If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Today)   J.J Abrams says he was never a big fan of Star Trek. Yeah, we can tell   (today.com) divider line 211
    More: Obvious, J.J. Abrams  
•       •       •

3321 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 May 2013 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 01:27:58 PM  
Source material was crap and campy, he made it much better and palatable for anyone who's not a shut-in nerd or pedophile


Suck it, trekkies.
 
2013-05-13 01:32:48 PM  
The new Star Trek movies are fine.
 
2013-05-13 01:33:59 PM  

Tatsuma: Suck it, trekkies.


I'm a Trekkie and I like the reboot. From what I've heard of the sequel, I'm on the fence, reserving judgement until I see it.
 
2013-05-13 01:43:42 PM  
when he did the first movie, he had an interview with a local film reviewer and Abrams, to paraphrase, was like, "yeah i know i'm diong stuff the purists will disagree with.  'Did you see where he put the Jeffries Tubes?  that was so lame!'  I really don't care.  It isn't like I sit around reading 'Nacelles Quarterly', or anything."

oh snap!
 
2013-05-13 01:53:13 PM  

rickythepenguin: when he did the first movie, he had an interview with a local film reviewer and Abrams, to paraphrase, was like, "yeah i know i'm diong stuff the purists will disagree with.  'Did you see where he put the Jeffries Tubes?  that was so lame!'  I really don't care.  It isn't like I sit around reading 'Nacelles Quarterly', or anything."

oh snap!


Nor did he ever watch a Star Trek episode, so it seems.

Thankfully, he's not doing Star Trek movies, just generic space movies and Paramount is slapping the Star Trek name on them.

/I can't wait until the hack shiats on Star Wars in the same way.
 
2013-05-13 01:55:55 PM  
No one could kill Star Trek anymore than Rick Berman did.
 
2013-05-13 01:55:56 PM  
I like the reboot, you know who must have hated Star Trek?  Shatner
 
2013-05-13 01:56:55 PM  
I'm on the fence on this one as well.  I can handle some small plot holes, but things that will make me avoid this movie:

Overuse of shaky cam.  Overuse of lens flare.  Overuse of out of focus action sequences.
 
2013-05-13 01:57:06 PM  
Shatner hated Star Trek
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-13 01:58:16 PM  

Outrageous Muff: No one could kill Star Trek anymore than Rick Berman did.


Preach it!

/The reboots still aren't ST films
 
2013-05-13 01:59:05 PM  
Other than the harrowing Iowa cliffs and Lens Flare All The Things, the JJ abrams star trek was an enjoyable movie.
 
2013-05-13 01:59:41 PM  

Relatively Obscure: The new Star Trek movies are fine.


This one is not.
/need Sybok to help me release my pain
 
2013-05-13 02:04:08 PM  
Aren't the movies "alternate timeline" anyway?  None of what happens in the is canon, so he should have a free hand, and the fans shouldn't biatch about it.

/Trek fan, but only TNG on forward (forward, "star date" wise)
 
2013-05-13 02:04:12 PM  
FirstnationBastard " Thankfully, he's not doing Star Trek movies, just generic space movies and Paramount is slapping the Star Trek name on them."

Exactly. Abrams is creating his own story and slapping familiar names on everything to make it easier to market and make money off of. It's like making a western where the evil mayor is named Palpatine and the stage coach is the Millennium Falcon, It's not Star Wars but you'll make a few bucks off it.
 
2013-05-13 02:04:37 PM  

Tax Boy: Other than the harrowing Iowa cliffs and Lens Flare All The Things, the JJ abrams star trek was an enjoyable movie.


I didn't even notice the lens flares until it became a sort of Fark meme.

Love the reboot. The original movies were incredibly campy and boring. I like to compare this reboot with the BSG reboot, and what that did for the franchise, disregarding disagreements about the finale.
 
2013-05-13 02:06:57 PM  
Star Trek = diverse spaceship crew getting into adventures. That's all it ever was and ever should be.
 
2013-05-13 02:08:19 PM  

RodneyToady: None of what happens in the is canon, so he should have a free hand, and the fans shouldn't biatch about it.


It's canon, but it doesn't violate the original canon, being in an alternate timeline and all.

Only thing is there are certain things that will happen in the new timeline regardless, unless Spock Prime starts telling everyone how to stop a giant, ocean-draining whale probe.
 
2013-05-13 02:09:51 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Star Trek = diverse spaceship crew getting into adventures. That's all it ever was and ever should be.


So Futurama?
 
2013-05-13 02:10:40 PM  

The Banana Thug: Love the reboot. The original movies were incredibly campy and boring. I like to compare this reboot with the BSG reboot, and what that did for the franchise, disregarding disagreements about the finale.


I liked the reboot and look forward to this latest film, but I also thought "The Wrath of Khan" was brilliant and "The Search for Spock" was pretty damned good.
 
2013-05-13 02:11:09 PM  
Not a big an of the Abram's Trek, but it's there's a bigger issue as a whole with all these reboots and remakes we see these days. People are writing these generic scripts and almost tacking on third party IP almost as an afterthought.  It makes sense in some cases where you take some old nearly forgotten piece of IP and loosely base your new stuff on it(like the BSG). But rebooting(Spider Man) or stripping for parts(Star Trek) very recent stuff that was at least somewhat successful is getting to be a bit of a stretch. The new Spiderman movie didn't really do much beyond than the last ones a few years ago. You could have replaced the Star Trek names and references with say Babylon 5 or even new stuff without really changing much of the story at all and really had the same movie. People are afraid to come up with new stuff. Avatar may not have been great and the overall plot derivative(but that can be said by so many movies), but at least they came up with an original back story and characters instead of buying existing ones and tacking them on.

The bright side is that since nothing new really comes out much, there's no reason to go to the movies and money is saved.
 
2013-05-13 02:13:39 PM  
This is the series of beloved films in which Kirk and Spock travel through time to find a talking whale that can save the universe, correct? Pretty compelling stuff. Hope Abrams stays true to canon.
 
2013-05-13 02:14:38 PM  
He was/is a Star Wars fan that got handed Star Trek and Star Wars'd it up.
 
2013-05-13 02:19:23 PM  
FirstNationalBastard:
/I can't wait until the hack shiats on Star Wars in the same way.

I'm not worried about that. Wasn't one of the common criticisms of the first flick was that it a pretty good Star Wars film?
 
2013-05-13 02:20:28 PM  

bsharitt: Not a big an of the Abram's Trek, but it's there's a bigger issue as a whole with all these reboots and remakes we see these days. People are writing these generic scripts and almost tacking on third party IP almost as an afterthought.  It makes sense in some cases where you take some old nearly forgotten piece of IP and loosely base your new stuff on it(like the BSG). But rebooting(Spider Man) or stripping for parts(Star Trek) very recent stuff that was at least somewhat successful is getting to be a bit of a stretch. The new Spiderman movie didn't really do much beyond than the last ones a few years ago. You could have replaced the Star Trek names and references with say Babylon 5 or even new stuff without really changing much of the story at all and really had the same movie. People are afraid to come up with new stuff. Avatar may not have been great and the overall plot derivative(but that can be said by so many movies), but at least they came up with an original back story and characters instead of buying existing ones and tacking them on.

The bright side is that since nothing new really comes out much, there's no reason to go to the movies and money is saved.


Can I get an Amen!
 
2013-05-13 02:25:17 PM  

Outrageous Muff: No one could kill Star Trek anymore than Rick Berman did.


Fark you Rick Berman.
 
2013-05-13 02:26:42 PM  

Tatsuma: Source material was crap and campy, he made it much better and palatable for anyone who's not a shut-in nerd or pedophile


Suck it, trekkies.


Did you really just compare Star Trek fans to pedophiles?   Really?
 
2013-05-13 02:27:48 PM  
I like the reboot.

I thought the old ones were silly and dated anyway and I can't Shatner...
 
2013-05-13 02:27:53 PM  
As a long time Star Trek fan, the reboots were just what the franchise needed.
 
2013-05-13 02:28:36 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: rickythepenguin: when he did the first movie, he had an interview with a local film reviewer and Abrams, to paraphrase, was like, "yeah i know i'm diong stuff the purists will disagree with.  'Did you see where he put the Jeffries Tubes?  that was so lame!'  I really don't care.  It isn't like I sit around reading 'Nacelles Quarterly', or anything."

oh snap!

Nor did he ever watch a Star Trek episode, so it seems.


Why, should he have?
 
2013-05-13 02:28:58 PM  

Tax Boy: Other than the harrowing Iowa cliffs and Lens Flare All The Things, the JJ abrams star trek was an enjoyable movie.


But he was listening to totally awesome Beastie Boys!
 
2013-05-13 02:30:05 PM  

RodneyToady: Aren't the movies "alternate timeline" anyway?  None of what happens in the is canon, so he should have a free hand, and the fans shouldn't biatch about it.

/Trek fan, but only TNG on forward (forward, "star date" wise)


"Trekkies" seem a lot whinier over getting more Trek than Firefly fans are over not getting more Firefly.
 
2013-05-13 02:33:49 PM  
I guess that would explain picking Chris Pine to play Kirk...
 
2013-05-13 02:33:54 PM  

Dhusk: Did you really just compare Star Trek fans to pedophiles? Really?


Not all Star Trek fans are pedophiles, but it sure seems like all pedophiles are Star Trek fans.

Star Trek: Not pedophilia, but #1 with pedophiles
 
2013-05-13 02:34:39 PM  
Old news is old, subby.

Also, get over it.
 
2013-05-13 02:35:33 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: I sit around reading 'Nacelles Quarterly',



by the way, while i'm foggy on the quote, i'm 99.999 percent sure he actually said "Nacelles Quarterly".
 
2013-05-13 02:35:51 PM  

Tatsuma: Dhusk: Did you really just compare Star Trek fans to pedophiles? Really?

Not all Star Trek fans are pedophiles, but it sure seems like all pedophiles are Star Trek fans.

Star Trek: Not pedophilia, but #1 with pedophiles


Don't strain yourself while try to troll that much.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:08 PM  
The last two Tng movies made me tap out. I enjoyed First Contact though.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:20 PM  
I've never seen a single frame of any Star Trek show or movie other than the reboot. I liked it and am looking forward to the sequel.

If "real Trekkers" disagree, I really don't give a damn.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:32 PM  

Tatsuma: Dhusk: Did you really just compare Star Trek fans to pedophiles? Really?

Not all Star Trek fans are pedophiles, but it sure seems like all pedophiles are Star Trek fans.

Star Trek: Not pedophilia, but #1 with pedophiles


...or maybe someone who's obsessed with pedophilia himself seeing pedophilia everywhere.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:51 PM  
bsharitt:

The bright side is that since nothing new really comes out much, there's no reason to go to the movies and money is saved.

There's only two original stories out there, the party sets off on an adventure, and a stranger comes to town. Everything else is a remake of something that's come before.
 
2013-05-13 02:38:31 PM  

mjohnson71: Don't strain yourself while try to troll that much.


I actually posted an article backing it, replete with facts.

Do you have something against science?
 
2013-05-13 02:39:05 PM  

PanicMan: As a long time Star Trek fan, the reboots were just what the franchise needed.


This.
 
2013-05-13 02:40:14 PM  

PsyLord: Overuse of shaky cam.


Sweet Jebus, thank you.  In the first remake, after Kirk has that bar fight and the admiral is trying to get him to join Starfleet, I remember wondering why the view is floating around like the cameraman is swatting at flies offscreen.
 
2013-05-13 02:41:18 PM  

havocmike: I've never seen a single frame of any Star Trek show or movie other than the reboot. I liked it and am looking forward to the sequel.

If "real Trekkers" disagree, I really don't give a damn.


You already have every movie Michael Bay has made.  Why do you need Trek?
 
2013-05-13 02:41:46 PM  

Highroller48: PanicMan: As a long time Star Trek fan, the reboots were just what the franchise needed.

This.


Yep.
 
2013-05-13 02:42:07 PM  

Tatsuma: Source material was crap and campy, he made it much better and palatable for anyone who's not a shut-in nerd or pedophile


Suck it, trekkies.


It was a bad film. Just plain bad plotting, no depth, all flash and bang. That is not what star trek is about, that is what Transformers movies are about.

The writer (I don't know if was Abrams) crammed so much character introduction into the storyline that he forgot to tell a story. The result was a flat conflict, with a forgettable villain with forgettable motives. No development or arc at all for the secondary characters, and very little for the primary characters.

Sure the action sequences were visually great. Nor do I begrudge the writers using the old "altered timeline" trope to free them to tell a new ST history. But I absolutely will begrudge lazy plotting, flat characters, and substitution of depth for splo-splosions.

Despite your bashing of classic trek, what made it great was the storytelling. Look at Wrath of Khan: it mixed classic man vs man conflict with a relatable internal conflict about growing old and facing the inevitability of mortality and loss. It borrowed seamlessly from Shakespeare and Melville to give the story a timeless resonance. And on a shoestring budget, it had tense action scenes that to this day hold up against anything Abrams can dish out.

In fact, I would put the drama and action in WoK against the reboot and say WoK easily wins. Why? Because TOS made you care about the characters. Unless writers and actors make you care about the characters, no amount of money you dump into special effects will get you personally invested in the tension. The SFX wears on the senses, and grows boring.

I hope that a lot of the flaws from the first movie will be cured with this one, since they don't have to worry about establishing who is who in this one. But based on early reviews, I am not optimistic.
 
2013-05-13 02:42:56 PM  
Star Trek is a TV show at it's heart. Up to Abrams, all the movies were terrible. His wasn't terrible.
 
2013-05-13 02:43:03 PM  

You Are All Sheep: He was/is a Star Wars fan that got handed Star Trek and Star Wars'd it up.


Yep. And I find the people who go, "He made it better than the sucky original, nerds," were never Star Trek fans to begin with but Star Wars fans. So, of course, they are going to like it now. Abrams turned it into a lens flare version of what they like.

/saw Abrams' take on Star Trek
//needed a Wookie to be complete
 
2013-05-13 02:44:34 PM  

Detinwolf: Tax Boy: Other than the harrowing Iowa cliffs and Lens Flare All The Things, the JJ abrams star trek was an enjoyable movie.

But he was listening to totally awesome Beastie Boys!


The Beasties Intergalatic has "Mr Spock" in the lyrics.

But in the movie Mr Spock is a real person who lived in the 23d century

But Intergalatic came out in 1998.

MIND BLOWN

/oh wait. Star Trek 4: Save the Whales with time-travelling Spock.
//Never mind.
 
2013-05-13 02:44:53 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report