Should JJ Abrams direct Star Trek 4?

[TRON JA307020]

JJ's fine for Star Wars but not for Trek.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

The bums on seats is the most important, but it's not everything.

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Comparison is natural. When TNG came out the camparisons to it and TOS went on for years and still go on today. When the SW prequels came out they were compared to the originals(I assume the new Abrams SW film will be compared to the originals.). Comparison to source material, earliest movies in a series etc. will always go on. I don't think it cheapens the newer movies at all because people will like what they like or dislike what they dislike no matter what.

 

[Franklin]

JJ's fine for Star Wars but not for Trek.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

The bums on seats is the most important, but it's not everything.

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

 

[TRON JA307020]

JJ's fine for Star Wars but not for Trek.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

The bums on seats is the most important, but it's not everything.

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route. The writer worte the article before he saw STID. I wonder what he would say about STIDs emulation of Star Treks most popular film TWOK.

 

[Franklin]

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route. The writer worte the article before he saw STID. I wonder what he would say about STIDs emulation of Star Treks most popular film TWOK.

While people have gone round and round on these boards about the suitability of Kirk's death scene in STID, I thought that other than using Khan, STID actually had very little in common with TWOK in story or theme. Certainly not enough to say it emulated TWOK.

I'll also always give them credit for having the guts to use Khan instead of creating yet another villain that would merely invite inevitable comparisons to Khan.

Pegg has talked about how he wants to create a real bad-ass villain role for Elba. He may not have said it explicitly, but even that is easily interpreted as meaning he wants to create "The Best Trek Villain Since Khan (TM)".

 

[Dukhat]

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route.

Excuse me, but no it didn't. Other than having a guy named Khan and a small tribute scene in the reactor control room, there was absolutely nothing alike between STID and TWOK. And if you watched the whole movie instead of leaving halfway to play video games or whatever inanity you once claimed you did after being called out about this before, you'd know that.

Remember, your posting history follows you everywhere.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

"Good Trek" is not something quantifiable. Asses in seats are. Obviously you don't think Abrams's movies are "good Trek." I do. So who is right? You or me?

 

[TRON JA307020]

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route. The writer worte the article before he saw STID. I wonder what he would say about STIDs emulation of Star Treks most popular film TWOK.

While people have gone round and round on these boards about the suitability of Kirk's death scene in STID, I thought that other than using Khan, STID actually had very little in common with TWOK in story or theme. Certainly not enough to say it emulated TWOK.

I'll also always give them credit for having the guts to use Khan instead of creating yet another villain that would merely invite inevitable comparisons to Khan.

Pegg has talked about how he wants to create a real bad-ass villain role for Elba. He may not have said it explicitly, but even that is easily interpreted as meaning he wants to create "The Best Trek Villain Since Khan (TM)".

While you are correct that they did change a lot in STID to differentiate from TWOK I just got a TWOK times 10 vibe while watching it. To be fair they did try to complicate the story and have Marcus as the real villain and Khan at the beginning as his flunky. I actually wish they didn't have Khan in the movie and just focused on Marcus. I would have liked to see more of Marcus and maybe learn more about him. Was he a legend in starfleet gone bad etc. I found the TWOK references kind of odd though especially the Kirk death scene. It just didn't seem to carry the same emotional weight that TWOKS did.

 

[TRON JA307020]

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route.

Excuse me, but no it didn't. Other than having a guy named Khan and a small tribute scene in the reactor control room, there was absolutely nothing alike between STID and TWOK. And if you watched the whole movie instead of leaving halfway to play video games or whatever inanity you once claimed you did after being called out about this before, you'd know that.

Remember, your posting history follows you everywhere.

I view the movie differently I guess. Some view it my way some view it your way. As long as you enjoy the movie it doesn't matter in the long run. That's the fun of discussing the movie to get different opinions good, bad, fun etc. Were all ST fans debating this stuff is our lifes blood. Well its mine anyway.

 

[Dukhat]

You're welcome to view the movie any way you want. That doesn't make your opinion of it correct. Or that that opinion is shared by anyone other than yourself.

Don't like STID? Fine. But don't say you don't like it because it was a ripoff of TWOK, because it damn well wasn't.

 

[TRON JA307020]

You're welcome to view the movie any way you want. That doesn't make your opinion of it correct. Or that that opinion is shared by anyone other than yourself.

Yeah.

Well back to the subject. I got off on it because I was responding to a earlier post about TWOK looking amateurish. I know we aren't supposed to stray from the main subject for long so I have little more to say in this thread about TWOK in that context.

I would like to see how the new director does on this one and actually maybe see a rotating stable of directors much like we see on the Bond films or what we saw in the original Star Wars. New directors(No always) can bring a bit of freshness to a franchise to help avoid it becoming stale. I would guess they may go for a fourth or fifth ST movie so we will get a chance to hopefully see 2 new directors. I have to say I do like what Pegg is saying about what they will be doing with Trek and it will be interesting to see what they change, keep the same etc.

 

[fireproof78]

JJ's fine for Star Wars but not for Trek.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

The bums on seats is the most important, but it's not everything.

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Comparison is natural. When TNG came out the camparisons to it and TOS went on for years and still go on today. When the SW prequels came out they were compared to the originals(I assume the new Abrams SW film will be compared to the originals.). Comparison to source material, earliest movies in a series etc. will always go on. I don't think it cheapens the newer movies at all because people will like what they like or dislike what they dislike no matter what.

Comparison is natural and I'll never argue against that point. The problem is that the TWOK bar is set unreasonably high and is considered the best with nothing else can reach those heights, i.e. "TUC is good but its no TWOK." You can insert your own Star Trek film for TUC, obviously.

The point is, TWOK went a different direction than what GR wanted it to go, but seemed to be more in line with the adventurous spirit of TOS. I would argue that Abrams also took many of those elements from TOS and used them, in my opinion, to great effect.

JJ's fine for Star Wars but not for Trek.

Trek needs someone who can put bums on seats AND deliver good Trek.

The bums on seats is the most important, but it's not everything.

I'm trying to figure out what Abrams did that is "not good for Trek."

I love Trek 09 and find it to be both fun and have fascinating character moments. The pacing is quite fast but I can live with that. I'm still reflecting on different aspects of the characters even 6 years later.

As for TWOK, for the sheer force of will that Meyer and Bennett had to do in order to construct it, it is a masterpiece of cinema. I love reading BTS stuff because there was a lot of drama that many don't realize.

My problem is that Star Trek needs to move out from under TWOK's shadow. And before anyone misunderstands me, I like TWOK just fine (top 3 Trek films for me). The storytelling, themes and editing are well done. But, that isn't all that Trek is about and constantly comparing every blasted film that comes after it to it is unfair and cheapens the other films achievements.

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

I actually have that article bookmarked in case of discussions like this

Agreed about Abrams and TWOK.

You might be interested in reading the article I link to, below. Written by Ryan Britt and released just before STID came out, its title is, "Our Dysfunctional Relationship With The Wrath of Khan". I think the title speaks for itself about the content.

Link:
http://www.tor.com/2013/05/15/our-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-wrath-of-khan/

In the article the writer says that so many later films such as Nemisis tried to emulate TWOK because of TWOKs popularity. He doesn't think that its necessary to do that. But STID unfortunately did instead of going a different route. The writer worte the article before he saw STID. I wonder what he would say about STIDs emulation of Star Treks most popular film TWOK.

While people have gone round and round on these boards about the suitability of Kirk's death scene in STID, I thought that other than using Khan, STID actually had very little in common with TWOK in story or theme. Certainly not enough to say it emulated TWOK.

I'll also always give them credit for having the guts to use Khan instead of creating yet another villain that would merely invite inevitable comparisons to Khan.

Pegg has talked about how he wants to create a real bad-ass villain role for Elba. He may not have said it explicitly, but even that is easily interpreted as meaning he wants to create "The Best Trek Villain Since Khan (TM)".

I strongly agree regarding TWOK and STID. I'm sorry but the fact that STID had Khan as the villain (an arguable point) and one scene taken directly from TWOK does not make it a remake. If such an argument is to me made then TWOK itself was a rip off of Moby Dick.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If such an argument is to me made then TWOK itself was a rip off of Moby Dick.

In some ways TWOK is a ripoff of Balance of Terror, which is of course, a rip off of the Enemy Below

 

[TRON JA307020]

If such an argument is to me made then TWOK itself was a rip off of Moby Dick.

In some ways TWOK is a ripoff of Balance of Terror, which is of course, a rip off of the Enemy Below

Balance of Terror was a great episode. Funny that when they released the updated special effect version they did nothing for the episode. Probably because the remake effects were just as unremarkable as the originals. The great thing about the episode was the cat and mouse and of course we get another(greater version in TWOK). I agree they are very similar in the approach of the battles. The main difference is that Kirk hugged Rand in BOT when he thought the Enterprise was going to be destroyed by the Romulan disrupter blast. Ah the good old 2260s when a Captain can hug his yeoman on the bridge.

 

[Franklin]

If such an argument is to me made then TWOK itself was a rip off of Moby Dick.

In some ways TWOK is a ripoff of Balance of Terror, which is of course, a rip off of the Enemy Below

And TWOK also contains elements of "Run Silent, Run Deep".

I mean, what the hell is original any more? Scratch hard enough, and anything can be called derivative of, or highly influenced by, something.

And by the way, I think the words you're looking for are, "tribute to," not "rip off of."

 

[BillJ]

Funny that when they released the updated special effect version they did nothing for the episode.

I'm confused. They updated the effects for "Balance of Terror". They also gave us a much closer view of the Bird of Prey that doesn't exist in the original episode.

 

[M'Sharak]

You're welcome to view the movie any way you want. That doesn't make your opinion of it correct. Or that that opinion is shared by anyone other than yourself.

Yeah.

Well back to the subject.

If only you could have been thinking of that before dragging the thread off-topic for twenty-some posts.

I got off on it because I was responding to a earlier post about TWOK looking amateurish. I know we aren't supposed to stray from the main subject for long so I have little more to say in this thread about TWOK in that context.

No, that's not what really happened, is it? A comment was made regarding the other (non-Abrams) Trek movies generally; it was you who introduced TWoK specifically, and then proceeded to make the thread all about that.

This kind of disruption has been happening a lot across several threads, and you always seem to be at the center of it. I'd like to see a lot less of that from you, beginning now. If that kind of self-restraint is beyond you, then perhaps you ought to consider refraining from posting altogether.

 

[BillJ]

I mean, what the hell is original any more? Scratch hard enough, and anything can be called derivative of, or highly influenced by, something.

Shh... You're destroying the entire argument of why folks don't like Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If such an argument is to me made then TWOK itself was a rip off of Moby Dick.

In some ways TWOK is a ripoff of Balance of Terror, which is of course, a rip off of the Enemy Below

Balance of Terror was a great episode. Funny that when they released the updated special effect version they did nothing for the episode. Probably because the remake effects were just as unremarkable as the originals. The great thing about the episode was the cat and mouse and of course we get another(greater version in TWOK). I agree they are very similar in the approach of the battles. The main difference is that Kirk hugged Rand in BOT when he thought the Enterprise was going to be destroyed by the Romulan disrupter blast. Ah the good old 2260s when a Captain can hug his yeoman on the bridge.

Oh, they did a couple of things

The 1967 Writer Guide says this:

Nor would our Captain Kirk hug a female crewman in a moment of danger, not if he's to remain believable.

I guess things were different the year before.

 

[TRON JA307020]

In some ways TWOK is a ripoff of Balance of Terror, which is of course, a rip off of the Enemy Below

Balance of Terror was a great episode. Funny that when they released the updated special effect version they did nothing for the episode. Probably because the remake effects were just as unremarkable as the originals. The great thing about the episode was the cat and mouse and of course we get another(greater version in TWOK). I agree they are very similar in the approach of the battles. The main difference is that Kirk hugged Rand in BOT when he thought the Enterprise was going to be destroyed by the Romulan disrupter blast. Ah the good old 2260s when a Captain can hug his yeoman on the bridge.

Oh, they did a couple of things

The 1967 Writer Guide says this:

Nor would our Captain Kirk hug a female crewman in a moment of danger, not if he's to remain believable.

I guess things were different the year before.

LOL! That is pretty funny. I guess I am not the only one to think that about the Kirk hugging Rand on the bridge incident. That's a neat guide. I'm going to print that out.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Reasons why JJ should be involved with ST 4 ( based on the 1967 Writer's Guide)

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science
and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain
the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare
never did a monologue about the theory of anes-
thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis-
cusses the breed of his horse before he rides
off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate
field of literature with rules of its own, but,
indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story
-- including a jeopardy of some type to someone
we learn to care about, climactic build, sound
motivitation, you know the list.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter-
weave in it any statement to be made about man,
society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some-
thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do
on any other show. We don't need essays, how-
ever brilliant.

VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How
many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote
westerns, detective and hospital shows?

THE TEASER
We open with action, always establishing a strong
jeopardy, need, or other “hook". It is not
necessary to establish all the back story in the
teaser. Instead, we tantalize the audience with
a promise of excitement to come. For example,
it can be as simple as everyone tense on the
bridge, hunting down a marauding enemy ship...
then a tale-telling blip is sighted on the screen.
and the Captain orders “ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS."
Fade out, that's enough

STYLE
We maintain a fast pace ... avoid long philosophical
exchanges or tedious explanations of equipment.

And note that our cutting technique is to use the
shortest possible time between idea and execution
of it .., like, for instance, Kirk decides that a
landing party will transport down to a planet ...
HARD CUT to lights blinking on the Transporter
console, PULL BACK to REVEAL the landing party
stepping into the Transporter.

I think JJ and hopefully, JL gets it.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Reasons why JJ should be involved with ST 4 ( based on the 1967 Writer's Guide)

I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame-
work. We must reach out, hold and entertain
a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we
simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science
and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain
the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare
never did a monologue about the theory of anes-
thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis-
cusses the breed of his horse before he rides
off on it.

THE TEASER
We open with action, always establishing a strong
jeopardy, need, or other “hook". It is not
necessary to establish all the back story in the
teaser. Instead, we tantalize the audience with
a promise of excitement to come. For example,
it can be as simple as everyone tense on the
bridge, hunting down a marauding enemy ship...
then a tale-telling blip is sighted on the screen.
and the Captain orders “ALL HANDS TO BATTLE STATIONS."
Fade out, that's enough

STYLE
We maintain a fast pace ... avoid long philosophical
exchanges or tedious explanations of equipment.

And note that our cutting technique is to use the
shortest possible time between idea and execution
of it .., like, for instance, Kirk decides that a
landing party will transport down to a planet ...
HARD CUT to lights blinking on the Transporter
console, PULL BACK to REVEAL the landing party
stepping into the Transporter.

I think JJ and hopefully, JL gets it.

Well I think Pegg gets it. His previous work is pretty entertaining. I am actually looking forward to Peggs take on Trek. If he does well on this one I would not mind having him back as opposed to Orci, Abrams and the rest. Welp we have one year until we see how Pegg and Lin do. I do hope they put in a nice long alien planet scene that harkens back to TOS.

P.S. The one Trek property I would say didn't get it(The Guide) was TNG. I really like TNG at times but man sometimes it took forever for the stories to get exciting. This is coming from someone who loves drama and needs a stable scene for a break from over action but sheesh Riker talking about shift rotations can really kill the mood of a show.