As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Star Trek] Keep On Trekkin' (Lower Decks stuff in SPOILERS)

1545557596076

Posts

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    I saw Beyond IN SPITE of Abrams, Abrams is just terrible. He strikes me as the guy who only watched ToS drunk after frat parties and never even understood a bit of it.

    CidTheSquid
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Abrams is one of the worst directors today. He is not just uninterested in the content of the movie he's making or the demands of the audience in favour of whatever big set pieces he wants to film, he's outright disdainful and hostile towards it.

    Take Michael Bay's Transformers movies. Bay is clearly not interested in what Transformers are or what they stand for, he just wants to do big action scenes and make things go boom. But his movies have good guy Autobots and bad guy Decepticons that come from dying planet Cybertron and have Sparks for souls that stem from the AllSpark. He may not know nor care what any of those mean, but that's what fans expect so he'll take them and make things go boom around them.

    Abrams is outright hostile to the material he's filming and to fans who like it. When he needs time travel in the first movie, he'll throw away everything in Trek about time travel, make up a new substance, paint it solid red and call it "red matter" with no further explanation or backstory because fuck you if you want to understand the premise of his movie or fit it in the Trek canon. When he wants Kirk to meet Old-Spock and Scotty, he'll write a line about universe and destiny and fuck you if you want the interactions between three of the most important characters in the movie to be more than a coincidence. When he wants to create a mystery for Rey, or Snoke, or Luke, in TFA he'll just drop a hint and fuck you if you want resolution, and when resolution is provided he'll rewrite it in the most clumsy and stupid way possible in TRoS because fuck you for explaining his fuck you to the audience. His movies are his movies, and he will actively go out of his way to ruin them for anyone who wants even a second of enjoyment out of them that's not his enjoyment.

    sig.gif
    DanHibikiautono-wally, erotibot300see317StrikorDonnictonMegaMan001NightslyrboogedybooT-bolt
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Abrams just kills anything he's ever touched.

    CidTheSquid
  • MancingtomMancingtom Registered User regular
    I'll have to disagree with most of this. The Abrams movies range from flawed but good to unserviceable scrap, but they're largely the reason the franchise isn't dead.

    Into Darkness is terrible, but it beat 09's box office by nearly $100 million. Beyond only flopped because they released it in the crowded end-of-summer field and failed to capitalize on the 50th anniversary. Had they released it in May like the first two, or on September 8 itself, it would've been a smash hit.

    Even so, those movies created a new generation of fans and convinced Paramount/CBS that the IP was still viable, leading to its current success.

    TryCatcherCambiataCroakerBCMatev
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    I'll have to disagree with most of this. The Abrams movies range from flawed but good to unserviceable scrap, but they're largely the reason the franchise isn't dead.

    Into Darkness is terrible, but it beat 09's box office by nearly $100 million. Beyond only flopped because they released it in the crowded end-of-summer field and failed to capitalize on the 50th anniversary. Had they released it in May like the first two, or on September 8 itself, it would've been a smash hit.

    Even so, those movies created a new generation of fans and convinced Paramount/CBS that the IP was still viable, leading to its current success.

    clearly those fans are few and far between since any franchise he started die in two or three moves.

    He has just enough momentum from brand recognition to make the first movie profitable then it just careens off a cliff.

    CidTheSquid
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    How involved was JJ on Beyond anyway? He didn't write or direct.

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    How involved was JJ on Beyond anyway? He didn't write or direct.

    And that's why it was not only decent, it felt like an actual Star Trek movie, and even managed to capitalize on some of the silliness from Trek 2009.

    Commander ZoomThat_GuyAbsoluteZeroCidTheSquid
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    I'll have to disagree with most of this. The Abrams movies range from flawed but good to unserviceable scrap, but they're largely the reason the franchise isn't dead.

    Into Darkness is terrible, but it beat 09's box office by nearly $100 million. Beyond only flopped because they released it in the crowded end-of-summer field and failed to capitalize on the 50th anniversary. Had they released it in May like the first two, or on September 8 itself, it would've been a smash hit.

    Even so, those movies created a new generation of fans and convinced Paramount/CBS that the IP was still viable, leading to its current success.

    Abrams did none of that. That was ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the cast of Trek 09 actually just fucking nailing their characters. Trek 09 was a ho hum stupid action movie that the Trek characters got shoehorned into. Take them out and it would have been a VERY different movie. STID was just objectively terrible, but again, you had the characters, though they were notably worse for various reasons, and STID was a bad paint by numbers "reboot" of Wrath of Khan, with absolutely no understanding of what made that movie work. GOD I hate STID.

    Then, when it comes to Star Wars, he actually managed to make the prequels look good. So I guess there is something.

    I mean, the two best movies that I can think of he's been involved in were Armageddon, which was just summer fare (and again, carried by the cast) and... Cloverfield? Which was alright. I think mostly served by being somewhat of a novel approach, but sure I'll give him credit for that one.

    The best thing I can say about Abrams so far, is that he doesn't appear to be a massive jackass like Joss Whedon. That's worth a lot.

    RichyCommander ZoomStrikorNightslyrCidTheSquid
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    It's weird to say someone "saved" Star Trek when the people who watched the first movie didn't watch the second and aren't the same people watching the shows now.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    Trek '09, and to a certain extent ID as well, were his audition tape for the sequel trilogy.
    Back when TFA was all we had of the latter, I was like "well, at least he seems to understand SW; pity he had to fck up the other 'Star' IP to get the project he's actually a good fit for."
    (And then...)

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • MancingtomMancingtom Registered User regular
    It's weird to say someone "saved" Star Trek when the people who watched the first movie didn't watch the second and aren't the same people watching the shows now.

    Into Darkness made $82,000,000 more at the box office than 09. It's more likely that the first one generated good word of mouth, creating goodwill that ID squandered.

    And I'd wager they likely are the people watching the shows now. Discovery has not made it to 4 seasons purely on the backs of those hate-watching it.

  • Captain UltraCaptain Ultra low resolution pictures of birds Registered User regular
    I mean, the first trek thing I watched (outside of maybe watching an episode of TNG while home sick from school a long time ago) was the Abrams movies. I ended up skipping STiD when it came to theaters but I saw '09 and Beyond, and it got me interested enough to start watching TNG a while later.

    BeNarwhal wrote: »
    I'm gonna saaaay ... over 160 launches attempted worldwide in 2019. Someone record that somewhere!
    chrono_traveller
  • initiatefailureinitiatefailure Registered User regular
    I should watch beyond again. I haven't seen it since the theatre. but it was, idk, just a bunch of fun, and i appreciated that

    I Do Design | I PSN- Subtle_Ties | 3DS: 3840-5210-2008 (Subtle)
  • DrowsDrows Registered User regular
    The movies were what got me into it, I really liked First Contact, and seeing the 09 one motivated me to try next generation. I've since watched everything.

  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited June 17
    Yeah. I mean, I am a massive Trek nerd, and I still somehow managed to avoid watching Nemesis. Nobody watched Nemesis.

    Abrams movies redefined Trek and made the franchise accessible to people who hadn't watched seven seasons and (several) movies. You can not like those movies, it's fine. I liked bits of Into Darkness and...whatever the third one was called, I forget. Beyond? They were decent movies!

    They're not going to light the world on fire, but they were fun and maybe a bit dumb and maybe not what I expected Trek to be, but they're also part of what it is.

    And people watched them all. A lot of people. Even Beyond, which definitely felt like a lagging tail to a franchise, pulled in three hundred and fifty million dollars. Nemesis, the tale end of a lagging franchise, pulled in sixty-five.

    You don't have to like Abrams Trek. But you can not deny the impact it had on revitalising the franchise, getting people interested in the franchise, getting people to pay to watch more Trek.

    And the first one is a fast paced action flick sure, but it's smart and funny and carries a lot of the spirit of adventure that the original series had. And I will sternly defend the intro sequence as one of the finest ten minutes of cinematic Trek available.

    And you can't look at that and say it happenned despite Abrams. The dude is part of the process of the way those films were made.Yeah, the actors nailed it across the board. And the set designers too. And maybe the writing doesn't hang together perfectly, but you know what, it works, it propels you long enough that it doesn't matter, because we're not watching The Red Violin, we're watching space heroes save the damn galaxy.

    (Do I enjoy picking holes in the movie? Of course. Does it matter? Of course not. People watched it in their millions.)

    Do I think having a love of Trek can help make a good Trek movie? Sure. Can it make a dreadful, self referential movie that nobody but TruFans(tm) care for? Also yes. Was the first nuTrek a good movie? Absolutely.

    And that movie single-handedly resuscitated the franchise.

    So here we are. You may not like the Abrams movies. And you may not like their vision of Trek. And you may not like the visions fo Trek being put out in the wake of those movies. And you may not like that the audience watching those visions is doing so, but they are, and thank goodness, because it means we have four different Trek series coming into TV right now, instead of none.

    And for that, I owe JJ Abrams a beer. Or at least, forgiveness for getting me to watch Lost.

    CroakerBC on
    MancingtomKetarTryCatcherMaclay
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    It's weird to say someone "saved" Star Trek when the people who watched the first movie didn't watch the second and aren't the same people watching the shows now.

    Into Darkness made $82,000,000 more at the box office than 09. It's more likely that the first one generated good word of mouth, creating goodwill that ID squandered.

    And I'd wager they likely are the people watching the shows now. Discovery has not made it to 4 seasons purely on the backs of those hate-watching it.

    ooohhh I don't know about that.
    Nobody hates Star Trek quite like Star Trek fans.

    sig.gif
    chrono_traveller
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    And that movie single-handedly resuscitated the franchise.

    I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced you're right.

    Given the nostalgia push in Hollywood well before 09, I think it was inevitable that someone would resuscitate the franchise. Would it have been as high profile as Abrams? Probably not. But would it have been a better conduit to more product? Maybe.

    I get that Abrams was first, and it's all hypothetical. My issue is more that I think a revising of Trek was both inevitable, and that others could have accomplished similar end results, and so Abrams doesn't deserve to be seen as some kind of genius in that regard.

    CidTheSquid
  • MancingtomMancingtom Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    It's weird to say someone "saved" Star Trek when the people who watched the first movie didn't watch the second and aren't the same people watching the shows now.

    Into Darkness made $82,000,000 more at the box office than 09. It's more likely that the first one generated good word of mouth, creating goodwill that ID squandered.

    And I'd wager they likely are the people watching the shows now. Discovery has not made it to 4 seasons purely on the backs of those hate-watching it.

    ooohhh I don't know about that.
    Nobody hates Star Trek quite like Star Trek fans.

    4je4e0ez1j3i.png


    I once thought this was hyperbolic.

    I was once a fool.

    autono-wally, erotibot300HerrCronMorganVKetarchrono_travellerCambiataHahnsoo1MsAnthropyCommander ZoomemnmnmeRichyhlprmnkyStrikorAbsoluteZeroTryCatcherexisQuantum TigerMegaMan001Kipling217NightslyrJandaruboogedybooGnizmoGiantGeek2020Happy Little MachineMvrckCidTheSquidKana
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited June 17
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Abrams just kills anything he's ever touched.

    listen i'm happy to knock Abrams but lets not be silly here

    Films:
    He Co-Wrote Armageddon which was wildly successful
    He Directed Mission Impossible 3 (a very good movie) and produces on it now, 7 is about to come out
    He directed Star Trek 2009 which was a large success and kicked off a entire new era of trek (whether you like it or not is a different discussion)
    He Directed Star Wars 7, which again was extremely successful (and again, love or hate, different convo)
    He produced Clovervield and Overlord which were also successes

    TV:
    Felicity ran for 5 seasons which he directed, produced, wrote, and created
    Alias ran for 4 seasons, which he directed, produced, wrote, and created
    Lost ran for 6 seasons, which he directed, produced, wrote, and created
    Fringe ran for 6 seasons, which he produced, wrote, and created
    Person of Interest ran for 5 seasons, which he produced
    Westworld is still ongoing, which he produces

    Theatre:
    The Play That Goes Wrong, he produced the Broadway version, and it's extremely good


    but yes yes, I forgot, JJ Abrams just kills anything he's ever touched

    (and I'm ignoring a bunch of his career!)

    Hardtarget on
    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    JacobkoshHarry DresdenGnizmo
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    And that movie single-handedly resuscitated the franchise.

    I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced you're right.

    Given the nostalgia push in Hollywood well before 09, I think it was inevitable that someone would resuscitate the franchise. Would it have been as high profile as Abrams? Probably not. But would it have been a better conduit to more product? Maybe.

    I get that Abrams was first, and it's all hypothetical. My issue is more that I think a revising of Trek was both inevitable, and that others could have accomplished similar end results, and so Abrams doesn't deserve to be seen as some kind of genius in that regard.

    I wouldn't say it resuscitated the franchise; there's a reason Star Trek 4 went into development hell.

    What brought Trek back is Paramount being short on IP and desperately needing something to justify a monthly subscription fee for CBS All Access/Paramount+

    MorganVDanHibikishrykeStrikorGnizmoCidTheSquid
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Alias ran for 5 seasons, but given the shakeup (one main character out, two shoehorned in), I can understand the miscount.

    Alias was a great early example of the problem most people have with Abrams though. Cool concept, cool construction, cool worldbuilding, no idea how to conclude in a satisfactory manner.

    Also, Fringe only ran 5. And IMO had a similar problem.

    I like how most of his shows start, but I have zero interest in any projects where he's a hands-on showrunner/writer, and not just an ideas guy. He always seems to need a supervisor.

    MsAnthropyCidTheSquid
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Alias ran for 5 seasons, but given the shakeup (one main character out, two shoehorned in), I can understand the miscount.

    Alias was a great early example of the problem most people have with Abrams though. Cool concept, cool construction, cool worldbuilding, no idea how to conclude in a satisfactory manner.

    Also, Fringe only ran 5. And IMO had a similar problem.

    I like how most of his shows start, but I have zero interest in any projects where he's a hands-on showrunner/writer, and not just an ideas guy. He always seems to need a supervisor.

    I think he's transitioned to more of that now from what I can tell looking at his filmography but who knows after star wars

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    MorganV
  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Here's an interesting theory video I just stumbled upon: Is Sisko part of Section 31? There's a surprisingly compelling argument to be made there.


    I think that Section 31 (in DS9) is less an organization, and more a philosophy, so agreeing with the goals and acting accordingly is all that is needed to become an "operative", and Sisko is definitely an ends justify the means kind of guy.

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    And that movie single-handedly resuscitated the franchise.

    I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced you're right.

    Given the nostalgia push in Hollywood well before 09, I think it was inevitable that someone would resuscitate the franchise. Would it have been as high profile as Abrams? Probably not. But would it have been a better conduit to more product? Maybe.

    I get that Abrams was first, and it's all hypothetical. My issue is more that I think a revising of Trek was both inevitable, and that others could have accomplished similar end results, and so Abrams doesn't deserve to be seen as some kind of genius in that regard.

    I think ANY Trek (especially revisiting ToS) that was even marginally competent would have revived the franchise. It wasn't a lack of interest in the IP that killed it, it was just a combination of factors. The later TNG movies just weren't that good, didn't have the nostalgia factor the TOS movies had to get going, and Enterprise was incredibly ho hum. (My personal opinion is it tried to ride too hard the *nudge nudge wink wink Trek references to things you know* line, and not enough to the story telling. Reed alert.. har har).

    What I'm getting at here, is that Trek 09 succeeded in SPITE of JJ Abrams.

    As to STID being commercially successful, yeah of course. Again, Trek itself is wildly popular in the American psyche. Most people don't nerd out about it like us, but TOS and TNG especially were hugely popular, especially in syndication. But that doesn't make STID even a decent movie. To quote Nicholas Meyer about STID: "In my sort of artistic worldview, if you're going to do an homage, you have to add something. You have to put another layer on it, and they didn't. Just by putting the same words in different characters' mouths didn't add up to anything, and if you have someone dying in one scene and sort of being resurrected immediately after, there's no real drama going on. It just becomes a gimmick or gimmicky, and that's what I found it to be, ultimately."

    MorganV
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yeah. I mean, I am a massive Trek nerd, and I still somehow managed to avoid watching Nemesis. Nobody watched Nemesis

    Nemesis is worth watching if only for the ship duel. Tip: if people are on screen and neither Data not Donatra are among them, fast forward.

  • MancingtomMancingtom Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yeah. I mean, I am a massive Trek nerd, and I still somehow managed to avoid watching Nemesis. Nobody watched Nemesis

    Nemesis is worth watching if only for the ship duel. Tip: if people are on screen and neither Data not Donatra are among them, fast forward.

    It looked pretty, but I can't get over the idea that the Enterprise can only fire phasers for like 12 seconds before...running out of ammo. This is 4 years after the Dominion War and the whole idea of the Sovereign-class is "the Galaxy but it can kick ass."

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    Yeah. I mean, I am a massive Trek nerd, and I still somehow managed to avoid watching Nemesis. Nobody watched Nemesis

    Nemesis is worth watching if only for the ship duel. Tip: if people are on screen and neither Data not Donatra are among them, fast forward.

    It looked pretty, but I can't get over the idea that the Enterprise can only fire phasers for like 12 seconds before...running out of ammo. This is 4 years after the Dominion War and the whole idea of the Sovereign-class is "the Galaxy but it can kick ass."

    It was the last fight in ST VI but... not nearly as good. Honestly, other than maybe the stuff in First Contact... and the lighting in Generations.. sort of... most of the TNG movies ship stuff was amazingly bad considering the budget they had to throw at it.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    On Abrams, I get that the whole Star Wars drama is a thing, and I get that a lot of people will never forgive Abrams for that, but there was a lot of other factors related to that mess.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 17
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    shryke on
    TryCatcherMancingtomCommander ZoomInquisitor77ShadowenRichyJacobkoshSnicketysnickDark_SideNightslyrboogedybooThirithGiantGeek2020Kana
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    Cambiata
  • PailryderPailryder Registered User regular
    i do wonder how much star power benedict pulled into Into Darkness

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    I'd have been excited for a Tarantino Star Trek 15 or 20 years ago, but the man's lost a step. The substance of his older movies—genre movies about genre movies—make them worthwhile despite his crass obsessions. That's just not the case anymore.

    Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.


    Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.

    Abrams is not that bad, is just a mediocrity, his movies are ok-ish summer blockbusters.

    Tarantino would be actively awful, but then I think that his crass, infantile schtick is unsufferable. Everything he does is the same black humour gorefest with feet fetishism.

    Well, first, I think you're outright wrong about Tarantino. Nothing, nothing about the first twenty minutes of Inglorious is either crass or infantile; I don't know that it's the most dead-serious, terrifying twenty minutes of (fictional) film I've ever seen, but it's pretty close:



    Second, even were he predisposed to make Pulp Trek, Paramount isn't going to just give Tarantino the keys to the house and tell him to have fun. There will be significant studio involvement, in no small part because they don't want Tarantino to turn Trek into a hard-R (double entendre intended) franchise, and such would curb his worst impulses. But I don't think they'd have to use the reins all that heavily; across every movie Tarantino's ever made, I can count the number of characters who were good people on one hand, which heavily colors the sort of movies and stories he tells. That's not what Trek is, and seeing Tarantino apply his talents to a story about fundamentally good people would be fascinating.

    uH3IcEi.png
    Cambiataautono-wally, erotibot300That_Guy
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    Commander ZoomRichyHarry DresdenNightslyr
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    also he gives no fucks about time or distance or logic or anything that would get in the way of putting the visual he wants up on the screen.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    shrykeJacobkoshHarry DresdenSnicketysnickNightslyrMvrck
  • MsAnthropyMsAnthropy The Lady of Pain Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm The City of FlowersRegistered User regular
    edited June 18
    shryke wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    Abrams had 3-5x the budget in inflation adjusted dollars for his movie compared to VI and II. A big part of why it did so well is that it was the first Trek movie since TMP to have an actual reasonable budget for a sci-fi film. Which makes it easier to forego a lot of work on character, themes, etc.

    MsAnthropy on
    "The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    MsAnthropy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    Abrams had 3-5x the budget in inflation adjusted dollars for his movie compared to VI and II. A big part of why it did so well is that it was the first Trek movie since TMP to have an actual reasonable budget for a sci-fi film. Which makes it easier to forego a lot of work on character, themes, etc.

    You seem to be arguing not just that character development only happens if you don't have enough money to keep splashing it all over the screen, but that the nonstop shallow spectacle is actually how it should be?

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    I think you can look at Wrath of Khan (especially) and Undiscovered Country and see excellent, character driven film.

    But I can suggest, firstly, that character driven film is not always the best cinema, and that even if it were, ‘09 brings its own. The triangle relationship between Spock-McCoy-Kirk. Kirk’s rebellious nature, chiselled into something harder by the demands of command. Spock, the half-human loner, looking for and refusing connection, trying not to sob in the pits of the science institute. The flashes we see of the ensemble - Uhura’s banter and determination, Sulu’s courage, illuminate those characters in decisive strokes.

    You can’t establish a crew as well as they did, without that character work. It’s there.

    Theme is harder to unpick, but I think the through-line of ‘09 is about friendship and duty. It’s not subtle, but it’s not trying to be, and that’s no bad thing.

    I think ‘09 has a plot, but I don’t find it’s characters to be ciphers, or the subtext it does have too tricky to dig into. It may not live on the same level as Khan or UC as drama, but it does what it wants, and it’s a story that I think certainly has soul. They’re not just there to sell merch and popcorn.

    Like I say, maybe we experienced it differently. That’s cool!

    CambiataTryCatcherhlprmnky
  • MsAnthropyMsAnthropy The Lady of Pain Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm The City of FlowersRegistered User regular
    MsAnthropy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    Abrams had 3-5x the budget in inflation adjusted dollars for his movie compared to VI and II. A big part of why it did so well is that it was the first Trek movie since TMP to have an actual reasonable budget for a sci-fi film. Which makes it easier to forego a lot of work on character, themes, etc.

    You seem to be arguing not just that character development only happens if you don't have enough money to keep splashing it all over the screen, but that the nonstop shallow spectacle is actually how it should be?

    Nope, I really am not making that argument. I suppose I should have said that it is easier for something to be financially successful )in whole or in part) through ‘pew pew pew’ if you have money to actually have cool ‘pew pew pew’?

    "The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Mancingtom wrote: »
    I'd have been excited for a Tarantino Star Trek 15 or 20 years ago, but the man's lost a step. The substance of his older movies—genre movies about genre movies—make them worthwhile despite his crass obsessions. That's just not the case anymore.

    Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.


    Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.

    Abrams is not that bad, is just a mediocrity, his movies are ok-ish summer blockbusters.

    Tarantino would be actively awful, but then I think that his crass, infantile schtick is unsufferable. Everything he does is the same black humour gorefest with feet fetishism.

    Well, first, I think you're outright wrong about Tarantino. Nothing, nothing about the first twenty minutes of Inglorious is either crass or infantile; I don't know that it's the most dead-serious, terrifying twenty minutes of (fictional) film I've ever seen, but it's pretty close:



    Second, even were he predisposed to make Pulp Trek, Paramount isn't going to just give Tarantino the keys to the house and tell him to have fun. There will be significant studio involvement, in no small part because they don't want Tarantino to turn Trek into a hard-R (double entendre intended) franchise, and such would curb his worst impulses. But I don't think they'd have to use the reins all that heavily; across every movie Tarantino's ever made, I can count the number of characters who were good people on one hand, which heavily colors the sort of movies and stories he tells. That's not what Trek is, and seeing Tarantino apply his talents to a story about fundamentally good people would be fascinating.

    Tarantino's like Edgar Wright, if he's not calling the shots he's walking out the door. Under those conditions there's no Tarantino movie.

    Abrams' is a terrible director, but he's never made such a mean spirited, misogynist movie like Hateful Eight.

    Dark_Side
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    I'm not gonna say it'll actually make for good TV, but at least on paper it makes sense that Q would continue showing up in Picard's life.

    Sure, but this only reinforces for me that the whole concept was terrible from the beginning. That final scene with Q, with him done up in all the Encounter at Farpoint regalia? That was the perfect way to cap off that storyline and relationship. I have precisely no doubts that this will fail to live up to that.

    If they really wanted to reuse Q, I would have been interested to see how the Abrams crew dealt with him; Quinto's Spock playing against DeLancie could have been really great. But Q doesn't blow shit up, so it was not to be.

    “The trial never ends…”

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    CambiataShadowenchrono_travellerHappy Little Machine
Sign In or Register to comment.