy movies but Nemesis didn't have Nero in it, didn't wave lens flare in my face all the time and at least attempted to tell a story.

[KirkusOveractus]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I don't think so. Both are crappy movies but Nemesis didn't have Nero in it, didn't wave lens flare in my face all the time and at least attempted to tell a story.

...but Nemesis didn't have anyone in the theatre, either. Both are crappy movies in your opinion, but box office and general movie going consensus (including reviews in media) say otherwise as to both being crappy.

[Set Harth]

DalekJim wrote:

---

"THERE. IS. NO. PLOT!"

This is what we call "an oldie but a goodie" - one of the most traditional lies told about film. It gets points for its antiquity if nothing else. Just because you didn't like a film's plot doesn't mean that the film had no plot; generally speaking, not liking something does not mean it fails to exist.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Set Harth wrote:

---

This is what we call "an oldie but a goodie" - one of the most traditional lies told about film. It gets points for its antiquity if nothing else. Just because you didn't like a film's plot doesn't mean that the film had no plot; generally speaking, not liking something does not mean it fails to exist.

Well... yes, he's not saying that the film is an art film tone piece where the film is nothing but symbolic images accompanied by ambient music; it's short hand for saying that the film's plot is useless and irrelevant. It jumps from set piece to set piece be it being attacked by a monster on an ice planet or Uhura and Spock snogging and the film's plot tries to provide explanations for it, but that the explanations are so poor and the jumping-from-set-pieces so obvious that the plot may as well not exist for all it is being paid attention to (which is completely different to a film where the plot is everything and yet is genuinely bad).

[YARN]

Franklin wrote:

---

Well, it is a trite thing for J.J. to say, but yes, it's also a necessary thing to say.

No, it isn't necessary. The 09 film succeeded. The public was satisfied and the fans didn't storm off. There is no need to say that it is not made for fans rather than saying it's not made just for fans, a locution which gives the fans some love too.

Franklin wrote:

---

If "Star Trek" is going to continue to be successful, it needs to regrow a fan base.

Again, the '09 film succeeded. There is no need to jettison or disavow the existing fan base in the hopes of growing a new one.

Franklin wrote:

---

Fandom is unlikely to ever be the same, too. It will be a more casual acquaintance with Trek.

So, what is the point of attempting to regrow the fan base if there will never be another fan base? Why go to so much trouble for casual acquaintances who don't really care either way?

___________________________

The expedient hyper-adaptationalist argument (i.e., the present stewards of the franchise should only concern themselves with raking in $$$ and pleasing new viewers, because Trek must survive no matter what!), is rather ridiculous; the very reason one would even care about whether Star Trek survives, would be because one believed there is something there worth saving, that there is something special about Trek. But to try to mindle$$ly and pragmatically save Trek without any concern about its "specialness" undercuts emotional warrant of the argument. If what were saved only shared a passing resemblance to the former stories, why worry about saving it at all costs? Who cares if Star Trek survives in name only?

The preceding is NOT to say that this is what the filmmakers are doing. They have worked hard to honor the past, recapture some of the magic, and create elbow room for new stories. Rather, this criticism is directed at blind apologists who keep arguing that no price is to high to save the franchise.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I don't think so. Both are crappy movies but Nemesis didn't have Nero in it, didn't wave lens flare in my face all the time and at least attempted to tell a story.

But...but...you loved Abrams's first Trek movie!

DalekJim wrote:

---

Loved it, the core 3 were perfectly recast.

DalekJim wrote:

---

I was really not expecting the film to do this well, brilliant. Trek is back and bigger than ever!

Tell us, at what point after 2009 did you first notice the lens flare problem?

If you really perceived Star Trek as being that bad a movie, you'd probably have noticed it at the time you actually saw it. Your opinion, clearly, has evolved - so there's no excuse at all for you to criticize and dismiss the movie and people who like it, because you certainly remember being a fan of it yourself at one point.

Was someone here talking about "self-loathing," or something?

[BillJ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

But...but...you loved Abrams's first Trek movie!

Tell us, at what point after 2009 did you first notice the lens flare problem?

Ouch!

[SalvorHardin]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

But...but...you loved Abrams's first Trek movie!

Tell us, at what point after 2009 did you first notice the lens flare problem?

If you really perceived Star Trek as being that bad a movie, you'd probably have noticed it at the time you actually saw it. Your opinion, clearly, has evolved - so there's no excuse at all for you to criticize and dismiss the movie and people who like it, because you certainly remember being a fan of it yourself at one point.

Was someone here talking about "self-loathing," or something?

[Set Harth]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

It jumps from set piece to set piece be it being attacked by a monster on an ice planet or Uhura and Spock snogging and the film's plot tries to provide explanations for it, but that the explanations are so poor

I don't see what kind of "explanations" are required for these things that weren't presented in the film. In particular, Uhura and Spock. What about that needs to be explained?

[Borgminister]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

Oops!

[Locutus of Bored]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

But...but...you loved Abrams's first Trek movie!

Tell us, at what point after 2009 did you first notice the lens flare problem?

If you really perceived Star Trek as being that bad a movie, you'd probably have noticed it at the time you actually saw it. Your opinion, clearly, has evolved - so there's no excuse at all for you to criticize and dismiss the movie and people who like it, because you certainly remember being a fan of it yourself at one point.

Was someone here talking about "self-loathing," or something?

And scene.

[Franklin]

YARN wrote:

---

No, it isn't necessary. The 09 film succeeded. The public was satisfied and the fans didn't storm off. There is no need to say that it is not made for fans rather than saying it's not made just for fans, a locution which gives the fans some love too.

Again, the '09 film succeeded. There is no need to jettison or disavow the existing fan base in the hopes of growing a new one.

So, what is the point of attempting to regrow the fan base if there will never be another fan base? Why go to so much trouble for casual acquaintances who don't really care either way?

___________________________

The expedient hyper-adaptationalist argument (i.e., the present stewards of the franchise should only concern themselves with raking in $$$ and pleasing new viewers, because Trek must survive no matter what!), is rather ridiculous; the very reason one would even care about whether Star Trek survives, would be because one believed there is something there worth saving, that there is something special about Trek. But to try to mindle$$ly and pragmatically save Trek without any concern about its "specialness" undercuts emotional warrant of the argument. If what were saved only shared a passing resemblance to the former stories, why worry about saving it at all costs? Who cares if Star Trek survives in name only?

The preceding is NOT to say that this is what the filmmakers are doing. They have worked hard to honor the past, recapture some of the magic, and create elbow room for new stories. Rather, this criticism is directed at blind apologists who keep arguing that no price is to high to save the franchise.

I think you may have misread my post a bit. I was thrilled by how true Abrams stayed to the characters and setting of TOS while also giving it a new feel.

I believe Abrams succeeded in breathing life and excitement into a franchise that was dormant at best and comatose at worse. He made it fun, again. I can't imagine anyone in Hollywood doing as well as he did. A remake of Trek in the wrong hands could've been a remarkable failure.

As far as the fan base goes, it was already shrinking down to nothing. So, if you lose one old fan whose "childhood has been raped" by Abrams, you hope to gain two more through an open-minded look at the high quality of the product. They can be completely new to Trek or old fans who had just become jaded over time (like me).

I meant that fanhood in Trek will never again be like it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Trek won't be as prolific, and folks won't be so slavishly devoted to it. That period was the golden age for Trek fandom.

[Kruezerman]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

But...but...you loved Abrams's first Trek movie!

Tell us, at what point after 2009 did you first notice the lens flare problem?

If you really perceived Star Trek as being that bad a movie, you'd probably have noticed it at the time you actually saw it. Your opinion, clearly, has evolved - so there's no excuse at all for you to criticize and dismiss the movie and people who like it, because you certainly remember being a fan of it yourself at one point.

Was someone here talking about "self-loathing," or something?

Maybe this dude was hacked? Maybe it's an early April Fool's?

Multiple Personality Disorder?