An Interesting Take on the JJ Abrams Films

[ComicGuy89]

Exactly my view. The Abrams films are very much TOS and this YouTuber nailed it perfectly.

I love TOS and even though there were some things that the new movies took from TOS that I feel should have been left behind, there is simply no denying that they understand the essence of TOS.

 

[DarKush]

That was a very interesting video. I think the guy is overselling his points in some respects, though he makes a compelling argument. For example other Trek shows have incorporated things from the animated series as well.

And I would argue that other Trek shows, particularly DS9, mixed social commentary and action-adventure in the style of TOS, granted its from a 90s sensibility. Though Abrams films have a 21st century sensibility.

I do think the guy makes a good point though that TOS/Abrams Trek is not the majority of Trek, that it's the 24th century shows that a lot of fans might consider or define as Trek. That being said I do think some of the TOS DNA runs through the 24th century shows. And Enterprise as well.

For example his description of Chekov. I hadn't considered that before. I haven't watched every TOS episode, though I've seen most of the TOS movies, so I was considering the Abrams take on him more like a Wesley Crusher than being authentic to Chekov.

I'm not a hater of Abrams films. I quite enjoyed Trek '09, but I did feel that Into Darkness was a step backward. I still feel that the Abrams films ramp up the emotionalism and paint their characters a bit too broadly for mass consumption perhaps. But the movies have lots of action, look good FX-wise, hold your attention. And Into Darkness did mix in some social commentary but I think that got lost in reviving Khan.

 

[Mudd]

I do think the guy makes a good point though that TOS/Abrams Trek is not the majority of Trek, that it's the 24th century shows that a lot of fans might consider or define as Trek.

Exactly, and one of the reasons I so love the nuTrek movies.

 

[RAMA]

This video basically illustrated what I've said since 2009. The Nuterek movies have taken ST back to TOS, which is exactly what the goal was.

 

[Karzak]

I much prefer this interpretation:

[Ahhh, but you're not supposed to quote from there. Content removed. Please don't do that again. - M']

 

[Tim Thomason]

Star Trek is great. The Original Series is awesome. Enterprise Seasons 1, 2, and 3 are amazing. The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager are some of the best TV series ever.

Nemesis is a great film with great scenes. "The Way to Eden" is a hilariously enjoyable episode. The new movies are instantly rewatchable and instant classics.

I'm not being parodic here. I truly think that the Star Trek Universe is great, and everything we've seen set within (from "Threshold" to "City on the Edge of Forever") just adds more to the complexity, and enjoyment, of that universe and has yet to subtract from it.

Some people don't like the new movies. Some people don't like the old series. Some people just don't like "Time's Arrow". That has no bearing on anything other than their own opinion. I feel sad when I see someone says "the new movies are great because they're like the original series and not the boring old TNG" or "the new movies are awesome because they're action-packed like Deep Space 9, and not like the Original Series or boring-old Voyager" or "Thank God Captain Archer will never be seen again!".

True or not, I don't like the thought expressed by Timby in the removed quotes that Star Trek was an overbloated franchise. It was just a franchise, with each individual series and each individual episode even often made on its own merits. Enterprise had nothing to do with Voyager, and Voyager and Deep Space Nine were also independent of each other. Maybe not in the public's mind, but definitely in the production and storyline.

 

[Franklin]

TOS was great entertainment, but I never thought it took itself as seriously as subsequent forms of Trek did, maybe even the TOS movies. Even in some of the most dire moments of TOS, it was as if Kirk could at any time break the fourth wall, wink at the audience, smile, and say, "Watch us get out of this one, folks."

I've always thought that it was quite neat that in the novelization of TMP, Roddenberry had Kirk say the stories of his adventures were somewhat romanticized and exaggerated, because that's the kind of stories we want to hear. It's the kind ST09 and STID delivered. Bigger than life. Exaggerated stakes. Pure adventure. And in it all, the characters can still wise-crack and look like they're having fun with it all.

 

[Squiggy]

Nemesis is a great film with great scenes.

Get out.

 

[Pauln6]

I think the pacing, energy, performances, and characterisation (apart from Scotty) in the new movies was hugely entertaining. The TNG movies definitely suffered in their pacing.

For me though, they missed an opportunity to update the franchise in a meaningful modern way. So the science was dumbed down to make it look cooler (when it was pretty cool to begin with), it was far more sexist than the original when you take into account this was a 21st century update, and character motivations and plot logic were crushed under the roller-coaster.

There were many similarities to TOS that were very endearing but IMO these movies are not as good as the best of TOS.

 

[Mudd]

What "science" from Trek did they "dumb down?"

 

[Capt.Kirk]

I came across this video where a Youtuber gives his take on the nuTrek; I find his take pretty interesting. I also like his usage of the classic music with the commentary.

​

Thany You for sharing this!! I love the reboots and the new trek the same. Nice to see some positive reaction to the reboot compared to hatred and complaints from select individuals on YouTube!!!

 

[Tim Thomason]

Nemesis is a great film with great scenes.

Get out.

It's not the greatest, but it's not objectively the worst thing ever. I'd rather watch Star Trek Nemesis than [insert worse movie here].

 

[Lance]

Nope. The difference is that TOS was rebooted into modern action schlock and that's being retconned onto TOS.

TOS hasn't been retconned by anyone. I'd imagine that I'm far more knowledgeable about its collective contents than you are.

Roddenberry in the actual series bible says the show is built on an action-adventure framework and the writer's first job is to entertain 20,000,000 people weekly.



You'll notice it is point one.

Which is exactly what has happened in the Abrams films. They've built their stories on an action-adventure framework. Being that this is a movie franchise as opposed to a TV series, time is far more limited and they've emphasized the action elements to a greater degree. Which makes sense considering this is 2015. I would imagine that if Gene Roddenberry of 1966 were to make filmed Star Trek movies now with a huge budget, they would look much like the Abrams films.

If you don't like them. Great. But don't try to tell me that they aren't ''Star Trek''.

Unlike you, I don't need to crap on one series in order to like another.

You're doing exactly that by calling the Abrams films ''schlock''.

Nailed it.

Anyone who seriously can't see through the modern trappings and recognise that the two latest movies are as Star Trek as Star Trek can be clearly doesn't know Star Trek when they're looking at it.

 

[velour]

There were many similarities to TOS that were very endearing but IMO these movies are not as good as the best of TOS.

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

Abrams' Trek is obviously a reboot of TOS. After watching that video, it is clear that JJ did his homework, with regard to incorporating many details into his movies that originated in TOS. In a way, that is merely superficial though.

JJ gets the sum of the parts right. But the sum of the parts does not equal the whole, in this instance imo. Granted we all have our own biases about Trek when watching these nuTrek movies.

When I first heard that Abrams was going to make his version of Trek back whenever, my first thought was why couldn't he just leave TOS alone, leave well enough alone. But I also agree with what Kirk said in ST3: "young minds. Fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

The nuTrek movies are very entertaining in their own merits. But JJ's movies are TOS on steroids. The action is on overdrive. And his Trek characters do not exude the charm that the original TOS characters had. That is where JJ falls short imo. NuTrek Kirk, McCoy and Scotty come across almost too much like caricatures.

I don't know, but maybe a little less action and more scenes of character camaraderie might work. or maybe not.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I came across this video where a Youtuber gives his take on the nuTrek; I find his take pretty interesting. I also like his usage of the classic music with the commentary.

​

Thany You for sharing this!! I love the reboots and the new trek the same. Nice to see some positive reaction to the reboot compared to hatred and complaints from select individuals on YouTube!!!

There were many similarities to TOS that were very endearing but IMO these movies are not as good as the best of TOS.

I tend to agree with that sentiment.

Abrams' Trek is obviously a reboot of TOS. After watching that video, it is clear that JJ did his homework, with regard to incorporating many details into his movies that originated in TOS. In a way, that is merely superficial though.

JJ gets the sum of the parts right. But the sum of the parts does not equal the whole, in this instance imo. Granted we all have our own biases about Trek when watching these nuTrek movies.

When I first heard that Abrams was going to make his version of Trek back whenever, my first thought was why couldn't he just leave TOS alone, leave well enough alone. But I also agree with what Kirk said in ST3: "young minds. Fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

The nuTrek movies are very entertaining in their own merits. But JJ's movies are TOS on steroids. The action is on overdrive. And his Trek characters do not exude the charm that the original TOS characters had. That is where JJ falls short imo. NuTrek Kirk, McCoy and Scotty come across almost too much like caricatures.

I don't know, but maybe a little less action and more scenes of character camaraderie might work. or maybe not.

There needs to be a bit more characterization. The nufilms tend to jump over explanations (e.g. the continual reference to Kirk becoming Captain w/o explanation, an Anglo-looking man named Khan, etc.)

They still can fix those problems in the third film.

I know that some people have concern that the original script was tossed because of being too 'Star Trek-y.' I wonder if that 'Star Trek-y-ness' was influenced by TNG and the spinoffs from the 90s? As previously brought out, some think TNG is definitive Trek where in reality it was one version of Trek. Less action in space, and more talking in space. TOS actually had a mixture of both.

One thing for sure: It's not Star Trek III: The Search for Kirk.

As disappointed as I was with STID, I'm still holding out for the 3rd film. Star Trek needs to be fun (and sexy) again.

 

[ComicGuy89]

I know that some people have concern that the original script was tossed because of being too 'Star Trek-y.' I wonder if that 'Star Trek-y-ness' was influenced by TNG and the spinoffs from the 90s? As previously brought out, some think TNG is definitive Trek where in reality it was one version of Trek. Less action in space, and more talking in space. TOS actually had a mixture of both.

One thing for sure: It's not Star Trek III: The Search for Kirk.

As disappointed as I was with STID, I'm still holding out for the 3rd film. Star Trek needs to be fun (and sexy) again.

Pegg clarified recently what was meant by less "Trekky":

Something I’d like to clear up — I got misquoted recently, saying that I was brought on to make it less Star Trekky, which is not what I’d told that journalist. What I meant was there has to be a degree of universality when you’re dealing with something like that. Which means you can’t alienate the people for whom it’s their very first Star Trek. If they come into it and it’s indecipherable because there’s a lot of stuff that you have to have prior knowledge to understand, then you’re left with something which is a little bit exclusive. It’s always the trick with these properties. Making it at once something that the fans can enjoy and take a lot from, but also knew people can come in and see it as a one-off and go, “Hey, I’ve got fifty years of this I can go and watch now!” Which is a great thing for kids. I love the idea when you used to discover a band and then discover they’d had six albums out before. So that was what I meant by that. The idea of it not being Star Trek is anathema to me. This has to be in every way and every fiber of its being Star Trek.

Source: http://nerdist.com/star-trek-beyond-simon-pegg-interview-set-visit/

 

[Mudd]

There were many similarities to TOS that were very endearing but IMO these movies are not as good as the best of TOS.

Yes, but I tend to think that about every episode and movie after "Amok Time," so I don't expect different.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I know that some people have concern that the original script was tossed because of being too 'Star Trek-y.' I wonder if that 'Star Trek-y-ness' was influenced by TNG and the spinoffs from the 90s? As previously brought out, some think TNG is definitive Trek where in reality it was one version of Trek. Less action in space, and more talking in space. TOS actually had a mixture of both.

One thing for sure: It's not Star Trek III: The Search for Kirk.

As disappointed as I was with STID, I'm still holding out for the 3rd film. Star Trek needs to be fun (and sexy) again.

Pegg clarified recently what was meant by less "Trekky":

Something I’d like to clear up — I got misquoted recently, saying that I was brought on to make it less Star Trekky, which is not what I’d told that journalist. What I meant was there has to be a degree of universality when you’re dealing with something like that. Which means you can’t alienate the people for whom it’s their very first Star Trek. If they come into it and it’s indecipherable because there’s a lot of stuff that you have to have prior knowledge to understand, then you’re left with something which is a little bit exclusive. It’s always the trick with these properties. Making it at once something that the fans can enjoy and take a lot from, but also knew people can come in and see it as a one-off and go, “Hey, I’ve got fifty years of this I can go and watch now!” Which is a great thing for kids. I love the idea when you used to discover a band and then discover they’d had six albums out before. So that was what I meant by that. The idea of it not being Star Trek is anathema to me. This has to be in every way and every fiber of its being Star Trek.

Source: http://nerdist.com/star-trek-beyond-simon-pegg-interview-set-visit/

Ahh...

 

[Tim Thomason]

Here's a test to tell if something is Star Trek or not:

1) Does the product contain the words "Star Trek" in the title?
If Yes, it is Star Trek
If No, see question #2

2) Does the product feature characters or elements from previous Star Trek products?
If Yes, it is Star Trek
If No, see question #3

3) Is the product produced or licensed as a Star Trek product?
If Yes, it is Star Trek
If No, it probably isn't. I guess.

 

[dahj]

Here's a test to tell if something is Star Trek or not:

Good effort, but...

1) Does the product contain the words "Star Trek" in the title?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489257/

2) Does the product feature characters or elements from previous Star Trek products?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182503/

3) Is the product produced or licensed as a Star Trek product?