I Like Abrams

[Shaka Zulu]

Nah, you mean your hostile "gotcha" question was just an excuse to try on an attitude of juvenile dismissiveness? I am shocked. Shocked, sir!

When I said, 'NEXT!' I meant it. As in 'Next question' or Next person'. I was treating it as it should be.

Given Cuaron's proven ability to adapt and deliver results in franchise format (like his notorious "flop" Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), I think you're letting a kneejerk need to automatically disagree with someone who doesn't rubber-stamp your over-praise of the current NuTrek product get drastically in the way of your better sense.

Cuaron's style worked for that movie; Star Trek is a different kettle of fish. And as somebody said to me (last year) about that, the fans would be bitching about him being involved just as much as they bitch about Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman now.

(Which is a shame, because your picks of Pete Jackson and JMS show that you're capable of some degree of actual thoughtfulness.)

As above, now below.

Although I made those choices in a naive spirit, I realize what others told me about said idea of both men doing it was flawed, and that people would be bitching about both men doing it. For the most part, Jackson won't leave New Zealand to make movies (how he was able to make King Kong without Universal objecting to it, I have no idea), and as another person already said here, JMS is yesterday's man in Hollywood, making him a quite unlikely writer of a Star Trek movie even with the pedigree of having created and written Babylon 5 ('you're only as good as your next trick' is how he'd be seen by Paramount brass.) To put it another way; I dream of an ideal Star Trek, so I'd hire JMS & Jackson, but I live in this world, so I'd be hiring Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman. (I'm not totally dismissing the idea out of hand; after all, it could happen, and maybe Paramount would let Jackson film a Star Trek movie in New Zealand [with the script tailored to it] but I'm not holding my breath.)

Oh, and BTW, not that it has any particular relevance to this topic... but Superman Returns grossed almost four hundred millions dollars worldwide. It wasn't a box office flop. (Not that it was a good movie, mind you. Turns out a movie can be profitable in the short term but still suck. Who knew? )

Newsflash V, buddy; I know that. (I've posted the info here before.) To me, it's what I call a 'popular failure' in that it was a critical success and made money, yet was not followed up with a sequel because it disappointed the film company in some way. Unlike you, I still love it.

They already have J.J. for the third movie, he's still executive producing it. And of course they will not change the current course until it runs aground... which, the early bubble of goodwill J.J. and company enjoyed having considerably evaporated by now, seems likely to happen with the third movie. I'm thinking in terms of the movie after that, when the franchise is re-rebooted.

Conjecture and speculation on your part, the second movie made millions at the box office and got a lot of critical acclaim like the first one.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Abrams is a hack. Here is the problem boiled down in the simplest possible terms: He is nether a nerd nor an intellectual and he does not value what most fans of science fiction crave which is nuance and complex themes.

Abrams is 46 years old meaning that his formative years probably would have involved watching tv between 1976 and 1986. If not for M*A*S*H, reruns of Twilight Zone and Star Trek what else was on the air? Low brow drek is the answer.

Complexity generally requires proper exposition and really can't exist if you are constantly making quick scene cuts. He cut his teeth(and won a Razzie) for his work on Armageddon, a film I consider complete garbage, but in tone is very much like modern JJ fare.

I won't fault a director completely for a film's quality or there lack of, but as a producer it was his decision to use his terrible writer buddies Orci, Lindelorf and Kurtzman. Look at the damage those guys have done. Does Prometheus make any sense whatsoever? That was Lindelorf for you.

I hope his defenders enjoy he and Disney's further destruction of the Star Wars brand.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^Prometheus makes as much sense as anything else I've ever seen. This article explains why.

Also, you are over-inflating Star Trek again, and forgetting that it's a space opera with lots of action, as it was pitched by Roddenberry back in 1966. To wit:

(TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Xerxes1979]

^Prometheus makes as much sense as anything else I've ever seen. This article explains why.

Do you really want me to start critiquing Prometheus? The movie has serious, serious script problems.

You don't need to dig deep for them.

 

[Amaris]

Abrams is a hack. Here is the problem boiled down in the simplest possible terms: He is nether a nerd nor an intellectual and he does not value what most fans of science fiction crave which is nuance and complex themes.

Abrams is 46 years old meaning that his formative years probably would have involved watching tv between 1976 and 1986. If not for M*A*S*H, reruns of Twilight Zone and Star Trek what else was on the air? Low brow drek is the answer.

Complexity generally requires proper exposition and really can't exist if you are constantly making quick scene cuts. He cut his teeth(and won a Razzie) for his work on Armageddon, a film I consider complete garbage, but in tone is very much like modern JJ fare.

I won't fault a director completely for a film's quality or there lack of, but as a producer it was his decision to use his terrible writer buddies Orci, Lindelorf and Kurtzman. Look at the damage those guys have done. Does Prometheus make any sense whatsoever? That was Lindelorf for you.

I hope his defenders enjoy he and Disney's further destruction of the Star Wars brand.

Yes, the Star Trek franchise may never recover from the serious blow dealt by J.J. Abram's movies. *shock* *gasp* People might think Star Trek is accessible to those not included in the fandom's inner sanctum by default!

Seriously, though, your post is nothing but invective. Baseless, anger fueled invective.

^Prometheus makes as much sense as anything else I've ever seen. This article explains why.

Also, you are over-inflating Star Trek again, and forgetting that it's a space opera with lots of action, as it was pitched by Roddenberry back in 1966. To wit:

(TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

Exactly. What we're seeing has gone on and on for more than 40 years. Sure you can't please everyone, but you'd at least think they'd start from zero and work their way up, but no, some people have to start from -11.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Yes, the Star Trek franchise may never recover from the serious blow dealt by J.J. Abram's movies. *shock* *gasp* People might think Star Trek is accessible to those not included in the fandom's inner sanctum by default!

Seriously, though, your post is nothing but invective. Baseless, anger fueled invective.

Its hardly baseless. I presented my theories and how his personality formed and why it is not a good fit for the sci-fi genre.

I generally like my directors to be motivated for the subject material they work with. That is why Nolan and Proyas are good.

What in Abrams's work do you find commendable exactly?

 

[Amaris]

Yes, the Star Trek franchise may never recover from the serious blow dealt by J.J. Abram's movies. *shock* *gasp* People might think Star Trek is accessible to those not included in the fandom's inner sanctum by default!

Seriously, though, your post is nothing but invective. Baseless, anger fueled invective.

Its hardly baseless. I presented my theories and how his personality formed and why it is not a good fit for the sci-fi genre.

I generally like my directors to be motivated for the subject material they work with. That is why Nolan and Proyas are good.

What in Abrams's work do you find commendable exactly?

You started off with the notion that J.J. Abrams is a hack. That's not a theory, that's an opinion, one that is baseless, considering the high success the two movies have seen as a result of his efforts. Both films are a box office, and critical success.

ST09:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek
http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/20/sta...mce-most-attended-film-in-franchise-domestic/

STiD:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek-into-darkness

*Star Trek: Into Darkness is even up for an Oscar this year.

As for Abrams' work, I commend his efforts to shoot films organically, using traditional techniques instead of CGI wherever possible. I like his devotion to his craft. His film, Super 8, one that he wrote and directed, and was produced by Steven Spielberg, is also considered a critical success. Some even claimed he managed to capture the magic of Stephen Spielberg's classic films, something Spielberg himself has not managed to do in a long time.

Therefore, your declaration that Abrams is a hack is baseless, rooted solely in a strong dislike for the man and his methods.

 

[Robbiesan]

Super 8 will probably be considered The Goonies successor many decades hence.

Here's the thing, a lot of films are commercial successes, but they don't hold up well to scrutiny later. All art is subjective, and our appreciation for it is through the lens of our experiences and education at the time we watched them.

Haven't you watched a film as an adult that you once treasured as a teen and then groaned? I sure have.

Because of working on a mod for Galactic Civilizations for Star Trek, I've been modifying one that included that kind of source material as well as Star Wars. At the time I orginally watched Star Wars, I had an appreciation for it, while clearly recognizing it was strictly for mass appeal. I'd read criticisms of it from all kinds of film critics, but had thought they were too hard on it. Having now painfully watched SW IV-VI, being a different person I can see what the critics meant back then.

What's art to one person is garbage to another. Some films are timeless and so especially appreciated and this results in films like Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai consistently being on top lists.

I doubt Abrams' films end up in a likewise manner. He's no Ingmar Bergman (making classics like The Seventh Seal) but he is making a lot of money for the studios. Since a lot of independent films can't get made unless the studios make money with blockbusters, then his role is important for ALL FILM.

Francis Ford Coppola had some of the most influencial films of the last few decades ...and he also made the abysmal film Twixt. It's painfully bad and worse is practically exploitative. Even a director of known merit can make rotten films.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ Many important points to consider, very well said!

My problem with the entertainment industry these days is that it emphasizes on spectacle, circus attractions, rollercoaster rides and gladiator games. This "play it safe" is a convenient method to generate profit for both theatrical and home video sales (not an issue prior to the 1980's), but it doesn't necessarily create good stories worthwhile to revisit later.

The simple fact that we still talk about films like "2001 - A Space Odyssey" or "Star Trek - The Motion Picture" (and frequently watch these) is sufficient proof, IMHO, that there's still demand for films that differ from the aforementioned types, which are mostly eye candy and cake.

Of course, how much cake is palatable before you long for a nice and fried steak? Many of the films that do not meet with (misguided?) audience expectations or had an element of surprise have become classics.

That's why I'm confident that many years from now we'll still be talking about Ridley Scott's "Alien" but probably will have forgotten about "Prometheus".

Regarding the nuTrek movies I'm not optimistic in that regard.

Bob

 

[drt]

The reality was that Trek was trying to reinvent itself to appeal to new audiences after years of mismanagement; I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams had been specifically asked to make his indifference to the old franchise and its fans a talking-point as a way of playing that up.

I concur, the marketing of ST'09 went out of it's way to distance itself from what came before, which had to have been a studio mandate as they believed that Star Trek had become too insular - it always seemed to me that his "I was more of a Star Wars fan" was orchestrated as part of that distancing.

 

[Robert Comsol]

It always seemed to me that his "I was more of a Star Wars fan" was orchestrated as part of that distancing.

So the excercise of making the nuTrek movies was rather a vehicle to show off that Abrams would be an able director for the Star Wars sequels? What a thought!

Bob

 

[PicardSpeedo]

The reality was that Trek was trying to reinvent itself to appeal to new audiences after years of mismanagement; I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams had been specifically asked to make his indifference to the old franchise and its fans a talking-point as a way of playing that up.

I concur, the marketing of ST'09 went out of it's way to distance itself from what came before, which had to have been a studio mandate as they believed that Star Trek had become too insular - it always seemed to me that his "I was more of a Star Wars fan" was orchestrated as part of that distancing.

He also has been quoted as saying "I was NEVER a Star Trek fan."

 

[Misfit Toy]

Since this thread seems to have become solely about Abrams and his films, it is not suited for this forum.

For discussions about the Abrams Trek movies, please post in Star Trek Movies XI+.

For discussions about Abrams other SF films, please post in Science Fiction and Fantasy.