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.

(SlashFilm)   J.J. Abrams on reading the internet: "I will, on occasion, go and look and see just how I've destroyed someone's childhood by creating or working on a version of, say Star Trek, and hiring actors who are not William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy"   (slashfilm.com) divider line 178
    More: Amusing, William Shatner, Star Trek, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars Episode VII, Saoirse Ronan, Episode VII, Googles, deleted scenes  
•       •       •

2066 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Nov 2013 at 12:16 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-08 12:23:02 AM
"Ridiculous over-use of lens flares" noticeably absent.
 
2013-11-08 12:25:13 AM
He seems to be sympathetic to the fanboys because, maybe, he is one of them.  I suspect that he likes to see that impotent rage because it is, at its basest, so unreasonable.  I'm sure their tears taste sweet.
 
2013-11-08 12:27:49 AM
When is he going to make the second Cloverfield? That's all I want to know.
 
2013-11-08 12:29:16 AM
He's lucky the fanboys are there.  It allows him and his own fans to deflect any honest criticism of his films.
 
2013-11-08 12:33:29 AM

born_yesterday: He's lucky the fanboys are there.  It allows him and his own fans to deflect any honest criticism of his films.


Maybe. But it still stands that literally no matter what he does, there will be legions of nerds that are sincerely insulted to their core that he would dare do such a reprehensible thing.
 
2013-11-08 12:36:03 AM
This quote sums up ultra hardcore fandoms for me:

"The people on the Internet who complain about the show were going to hate it no matter what I did, so I don't really care about their opinions." -- Seiji Mizushima
 
2013-11-08 12:38:38 AM

JohnBigBootay: born_yesterday: He's lucky the fanboys are there.  It allows him and his own fans to deflect any honest criticism of his films.

Maybe. But it still stands that literally no matter what he does, there will be legions of nerds that are sincerely insulted to their core that he would dare do such a reprehensible thing.


Some people really need to get laid. Do you know how much bullshiat the world would be freed of if everybody was getting laid? Hell, I think the internet may just go completely neglected and most ISP would go out of business if that happened. ITG's would be a thing of the past. What a beautiful world it would be.
 
2013-11-08 12:40:15 AM
In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.
 
2013-11-08 12:48:25 AM

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


And if they had the ability to make the special effects look decent, the original Star Trek would have been the same.
 
2013-11-08 12:49:02 AM

Bith Set Me Up: This quote sums up ultra hardcore fandoms for me:

"The people on the Internet who complain about the show were going to hate it no matter what I did, so I don't really care about their opinions." -- Seiji Mizushima


Perfect.  They aren't your customers; who cares what they think?

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


Star Trek has never made sense and is riddled with inconsistencies and incredulity.  You just don't like the new nonsense because it doesn't star the same people who were in the old nonsense.

Those of us who just like good movies and like to be entertained don't care about things like that.  If stories stopped being told after the first time, we wouldn't have many stories to tell today, would we?
 
2013-11-08 12:49:51 AM
Die in a fire, asshole.
 
2013-11-08 12:51:01 AM

ongbok: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

And if they had the ability to make the special effects look decent, the original Star Trek would have been the same.


I still think most of the appeal of Wrath of Khan was that it was the first time two starships fought each other with good FX.
 
2013-11-08 12:53:26 AM

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


I could get behind this assessment of his films.

Personally, I thought they were fine. Not great, but fine. I do however agree that his writing team basically treats technology/sci-fi as Harry Potter with ray-guns (pew pew pew).

For me, I have to struggle with being taken out of the film every time I see an inconsistency or just something that is plain stupid - as you pointed out, the "rejuvenation blood" that can cure anything - I mean, wow, imagine the social implications of that. Here's it's basically used as a "magic spell" to fix a plot point.

One of the great things about Star Trek, is even though they occasionally got the science wrong, whenever they introduced a concept, they explored the social implications of it and how it might change people's lives and how they act. I think in a lot of ways, that's what actually makes the sci-fi aspect of the show compelling. Ergo: Technology changes, but how do people adapt?
 
2013-11-08 12:53:49 AM
If he had read the internet, he'd have known that wasn't the problem people had with his sh*tty movies.

Zach Quinto makes a great Spock.
 
2013-11-08 12:55:10 AM

whitsblog.com

 
2013-11-08 12:59:24 AM

karmachameleon: nonsense.


I said: "You hired great actors."

you reply with: "You just don't like the new nonsense because it doesn't star the same people who were in the old nonsense."

Conclusion: You're farking retarded.

Congratulations, the new Star Trek movies are made exactly for you.

Those of us who just like good movies actually prefer a mildly coherent plot at a bare minimum.  I love baysplosions, contrived drama and everyone flying around like jedi as much as the next guy I just ask that you throw a tiny bit of sound plot structure in amongst the bridge sparkles.  With a budget like that, I don't think that's too much to ask.
 
2013-11-08 01:01:48 AM

TwistedFark: For me, I have to struggle with being taken out of the film every time I see an inconsistency or just something that is plain stupid - as you pointed out, the "rejuvenation blood" that can cure anything - I mean, wow, imagine the social implications of that. Here's it's basically used as a "magic spell" to fix a plot point.


Eh, they've cured diseases with transporters before, and immediately forgotten about it.  Nothing new.
 
2013-11-08 01:02:49 AM

TwistedFark: Personally, I thought they were fine. Not great, but fine. I do however agree that his writing team basically treats technology/sci-fi as Harry Potter with ray-guns (pew pew pew).


And the original Star Trex didn't do the same thing? I know you guys think that Captain Kirk and the Enterprise was the greatest thing ever, and everything after is just a pitifully written schlock, but truthfully the original was the same schlock, you guys are just nostalgic for a different era of schlock, even if it is the same schlock.
 
2013-11-08 01:06:59 AM

Alphax: Eh, they've cured diseases with transporters before, and immediately forgotten about it.  Nothing new.


They also can conveniently time travel in a Klingon ship by sling-shotting around the sun, which seems to be a technology they would have used more than just the once to get some whales.
 
2013-11-08 01:07:01 AM
Hm, I may have to revise my opinion of JJ Abrams.

You keep right on destroying fanboys lives, JJ. I'm behind you 110% on that one.
 
2013-11-08 01:07:23 AM

Alphax: ongbok: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

And if they had the ability to make the special effects look decent, the original Star Trek would have been the same.

I still think most of the appeal of Wrath of Khan was that it was the first time two starships fought each other with good FX.


I liked the original Wrath of Khan a lot because it wasn't the snooze fest the first movie was, you had Ricardo Montalban hamming it up, and it was a continuation of a previous storyline. There were a lot of good moments, it was a good story, and then that ending. Good stuff.

There's a lot to like about the new movies(especially the actors) but some of the plot points make me roll my eyes. There's a reason why transporters had distance limitations because if they don't, you get hostile enemies transporting troops/bombs/superweapons into the midst of their enemies from a galaxy away and it gets really stupid really quick. Khan's blood reviving Kirk was just dumb. There's a bunch of other little stuff that doesn't make sense and I find it distracting. I expect better from people with that much money and talent.
 
2013-11-08 01:08:00 AM
Schlock? You mean, Mr. Schlock?

http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/startrek/stardrek.htm
 
2013-11-08 01:08:32 AM

karmachameleon: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

Star Trek has never made sense and is riddled with inconsistencies and incredulity.  You just don't like the new nonsense because it doesn't star the same people who were in the old nonsense.


Most of the fanboys today weren't around when the original Star Trek aired...and how much hate Gene Roddenberry got from most people. How about the nepotism of getting both of his mistresses on the show (yes, he had an affair with Nichelle Nichols, too)? How about the fact that TNG was floundering until Michael Piller took over, and even if Piller did hire the scourge of modern Trekkies Brannon Braga as a writer, Braga could never hold a candle to what Roddenberry himself had done on the original Trek?

But the thing that Roddenberry did that no other writer did back then (and what J.J. Abrams didn't do in Trek) was actually think out why.  The Horta in "Devil in the Dark" was revolutionary in its day for giving the monster a reason for terrorizing the miners (those strange rocks were its eggs).  Abrams attempted and failed at such an explanation in Cloverfield (some justifications say the monster was an infant on a tantrum).  And he doesn't get much better in Trek, where the Red Matter in the first movie and the "rejuvenation blood" in the second aren't given much explanation other than "J.J. Abrams needs a red ball of stuff in every movie he makes."  Maybe this is why Abrams is a better fit for Star Wars, which doesn't need nearly as much explanation of why (and, in fact, fans balk at explanations for the Force, see the "midichlorians" backlash...)
 
2013-11-08 01:19:06 AM
Dude has a serious dicknose... It really looks like a penis.
 
2013-11-08 01:20:51 AM
Starting a project, then running off as the ADD poster child he is at the sight of the next shiny thing, is notably absent ;)
 
2013-11-08 01:23:00 AM

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


This.


Says it all.
 
2013-11-08 01:28:20 AM
Yeah both movies were pretty stupid. The second was somewhat entertaining with the Khan jokes. Way too wooden and devoid of substance, though. But you all knew that.
 
2013-11-08 01:28:22 AM

ongbok: JohnBigBootay: born_yesterday: He's lucky the fanboys are there.  It allows him and his own fans to deflect any honest criticism of his films.

Maybe. But it still stands that literally no matter what he does, there will be legions of nerds that are sincerely insulted to their core that he would dare do such a reprehensible thing.

Some people really need to get laid. Do you know how much bullshiat the world would be freed of if everybody was getting laid? Hell, I think the internet may just go completely neglected and most ISP would go out of business if that happened. ITG's would be a thing of the past. What a beautiful world it would be.


I'm giving her all she's got Captain!
 
2013-11-08 01:29:55 AM
Read about the following after the jump:

I'm so glad they told me there was more to read one line break down.

Why do people do this stupid shiat?
 
2013-11-08 01:34:41 AM

IlGreven: (yes, he had an affair with Nichelle Nichols, too)


Wait he was hitting Nurse Chapel AND Uhura? Lucky dog...

IlGreven: Maybe this is why Abrams is a better fit for Star Wars, which doesn't need nearly as much explanation of why (and, in fact, fans balk at explanations for the Force, see the "midichlorians" backlash...)


It's not because he gave an explanation, it's because the explanation made no sense to what had been shown on screen previously. We start out getting "They force is a mystical ability some special people have the ability to use for special powers", then we get a set of movies set around 20 years BEFORE the mystical ability stuff saying "Yeah, it's these special microscopic symbiotic things that give some people special abilities". Now if the timeline had been swapped where in the prequels the force was a mystical and 20 years later for A New Hope onward it was "Well we thought the force was mystical but we discovered it's actually midichlorians" there wouldn't have been nearly the same level of stink raised about it.
 
2013-11-08 01:55:27 AM

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


You forgot "where Vulcan is mere minutes away at warp, and the Klingon homeworld is not even a day's travel at warp".  Traveling at the speed of plot indeed.  Did the old clunker ship they used to travel the rest of the way to Quo'nos after the Enterprise's suspicious breakdown even have a warp drive?
 
2013-11-08 02:04:21 AM

MechaPyx: There's a reason why transporters had distance limitations because if they don't, you get hostile enemies transporting troops/bombs/superweapons into the midst of their enemies from a galaxy away and it gets really stupid really quick. Khan's blood reviving Kirk was just dumb. There's a bunch of other little stuff that doesn't make sense and I find it distracting. I expect better from people with that much money and talent.


Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.



Consequence free time travel with no paradoxes. A bomb that can teraform a moon. Magic eternal youth rings. Nanomachines that make you sprout wires and tunes from your body and conveniently make matter from nothing.

Yet somehow this new Trek is waaaaaaay to hokey and libreal with Sci-fi.

Then there is the magic of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. You want wacky thow away bullshiat science? I hope you do, because they are all in the same universe as TOS. Of all the things to rip apart JJ about in his writing/directing, maybe picking out his "inconsistent" science plot-hooks is a horrible idea.
 
2013-11-08 02:05:37 AM

MadCat221: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

You forgot "where Vulcan is mere minutes away at warp, and the Klingon homeworld is not even a day's travel at warp".  Traveling at the speed of plot indeed.  Did the old clunker ship they used to travel the rest of the way to Quo'nos after the Enterprise's suspicious breakdown even have a warp drive?


Ugh, the plot devices.  They had weird and goofy things in TOS and TNG, but at least they would explain how/why they have them(and at least one Scotty/LaForge scene where they would build it).  Into Darkness was just "We need them here, device make it so."
 
2013-11-08 02:06:05 AM

Spaced Cowboy: Conclusion: You're farking retarded.


Going straight to the personal insults - you lose.  But thanks for trying.
 
2013-11-08 02:06:56 AM

Flappyhead: MadCat221: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

You forgot "where Vulcan is mere minutes away at warp, and the Klingon homeworld is not even a day's travel at warp".  Traveling at the speed of plot indeed.  Did the old clunker ship they used to travel the rest of the way to Quo'nos after the Enterprise's suspicious breakdown even have a warp drive?

Ugh, the plot devices.  They had weird and goofy things in TOS and TNG, but at least they would explain how/why they have them(and at least one Scotty/LaForge scene where they would build it).  Into Darkness was just "We need them here, device make it so."


Sorry that should read "plot moving devices".
 
2013-11-08 02:11:02 AM

Alphax: TwistedFark: For me, I have to struggle with being taken out of the film every time I see an inconsistency or just something that is plain stupid - as you pointed out, the "rejuvenation blood" that can cure anything - I mean, wow, imagine the social implications of that. Here's it's basically used as a "magic spell" to fix a plot point.

Eh, they've cured diseases with transporters before, and immediately forgotten about it.  Nothing new.


I always thought that, given transporters and immense computing power, people would edit themselves into whatever physical form they wanted, probably frequently, like donning evening dress for a night out. You could also make multiple copies of yourself, or create an army of brain-altered slaves (which maybe nobody would do because robots would make more sense than bio-slaves). Star Trek doesn't even do an infinitesimal amount of exploring what a society with those kinds of tools might do with them.
 
2013-11-08 02:14:47 AM

jjorsett: Star Trek doesn't even do an infinitesimal amount of exploring what a society with those kinds of tools might do with them.


Tuvix

/Twas infinitesimal
 
2013-11-08 02:17:27 AM

IlGreven: karmachameleon: Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.

Star Trek has never made sense and is riddled with inconsistencies and incredulity.  You just don't like the new nonsense because it doesn't star the same people who were in the old nonsense.

Most of the fanboys today weren't around when the original Star Trek aired...and how much hate Gene Roddenberry got from most people. How about the nepotism of getting both of his mistresses on the show (yes, he had an affair with Nichelle Nichols, too)? How about the fact that TNG was floundering until Michael Piller took over, and even if Piller did hire the scourge of modern Trekkies Brannon Braga as a writer, Braga could never hold a candle to what Roddenberry himself had done on the original Trek?

But the thing that Roddenberry did that no other writer did back then (and what J.J. Abrams didn't do in Trek) was actually think out why.  The Horta in "Devil in the Dark" was revolutionary in its day for giving the monster a reason for terrorizing the miners (those strange rocks were its eggs).  Abrams attempted and failed at such an explanation in Cloverfield (some justifications say the monster was an infant on a tantrum).  And he doesn't get much better in Trek, where the Red Matter in the first movie and the "rejuvenation blood" in the second aren't given much explanation other than "J.J. Abrams needs a red ball of stuff in every movie he makes."  Maybe this is why Abrams is a better fit for Star Wars, which doesn't need nearly as much explanation of why (and, in fact, fans balk at explanations for the Force, see the "midichlorians" ...


Sure, those are fair points.  The way I see it, art doesn't exist in a vacuum, and people don't live forever.  As a franchise ages, the people who were originally involved inevitably age, die off, or otherwise become unengaged (voluntarily or not).  As new people take the helm, the franchise is bound to change.  I remember when TNG first hit the airwaves, and many original Trekkies were unhappy.  But what you have to realize is that just because something has changed and become different in some ways, does not automatically invalidate it or make it "bad".  Different styles, different content, definitely.  And if it isn't your cup of tea, so be it.  But making claims (and I realize these weren't your words, they're just words I hear often from many critics) that somehow the new series is more bizarre or incredulous than the old series...Abrams has his magic pills, and they had theirs.  What else are transporters and warp speed, anyway?

I do agree Abrams seems a better fit for Star Wars than Star Trek.  "Space opera" seems like a good gig for him.
 
2013-11-08 02:21:37 AM

AppleOptionEsc: Consequence free time travel with no paradoxes. A bomb that can teraform a moon. Magic eternal youth rings. Nanomachines that make you sprout wires and tunes from your body and conveniently make matter from nothing.

Yet somehow this new Trek is waaaaaaay to hokey and libreal with Sci-fi.

Then there is the magic of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. You want wacky thow away bullshiat science? I hope you do, because they are all in the same universe as TOS. Of all the things to rip apart JJ about in his writing/directing, maybe picking out his "inconsistent" science plot-hooks is a horrible idea.


Bingo.  Ditto for James Bond where people complained of the incredulity of "Skyfall" while somehow pretending the same incredulity didn't exist in literally every other James Bond movie.  I think times have changed, and the instant conversation of the internet has changed things...whatever happened to just checking your disbelief at the door and enjoying a movie for what it offered?  Suspension of disbelief can be done poorly too, but I don't think any of the new Treks or new Bonds qualify.
 
2013-11-08 02:31:22 AM

Confabulat: Alphax: Eh, they've cured diseases with transporters before, and immediately forgotten about it.  Nothing new.

They also can conveniently time travel in a Klingon ship by sling-shotting around the sun, which seems to be a technology they would have used more than just the once to get some whales.


Yeah, Scifi fans don't like that movie.
 
2013-11-08 02:31:30 AM
Of all the things I've seen him criticized for regarding NuTrek, casting choices is the least of 'em. Maybe one or two complaints about Kirk or Chekov, but he generally did a good job there.

Kinda telling that out of the constant barrage of over the top vitriol on the Internets about his movies, he selectively picks out the most defensible (and, indeed, defended by many of those very people online.) Not his vapid storytelling, plotholes, missing the tone/entire point of the franchise, making the same movie twice in a row, random use of references that make no sense, silly visual gimmicks etc etc.

Yeah. It's the casting that pissed people off.

Because you're totally the first guy in Star Trek history to not use Shatner.
 
2013-11-08 02:45:14 AM

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


YEAH MAN. If they wanted to resurrect characters, they should do it in a way that makes sense - like a device that can turn a barren rock into a green planet within hours, or an omnipotent alien. You know, like how people are resurrected in real life?
 
2013-11-08 02:53:55 AM

AppleOptionEsc: MechaPyx: There's a reason why transporters had distance limitations because if they don't, you get hostile enemies transporting troops/bombs/superweapons into the midst of their enemies from a galaxy away and it gets really stupid really quick. Khan's blood reviving Kirk was just dumb. There's a bunch of other little stuff that doesn't make sense and I find it distracting. I expect better from people with that much money and talent.

Spaced Cowboy: In the short span of 2 movies, you've given us a nonsensical Star Trek universe that allows transporting across the entire universe with a device the size of a kitchen sink, submergeable spaceships and a renewable source of resurrection blood potion that can revive anything from tribbles on up to humans. I'm pretty sure the actors are the least of your problems, JJ.

You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


Consequence free time travel with no paradoxes. A bomb that can teraform a moon. Magic eternal youth rings. Nanomachines that make you sprout wires and tunes from your body and conveniently make matter from nothing.

Yet somehow this new Trek is waaaaaaay to hokey and libreal with Sci-fi.

Then there is the magic of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. You want wacky thow away bullshiat science? I hope you do, because they are all in the same universe as TOS. Of all the things to rip apart JJ about in his writing/directing, maybe picking out his "inconsistent" science plot-hooks is a horrible idea.


You know what? You're right. There was an awful lot of goofy stuff in the older shows and movies too but this was a chance to wipe the slate clean and do it better and uh....yeah. I love the reboot but I'm not going to pretend it's without it's faults. Hopefully when fans point out such stuff they take note and avoid making the same mistakes in the future.
 
2013-11-08 03:00:56 AM
Ah, poor JJ, its not your choice of actors that was at fault.  they were all great choices.  It was your craptasitc scripts and complete lack of any decent directing that I take issue with.  Oh and the lens flare.
 
2013-11-08 03:09:14 AM
About the only thing I wish Abrams had done was NOT "reboot" Wrath of Khan. He reset the Star Trek universe with the first movie: What if everything had been just a little bit different because of one little thing? What if Kirk was no longer a paragon of virtue, and Spock was a semi-emotional twat; and because of a few ripples in space-time, Starfleet hadn't evolved quite the same way?

Okay, good. Now, run with that. Don't rewrite all the original stories; write some NEW stories with that premise. After all, even in that new universe, Khan would have been exactly the same (since the Eugenics Wars would not have been affected by Kirk's father's death), and there's no point in redoing "Wrath of Khan" unless you first redo "Space Seed." And there's no point in redoing that because it was lame. (I mean, it was good, but it was lame)

Anyway, this new universe, Abrams is trying to collapse the entire Star Trek timeline into too few years. If Kirk just graduated the Academy, he's off doing his time on various starships--he didn't get the Enterprise until quite a few years later; and Spock served for 17 years under Pike. Abrams wants to put them together, he needs to account for all the history his new characters don't have, or else write NEW stories instead of trying to recreate the old ones.

My opinion. But I grew up on the original Star Trek. I know the 'canon" like nobody's business, and Kirk and Spock didn't even meet until about 20 years after Kirk graduated. Not aboard the Enterprise, JJ.
 
2013-11-08 03:20:48 AM
It's ok J.J. I was a fan of the original series and I don't give enough of a rats ass to type any more than this.
 
2013-11-08 04:05:23 AM

MechaPyx: You know what? You're right. There was an awful lot of goofy stuff in the older shows and movies too but this was a chance to wipe the slate clean and do it better and uh....yeah. I love the reboot but I'm not going to pretend it's without it's faults. Hopefully when fans point out such stuff they take note and avoid making the same mistakes in the future.


I think this kind of stuff is just necessary.  Most movies are squeezing a much longer story into 2 hours or less; shortcuts are a necessity.  The plot has to keep moving.  Different media, but I'm reminded of a quote from a video game designer, and I think it applies just as much to movies.  Paraphrasing:  "Sure, we could make Madden football games truly realistic.  And then they would be utterly boring."  Imagine a Star Trek movie that hewed very closely to real science, even allowing for predicted or likely scientific advances in the future.  You would have no teleporters, no warp speed, no alien contact, no large starships (or for that matter any ships at all capable of carrying humans beyond our own solar system and then back to Earth in any reasonable amount of time)...the list goes on and on.

Suspension of disbelief is a necessary part of enjoying fiction.  There's nothing wrong with it!  It's not a negative.  But it seems crowds (at least internet commentators) are increasingly against the idea.  Well then, stop going to movies - they aren't for you.  Seriously.  I think all a movie really needs to do to be "real" is be consistent within its own universe.  But that universe can be pretty much anything the movie wants to create.
 
2013-11-08 04:06:01 AM

Spaced Cowboy: You hired great actors. Hire better writers.


Pretty much this. I was never that much of a fan of the old stuff (although I did watch and like the occasional episode of Next Gen and DS9), so I'm the exact sort of person who should be enjoying these films; I'm fond of Trek but not the sort of continuity-obsessed Trekkie who can't cope with Klingons having the wrong number of head bumps or whatever. But I can't enjoy them because they're so farking dumb.

Michael Bay has made smarter movies. Uwe Boll has more respect for the audience. I've seen better writing in the films on MST3K. I don't think there was a ten minute span of Into Darkness where I wasn't pulled out of the movie by something really stupid happening on screen.
 
2013-11-08 04:23:22 AM
"I will, on occasion, go and look and see just how I've destroyed someone's childhood..."

stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-11-08 04:35:09 AM

ongbok: Some people really need to get laid. Do you know how much bullshiat the world would be freed of if everybody was getting laid? Hell, I think the internet may just go completely neglected and most ISP would go out of business if that happened. ITG's would be a thing of the past. What a beautiful world it would be.


Can't argue with that.

Ladies? You heard the man!

// *zip*
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report