JJ Abrams career is not a reason to rewrite the narrative of Star Trek 2009.

[gabby1701]

Is anyone else tired of this narrative? kelvin fans? So we know JJ Story. TV Director goes to do movies does star trek, Mission impossible and star wars.once upon a time he was called the next Spielberg and now people treat him worse than michael bay or zack snyder.

I can get no one wants to be associated with the guy that apparently destroyed the coolest, most iconic and most badass franchise in history. star wars. but are we at a point now people are just trying to say the man's entire body of work is trash and he never did anything good.

JJ Abrams is not Chris Nolan but his films and tv list still has some good stuff, it is why he got the big franchises. I find it very annoying and even cringe when people only say star trek 2009 or kelvin trek is awful because the series was directed and produced by the man that destroyed star wars. while at the same time trying to justify how problematic other trek content is by their standard in judging kelvin trek. Case in point for those who watch shows like SNW. Please compare the romance arc ot that show to kelvin trek and let us ask which is ''good trek''

its crazy to see people use this force hate on the kelvin verse simply because they are jj abrams films and they do not want an association with JJ Abrams. I know how big and impactful star trek 2009 was, I understood the legit criticism of STID and I was there to see fans and critics alike hailed star trek beyond as a good step in the right direction in 2016. fast forward 2019 star wars 9 bombs and all of a sudden everything about jj abrams tv and films has been bad since the late 90s. like wtf?

I am not the biggest JJ Abrams fan but please people need to get of this bandwagon. especially when star trek 2009 in particular is still the most critical acclaimed and most successful trek content of the 2000s and has not even distorted actual star trek canon like the other trek content post 2016.

 

[ScottJ85]

For what it's worth, The Force Awakens was very well received upon release. It wasn't until the later movies that opinions seemed to change.

 

[V'Lias]

None of this makes any sense to me. Maybe I just pay attention to the more level headed Star Trek fans, but I don't see people bringing JJ's Star Wars movies into the discussion of why they don't like his Trek movies. The complaints are usually about the nonsensical plots and action oriented nature of the movies, which I agree with. And the lens flares!

 

[Set Harth]

star wars 9 bombs

If you can call making a billion dollars bombing...

 

[gabby1701]

For what it's worth, The Force Awakens was very well received upon release. It wasn't until the later movies that opinions
seemed to change.

force awakens had some good will and this was the issue with last jedi that the film destroyed a lot of the good will from force awakens Abrams mistake was that he came back for episode 9 and tried to correct the errors of episode 8 and just made things worse.

If JJ had walked away from the mess and backlash of episode 8, I think he would have saved a lot about his legacy for the guy that was once hailed as the next Spielberg and gave new life to worn out franchises like star trek and mission impossible.

but i remember in 2015 when force awakens was released many called it also safe and it was ranked lower than star trek 2009 in jj film rank list. I think even super 8 scored higher.

star trek 2009 did take risk and was the better film with more stand out characters.

I am about opinion changing but for good reasons. just watch if jj was to have a come back and makes a movie that win him like 3 oscars. opinion would change again and people would be hailing all his earlier films as a forgotten masterpiece.

Something is wrong in media and culture today not just in film, culture , politics and music. we are giving a narrative that we must follow and ignore the evidence of what we see.

I mean we have trek content today where some characters are banging multiple people around the same time- that would and should be quite impossible to tos and something jj did not even do, yet some are saying that is closer to tos and real trek over kelvin trek. wtf? lmao.

 

[gabby1701]

None of this makes any sense to me. Maybe I just pay attention to the more level headed Star Trek fans, but I don't see people bringing JJ's Star Wars movies into the discussion of why they don't like his Trek movies. The complaints are usually about the nonsensical plots and action oriented nature of the movies, which I agree with. And the lens flares!

same can be said more from other trek post 2000s. red angels and god like figures. full blown soap stories that make no sense.

in recent trek the plot have become nonessential that we are now in high fantasy territory. Kelvin trek is at least sci fi.

Also we are living in a world were they are trying to sell that paul is more like shatner over pine?

nah....let the swag and charisma speak for itself Here.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Again as I said the thing about narrative is that there is no back up.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek is always made in contemporary context of the world it's made in. Characters having open romantic lives is an adjust to the times. That's what Trek has always done, and would be in line with Roddenberry in his TMP novelization.

 

[V'Lias]

same can be said more from other trek post 2000s. red angels and god like figures. full blown soap stories that make no sense.

We were talking about JJ and the Kelvin Trek movies?

Also we are living in a world were they are trying to sell that paul is more like shatner over pine?

nah....let the swag and charisma speak for itself Here.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Swag and charisma? Kirk is a jerk in that clip. Shatner's Kirk got a little flirty sometimes, but he was always respectful. Wesley has been the same way.

 

[F. King Daniel]

For what it's worth, The Force Awakens was very well received upon release. It wasn't until the later movies that opinions
seemed to change.

The power of Russian propaganda, and a blueprint for current political discourse. Link.

 

[Takeru]

None of this makes any sense to me. Maybe I just pay attention to the more level headed Star Trek fans, but I don't see people bringing JJ's Star Wars movies into the discussion of why they don't like his Trek movies. The complaints are usually about the nonsensical plots and action oriented nature of the movies, which I agree with. And the lens flares!

Most Star Trek movies were action oriented, that didn't start with Abrams. And nonsensical plots didn't start with him either. Genesis reviving Spocks radioactive and decomposing body while his mind is stored in Bones? Getting whales from the past to say "HI" to an alien probe so that it doesn't wipe out humanity? Meeting "god"? A fountain of youth planet? A Picard clone murdering the romulan senate and taking over?

And when it comes to Star Wars it's important to remember that many fans despised the prequel trilogy and weren't exactly sad to see Lucas sell Lucasfilm. Star Wars gets "ruined" every generation, when I was a child Return of the Jedi sucked according to older kids but 8 year old me loved the Ewoks.
Kids who grew up with the prequels love those and I'm sure eventually people will look back on the sequels and think of Rei as their generations Luke Skywalker. "But Rei was a Mary Sue!!!", sure and Luke blew up the Death Star with a combination of half a day of Jedi training, trusting the force and having shot at rats on Tatooine, while Anakin hid in a fighter and then oopsied and whoohooed his way into destroying a capital ship. They're all Mary Sues.

And on TV Abrams has a better track record than Roddenberry, just saying.

 

[fireproof78]

Most Star Trek movies were action oriented, that didn't start with Abrams. And nonsensical plots didn't start with him either. Genesis reviving Spocks radioactive and decomposing body while his mind is stored in Bones? Getting whales from the past to say "HI" to an alien probe so that it doesn't wipe out humanity? Meeting "god"? A fountain of youth planet? A Picard clone murdering the romulan senate and taking ove

Nothing in the Kelvin films is out of step with TOS.

 

[V'Lias]

Most Star Trek movies were action oriented, that didn't start with Abrams. And nonsensical plots didn't start with him either. Genesis reviving Spocks radioactive and decomposing body while his mind is stored in Bones? Getting whales from the past to say "HI" to an alien probe so that it doesn't wipe out humanity? Meeting "god"? A fountain of youth planet? A Picard clone murdering the romulan senate and taking over?

And when it comes to Star Wars it's important to remember that many fans despised the prequel trilogy and weren't exactly sad to see Lucas sell Lucasfilm. Star Wars gets "ruined" every generation, when I was a child Return of the Jedi sucked according to older kids but 8 year old me loved the Ewoks.
Kids who grew up with the prequels love those and I'm sure eventually people will look back on the sequels and think of Rei as their generations Luke Skywalker. "But Rei was a Mary Sue!!!", sure and Luke blew up the Death Star with a combination of half a day of Jedi training, trusting the force and having shot at rats on Tatooine, while Anakin hid in a fighter and then oopsied and whoohooed his way into destroying a capital ship. They're all Mary Sues.

And on TV Abrams has a better track record than Roddenberry, just saying.

I never said the older Trek movies weren't action oriented or nonsensical! I was talking about the reaction to the Kelvin movies. I found all of the Trek movies to be a step down from the shows though.

I've never cared about or paid much attention to Star Wars, so I can't speak as to what it's like. I did like Andor though.

Does it matter who has the better track record? I watch movies and shows, not creators and directors.

 

[fireproof78]

Does it matter who has the better track record? I watch movies and shows, not creators and directors.

It does not.

I've never cared about or paid much attention to Star Wars, so I can't speak as to what it's like. I did like Andor though.

You might like Bad Batch then.

 

[Takeru]

Does it matter who has the better track record?

In real life? No. In these types of discussion? Sort of. People often act like Abrams sucks and personally ruined Star Trek with lens flares, so I think it is kinda important to point out his successes. Why the comparison to Roddenberry? Because he is the one who gave us Star Trek, so pointing out that Abrams had more varied success shows that he's not some hack who bumbled his way into directing Star Trek.

 

[V'Lias]

In real life? No. In these types of discussion? Sort of. People often act like Abrams sucks and personally ruined Star Trek with lens flares, so I think it is kinda important to point out his successes. Why the comparison to Roddenberry? Because he is the one who gave us Star Trek, so pointing out that Abrams had more varied success shows that he's not some hack who bumbled his way into directing Star Trek.

I never said anything to that effect though, so it seemed like an odd thing to add to the discussion. I always thought his Trek movies were fairly entertaining, but nothing special. Just like most of the others.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

i think jj abram originally wanted to keep going on the star trek original series movies series but then with most of the cast being much older he decided to do it with both reboot and continue with the timeline

and thats where original timeline spock goes back in time to the past where he accidently changed the timeline with nero which thus started the reboot via alternate timeline

 

[Set Harth]

i think jj abram originally wanted to keep going on the star trek original series movies series

The historical record appears to say otherwise.

 

[ScottJ85]

i think jj abram originally wanted to keep going on the star trek original series movies series but then with most of the cast being much older he decided to do it with both reboot and continue with the timeline

That doesn't really make sense. As I understand it, the idea of a reboot with a younger cast had been around for a while already. The alternate timeline was mostly so that the canon rivet-counters wouldn't immediately reject it.

 

[fireproof78]

think jj abram originally wanted to keep going on the star trek original series movies series but then with most of the cast being much older he decided to do it with both reboot and continue with the timeline

I believe Abrams wanted a reboot to start, and there was an interest in a clean break but then studio interest in the connection.

Then a writer's strike limited what changes could be made to the shooting script.

That doesn't really make sense. As I understand it, the idea of a reboot with a younger cast had been around for a while already. The alternate timeline was mostly so that the canon rivet-counters wouldn't immediately reject it.

They still did.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The alternate timeline was mostly so that the canon rivet-counters wouldn't immediately reject it.

The rivet counters would never wait that long.