An Interesting Take on the JJ Abrams Films
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
The video hits the nail on the head.
The original "Star Trek" was first and foremost an action-adventure show with social commentary added atop that. It was bright, colorful and fun. Much like the new movies. And the Abrams films pay more attention to those qualities than 80s/90s/00s Trek.
Whenever someone says that these movies aren't "Star Trek" — what they're really saying is that it's no longer the Trek they've been feed since the 1980s. And that's OK. Because what people tend to forget is Trek can be anything. That's the beauty of the format.
It can be action-adventure. It can be ponderous science fiction. It can be social commentary and thought provoking. But it should be fun. Like the original. Like these movies.
Having grown up on the original more than TNG and what followed, these films capture that spirit that drew me into Trek. Finally, the original is up on the big screen with a big budget.
The criticism that Trekkies hurl at these films is much the same criticisms that erudite science-fiction readers said about TOS.
Yes, it may not be your Trek. But it's still "Star Trek." And in a lot of ways, it's more "Star Trek" than TNG and the rest.
The original "Star Trek" was first and foremost an action-adventure show with social commentary added atop that. It was bright, colorful and fun. Much like the new movies. And the Abrams films pay more attention to those qualities than 80s/90s/00s Trek.
Whenever someone says that these movies aren't "Star Trek" — what they're really saying is that it's no longer the Trek they've been feed since the 1980s. And that's OK. Because what people tend to forget is Trek can be anything. That's the beauty of the format.
It can be action-adventure. It can be ponderous science fiction. It can be social commentary and thought provoking. But it should be fun. Like the original. Like these movies.
Having grown up on the original more than TNG and what followed, these films capture that spirit that drew me into Trek. Finally, the original is up on the big screen with a big budget.
The criticism that Trekkies hurl at these films is much the same criticisms that erudite science-fiction readers said about TOS.
Yes, it may not be your Trek. But it's still "Star Trek." And in a lot of ways, it's more "Star Trek" than TNG and the rest.
Last edited:
I do think it is poor form that people seem to forget that not only does TOS have fans, but their later series wouldn't exist without that pulp sci-fi, action adventure series from the 1960's.
The original Star Trek seems to be the eccentric grandpa that people don't want their friends to meet because of what they might say or do.
I know quite a few Trekkies who grew up on TNG and beyond that have a strong dislike for the original.
For me, I'd rather have a movie that moves than see another 5 minute scene around a conference room table debating the politics of the situation.
Which is funny. From my experience they (TNG onward fans) want TOS fans to embrace what they want, yet they aren't flexible in what they expect in the slightest.
I get excited any time I have the opportunity to watch Star Trek. If they announced a new Berman movie tomorrow, I'd be there opening weekend to see it. Without hesitation.
Same here.
I just was impressed with how much the video pointed out the similarities in regards to relationships and dialogue between the classic show and the new films. It does show the writers (even though I have issues with certain things in the new films) did some research.
Not too mention, I like how the Youtuber points out the differences between the Kirk and crew movies from the 70s and 80s, and how those particular films slowly diverged from the original television series.
I remember when the 2009 film came out I thought that Star Trek was 'fun' again. There was actually a 'trek' among the 'stars' rather than another episode with people debating politics or morals around a table for one or two hours.
I still think DS9 is a true sequel since it knew how to mix the drama with the action. And I would like to see an updated feature film version of that particular show to see how it ties in with new version of TOS. (I do have some issues about how even DS9 diverged from TOS, but that's for another thread).
Although, in that hypothetical feature film version Sisko can actually meet Kirk sans effects...
Yes.
Last edited:
I suppose I'm something of an outlier, I grew up and got into Star Trek at a time when there were four live action series in the franchise with an abundance of episodes to watch, and TOS drew me in more than the modern shows (with the exception of DS9). Now that I'm old enough to articulate my thoughts better, I do think that TOS simply being more fun on the whole is one of the primary reasons why. I'm definitely glad to have these characters back at the forefront of the franchise. I may have been born in 1987 but I'm definitely more of a Kirk guy than a Picard guy.
TOS was 90% people standing around talking. Blinkered vision much?
Difference being, when they talked it was actually interesting and their episodes were longer, had a smaller budget than the modern shows and were controlled much more harshly be NBC censors to boot.
Nope. The difference is that TOS was rebooted into modern action schlock and that's being retconned onto TOS.
Unlike you, I don't need to crap on one series in order to like another.
TOS hasn't been retconned by anyone. I'd imagine that I'm far more knowledgeable about its collective contents than you are.
Roddenberry in the actual series bible says the show is built on an action-adventure framework and the writer's first job is to entertain 20,000,000 people weekly.
You'll notice it is point one.
Which is exactly what has happened in the Abrams films. They've built their stories on an action-adventure framework. Being that this is a movie franchise as opposed to a TV series, time is far more limited and they've emphasized the action elements to a greater degree. Which makes sense considering this is 2015. I would imagine that if Gene Roddenberry of 1966 were to make filmed Star Trek movies now with a huge budget, they would look much like the Abrams films.
If you don't like them. Great. But don't try to tell me that they aren't "Star Trek".
You're doing exactly that by calling the Abrams films "schlock".
This has to be the most apt response. It's perfect. Thank you for this.
I have a friend who completely loathes the JJ Abrams films; he's a TNG fan. His main complaint has been that these movies are not the "essence" of Star Trek and that they are too filled with action and special effects. He's not a TOS fan, which I continue to point out: these two movies (especially the first) are not trying to channel TNG or any series that came after it. They are solely trying to channel TOS and what made it so good.
He says Trek is about morality and ethics. And while that is partly true, I again pointed out that not every single episode of the series does that. So, by his logic, if there are 80 episodes of TOS, but only 40 of those are about what he thinks Star Trek is, by that logic, that means there are only a total of 40 episodes comprised in TOS.
And again, while I've seen lots complain about how this trailer is too "action-y", can we turn back time and take a look at the first teaser trailer for First Contact?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W2Ehf4qrh4[/yt]
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just more, check your complaining at the door first.
Aye!
And I ended up being pretty disappointed with First Contact, because it portrayed itself (and even Jonathan Frakes touted it) as an "all out action" movie. The end result was far from it.
The story was really good for FC, and I did indeed enjoy the movie, but it left me wanting.... not to mention, it really just looked like an overblown episode (same with Generations and Insurrection).
Of course, The Undiscovered Country also disappointed me, but that was largely because the poster for the movie depicted a K't'inga class battlecruiser firing on the Enterprise, as well as the Bird of Prey. The K't'inga never fired a shot.
Grrr.....argghh!
And I ended up being pretty disappointed with First Contact, because it portrayed itself (and even Jonathan Frakes touted it) as an "all out action" movie. The end result was far from it.
The story was really good for FC, and I did indeed enjoy the movie, but it left me wanting.... not to mention, it really just looked like an overblown episode (same with Generations and Insurrection).
Of course, The Undiscovered Country also disappointed me, but that was largely because the poster for the movie depicted a K't'inga class battlecruiser firing on the Enterprise, as well as the Bird of Prey. The K't'inga never fired a shot.
Grrr.....argghh!
wow, that video summed up my own thoughts perfectly
