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

J.J. Abrams Proves Himself as the Saviour of Star Trek!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 09 2013, 1:48 pm

I feel that the only thing Star Trek has done is make JJ Abrams a bankable action film director.


I wonder, in 25 years, will there be any people that say they were inspired by Star Trek Into Darkness to be a doctor, an engineer, an astronaut? 

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 09 2013, 3:23 pm

It wouldn't matter if the reviews are an average of 99% positive and Roddenberry rises from the grave to hump Abram's leg out of pure, childlike love. The Mouthy Minority will never be swayed from their pathetic whining.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 15 2013, 12:16 pm

The problem with Abrams is while I'm sure he would probably be able to pull of a reasonably exciting arc like "The Best of Both Worlds", I highly doubt it would even occur to him to follow up with something like "Family".   I don't see him giving us drama like "Inner Light" or  DS9's "Duet"

Trekwolf164

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 32043

Report this May. 15 2013, 9:33 pm

Just got home from STITD. Saw it in an IMAX theater, it was in 3D. I have to say I enjoyed it very much.
It is action packed with elements from TOS spread throughout some of it given a subtle twist. there was supposed to be representitives from Anvos in costumes but they were not present..
I really enjoyed the 3D it was my first time seeing a film in this format but I am going to see the film again in a conventional theater because I feel that I did not see the sets as well as ai have in other Trek films.

Do not want to give spoilers so I'M will stop here with go out and see this film you will enjoy it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcdZla4gKk0

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this May. 16 2013, 6:30 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 15 2013, 12:16 pm

>

>The problem with Abrams is while I'm sure he would probably be able to pull of a reasonably exciting arc like "The Best of Both Worlds", I highly doubt it would even occur to him to follow up with something like "Family".   I don't see him giving us drama like "Inner Light" or  DS9's "Duet"

>


I dunno, I think "Super 8" was a step in that direction. Anything's possible in time.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Flanaess

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 17 2013, 4:10 pm

Star Trek did not need saving. imo


I felt fine with Star Trek ending.


(especially when there is a series ending episode)


It's all still availble to be watched.


It was always with us in artwork, books, comics, conventions, fandom and merchandise since it's creation.


It can be fun to have new, but it is not needed, since there is so many other things to experience, past and present.


Exploring things that inspired Star Trek can be one way to celebrate it, explore history and history of the writers' lives, actors' other work etc.


Try some Horatio Hornbloweretc.


Explore what else was going on in 1966 and the rest of the 1960's. etc.


 


imho


 

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 4:13 pm

I agree with you 200%.  I feel that when people say "Star Trek was dead" it really means "Star Trek was no longer producing new material or cash"


Star Trek will NEVER be dead.  It may lose popularity or press, but it will never die. 


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 17 2013, 9:15 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 17 2013, 4:13 pm

>

>I agree with you 200%.  I feel that when people say "Star Trek was dead" it really means "Star Trek was no longer producing new material or cash"

>Star Trek will NEVER be dead.  It may lose popularity or press, but it will never die. 

>


I would disagree with it this, if the population of fans slowly dwindles to the point that the actual message people wish to spread becomes almost inaudible. I have maintained, and will always maintain, that one credit to Abrams must be enlarging Trek's appeal and fan base, and introducing people who would otherwise feel intimidated to enter the fandom.


Star Trek may not "die" but it may become irrelevant. I have often wondered at that...


Paramount had no reason to bring Trek back but they did and they made money doing so. Not sure why this is always considered a sin.


I'll also submit that Star Trek has never stopped making money given the sheer amount of merchandising, Blu Rays and what not that are constatly being produced

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4026

Report this May. 17 2013, 9:48 pm

Quote: Flanaess @ May. 17 2013, 4:10 pm

>

>Star Trek did not need saving. imo

>I felt fine with Star Trek ending.

>(especially when there is a series ending episode)

>It's all still availble to be watched.

>It was always with us in artwork, books, comics, conventions, fandom and merchandise since it's creation.

>It can be fun to have new, but it is not needed, since there is so many other things to experience, past and present.

>Exploring things that inspired Star Trek can be one way to celebrate it, explore history and history of the writers' lives, actors' other work etc.

>Try some Horatio Hornbloweretc.

>Explore what else was going on in 1966 and the rest of the 1960's. etc.

>imho

>  

>


I felt that way after seeing tmp on opening night.  Thank god no one important agreed with me


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 17 2013, 9:49 pm

I agree fireproof,


 


The glorious thing about the new Trek movies is that it has allowed Star Trek to reach people again. I can't get over how narrow and selfish some fans are who'd rather put it in a bottle and watch it die slowly rather than have it be out there for more to enjoy and discover, simply because those "fans" are too absorbed to look beyond their own individual needs. 


 


I love what has happened because it has renewed interest in Star Trek in general. I have coworkers asking to borrow my TOS blu rays so they can watch the series with their kids. You have people going back and discovering Trek for the first time...and liking what they find (in some cases, liking it more than the movies that spawned their interest). This is all so good for the continued longevity of the franchise. 


These movies success all but assured a new generation of fans and interest in the franchise. Even more importantly, I'd as the chances of some form of television revival are greatly increased with the successful reception of Into Darkness. So, the bitter self-absorbed get no sympathy from me. What we have right now is a complete rejuvenation of Star Trek. 


Any art from must REACH people. This BS about how fans would rather it just exist in low profile mediums so it can remain as they want it is really sad. I'm glad Star Trek lives...and will be out of th shadows and influences of those "fans"!

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 18 2013, 7:28 am

After reading what I posted in another thread about Abrams wanting to shut down production of TOS merchandise, there's no way I see him as a "saviour".  If he did get what he wanted, then TOS would effectively be swept under the rug. Then people would have to borrow your dvds because they wouldn't be able to get their own.   


And as for merchandising making money, see above.


I've read and watched numerous interviews with Abrams and the impression I get from him is that he thinks he "finally got Star Trek right", perhaps simply because he didn't "get it" when he was a kid? I don't know....I just get that impression.


I'm not opposed to making new Trek, I'm opposed to making Trek for the sake of making Trek, i.e. to keep the assembly belt moving.  New, quality Trek that moves forward would be worth waiting another 10 years for.


I watched STID online yesterday and recycled a lot of TOS material, it's a lazy, lazy movie.  This is a matter of quantity vs quality, not being self absorbed. 

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 18 2013, 7:33 am

On this subject, here is a very interesting article:


 


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Merchandise-Fights-Stopped-J-J-Abrams-From-Building-Massive-Trek-World-37587.html


Specifically the section about Bad Robot trying to


"get CBS to stop marketing the original series during this run of movies"


"this run" could have meant anything if JJ hadn't got SW.


 


 


Apologises if it is already posted somewhere.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Flanaess

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 24

Report this May. 18 2013, 1:15 pm

I think I'll like the new Star Trek, but going by the reasoning of a new Star Trek saving the old,
we would need to re-make every television series and movie every few years from now to eternity.

Should we reboot Jaws,
 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and  E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial?

Many authors have died, but their work lives on in books, that we still know about hundreds of years later.

I guess when Earth's sun burns out, the future people will still praise J.J. Abrams for 'saving' Star Trek, not giving and credit at all to the various writers, set designers, artists, model makers, prop designers, other directors, costume  designers, camera crew and all those individuals involved who were responsible for giving Star Trek it's distinctive look and feel, all the people working together to make something special and unique.

Star Trek is not just one man's vision and work.

It takes many to make it what Star Trek becomes in the final production.

I'll give J.J. Abrams for doing his job and say he knows how to earn money, but he is not the savior of Star Trek, because almost any film director could have done a similar job. The product sells itself at this point. One could throw together just about any movie and make a certain amount of ticket sales. And things help like having money up front for the budget, advertisements and publicity. Even an actor at a convention said it helped greatly to have the higher budget. Big money capital gives an edge to making blockbuster profits.

It's still funny how money is their primary objective, when in Star Trek IV, the Federation character's are above money and materialism. First Contact as well, Picard gives that big speech.

At least in Star Trek IV, it helped something in reality, the whales, and it also helped people help the environment.


megan512

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1324

Report this May. 18 2013, 1:59 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ May. 16 2013, 6:30 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 15 2013, 12:16 pm

>

>

>The problem with Abrams is while I'm sure he would probably be able to pull of a reasonably exciting arc like "The Best of Both Worlds", I highly doubt it would even occur to him to follow up with something like "Family".   I don't see him giving us drama like "Inner Light" or  DS9's "Duet"

>

I dunno, I think "Super 8" was a step in that direction. Anything's possible in time.


That's what I was thinking. I enjoyed Super 8. It's not the typical action, summer blockbuster movie.


"Captain, life is not a dream." - Spock "Can you please continue the petty bickering? I find it quite intriguing." - Data

PrincessBarbara

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8

Report this May. 18 2013, 2:33 pm

Savior of Star Trek?  Hardly STID was aa major disappointment, and NOT STAR TREK.  I for one am lobbying Paramount to turn the reins over to talent who have proven themselves in the World of Trek and SiFi:  Jonathan Frakes and Ronald D. Moore. This story was disjointed, character development and quality interaction non-existant.  You could take dog dodo, film it in 3-D and special effects, leak 30 second trailers for 9 months and yes you would probably have a great opening weekend at the box office.  But people who know dog feces will recognize it for what it is and I doubt there will be Dog Poop II.  Let JJ prove himself as the savior of Star Wars.  I can't wait until the George Lucas devotees get done with him!!!

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