Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)

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.
I believe back in 09 Abrams said that he never watched Trek, not that he never "got it."
 
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?


How much?

nomad3ab5.gif


Sterilize! Ster-il-ize!!!!


Equate? We are talking Crystal Skull level raping.
 
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?

Interesting question.

As a "Star Trek" film: 8 - Wild Wild West (Why... Why won't the memory die?)
As a scifi action film: 3 - Minority Report (the more I watch it, and the more popular it gets, the less I like it)
 
...Far too much of Hollywood is just flat-out lazy. They don't really care about "Star Trek." They just know that it's phasers and photon torpedos and Kirk sleeps with green chicks and he can't hear you over the sound of how awesome he is and stuff...
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but most moviegoers these days really don't care about Star Trek either. And the suits at Paramount know that. I mean, yeah, you say "Star Trek" and most people know it was some sort of 60s science fiction show with a cool spaceship and a guy with funny ears, but that's about it. And that's why Paramount decided it was time to reboot the franchise--make it more "accessible" to modern audiences, i.e. teens and twenty-somethings who are more willing to spend their money to see a movie that is entertaining and don't really care whether or not it's "thought provoking" or faithful to it's original intellectual property (unless, of course, that intellectual property is Harry Potter or Twilight).
 

I couldn't even be bothered to read that entire image, but does no one consider the possibility that it's not even the principle actor as the mystery hand in that shot? Productions use doubles all the time whenever the actor's face isn't on screen, so comparing that hand to Cumberbatch and Pine could be a massive waste of time as it may not be either of them.
 
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but most moviegoers these days really don't care about Star Trek either. And the suits at Paramount know that. I mean, yeah, you say "Star Trek" and most people know it was some sort of 60s science fiction show with a cool spaceship and a guy with funny ears, but that's about it. And that's why Paramount decided it was time to reboot the franchise--make it more "accessible" to modern audiences, i.e. teens and twenty-somethings who are more willing to spend their money to see a movie that is entertaining and don't really care whether or not it's "thought provoking" or faithful to it's original intellectual property (unless, of course, that intellectual property is Harry Potter or Twilight).

No, I get that. That's actually my point. They take th stuff they know audiences will get (stiff guy with pointy ears, "I'm so awesome" captain, phasers, photon torpedoes, saucer-section ship) and newify it with CGI and faster editing. Then wrap that around an otherwise nondescript story and bim bam boom boffo box office.

My point is that that's lazy.


You can get boffo box office WITHOUT stripping the franchise of its distinctive elements. Look, Tolkien's books are, when viewed in a negative light, a boring travelogue about lame midgets, with stilted language and no female characters actually appearing except one in drag. It's got a bunch of boring-ass appendices that explain crap as if you should care about it, and otherwise it's garbage that is simultaneously melodramatic and boring as hell.

I don't subscribe to that view, mind you, but I can see where it comes from. And yet, Peter Jackson managed to make boatloads of cash and tell an entertaining story that was not at all boring, unless you're Randall from Clerks 2.

You can stay largely faithful to the source material and STILL tell a story that will engage the public. You don't HAVE to dumb it down. Unless, of course, you're lazy.
 
Yeah, I swear that's what he said. I'll be damned if I can remember the exact interview where it was said.

It was on a Nerdist interview. Here's the full quote of what he said:


Abrams: "I was, frankly, never really a fan. I never really got it. I never really cared much about it. Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was. I kept trying... and I couldn’t get it. I didn’t care about it. It felt stilted. It is ironic because a lot of the tone and techniques and some of the writers as well were from The Twilight Zone. When you watch it, you’d go, ‘God, there is that same kind of melodramatic vibe.’ A lot of the writers were the same writers. You’d think someone who loved The Twilight Zone as much as I did would kind of find a kinship to that show and get on board. I couldn’t do it. I enjoyed the movies that I saw, the early films, but I never looked forward to them. So, when I was mixing Mission: Impossible III… I was asked if I was interested in producing a Star Trek movie. When I said yes, it was because… I’d never thought of it, ever… but what occurred to me as I was being asked was "There’s a version of it that I could see getting interested in." And it was weird, because I couldn’t tell you what it was. I just knew that if Star Trek were done in a certain way, with an approach that somehow let me in more… I was actually being given the opportunity to at least attempt to do something that I wished had existed for me as a kid trying to get into it, which is a way in, which is an emotional way in, that was not was not about the Enterprise or Starfleet or the Prime Directive or any of that stuff, that was completely emotional. I thought if that existed I probably would have found a way in. Now, maybe I saw the wrong episodes. Maybe I wasn’t in the right frame of mind as a kid. I don’t know what it was. I have since watched a number of them and actually have actually come to really appreciate the show. "
 
On a different note, I think it's gone far past the point where being coy about who Cumberbatch is playing will in any way benefit Abrams. I get that he's having fun yanking the chains of fans, but the longer he draws this out, the bigger he builds this as a "thing," the more it's going to be a HUGE let down all full of fan backlashy wrath if the villain doesn't turn out to be some iconic character.
 
Are you kidding? That's what this man does for a living: give people a huge buildup, and then fail to deliver.

Yeah, but at least it made a small amount of sense when it came to Cloverfield or Super 8. Hiding what the respective creatures looked like actually *isn't* that bad of an idea for those types of films. So whether or not the movies sucked (I liked Super 8, Cloverfield not so much), his reasoning wasn't batsh** crazy there.

With Star Trek, it's just a dumb move that's getting dumber by the day. His target audience doesn't care.
 
JJ abrams is like a really good version of Micheal bay

Oh he's a long way from being that good.

That quote Zuiun posted just about says it all. "I never really got it. I never really cared much about it" all this, and knowing what he did with Lost and they still thought he was the go-to guy?
Somewhere there's a parallel universe where Joss Wheedon was given the reins to Star Trek, and I wish I was there.
 
It was on a Nerdist interview. Here's the full quote of what he said:


Abrams: "I was, frankly, never really a fan. I never really got it. I never really cared much about it. Most of my friends who loved it were, without question, smarter than I was. I kept trying... and I couldn’t get it. I didn’t care about it. It felt stilted. It is ironic because a lot of the tone and techniques and some of the writers as well were from The Twilight Zone. When you watch it, you’d go, ‘God, there is that same kind of melodramatic vibe.’ A lot of the writers were the same writers. You’d think someone who loved The Twilight Zone as much as I did would kind of find a kinship to that show and get on board. I couldn’t do it. I enjoyed the movies that I saw, the early films, but I never looked forward to them. So, when I was mixing Mission: Impossible III… I was asked if I was interested in producing a Star Trek movie. When I said yes, it was because… I’d never thought of it, ever… but what occurred to me as I was being asked was "There’s a version of it that I could see getting interested in." And it was weird, because I couldn’t tell you what it was. I just knew that if Star Trek were done in a certain way, with an approach that somehow let me in more… I was actually being given the opportunity to at least attempt to do something that I wished had existed for me as a kid trying to get into it, which is a way in, which is an emotional way in, that was not was not about the Enterprise or Starfleet or the Prime Directive or any of that stuff, that was completely emotional. I thought if that existed I probably would have found a way in. Now, maybe I saw the wrong episodes. Maybe I wasn’t in the right frame of mind as a kid. I don’t know what it was. I have since watched a number of them and actually have actually come to really appreciate the show. "


Reading this full quote makes me even MORE depressed! Gawwd, WHY would the franchise ask HIM to make the movies???WTF! He had no prior interest in it and no inate passion for it, but 'did a little research and watched a few episodes'? There are literally THOUSANDS of true fans and movie professionals out there who could have dedicated themselves to reinvigorating Trek, and they pick some hot-shot who barely knows what it's about? It's about 'emotions'???? Geez...WTF isn't?

I have to say that I really did like the first movie though, mostly for introducing the new character portrayals, which I think are wonderful, really. The casting director did a fine job there, for the most part. But the rest of the movie I had tons of complaints about and won't elaborate on as it's been discussed to death, but I really had high hopes for the 2nd movie, as it will be the one that actually sets the standard for the future of the franchise, IMO. So far, I'm just feeling really skeptical. I really hope I'm just over-reacting and wrong.
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top