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

Court is in SESSION- To convict JJ Abrams of Trek Treason

Report this
Created by: He'sDeadJim6400

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 23 2013, 8:32 pm

Quote: willowtree @ May. 23 2013, 12:31 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ May. 22 2013, 11:44 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 22 2013, 11:06 am

>

>

>

>"distorted" is a very good way to put it.  It's also arguable that he misrepresented what Star Trek is to fans who have never seen it.  They may go into TOS or TNG expecting dazzling effects, pew pew! lasers and a loose cannon captain be disappointed. 

>

Funny thing, that's what GR billed TOS as is action-adventure.

Abrams just modernized it.

Gene pitched it as a western. "Wagon Train to the Stars" he called it


For those unfamiliar with westerns in the 60s, those were "action-adventure." Look at shows like "Gunsmoke" and "Wild Wild West" and you'll realize that Star Trek actiony just like the rest of the westerns it was pitched as to the studio.


I think the best description of Abrams Trek is from Red Letter Media who described it as "hypercharged." Abrams and Co. took elements from Star Trek, the relationships, the characters and put some more energy behind them, a more modern twist.


Despite all the criticism of Abrams, the historical aspects of Star Trek keep reinforcing his ideas presented in the movie. Here's the thing for me-Trek was always about characters, characters who made decisions, good or bad. Sometimes they thought their way out and sometimes they fought their way out. GR's idealized humanity eventually evolved in to people who could not be related too. They were people without conflict, accepted death and rejected material goods.


Then a movie came along. It decided not to be Star Trek story, but a character story told about people who happened to live in the Star Trek universe. These people were not perfect, but flawed, struggling with their frailties, imperfections, internal conflicts and past hurts. The movie had a villain with a deep hurt from a main character who pursues nothing but vengeance at any cost. The pain and damage he causes is not something that can could be reset at the end, but caused personal hurt to the whole crew. It was a not a glorified episode of the show-it had consequences.


The biggest problem is that it wasn't created by a fan, but an outsider, a fan of completely different genre. He comes in changes it in ways that seem contrary to the original vision. Despite the criticism, the movie is a success.


What movie and what creator? The Wrath of Khan and Nicholas Meyer.


Why does Meyer, a nonfan, get a pass, but Abrams doesn't? This is the question I pose to all fans, and why I find criticism of Abrams so difficult to swallow. If you don't like the story, characters or presentation of the material, that's fine by me.


It is the rampant belittlement, the constant argument that Abrams, by virtue of being a nonfan, is somehow worthy of hatred, and that his movie is "not Star Trek" when things are have been done to Star Trek the same way in the past.


I'll defend it because Star Trek is more than some philosophical exercise into the future. It has to be about people or there is no drama and no reason to care about the philosophy.


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 23 2013, 9:04 pm

Fireproof-

Very nice post. Flawless logic and reasoning. Love it.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 23 2013, 9:11 pm

Atoz-

You and I are two of the very few who have been posting since 2009. You know as well as I that the ones who are most fiery and passionate (in their own minds) are also the ones who cannot actually behave in the very way their beloved "intelligent and enlightened" series supposedly promotes.

So you get people droning on like hypocrites about how the new movies aren't smart or philosophical, and their very attitude and approach to dealing with that opinion is as closed minded, exclusive, and combative as it gets.

It's not even worth responding to half the stuff because its whackadoo talk.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 23 2013, 10:42 pm

Vger23,


thank you for the kind words.


Something I just stumbled upon was the fact that James Cawley (my apologies to him for previously calling him "Crawley.) has had the opportunity to visit Abrams set of Into Darkness.


For those unfamiliar, Cawley has pretty much devoted his life to recreating TOS, using faithful reproductions of costumes, props and sets to create "Phase 2" and "New Voyages" fan productions. These productions are designed to continue to explore the adventures of Kirk and Co if the show had continued. His productions have enjoyed cameos from Koening and Takei, among others, as well as using some original scripts meant for "Phase 2" when Roddenberry was first designing it. To say the man is steeped in Trek lore would be an understatement.


I preface all this because he has also been skeptical of Abrams Trek, namely due to his huge investment in TOS. He vocalized disappointment with the new Enterprise design. Now, he has changed his mind due to a recent visit with Abrams on set: http://startrekdom.blogspot.com/2008/02/by-gillian-weisgram-james-cawley-has.html


To many, this may seem like little more than fan service or Abrams buying off Cawley. But, one quote stands out to me from Cawley himself:


"Dude, let me tell you, I had a long conversation with JJ - we were on the set again today for another four and a half hours and one of the conversations I had with JJ was his feelings about Star Trek. And that's what absolutely sold me on J.J. Abrams and Star Trek was that he said how much he believes in the philosophy of Gene Roddenberry, the humanity, and the message that the original series delivered. That's his focus."


High praise from a man who is a self described "Star Trek purist." http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/23/james-cawley-to-appear-in-new-star-trek-movie/


In addition, since research leads to so many different paths, is an article on Trekmovie.com by Mark Altman. This man is describe by the LA Times as a foremost Trekspert, for what that is worth. It delves in to his own feelings about Star Trek movies (all of them) and the challenges Abrams faces in making his reboots. The article is here: http://trekmovie.com/2013/05/14/mark-altmans-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness/


And one quote that sums up much of my own feelings of Trek 09:


"There’s plenty about the 2009 reboot that I didn’t love; the slapstick Willy Wonka antics with Scotty as Violet Beauregarde, the more taste/less filling engine room, an anemic villain with a revenge plot straight out of a 1966 episode of Batman (“I’ll stand you on a planet and watch you watch your planet blow up, heh, heh") and the fact that the bully who beats up Kirk in the bar wasn’t named Finnegan, but what it did have in spades and trumped all that was heart and plenty of it as well as the bromance-in the-making of Kirk and Spock."


As much fuming comes from fans, these two articles and others like them give me greater insight in to the heartbeat of Trek and the fans. I'm sure that references to Cawley and Altman will not matter much in this debate, but they communicate their feelings so well that it needed to be said. 



"No two people are going to share the same ideas. I can like aspects of it, even though they are not my choices…If I had been in his position I would have done things a little differently because I am not JJ Abrams. He has an idea and is going to follow that to the end, just like we do with New Voyages…We can have differences of opinions and still enjoy each other’s work. Would I have made some design changes? Sure! Would I have made a red button, blue? Ya! Are his sets spectacular? You better believe it!" James Cawley



 

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this May. 24 2013, 6:43 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 23 2013, 9:12 am

>

>Because on this board, if you staunchly oppose Abrams, you're either crazy or a troll or both.

>Talk about lack of IDIC.

>


 


Not at all. But when your reasoning for the opposition doesn't make sense then...


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 24 2013, 8:11 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 23 2013, 9:11 pm

>Atoz- You and I are two of the very few who have been posting since 2009. You know as well as I that the ones who are most fiery and passionate (in their own minds) are also the ones who cannot actually behave in the very way their beloved "intelligent and enlightened" series supposedly promotes. So you get people droning on like hypocrites about how the new movies aren't smart or philosophical, and their very attitude and approach to dealing with that opinion is as closed minded, exclusive, and combative as it gets. It's not even worth responding to half the stuff because its whackadoo talk.


huh?


Personally I do think the new movies aren't smart or philosophical. I think they are all action and no substance, no real character development, no engaging story. That's my opinion. I think it's rather close minded of YOU to call me and those that share my opinion close minded and combative just for having a different opinion. Why is it such a crime to dislike these movies?


Honestly, out of all the posts that I've read here it seems that the people who love the new movies are the more close minded and combative people. They can't seem to accept that there are people who dislike the movie, they cant just let it be that people have different opinions. They seem to be takin it personally that someone might not lke the new movies.


so feel free to ignore this post if you feel that I'm a whackadoo. that's fine that's your opinion and that's fine with me.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 24 2013, 8:51 am

Okay. I'm going to say thins for the 900 thousandth time, willowtree. Let's see if we can all get it.


 


IT'S NOT WRONG TO DISLIKE THE MOVIES. IT'S NOT BAD TO DISLIKE THE MOVIES. IT'S NOT IMPROPER TO DISLIKE THE MOVIES. WHAT'S WRONG IS ACTING LIKE AN ASS ABOUT IT. 


It's really just that simple.


1. People saying it's for idiots is WRONG because it insults the many people who do like it.


2. People taking personal pot-shots at the creative team is WRONG because it's NOT PERSONAL when a movie gets made that doesn't happen to fit your tastes. 


3. People wishing for the death of these movies is WRONG because it is selfish and unfair to the millions who love them.


 


Holy crap....I don't know how many times this distinction can be made. It's like I said earlier. I don't care if you set yourself on fire and run up and down Hollywood Blvd screaming in agony about how much you hate Star Trek Into Darkness. That's AWESOME! Good for you!!! Hoooray for free speech and yahooooooo for the courage to express your opnion!!!!!! 


That's not what we're talking about here. 


Holy crap...please tell me that SOMEONE gets it??? Anyone? Please??


 



 

willowtree

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1137

Report this May. 24 2013, 9:23 am

hey, relax

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 24 2013, 10:17 am

VGer23 is the self-appointed behavior dictator here, willowtree. Their job is to count posts of other posters, keep track of which posts they don't reply to and be an armchair psychologist as well as post passive aggressive personal attacks to people who have different views.  They also try to shut down anyone who continues to post negatively about JJ Abrams and chase them off the board.  And apparently they know better than everyone else because they've been here since 2009, because being a message board veteran is a badge of honor and wisdom, I guess. It must be exhausting.   I hope they're getting paid for it.  


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

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 24 2013, 10:25 am

Quote: AtoZ2 @ May. 23 2013, 8:10 pm

>OMG...That is way too rich. Invoking IDIC while condemning and ripping apart something you don't like? Do you even have a clue as to what IDIC means?   I know the OP hasn't got a clue. But you? LOL   This goes beyond double standards. Time to take your little monkey brain with the WHT outta here and go spank yourself dry!


 


I was "invoking IDIC" sarcastically because everyone here who worships at the temple of JJ seems to think that they're superior and open mined and that the opposition is not. Yet you turn around and say things to the opposition like you just did.  And try to chase people away with insults which are actually less creative than what my friend's kid comes up with and he's 6.  So I suggest you take YOUR little brain (I won't insult monkeys because I like them) and learn to interpet  humor.


 


 


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

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 24 2013, 12:02 pm

Vger, the irony in your posts is overwhelming. If you like "nuTrek" and don't want anyone ruining it for you or implying you are dumb for liking a dumb movie that was written by and for dumb people then don't come into these "hate" threads. It's really just that simple.


Fireproof, I don't really care about Cawley but the articles you posted are from 2008. I think he's been much more critical of Abrams since then.


OP, Abrams cannot be tried for treason because he had no loyalty to Star Trek to begin with.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 24 2013, 1:24 pm

Quote:

OP, Abrams cannot be tried for treason because he had no loyalty to Star Trek to begin with.


 


Bazinga!



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

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 24 2013, 1:57 pm

[quote]


Vger, the irony in your posts is overwhelming. If you like "nuTrek" and don't want anyone ruining it for you or implying you are dumb for liking a dumb movie that was written by and for dumb people then don't come into these "hate" threads. It's really just that simple.


Fireproof, I don't really care about Cawley but the articles you posted are from 2008. I think he's been much more critical of Abrams since then.


OP, Abrams cannot be tried for treason because he had no loyalty to Star Trek to begin with.


[/quote]


Right- circular logic is awesome, huh? 


So, if you "think" he's been more critical since then...that's great. Whereabouts do you get that thought? I'd love to read more about it. Also, it's interesting how Altman's review and comments received no rebuttle from you. 


I think it's weird how people are actually arguing against the concept of "don't be a jackass." I find it enlightning!


darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this May. 24 2013, 6:15 pm

So, if you "think" he's been more critical since then...that's great. Whereabouts do you get that thought? I'd love to read more about it. Also, it's interesting how Altman's review and comments received no rebuttle from you.

People here have implied that Cawley does not like what Abrams ultimately did with the 2009 movie. I don't know if that's true because, like I said, I don't care about Cawley or Phase II. My point was only that Fireproof seemed to be misrepresenting him by using quotes from before the movie was released.

As for Altman, I know less about him than Cawley but I do agree with one part of his review:

"The original Star Trek movies are just not very good."

So why go back and remake one?

I think it's weird how people are actually arguing against the concept of "don't be a jackass." I find it enlightning!

I'm not arguing against that concept, I just find it ironic how much of a jackass you're being in your defense of that concept.

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this May. 24 2013, 9:34 pm

[quote]


 


OP, Abrams cannot be tried for treason because he had no loyalty to Star Trek to begin with.


[/quote]


True, but Abrams falsely claims he is a Trek fan now, he is reponsible for turning this movie into the mess that it is,Hence another charge-


17. Lack of character developement- In this movie the charcater of Captain Kirk took a serious nose dive, never was Kirk EVER unsure of himself or didn't know his next move or "scared" as he puts it, the death scene was done without real content it was only to copy 'The Wrath Of Kahn" the Spock and Uhura affair is becoming more distasteful and foolish as it was in the first movie, as this Spock is one to Quote orders he seemingly disregards them by carrying on a relationship with a subordinate..Kahn while a great fighter, does not have any depth or motivation as the original Kahn in Star Trek 2, there is no originality in "Into Darkness" again we see a viilian with a pointless agenda..


FINAL VOTING SHALL BEGIN NOW to determine if JJ Abrams is helping Star Trek or killing it. 


  


Greatness comes to those who really want to do anything to get it.

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