Well, I might have read that in her accent if I knew who that is and how her accent is supposed to sound...
How Much Does JJ Abrams Know About Star Trek
- Thread starter trekker670
- Start date
Not a Game of Thrones book/tv show fan then, I take it Mr Wormhole?
No, I'm not particularly into fantasy in general. There's no realism in wizards and fairies and all that crap.
Aliens, robots and FTL starships? Totally realistic.
Aliens, robots and FTL starships? Totally realistic.
The impression I get is that he watched TOS as a kid when he was too young to understand many of its nuances but he's watched the TOS movies more recently and enjoyed them because of the increased action quotient (and in fairness I think this is important in a movie as opposed to a series). The absence of Chapel and Rand but inclusion of Chekov lends some support to this.
His comprehension of how Starfleet should be organised or what its ideals were meant to represent seem to be very ropey. He seems to have only the most basic grasp of what level of tech existed in TOS or the butterfly effect of changing those parameters. He doesn't seem to understand the way Trek was based on naval tradition or why that mattered.
He seems happy to keep the women in their place though.
His comprehension of how Starfleet should be organised or what its ideals were meant to represent seem to be very ropey. He seems to have only the most basic grasp of what level of tech existed in TOS or the butterfly effect of changing those parameters. He doesn't seem to understand the way Trek was based on naval tradition or why that mattered.
He seems happy to keep the women in their place though.
Star Trek as a franchise has had numerous series and movies to establish what Trek is. JJ has only had 2 movies to do that.
Not this weak-ass argument again. With Uhura taking a far larger role in these films (compared to a secretary in space in TOS and the majority of the first six films) this argument holds no grounds. Especially with STiD where she is given more action. She is shown to be highly intelligent, motivated, strong willed, and most of all, more than just a "sex symbol" in Trek.
So really I want to add to what you said, yes he's happy to keep the women in their place, right alongside the men and many times, leading them.
And thank God.
There's a line from The Music Man about " knowing the territory ". Robert Wise didn't know it;Nicholas Meyer did. Does Abrams? I think he has a limited understanding of Trek, akin to someone who has just learned a new language, but hasn't spoken it their whole life
He has enough it doesn't feel completely alien... but I don't know if he knows quite enough to be true to Trek or if his style is just better suited to Star Wars. Always felt the new Trek was a good film, but a mediocre Trek at best. I don't look for heart pumping action in Trek... it's supposed to be a platform for relevant issues. That's when Star Trek has always been at its best.
That is not out yet here. I am going off of the first film. I'm looking forward to this one with some of the talk, but until then I cannot say. But it also depends on how it is dealt with. If it manages an "In the Pale Moonlight" I will applaud.
I have reservations though since 2009 Trek was just didn't feel that close to a Trek film to me as it should have been.
Though I'm getting the sense it will be closer to being Trek than the new Superman will be to being Superman. And to be fair, Trek as a movie rarely has worked as well as the series. So being an enjoyeable action flick is nothing to sneeze at either. As I said, 2009 Trek was a fun film despite my reservations on its Trekness
No, just the typical substitution of wishful thinking for fact that is common in your arguments against Abrams' Trek.Bingo!
Gene Roddenberry said it best, "If I listened to the fans, Star Trek would be sh!t." Proof positive that Nick Meyer did it right.
There, better ...
I agree, that is better.
Wow, that really sums up the "Abrams' Trek is/isn't Trek" argument!
I recognized several of those phrases from TrekBBS threads.
People really need to lay off judging the films against some of the best episodes of the television series, especially stuff like ITPM which was part of a bigger arc which had built up over some time. It wouldn't really work as a movie would it? It does address relevant issues in society as best as a Trek movie can, along with some stuff about the prime directive which harkens back to how the series themselves have handled it and has a central theme. I really don't know what the definition of a Trek movie is though, especially since half of them are pretty bad or flat out boring - I'd put 09 as my fifth favourite and the newest as my third for example, I wouldn't even bother putting the others in any kind of order.
The thought provoking stuff is best left for the TV series. It doesn't work so well in a movie. Hence, almost all the Trek movies feature their share of action adventure. Only TMP is really cerebral hard sci fi.
If they want to be competitive with other summer blockbuster fare, they have to showcase a lot of special effects and action
If they want to be competitive with other summer blockbuster fare, they have to showcase a lot of special effects and action
I've always thought TMP was pretentious, not cerebral. I mean, you'be got this godlike machine entity searching for it's creator, it can digitize entire planets and make near-perfect replicas of humans, but it's too stupid to wipe the muck off it's make-plate? Please.
(and I say that as a fan of TMP!)
(and I say that as a fan of TMP!)
It was faulty...faulty...faulty...
The only good thing about TMP was the girl I waited in line with. Summertime romance was all that made up for that bloated rehash of The Changeling.
No, IIRC, JJ has explained in interviews that his introduction to ST was the gala world premiere of ST:TMP, as his Dad's +1. He knew that he didn't like TMP the way he'd loved "Star Wars" a few years before.
The choice of what characters to use in the movie was more likely to fall to Orci & Kurtzman.
The inclusion of Chekov at the beginning of the 5YM dates back to when Vonda McIntyre was writing "Enterprise: The First Adventure". Pocket Books specifically asked her to include Chekov because his character had lots of fans who'd expect him to be included in a celebratory novel. (It was published for ST's 20th anniversary.) Remember that Orci & Kurtzman re-read this novel, plus a few others, when preparing their first ST script for JJ. Because of "Enterprise: The First Adventure", the film used the first names of Kirk's parents coined by McIntyre.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
No, just the typical substitution of wishful thinking for fact that is common in your arguments against Abrams' Trek.
What's not factual about it? Really, go back and look at the record. Not even going to bother doing any mocking here, cuz it ain't needed.
I'm a fan for about 25 years now, and I don't care how Starfleet should be organised. And I have no idea what it's ideals are - they are all over the place from series to series, episode to episode, film to film anyway.
The tech that existed in TOS? Warp-drive, transporters, communicators, tricorders... have I missed something important?
I blame Berman.