J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 5329
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Randall » May 14th, 2013, 12:35 am

Promising. But I still wonder if it'll "feel" like Trek.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 14th, 2013, 5:35 am

Saw it last night. If you liked the reboot you're gonna love this!

There's just ONE questionable inserting of a character in there that wasn't needed - it actually confuses who the bad guy is (and how he can be him, at least for me) and it doesn't help or bring anything to the very Star Trek II ending when it could have been so better linked between them.

I can explain more when people have seen the movie, but it is *vastly* entertaining and feels even more like classic Trek than even the 2009 film. If JJ can bring this level of storytelling, gentle humor and VFX to his Star Wars - and every indication says he can - then that/those films are in very good hands too.

What's he got, now, three mega franchises? Mission: Impossible, Trek and Star Wars, plus his regular output. In many ways - even though he's been shaping up properties other than his own originals - he is the only major producer-director of modern times that could lay claim to the kind of Spielberg/Lucas legacy...I can't think of any other out there at the moment that has that touch out there. And he uses Michael Giacchino too, which is never a bad thing!

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5358
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re:

Post by Dacey » May 15th, 2013, 7:05 pm

Ben...I appologize in advance for this, but I was re-reading through this topic this afternoon, and...
Ben wrote:I just saw M:I3 this afternoon. In a word...it stinks.

I'm not sure what all the fuss about Abrams is right now. Hopefully he will crash and burn at trying to kickstart the Treks and he will go away...
Now that I've been annoying...your review has me excited, although it's sadly going to be very hard to avoid spoilers until I get to see it, which will probably be Monday. I've been doing everything in my power to keep myself from learning who Sherlock actually is here, but given that the big "plot twist" from Iron Man 3 was literally all over the internet without so much as a warning only days after its release, that may be easier said than done.

Maybe the wisest move would be to stay off the internet...which may be just as well, since I should probably hide from Ben right now. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 16th, 2013, 9:24 am

Well I did say "right now". ;) He has since proved himself with Trek and Super 8.

I don't get what the plot twist was for IM3. Who he was talking to at the end? Not a big surprise really.

And I don't think Trek's villain identity quite works out. I'd heard the rumor and was waiting for the reveal but even when it came I thought "oh, ok. Huh."

But it doesn't hurt the entertainment value: the best thing here is the warm feeling of family between the classic Trek characters, including a very fun nod to a certain Trek creature...

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5358
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Dacey » May 16th, 2013, 11:26 am

I don't get what the plot twist was for IM3. Who he was talking to at the end? Not a big surprise really.
I'm talking about this (spoiler warning goes without saying)...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/04/i ... n-spoiler/
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3208
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by EricJ » May 17th, 2013, 4:54 am

Ben wrote:I don't get what the plot twist was for IM3. Who he was talking to at the end? Not a big surprise really.
I haven't even SEEN the movie yet, and I'm purely guessing
click to reveal content
Mandy was working for the scientist
just on the Spiderman 3 Rule of combining multiple-villain storyline ideas.
(When we kept getting conflicting IM3 production stories about whether it would be Extremis OR the Mandarin, I began to suspect some unnatural hybrids to keep the project together.)

Without spoilers (even though at this point, I'll just put my limited May movie money into Star Trek, use my free DMR ticket for Monsters, and save everything else for 3D Blu-ray), am I reasonably hot or cold?

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 17th, 2013, 11:34 am

Oh, right. Yeah...well I guess that the reveal provided a big laugh. I didn't mind it, and at least a gave the hard core comic nuts a proper surprise that even they wouldn't have been expecting!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by GeorgeC » May 20th, 2013, 1:59 pm

I can't believe they made this script into a film...

What a big turd Paramount laid by letting Abrams and his script buddies make this film.
It is so nonsensical and stupid beyond belief that I can't put it into words.

This folks is a good example of why the mainline movie business -- heck, general the world -- is in trouble now. There's plenty of good, noble things to spend money on and MUCH better scripts out there but what happens?!?!?! S$%@t like this gets the greenlight and hundreds of millions of dollars gets misspent. To be honest, I can't think of any million film made for over $100 million that's as good as the far less-expensive character driven pieces and genre films made before CGI became the norm in film production. I guess they knew they had to write good scripts and deliver good characterization and performances back then! Audiences also seemed to be a lot pickier about this stuff, too.

Everything has gotten so dumbed down since then. The situation should make people sick and look elsewhere for meaningful entertainment.

This is by far the worst and LEAST Star Trek-like of the twelve Trek films made thus far...

Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Nichols, Koenig, Takei, Doohan, Gene Roddenberry, and Majel Barrett have nothing to worry about.
This JJ-crew has nothing on the charisma and genuine on-screen chemistry of the original cast...
The 1960s vision of TOS is by far the better one and more memorable. It's a lot more positive about the future and doesn't have the cynicism that developed after The Next Generation and its offspring debuted.

Bruce Greenwood is the only cast member in this flick whose character I cared for but Pike was almost a blank slate in the original series and he didn't have much to copy there. He had to make the character his own... Maybe there's a lesson there? And yes, I do think he's still a very fine character actor regardless of being cast in two films of what has quickly degenerated into the usual mess that passes for filmmaking now.

Wake me up when Hollywood becomes more consistent at making films that actually have a heart and AREN'T rehashes of 30-year-old classics.
This cycle has gotten beyond tiresome and is a good chunk of why big media deserves to die a hard death.

It is very sad that films like this are getting made now...
JJ doesn't "get it" and frankly I have very low expectations for the next Star Wars films and almost no hope they'll be better than this mess was.
Be careful for what you wish for... The studios may hire someone clueless who will ruin what was special in your earlier years.
I've seen this happen with traditional animation; CGI deteriorated quicker than hand-drawn animation;, and George Lucas did fashion Star Wars films that were worse than the Ewok movies.

Yes, the new Drek film has its enjoyable moments but is still stupid beyond belief.
It's as least as dumb as Battlefield Earth was...
Plan 9 from Outer Space by comparison is a better-scripted film.

I pity the people who think this is one of the greatest films made or that it's even good Star Trek.
I guess the audience gets what it deserves if it has such low expectations and mediocre tastes as I've witnessed online....
I'm not participating in this mess anymore, and Paramount certainly won't get more of my money if they continue onward with this "new vision" of Star Trek.

I've seen what was good and noble about this series and still own that on home video.
The 1966-1969 Star Trek TV series and the first six films are Star Trek.
I have no idea what JJ Abrams thinks is Star Trek but this sure ain't it...

I'd feel dirty buying this new so-called "movie" on home video...
I've seen better product in litter boxes!

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 20th, 2013, 2:49 pm

Then I guess you pity me, George. :(

And if it means I have to take that on my shoulders so I can simply enjoy the new Trek's pure entertainment and, yes, return to the characters' form, then I actually welcome that pitiness.

I've seen every Trek in a theatre since Voyage Home, and the new film is definitely more pure and traditional Trek than The Motionless Picture, V: The Search For God, and the tenth one, Nemesis, which confusingly refused to refer back to events that had happened in the series even while the story copied what had already been done.

Into Darkness perhaps isn't the most perfect Trek film in terms of the having the original cast intact, but as going back to Kirk & Co at the ages they were in the original series - which makes *all* the difference here - then it's about as good as they come. The new cast really have settled into their classic roles here, and no one can say there isn't a camaraderie and chemistry there.

If you can't see that, and just enjoy the modern but retro Trek (unique in itself), then you have my pity in return. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3208
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by EricJ » May 20th, 2013, 4:41 pm

Ben wrote:I've seen every Trek in a theatre since Voyage Home, and the new film is definitely more pure and traditional Trek than The Motionless Picture, V: The Search For God, and the tenth one, Nemesis, which confusingly refused to refer back to events that had happened in the series even while the story copied what had already been done.
And don't forget IX: Insurrection, the One They Forgot Why They Made.

FMM, Karl Urban as retro-Dr. McCoy in the first Abrams movie was completely in on the vibe of why these new movies are made. (Although I can take or leave Abrams' attempts to retrofit "bigger" action by throwing out canon. And given how many Kobayashi Maru references we got in the first update, was pretty well guaranteed for his next one.)
I'll take these new episodes, thanks, and let George have his. :)
Last edited by EricJ on May 21st, 2013, 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5358
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Dacey » May 20th, 2013, 10:12 pm

Plan 9 from Outer Space by comparison is a better-scripted film.
No....just....no. And I love Plan 9. But...no....

And Eric, your post contains a pretty big spoiler, so it might be good if you could edit it to hide that part. :)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 21st, 2013, 7:45 am

That spoiler is the one that I mentioned didn't quite make sense to me. When enough people have seen it...let's discuss!? :)

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5358
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Dacey » May 23rd, 2013, 5:07 pm

When the twist in questioned was revealed...I was short on breath, and I had a big excited smile on my face, I think. So, yeah, it worked for me. ;)

Having said that....
click to reveal content
From a marketing standpoint, going all "top secret" might not have been wise. When you're dealing with the biggest aspects of Star Trek--"We have Khan! We have Klingons! We have Khan killing Klingons!"--, it might be best to let your audience know about it in advance.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18663
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Ben » May 23rd, 2013, 5:32 pm

But...does it actually make sense!?

And as for the other character that we see? I have a small adjustment that I think would have tied things together so much more...really just a line of dialogue that might have really made that worthwhile.

Sounds like you enjoyed the movie tho...everyone I've told to go see has come back saying how much they've enjoyed it. :)

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5358
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek"

Post by Dacey » May 23rd, 2013, 6:45 pm

Well...
click to reveal content
Admiral Marcus said that, after Vulcan was destroyed, Starfleet started taking precautions in the event of the Federation ever meeting another threat like Nero's weapon (or words to that effect). Remember that Space Seed never happened in this universe, meaning that Kirk hasn't found the Bottany Bay yet. Marcus released Khan after locating the Bottany Bay himself, aware of his history as a master of war in his day, but Khan apparently proved to be a loose canon (and also a witness to his war crimes), hence Marcus' plan to use him as a tool to start a war with the Klingons who he is paranoid about. In sending Kirk after Khan, he gets everything he wants: Khan dead, Khan's crew dead, and the Klingon confrontation he's been craving.

LOL. Re-reading that, it doesn't seem to make much sense, I guess. But in the context of this alternate timeline, it did make sense for me. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Post Reply