I disagree. Loved both his Trek films. Much closer to TOS than the other films or the spinoffs. Oddly enough people buying tickets seem to agree. I've liked other films and TV shows he's had a hand in as well.
J.J. Abrams enters The Twilight Zone
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
It always amazes me when people say that it was like TOS. To me it feels like a meanspirited parody. TOS was thoughtful and mature ("The Conscience of the King," "The City On The Edge of Forever," et cetera) while the movie was loud and obnoxious and turned all the characters (except McCoy) into morons, psychopaths and mental defectives. Not to mention all the script problems (the missing Vulcans, the whole Life of Brian sequence and on and on).
The worst thing was that the whole "buckle up" response to an unimaginable holocaust left me with a chill down my spine and a sick feeling in my stomach. Definitely the anti-Trek for me.
The worst thing was that the whole "buckle up" response to an unimaginable holocaust left me with a chill down my spine and a sick feeling in my stomach. Definitely the anti-Trek for me.
I don't see why, nearly everyone who has seen it feels that it is. For me, nothing has come anywhere near as close to evoking the original than these two movies and at times verging on the uncanny, how close they were.
I'm truely sorry you don't feel the same way, I love TOS and these movies, they're both TOS to me.
All in one movie.
I wish I could, especially since they found such a great cast. But it is the complete antithesis of everything I loved about TOS.
I wish I could, especially since they found such a great cast. But it is the complete antithesis of everything I loved about TOS.
Abrams Trek brought back those feelings I had watching Star Trek (TOS) as a young kid in the 70s. No Trek movie had been able to do that for me.
Of course you do. Like i could go one post without someone disagreeing with me...
And i've hated everything i've ever seen with his name on it. Hated. You're welcome to him.
Lots of people bought tickets to all three Beyformers films. The fact that a bunch of people are sharing the Kool-Aid with you does not automatically mean what you're drinking is good for you. It really only means they're as blind to JJ's lack of creative talent as you are.
Why can't we have differences of opinions on things like the films we like without resulting in the accusation that those who disagree have somehow drank the Kool-Aid or are blind?
This type of name calling doesn't produce a good conversation.
He brought up the argument that lots of ticket sales=JJ's doing something right. I brought up the argument that lots of ticket sales doesn't equal anything of the kind. It just means everybody bought tickets to the same crap. I'm stating bluntly that high box office numbers is not an indicator of quality.
Does it happen that often?
Uh, thanks?
Hated Transformers, myself. Didn't bother with the sequels. Figured that was the best way to deal with it.
Getting a bit personal there. You might wanna rethink that approach.
RJDiogenes said:
Why would that amazing you? I've read a variety of reasons why people enjoyed TOS. As I've aged different parts of the show appealed to me. The reasons I liked TOS when I seven are different than why I like TOS at 54. Mean spirited? In what way?
TOS told many types of stories. cherry picking the "thoughtful and mature" episodes don't really show the scope of storytelling in TOS. The characters are no more "morons, psychopaths and mental defectives" in the films than they were in the series. One could easily find example of all three in TOS episodes and films.
Not sure what you're talking about here.
Never said it ticket sales= quality. All it indicates is popularity. In the entertainment business that means "something right".
Art is subjective. It then comes down to what you like. If you liked JJ Trek you will think it is quality, if you didn't like it, you will think it is crap.
That is why I never get into the it was good or it was crap debate. There is no winner because no one's opinion is wrong, just different. Our views are right for ourselves. I just tell people if I liked it or not and to what degree I liked something or didn't like something.
I agree you can't use the box office as a proof of the quality of a movie. For example, I have loved movies that have bombed at the box office and I have hated movies that did well at the box office.
I really don't think trying to prove or disprove the subjective opinions about our feelings toward a movie can be done.
I can disagree with a person's opinion and tell them why I may like or dislike a movie but I am not going to tell aperson they are wrong for having their opinions.
In the way that it treated the characters. Turning Kirk into a delinquent loser, Spock into a psycho (and Old Spock into a senile failure), Uhura into a bar babe who manipulates superior officers with sex, Scotty into a loser demoted to some useless space shack. Killing off the Vulcans. Bringing up Federation ethics only to mock them.
Not like the characters in the film. And TOS did tell many types of stories, but it has always been known as the show that at least attempted thoughtful, socially relevant SF (the Vietnam metaphors, the first "inter-racial" kiss et cetera)-- doing a revival written at the level of an Asylum movie does not strike me as consistent with any type of Trek-- not even "Spock's Brain."
These people not only witnessed, but failed to prevent, the destruction of Vulcan and the deaths of its six billion inhabitants. They frowned a moment and then skipped happily off to the next holocaust. In real life, people who witnessed the terrorist attacks in 2001 ("only" 3000 people) are still suffering emotional issues twelve years later. In nuTrek, it not only rolls right off the characters, but Starfleet chooses to keep them together on the flagship of their depleted fleet under the command of a 25-year-old loser they were about to kick out of the academy. This is weird and creepy behavior, to say the least.
And TOS did tell many types of stories, but it has always been known as the show that at least attempted thoughtful, socially relevant SF (the Vietnam metaphors, the first "inter-racial" kiss et cetera)-- doing a revival written at the level of an Asylum movie does not strike me as consistent with any type of Trek-- not even "Spock's Brain."
You don't think that global terrorism committed by a genetically enhanced mad man isn't, "socially relevant," today?
I want J.J. Abrams to remake Lost in Space. 
You're distilling the characters and plots down to elements that fit your opinion. Its rather disingenuous. Especially referring to Uhura as " a bar babe who manipulates superior officers with sex" which isn't really supported by what was seen in the film and is the most salacious interpretation of what was seen.In the way that it treated the characters. Turning Kirk into a delinquent loser, Spock into a psycho (and Old Spock into a senile failure), Uhura into a bar babe who manipulates superior officers with sex, Scotty into a loser demoted to some useless space shack. Killing off the Vulcans. Bringing up Federation ethics only to mock them.
Not like the characters in the film. And TOS did tell many types of stories, but it has always been known as the show that at least attempted thoughtful, socially relevant SF (the Vietnam metaphors, the first "inter-racial" kiss et cetera)-- doing a revival written at the level of an Asylum movie does not strike me as consistent with any type of Trek-- not even "Spock's Brain."
These people not only witnessed, but failed to prevent, the destruction of Vulcan and the deaths of its six billion inhabitants. They frowned a moment and then skipped happily off to the next holocaust. In real life, people who witnessed the terrorist attacks in 2001 ("only" 3000 people) are still suffering emotional issues twelve years later. In nuTrek, it not only rolls right off the characters, but Starfleet chooses to keep them together on the flagship of their depleted fleet under the command of a 25-year-old loser they were about to kick out of the academy. This is weird and creepy behavior, to say the least.
Star Trek (TOS in particular) has rarely dealt well with the repercussions of the events the crew has experienced. The laugh on the bridge scene that ends several episodes is a prime example of this. So your second point is a nonstarter.
Genetic engineering has been an interesting, because relevant, SF theme since Brave New World.
However, this has nothing to do with the newest Abrams' blockbuster. That Khan is not a madman, nor is he a terrorist. He's merely an operative for an admiral trying to instigate a war. Since the issues of war and peace are not actually dramatized, that's not relevant either. I admit that Kirk coming out against war is nicer than the Kirk who kills people about to die for the fun of it, but this is not particularly relevant.
In fact, since preventive war has been pronounced policy, the movie pretty much dodges any possible relevance. It's just the adventures of Space Cocksman and Stick-Up-His-Ass. Apparently lot's of people have been watching Star Trek that way all along. Apparently I've been overrating the show for years now.
As for the notion that it's all subjective? The question then is why people who think that post anything. All they need is a letter grade or some number of stars.
I don't think we can honestly say that you can't be objective (not perfectly objective, that's a nonsense standard designed to forestall criticism.) You can say something meaningful about plot logic, rationality (or lack of) character motivation, the quality of music, the originality in us of 3D, an actor's skill in performance, etc. in a way that we really must concede to be objective.
But these individual elements are not transitive. We cannot neatly order these aspects in such a way as to weight the relative contributions, then sum to a more or less objective amount of artistic goodness. For example, it is an objective fact that much of the last movie was devoted to staging variations on high points in The Wrath of Khan. As such, it is incontestably derivative. What cannot be objectively rated is how much this adds or detracts from the effect of the movie.
However, this has nothing to do with the newest Abrams' blockbuster. That Khan is not a madman, nor is he a terrorist. He's merely an operative for an admiral trying to instigate a war. Since the issues of war and peace are not actually dramatized, that's not relevant either. I admit that Kirk coming out against war is nicer than the Kirk who kills people about to die for the fun of it, but this is not particularly relevant.
In fact, since preventive war has been pronounced policy, the movie pretty much dodges any possible relevance. It's just the adventures of Space Cocksman and Stick-Up-His-Ass. Apparently lot's of people have been watching Star Trek that way all along. Apparently I've been overrating the show for years now.
As for the notion that it's all subjective? The question then is why people who think that post anything. All they need is a letter grade or some number of stars.
I don't think we can honestly say that you can't be objective (not perfectly objective, that's a nonsense standard designed to forestall criticism.) You can say something meaningful about plot logic, rationality (or lack of) character motivation, the quality of music, the originality in us of 3D, an actor's skill in performance, etc. in a way that we really must concede to be objective.
But these individual elements are not transitive. We cannot neatly order these aspects in such a way as to weight the relative contributions, then sum to a more or less objective amount of artistic goodness. For example, it is an objective fact that much of the last movie was devoted to staging variations on high points in The Wrath of Khan. As such, it is incontestably derivative. What cannot be objectively rated is how much this adds or detracts from the effect of the movie.
I found the device of nostalgia to heighten the experience personally. Possibly the loudness and excess too as they were thankfully rather well tuned, even if they make it harder to dare to watch it again.
The admiral is the main villain. AFAIK that's something many people are afraid of currently, even if they have been before too. Khan is a monster he created. The fact that even he can be more helpful at parts than the admiral, adds to the uncertain atmosphere of current war politics.
I do see the characters are a bit juvenile but I accept that as they are hugely younger versions than the TOS versions, and show promise.
There is wisdom in the movie's view on violence that is not often found in Hollywood action movies, that is worthy of Trek.
Well said, stj.
I haven't seen the second movie, but I certainly agree that is a socially relevant topic.
Nevertheless, it's true and consistent with the re-imagining of the characters as corrupt parodies of the originals (with the exception of McCoy-- and Chekov, I suppose).
The only situation analogous to this that I can think of is in "The Doomsday Machine," in which several solar systems were destroyed. I believe they were unknown or uninhabited, but, in any case, the events were not witnessed firsthand by the crew, nor did they attempt to save anyone and fail. Commodore Decker, who witnessed the death of his crew of 400 on one of those planets, was literally driven mad by grief and helplessness.
No its not. It's hyperbolic BS. If you think that a woman at a bar picking up drinks for a her friends, who is hit by a guy and uses humor and sarcasm to shut him down is a "bar babe". Then I think you might want to turn in your feminist card. Ditto, if you assume that a woman who has scored in the top of her class and expects a position commensurate with that, challenges the person who gives her a lesser position. Nothing in their exchange implies Uhura was manipulating Spock through sex. That you think so speaks to your opinion of women, which doesn't seem very positive. Get your mind out of that gutter in the 1950s.
You called Kirk a "delinquent loser". Not seeing that. Yeah Pike does refer to Kirk as "genius-level repeat offender". Key word is 'genius", not "offender". He also gets through the Academy in three yeasr and found a way to beat the Kobayashi Maru test. Is he all that different than Prime Kirk? The guy who was described a "not a Boy Scout" by his ex. Who also beat the Koyayashi Maru (Prime McCoy called it cheating). He regularly defied orders, pissed high level bureaucrat and gained a reputation as a "cowboy."
Scotty's a "loser" because he got a punishment assignment because a piss off an Admiral while trying prove an engineering theory he had? This is the guy who's Prime counterpart transported a herd of tribbles on to a Klingon ship (with out informing his CO), threw the first punch in a bar fight and sabotaged a Federation ship (to aid in the hijacking of another)
Spock is a psycho? Was Prime Spock a psycho when he suggested they kill Gary Mitchell? When he rigged a torpedo to kill Chang? When he hijacked the ship on several occasions. When he tried to kill his commanding officer, more than once? When he threatened to kill McCoy?
Operation: Annihilate! ends with this exchange:
A bit light, considering that among the victims spread out over several star systems, are Kirk's brother and sister in law. ( and possibly his other nephews).Operation: Annihilate! said: