Abrams: Star Trek Into Darkness Problems

[Paradise City]

The Star Trek movies and TFA were extremely similar in every way, Abrams is one of those directors who does certain things certain ways & you either like it or not, like Tim Burton, or Michael Bay.

JJ Trek films are two FX overweight sprawling messes with villains who are one or two dimensional. Full of lazy writing,. Kirk wakes up after dying after a couple minutes - that kind of stuff.

Star Wars is good fare, FX mostly under control and proportionate, very few silly scenes whilst still being effective with a genuinely wrenching plot twist that compensates for the typical death star battle. That's far tighter quality of filmmaking overall.

You couldn't have a starker gulf as to how JJ & Co have treated the two franchises.

Opinion can vary here, too. While they liked the movie, Variety still called Abrams' treatment of TFA "too reverential," making it in places almost a riff on the original SW rather than anything truly original. A few other reviews, while positive, cited parts that seemed derivative of SW rather than fresh.

The thing is, Abrams went the nostalgic and romantic route with TFA, not repeating the turgid and slow story-telling of the three previous installments. His feeling may have been that SW wasn't broke, it just needed to be put back on the right track. In ST09, he took a fresher approach in reinventing the truly broke and moribund Trek franchise.

I think for what each franchise needed, he did a fantastic job. Maybe even better in Trek given how irrelevant Trek had become.

Link to the Variety review:
http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/star-wars-review-the-force-awakens-1201661978/

There's an interview with Lucas doing the rounds. He talked about doing something new and had started drafting something. Then Disney bought him out and wanted to hark back to the original formula.

And that's what they did.

Spoiler: Possible very minor spoilers for "The Force Awakens" - probably not a big deal, but just in case...

You had a Death Star 2.0.

A Sabotage Strike Team 2.0

Spacefighter things to destroy the core of Death Star 2.0

Robots!

Vader 2.0

A Solo/Skywalker hybrid in Rey

.....and so on.

Nothing new there. If they had just produced that I would've been very dismissive of the TFA film. But what made this film for me though was that gut wrenching scene on the bridge. That's what made this film. Many people left that cinema genuinely grieving. No "nanites" revivin' people from the dead after a couple minutes with this film.

Maybe I was having a bad day watching the Nero film. But afterwards I had to zap home and flick on wiki and figure out who on earth "Nero" was and what was his beef with our heroes. I know people who otherwise enjoyed the film but said they were also perplexed as to who Nero was. When I watch a film, if the protagonist isn't well defined, a film is someway amputated for me.

For me, strong filmmaking uses simple devices to disturb and unnerve the audiences when they leave the cinema. Reviving people from the dead using nanites that happen to be lyin' around before the credits roll doesn't do it for me. I don't care whether TNG, TOS, TWOK or whatever acronym you care to list does it, when I see it in the cimema, it's an approach that leaves me very underwhelmed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

The idea that people make excuses for the sake of liking or remembering something fondly is silly, though perhaps some people do.

Yes it's silly.

And yes, people do it.

And yes, Star Trek fans do this often.

And I it is, I repeat, EXTREMELY silly.

And taking it further by saying it's the "only" reason anyone likes or remembers those films fondly is beyond absurd.

It's not absurd at all. We excuse all of the things that were wrong with, say, Wrath of Khan or Search for Spock because we didn't notice those things the first time we saw those films, or even if we did notice, we were way too busy having fun.

People who go into movies with a pre-fabbed agenda of "I'm not going to like this and I'm going to make sure you know it" will notice those problems immediately.

Nope.

The idea that people make excuses for the sake of liking or remembering something fondly is silly.

It's simply true. Look around.

though perhaps some people do.

... pretty much makes it true.

But applying that notion categorically to all people who enjoyed any one of six films is totally absurd.

Unless you're claiming those six films had no flaws whatsoever (The Final Frontier? Really?) It's not absurd at all. At issue is why the flaws in THOSE films are forgivable while flaws in later films weren't.

I have noticed that the many detractors of STID and ST09 will almost never compare either of those movies to Insurrection or Nemesis. I'm sort of curious why that is.

 

[Franklin]

JJ Trek films are two FX overweight sprawling messes with villains who are one or two dimensional. Full of lazy writing,. Kirk wakes up after dying after a couple minutes - that kind of stuff.

Star Wars is good fare, FX mostly under control and proportionate, very few silly scenes whilst still being effective with a genuinely wrenching plot twist that compensates for the typical death star battle. That's far tighter quality of filmmaking overall.

You couldn't have a starker gulf as to how JJ & Co have treated the two franchises.

Opinion can vary here, too. While they liked the movie, Variety still called Abrams' treatment of TFA "too reverential," making it in places almost a riff on the original SW rather than anything truly original. A few other reviews, while positive, cited parts that seemed derivative of SW rather than fresh.

The thing is, Abrams went the nostalgic and romantic route with TFA, not repeating the turgid and slow story-telling of the three previous installments. His feeling may have been that SW wasn't broke, it just needed to be put back on the right track. In ST09, he took a fresher approach in reinventing the truly broke and moribund Trek franchise.

I think for what each franchise needed, he did a fantastic job. Maybe even better in Trek given how irrelevant Trek had become.

Link to the Variety review:
http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/star-wars-review-the-force-awakens-1201661978/

There's an interview with Lucas doing the rounds. He talked about doing something new and had started drafting something. Then Disney bought him out and wanted to hark back to the original formula.

And that's what they did.

Spoiler: Possible very minor spoilers for "The Force Awakens" - probably not a big deal, but just in case...

You had a Death Star 2.0.

A Sabotage Strike Team 2.0

Spacefighter things to destroy the core of Death Star 2.0

Robots!

Vader 2.0

A Solo/Skywalker hybrid in Rey

.....and so on.

Nothing new there. If they had just produced that I would've been very dismissive of the TFA film. But what made this film for me though was that gut wrenching scene on the bridge. That's what made this film. Many people left that cinema genuinely grieving. No "nanites" revivin' people from the dead after a couple with this film.

Maybe I was having a bad day watching the Nero film. But afterwards I had to zap home and flick on wiki and figure out who on earth "Nero" was and what was his beef with our heroes. I know people who otherwise enjoyed the film but said they were also perplexed as to who Nero was. When I watch a film, if the protagonist isn't well defined, a film is someway amputated for me.

For me, strong filmmaking uses simple devices to disturb and unnerve the audiences when they leave the cinema. Reviving people from the dead using nanites that happen to be lyin' around before the credits roll doesn't do it for me. I don't care whether TNG, TOS, TWOK or whatever acronym you care to list does it, when I see it in the cimema, it's an approach that leaves me very underwhelmed.

I don't disagree with 95.5% of this, but maybe I'm more forgiving in how I'm entertained.

I think the term "franchise" should be replaced by a more descriptive word: "chain." SW and Trek are chains. When people walk into those movies, they have certain expectations.

If STID had been a one-time "original idea" movie, it would've been a complete cheat for Kirk not to stay dead.

"Das Boot" is a fantastic movie. But the idea of the characters we rooted so hard for all dying in the end is just not how movies are expected to end for "American" audiences. It's amazing how many still aren't over the death of Bambi's mom. Also, the movie would've been a bummer if Snow White had stayed dead (or comatose, or whatever the heck she was). We need the prince to come in at the end and reset everything with a kiss. And in a chain, you can't take the Big Mac off the menu. Happy endings kiddies. Happy endings.

 

[dub]

But applying that notion categorically to all people who enjoyed any one of six films is totally absurd.

Unless you're claiming those six films had no flaws whatsoever (The Final Frontier? Really?)

If the point trying to be made was that films have flaws and we like them anyway, then of course I agree with that. And that applies to "oldTrek" and "nuTrek" and pretty much everything in life. If that's the point, I stand corrected.

My point was I can love or hate a film without making excuses for it or without justifying things in my head or to anyone else. I experience and react to a film, and that's it. Generally, I can't talk myself into or be talked into liking a film. I either like it or I don't. That's why I thought the original post was absurd. But if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

My point was I can love or hate a film without making excuses for it or without justifying things in my head or to anyone else. I experience and react to a film, and that's it. Generally, I can't talk myself into or be talked into liking a film. I either like it or I don't. That's why I thought the original post was absurd. But if I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

This is more or less the case for me, although I think I'm more on the forgiving side for most films and TV shows. (Of course, I may be biased in thinking of myself in a good light )

That being said, I do think that if someone is intent on liking or hating something (due to preconceptions, mood, etc.), it plays a role in how they view the film. One of my favorite anecdotes is actually related to Apollo 13. From it's Wikipedia page:

Ron Howard stated that, after the first test preview of the film, one of the comment cards indicated "total disdain"; the audience member had written that it was a "typical Hollywood" ending and that the crew would never have survived.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I never heard that. It's sort of like people who complained about spoiling the end of Titanic.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

I never heard that. It's sort of like people who complained about spoiling the end of Titanic.

I imagine the future remake of Apollo 13 will have an aged Marylin Lovell dropping the wedding ring that she retrieved from the bathtub drain many years ago into the sea, where the flaming debris of the command module rained down from the heavens back then... as "My Heart Will Go On" starts playing.

 

[Commishsleer]

It will not achieve the box office result to justify its budget.

What would be the box office to justify its budget. For the record.
Just going to check this post in 6 months time. LOL.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It will not achieve the box office result to justify its budget.

What would be the box office to justify its budget. For the record.
Just going to check this post in 6 months time. LOL.

If it did really cost $200m, a $600m return (which is very easily obtainable) will be about average market value--and certainly more than enough for "justification."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My point was I can love or hate a film without making excuses for it or without justifying things in my head or to anyone else.

That's just it: "Yes it had flaws, but I still found it entertaining" is all the justification anyone really needs. At that level of appreciation even the PROBLEMS are fondly remembered. That's why "Return of the Jedi" is still my favorite Star Wars movie, despite me having totally noticed this kick:

I experience and react to a film, and that's it. Generally, I can't talk myself into or be talked into liking a film.

No, but you can talk yourself into DISLIKING a film relatively easily. Dennis point, and it is a good one, is that all of us, being, Trekkies have all been conditioned to refrain from doing that. It thus stands to reason that the reaction to the reboot films has far less to do with the actual flaws in the film and a lot more to do with a segment of fandom not being willing to give the movies a pass on the same kinds of flaws that plagued their predecessors.

Put simply: they didn't want the movies to exist, so they didn't want to enjoy them.

 

[dub]

you can talk yourself into DISLIKING a film relatively easily. Dennis point, and it is a good one, is that all of us, being, Trekkies have all been conditioned to refrain from doing that.

No offense, but this "all of us" thing is the bullcrap I was trying to call in the first place. You can't lump EVERYONE together like that.

It thus stands to reason that the reaction to the reboot films has far less to do with the actual flaws in the film and a lot more to do with a segment of fandom not being willing to give the movies a pass on the same kinds of flaws that plagued their predecessors.

Put simply: they didn't want the movies to exist, so they didn't want to enjoy them.

Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure Dennis would disagree with you that the new movies have the same kinds of flaws that plagued their predecessors.

But this is what I'm hearing from you guys...When it comes to certain films, it's impossible to dislike them because they sucked in my opinion. It must be because I talked myself into disliking them. Or I didn't want them to exist or wanted them to fail. Then I use the flaws to justify my "dislike." On the other hand, if I like these other films over here, then the only reason I could possibly like them is because I have talked myself into liking them. Because I overlook their flaws. Because they're apparently objectively poor films.

???

For the most part, flaws are just not a big deal to me. It's the intentional stuff that matters. Is it possible that a movie can just be awesome in my opinion because I enjoyed it? Is it possible that a movie can just suck in my opinion simply because I didn't like it? Could it be that things that happened in the film (intentional things, not flaws at all) which were just plain annoying to me?

PS - I don't always agree with all of you, nor do I always get the point of some posts, and sometimes I end up embarrassing myself...but I enjoy this board and all of you. Just wanted to throw that out there. And, for what it's worth, I loved Trek '09.

 

[Squiggy]

[
But this is what I'm hearing from you guys...When it comes to certain films, it's impossible to dislike them because they sucked in my opinion. It must be because I talked myself into disliking them. Or I didn't want them to exist or wanted them to fail. Then I use the flaws to justify my "dislike." On the other hand, if I like these other films over here, then the only reason I could possibly like them is because I have talked myself into liking them. Because I overlook their flaws. Because they're apparently objectively poor films.

No, what we're saying is that the reasons you don't like this these movies are also in movies you might consider to be classics.

You: "I don't like STID because of x,y, and z".

Us: Here are all those things in all these movies.


That's not rational. That's simply not liking something because it's different.

 

[ancient]

Return of the Jedi[/URL]" is still my favorite Star Wars movie, despite me having totally noticed this kick:

That is a perfectly choreographed force kick.

 

[Squiggy]

MIND. BLOWN.

 

[dub]

You: "I don't like STID because of x,y, and z".

Us: Here are all those things in all these movies.


That's not rational. That's simply not liking something because it's different.

Right, but x, y and z can easily happen in both Movie A and Movie B, yet Movie A can be awesome and Movie B can suck. It's quite possible that the acting or actors themselves could sell it in Movie A, but totally blow it in Movie B. It's possible the pace/direction/music could be appealing in Movie A, but disjointed in Movie B. The context of x, y and z could be perfect for Movie A, but totally forced for Movie B. And so on. (Not referring to STID here, just hypothetical)

 

[dub]

Plus, it's not always as simple as "it's different." It's not always so black and white. Film is art. Put the identical script in the hands of two different directors, two different sets of actors and the works, and your reaction is going to be different to both films. Is that irrational? Maybe, but it's art. It's not black and white. There is no right and wrong. It's all subjective. There may be things you like about one film but not about the other, even though the script is identical.

 

[Squiggy]

I'm with you about it being subjective. It's when people trot out "Cumberbuttons was white! Why is he playing a Indian Sikh!??!??!?" even though they LOVED the Mexican guy who played him. Or "DOESN"T JJ KNOW ANYTING ABOUT STARSHIP SCALING" and then there are about 20 different sizes of Bird of Prey with no explanation.

It's the stuff like that that gets to me. If you don't like it...groovy. I don't like Elvis but I can respect what he did for music though.

I also don't go on Elvis fan sites and shit all over A Date with Elvis.

If the story wasn't for you or if the acting wasn't your style - just say that and move on. Don't try to be Siskel and come up with a bunch of technical reasons though.

 

[CorporalClegg]

You: "I don't like STID because of x,y, and z".

Us: Here are all those things in all these movies.


That's not rational. That's simply not liking something because it's different.

Right, but x, y and z can easily happen in both Movie A and Movie B, yet Movie A can be awesome and Movie B can suck. It's quite possible that the acting or actors themselves could sell it in Movie A, but totally blow it in Movie B. It's possible the pace/direction/music could be appealing in Movie A, but disjointed in Movie B. The context of x, y and z could be perfect for Movie A, but totally forced for Movie B. And so on. (Not referring to STID here, just hypothetical)

But people aren't arguing nuTrek is bad for any of those other reasons. They argue it's bad because x, y, and z.

That's the whole point of this exercise.

 

[dub]

You: "I don't like STID because of x,y, and z".

Us: Here are all those things in all these movies.


That's not rational. That's simply not liking something because it's different.

Right, but x, y and z can easily happen in both Movie A and Movie B, yet Movie A can be awesome and Movie B can suck. It's quite possible that the acting or actors themselves could sell it in Movie A, but totally blow it in Movie B. It's possible the pace/direction/music could be appealing in Movie A, but disjointed in Movie B. The context of x, y and z could be perfect for Movie A, but totally forced for Movie B. And so on. (Not referring to STID here, just hypothetical)

But people aren't arguing nuTrek is bad for any of those other reasons. They argue it's bad because x, y, and z.

That's the whole point of this exercise.

Got ya.

 

[Paradise City]

I'm with you about it being subjective. It's when people trot out "Cumberbuttons was white! Why is he playing a Indian Sikh!??!??!?" even though they LOVED the Mexican guy who played him. Or "DOESN"T JJ KNOW ANYTING ABOUT STARSHIP SCALING" and then there are about 20 different sizes of Bird of Prey with no explanation.

It's the stuff like that that gets to me. If you don't like it...groovy. I don't like Elvis but I can respect what he did for music though.

I also don't go on Elvis fan sites and shit all over A Date with Elvis.

If the story wasn't for you or if the acting wasn't your style - just say that and move on. Don't try to be Siskel and come up with a bunch of technical reasons though.

The starship resizing is very niche but I'm not sure I've met actually met a fan who jettisoned the films for that reason. Not that I bother reading convos of that kind. That BC was miscast as Kahn though is very legitimate debating point.

Personally, I much prefer people who defy the herd and stand their ground on issues they are sincere about before the cheerleading pom-pom brigade who have a low threshold of criticism and always seem to be trying to shut down challenging conversations. Some people don't like these films. It's time for JJTrekkers to come to terms with that reality.