Way too much effort expended there.
Hey man, you can't have a hole in the wall if there's no wall to define where the hole is!!!
Aw great! Now we gotta define the properties of the wall too! OK...how thick is the wall?
Well, I know one of the script doctors on this film.....found out he's put some time into it. I have higher kopes for it now!
I often wondered what JJ would say to new fans who got into Star Trek thanks to his movie. Well, here it is.
What is going on? It's like he was forced to do this one task in trying to grab an audience he thought he could not reach, and when he does it with success (I'll admit Trek09 was a financial and critical success), he says screw it. For the next movie, we don't need to rely on anything from the previous one."The thing about the movie that I love also is that we didn't even make it for fans of the first movie we did. A lot of sequels I've seen tend to assume you love the characters and know them really well and get things off to a fast start where you don't have any sense of investing in the characters in the beginning, so we tried to treat this as a movie that works on its own."
Cripes, was that ever a complaint about the Lord of the Rings trilogy? They introduce us to the characters and the perils that await them and hope that the audience will care enough to watch the next installment. He speaks as though that's some 'hollywood' thing when in reality I can actually see it being a challenge that Peter Jackson and his crew needed to over come. We've got to commit an audience to these characters for multiple movies, because if that doesn't work, it's done.
Even the original series movies, intended or not, had strong connections with each other. I'm sure everyone remembers how TWOK, TSFS, TVH and TUC all connect with each other in continuing each other's themes, and for good reason. They mattered to the characters. Kirk's son was murdered by the Klingons for nothing, Spock was brought back to life, the original Enterprise was destroyed, the Klingons hatred of Kirk and Kirk's hatred of the klingons. I'll even throw TMP in the list for introducing us to the epic beauty that is the Enterprise refit. They didn't try to avoid each other in order to 'stand on their own', they complimented each other. From TMP all the way to TUC (I skip TFF) you got pretty big epic journey that was quite coherent. I loved that.
I just can't imagine anyone.....GAH! If I was handed the keys to a franchise that is respected and loved by many, I would not be talking like this. I would say something like "I want to add something new to this franchise that the fans can respect and newcomers can enjoy. Not just make something stand on it's own to the point that it doesn't need anything else but something that when watched by new viewers, they'll go "That is was really interesting. I think I might get into this series." That's not what I get from JJ. All I get is someone who just wants to make a movie and move on. Nothing wrong with that, but he shouldn't make it so obvious before the movie is even released.
That REALLY explains the results.
Seriously, I'll never ever forget that comment he made. Funny, I never liked him even prior to hearing that. He didn't seem that humbled to have been passed the torch on such a uniquely legendary franchise. Instead it was this attitude of playing it off as if it's just another movie, which for him, I'm sure it was.
I'm sure now the comments would be along the lines of how much respect he has for the franchise. Whatever JAbrams.
I'll be the first to admit....I'm still going to see it anyway.
I'll see it when I can stream it on Netflix, I won't even waste a spot in my DVD queue with it.
Well I'm sure JAbrams just wants to get Star Trek finished so he can move on to producing the Cloverfield sequel and another Mission Impossible.
I'm sure he's not the first director to do this, but how long has Hollywood been releasing trailers for movies that are not even technically completed post-production? Is this a fairly new thing within the last 5-10 years?
Yeah, I swear that's what he said. I'll be damned if I can remember the exact interview where it was said. Yup, that's what made me angry to begin with. After that I give the no praise at all. He lucked out getting passed the torch to the Trek franchise, he obviously has some very influential friends.
You know these kind of directors are sensationalists. They pretentiously move from one project to the next, everyone praising them for how great they are, yet really just 'average' grade quality. Unfortunately, these days being associated with a few successful projects pretty much guarantees you future success. They'd really have to botch up the next film or tick off someone powerful to fall from grace. Mediocrity is rampant these days.
Last edited by Caveneau; Dec 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM. Reason: swearing
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the worst....how much do you guys hate the new trek, and what do you equate the experience of watching it with?
Is it possible that Abrams is simply trying to say that his "sequel" will work as a "stand alone" movie?
In other words you didn't have to watch Trek '09 (or "any" Trek) to "get" the plot of the new film?
Is that possible?
I believe back in 09 Abrams said that he never watched Trek, not that he never "got it."
Nicholas Meyer never watched a single episode of Trek either.
I will say that Abrams "does" come off as a completely arrogant ass most of the time.
I would agree that one of the great things about "Star Trek" is that it inspires people to become astronauts, engineers, scientists, doctors etc...The whole point of "Science Fiction" is to foster an interest in "Science".
However the whole point of "science fiction" is to take a moral dilemma (or potential crisis) facing our World "today" and wrap it up in a "futuristic story" in order to have the audience ponder the dilemma without feeling like they have been preached to.
Science Fiction is at its best when it is an allegory of modern life.
"The Time Machine" (in my humble opinion) is one of the best science fiction allegories about the Industrial Revolution, however I certainly don't think it was written to "inspire" anyone into becoming a scientist.
That said, do I think Abrams Trek aspires to be "great" sci-fi?
Of course not!
However even old Star Trek doesn't "always" acheive that greatness. Sometimes they knock it out of the park with City of the Edge, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, The Measure of a Man etc...
And sometimes you get a Way to Eden or Samaritan Snare.
Unfortunately Trek went the way of the Dodo when it came to telling those compelling "hard sci-fi" stories a long time ago (like... decades ago for me), opting instead for the "cool story"/entertainment factor.
Let's see... if you were to ask me this question back in May of 2009, I would have said it rated a 10 and likened it to watching an episode of "Jackass."
I hated it with a passion!
Since then (and believe it or not it was something "you" said about the new film Darth Saber) I gave it a second chance and saw it more for what it was- entertainment. I'd give it a "4" now on the hater scale. The easiest thing to liken it to is watching "First Contact"- a "fun" entertaining Trek film, but certainly not Trek at its best.
Something "non" Trek? Pretty much any James Cameron film- a fun, action filled roller coaster that can make you laugh and cry, but doesn't really require much thought.
Oh I'm quite positive he said 'I never really got it'. I never forget why I begrudge people for saying certain things. . I even remember thinking to myself at the time 'what do you mean, you never really got it?? However, I have not doubt he also mentioned not having watched Trek as a kid.
Like I've said, I'll probably end up going to see it anyway. I just don't like JAbrams. If it wasn't Trek, I sure as heck wouldn't be going out to see it.
Here's a villain theory:
A day at Bad Robot gives us a better look at Star Trek Into Darkness
Some things deserve a second look.