Is J.J. Abams "Star Trek" Sustainable?

[throwback]

I liked The People vs. Larry Flynt.

I am seeing the same discussion over video games. Take Bioshock Infinite. The genre - FPS - for this game was chosen, not because it suited the story, but because it suited the market. The result? Some are expressing their belief that the story doesn't work well with the genre.

FPS became important, after the success of several franchises set in the modern warfare theater. Corporations seem impervious to the fact that these shooters are successful because they have a strong multiplayer aspect. Ergo, if a game is to succeed, it has to be a FPS.

Action-adventure movies can be distinctive. Looper and Django Unchained are examples of this. In the latter, the director has established a tone for his films.

JJ Abrams, I feel, is not in the same league as Tarintino, nor even his inspiration, Spielberg.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI.

Really? I've been on the board for over two years, and I can't recall any regular poster who's expressed that desire.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI.

I anticipate another ST just like the last one, or even better. Can't wait!

I've never seen G.I. Joe II nor Fast and Furious VI. Nor G.I. Joe I nor Fast and Furious I thru V.

 

[aeriolewinters]

I've never seen G.I. Joe II nor Fast and Furious VI. Nor G.I. Joe I nor Fast and Furious I thru V.

Fast Five is a good popcorn movie, GI Joe II was a horrendous POS, and both these movies don't even have the depth that the first NuTrek movie has.

Like I said, if one skims through the 2009 film, they'd see it as shallow, but If you actually focus and look for the tiny details, it has layers of depth, as well as big-stake implications that are weaved into world-building the nuTrek Timeline.

Depth is only reached when one tries to swim to reach it, forcibly not seeing it is one of the problems most 'hardcore' fans do.

 

[BillJ]

I don't need movies to make me feel smart or better than others, I simply need them to entertain me. I need them to provide a couple hours of plain escapism.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've never seen G.I. Joe II nor Fast and Furious VI. Nor G.I. Joe I nor Fast and Furious I thru V.

Neither have I. I watch very few action movies; I think The Avengers was my dose in 2012.

 

[Greg Cox]

It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI.

I anticipate another ST just like the last one, or even better. Can't wait!

I've never seen G.I. Joe II nor Fast and Furious VI. Nor G.I. Joe I nor Fast and Furious I thru V.

I confess: I've never seen a G.I. Joe or Fast and Furious movie. Or the Transformers or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, for that matter.

But if we we're going to take out our "cerebral" yardstick, I'd argue that the alternate timeline fun-and-games in the last movie are easily as "cerebral" as, say, . . ..

Lost NASA space probe comes home--with a vengeance!

Experimental terraforming gadgets should not fall into wrong hands!

Don't mess with protomatter!

Save the whales!

What does "God" need with a starship?

Making peace with old enemies is hard.


Some of which belong to great movies, but I don't exactly see them being all that more intellectually challenging than throwing Old Spock into an alternate timeline created by time-travel . . . .

 

[aeriolewinters]

Lost NASA space probe comes home--with a vengeance!

Experimental terraforming gadgets should not fall into wrong hands!

Don't mess with protomatter!

Save the whales!

What does "God" need with a starship?

Making peace with old enemies is hard.

I want to know your long titles for the TNG movies...

 

[Ssosmcin]

.

But if we we're going to take out our "cerebral" yardstick, I'd argue that the alternate timeline fun-and-games in the last movie are easily as "cerebral" as, say, . . ..

Lost NASA space probe comes home--with a vengeance!

Well, obviously you're playing with words to make TMP some sort of action packed revenge flick. TMP is probably the closest to a "cerebral" (getting to hate this word) ST film we got. Since it wasn't about action - at all - it was about "how we see ourselves and our God images" and some such. It was "asking the big questions" to make you think. At least, that was apparently the intention.

Experimental terraforming gadgets should not fall into wrong hands!

Again, the film wasn't about that. That was our Maguffin (another phrase I'm weary of). The real point to TWOK was age, regrets, lost youth, wasted opportunities, self worth while wrapping it in a space opera tortilla. I don't consider TWOK an "action film" mainly because there are only three actual large action sequences. It was, however, a space adventure.

Don't mess with protomatter!

Which only applies to one character. For the rest of the film "it's about loyalty...and sacrifice."

Save the whales!

At this point, I have to figure I must have totally missed the joke, because there's no way a guy as intelligent as you honestly thinks the films boil down to these log lines. I find that people tend to downplay whatever smarts the films had in order to counter arguments about the lack of smarts in the Abrams film(s). Both sides need to play a little more fairly, I think.

Some of which belong to great movies, but I don't exactly see them being all that more intellectually challenging than throwing Old Spock into an alternate timeline created by time-travel . . . .

This is why I think the term "cerebral" is being misused. Many of the Trek films aren't brain twisters (none of them are, actually), and aren't meant to be intellectually challenging, but many of them are designed to entertain while passing something along for you to think about, something kind of important. They tried to have more substance than flash, but needed that flash to sell tickets.

I'm not sure Trek '09 had anything larger to think about (don't let personal loss ruin your life, maybe?), but Trek '13 might be different, dealing even more with Kirk's personal growth. There is a lot to be mined there and the possibility of that (going by the trailers) is what makes me think this film will be more satisfying to fans who like a healthy salad with their cheeseburger. I'm giving creative team the benefit of the doubt. But advertising that "this one will make you think" is the express train to box office indifference.

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh, there is definitely more to the earlier films than I was implying. Ditto for the new movie. I was just poking fun a bit at the way people tend to exaggerate just how "cerebral" old Trek was while simultaneously portraying the new movie as nothing but flash and explosions. It's the double standard that gets to me.

The way some people talk, you'd think that every previous Trek film (and the original series for that matter) were nothing but intellectual think-pieces concerned only with Big Ideas and the Great Issues of Day. And that the last movie contained no character bits, emotional drama, or chewy scifi concepts at all . . . .

Like I demonstrated, you can reduce even TMP to "lost robot learns to feel" if you want. Or complain that it's just more of the same old, same old. ("'The Changeling' . . . again?")

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bad Boys II is about friendship, loyalty and the importance of family.

This shit is easy.

 

[Greg Cox]

Bad Boys II is about friendship, loyalty and the importance of family.

This shit is easy.

"The Cage" is about voyeuristic aliens trying to force a virile human male to mate in captivity. Almost sounds like a Cinemax movie, when you think about it . . . .

Take it from a professional blurb writer, you can make almost anything sound trashy or highbrow, if you've got an agenda or an axe to grind.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm not sure Trek '09 had anything larger to think about

Nature vs Nurture. One Kirk grows up with a father's influence, one without. One Spock grew up with a father who stayed distant, and the other loses his mother earlier. Plenty to "think about".

 

[Danger Ace]

Stone's comments aside, though, what has this article to say on the subject of "Star Trek sustainability" (while omitting any mention of Trek whatsoever)? What's your take on what the article says?

I have to say that I felt I was pretty clear in the post you quoted. The article was about, in principle, the chase for mass audience approval at the expense of all else wherein I extrapulated that to my fears regarding Abrams' involement with "Star Trek." So I have to confess there seems to be a certain ad hominem feel to your response.

Why all of the Bold and Italics formatting tags? If you're going to quote a passage from an article, simply place it in one set of QUOTE tags to set it off from your own remarks; it's a pain to have to edit all of that unnecessary garbage out.

This is I do not ultimately feel is ad hominem because I agree that it was a poor formatting choice on my part. It was done out of an innocent experiment in trying something different. I do, however, disagree as to the severity of inconvienence it caused and feel in choosing to focus on this minutiae rather than the substance of I what wrote to put it on the ad hominem bubble.

 

[M'Sharak]

Stone's comments aside, though, what has this article to say on the subject of "Star Trek sustainability" (while omitting any mention of Trek whatsoever)? What's your take on what the article says?

I have to say that I felt I was pretty clear in the post you quoted.

I disagree. The piece was pretty fluffy, giving almost no clue as to the nature of "the most challenging comments" supposed to have been made by Stone, and citing only a couple of statements by the two other directors mentioned as present at the panel. I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.

The article was about, in principle, the chase for mass audience approval at the expense of all else...

That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?

wherein I extrapulated that to my fears regarding Abrams' involement with "Star Trek."

You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?

It is surprising and frustrating that some here want a Trek feature that is no different than G.I. Joe II or Fast and Furious VI. Star Trek, to me, is more than just naming a spaceship Enterprise and slapping pointy-ears of someone and calling them Spock.

In the end, "fans" of "Star Trek" will get what they deserve rather than what they want. How high can the bar of quality really be raised if the bar of expectation is set at the relatively low level of one CGI'ed action sequence after another.

The best of Treks managed to strive for balance and variety. It is a waste of its genius to limit it to the telling of just one type of story. Too many seem all too willing to equivocate away any standard of excellence beyond that of the special effects. That is sad and ultimately suicidal for the franchise many professed to love.

(emphasis mine)

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.

So I have to confess there seems to be a certain ad hominem feel to your response.

Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.

Why all of the Bold and Italics formatting tags? If you're going to quote a passage from an article, simply place it in one set of QUOTE tags to set it off from your own remarks; it's a pain to have to edit all of that unnecessary garbage out.

This is I do not ultimately feel is ad hominem because I agree that it was a poor formatting choice on my part. It was done out of an innocent experiment in trying something different. I do, however, disagree as to the severity of inconvienence it caused and feel in choosing to focus on this minutiae rather than the substance of I what wrote to put it on the ad hominem bubble.

What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I don't see a problem. These movies only come along every 3 or 4 years, so there's plenty of time for audiences to decompress and get ready for the next one.

Of course unlike others here, I don't see these movies as a bunch of mindless, Michael Bay-style action spectacles anyway. As "frenzied" as they may be, I still think Abrams manages to make them about a thousand times more engaging and compelling than the typical Bay movie.

THIS, although I like the Michael Bay Transformers movies.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Yes, but even the bad ones held onto what Trek is: a cerebral science fiction series for people who like to think.

Let me summarize how "cerebral" each and every Trek movie 1 through 10 was:

- TMP: Aliens are hard to understand, maybe shooting at them isn't the best first reaction.
- Wrath of Khan: Seeking vengeance leads to nothing good. Basically Moby Dick in space, but with an aging subplot.
- Search for Spock: Man playing God, science gone amok.
- The Voyage Home: Environmentalism.
- The Final Frontier: Televangelists are bad.
- The Undiscovered Country: Racism is bad.
- Generations: Honestly, I don't even know.
- First Contact: Moby dick, again.
- Insurrection: Placating the majority at the expense of the minority is bad.
- Nemesis: Nature vs. Nurture.

None, literally none of these concepts are difficult to grasp if you're above the age of 10. Just because concept is worth understanding and building a story around doesn't make it particularly deep, or revelatory.

No, when the TOS and TNG movies were at their best were when the characters came face to face with their own mortality, and when they learned a thing or two about their place in the cosmos. This is something that ST09 had as well, while simultaneously dispensing with the pointless and transparent so-called "cerebral" elements that were never all that cerebral to begin with.

THIS.

Actually, the message of Generations is that aging and dealing with mortality is not bad, and is a part of our existence that we have to deal with.

 

[CaptainStoner]

There really is no "Abrams Star Trek"
hence
it will endure as well as the rest of the franchise, being cut of the same cloth.

 

[Danger Ace]

[I disagree.

And that's fine. I am open to discussing all facets of what I've said - without hostility of course.

I'd have liked to see you tie it more securely to Star Trek specifically, rather than simply alluding to it as "timely" and then changing the subject to something not actually addressed by the article at all.

Just because the article did not specifically say "Star Trek" within it? That strikes me as not a very sound argument as, again, the article, by my interpretation, spoke of the danger of films becoming unrelentlying superficial due to the suits chasing the dragon of mass appeal - which today translates to giving folks 90+ minutes of bombastic CGI action. These films and the ideology that drives them seem to come at the exprense of directors who are actually trying to say something.

Then I, in my extrapolation, put forth the opinion of how that mirrors my fears of Abrams shepherding of the Trek franchise.

I pause to note that I have clearly said it is my opinion. My opinion on this is in no small part rooted in fear and paranoia (meaning that I've acknowledge it is not 100% rational - but most fears aren't). So I have been honest and sincere in expressing my heartfelt thoughts on this matter.

That's nice, but again: what has it to do with Star Trek and this movie?

To restate:

The previews of "Star Trek Into Darkness" leads me to feel it will be yet another high-octane, almost non-stop blast of CGI'ed action in hopes of duplicating this franchises success from 2009 by giving us a very similar film.

Big Picture:

The basic fear expressed by Stone and others is that the studios chase of the mainstream blockbuster leads to a diminished diversity in filmmaking.

As it applies to "Star Trek:"

I fear that because this upcoming films seems to be a twin of the previous one that Abrams in looking to deliver a second blockbuster is diminishing the variety of stories that Trek will be allowed to tell by reducing it to one basic formula.

In doing that, Paramount will adopt his formula as an unalterable templete, and I would hate for that to happen as the franchise I have enjoyed since the beginning told a variety of stories in a variety of ways.

At this point, I fear J.J. Abrams has rebooted "Star Trek" minus the "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" - again, based on the previews of this film giving me the impression that it will be largely the same sort of spectacle of the 2009 film (which, btw, I loved, but would be saddened if that was all we got in Trek films from here on out).

You "extrapulated". Is that the same thing as "making up a load of bollocks with the intent to bait or provoke others" with passages such as these?(emphasis mine)

I plead guilty to it being just as much "a load of bullocks" as anyone else's opinion or postings in this forum.

That's borderline trolling right there, dear boy, and it ought to stop.

Someone putting forth something you (and perhaps everyone else) disagrees with is not "trolling" - not even close.

I have been open, honest and sincere in this discussion. I have been more than willing consider what you and others have to say. Even in this response I am without anger and intend no insult. Of course I would very much like to provocate thought but not ire.

Balderdash. You don't get to play the victim card - not with the list of cautions you've racked up in less than a month's membership.

So am I too understand your real objection to my post is due to reasons other than its content and without regard to its merits/demerits?

That is a bit dishonest and disengenous on your part then and an admission of committing ad hominem attacks on me - that is trolling (by you).

I will say this though:

Yes, I have made a few missteps though I have also been praised a time or two as well.

Having said that, I have clearly been forthright and upstanding in my discussions here.

What substance? Propping up a link and a near-meaningless quote at the top before veering off into a muddle of taunts, clichés and empty phraseology which everyone here has heard dozens of times before? That's not substance, and it got as much focus as it merited.

Again, you appear to be attacking my post for reasons of vendetta rather than as part of a sincere desire to discuss.

I think it is evident that even if my fears turn out to be justified that some here have expressed they do not see it as a problem -They would unabashedly embrace such an Abram's doctrine and that saddens me. I simply believe that a "more of the same" ideology is the antithesis of what "Star Trek" is and was created to represent.

You want to think a little more toward honest participation in discussion and not nearly so much about trying be "provocative". Really.

I do not believe there has been any instance in this thread of my being dishonest. I have responded to your posts politely. I have thoughtfully considered your points. I have agreed with bits of somethings you've put forth. I have even adopted some changes based on your suggestions and input. How have I been a villian in this thread?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^ At times like this, and in forums like this, I wish that somebody like Peter Jackson or the famous JMS was the franchise runner for Star Trek so that the fandom would be pleased, but the problem is, one man won't leave New Zealand to make films and the other is considered a washed-up has-been by those who wield power in the film industry. A tragedy, really, as both men know how to bring gravitas, intelligence and heart to a sci-fi/fantasy movie.

As much as I'd like these two to be making Star Trek, reality tells me that Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman are the ones to be doing it, and they've done a great job (so far.)