Jump to content

JJ Abrams is set to ruin another scify icon


Recommended Posts

Love Star Wars and Star Trek, Abrams hasn't and won't ruin anything.

People need to lay off the haterade especially when it comes to saying he ruined Trek movies...Trek movies in general aren't much to write home about.

Edited by camaroz06
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never been a Trek fan but I thought they did a decent job with the new one. Have it a story that made it work in a somewhat believable way. Instead of just remaking it like every other movie.

It'll all depend on the writing and story they go with as to whether the new Star Wars will be any good. At least they got a name director and not someone no one has ever heard of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never been a Trek fan but I thought they did a decent job with the new one. Have it a story that made it work in a somewhat believable way. Instead of just remaking it like every other movie.

As an entertaining movie on its own, 2009 Trek was fine. Abram's task was to take a cultural icon and remake it so that it was marketable to a larger, younger, general audience..a demographic heavily influenced by recent Star Wars iterations. He was successful in this task.

However, as the commercial used to say, "This is not your father's Oldsmobile." In remaking Trek, they took what was an established fiction universe, a universe that passionate fans had grown up with, identified with, and emotionally invested in for almost half a century, and completely turned it on its head. I am one of those. I have been watching Star Trek since it was originally aired when I was in elementary school. In and around all of the action and adventure, there was a consistent theme....a vision of a future to aspire to...one in which we had overcome most of the problems of our social and technological adolescence, one where we had matured as species and were venturing out into the cosmic ocean to explore and work together with other newly discovered space fairing species. Although imperfect throughout and always somewhat compromised by the "corporate suits" in pursuit of a broader audience, the original creators and producers of Star Trek resisted and largely kept the faith throughout the entire run of series and movies, up to and including Enterprise with Scott Bakula. It is the appeal of this vision, established in the original series and re-enforced afterwards, combined with charismatic actors and mostly good writing, that are largely responsible for Trek's greatness and longevity.

In the 2009 film, so much of what came before was just thrown out the window as excess baggage. Established fans who had grown up with Trek and lived with it their entire lives, are naturally upset. To some of those fans, the original Trek timeline stopped with the events of the TNG movies.

But maybe it was time to move on. Maybe the change was needed to keep the concept relevant and carry it on to a new generation of fans. Original Trek had largely said what it set out to say with five separate series representing 28 years of programming and 10 movies. If new Trek excites younger fans, and those fans go back at some point and watch some of what came before (maybe when they get a bit older and can appreciate it)..then that is not a bad thing.

As far as believability goes, that was one of classic Trek's strengths. A good deal of effort was put into the consistency of design elements, politics, technology, and engineering concepts. Some of these (like the transporter, and to some degree, warp drive) are necessary plot devices. And of course episodic writing, by its very nature, often results in some unevenness in execution. In the 2009 movie, since you reference it as believable, contains an obvious plot device...red matter. The red matter advances the story by its use to produce a causality, allowing the bad guy Nero to jack up the entire timeline of Trek, resulting in the "reboot." Old Kirk and the original Enterprise ship and crew now never existed......only old Spock has been spared as he was involved. As soon as I saw the red matter, a red alert went off in my head..."plot device...plot device." However, the average person just goes along with it and finds it believable, not knowing any better. Now, having said that, Trek has always used time travel as a plot device, like many other science fiction shows. I have no problem with it as it allows a writer to get creative and have fun...but lets recognize it for what it is. The problem with Abrams Trek is it used it to such a large degree that it undid almost everything that had come before. Suddenly, classic Trek is no longer relevant in our little fictional universe. You have a bunch of young whipper-snappers on screen pretending to be Kirk and Spock, and older fans like myself are saying, "Whaaaat? What happened?" It feels as if we are being kicked to the curb along with our beloved classic Trek universe.

Personally, instead of JJ Trek, I would like to have seen a sequel to Scott Bakulas Enterprise, focusing on the geo-political development of the Federation.....the events leading up to the Romulan Wars. There is a lot of room for story development there, especially if some of the best ideas presented in the Trek novels are mined.

You are going to read this and likely say to yourself, "What a nerd/geek. I'll bet you never miss an episode of The Big Bang Theory either." You would be right.

Edited by DutyCat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thoughts Dutycat.

In the case of Star Wars, I DON'T want to see Abrahams or Disney do a reboot. I want to see them go Star Wars retro, closer to the origional 77 film in look. Not only the "used universe" look but more practical effects and miniatures as well. Obviously CGI will be used but it should be used with care and not to tell the story. R2 and 3PO need to be real actors in costume and not digital (remember the video-game look of the Geonosis droid factory in AoTC :wacko: ). I want to see miniature walkers (Hoth ESB) shot in scale with actual physics and not robotic animated chickens. We don't need CGI charachters just to prove we can push the technology (Yoda puppet from ESB was believable, a light saber jumping one from the Prequals not so much) I want real Wookie fur and Hutts made of laytex and jello, fat women, stuntmen on stilts and dwarves playing aliens in costume actually acting against real backgrounds and physical props. I also don't expect Shakespere but some non-wooden dialog for an audience of 8-and up would be welcome. :soapbox:

Okay...breathe deeply... Back to something less intense like Game of Thrones. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an entertaining movie on its own, 2009 Trek was fine. Abram's task was to take a cultural icon and remake it so that it was marketable to a larger, younger, general audience..a demographic heavily influenced by recent Star Wars iterations. He was successful in this task.

However, as the commercial used to say, "This is not your father's Oldsmobile."

Said thing is, they should have stuck with Dads Oldsmobile, Buick lived and Olds died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmzj87iCtyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HwTJH-RI18

Edited by Wayne S
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 2009 movie, since you reference it as believable, contains an obvious plot device...red matter. The red matter advances the story by its use to produce a causality, allowing the bad guy Nero to jack up the entire timeline of Trek, resulting in the "reboot." Old Kirk and the original Enterprise ship and crew now never existed......only old Spock has been spared as he was involved. As soon as I saw the red matter, a red alert went off in my head..."plot device...plot device." However, the average person just goes along with it and finds it believable, not knowing any better. Now, having said that, Trek has always used time travel as a plot device, like many other science fiction shows. I have no problem with it as it allows a writer to get creative and have fun...but lets recognize it for what it is. The problem with Abrams Trek is it used it to such a large degree that it undid almost everything that had come before. Suddenly, classic Trek is no longer relevant in our little fictional universe. You have a bunch of young whipper-snappers on screen pretending to be Kirk and Spock, and older fans like myself are saying, "Whaaaat? What happened?" It feels as if we are being kicked to the curb along with our beloved classic Trek universe.

Interestingly enough wasn't the genesis device just a plot device also. Also it has been said that all the movie did was create a new alternate timeline. Because I am pretty sure that when I last looked at my dvd shelf that all of the old movies were still there. I never once felt like I was beingkicked to the side. Star Trek needed somebody to breath new life into it. I do find it odd how many people complain about how action oriented the new movie was. But when you look back to most people's favorite episodes and movies most have been the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they'll make (and by whoever), for me there's only one Star Wars (trilogy, to be precise). That one they can't f**k up. George already did it anyway...

if you can F**K it up more than lucas, there should be an award or something :D/>

As long as it tells a coherent story, and isn't about "experiencing the world of star wars" like a cheap carny ride - a new star wars could be well received by fans and general public.

Id just hope Abrams remembers: effects don't tell stories; characters do B)/>

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough wasn't the genesis device just a plot device also. Also it has been said that all the movie did was create a new alternate timeline. Because I am pretty sure that when I last looked at my dvd shelf that all of the old movies were still there. I never once felt like I was beingkicked to the side. Star Trek needed somebody to breath new life into it. I do find it odd how many people complain about how action oriented the new movie was. But when you look back to most people's favorite episodes and movies most have been the same way.

except for the first movie...which was devoid of just about anything...

Generations used the nexus as its plot device just like the red matter, in the same way. resetting time, one could argue that the original timeline of the Enterprise D was destroyed when the planet was wiped out and that everything since was taking place in the "nexus"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I'm having a hard time with...

It has been confirmed by both companies that Episode VII will be an original story and not directly based on the various novels, graphic novels, or other materials in the Star Wars Expanded Universe that take place during the post-Return of the Jedi time period. This includes, most notably, Timothy Zahn's 1991 novel Heir to the Empire, the first installment in Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, which was originally considered by fans to be Episode VII.

Which tells me since Abrams is going to be Director and Producer, it's going to be like his Star Trek movie. Yeah, it was a good movie but I think it does not feel like a Star Trek movie. Just have a feeling that Episode VII will be a good movie but wouldn't feel like a Star Wars movie.

My 2 cents,

Steven L :(

Edited by FAR148
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough wasn't the genesis device just a plot device also. Also it has been said that all the movie did was create a new alternate timeline. Because I am pretty sure that when I last looked at my dvd shelf that all of the old movies were still there. I never once felt like I was beingkicked to the side. Star Trek needed somebody to breath new life into it. I do find it odd how many people complain about how action oriented the new movie was. But when you look back to most people's favorite episodes and movies most have been the same way.

Well, the new movie did create a new timeline, and even though your DVD's are still there on the shelf and you are essentially saying to me "Get a life" if I read correctly between the lines, it does not negate that they changed Trek so much that it only resembles Trek in name, basic set up, and design elements. Many of the production values that defined Trek are gone. I could give you a list of things that have just been ignored. Unfortunately, the "suits" never understood Trek. Classic Trek, by its very nature, had a limited appeal. It kept coming back to life on the studios because of a core group of very passionate fans, and just enough "average" folks around the periphery to keep it decently profitable. But it has never had the basic "good vs evil" simple appeal of Star Wars. Trek has always been a more intellectual pursuit, at least until JJ got hold of it. With classic Trek, a personal investment in understanding the history and politics of the Trek universe is required to fully appreciate it. That does not appeal to the average person, who is not a trekkie. The suits want to make Trek more like Star Wars, because the simpler they make it, the more accessible it is, and the more money they make. So how do you do that? It is a simple formula that Hollywood is very familiar with. Youth oriented, fast paced action, and sexual titillation. Movies these days are VERY expensive to make. They want to secure that 16-34 demographic that buys all of the movie tickets. To young folks who need a new shot of adrenalin every few seconds, classic Trek is boring, old school staleness.

Oh, yes....plot devices exist everywhere. No big issue with that. I was commenting on the suggestion that the new movie was more believable than classic Trek. I just don't think that is the case. Classic Trek does not have the slick production elements that newer shows have, and culturally it is a reflection of when it was produced, so it is less "relatable" to a modern audience. But as far as it basic storytelling goes, it is as believable as anything produced today, if not more so.

You mentioned people's favorite old Trek episodes being the same same as the new stuff (action packed, fast paced), but if you really think about it, classic Trek was never like that. For one thing, they didn't have the budget to support producing it in that way. Aside from that, Trek stories were usually about problem solving....coming up with a solution through smarts, logic, and intuition...often featuring morality subplot to make decision making more problematic. Many of the plot line issues had analogies in everyday life, or were forward thinking commentaries on how we could make things better in the future. An international, multi-ethnic crew on the bridge? No one would give that a second thought now, but in the 1960s, it was groundbreaking.

I watched the remastered "Balance of Terror" last night. An excellent episode and a favorite among fans. It is not a fast paced "shoot em up " Instead, it is a slowly developing cat and mouse game, similar to the "The Enemy Below" WWII Destroyer vs Sub movie. It takes the time to explore the concepts of logic vs command intuition, the larger political ramifications of acting vs failing to act, how an understanding of cultural differences provides for better decision making, the sometimes very personal origins of bigotry, and the importance of duty and honor between adversaries. If the episode were made today, it would have half as much story, and twice as much action....just what a modern audience would want.

Yeah, I will go along for the ride with the new Trek. At least it is Trek, but it is bittersweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...