Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Uproxx)   J.J. Abrams will not direct the next Star Trek movie--lens flare stock plummets   (uproxx.com) divider line 205
    More: Cool, J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, Johnson & Johnson, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Star Wars, Simon Pegg, blood  
•       •       •

2524 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Sep 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-13 12:20:05 PM  
Good. I appreciate what Abrams did to reboot the franchise and get the buzz going again, but he doesn't seem to get ST that well. Should be good to get someone who has a better handle on the franchise to play in this new world.
 
2013-09-13 12:21:02 PM  
Well at least Ep. VII is in good hands.  I came to this conclusion after watching the extras for Into Darkness on the Blu-ray the other night.  He strives for realism without using CGI, whereas Lucas CGI'd the shiat out of everything in the prequels.

Just for fun, Lucas should direct the Trek sequel, to balance out the nerdrage.
 
2013-09-13 12:24:07 PM  

DamnYankees: Good. I appreciate what Abrams did to reboot the franchise and get the buzz going again, but he doesn't seem to get ST that well. Should be good to get someone who has a better handle on the franchise to play in this new world.


I agree.  I thought he did a good thing by getting past the inertia, but they need to hire someone who "gets it."  Please god, no one from Paramount Trek from Voyager onwards.  Except hire Ron Moore to write, he'd be incredible.
 
2013-09-13 12:32:07 PM  
And the new director will be.... MICHAEL BAY!
 
2013-09-13 12:37:52 PM  
Uwe Boll.
 
2013-09-13 12:38:36 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And the new director will be.... MICHAEL BAY!


This would be beautiful. Not the movie, I mean, but the utter, pure hatred of the response.
 
2013-09-13 12:52:26 PM  
But will Lindelof, Kurtzmann, and Orci still be let near the franchise?
 
2013-09-13 12:55:04 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: DamnYankees: Good. I appreciate what Abrams did to reboot the franchise and get the buzz going again, but he doesn't seem to get ST that well. Should be good to get someone who has a better handle on the franchise to play in this new world.

I agree.  I thought he did a good thing by getting past the inertia, but they need to hire someone who "gets it."  Please god, no one from Paramount Trek from Voyager onwards.  Except hire Ron Moore to write, he'd be incredible.


I'd be OK if LeVar Burton directed it.  some of his episodes were good.
 
2013-09-13 12:55:08 PM  
Why does it seem like there's only like 5 directors in all of Hollywood?

bluorangefyre: ust for fun, Lucas should direct the Trek sequel, to balance out the nerdrage.


So, you want a walking talking Tribble to be the star of the movie?
 
2013-09-13 12:55:29 PM  

MadCat221: But will Lindelof, Kurtzmann, and Orci still be let near the franchise?


Please let that not be the case.

Especially Lindelof....I swear I don't know why people let this guy near a script after what happened with Lost.
 
2013-09-13 12:55:33 PM  
JJ was never the problem with the Trek movies. The visuals were superb, the casting was great, the set design (what we could see of it after the lens flares) was top notch. I was on board with everything. It's his Goddamn writers. Go on Craiglist or something and find some other writers for all your projects, for the love of Christ. The guys who do internet fanfic are Asimov compared to those three hacks.

It's too bad they outed Section 31 as a legitimate arm of Starfleet. That could have made a great film itself. Keeping in mind, I'm abandoning all illusions that Star Trek will ever be about actual science fiction again.
 
2013-09-13 12:56:42 PM  
What do you guys mean by getting a director who "gets it"?  All those old Star Trek movies were boring and campy.  J. J. Abrams took just the good things, and repackaged them into two movies that were accessible and damn entertaining.  I just watched "Into Darkness" the other night, what a fine movie with great acting.  Yes, lens flares galore, but I only noticed them when I thought about them.

I wasn't a J. J. Abrams fan before because I thought he got lucky by associating his name with "Lost", but after watching both new Star Trek movies, I'm now actually disappointed that he won't be at the helm for the third installment.  What is there to "get"?
 
2013-09-13 12:57:05 PM  

Mugato: JJ was never the problem with the Trek movies. The visuals were superb, the casting was great, the set design (what we could see of it after the lens flares) was top notch. I was on board with everything. It's his Goddamn writers. Go on Craiglist or something and find some other writers for all your projects, for the love of Christ. The guys who do internet fanfic are Asimov compared to those three hacks.


This lets Abrams off the hook. He has final say on this stuff. It's not like the studio went to him and said "these guys are writing your movie and you have no say in it - you just film what we say".
 
2013-09-13 12:57:28 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I agree. I thought he did a good thing by getting past the inertia, but they need to hire someone who "gets it." Please god, no one from Paramount Trek from Voyager onwards. Except hire Ron Moore to write, he'd be incredible.


I don't want anyone who "gets it" in the traditional sense of ST.  No one from the old guard should be leading this.  Involved, sure, but not writing or directing.  They killed the franchise for almost 15 years.  Voyager, Enterprise, and 3/4 of the TNG movies were disasters - critically, financially, or both.  I want someone who understands modern sci-fi, and likes to build something fairly intellectual.

They've got a fanbase back and they're making fistfuls of cash with two successes.  Now give us the next step - the flash and the style you've given us for 2 big budget movies, and add some challenging themes, writing, and a complex plot that you haven't yet given us.
 
2013-09-13 12:58:23 PM  

The Banana Thug: What do you guys mean by getting a director who "gets it"?  All those old Star Trek movies were boring and campy.  J. J. Abrams took just the good things, and repackaged them into two movies that were accessible and damn entertaining.  I just watched "Into Darkness" the other night, what a fine movie with great acting.  Yes, lens flares galore, but I only noticed them when I thought about them.

I wasn't a J. J. Abrams fan before because I thought he got lucky by associating his name with "Lost", but after watching both new Star Trek movies, I'm now actually disappointed that he won't be at the helm for the third installment.  What is there to "get"?


What's to 'get' is what Star Trek is all about. Exploration, of the universe and of our own humanity. That's the absolute baseline for what Star Trek is. If your Star Trek film or TV show isn't about that in some sense, you may be making a fine film or show, but you're missing something.
 
2013-09-13 12:58:42 PM  
I'm okay with that. The 2009 reboot was amazing, but Abrams dropped the ball big time on Into Darkness. Let someone else take a crack at it.

I'd like to say I'm on the fence about Episode VII, but I'm really not. Abrams could direct the movie over the phone while on vacation in Maui and still make a better flick than 3/4's of the prequels.

/I loved the end of Episode III, but it was too little too late.
 
2013-09-13 01:01:50 PM  

LegacyDL: MadCat221: But will Lindelof, Kurtzmann, and Orci still be let near the franchise?

Please let that not be the case.

Especially Lindelof....I swear I don't know why people let this guy near a script after what happened with Lost.


Protip for Lost: They weren't in purgatory the whole time. Some intern added the empty beach/crash site footage at the end of the final episode without consulting the showrunners.

Adjust your world view accordingly.
 
2013-09-13 01:03:23 PM  
Some people don't like new trek, but I love it.  JJ really understands characters and their motivations.  I mean, look at the emotionless Spock.  Through four hours of film, he's spent four hours screaming, fighting, and farking.  It's just a really great take on Spock.  The only way the next guy could improve is if they rastify Spock by 10%
 
2013-09-13 01:05:47 PM  

Khellendros: Benevolent Misanthrope: I agree. I thought he did a good thing by getting past the inertia, but they need to hire someone who "gets it." Please god, no one from Paramount Trek from Voyager onwards. Except hire Ron Moore to write, he'd be incredible.

I don't want anyone who "gets it" in the traditional sense of ST.  No one from the old guard should be leading this.  Involved, sure, but not writing or directing.  They killed the franchise for almost 15 years.  Voyager, Enterprise, and 3/4 of the TNG movies were disasters - critically, financially, or both.  I want someone who understands modern sci-fi, and likes to build something fairly intellectual.

They've got a fanbase back and they're making fistfuls of cash with two successes.  Now give us the next step - the flash and the style you've given us for 2 big budget movies, and add some challenging themes, writing, and a complex plot that you haven't yet given us.


Agreed. There's a reason the franchise needed a "reboot" in the first place. I absolutely love the first two movies and can't wait to see where things go from here. Now that the series is heading out to explore "strange, new worlds" I want the next movie to be far from Earth or anything familiar. I love watching these characters in this new incarnation (and it makes up for the crappy way the Blu Ray was released...that I already bought. Shut up.)

As long as the latest movie is something new and not just stealing from Wrath of Khan, we're good.

/It is welcome to steal from The Doomsday Machine
 
2013-09-13 01:05:58 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Some people don't like new trek, but I love it.  JJ really understands characters and their motivations.  I mean, look at the emotionless Spock.  Through four hours of film, he's spent four hours screaming, fighting, and farking.  It's just a really great take on Spock.  The only way the next guy could improve is if they rastify Spock by 10%


I hear this complaint a lot but don't really understand it. Yes, Spock is normally emotionless, but he has always struggled with his human side and had to work to keep his emotions in check. So stretched out over hundreds of episodes his outbursts don't seem as frequent and thus he traditionally a robot.

But movie Spock has to show character development within 2.5 hours. So he's gonna get a little worked up more often than you're used to.
 
2013-09-13 01:11:07 PM  

Esroc: Champion of the Sun: Some people don't like new trek, but I love it.  JJ really understands characters and their motivations.  I mean, look at the emotionless Spock.  Through four hours of film, he's spent four hours screaming, fighting, and farking.  It's just a really great take on Spock.  The only way the next guy could improve is if they rastify Spock by 10%

I hear this complaint a lot but don't really understand it. Yes, Spock is normally emotionless, but he has always struggled with his human side and had to work to keep his emotions in check. So stretched out over hundreds of episodes his outbursts don't seem as frequent and thus he traditionally a robot.

But movie Spock has to show character development within 2.5 hours. So he's gonna get a little worked up more often than you're used to.


Exactly. Half-human. Planet wiped out. Actions condensed in movie form. Who doesn't get this? What a weak, weak argument against the new Trek.
 
2013-09-13 01:11:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Good. I appreciate what Abrams did to reboot the franchise and get the buzz going again, but he doesn't seem to get gaping plot holes ST that well and

deus ex machina resolutions. Should be good to get someone who has a better handle on the franchise to play in this new world.
 
2013-09-13 01:14:01 PM  

Pocket Ninja: MaudlinMutantMollusk: And the new director will be.... MICHAEL BAY!

This would be beautiful. Not the movie, I mean, but the utter, pure hatred of the response.


Actually, I think this idea is the only way to repair the rift between the idiots who think ToS is the best series and the enlightened of us who enjoy the new Trek movies.
 
2013-09-13 01:14:12 PM  

DamnYankees: What's to 'get' is what Star Trek is all about. Exploration, of the universe and of our own humanity. That's the absolute baseline for what Star Trek is. If your Star Trek film or TV show isn't about that in some sense, you may be making a fine film or show, but you're missing something.


You are correct.
 
2013-09-13 01:14:17 PM  
I like JJ's take better than Roddenberry's.  Roddenberry has stated that his vision of the future has fixed all the maladies of the human condition - greed, envy, and all the stuff that makes drama compelling.  Exploration and science are cool and all, and I think the first Star Trek movie pretty much covered that base.  Watch it on loop, if you want.

Star Trek 2 has been held up as the gold standard for a reason, and while writers attempt to rehash what made it successful, JJ just does what he wants - and we like it because he's really good at what he does.
 
2013-09-13 01:14:39 PM  
BECAUSE JJ USES LENS FLARE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
AH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
media.heavy.com
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
 
2013-09-13 01:15:42 PM  

DamnYankees: Mugato: JJ was never the problem with the Trek movies. The visuals were superb, the casting was great, the set design (what we could see of it after the lens flares) was top notch. I was on board with everything. It's his Goddamn writers. Go on Craiglist or something and find some other writers for all your projects, for the love of Christ. The guys who do internet fanfic are Asimov compared to those three hacks.

This lets Abrams off the hook. He has final say on this stuff. It's not like the studio went to him and said "these guys are writing your movie and you have no say in it - you just film what we say".


Yeah, I guess I should have said the direction wasn't the problem with the films but as producer, he is in charge of hiring the writers so whatever deal with Satan those three have  made, JJ needs to break it somehow.
 
2013-09-13 01:15:55 PM  
Please let it be Jonathan Frakes!
The guy gets what Trekkies and non-trekkies want in a movie.

/ST: First Contact was awesome.
 
2013-09-13 01:16:39 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Actually, I think this idea is the only way to repair the rift between the idiots who think ToS is the best series and the enlightened of us who enjoy the new Trek movies.


I've enjoyed them all from TOS to the new stuff. But I would like them to move back a bit toward some of the original ideals and themes at least a little bit.
 
2013-09-13 01:17:37 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Pocket Ninja: MaudlinMutantMollusk: And the new director will be.... MICHAEL BAY!

This would be beautiful. Not the movie, I mean, but the utter, pure hatred of the response.

Actually, I think this idea is the only way to repair the rift between the idiots who think ToS is the best series and the enlightened of us who enjoy the new Trek movies.


You know, now that I think about...maybe the third movie could have the Enterprise out on a deep space mission. Then a wormhole or something opens up and they're sucked into a vortex and deposited far across the galaxy. And there's a strange planet up ahead...and they approach and discover that it's made of metal...and BAM, you've got a Transformers/Star Trek fusion happening. Holy crap that would be awesome, and Michael Bay would be just the guy to pull it off. Maybe the Autobots could retrofit the Enterprise to become a transforming spaceship itself and that could become part of the reboot's canon!
 
2013-09-13 01:17:43 PM  

Decillion: Protip for Lost: They weren't in purgatory the whole time. Some intern added the empty beach/crash site footage at the end of the final episode without consulting the showrunners.

Adjust your world view accordingly.


That makes it only slightly less crappy.  I loved LOST up until a certain point, but always had faith that the ship would be righted (for me).  I guess they couldn't do that because the wheel to steer it was frozen, underground, and was used for time travel (eye roll).
 
2013-09-13 01:18:37 PM  

chumster: JJ just does what he wants - and we like it because he's really good at what he does.


Making inspired Steven Spielberg movie re-makes that come out as average popcorn movies?
 
2013-09-13 01:18:52 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, I guess I should have said the direction wasn't the problem with the films but as producer, he is in charge of hiring the writers so whatever deal with Satan those three have  made, JJ needs to break it somehow.


Yes, agreed. JJ Abrams is great at 2 things - directing films and coming up with concepts. And those are 2 really important things, which is why I really, really like him and will see all his films. He's just not perfect.
 
2013-09-13 01:19:49 PM  
Oh yeah, and lens flare stock is going to be doing just fine, once I buy it up in anticipation of the next round of Star Wars movies.
 
2013-09-13 01:21:37 PM  

mjbok: because the wheel to steer it was frozen, underground, and was used for time travel (eye roll).


Because a show that has polar bears on a deserted Island and a floaty black monster thingy within the first 3 episodes better not get to science fictiony... OR ELSE!
 
2013-09-13 01:21:47 PM  
Let Verhoeven do it. Star Trek:Troopers
 
2013-09-13 01:21:53 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Jim from Saint Paul: Pocket Ninja: MaudlinMutantMollusk: And the new director will be.... MICHAEL BAY!

This would be beautiful. Not the movie, I mean, but the utter, pure hatred of the response.

Actually, I think this idea is the only way to repair the rift between the idiots who think ToS is the best series and the enlightened of us who enjoy the new Trek movies.

You know, now that I think about...maybe the third movie could have the Enterprise out on a deep space mission. Then a wormhole or something opens up and they're sucked into a vortex and deposited far across the galaxy. And there's a strange planet up ahead...and they approach and discover that it's made of metal...and BAM, you've got a Transformers/Star Trek fusion happening. Holy crap that would be awesome, and Michael Bay would be just the guy to pull it off. Maybe the Autobots could retrofit the Enterprise to become a transforming spaceship itself and that could become part of the reboot's canon!


What if the Transformers had Aliens inside of them?
 
2013-09-13 01:22:23 PM  

Esroc: I'm okay with that. The 2009 reboot was amazing, but Abrams dropped the ball big time on Into Darkness.


I want to like the new one, it isn't terrible, but dropping the ball is a good way of describing it.

I watched it for the 2nd time last night. Here's my takeaway from the whole movie:

running

running

fistfight

running

gunfight

Peter Weller being Peter Weller

fistfight

fistfight

sobscene

CRASH

fistfight

end of movie

/do keep the soundtrack though, best thing about the reboots is the new theme
 
2013-09-13 01:23:12 PM  

DamnYankees: The Banana Thug: What do you guys mean by getting a director who "gets it"?  All those old Star Trek movies were boring and campy.  J. J. Abrams took just the good things, and repackaged them into two movies that were accessible and damn entertaining.  I just watched "Into Darkness" the other night, what a fine movie with great acting.  Yes, lens flares galore, but I only noticed them when I thought about them.

I wasn't a J. J. Abrams fan before because I thought he got lucky by associating his name with "Lost", but after watching both new Star Trek movies, I'm now actually disappointed that he won't be at the helm for the third installment.  What is there to "get"?

What's to 'get' is what Star Trek is all about. Exploration, of the universe and of our own humanity. That's the absolute baseline for what Star Trek is. If your Star Trek film or TV show isn't about that in some sense, you may be making a fine film or show, but you're missing something.


Okay I get that.  But within the confines of a 2.5 hour movie, it had a rather interesting take on the theme of exploration.  Should Starfleet be militarized or remain a civilian corps meant for exploration?  The main conflict of the movie was about this question, and it was a good one.  Yes, I get all that exploration of the universe and our own humanity that made the shows popular, but this kind of plot pacing should be carried out in a show over multiple episodes, not in a movie.  The movie did what it could through small and touching moments - Spock's speech to Uhura about how he chose not to feel pain at his time of death, that was damn well done and displayed his otherwise emotionless humanity well.
 
2013-09-13 01:23:49 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Because a show that has polar bears on a deserted Island and a floaty black monster thingy within the first 3 episodes better not get to science fictiony... OR ELSE!


Good point, but there is a line (and the line is different for everyone) where you eventually throw up your hands and say the line must be drawn here!  No further!  We've made too many concessions already...go and break models.
 
2013-09-13 01:23:49 PM  
www.wired.com
this guy!!!
 
2013-09-13 01:24:41 PM  

The Banana Thug: But within the confines of a 2.5 hour movie, it had a rather interesting take on the theme of exploration.  Should Starfleet be militarized or remain a civilian corps meant for exploration?  The main conflict of the movie was about this question, and it was a good one.


I think I just disagree that this is what the movie was about. I would have liked it to be about that, and there was a kernel of this idea in the movie. But I don't think this was the key theme of the movie.
 
2013-09-13 01:25:12 PM  

Sergeant Angle: Please let it be Jonathan Frakes!
The guy gets what Trekkies and non-trekkies want in a movie.

/ST: First Contact was awesome.


That movie was terrible.  Have you seen it recently?  It has definitely not aged well, and not much really happened in the whole movie.  I liked the idea of the story, but the pacing definitely didn't do it for me.
 
2013-09-13 01:25:42 PM  

mjbok: Jim from Saint Paul: Because a show that has polar bears on a deserted Island and a floaty black monster thingy within the first 3 episodes better not get to science fictiony... OR ELSE!

Good point, but there is a line (and the line is different for everyone) where you eventually throw up your hands and say the line must be drawn here!  No further!  We've made too many concessions already...go and break models.


Well the cut o my jib is: On a science fiction show, be as science fictiony as you want. YMMV of course.
 
2013-09-13 01:26:33 PM  

JohnBigBootay: DamnYankees: What's to 'get' is what Star Trek is all about. Exploration, of the universe and of our own humanity. That's the absolute baseline for what Star Trek is. If your Star Trek film or TV show isn't about that in some sense, you may be making a fine film or show, but you're missing something.

You are correct.


I'd like the examples of Star Trek exploration making good films.

ST1 - exploration, pretty bad film.
ST2 - technology, recurring villain, good film.
ST3 - exploration, Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon, bad film.
ST4 - time travel, culture shock, ecological message, good film.
ST5 - exploration, finding god, terrible film.

Could go on, but you get the point. When exploration is the plot, the movie sucks. You THINK you want that, but it makes bad movies. Good TV shows, sure... but lousey films.
 
2013-09-13 01:28:32 PM  

soporific: to be far from Earth


it doesn't matter.  they can just teleport back to Earth from anywhere in the galaxy.  they've established that.  they also established that they have a cure for death.  There's no suspense when Bones can just inject whoever with the Khan's blood cocktail and everyone's all better.
 
2013-09-13 01:29:05 PM  

DamnYankees: Good. I appreciate what Abrams did to reboot the franchise and get the buzz going again, but he doesn't seem to get ST that well. Should be good to get someone who has a better handle on the franchise to play in this new world.


I thought that the first one was a good reminder that Star Trek used to be fun before it got absorbed in its own philosophical importance. Unfortunately, the second one reminded us that you can't just has fun without some kind of substance to back it up. It's time for a new hand at the tiller.
 
2013-09-13 01:30:15 PM  

ManateeGag: soporific: to be far from Earth

it doesn't matter.  they can just teleport back to Earth from anywhere in the galaxy.  they've established that.  they also established that they have a cure for death.  There's no suspense when Bones can just inject whoever with the Khan's blood cocktail and everyone's all better.


Well, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The television series were notorious for introducing technologies that should change everything and then conspicuously ignoring them in the following episodes. The entire series is built on ret-con and ret-gone.
 
2013-09-13 01:32:03 PM  

ManateeGag: soporific: to be far from Earth

it doesn't matter.  they can just teleport back to Earth from anywhere in the galaxy.  they've established that.  they also established that they have a cure for death.  There's no suspense when Bones can just inject whoever with the Khan's blood cocktail and everyone's all better.


Citation needed.

What they DID do that is completely non-canonical and annoyed the crap out of me is they can make a call on their COMMUNICATORS across the galaxy. THAT was crap and I was internally biatching while the scene was happening to the point I don;t remember much of the dialogue.

/a POSSIBLE cure for death
//what if people don;t have the same reactions, etc?
///easily explainable by 2 lines of dialogue
 
2013-09-13 01:33:04 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Esroc: I'm okay with that. The 2009 reboot was amazing, but Abrams dropped the ball big time on Into Darkness.

I want to like the new one, it isn't terrible, but dropping the ball is a good way of describing it.

I watched it for the 2nd time last night. Here's my takeaway from the whole movie:

running

running

fistfight

running

gunfight

Peter Weller being Peter Weller

fistfight

fistfight

sobscene

CRASH

fistfight

end of movie

/do keep the soundtrack though, best thing about the reboots is the new theme


you missed the obligatory cheesecake shot of the hot blonde.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report