J.J. Abrams To Direct 'Star Trek XI'

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
meisdavidp said:
Did not you just make a pointless comment?
It's like I'm looking into a mirror with another mirror behind it trying to see how deep it goes.

Don said:
hmm...perhaps i did. So what did FatCat mean about the "Furry Community"?
People need to stop ruining threads with this stuff. If there's something in the last dozen posts or so that you don't understand, just know that it pertains to previous stupid discussions in the past that you missed.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Bandit LOAF said:
I certainly wouldn't run the people in charge of the franchise at the time (Rick Berman and Brannon Braga).
I've personally never understood anyone's problems with Berman or Braga. They were around during some of the best moments of TNG and DS9. To shake your fist at them because you hated a couple of things while they were doing dozens of great things is stupid.

Bandit LOAF said:
As for the director... I don't really think it matters who directs a Star Trek movie.
I don't think Star Trek V was all that great, given the lopsided direction of Shatner. While I do agree that Star Trek has a set standard in terms of formula, I do think that the director really sets the tone in terms of movie quality. I personally love Generations as a guilty pleasure movie - but it looks like a really expensive TNG episode or just a cheap film with beautiful lighting.

Bandit LOAF said:
Meyer rants about how angry he is that the viewscreen wasn't made of glass while Baird rages about how important Tom Hardy is. Neither of them seems to be clear on exactly what a Star Trek movie is or what makes it good.
I've not bothered to listen to the director commentaries because they tend to be incredibly boring to me unless its a very unusual movie (The Limey) or the director is a really interesting personality (Conan The Barbarian)

Bandit LOAF said:
The TNG movies did well with First Contact, which was the least like the show
Though I have strong dislike of the Borg episodes of Voyager, I do blame the look and feel on First Contact which was a strangely boring movie. TNG was my favorite of the five ST series because I grew up with it but the movies were almost completely shallow and worth little more than seeing half-ass director Bryan Singer getting sucked out the viewscreen. (That'll teach him to make crappy superhero movies!)
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I've personally never understood anyone's problems with Berman or Braga. They were around during some of the best moments of TNG and DS9. To shake your fist at them because you hated a couple of things while they were doing dozens of great things is stupid.
On one hand, it's their specific job to take the blame for anything anyone wants to complain about... unfortunately, they happened to hold that job in this odd era, where the stinking masses of internet cretins can exist with absolute power and no responsibility in critical terms.

I don't think Star Trek V was all that great, given the lopsided direction of Shatner. While I do agree that Star Trek has a set standard in terms of formula, I do think that the director really sets the tone in terms of movie quality. I personally love Generations as a guilty pleasure movie - but it looks like a really expensive TNG episode or just a cheap film with beautiful lighting.
I don't really blame Shatner's direction for Star Trek V. I think the big problems with Star Trek 5 are, again, the writing... but even moreso in this case, Star Trek IV hanging over the production. Star Trek IV was an amazing crossover success because of was a silly comedy (in some European countries were Star Trek wasn't popular they didn't even put Star Trek in the title!)... so Star Trek V was staring down the barrel of the gun of having to somehow keep that audience with more humor but also not to offend Star Trek fans. So you have it written as this bizarre mix of one man's quest for God while Spock is flying around in rocket boots and the Klingons are throwing surprise parties. Most of the things Star Trek V does horribly wrong are because it was written to tow this line -- Spock flying around in rocket boots, the bridge crew singing campfire songs, a big Klingon party at the end... nothing to do with where Kirk pointed his camera.

I've not bothered to listen to the director commentaries because they tend to be incredibly boring to me unless its a very unusual movie (The Limey) or the director is a really interesting personality (Conan The Barbarian)
The Nemesis one is enjoyable because the guy is absolutely clueless and absolutely in love with Tom Hardy. It's the source of a great many jokes between my brother and I.

"Now, I think Tom is really the star of this picture... I mean, Patrick was great and all, but even he would agree, I think, that Tom Hardy made this movie... he's just magnificant..." over and over -- and what does the guy even do in the darned film? Make a few menacing comments about threatening to drink Captain Picard's blood?

Though I have strong dislike of the Borg episodes of Voyager, I do blame the look and feel on First Contact which was a strangely boring movie. TNG was my favorite of the five ST series because I grew up with it but the movies were almost completely shallow and worth little more than seeing half-ass director Bryan Singer getting sucked out the viewscreen. (That'll teach him to make crappy superhero movies!)
The uniforms thing is telling, I think. You watched DS9 and TNG and you immediately knew (if you weren't an internet submoron) that the uniforms were different because they needed to keep the shows visually distinct... and you kind of rationalized in your mind that it was because the full-color uniforms were for starship crews and the mostly-black ones were for space station crews. And then bammo, Generations suddenly has everyone in the black DS9-style uniforms... and you just know immediately it's because they want to save money and only make new oufits they can wear on the ongoing show. Same thing with First Contacct -- the new blue uniforms were great, a nice change just like the original movies... but the *next week* they were on DS9, and the new signature space suit props were suddenly on Voyager over and over. There was this obvious, subconscious connection to the weekly series' that it made, which came off as very very cheap -- instead of being a special every-few-years-event, TNG movies were an extra two hours of Star Trek that you paid more to see.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
In my opinion, Star Trek VI was possibly the best trek movie made. There's none of them that I dislike but VI was just absolutely fantastic. Christopher Plummer was phenomenal as the bad guy and the entire movie seemed to hit everything just right. To me, that is the standard to which hold all the newer star trek movies to. Nemesis was (in my opinon) a case of extremely poor writing to begin with. They'd have been better off making the movie about another encounter with the crossover universe and Picard fighting his actual counterpart in the other universe then a younger clone of himself...kinda cheesy to me.
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
LeHah said:
I've personally never understood anyone's problems with Berman or Braga. They were around during some of the best moments of TNG and DS9. To shake your fist at them because you hated a couple of things while they were doing dozens of great things is stupid.
I actually found my self quite enjoying Threshold (or what little of it got to air). Despite some silly aspects I thought it was pretty good for a TV show. Now I know its a studios perogative to cancel shows that don't pull in enough vewiers, but to read countless internet threads after the fact about internet nerds refusing to watch the show and trying to get others not to as well simply because Braga was the producer was somewhat disheartenting. They were even spouting the typical "Braga Killed Enterprise" crap and then saying they hoped the show would tank... with out ever actually watching the show.

For those interested, the "unaired" episodes did play on sky one in the UK and should be available in the US on the DVD set when it comes out... And those episodes are pretty good too. One of the complaints was that some people thought the show was a bit slow paced yet it seems like it was axes just as the show was slowely ramping up the pace each episode...
 

Jacob

Rear Admiral
I'm not exactly thrilled, as I still think that Star Trek needs to take a 5-10 year break.

...though I'll still be there opening day.
 

Halman

PSY-YI-YI
Jacob said:
I'm not exactly thrilled, as I still think that Star Trek needs to take a 5-10 year break.

...though I'll still be there opening day.

What a stupid thing to say.
 

Confed

Commodore
Maj.Striker said:
... Nemesis was (in my opinion) a case of extremely poor writing to begin with...
I agree, Picard as a 24th century Rambo was ridiculous & killing off Data was downright moronic.
Almost worse than the bad script, was the acting of all the actors playing Romulan characters in Nemesis. Except for the make-up, they went romulans at all but humans, they behave like humans in every way & this is believe is mainly the fault of the director. He clearly didn't know what Romulans are like. He should have at least watched the TNG eps. with Cmdr. Tomalak
(all this make me almost think that they wanted to movie to fail)
Maj.Striker said:
In my opinion, Star Trek VI was possibly the best trek movie made. There's none of them that I dislike but VI was just absolutely fantastic. Christopher Plummer was phenomenal as the bad guy and the entire movie seemed to hit everything just right. To me, that is the standard to which hold all the newer star trek movies to ...
Star Trek VI definitely has the best story (who wrote it, btw?) but I like watching ST II : The wrath of Khan a little bit more.

Concerning ST XI : They're risking the entire future of the franchise on this movie & messing with the Kirk & Spock character is extremely risky.
I hope J.J. Abrams is a real trekkie (TOS style), otherwise I fear he will mess it up just like what happened with the Romulans in ST X
 

Mav23

Swabbie
Banned
Halman said:
What a stupid thing to say.
I don't think it's stupid. He's just saying he's a Star Trek fan and supporter who will still be there to see the movie when it opens but he thinks it just may be a little too soon to re-start the franchise. What's wrong with that?
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I don't think it's stupid. He's just saying he's a Star Trek fan and supporter who will still be there to see the movie when it opens but he thinks it just may be a little too soon to re-start the franchise. What's wrong with that?
The problem is that it's a silly internet catch phrase, not something anyone has given reasonable thought to. The idea that Star Trek needs to "rest" might (and it's a very distant might, in my mind) make sense if you're speaking in terms of some immeasurable recharge required of the people currently in charge of the show... but when the news is that an entirely *new* team is going to be running Star Trek, the concept loses whatever shread of relevance it once had -- JJ Abrams isn't burned out on Star Trek.

Except for the make-up, they went romulans at all but humans, they behave like humans in every way & this is believe is mainly the fault of the director. He clearly didn't know what Romulans are like. He should have at least watched the TNG eps. with Cmdr. Tomalak
Those sound like elements that are decided by the *writer*. :)

Star Trek VI definitely has the best story (who wrote it, btw?) but I like watching ST II : The wrath of Khan a little bit more.
I have some problems with Star Trek VI, but I do love its character.

(Lets face it, from a practical standpoint there's a lot in Star Trek VI that just doesn't makes sense -- from the uncomfortable gymnastics they go through to jam the titular Shakespeare line into the movie to the practical fact that Spock putting a homing device on Kirk's jacket makes absolutely no sense. Does he do that on every mission and we just don't see it? Or did he expect that Kirk would be arrested, tried and then sent to Klingon jail... without ever having to change his clothes?)
 

Mav23

Swabbie
Banned
Bandit LOAF said:
The problem is that it's a silly internet catch phrase, not something anyone has given reasonable thought to. The idea that Star Trek needs to "rest" might (and it's a very distant might, in my mind) make sense if you're speaking in terms of some immeasurable recharge required of the people currently in charge of the show... but when the news is that an entirely *new* team is going to be running Star Trek, the concept loses whatever shread of relevance it once had -- JJ Abrams isn't burned out on Star Trek.
I thought the "re-charge" had more to do with the general publics perception of Star Trek. And that many felt that without a rest most people would just feel like they were getting bombarded with Trek every few years, perpetually until the end of their lives. Although it seems to me like the only people who go to see Trek movies are Star Trek fans. I have never witnessed "the general public" flocking to any space-ship movies, excepting maybe Star Wars.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Confed said:
Concerning ST XI : They're risking the entire future of the franchise on this movie & messing with the Kirk & Spock character is extremely risky.
I hope J.J. Abrams is a real trekkie (TOS style), otherwise I fear he will mess it up just like what happened with the Romulans in ST X
An ignorant outsider killed Spock once. People bitched up and down the street when that idea was announced. You can draw your own conclusions, but fear of outsiders is really odd because outsiders bring things that the original cadre wouldn't have dared doing, such as killing main characters that are invincible by default, or opting for militaristic uniforms over utopian scientist garb. Really a director should be judged by his track record, not how many episodes he has memorized.
 

Confed

Commodore
Bandit LOAF said:
Those sound like elements that are decided by the *writer*. :)
Althought the writer describes those elements in the script, he has no control over the actors' performance afterwards.
The director does, especially if it's a bigshot like in the case of Nemesis.
If he directed ST VIII : First Contact, he probably would have told the guys portraying Borg drones to put more emotion into their performance :rolleyes:

t.c.cgi said:
An ignorant outsider killed Spock once. People bitched up and down the street when that idea was announced.
At least after viewing the Wrath of Khan, you immediately know they will bring him back thanks to "the Genesis effect". Data however is not coming back, we are only left with his idiot brother B4.

t.c.cgi said:
You can draw your own conclusions, but fear of outsiders is really odd because outsiders bring things that the original cadre wouldn't have dared doing, such as killing main characters that are invincible by default, or opting for militaristic uniforms over utopian scientist garb. Really a director should be judged by his track record, not how many episodes he has memorized.
Killing off popular characters in a show is an excellent way to decrease the quality of future movies/episodes as well as piss off the fans. It is rarely a good move.
It would at least have been better if Data would have been the one playing Rambo/Commando & Picard (who is human and in his 50's) had been the one sacrificing himself for his crew and ship.
t.c.cgi said:
Really a director should be judged by his track record, not how many episodes he has memorized.
His track record : Zero experience directing Star Trek or anything like it.
So the least he can do to make up for his lack of xp in the genre, is to review relevant material to get an idea of how the main races (like Romulans) should behave.
 
Top