ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

JJ on The Sequel

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Dec. 23 2012, 11:47 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 18 2012, 7:32 am

>

>This movie is crap is not exactly intelligent conversation.  Seriously, if you can't take a minute and think of an intelligent criticism of the movie maybe you should be reconsidering saying anything at all.

>


We've been waiting for that for a few years now.     We're not going to get much more than an unexplanatory position.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Dec. 27 2012, 11:23 pm

Quote: WkdYngMan @ Dec. 23 2012, 11:47 pm

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 18 2012, 7:32 am

>

>

>This movie is crap is not exactly intelligent conversation.  Seriously, if you can't take a minute and think of an intelligent criticism of the movie maybe you should be reconsidering saying anything at all.

>

We've been waiting for that for a few years now.     We're not going to get much more than an unexplanatory position.


I will be more than happy to explain it. Keep in mind this my OPINION of the film.


AS far as the storyline, I think making changes to the time was a brilliant plot device to free the writers from 45+ years of back story. Changing too much, too fast, and too drasticlly, not so much.  That's my only real problem with the story. I'll focus one what I consider the two biggies.


Spock/Uhura just didn't make sense. How would Nero's interference with the timeline cause that? Now had they gone with Spock?Chapel it would have made better sense. Show them having the affair that never got to happen in TOS. Still hard to explain how Nero caused it, but at least rooted in the sexual tension that exsisted between the two in TOS. SO, affair =Good, Uhura instead of Christine, not so good.


The destruction of Vulcan was just too much. They could have left the planet devistated and in ruins and not have less of an impact. Obliterating the planet was just jumping the shark. I started noticing changes early on in the film and they started to compile and add up, I was getting dissapointed. Before they revealed the "alternate timeline", I already expected as much and was starting to feel like ,"Okay, I get it. This could work." Then they Blew up Vulcan and lost me and many fans like me. I think they just over reached.


Beyond that, I'm just getting bored with the whole "evil, mad man out for revenge" as a plot line. Not very original.


My criticism falls more on the production, casting and some sets and locations.


I had a headache from all the lensflare, and some of the exessive camera movement.


I do like the new exterior of the Enterprise. I think it's the best ship design to date, including TOS. The interior is a different story. I don't care how much you dress it up, the inside of a brewery is always going to look like a brewery NOT the engineering department of a starship. And what was with all those water tubes Scotty got stuck in? Sickbay was okay, but the bridge just didn't seem right. Too bright and too spreadout


Disn't care for Nero's shp at all. The exterior was too fantastic and outlandish, and the interior looked like an abandoned, flooded wearhouse. When it first appeared it came through the wormhole created by the destruction of Romulus. That explains the "lightning storm in space effect". That effect was caused by the wormhole, not the ship. So why, everytime the ship appeared, was it comming through that effect again and again?


Red matter. If Spock only needed a single drop, why did he have a lifetime supply onboard?


Small details maybe, yet distracting when you are trying to get your audience to suspend disbelief.


As for casting, I just couldn't get into to Quinto as Spock. I think He would make a wonderful Data or even Riker (I know, they're TNG). This may have more to do with JJ's version of Spock just not being as warm as the original. And Zoe Salanada(sp?) was awful as Uhura, but I've never liked anything I've seen her in. I think Pine was wrong for J.T.Kirk, but they absolutely nailed McCoy! As for Sulu, Checkov, and Scotty, different from the originals but acceptable.


My original intent when I started this thread was to discuss Character Development. I just thought it ironic that JJ is talking about developing strong characters. IMHO, he was given strong characters and promptly deconstructed them.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4019

Report this Dec. 28 2012, 1:07 pm

You don't know where Spock and Uhura came from? have you WATCHED tos?  There are some major sparks between them.  As to lack of character development, there really wasn't much in the origional material for Uhura, chekov or Sulu for that matter.  They were all just stuck on the bridge for what they represented. 


 


I agree with you when it comes to the red matter.  And I loved the enterprise as well, inside and out. 


Your angry man out for revenge restriction would knock out a whole lot of star trek episodes, a few movies as well as the entire Star Wars franchise don't you think? 


All of these are quibbles that could be just as easily duplicated with any one of the incarnations of the franchise.  They have been brought up so often over the last 4 years they are just whining now.



Like us on Facebook Haters gotta hate

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Dec. 28 2012, 7:26 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 27 2012, 11:23 pm

>

>The destruction of Vulcan was just too much. They could have left the planet devistated and in ruins and not have less of an impact. Obliterating the planet was just jumping the shark. I started noticing changes early on in the film and they started to compile and add up, I was getting dissapointed. Before they revealed the "alternate timeline", I already expected as much and was starting to feel like ,"Okay, I get it. This could work." Then they Blew up Vulcan and lost me and many fans like me. I think they just over reached.

>


So many complaints about Vulcan blowing up, but spare a thought for the poor Romulans whose planet may now be doomed in both universes.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

Blockman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 520

Report this Dec. 29 2012, 2:33 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 28 2012, 4:07 pm



"Your angry man out for revenge restriction would knock out a whole lot of star trek episodes, a few movies as well as the entire Star Wars franchise don't you think?"


-----------

Yes, and all of those villains are bad too...


I hope you're not automatically assuming that "just because it's happened before" he, or anyone else, would be okay with it, then or now?


I'm certainly not.


Original Khan doesn't get a pass. Kruge doesn't get a pass. Klaa doesn't get a pass. And neither does Vader.


Just because there have been flat and poor villains in the past doesn't give modern day writing a get-out-of-jail-free-card. If that was the case, then everyone could just lazily cite those past short-comings as an easy "out" and excuse. We wouldn't be getting such a complex and layered character like John Harrison! if past mistakes like that weren't held accountable.


___________________


Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Dec. 30 2012, 9:26 am

Quote: wissa @ Dec. 28 2012, 1:07 pm

>

>You don't know where Spock and Uhura came from? have you WATCHED tos?  There are some major sparks between them.  As to lack of character development, there really wasn't much in the origional material for Uhura, chekov or Sulu for that matter.  They were all just stuck on the bridge for what they represented. 

>I agree with you when it comes to the red matter.  And I loved the enterprise as well, inside and out. 

>Your angry man out for revenge restriction would knock out a whole lot of star trek episodes, a few movies as well as the entire Star Wars franchise don't you think? 

>All of these are quibbles that could be just as easily duplicated with any one of the incarnations of the franchise.  They have been brought up so often over the last 4 years they are just whining now.

>


And this is the problem. When given a thought out response, we get, "your wrong!" so it's easier tot just say the movie is crap.


Dude I've been a fan since before it was called TOS. It was just Star Trek because that was all we had. No movies. No Picard. "Noe bloody A. No bloody B..."


Please give examples of these so called "sparks" She teased him in a couple of episodes and she sang along to is harp on occasion, but the subtle romantic tension was always between Spock and Christine.


I didn't exactly say there was a lack of character developement. I said that, IN MY OPINION, it's ironic that JJ makes comments about the importance of creating grounded characters when they already developed. He deconstructed them and now makes a point of how important to develope them. I get the process. If I understand him, he seems to be infering that film 1 broke it all down to it's bare essence and started reconstrucing the New ST. Film 2 will develope thse new version of old characters. I get that.


Star trek is always at it's best when it's plots lean more towards situational dilemas rather than evil villians. TOS was restricted by it's generation, even so GR pushed the boundries when and where he could.


As for Star Wars, well it's Star Wars not Star Trek. What works for one doesn't neccessarily work for the other. I'm a fan of both, by the way. 


Finally, a comment was made about not getting thought out responses as to WHY some fans don't lke this movie. My response was an attempt to give that thought out answer, and I preface it as being MY OPINION. yOUR RESPONSE is to call it quibbling and whinning, so GFY.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Dec. 30 2012, 9:35 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Dec. 28 2012, 7:26 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 27 2012, 11:23 pm

>

>

>The destruction of Vulcan was just too much. They could have left the planet devistated and in ruins and not have less of an impact. Obliterating the planet was just jumping the shark. I started noticing changes early on in the film and they started to compile and add up, I was getting dissapointed. Before they revealed the "alternate timeline", I already expected as much and was starting to feel like ,"Okay, I get it. This could work." Then they Blew up Vulcan and lost me and many fans like me. I think they just over reached.

>

So many complaints about Vulcan blowing up, but spare a thought for the poor Romulans whose planet may now be doomed in both universes.


And let's not forget what happened to the Klingons when Praxix exploded or the fact that in 5 out of 11 movies Earth was almost destroyed! (TMP,TVH,FC,NEM,ST09)


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

1trekwars1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 13

Report this Jan. 09 2013, 8:42 am

Quote: netral @ Dec. 23 2012, 10:16 am

>

>okay, so j.j. is really off there. All he did was make the characters less "lovable" (I use that term losely, especially with spock) first of all I was like what the heck? when spock was dating.... Uhura?! I mean, what rupture in the space/time continuim made that happen????? I think the movie, from an overall perspective, was good. The only thing I dont like is when I meet people who think that this is star trek. Im like " Seriously?! there is like 6 other series, not to mention movies!!! This movie is set in a goddamn PARELELL UNIVERSE!!!!!" Okay, so I get kind of worked up, but wouldnt you????

>


 


  .


My gosh ...are people still ranting about how spock/uhura should not be together. In the TOS universe I would have supported this but this is JJ Abram’s universe so who cares.


 


For some Trek fans to keep opposing this romance has become kind of lame. First of all, trek has always been based on the every possibility that can happen actually happened in an alternate world or a parallel universe.


 


You say the movie is a goddamn parallel universe yet you forgot to mention how Deanna troi in TNG married both Worf and Riker in other parallel universes.


 


Secondly its a movie of new characters inspired by their TOS counterparts. The director was not making the film for TOS trek fans only, he was making it for a wide audience and romance is part of the equation if you want to appeal to the masses.


 


How many onscreen couples like tony stark/pepper potts or thor/jane, who were not even together in their original source material but yet worked well on screen?


 


Trek fans should be thanking JJ Abrams of this Spock/Uhura pairing. This pairing has gotten mainstream media attention from sites like EW and shows like The Simpons and it is beginning to rival the Kirk/Spock slash pairing that has been unbeatable of the past 45 years. Also they have been of many best fictional couple list for the past 3 years. All this attention can only get Star Trek more media attention.


 


I am sick of TOS purist whining, at the end of the day it’s not like it is TOS Spock and TOS Uhura that hooked up. Nu Spock and Nu Uhura are different people in comparison to their counterparts

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 09 2013, 10:36 pm

Quote: 1trekwars1 @ Jan. 09 2013, 8:42 am

>

>My gosh ...are people still ranting about how spock/uhura should not be together.

>


Anyone who thinks the Spock/Uhura will not be the subject of rants and debates for at least the next 40 years is fooling themselves!


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

egrant2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 62

Report this Jan. 10 2013, 7:55 pm

Agreed OtakuJo.  JJ is not Roddenberry. We just have to accept that and take the movies for what they are. 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 11 2013, 6:57 am

Quote: egrant2 @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:55 pm

>

>Agreed OtakuJo.  JJ is not Roddenberry. We just have to accept that and take the movies for what they are. 

>


 


Amen to that.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Chrisdude

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10

Report this Jan. 11 2013, 10:49 am

I'm slowly coming to accept the fact that this new series is just big budget action movies like the three or four others we get every summer. Star Trek can be more than that, but not while making the big bucks.


I think of Star Trek like a great meal. The drama, the philosophy, the politics, and of course the action. If I want to serve everybody, I have to scrape everything off the plate except the mac and cheese.


I'll see Into Darkness, and I'll probably enjoy it. But I don't expect it to stand out from Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Wolverine, or any other mac and cheese action movies we'll get this summer.


 

dudelovesvoyager

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3

Report this Jan. 13 2013, 10:22 pm

Agreed. Abrams is a hack and it appears as if he is deliberately trying to completly re-write the Star Trek universe we all know and love.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 14 2013, 2:47 am

Quote: egrant2 @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:55 pm

>

>Agreed OtakuJo.  JJ is not Roddenberry. We just have to accept that and take the movies for what they are. 

>


That is true. Example: I absolutely love Agatha Christie books, but will never be able to write fiction like she does, or like any of my other favourite authors -- because I write like me! The same is true of JJ Abrams and Gene Roddenberry and all others who have ever contributed to Star Trek. They all have their distinct styles, and not everyone is going to be into that.


The future new Star Trek series, when it comes, is going to incite as much hatred as praise. No matter what it is about.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Jan. 16 2013, 4:22 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 12 2012, 6:30 pm

>

id="yui_3_5_1_23_1355364825770_294">taken fron an Access Hollywood interveiw:

>"Director J.J. Abrams - who doesn't exactly make small movies - said the "Star Trek" sequel is his biggest project yet.

id="yui_3_5_1_23_1355364825770_293">"This movie is infinitely bigger than anything I've done before," he explained. "The challenge was making it feel real and believable and this is a huge action adventure, but nobody cares about a spaceship flying through space unless you love the characters on the ship. We had to make sure you had grounded, believable characters.""

>Is he an idiot or what? Star Trek HAD well developed, grounded and believable characters, until he got ahold of them!

>


 


Yeah, I believe he said that.


I just can't believe you twisted it so much.


LOL



"Thank Pitch Forks and Pointed Ears"

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: sonofspock1

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum