test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The Abrams Can of Worms
captaincorvoe
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
I almost regret bringing this old issue up, but it is fun to talk about. Below are my personal thought on what the new movie are and what they represent..just for kicks and gigs.
First I would like to open by saying that I love the new movie for reasons that will be explained later, and secondly, I direct this to the purists. The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies were not meant for you. Lets all take a step back and look at The Original Series....great fun. All the campy adventures, and cheesy lines. It was incredible and fun. Now, lets look at a 2014 BMW M3. To me, that car looks like it has more cutting edge technology in its pinky finger than the 1960s Enterprise has in its warp core.
We have to be honest. The Star Trek were all accustomed to is dated and obsolete. The adventures are still as great as ever, but animation and visual effects have become so incredible that the look of TOS actually becomes more comical than inspiring. This generation (of which i am a part of) needs flashy things and pretty lights to keep us interested. Call us simple if you'd like, but I guarantee that the kids in the 60s found Star Trek entertaining partially for the then snappy and sharp imagery. The old look of the old series makes us laugh. I'm not saying the original works of Gene Roddenberry were bad..not saying that at all, but they are outdated. This is where Abrams comes in.
The Enterprise. Call it ugly if you want to (I think the Abrams Enterprise is gorgeous), but you can not deny that it looks futuristic for US. The old Enterprise simply doesn't. The apple store bridge, same thing. To us that looks futuristic. The new movies were a face lift, something to make star trek enjoyable for a younger generation who might then be inspired to watch the old shows.
just my two cents
First I would like to open by saying that I love the new movie for reasons that will be explained later, and secondly, I direct this to the purists. The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies were not meant for you. Lets all take a step back and look at The Original Series....great fun. All the campy adventures, and cheesy lines. It was incredible and fun. Now, lets look at a 2014 BMW M3. To me, that car looks like it has more cutting edge technology in its pinky finger than the 1960s Enterprise has in its warp core.
We have to be honest. The Star Trek were all accustomed to is dated and obsolete. The adventures are still as great as ever, but animation and visual effects have become so incredible that the look of TOS actually becomes more comical than inspiring. This generation (of which i am a part of) needs flashy things and pretty lights to keep us interested. Call us simple if you'd like, but I guarantee that the kids in the 60s found Star Trek entertaining partially for the then snappy and sharp imagery. The old look of the old series makes us laugh. I'm not saying the original works of Gene Roddenberry were bad..not saying that at all, but they are outdated. This is where Abrams comes in.
The Enterprise. Call it ugly if you want to (I think the Abrams Enterprise is gorgeous), but you can not deny that it looks futuristic for US. The old Enterprise simply doesn't. The apple store bridge, same thing. To us that looks futuristic. The new movies were a face lift, something to make star trek enjoyable for a younger generation who might then be inspired to watch the old shows.
just my two cents
Vice Admiral Onyx Corvoe
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
U.S.S. Bandersnatch
Chimera Class Heavy Destroyer
"Bander"-Leader. "snatch"-To Kill
"The Jaws that Bite, the Claws that Catch"
Post edited by captaincorvoe on
0
Comments
I thought Into Darkness was okay at the time that I saw it, but I think I would like it less and less with repeated viewings.
I wish they had done a full reboot without using the time travel angle to connect it with the "Prime" universe. It would have been fine to just do their own thing, and they'd be less obligated to address every little continuity thing that came up, because that connection between universes wouldn't exist.
I wish they had done a completely original storyline for the second movie, instead of doing Wrath of Khan with a twist. We already have a Wrath of Khan movie.
I wish the plot of the second movie made more sense.
But mostly, I wish they would take the opportunity to tell original Star Trek stories which are not beholden to any other continuity, and which are relevant to a modern audience.
Well, I don't know about internal structure (save Engineering), but I personally think the exterior looks gorgeous. However, it has nothing on my first love.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Speaking as the poster child for ADHD, I can't STAND JJTrek, but I love the original stuff.
JJ's "stories" are railroad plots. His movies are so fast-paced that they stumble over themselves. They are HORRIBLE movies, and even worse when watched by someone with ADHD; you'll find yourself wanting more of the cool stuff and wandering off internally when the lens flare and jam-packed exposition shows up.
Also, back a little early from my trip. Tired, sore, covered in bug bites. But back.
The greatest and only beef I have with the new Enterprise is that the engineering section looks like a big damn oil refinery! Seriously, steel pipes, steel I-beams, concrete, one a star ship? Give me a break JJ. I also think they filmed the warp core at one of those giant lasers at one of the tech research labs in California. Plus judging by the size of the engineering section by what we have seen on screen, it shouldn't even be able to fit inside the ship. Other than those not minor details the rest of the ship does look new and futuristic. Please, nobody argue about the engineering section unless you want to hear another big long rant about it.
Are your hands alright? Remember what happened last time you told us about when you carried frogs and salamanders?
If JJ Abrams should be considered guilty of anything, it's using this fresh start on Star Trek to re-hash stuff we've already seen. The Enterprise, and the better CGI effects were a step in the right direction of a "bright and hopeful" future, and I had thought that with the first movie it would result in Bad Robot Productions giving us something new.
Something that wasn't tied up in the convoluted and contradictory history of Star Trek.
But instead we got a few Star Trek fanboys in Hollywood who had a meeting about how many references to Wrath of Khan they could put into the last film. It was little more than a YouTube fanboy production with a much higher budget.
And that is what is most disappointing to me. He had the opportunity to oversee truly uncharted territory (which is why he had the alternate universe made), and he blew it on rehashing the same old stuff we've seen already.
That said, he did bring Star Trek back into cultural relevancy, and we do have a highly successful Star Trek series on the silver screen once more. And that is better than having no Star Trek at all -- which would be the case if Berman and Braga were still running things.
"That is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing, I'd like to steal it." - Zaphod Beeblebrox
BUT a few things.
1. Engine room looks like an oil refinery. JJ took a giant dump on the matter anti-matter reaction assembly. Not cool. It's obvious they don't really pay attention at all to the science of Trek. In the first one, Scotty ejected like 4 cores or whatever they were to get away from the black whole... Stuff like that.... Not cool.
2. You can't beam to Qo'noS from Earth.. I don't care what anyone says. Seriously, terrible plot device, and they couldn't even do that in TNG era...
3. I gotta re-watch the end of Star Trek II to see what Spock did to fix the engine, but plasma injectors inject super heated plasma, otherwise known as Electro-plasma. It is hot stuff. Kicking an injector or whatever... he should have been incinerated, forget radiation...
I could go on. The thing is, if JJ used a bit of brain power, he could have still kept it flashy and hip while staying within the confines of Star Trek Science. Both movies were almost a total disregard for the science of Star Trek, I don't care if they did it Back to the Future style.
"Imagine that this line represents time. At some point in the past, the timeline skewed into this tangent creating an alternate 1985. Alternate for you, me, Jennifer and Einstein...But reality for everyone else."
Yeah, because Jar-Jar Binks and Hayden Christensen was cinematic gold.
And don't even mention the Star Wars Christmas Special...
*shudder*
But to the prequel trilogy's credit, Samuel L. Jackson and Ewan McGregor were good.
The science of Star Trek has always been anchored in fantasy. Sufficiently explained science is indistinguishable from magic. And Star Trek science has always relied heavily on fantasy.
Do you remember Bashir and O'Brien technobabbling their way into joining Sloan's brain?
How about the episode of Spock's Brain?
How about "A Taste of Armageddon" where a spaceship is attacked by a sonic weapon?
I can point out any other multitude of examples, but the 'science' in Star Trek you refer to simply does not exist.
Don't remind me...
That one, Scorpion, and Threshold should be struck from canon for being awful.
There are not enough like buttons on the internet for me to find and click on this
The Engineering scenes were actually shot at the Anheuser-Busch Brewery in Los Angeles.
Some people like the films and consider them 'alright' and an acceptable part of the ST canon.
Other people are wrong.
No one will change their minds.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Acting: F
InMove-Logic: F
Graphics: B
Those two movies are an affront to sentinent and sapient beings, after all.
After all, the Reboot was necessary, because fanboys ruined the old Star Trek with their obstrusive wiseacre. They needed to cut chains.
Still those Abrams Movies sucks.
I think Chuck said it best when he reviewed the Doctor Who episode "Fear Her", an episode which was a steaming pile of TRIBBLE:
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's interesting you say that. I mean, I have a few friends who agree that the original Star Wars movies were designed for the ADD kids of the 70's. But you have a point that JJ's stuff is a little TOO fast paced. I'm more of the Indiana Jones type when it comes to action. The pace is steady but not overwhelming. JJ goes so fast it's easy to get lost. Until the naked chick shows up...then it's all fast again.
The films were OK, maybe not what some of us would have wanted to see, but still very entertaining for what they were and they did serve to revive interest in a franchise that was pretty much dead.
This.
/10characters
Welcome to the 21st Centruy people!
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
JJ's problem is that he doesn't even try to justify his poor plotting and rushed [everything but BEWBS]. And he isn't good enough with the action scenes to justify the plot issues.
I actually find Michael Bay to be a much better director, because Michael Bay's action scenes are good enough that you can ignore the bland/ridiculous/formulaic plots and focus on the important stuff (Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johannson flying a futuristic plane and driving fast cars around LA, Optimus Prime beating up Megatron, et cetera). JJ doesn't have the action skills to hide his lack of talent.
Didn't Penny Arcade make a joke about that too?
I think that was about the video game developer who said he wouldn't allow video game critics to play his game beforehand or review it because the video game wasn't made "for critics".
First of all, as films, I think they both are great.
Being honest, I like to rationalise these films as fan films. It helps to get over the fact they were created and are cannon.
My friend, who is not such a big Trekkie, likes the new films. They got him into Star Trek. He now likes TNG, VOY and DS9 ... but he actually likes the new films. He sort of sees where I come from (some days more than others) about what I mean.
You're right ... Star Trek needed a futuristic look ... and about 50% of the new films did that for me in the right way. Engineering needs help ... the bridge needs a bit ... but I liked everything else (although the nacelles are dis-proportionate).
The space combat for me was a little too quick (I think it could have been improved to make it more 'Star Trek') ... ground ... just, right, I think for a reboot.
I'm young. I'm of this generation. (Born not long before XP) I always like looking back at the better things, of back in the day. Old Trek appeals to me far more than jjtrek. Old computers, generally ... I just love them.
So ... yeah. Kudos to you anyway.
I hope STO get's better ...