New JJ Abrams interview

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by SalvorHardin, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Sindatur

    Sindatur Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Hmmm... ST09, $150Million budget, $297Million Domestic gross. Prometheus $130Million budget, $126Million Domestic Gross (Yes, Prometheus did higher International, but, there is a much smaller cut for the Studios of International then Domestic). There weren't many reviews here nor other sites I visit (of other flavors of SciFi/Fantsy) that were raving about how good Prometheus was. Rotten Tomatoes has Prometheus at 74/72, and ST09 at 95/91.

    I'm not sure how else to rate success, but, ST09 beats Prometheus in all these categories
    I'd prefer you bought me dinner first before speaking so intimately about my manhood ;)
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  2. Balrog

    Balrog Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    Balrog
    This is one of them paradox thingies, right?
     
  3. Will Riker

    Will Riker Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    There was a plot, just not a very good one. I like JJ Abrams, but often times he tries to cover up a very weak story/script with a visually stunning look. His idol Steven Spielberg did this with Jurassic Park, and I think often times it's Abram's fallback.

    This is how I think ST09 differs from any of the Next Gen movies, it's execution vs. story. I think the Next Gen movies had solid premises and had really good stories they wanted to tell. All of them, Generations to Nemesis had a really amazing story in there. Other than First Contact, where they fell short was execution. I respect the story they were trying to tell, but everything from the script to the acting to the editing were very poor. Had Nemesis or any of the Next Gen movies been executed by JJ Abrams or Matthew Vaughn or another really solid director, I think we would have had some really powerful movies that would have appealed to a broader audience.

    Then you have ST09. It was executed masterfully. It's stunningly beautiful, the score is top notch, the acting is on point (especially Karl Urban), etc. Where it falls flat is the story they're trying to tell. It's not surprising. It's the same writers that made Prometheus and the transformers movies fall flat. Even the most emotionally gripping parts of the movie were flat (Spock's mother dying, Kirk gaining control of the Enterprise, etc.). The Kelvin sequence was amazing and powerful, but the movie never again reached that kind of emotion. It is what it is, it's a popcorn movie. I enjoyed the movie from that perspective and I'm happy with the success and relevance Trek is once again having. There have been so many wonderful, emotional, thought provoking stories in ST that have been told and that is the aspect I was disappointed with ST09.
     
  4. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Okay, but what about that recasting in Abrams's first Star Trek movie? I'd have to agree with you when you said it was perfect. I'd also agree with you that the movie was "brilliant" and made Trek "bigger than ever." :cool:
     
  5. Balrog

    Balrog Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    Balrog
    :(

    See you then!

    :techman:
     
  6. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    I must strongly disagree with you there. Spock's mother dying was a huge gut-punch for me.
     
  7. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    What impressed me when I saw the movie on opening night were the strong emotional responses from the audience - particularly the opening sequence as Kirk's parents are talking over the comm. People were really getting into it, clearly moved - that's not something I used to seeing at a Star Trek movie.
     
  8. Nagisa Furukawa

    Nagisa Furukawa Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    Are people really baffled and shocked by someone changing their opinion years later? There's plenty of things I like now that I didn't ten years ago (and things I liked then that I don't like now) and I suspect it'll be the same five years later. Repeat viewings can show a turd turn out to be golden and gold turn out to be a turd. I don't know why it's the funniest thing in the world that a guy no longer likes a movie he liked years ago.
     
  9. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    Isn't it strange that this never happens with actual gold and turds?
     
  10. lurok

    lurok Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Location:
    Lost in the EU expanse with a nice cup of tea
    Not at all. I'm sure it happens a lot. But people usually state upfront that they've changed their opinions. I was meh about The Matrix when first saw as thought it derivative and over-hyped but it is now a guilty pleasure. I also think ST'09 is weak in several areas but not in casting, energy, acting or emotion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  11. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Of course not.

    Are people bemused by someone changing their opinion 180 degrees and then going about suggesting that the thing they praised lavishly is largely without merit and directed at the lowest common denominator type of audience? Are people somewhat annoyed by the repetition of tired old jabs at obvious things like "lens flares" when the poster clearly did not have any noticeable negative response to the technique back when they were declaring the thing "brilliant?"

    Yeah, pretty much. :cool:

    When the same individual denounces the movie as nothing better than rubbish - adding to that foolishness like abusing the director's name (another very tired, old and worthless joke) - it really undercuts whatever claim to nuanced taste or considered judgment the poster makes...in fact, it looks very much like the expression of a simple intention to provoke on any grounds or no grounds at all.

    It's impossible to take that sort of thing seriously...and it's also funny as hell. :lol:
     
  12. Nagisa Furukawa

    Nagisa Furukawa Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    Yes, it's strange that when speaking in analogy, that "gold" (aka something good) and "turd" (aka something bad) can change from one to another given that they're based on opinions on art and opinions can change, but in reality, the actual material of feces cannot transmutate into metal.

    :wtf:
     
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    You pretty much missed the point, there. ;)
     
  14. DalekJim

    DalekJim Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    Great Britain
    There could be metal in somebody's feces though.

    OH, I DON'T KNOW!
     
  15. Balrog

    Balrog Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    Balrog
    It's this kind of over-analyzing that's the reason Trek fans can't have nice things...
     
  16. YARN

    YARN Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    It was great seeing young actors for a change. I appreciated that they were working hard to try to capture aesthetic touches and the fun of the original show. I had certain misgivings too, but there is already too much hate in this thread.

    What has concerns me is really the justification. In principle, your initial justification would warrant anything so long as Trek lived on. Your secondary justification (i.e., your justification of your justification) is practical (but they didn't do that - they haven't done just anything).

    Let me put it to you this way. I once had an ethics teacher who related a conversation she'd had with a devout capitalist that went along these lines. She expressed the concern that capitalism is only concerned with making money, and so might do anything in the course of chasing a buck. Her capitalist friend, however, argued that the market will always correct any inefficiencies. She asked, but what if it doesn't always do this? That, according to her friend, it had not yet happened, was no guarantee that it would not see abuse in the future.

    While I doubt that you are really trying to say "Anything goes!" this is, nonetheless, the implication of your argument, and more importantly (since I have no beef with you personally) arguments like yours.

    Again, if we all love Trek so much that there is something worth saving, then we cannot forget that new stewards should recognize this and honor, as much as they can, the tradition they're helming. And this means there is room, in principle, for some criticism. That's all.
     
  17. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  18. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    Understood. And if there wasn't room for criticism, these boards wouldn't exist. :)

    Trust me, "anything goes" in terms of what Trek could or would be is hardly how I feel, anyway. Scotty as a woman? No, not for me. Yet another set of characters in another setting in another time put under the label, "Star Trek"? Meh. I gave "Enterprise" a chance, if you know what I mean.

    As opposed to some reintroductions or reinterpretations of older entertainment (look at all the remakes out there), I actually think Abrams took a rather conservative approach to rebooting "Star Trek". Flawed at times? Yes. But generally satisfying to me.
     
  19. Shazam!

    Shazam! Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    What if Trek XI had been the same except set on the USS Whatever, featuring Chris Pine as Jake Rock, Sylar as T'Pok and Karl Urban as Doctor Walker?
     
  20. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    In the bleachers.
    But why, when Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the others are marketable names? That was part of the beauty of it. TOS was probably the only part of the franchise that hadn't played itself out. Only 79 episodes of Kirk in his prime v. seven seasons and over 170 episodes each of Picard, Janeway, and Sisko; and even 98 episodes of Archer.

    They could find over 170 different things for Picard to do, but ran out at 79 for Kirk?