Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 9

This Trek has an alternate canon history though.  So it does not feature the real earth1 universe Spock, Kirk or bones it like another universe completely.  JJ could have just as easily made it a mirror universe movie instead of a timetravel one to explain away the changes.

When i say the real Kirk and company i mean in terms of fiction obviously and not real life, its to draw a distinction between Star Trek Universe A the real Star Trek, and Universe B the JJ tangent.

If JJ wanted to make a generic sci fi blockbuster he could have made up his own dumb characters instead of choosing to ruin those who have existed for over 40 years.

It could be a good movie and will still not be real canon Star Trek.

Just like Casino Royale was a good film but was not James Bond.

I was expecting Craig in Quantum of Solace to say "the names Bourne.  Jason Bourne".

skyjedi2005 said:

This Trek has an alternate canon history though.  So it does not feature the real earth1 universe Spock, Kirk or bones it like another universe completely.  JJ could have just as easily made it a mirror universe movie instead of a timetravel one to explain away the changes.When i say the real Kirk and company i mean in terms of fiction obviously and not real life, its to draw a distinction between Star Trek Universe A the real Star Trek, and Universe B the JJ tangent.

Well, it seems like they aren't really revealing what the specific time issues involved will be. It might actually be cool. And as for JJ's new take on Kock or Spirk, I'd hope he's a fan and wants to preserve and stress what he likes about those characters. However, we'll see where it goes.

skyjedi2005 said:

It could be a good movie and will still not be real canon Star Trek.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Whether good or bad, I'll probably be separating a lot of what will be in this movie from what I've liked in the past (to preserve my like for what I currently like). However, what is "canon" Star Trek? To me, Star Trek is filled with so many goofy contradictions and such that you can't take the "canon" too seriously or your head will explode.

Majel Graciously gave her voice to the enterprise computer in the new movie before her passing.

Majel's passing is indeed sad.  It is even sadder that the roddenberrys had no say or control over the revision of star trek by jj and paramount.

And now Rod has to grieve her passing and this year and next year see his fathers creation and vision distorted in jj trek.

The roddenberys trusted JJ, and so does every other actor who has been asked and i wonder why.

The only one i can think of that would be totally against jj and what he is doing is gene r.  and he is dead and cannot speak up.  Therefore it is to the original series fans to boycott this movie since it is not roddenberry trek.

See JJ thought if i add majel's voice then it is roddenberry trek.  Nice try JJ.

By the way i would totally pay to see a Lost or Alias movie by JJ, but Star Trek give me a fucking break man.  Totally the wrong guy for this movie.  Just like he was the wrong choice on Superman, and the studio very wisely chose Bryan Singer instead.

Hunter6 said:

The thing about majel's voicing the computer for this JJ Trek movie is that when a person looks at the info and facts, it really, really looks like an low move by JJ.

This movie had been finish and Originally this movie was going to be released Dec 25 2008. This Movie was done with the Dec 25 2008 release date in mind and JJ never had Majel recorded her voice or even said she was going to it. Then the release date was changed (which is something JJ hated) to May 2009 and the finish film was put in the can a'till May 2009. All this year with the film in the can waiting for it's new release date, JJ never had Majel recorded her voice or even said she was going to it.

Then days before she died, Majel recorded for the new movie on Dec 4 2008.

Majel died Dec 18 2008 only 14 days after recorded for the new movie.

Odd timing that JJ record Majel only 14 days before she died and that before then, JJ never had Majel recorded her voice or even said she was going to be in this film for the past 8 months.

It really, really looks like JJ was not going to have Majel in this film, but then JJ heard about Majel dying and ran to her death-bed to have her record some lines for his film before she died just for JJ to say that she is in the film.

Low move, JJ.

It is also Low that in JJ Abrams condolence for Majel that JJ throws in a plug for his Star Trek:

"She will be immortalized by her life’s work, including, I feel lucky and honored to say, her performace in the latest chapter in the Star Trek saga." -JJ Abrams. 

What is the next low move for you, JJ Abrams. are you going to sell parts of Majel's body off on EBAY or just use her name to push your film now that she is dead.

-------

I'm for one is really sick of all Abrams actions with trek.

I really feel that trek-fans need to do like skyjedi2005 said by boycotting this movie. 

 

 

You do realise that what you are doing there could be protrayed as being as low as what you reckon JJ has been over  Majel's death because he mentioned the new film ? You, unknowingly, are using her death to portray what a low life you believe  JJ is.

Majel died of leukaemia and would have been undergoing some really horrible treatment so would have probably been unable to record the voice originally for the movie but when she realised she was dying it may well have been her wish that she record the lines. Do you know that he never asked her to do the voice originally? No.  Just because JJ mentioned star trek in his condolences doesn't mean that he was plugging his movie at all. God you really come up with things that aren't even there. So everyone who worked on the Dark knight and said that it was a privilege to work with Heath Ledger on Dark Knight was just throwing in a plug for the movie and were being disrespectful? Come on, seriously now.

So Gene would have hated the movie because it isn't his original vision for Star Trek? Well Star Trek has never been his original vision from the day the first series started. Don't you even remember "The Cage?" That was his original vision and the network didn't like it so he changed the format of the show to what we all know as TOS. Even James Kirk's middle name changed in the TOS. And Spock originally showed emotion in the cage but became emotionless in the series. 

You know little about the movie and haven't even seen it yet but continue to slate it. I love ST and have grown up with it from the TOS re-runs in the UK in the early 70's. It continued to change a grow with the times, especially design wise.  Star Trek became stale and it needed a good kick in the ass. whether this movie is it, that remains to be seen but i for one won't judge it on a trailer and some gossipy titbits alone. If the movie turns out to be a big steaming turd then i'll be one of the first to admit it but some will still slate the movie even if it turns out to be great.

I found this funny:

http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2008-12/science-star-trek

Hunter6 said:

It is like the makers of this Film need Film-making 101.

And obviously you don't which is why they asked you to direct the new Trek and all those other great films you've done.

Clearly JJ is evil.  He obviously knew exactly when Majel Barrett was going to die.  In fact, it's pretty clear to me that he killed her.

Assholes.

JJ does need filmaking 101.   He is a tv producer, writer and director.   This is only his second film his last being MI3 which felt like  a tv episode and not a hollywood blockbuster.

They are giving the reigns and of a 40 year plus old franchise and the keys to the trek kingdom to a guy who does not have the background it seems to pull it off. 

If they were prepping a new modern and edgy trek for tv JJ might be the right guy but a huge epic giant 200 million dollar movie?  The biggest trek film by far in terms of effects budget and scale.

Even that is doubtful because JJ never stays with any of his shows long and has had zero fidelity with any franchise he has worked on.  Seriously the guy gets bored way too easily and always has too many projects going on at once.

The last time they gave the directing chores to a non trek guy Stuart Baird we got the turd that was nemesis.  Meyer and bennet were outside guys too but i believe that was a special case.

Can JJ pull off what Nick Meyer did on a shoestring budget.  Wrath of Khan was made for something like 15 million dollars.  Look at the absurd budget JJ has.  That only makes me even more fearful they will spend tons of money on digital computer generated imagery Like lucas did on the star wars prequels which by the way were inferior in every way to the originals.

I think this film could turn out to be a fun 2 hours of entertainment as far as summer blockbusters go. Hell it could even be a damn fine movie, like my example of Casino Royale and not fit what the canon is and what the characters screen history are. 

Of course i never expected it to look like the sixties tv show.  I always loved the film franchise first as that is what hooked me on Trek.  That and TNG.  I gave tos a second or third watch much later on, but as a very young kid it was too ponderous and slow and not the gee whiz, explosions and lightsaber duels of star wars.

That being said i don't want Star Trek to be anything like Star Wars than i want Star Wars to be like Star Trek.

And of Course it is impossible to expect the new movie and its actors to live up to the legendary films 1-6.  The magic of the adventures of the silver screen enterprise and her intrepid crew. Any more than people never expected the star wars prequels to live up to the original trilogy, but expected at least a middle ground on terms of quality.  Instead we got giant piles of shit with Super Epic Polished CGI.

This new film will be a type of star trek, just not the "star trek".

I am going to have to force myself to go into this film with a fresh perspective.  This star trek is a new creation, you have to forget everything you know about star trek.  Star Trek as it was died with nemesis and enterprise.  This is a rebirth starts from the beginning as if star trek was being created for the first time.  It will truly be the first time trek was "fresh" since the sixties.  As a new continuity and entirely seperate franchise entity than what was before. 

The new bond does not match the continuity of the older bond films, the new batman does not match the shumacher or burton films, and the newer star wars films despite what George Lucas says do not belong in the same continuity or universe as the original star wars trilogy.  It will be the same here. 

Too bad they are making the same mistake as Superman returns by having it a reboot and not a reboot at the same time.  Why can't they make up their fucking minds.  On the one hand they want the old school trekkies money by Putting Nimoy in a non canon film, almost like connery in never say never again. And on the other hand the want the average film viewer who goes out on a friday evening or saturday afternoon  to go to the movies to see this and not just the nerds who go to conventions.

I think there is some knew trend of hating film makers. What is with you guys. Lucas, Spielberg, Abrams. What other film makers do you guys hate with such passion?

I just realized that it's funny that people are criticizing Abrams because he's only worked in TV.  I don't think that necessarily proves anything.  But as far as Star Trek goes, everybody is praising Nick Meyer (and rightfully so), but doesn't the name Harve Bennett ring a bell?  If not, let me remind you.  He was the producer for the second through fourth Star Trek films.  After the lukewarm reception of the first film, they brought him in to take care of things.  And he was from television.  And he brought the shooting schedule of television and the mentaility of making television to Wrath of Khan.  And look how that one turned out.  Let's not forget that Star Trek is, first and foremost, television.  I'm not saying that Abrams is going to turn out that way too.  I don't know.  I haven't seen enough of his work.  I'm just saying that just because he's from television doesn't mean it's a bad thing.  Hell, it might be a good thing.

C3PX said:

I think there is some knew trend of hating film makers. What is with you guys. Lucas, Spielberg, Abrams. What other film makers do you guys hate with such passion?

Michael Bay?  Not me personally, though I can't stand what he did to Transformers.  Just throwing that name out there in case anyone wants to add it to the list ;)

Brett Ratner, what he did to X-men still pisses me off.

Bryan Singer for Superman Returns.

Sam Raimi for Spider man 3.

Still yeah i would not put them up there with the likes of Michael Bay, JJ abrams, George Lucas or Steven Spielberg who rape peoples childhood memories through the destruction of franchises.

I am sure that MCG will be next on the lower sewers of the crap list when the terminator 4 movie rapes the t1 and t2 movies all over again, but not much left after  t3.

JJ may well yet get a reprieve from the list if by some strange twist of fate the movie for trek in 2009 is actually good.  As of now the trailer is pure garbage and brings up memories of bay's transformers and the star wars prequels.  A very dire mix of shit if there ever could be garbage blockbuster type summer movies that don't meet expectations even when lowered a far as you will except as an adult for willing suspension of disbelief.

Next year will be the tenth anniversary of Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace and to celebrate we get Simon Pegg as the new Jar Jar Binks, and Ryan Church's i-prise and applestore bridge with a smallville or 90210 trek type cast.

skyjedi2005 said:

Sam Raimi for Spider man 3.

But doesn't his outstanding work on the previous two movies counteract one bad movie in a franchise?

That said, I actually like Spider-Man 3, and I don't really understand why everyone rags on it so much.  Is it without flaws?  No, it has many, but I still find it extremely enjoyable and hardly worthy of the hate it receives.

I agree with the Gaffer....Not the best of the bunch, but certainly not in the same league of badness as X-Men 3

Hunter6 said:

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Hunter6 said:

It is like the makers of this Film need Film-making 101.

And obviously you don't which is why they asked you to direct the new Trek and all those other great films you've done.

 

I have taking Film, CGI animation and photo classes in collage. Both me and my wife work in media and know allot about it.

Having glare in mostly every shot is a no-no in film-making.

also having over blur in every shot of CGI animation is no-no in CGI animation.

You,"Yoda Is Your Father" don't know what you are talking about or to who.

the Hollywood of today is not about the art of film-making, but is really about who is your Family is or you are sleeping with or who you know. the real Hollywood is not like the fake Hollywood show on shows in E.T.

 

DUDE, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.  GO MAKE YOUR OWN STAR TREK MOVIE.  I'M SURE THAT THEY'LL ALL COME RUNNING TO SEE IT.  

I am through with debating the merits or demerits of the JJ movie since the final film will speak for itself.  The picture will be locked according to JJ a few days back in about a week.

So the movie is finished and in the can and will be on hold to next summer.

Should i start a new thread about the rumored plans for a new trek tv series from cbs/paramount or should I just ask here in this thread what everyones thoughts are for a sixth tv series.

The idea they were throwing around was a far in the future dark Star Trek like Battlestar Galacticas reboot.  I'm sure it would be the entreprise F.  I heard these rumblings on trekmovie so they probably are not true and are only the site owners own fanboy dreams.

I don't even think i can find that old thread anymore anyways,lol.

I thought Ronald Moore already tried the dark thing on enterprise with allusions to the war on terror in the Xindi earth wars.  Was not that already a huge fail with the fanbase because trek is supposed to be positive and a hopeful future.  The same reason for some trek fans ds9=fail.

They supposedly even had a proposal from JMS who created Babylon 5 for a fifth tv series before they went forward with enterprise.  He already tried his dark series b5 spinoff which was cancelled in its first season.

So because Batman Begins and Dark Knight were so sucessful and because of the 90's love affair with anti heroes and darkness all movie studios and tv people are going that route.

They already tried it on the star wars prequels which was a fail.  But the original prequel story was a downer anyways.  They are doing it with the star wars novels since 1999 vector prime all the way up to the legacy novels.

and are currently doing it in the legacy star wars comics. Remember how Lucas learned his lesson that dark does not reach audiences making THX 1138 and reversed his way of thinking on graffiti and star wars. 

Star Wars the original trilogy is overall positive and has traditional heroes and is more black and white right and wrong than the prequels modernistic shades of grey.

The Lord of the rings trilogy by peter jackson reached that same audience and told a story that connected with the people watching it.  Overall positive stories and an everyman the audience can relate to. 

These new hollywood pics are all out to make you depressed, and are all in a state of self loathing, or loathing of humanity.  You get emo goth nihilists like Anakin Skywalker of episodes 2 and 3.

Even though JJ's Star Trek is not canon, and is designed to look different. IMHO

It still is in that Hopeful future roddenberry dreamed of, according to JJ.

He rejected going dark like Batman.  I think he said that is not what star trek is about and would not work.  People have said the same about Superman yet warners is still going forward with a dark superman in time for a christmas 2011 release date.

Well if a movie is not made for my generation as you put it, designed lazily and does not even remotely try to gain my interest then they won't get my money plain and simple and i am not alone in this.

There are plenty of the thirty something year old crowd to those in there forties or fifties that will not plunk down 10 bucks or whatever to see a teen centric film that bastardizes something they have loved all their lives long.

I am not even a trekky I am a lesser fan of the original film series and was first a fan of the original star wars trilogy and even i hate the look of this trailer.  The colors remind me of the speed racer movie that the matrix guys made.

If paramount can spend some money on restoring the old films for dvd and blu ray then i will be more than happy to watch those and forget this joke even exists. 

I cannot forget the prequels and special editions of star wars because i can't watch the originals in an acceptable quality.  If i could watch them in a high quality source the special editions and prequels become a secondary issue and i can forget they exist even if they destroyed star wars credibility in the long run.

I mean i can still watch the 3 Indiana Jones films in a good quality release on dvd and don't have to watch the fourth film, or even own it.  I don't have to watch bad added cgi and hamfisted story changes that make zero sense.

Its like the 2008 clone wars movie looked like shit on film and yet the Blu Ray release is stunning because after all the movie was created entirely in the digital domain.  I bet you anything Ebert saw it on film.  If he saw the Blu Ray even he would say it is visually stunning, but that does not help the awful dialogue and nonsensically childish story.

Similarly i bet that this new trek film will wow audiences visually in imax and dlp, since it was made with zero film and only shot on hi definition video cameras.  The movie and its color palette is obviously chosen for the eventual Blu Ray release and those who have one of those TV's that has videogame like colors.  Me i like film its more natural and more real.  And if you can set up your hdtv display and watch your blu rays that way that is what i will do once i have one.

And as an anime and film enthusiast i would today if i had the money.  Even the criterion collection is going to re-issue there Kurosawa films in 1080p.  And Kino film metropolis.  The first Miyazaki film on Blu is the castle of cagliostro in japan, I bet sometime in the next couple of years Disney usa will issue the ghibli collection on blu.  Bond is slowly coming out on Blu, and star trek the tv series and movies are in the works.  Almost anything i want or can think of is coming out of course except star wars thanks to george lucas.

I also want star trek the next generation in HD but cbs digital is still waffling on doing that one.  Since the effects and edits were primarily done on video as a cost cutting and quick turnaround measure back in the days before HD and digital video were viable.  The shows were shot on 35mm panavision film supposedly but they would have to redit the shows from scratch using the studio video masters as a guide.

Unlike say the original star trek series which was all composed in the realm of 35mm film.  They went back to the original negatives which had no generations loss but did not have the old opticals saved they had to be redone.  There are 2 stories on this one is either they were in terrible shape and would show all the flaws that when they did the effects in the sixties.  The other is like most studios do the elements were dumpstered and not saved.  This is probably the real reason why the effects had to be redone.  A lot of the deleted scenes and effects stuff was sold to fans because they would have just thrown it out anyways.

I believe that George Lucas is the first person in the business to devote his own finances to Preserving the props and opticals and every piece of film used on his movies.  He had to do it because the studios would not do it and he was not going to leave the existance of all his work up to them.

This was done after return of the jedi was finished and skywalker ranch was finished.  Unfortunetely a lot of star wars props were stolen or were just plain thrown away.  Any of the sets that did not have to be reused on the sequels were also junked.  The original death star model was dumpstered when ilm moved and a dumpster diver got it and eventual it found its way to a fleamarket where a fan purchased it.

It was later resold at auction for a high price and is in that fans collection. 

These peices are not seen as art because film and television is a world of mundane work and is just done for making money.  The effects houses back then in the sixties would do the set up shoot it, and it would be then torn down.  A weekly tv series was just that work to meet a deadline.  That does not say that did not have any pride in their work. 

I for one wish the opticals had been saved and could have been reused on the remaster of trek since Richard Edlund worked on that show.

I just watched Insurrection with my girlfriend (right after Christmas) and I still think it's a fantastic Star Trek movie. I don't get what any of you might dislike about it so much (skyjedi in particular). I'd be curious to know your reasoning.

While the story is a bit cliche for the Star Trek universe, it's still dramatic and well done. From there the characters are likable and believable. The action is nice throughout (and fantastic to watch when it comes to the ship battles). And, lastly, there are a lot of hilarious parts that make me laugh.

I suppose the biggest flaw for the movie (in my mind) would be the fact that it isn't successful with Star Trek's sense of wonder and exploration (the alien planet and people are rather shallow and hollow). After that, beyond the questions of disobeying orders and standing up for what's right, there really isn't too much that gets my mind thinking about this movie. Lastly, the technological elements of the story were thrown around too loosely for me to enjoy them on their own (which is always a nice aspect of sci-fi). However, each of those points just make the movie mediocre (not necessarily bad) and a lot of other Star trek movies also do a horrible job with them. The movie, on the whole, is still entertaining for what it does right.

I'm thinking that people who don't like Insurrection might be a little too serious about themselves. To elaborate, they probably didn't like being presented with humor in Star Trek and would, instead, have preferred the usual "epic" or "badass" approach we seem to always get from Hollywood. I suppose I can understand this perspective: when people spend 7 dollars on a movie ticket they want something they can expect to enjoy. However, I appreciate stories that can try something different and go with an approach that is new. Insurrection isn't great, but it's still good and offers a kind of entertainment that isn't tried nearly as often.

Hey thats not fair to say that at all about me, i liked Insurrection sure it was not as sucessful as first contact but insurrection felt like real star trek and first contact was a action flick.

It was nemesis i hated the only trek film i actually dispise out of all ten films.  People tear Trek V to pieces all the time but at least it was not a rehash of star trek 2.