Am I the only long time Star Trek who wants JJ Abrams out of the directors chair? Roger Ebert said at last release "'Star Trek' as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action" -- Here. Which becomes more and more apparent as time marches on and the once shiny CGI of the day becomes today's Godzilla. The greatness of Star Trek has long been its stories of moral dilemma caricatures of philosophical view points. Enterprise, a series I didn't particularly care for at least held on to these core values. It's been this quality which allows the childish graphics of films passed to still be watchable. I can't think of a single JJ Abrams film which has a timeless quality. Contrary, his films look dated within 5 years and he always manages to get the queerest of performance from his actors. His characters seem to never face real dilemma, how could they? They're always acting out some moral extreme displaying some inhuman quality.
I dunno... audiences nowadays don't have the attention span for the epic movies of yesteryear... hell, Batman didn't do so hot mostly because people couldn't UNDERSTAND the JOKER... COME ON! He just wanted to, as they say, watch the world burn... yet people were trying to rationalize him!
I don't buy that. That's similar to the original network reaction to Star Trek, that people don't want cerebral stories. Even if you're a Tolkien diehard who disagreed with the interpretation of some of the Lord of the Rings movies, you have to be glad that Peter Jackson didn't take the Abrams approach. Most fans I talk to wish he would have just released the extended versions in the first place...anyone going to those movies would have sat through 3+ hours. I doubt I'll go see the next Trek movie. I gave him a chance to win me over...I thought he had me in the beginning with the setup for Kirk's father dying, but then it went downhill. A shame too, I think that most of the actors were decent fits, but even the best actor can't save a bad script. I think "red matter" was to Star Trek as midichlorians was to Star Wars. Although quite frankly I began to get disappointed with the Sulu parking brake joke, and the lame warping effect afterward.
Well written movies need not be long or epic, though often are. I think most of the First Generation movies grossed around 120 mil on about 45 mil budget with exception to Nemesis (which I didn't find to be all that terrible). JJ Abrams comes in and shoots the cost up to 150 million, that's a pretty big jump. Paramount obviously only cares about the profit, I'd imagine when they're fronting 150 million they'll follow a less risky tried & true model. Network executives think people are idiots and they seem to be right. More people will go for the shiny thing than the nice one. As Rhaedas pointed out, there are successful longer stories, there is an audience of people who are willing to sit several hours to hear a good story. As people experience a sheer over-saturation of media, that number might keep getting smaller and smaller.
They aren't going to make a Star Trek movie just for Star Trek fans anymore. There aren't enough of them, get used to it.
Thanks for the enlightenment spidergoat. No one's asking for another hand-2-hand fight scene between Shatner and an alien, they're just asking Paramount to give half a damn about the script and character depth. The best way to accomplish both seems to be removing JJ Abram's shitty input from the equation.
From the point of view of the market, Star Trek (2009) was a huge success. Go see: http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/
I consistently dislike everything that man says about most films. What's your point though? This has nothing to do with JJ Abram's sucking.
Because that's the least amount of sucking you are ever going to see in a Star Trek movie from now on. It's become a commodity, not an artistic endeavor.
Spidergoat, did you read my post or just assume you know what I'm talking about? Here are relevant excerpts cited to demonstrate misunderstanding. I'm not saying Paramount needs to make boring films which will lack popular appeal, I'm saying they need to also give their characters depth. The writing for Star Trek wasn't actually all that bad, and neither was the plot or the CGI. The issue was the directing, unless there's some pandemic of extremist moral persona which has infected Hollywood. Had the characters acted more human the film would have worked for everyone. The reason they didn't is JJ Abram's shitty vision of the human condition.
..uh..yes? The characters were very human. Have you ever seen an episode? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've seen all the episodes of everything except DS9. I have Nichelle Nichols' autograph and wore spock ears for my high school yearbook photo.
