Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in XI

[Yeoman Randi]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

JJ might not leave them out entirely, but i think we can be fairly certain he'll use them a lot less:

http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

[...]But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame.[...]

I like JJ, because thats a great way of looking at it.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

I like them. I'm a lens flare groupie.

I never really paid attention to them before, but after I started noticing them, I couldn't stop seeing them everywhere. You should watch Fringe.

Lens flared is a state of mind.

 

[Spiderpope]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

Well gee I guess they missed your application as director for the movie as you sure sound like you know better then he does and could have done a better job.

Think you can do better?

Hop to it.... there's still plenty of time to bug the gang to dump him and hire you on before the next movie hits threatres.

Best of luck.
(I imagine there was a good number of people who ragged all over the new Batman movies, Superman and Spiderman movies as well.... as soon as one thing doesn't look exactly as they once remembered in the old movies/series, time to grab the pitchforks and torches)

Yes because clearly you have to be an active part of a profession in order to criticise it.

Quite possibly there are people who hate nuTrek because its different. Personally i didnt like it because it was exactly the same. Nothing was improved over Nemesis, we still had a non-sensical villain and a contrived threat against Earth and absolutely no depth.But hey he shook the camera around a bit, that must mean its dramatic right?

After rewatching the film on DVD, i have come to accept the abhorrent style choices made, even the lens flares (although i am disappointed the brewery-drive will return in the sequel). But the more i watch the film, the less the script holds up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Its interesting to note that even Abrams has realised what a weak villain Nero was, so perhaps next time around we will get an antagonist who has more than five minutes of screentime.

As for the voiceover, if this is truly the new vision for Star Trek it should stand on its own feet. Shatner would be another crutch, just like Nimoy.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

Seriously, what is wrong with lens flare? I get it that people don't like them, like they might not like the colour blue.... but to say that's a point of criticism, such as "the writing sucked", is a bit of a stretch.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

Not really. It's just good PR. Notice the timing? Two days before the DVD/Blu-ray came to stores.

Abrams will never acknowledge his complete trashing of real Star Trek in favour of a two-hour thrill-ride. His concessions to minor, trivial aspects (with respect to the whole) are piecemeal, at best.

If Abrams had truly cared about crafting an authentic Star Trek movie, he'd have recognised his abject lack of interest in anything Trek, not to mention his general lack of aptitude for hard Sci-Fi, and he'd have walked away. But no. He happily perverted Star Trek into disposable adolescent schlock, and now he plays the humble artiste and earns vanity points by pointing to deficiencies that are as plain to see as the nose on one's face.

This is superficial stuff. And with everything getting a free pass, right down to Abrams' contrite, and comically-transparent, self-flagellation, it can only get worse.

Well gee I guess they missed your application as director for the movie as you sure sound like you know better then he does and could have done a better job.

Think you can do better?

Hop to it.... there's still plenty of time to bug the gang to dump him and hire you on before the next movie hits threatres.

Best of luck.

(I imagine there was a good number of people who ragged all over the new Batman movies, Superman and Spiderman movies as well.... as soon as one thing doesn't look exactly as they once remembered in the old movies/series, time to grab the pitchforks and torches)

He offered a criticism of the movie, its promotion and Abrams. However hyperbolic it or his previous post may have been, nothing was aimed at another poster or group of posters personally. You might not agree with what he said, but that doesn't mean you have to take personal swipes at him. In fact, I'd very much prefer you didn't. Address the post, not the poster.

 

[Praxius]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

Yes because clearly you have to be an active part of a profession in order to criticise it.

It helps.

Quite possibly there are people who hate nuTrek because its different. Personally i didnt like it because it was exactly the same. Nothing was improved over Nemesis, we still had a non-sensical villain and a contrived threat against Earth and absolutely no depth.But hey he shook the camera around a bit, that must mean its dramatic right?

You can only fit so much story in the standard time frame of a theatrical movie, which means some things need to be cut, edited or reduced to fit.

This isn't an easy task by the way. The Enterprise crew and why the story existed in the first place were the important parts of the movie that needed to be explained.... Nero's background history isn't that much of a priority in comparison.

And since even he claimed (as I suspected) this movie was geared more for character development and meeting one another.... and now that that is pretty well all done, more story and side-character development can be expanded on in the next movie.

 

[Spiderpope]

Re: Interview with JJ Abrams; talks about what worked & what didn't in

Yes because clearly you have to be an active part of a profession in order to criticise it.

It helps.

It's also a nonsensical attitude. One does not need to create art in order to have an opinion of it.

You can only fit so much story in the standard time frame of a theatrical movie, which means some things need to be cut, edited or reduced to fit.

This isn't an easy task by the way. The Enterprise crew and why the story existed in the first place were the important parts of the movie that needed to be explained.... Nero's background history isn't that much of a priority in comparison.

So because its hard we should just accept their failings? I never noticed anyone having such a generous attitude with John Logan or Stuart Baird.
As for a fleshed out and credible villain not being a priority, i have to strongly disagree. A real, fully characterised antagonist only strengthens the character of the protagonist.

And since even he claimed (as I suspected) this movie was geared more for character development and meeting one another.... and now that that is pretty well all done, more story and side-character development can be expanded on in the next movie.

Well thats just dandy, maybe we will get a decent narrative next time. However vague promises about future projects makes no difference whatsoever when discussing the flaws of Trek 11.