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!

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 25 2013, 3:14 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ May. 25 2013, 10:49 am

>

>Star Trek is not science-fantasy.

>


Yes it is.


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

LovesKirk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this May. 25 2013, 3:27 pm

JJ is actually a good director for Star Trek....he just needs to hire better writers.

LovesKirk

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11

Report this May. 25 2013, 3:34 pm

Quote: OtakuJo @ May. 25 2013, 3:14 pm

Quote: darmokattanagra @ May. 25 2013, 10:49 am

>

>

>Star Trek is not science-fantasy.

>

Yes it is.


Science fiction is where you take a known science subject and build a fictional story around it, maybe go beyond known parameters and project grander ideas.
 
Science Fantasy is when you use the known grander fiction ideas and inject the highly improbable (warp drive, transporters, etc etc...)
 
I think Star Trek needs a new term for it's self.
Maybe like Fictional Science Fantasy
FSF for short.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 25 2013, 4:04 pm

Quote: LovesKirk @ May. 25 2013, 3:34 pm

>

>Science fiction is where you take a known science subject and build a fictional story around it, maybe go beyond known parameters and project grander ideas.   Science Fantasy is when you use the known grander fiction ideas and inject the highly improbable (warp drive, transporters, etc etc...)   I think Star Trek needs a new term for it's self. Maybe like Fictional Science Fantasy FSF for short.


hehe.


Honestly I think if you look closely, you would find that a lot of Science Fiction fits that category. Which makes the idea that the films are genre-hopping kind of arbitrary. Even a lot of the alien races in Star Trek, (Changelings, Q, wormhole aliens/Prophets, and even Klingons & Vulcans) could, given a little thought, be easily matched to similar races from our notion of the spirit world.


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

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 27 2013, 9:57 am

Distinguishing between science fiction and fantasy, Rod Serling claimed that the former was "the improbable made possible" while the latter was "the impossible made probable". As a combination of the two, science fantasy gives a scientific veneer of realism to things that simply could not happen in the real world under any circumstances - where science fiction does not permit the existence of fantasy or supernatural elements; science fantasy explicitly relies upon them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

The warp drive and transporters are improbable but they are not impossible. Also, the alien races may be based on "spirits" but they are not presented as such. Those who are "God-like" are always shown to be more advanced/evolved beings. They are real. They are not magical or supernatural.


To clarify though, the biggest example of science-fantasy in the Abramsverse is the theme of destiny and the way Kirk becomes Captain and befriends Spock because that's what he did in the "Prime Universe." The alternate universe angle is fine because it's scientifically possible but interjecting the theme of destiny makes it fantasy because then it becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy. Like Star Wars.

Kilrahi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 405

Report this May. 27 2013, 10:05 am

Mmmmmm . . . not quite.


For one, transporters specifically probably ARE impossible.  Other subjects such as alternate universes could also be 100% impossible.  For now they only exist in the "believable theory" category which is only believable so long as nothing we've yet discovered 100% precludes the possibility.  Also, you muddy the waters a bit on how the wormhole "aliens" are portrayed.  Numerous times DS9 clearly and intentionally leaves it vauge on what they really are.


As for the subject of "destiny" you basically took a stand on one of the most debated matters in metaphysics (free will vs. predetermination).  Some would say you are predestined to do certain things (such as befriend Spock) as long as you run into him.  In Abram's universe it is believable that Kirk runs into Spock.  A person who believes in predetermination will accept that once that happens they will always be friends. 

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this May. 27 2013, 11:41 am

I don't think "saving" is the right word for what J.J. has done to Star Trek. Abrams has simply turned Trek into a cash cow for Paramount again, by reducing Trek down to its essential elements (minimalism), stripping it of its political and moral storytelling, amping up the action-adventure, discarding canon, rewriting the TOS characters as present day characters, redesigning Trek villians, etc. I don't subscribe to the point of view that what's good for Paramount money-wise is good for Trek.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 27 2013, 11:56 am

So far it's made $257,927,000 worldwide.  Given it's 190 million dollar budget, that's not a lot.  I don't think it's quite a "cash cow".  I mean for the average person it's a lot of money, but I wonder what Paramount will think of that profit margin?


Fast and Furious has made 317 million with a 160 million dollar budget in it's first weekend.


Iron Man 3 has made over 1 Billion with a 200 million budget after 4 weeks.


Will Smith's After Earth hits theaters next week.  The list of competition builds up to Man of Steel June 14

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 27 2013, 8:02 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 27 2013, 11:56 am

>

>So far it's made $257,927,000 worldwide.  Given it's 190 million dollar budget, that's not a lot.  I don't think it's quite a "cash cow".  I mean for the average person it's a lot of money, but I wonder what Paramount will think of that profit margin?

>Fast and Furious has made 317 million with a 160 million dollar budget in it's first weekend.

>Iron Man 3 has made over 1 Billion with a 200 million budget after 4 weeks.

>Will Smith's After Earth hits theaters next week.  The list of competition builds up to Man of Steel June 14

>


It made money. That is good news. I'm sure Abrams will be invited back.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 28 2013, 11:33 am

They may be obligated to offer him a third film. If he take is, or if they give him the money that  they gave him for STID is the question.


He clearly didn't revitalize the franchise to the point where Paramount and CBS are chomping at the bit to make a spin off series, ala Agents of SHIELD.

chator56

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 498

Report this May. 28 2013, 12:40 pm

Star Trek will now take a backseat to Star Wars.

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 28 2013, 1:13 pm

Quote: chator56 @ May. 28 2013, 12:40 pm

>

>Star Trek will now take a backseat to Star Wars.

>


In terms of popularity and acceptance I think it always has. People don't generally give you a hard time if you say you like Star Wars, but if you say you like Star Trek you get called a nerd and such.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 28 2013, 1:22 pm

I never understood the Star Wars vs Star Trek debate.  I mean I get why people accepted Star Wars fans more, but the fandom rivalry can get ugly.  They're so different and each has it's own merit..  In junior high my BFF was a Star Wars fan.  We educated each other on each others' fandoms. I took her to a Star Trek convention and she's the reason I know the names of characters that never had lines long before Wookiepedia.  


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 28 2013, 9:33 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 28 2013, 11:33 am

>

>They may be obligated to offer him a third film. If he take is, or if they give him the money that  they gave him for STID is the question.

>He clearly didn't revitalize the franchise to the point where Paramount and CBS are chomping at the bit to make a spin off series, ala Agents of SHIELD.

>


Well, that's partially due to Disney's deeper pockets and use of a juggernaught of a movie franchise to propel it in to a TV series. They also tried a similar thing with Tron when Tron: Legacy came out. That is far more of Disney's MO than CBS.


I think Enterprise so burned CBS that they would need GR himself to come back from the dead to convince them to do another TV series. I mean, Trek 09 was an extremely popular movie, had a huge return, and yet CBS is hedging its bets. Something is making them wait, and I don't think its Abrams. I think it is their own fear of another loss.


As to Star Wars and Star Trek, who knows? Personally, I'll take both from Abrams and give them a shot. I mean, Star Wars has really hit bottom with Phantom Menace, so I think it can get better.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 29 2013, 8:07 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 28 2013, 9:33 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 28 2013, 11:33 am

>

>

>They may be obligated to offer him a third film. If he take is, or if they give him the money that  they gave him for STID is the question.

>He clearly didn't revitalize the franchise to the point where Paramount and CBS are chomping at the bit to make a spin off series, ala Agents of SHIELD.

>

Well, that's partially due to Disney's deeper pockets and use of a juggernaught of a movie franchise to propel it in to a TV series. They also tried a similar thing with Tron when Tron: Legacy came out. That is far more of Disney's MO than CBS.

I think Enterprise so burned CBS that they would need GR himself to come back from the dead to convince them to do another TV series. I mean, Trek 09 was an extremely popular movie, had a huge return, and yet CBS is hedging its bets. Something is making them wait, and I don't think its Abrams. I think it is their own fear of another loss.

As to Star Wars and Star Trek, who knows? Personally, I'll take both from Abrams and give them a shot. I mean, Star Wars has really hit bottom with Phantom Menace, so I think it can get better.


I'd say your analysis is sound, fireproof.  After all, it took 4 ST films before TNG premiered.  After how badly Paramount burned out the franchise with VOY and then ENT, it's no wonder CBS is waiting to do a new show. 


WRT all this talk about whether or not Abrams is right for ST or the merit of his films, I do have a few thoughts.  First, I really did like ST09.  I thought, for the most part, the cast nailed the characters.  I've been a TOS fan for years and I really missed those characters.  They had flaws and they were human and felt more real than the characters of TNG and VOY.  I also liked the big screen action of the film.  It was cool to see a ST film that had a SW budget again (TMP being the only one prior).  There were certainly some things I wished they would've included in the film, i.e. more clarification of young Kirk's background, where Nero was for over 20 years (in Klingon prison, which was cut), the reason for Kirk meeting Spock Prime (justified by Orci as "the timeline trying to correct itself"), etc.  I also disliked "Budengineering."  But, on the whole, I really liked the film, although it doesn't replace the best of the TOS films (with their far more meager budgets), imo.


So I have to give Abrams, Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzmann credit, at least, for successfully rebooting those TOS characters.  I thought it was inspired how they used an in-universe mechanism, time travel, to do that.  I really thought it was brilliant, using Nimoy's Spock to both create and "bless" their rebooted ST universe, giving it legitimacy. 


But while I appreciate what Abrams accomplished in giving new life to the TOS characters, maybe someone else would do a better job too.  Abrams himself admitted that someone probably could in a recent interview.  Bob Orci has even said that someone might have a better idea than he, Lindelof, and Kurtzmann for what to do with the characters.  That said, I wouldn't mind Orci and Kurtzmann having another go.  From his interview on this website, it sounds like Orci thinks they need to go beyond having the crew face another black hat, the space battles, etc.  It sounds like he wants to go for an honest to goodness big scope, sci-fi movie.  There are certainly ways of doing that that are exciting.  I'd like to see what he can come up with. 


As for Abrams, he probably is better for SW.  That said, I'm thankful for what he did with ST09.  I hope I can say the same for STID (when I finally get to actually see it).    


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

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