JJ Abrams..let the healing begin

Discussion in 'The GatorTail Pub' started by anstro76, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. bakaduin
    Offline

    bakaduin Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,511
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +714
    My point being, most movie studios are in it for profit and not for the story-telling. If they think appealing to a wider audiences = more profit they will do that. I think the proof that it works is in the proverbial pudding.
  2. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +893
    I got ya. I was just f'n with you

    Sent from my mind using ESP
  3. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,776
    Likes Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,097
    The second one was less of a travesty than the first and had less plot holes.
  4. brainstorm
    Offline

    brainstorm VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,460
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Green Cove Springs
    Ratings Received:
    +840
    I am a huge Star Trek fan and I thought the Abrams movies were awful. It was almost a spoof.
  5. demosthenes
    Offline

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,860
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +572
    I was always pretty ambivalent toward star trek but actually liked the Abrams movies. I guess that says it all for trekies.

    I was always a huge Start Wars geek going so far as buying SW video games and numerous books. I've always liked the marriage of technology, the organic, and supernatural ability.
  6. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +893
  7. citygator
    Offline

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings Received:
    +58
    Ok... What is a lens flare?

    I liked both Star Trek movies. I grew up with Star Trek on TV and don't mind the alterations of the movies... Been there, done that on the old version. In fact I loved the movies. I prefer movies that don't get lazy with the plot but it doesn't ruin it for me.

    Uh, let's just drop Kirk off on this random planet in the galaxy and let him wander into a random cave and guess what? Spock from the future happens to be there.
  8. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +893
    [​IMG]

    Sent from my mind using ESP
  9. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,577
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +558
    Long time Trek fan who didn't like the Abrams movies. They were entertaining, but lacked any depth whatsoever. Abram's 1st Trek should have been called Die Hard In Space. Now, there is nothing wrong with a good, shallow action flick, even a good, shallow sci-fi flick (Independence Day), but I expect more from something that carries the Star Trek name.

    And yes, at times Trek went too far with depth and came off as Saturday morning special. Wesley Crusher, first season TNG, for example. But when Trek is at its best, the blend is both deep and entertaining. And color me upset that Paramount went for pure entertainment with Abrams.
  10. Allanon
    Offline

    Allanon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,828
    Likes Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +395
    Well said.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. GatorPrincess8
    Offline

    GatorPrincess8 Princess of Gators Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    41,956
    Likes Received:
    1,990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Florala, Alabama
    Ratings Received:
    +2,512
    Into Darkness is so good.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. scamgtr
    Offline

    scamgtr VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Stuart, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +160
    I actually liked both of the Star Treks. I also liked the lens flares. I am more of a Star Wars guy than a Trekker, though. I liked the direction he tried to take the property; which, like it or not, needed a fresh perspective. I think it's always a mistake for purists to think that they are the only ones that understand a property. Putting the two new Treks out there made new fans and introduced a new story that did not disturb the pre-existing universe; which was really kind of ingenious. My girlfriend had never seen a Trek movie and thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness. I think it's awesome that Abrams created new fans and gave us this great new cast that is young and can push the property forward. As far as the Prime Directive goes, pretty sure Kirk violated it once or twice on the original series.

    Abrams is a good story-teller; he is no where as gifted as Spielberg, but who is? I do think the Star Wars franchise is in better hands with him than George Lucas. While I loved the original trilogy, the second one was basically a fumbling political thesis that took all the joy out of it. I hope that Abrams can bring us back to the original popcorn goodness of the original trilogy. While it dealt with good vs. evil, Luke's daddy issues, and Vader's guilt it was not overly preachy nor did it leave it up to the viewer to decide or interpret. We knew who we were supposed to root for and against. Plus the narrative was tighter and more focused.

    We have plenty of think piece dramas out there in the market place that are better avenues for extended political statement. That is what bogged down the second trilogy...it went from a clearly kid oriented movie in Episode I, to a detective mystery/Anakin love story in Episode II, to a political film about the dangers of executive power in Episode III. I thought that the second trilogy would be like a grand Greek tragedy. It wasn't until the second half of the third act. You just can't create that kind of emotional depth in an hour of a movie. Anakin was also miscast. Nobody bought the love story between Anakin and Padme because no one bought Hayden Christensen in that role of Anakin. He is not a bad actor, just wasn't right for that role. But it's also not his fault because the screenplay was awful.

    Anyways I have higher hopes for Abrams than I do for any other director out there to resurrect this franchise.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Gatorologist
    Offline

    Gatorologist Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,125
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +56
    I found the 1st new Star Trek very enjoyable (haven't seen the second), but what it is missing a moral statement. This was a central part of Star Trek and is not part of the new. Is it because we are so divided as a nation and as some others wrote above these blockbusters need to appeal to the widest audience?
  14. citygator
    Offline

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings Received:
    +58
    Hadn't thought of it before but you are right. Again I loved the new versions but the simple moral wrapped up at the end like a Scooby episode was kind of iconic in the other versions.
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    You're thinking of Galaxy Quest.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,577
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +558
    I'm upset that the Abrams' Trek completely left out any hint of depth isn't just because I'm a huge Trek fan. It's because I respect what Trek has meant to us both historically and culturally. To just trash all that to make a bigger blockbuster, to me, is sacrilege.

    Did you know that Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) wanted to leave the show after 1 season. Story goes, she went into Rodenberry's office, who told her to think about it, come back in a few days, as there is a fan of the show she should meet. Nichols complained she was nothing more than a futuristic phone operator, and her character was never going to be developed. A few days pass, and Nichols walks into Rodenberry's office and Martin Luther King Jr. is waiting for her. MLK proceeds to tell Nichols how he's a huge fan of the show, and a huge fan of hers. And that a strong, black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise that is the first contact with everyone, alien and human alike, is awesome, and Nichols is a role model to millions of young, black women. Nichols, of course, stays on the show, and later on that season, Nichols and William Shatner share the first inter-racial kiss on primetime television.

    Trek was also the inspiration for generations of future inventors and scientists. The communicator is a cell phone. A tricorder is a tablet. The ship had computer monitors hooked up to just the mainframe, that also had access to Star Fleet records held off-site. Similar to a modern-day office. The show is still an inspiration today, as in 2011, Brit engineers and NASA collaborated on sick-bay style biobeds.

    The show also revolutionized the genre of science fiction on tv and screen. Before, all sci-fi were either B-movies or horror films. But Star Trek didn't use the unknown to cast fear or entertain children. Instead, it used technology, aliens, etc. to show exploration and created hour-long morality plays. Before Roddenberry, nobody thought sci-fi could ever be successful in this way, and Trek's early contemporaries, like Lost in Space, represented what studio execs thought of sci-fi. Trek changed the game.

    Flash forward to today and what do you get from Abrams' Trek? Entertaining, sure, but with the depth of a kiddie pool left out to rot in the desert for several years. And to me, that's an insult to what Trek, and Roddenberry, stood for. And it's disappointing. And though I'm obviously in the minority, I'd rather sit through 30 minutes of a polyester clad crew staring at VGer versus watching Abrams' Die Hard on a Starship.
  17. LeafUF
    Online

    LeafUF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,426
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wandering
    Ratings Received:
    +355
    Az, I get your disappointment but those are some awful lofty expectations for a modern film. I mean how many of the other recent Trek series or movies could even come close to that. The original series also was a failure on TV if I remember correctly so I dont see how it changed the game for Sci Fi on TV as you do.

    I dont know if there are many films that could live up to the standards you lay out above. I mean that also requires a time and place and an environment for many of those things that do not currently exist.
  18. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +893
    On another note don't let the gaudy numbers fool you.. gravity sucked.

    Sent from my mind using ESP
  19. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,577
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +558
    The Original Series lasted 3 seasons, but studio execs were ready to cut it after 2. There was a huge, and I mean huge write-in campaign to save the show. People wrote letters, yes, actual letters, with no return address, asking to save the show. Paramount caved, but did its best to kill the show anyway, but moving it to Friday night, and firing some of the main writers. The studio also pushed the show to be more campy, like Lost In Space, which is where you get the Halloween special episode. And while TOS didn't survive year 3, the explosion of the show in syndication showed just how valuable a commodity Star Trek was.

    Subsequently, Star Trek was also the rise of geek-fest style conventions. Yes, there were sci-fi conventions before, but nothing on the scale of Trek Conventions. The people who held the first Trek convention were expecting 500 max. But over 3,000 people showed up, many in full costume. Again, big ramifications today, as Comicons across the country are hip events that draw tens of thousands of visitors over a weekend in all kinds of costumes.

    As for the new incarnation of the Trek movies, yes, I have, or should say had lofty expectations for Trek movies. Sure, there have been misses (Star Trek V--the God Movie) for one. But even that movie at least attempted to live up to expectations. It just swung and missed. (OT: the movie was filmed in Ridgecrest, CA, and if you ever want to feel you are at the edge of the universe, visit Ridgecrest).

    Abrams' movies didn't just miss. They never even stepped up to the plate. Abrams just took the premise and character outlines and never attempted anything remotely resembling depth. And given Star Trek's legacy, I find it sad.
  20. LeafUF
    Online

    LeafUF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    13,426
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wandering
    Ratings Received:
    +355
    See, I totally understand how you feel about that. Because it seems very similar to how I felt about Nolan's Batman and Superman films. Sure the characters are all in it but they are not the characters as I grew to love them.

    And unfortunately, you still see sci fi being treated pretty much the same on TV today as it was when Trek was killed in its third season. Just look at all the shows loved by fans and tossed aside by networks. Firefly, Jericho, Caprica, Fringe, Sarah Connor, Chuck, you name it. And they have all had fan campaigns to save the shows with little success.

Share This Page