Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems

[TrekToday]

Another person has come forward to talk about the shortcomings of Star Trek into Darkness, this time J.J. Abrams. His comments come...

More...

 

[slappy]

If he knew about these problems, he should've had the discipline to pull back.

Regarding the secrecy, I don't think he learned not to be secretive. I think he learned to be more secretive and then nobody will accuse you of lying. Which is fine if that's what he wants to do.

 

[intrinsical]

Any movie, any story has a fundamental conversation happening during it. There’s a fundamental argument; there’s a central question. And I didn’t have it.


I felt like, in a weird way, it was a little bit of a collection of scenes that were written by my friends — brilliantly talented writers — who I somehow misled in trying to do certain things. And yet, I found myself frustrated by my choices, and unable to hang my hat on an undeniable thread of the main story. So then I found myself on that movie basically tap-dancing as well as I could to try and make the sequences as entertaining as possible.


Thank god I had the cast that we have, who are so unbelievably fun to watch. And an incredible new villain in Benedict Cumberbatch…I would never say that I don’t think that the movie ended up working. But I feel like it didn’t work as well as it could have had I made some better decisions before we started shooting.

All I will say is this. It feels good to have the creative team behind the movie finally admit they didn't truly know what they were doing and ended up alienating a portion of the long-time trek fans.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

Fan gripes aside, the second half of that movie is just a mess, story-wise. This doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Overgeeked]

Another person has come forward to talk about the shortcomings of Star Trek into Darkness, this time J.J. Abrams. His comments come...

More...

At least someone recognizes the flaws.

 

[Amaris]

While the Khan mystery was fumbled, the movie itself is one of my favorites, and is currently my second favorite Star Trek film. Were there missteps? Certainly, but missteps happen in every production, regardless of how careful the creative team works to minimize them. I still believe, and I have the critical and financial success of the film behind me, that it is an excellent film, and has the spirit of Star Trek at its core. As far as I'm concerned, none of them have any need to apologize for anything.

 

[Malaika]

I like JJ because he had always been a mature and respectful guy.
Tha said, he's a bit too hard on himself here. Stid had some problems (and star trek beyond will have issues too) but the movie is still pretty much praised by critics.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well I loved it enough for both of us, JJ. Although yes, the Khan thing as the worst-kept secret in recent movie history.

 

[Disco]

One of the best Star Trek films (subjective) the monetary success of which has led to a sequel and a new TV series (objective). It's problems are no greater than any other Trek film.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

Well I loved it enough for both of us, JJ. Although yes, the Khan thing as the worst-kept secret in recent movie history.

Same here.

 

[Terok Nor]

These problems came across in the movie. It didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. As a random science fiction action movie it was passable. As Star Trek it was lacking. The Khan thing was a mess. Totally unecessary addition to the story. Cumberbatch is a great actor but Khan he ain't. He should have been a new character but even then his character felt superfluous at times while Weller's character appeared to be the main villain.

 

[Squiggy]

Fan gripes aside, the second half of that movie is just a mess, story-wise.

True Trek fans would just retcon in-universe reasons for everything like we've done for every other mess-of-a-movie Trek has given us.

 

[Devon]

All I will say is this. It feels good to have the creative team behind the movie finally admit they didn't truly know what they were doing and ended up alienating a portion of the long-time trek fans.

Is the new tactic now to put words in people's mouths? No one from the creative team said that in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Mudd]

Fan gripes aside, the second half of that movie is just a mess, story-wise.

True Trek fans would just retcon in-universe reasons for everything like we've done for every other mess-of-a-movie Trek has given us.

Yep.

Basically, if trekkies like something they'll make excuses for absolutely anything. If they don't like it, no explanation at all is acceptable.

This is the only reason any oldTrek movie after number four is remembered fondly - and it goes for one or two before that.

 

[Shikarnov]

As I wrote in the comments...

...there’s a central question. And I didn’t have it.

While I may not appreciate what Mr. Abrams has done with Star Trek since 2009, at least I can respect him for owning up to his mistakes. I don't know any creative -- myself included -- who hasn't been pushed into producing less-than-stellar work today because a client was unwilling to wait for something truly inspired tomorrow. This sounds very much like the case with Into Darkness. The studio wanted Trek back on the screen, and it was Mr. Abrams' job to put it there come Hell or high water.

 

[Squiggy]

Basically, if trekkies like something they'll make excuses for absolutely anything. If they don't like it, no explanation at all is acceptable.

Even if we don't like something we'll do backflips in order to justify something.

TFF was a dumpster fire of a movie, but how many explanations as to why there were 76 backwards numbered decks have we given ourselves in the past 30 years?

The A can make it to the galactic core in a couple hours but it would take Voyager a couple of decades? Here's some sciency sounding gobbledygook that makes that all right in our minds...

 

[M'Sharak]

All I will say is this. It feels good to have the creative team behind the movie finally admit they didn't truly know what they were doing and ended up alienating a portion of the long-time trek fans.

Is the new tactic now to put words in people's mouths? No one from the creative team said that in any way, shape, or form.

While "admit they didn't truly know what they were doing and ended up alienating a portion of the long-time trek fans" may have been a somewhat exaggerated interpretation of the news item, your point could have been made satisfactorily by omitting the insinuation and using only your second sentence.

 

[dub]

Basically, if trekkies like something they'll make excuses for absolutely anything. If they don't like it, no explanation at all is acceptable.

This is the only reason any oldTrek movie after number four is remembered fondly - and it goes for one or two before that.

 

[Galileo7]

Well I loved it enough for both of us, JJ. Although yes, the Khan thing as the worst-kept secret in recent movie history.

Same here.

Agree. I like STID. Albeit, I wonder what STID would have been like if like WOK they pushed the Khan from the beginning to obtain new fans too.

 

[Terok Nor]

Basically, if trekkies like something they'll make excuses for absolutely anything. If they don't like it, no explanation at all is acceptable.

Even if we don't like something we'll do backflips in order to justify something.

TFF was a dumpster fire of a movie, but how many explanations as to why there were 76 backwards numbered decks have we given ourselves in the past 30 years?

The A can make it to the galactic core in a couple hours but it would take Voyager a couple of decades? Here's some sciency sounding gobbledygook that makes that all right in our minds...

It isn't the greatest movie ever made but I get more enjoyment out of it than I did from either of the Abrams movies and most of the Next Generation films. I've never felt the need to justify the plot holes in anything I watch. The writers either messed up or did it on purpose because they could. Some stuff bothers me more than others but it is what it is. You can't George Lucas the mistakes away so you just have to accept them.