J.J. likes Galaxy Quest.
I didn't know this. Excellent. Makes him even more suitable to direct Trek AND Wars.

J.J. likes Galaxy Quest.
Yeah, agreed. Galaxy Quest is a pretty awesome movie.
Yeah, agreed. Galaxy Quest is a pretty awesome movie.
I'm curious then, what was your point? It sounded like a dig at JJ.
That makes no sense, for reasons that should be obvious.Yeah, agreed. Galaxy Quest is a pretty awesome movie.
I'm curious then, what was your point? It sounded like a dig at JJ.
It was. I just don't want it to be taken as a dig at Galaxy Quest.
Besides I thought it was pretty obvious that he liked Galaxy Quest. He re-made it and called it Star Trek.
That makes no sense, for reasons that should be obvious.I'm curious then, what was your point? It sounded like a dig at JJ.
It was. I just don't want it to be taken as a dig at Galaxy Quest.
Besides I thought it was pretty obvious that he liked Galaxy Quest. He re-made it and called it Star Trek.
Why can't I hate Abrams? He's a hack that keeps getting to destroy things I enjoy. Everything about him makes me wish I could spit in his face.
That makes no sense, for reasons that should be obvious.It was. I just don't want it to be taken as a dig at Galaxy Quest.
Besides I thought it was pretty obvious that he liked Galaxy Quest. He re-made it and called it Star Trek.
Well I think that it does. As with my previous posts, it's my entitled and humble opinion. And now might be a good time for you to stop riding my every word.
You mean you haven't noticed that he doesn't shoot everything he does exactly the same?
Yeah, I've noticed he makes every movie look really bold and exciting and dynamic. And he populates them with lots of fun and energetic characters.
I certainly agree that his Trek was not the deepest or most complex thing ever, but it still had much more heart and character than the usual summer blockbuster. And he somehow managed to make the 40 year old Trek universe feel incredibly fresh and alive again, which is no small feat either.
I can't wait to see him do the same thing with SW.
there is no point in making a movie if it was going to be the same as the tv show. The only reason to turn a tv show into a movie is to do the big action, the big explosions, the big special effects that aren't in a tv budget and that would be wasted on the small screen.You mean you haven't noticed that he doesn't shoot everything he does exactly the same?
Yeah, I've noticed he makes every movie look really bold and exciting and dynamic. And he populates them with lots of fun and energetic characters.
I certainly agree that his Trek was not the deepest or most complex thing ever, but it still had much more heart and character than the usual summer blockbuster. And he somehow managed to make the 40 year old Trek universe feel incredibly fresh and alive again, which is no small feat either.
I can't wait to see him do the same thing with SW.
Movie Trek has always been different from television Trek. The original series movies still managed to work in the allegorical elements and strong themes about humanity, but those have not been present in a movie in any serious way since the Undiscovered Country.
I guess I'm just asking you to unpack your opinion. How is liking what you consider a good movie a BAD thing? How is that a dig?
And I don't see how JJ's Trek is like Galaxy Quest...
The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.
Forget the Galaxy Quest reference, it just seems to be adding unforeseen confusion, (though I'll stand by my off topic remark that Trek '09 was more than a little inspired by it) He could like Ghostbusters for all it matters, it doesn't make him any more qualified to direct Star Wars films.
Damn. I can understand that not everyone likes the same things, but I don't think there is any way someone could actually convince me that Abrams' Star Trek is actually that bad.
Well, watch ST TMP, the ideal of what ST wanted to be, and then watch Khan, the perfect balance, and then watch Abrams Trek. Where are the themes? Where is the human equation? Where are the big questions?
And IMHO, Star Wars had those same things in a different style. If Abrams can bring to Star Wars what he originally brought to Alias then great. If he brings Revolution or the final two years of Lost then CRAP.
ST:TMP was boring as shit. Star Trek: First Contact was awesome. A Piece of the Action was a sweet TOS episode.
I'm really tired of people telling me that "real" Star Trek has to be cerebral and moral and teach me a lesson about the human condition every step of the way. Star Trek is many things, that's the beauty of it and why it has endured.
What did "Where No Man Has Gone Before" teach me, to not cross the galactic barrier? That the day might come where I might have to kill my friend if he becomes a freak Space Mutant God?
The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.
"Riding your word"? What does that mean? It's an idiom I'm unfamiliar with. Does it refer to me commenting on your opinions? Because that isn't going to stop. It's pretty much how a discussion board works. You say something and other posters respond. Some might agree others will disagree.That makes no sense, for reasons that should be obvious.It was. I just don't want it to be taken as a dig at Galaxy Quest.
Besides I thought it was pretty obvious that he liked Galaxy Quest. He re-made it and called it Star Trek.
Well I think that it does. As with my previous posts, it's my entitled and humble opinion. And now might be a good time for you to stop riding my every word.
I guess I'm just asking you to unpack your opinion. How is liking what you consider a good movie a BAD thing? How is that a dig?
And I don't see how JJ's Trek is like Galaxy Quest...
The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.
Forget the Galaxy Quest reference, it just seems to be adding unforeseen confusion, (though I'll stand by my off topic remark that Trek '09 was more than a little inspired by it) He could like Ghostbusters for all it matters, it doesn't make him any more qualified to direct Star Wars films.
The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.
But you don't need to have "personal experience" with a franchise to do a good job with it. I'm not sure where people get the idea that you have to be a lifelong fan to "get" a series, be it STAR WARS or STAR TREK or THE GILMORE GIRLS for pete's sake.
Again, look at Nicholas Meyer, who had absolutely no "personal experience" with TREK before doing THE WRATH OF KHAN, which is still the best TREK movie to date.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.