Faith of the Heart

[RobertScorpio]

There are sometimes I just have to believe that the director/producers know what they are doing. DARK KNIGHT is a good example. I rememeber when everyone, and many on this board, unloaded on Nolan for castig Ledger as Joker, because most people had their noses up Depp's butt. How they really screwed up by not getting Depp and going with Ledger. I remember all the posts back then that roasted Ledger alive; and then he proved them wrong. His Joker, IMO, is the best Joker ever, and I don't think DEPP would have been as good...over-rated is Depp.

So...all things Batman, where Nolan is concerned, I trust his judgment. He knows what he is doing..

And so does JJ ABRAMS. I have always liked this dude from Alias, to Lost, to M3 to Cloverfield. This guy knows what he is doing. When story elements started to be spoiled here, and tons of us fans started to dump on a movie we hadn't seen, I was not worried at all. Becaues I have faith in this guy...and where he wanted to take TREK XI and and now TREK XII.

He knows what he is doing. Some of you are harping on his movie, and that is cool, this board is here for that reason. But the success of this film is a clear indication to me that he knows what he is doing. And never forget, he has bosses too. And so his chief concern is making MONEY. If you don't think that is true, then, well, you just don't get it in my opinion.

So if he wants to destroy Vulcan, kill off old-line characters and bring back KHAN (as Nolan did with Joker) then I have total faith that JJ will do it and do it good...

I have faith of the heart!!!!

(oh!!!!...my titles are so cool aren't they?)

Rob

 

[Islander]

Ok, I respect your opinion and I even share it for most parts but what the hell does it have to do with Enterprise's theme song?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Ok, I respect your opinion and I even share it for most parts but what the hell does it have to do with Enterprise's theme song?

I was going for Irony..wink wink..

Rob

 

[Cakes488]

OK he know's "what he's doing"...granted or he wouldn't be gainfully employed....but he's not friggin perfect or some directing god...this movie had flaws....it's not some sort of masterpiece here and I'm tired of hearing that it is. I liked it well enough...but come on now he's no Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford, or Frank Capra or Coppola or Billy Wilder...I mean I could go on and on here.

 

[RobertScorpio]

OK he know's "what he's doing"...granted or he wouldn't be gainfully employed....but he's not friggin perfect or some directing god...this movie had flaws....it's not some sort of masterpiece here and I'm tired of hearing that it is. I liked it well enough...but come on now he's no Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford, or Frank Capra or Coppola or Billy Wilder...I mean I could go on and on here.

Well...actually, I think Coppola is overated. But Capra/Ford/Hitchcock? No, JJ isn't in the catagory. Then again, I haven't seen a scifi movie directed by John Ford.

TREK XI has its flaw, but so did KHAN. And I won't even go into Nemesis and Insurrection. The point, here, is that he a very good TREK movie. I actually think its #2, behind Khan. And better than average Star Trek movies are few and far between..IMO...

Rob

 

[Islander]

Well...actually, I think Coppola is overated. But Capra/Ford/Hitchcock? No, JJ isn't in the catagory. Then again, I haven't seen a scifi movie directed by John Ford.

Well then, let's compare with directors actually famous for their sci-fi work like Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott or James Cameron.

 

[Cakes488]

OK he know's "what he's doing"...granted or he wouldn't be gainfully employed....but he's not friggin perfect or some directing god...this movie had flaws....it's not some sort of masterpiece here and I'm tired of hearing that it is. I liked it well enough...but come on now he's no Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford, or Frank Capra or Coppola or Billy Wilder...I mean I could go on and on here.

Well...actually, I think Coppola is overated. But Capra/Ford/Hitchcock? No, JJ isn't in the catagory. Then again, I haven't seen a scifi movie directed by John Ford.

TREK XI has its flaw, but so did KHAN. And I won't even go into Nemesis and Insurrection. The point, here, is that he a very good TREK movie. I actually think its #2, behind Khan. And better than average Star Trek movies are few and far between..IMO...

Rob

Maybe Coppola is...but I think you're overrating Mr. JJ

I agree it was a good Trek movie....but the next one needs to be great!

Do Sci-Fi movies really need to be directed by only a sci-fi director??

Isn't directing...directing no matter the material?? Maybe the director has prefereces of what genre they prefer...but I would think they'd be/should able to direct a wide arrange of different subjects. Feedback please.

 

[Admiral2]

And now, some equal time for those of us not inclined to bend a knee to JJ Abrams:

There are sometimes I just have to believe that the director/producers know what they are doing. DARK KNIGHT is a good example. I rememeber when everyone, and many on this board, unloaded on Nolan for castig Ledger as Joker, because most people had their noses up Depp's butt. How they really screwed up by not getting Depp and going with Ledger. I remember all the posts back then that roasted Ledger alive; and then he proved them wrong. His Joker, IMO, is the best Joker ever, and I don't think DEPP would have been as good...over-rated is Depp.

So...all things Batman, where Nolan is concerned, I trust his judgment. He knows what he is doing..

And so does JJ ABRAMS. I have always liked this dude from Alias, to Lost, to M3 to Cloverfield.

And I've always thought Alias was a bad wannabe La Femme Nikita, Lost is asinine and M3 and Cloverfield are shit.

This guy knows what he is doing. When story elements started to be spoiled here, and tons of us fans started to dump on a movie we hadn't seen, I was not worried at all. Becaues I have faith in this guy...and where he wanted to take TREK XI and and now TREK XII.

And I was pretty sure that the guy who gave us Felicity was going to turn Trek into a train wreck...and from what I've been hearing, I realize i was spot on.

He knows what he is doing. Some of you are harping on his movie, and that is cool, this board is here for that reason. But the success of this film is a clear indication to me that he knows what he is doing. And never forget, he has bosses too. And so his chief concern is making MONEY. If you don't think that is true, then, well, you just don't get it in my opinion.

All the box office indicates is that he knows what appeals to X-Games-loving, noise-worshipping teenage snots who wouldn't know a good science fiction film if it spit in their Double-venti macchiatos.

So if he wants to destroy Vulcan, kill off old-line characters and bring back KHAN (as Nolan did with Joker) then I have total faith that JJ will do it and do it good...

And I have total faith that he'll do it and turn Khan into a snowboarding yuppie terrorist...played by Johnny Depp.

I have faith of the heart!!!!

(oh!!!!...my titles are so cool aren't they?)

Rob

Actually, Rob, most of the time I get the impression you're just boosting your post count.

 

[RobertScorpio]

And now, some equal time for those of us not inclined to bend a knee to JJ Abrams:

There are sometimes I just have to believe that the director/producers know what they are doing. DARK KNIGHT is a good example. I rememeber when everyone, and many on this board, unloaded on Nolan for castig Ledger as Joker, because most people had their noses up Depp's butt. How they really screwed up by not getting Depp and going with Ledger. I remember all the posts back then that roasted Ledger alive; and then he proved them wrong. His Joker, IMO, is the best Joker ever, and I don't think DEPP would have been as good...over-rated is Depp.

So...all things Batman, where Nolan is concerned, I trust his judgment. He knows what he is doing..

And so does JJ ABRAMS. I have always liked this dude from Alias, to Lost, to M3 to Cloverfield.

And I've always thought Alias was a bad wannabe La Femme Nikita, Lost is asinine and M3 and Cloverfield are shit.

This guy knows what he is doing. When story elements started to be spoiled here, and tons of us fans started to dump on a movie we hadn't seen, I was not worried at all. Becaues I have faith in this guy...and where he wanted to take TREK XI and and now TREK XII.

And I was pretty sure that the guy who gave us Felicity was going to turn Trek into a train wreck...and from what I've been hearing, I realize i was spot on.




All the box office indicates is that he knows what appeals to X-Games-loving, noise-worshipping teenage snots who wouldn't know a good science fiction film if it spit in their Double-venti macchiatos.

So if he wants to destroy Vulcan, kill off old-line characters and bring back KHAN (as Nolan did with Joker) then I have total faith that JJ will do it and do it good...

And I have total faith that he'll do it and turn Khan into a snowboarding yuppie terrorist...played by Johnny Depp.

I have faith of the heart!!!!

(oh!!!!...my titles are so cool aren't they?)

Rob

Actually, Rob, most of the time I get the impression you're just boosting your post count.

I must point out that all those negative remarks about JJ's works are your opinions. When you produce your first movie, or TV series, please let me know. I am quite sure it will be much more successful than JJ's attempts.

And yep...one more added to my post count. Thank you very much sir.

Rob

 

[theFirebottle]

it's not some sort of masterpiece here and I'm tired of hearing that it is.

Oh, go piss up a rope. The people who liked the movie vastly outnumber the people who didn't, and yet we put up with three or more pointless new threads a day that call the movie terrible, shallow, mindless, etc. and half of the perfectly normal threads seem to devolve into bickering by the minority about just how bad this or that element was. Their arguments are poorly supported, they refuse to explain what makes their opinions better than everyone else's, and they repeatedly resort to asinine comparisons to a nostalgia-filter Trek that never happened. The haters are overrepresented tenfold on this board and you have no justification whatsoever for complaining about the rest of us.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Knowing what your doing doesn't mean you're doing the right thing.

 

[trekkiedane]

Do Sci-Fi movies really need to be directed by only a sci-fi director??

Isn't directing...directing no matter the material?? Maybe the director has prefereces of what genre they prefer...but I would think they'd be/should able to direct a wide arrange of different subjects. Feedback please.

Two words: Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Admiral2]

I must point out that all those negative remarks about JJ's works are your opinions.

Yes they are, just like your positive remarks are your opinions. Just because they're positive doesn't make your opinions more valid than mine.

When you produce your first movie, or TV series, please let me know. I am quite sure it will be much more successful than JJ's attempts.

Perspective, Robert. I do not need to be a successful producer to not like Abrams's work. I am the audience. I can like or dislike whatever I please.

And yep...one more added to my post count. Thank you very much sir.

Rob

I'd rather go for substance than numbers. Something else Mssr. Abrams doesn't quite get.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I must point out that all those negative remarks about JJ's works are your opinions.

Yes they are, just like your positive remarks are your opinions. Just because they're positive doesn't make your opinions more valid than mine.

When you produce your first movie, or TV series, please let me know. I am quite sure it will be much more successful than JJ's attempts.

Perspective, Robert. I do not need to be a successful producer to not like Abrams's work. I am the audience. I can like or dislike whatever I please.

And yep...one more added to my post count. Thank you very much sir.

Rob

I'd rather go for substance than numbers. Something else Mssr. Abrams doesn't quite get.

Okay...then we just disagree. If you don't like a Star Trek movie, like this one, which brings in $$$$ and tells a good story, then thank God you're not the one making the decisions as to what does and doesn't go into the movie. Just out of curiousity; which was the better film? XI or NEMESIS?

Rob

 

[Augustus]

I must point out that all those negative remarks about JJ's works are your opinions.

Yes they are, just like your positive remarks are your opinions. Just because they're positive doesn't make your opinions more valid than mine.



Perspective, Robert. I do not need to be a successful producer to not like Abrams's work. I am the audience. I can like or dislike whatever I please.

And yep...one more added to my post count. Thank you very much sir.

Rob

I'd rather go for substance than numbers. Something else Mssr. Abrams doesn't quite get.

Okay...then we just disagree. If you don't like a Star Trek movie, like this one, which brings in $$$$ and tells a good story, then thank God you're not the one making the decisions as to what does and doesn't go into the movie. Just out of curiousity; which was the better film? XI or NEMESIS?

Rob

oh, oh, can I answer??? While money made doesn't always equate to film quality, XI is a much better film in practically every aspect.

I like what someone said in another thread, that maybe Paramount went mainstream with Trek as a strategy to dispose of all the hard core, canon lovers out there and make trek fandom possible for the average person.

I doubt they did this with that intent, but I hope it is the result.

 

[CoveTom]

Perhaps I'm being way to reasonable and non-dogmatic about all this, but I happen to be one who does not bash Trek XI but also does not think it is a masterpiece.

I think J.J. Abrams has made a good movie. Perhaps even a very good movie. Is it a sci-fi classic like 2001 or Alien? No. Is it a steaming pile of crap like Nemesis? No. It's neither. It's just good, fun sci-fi. And, really, that's probably all it needs to be.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps I'm being way to reasonable and non-dogmatic about all this, but I happen to be one who does not bash Trek XI but also does not think it is a masterpiece.

I think J.J. Abrams has made a good movie. Perhaps even a very good movie. Is it a sci-fi classic like 2001 or Alien? No. Is it a steaming pile of crap like Nemesis? No. It's neither. It's just good, fun sci-fi. And, really, that's probably all it needs to be.

AMEN!!!

 

[trekkiedane]

It's just good, fun sci-fi. And, really, that's probably all it needs to be.

Exactly

 

[RobertScorpio]

Perhaps I'm being way to reasonable and non-dogmatic about all this, but I happen to be one who does not bash Trek XI but also does not think it is a masterpiece.

I think J.J. Abrams has made a good movie. Perhaps even a very good movie. Is it a sci-fi classic like 2001 or Alien? No. Is it a steaming pile of crap like Nemesis? No. It's neither. It's just good, fun sci-fi. And, really, that's probably all it needs to be.

And I accept that. I am not saying its as good as those other two; but in terms of Star Wars or Star Trek films? I think it holds its own. Here is how I look at it...I like it. I like it better than most of the other TREK movies, which when you think of it, isn't really saying a lot. Some of the recent TREK movies have barely been watchable. This one is not only good for us, it is, more importantly, scoring with non-fans. That is this movie's greatest accomplishment.

I do, I will admit, expect a better movie. I think DARK KNIGHT is a better movie than BATMAN BEGINS. So, XII better be better than XI now that the origin story is out of the way.

Rob

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Okay...then we just disagree. If you don't like a Star Trek movie, like this one, which brings in $$$$ and tells a good story, then thank God you're not the one making the decisions as to what does and doesn't go into the movie. Just out of curiousity; which was the better film? XI or NEMESIS?

Rob

STXI does have its flaws, but Nemesis committed the biggest story-telling error by not giving us a reason to care about the the hero characters. I'm not ready to call Abrams a great director, but at least he made the audience give a damn about the characters -- or make us enjoy the time spent with these characters, which is something Start Baird failed to do.

Good Star Trek (especially the good films) is not about high-minded ideals. It's about characters with whom the audience wants to spend some time. Star Trek is at its best when the characters interact in an enjoyable way, and Abrams' film allowed me to enjoy those character interactions.