6 ms·
This sums up some of my problems with the JJ Abrams take on/Kelvin-verse Star Trek, existing character traits seemed to consume the characters entire presences
by dvtrn 6y ago
This sums up some of my problems with the JJ Abrams take on/Kelvin-verse Star Trek, existing character traits seemed to consume the characters entire presences instead of being elements in parts that made up the whole.
Kirk getting the worst of it, the risk taking, jovial and daring Starfleet officer who sometimes clashes with his superiors? Let’s just turn him into a total renegade who disregards authority and gets into bar fights while jamming to 20th century hip hop and end the trilogy with Kirk on a motorcycle...while jamming to 20th century hip hop.
And I know: the movies were trying to give us younger versions of the crew but sheesh..
About the only character who seemed like someone who could even remotely come close to growing into the character of old was McCoy, and that’s probably just due to Karl Urban absolutely crushing the role—-even though I thought the scripts gave him almost nothing to do until the third movie.
- XorNot 6y agoJJ Abrams is a terrible storyteller who really only knows how to do nostalgia and mystery boxes. Everything he does is basically "remember this? Remember this thing you liked? Here it is again but I made it bigger and faster!"
- buzzerbetrayed 6y agoHis "mystery boxes" shtick has gotten so old. It sort of made things interesting in Lost, but it seems like he keeps doing it, over and over again, in each of his films.
- CamperBob2 6y agoLost's final episodes were more like, "Box? What box? I don't see any box here. Who said anything about a box? What are you talking about?"
- namdnay 6y ago"it was a character study all along" no it bloody wasn't
- Bayart 6y agoThe Leftovers (which also has Lindelof on the writing board) did the Lost formula quite a bit better, IMO.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- afterburner 6y agoThe beatings will continue until the box office declines.
- ekianjo 6y agoLost. No pay offs. Mystery boxes without resolution. Such a waste of time.
- account42 6y agoGoes for most mystery unfortunately, especially episodic formats where its possible to release content before the creators know how things end.
- dvtrn 6y agoAgreed. I think he’s an excellent filmmaker but a pretty meh movie writer.
- hef19898 6y agoThis is so true! I never was as big a Trekkie as I was a Star Wars fan, so I didn't really see it with JJ's Star Trek. I actually liked his first movie. And then came Star Wars. I kind of could accept his remake of Episode 4, but after that, man they made me like the prequels so much more. Not that the movies itself were bad, they just totally ignored the fact that 6 other movies already existed, not even speaking about all the legends stuff. He could have easily used ships, characters and locations from Legends, all the designs were there. Using them would have had the same effect on new viewers while eing great for oldtimers like myself. He didn't, everything had to be his, and bigger and faster and with more bang. That it can be done differently was shown by Feloni.
- xg15 6y ago> remember this? Remember this thing you liked? Here it is again but I made it bigger and faster! This seems to be the general direction many of the new sequels go. See also: Picard. Agreeing though that JJ Abrams did it in a particular ham-fisted way, like in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
- prionassembly 6y agoWhy do they have to keep messing with the way Klingons look.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoAs a long-time Trek fan, I couldn't care less about that. What I want to know is why they keep hiring terrible writers.
- WalterBright 6y agoStar Trek TOS actually had very little action in it, it was mostly talking. The more recent movies were all explosions and action, not characters.
- chipsa 6y agoDon't forget somehow Kirk manages to go up 6 ranks overnight, from an Cadet at the Academy (about to get drummed out!), all the way to Captain. Including jumping over a number of people on the way, such as Spock. And I do realize the commanding officer of a ship is called Captain regardless of rank, the previous Captain was promoted to Admiral, implying that he held the rank of Captin.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoThat film series hardly felt as if he were a captain in command of a ship as much as if he were, barely, the alpha among a pack of secondary schooler friends. Far too much Kirk Drift.
- qz2 6y agoAlso the premise, plot and set were dire too. I think the only bit that made any sense was the section 31 stuff in the later film.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoSection 31 has been completely modified throughout the years in Star Trek. When it was first introduced in Deep Space Nine, it was an extremist rogue branch of Starfleet. It did not officially exist; was technically illegal; and many members of Starfleet attempted to capture it's members — but it was nevertheless protected by various powerful figures in the U.F.P. who felt it's continued existence was necessary. Enterprise changed nothing about this and indeed Archer had never heard of it's existence and Section 31 sabotaged his ship and Reed was court-martialed for being a member. Then in Into Darkness, it became a secret branch of Starfleet that was nevertheless completely legal, but most officers were not aware of it's existence. And finally in Discovery, it was a known, fully legal branch. That Discovery also took place before D.S.9. made it all the more bizarre that most Starfleet officers in D.S.9. had never heard of the existence of an organization which was publicly known a century prior.
- qz2 6y agoThanks for taking the time to write that up - genuinely appreciated. Some good points. I've watched Discovery, Enterprise all the way through but not DS9 so that covers some gaps.
- odorousrex 6y agoDS9 is peak Star Trek for me. It took what I loved about TNG and gave it the "Babylon 5" Arc treatment with a bit more darkness to it. I would highly recommend watching the whole series. It's available now on just about every streaming service.
- philwelch 6y agoThe only way I make sense of the Abramsverse movies is to just headcanon that growing up without a father turns Kirk into a total douchebag.
- xg15 6y ago> Kirk getting the worst of it, the risk taking, jovial and daring Starfleet officer who sometimes clashes with his superiors? Let’s just turn him into a total renegade who disregards authority and gets into bar fights while jamming to 20th century hip hop and end the trilogy with Kirk on a motorcycle...while jamming to 20th century hip hop. And I know: the movies were trying to give us younger versions of the crew but sheesh.. Agreeing with your general point, but I found this depiction actually believable for Kirk in his 20s. Take a look at real-life celebrities in their 30s/40s who have an "edgy" reputation. They often were a lot more extreme in their youth. Seems to me they wanted to portrait Kirk as a bored rich kid who doesn't really know yet what direction to take in his life. That's not that unusual, even for persons who later found a very strong direction. Even Obama writes about such a phase in his bio.
- noisy_boy 6y agoI'm just hoping that somehow someday someone will produce a mix of Nordic noir with dead-pan humour and right amount of special effects in a proper sci-fi plot to treat people like the adults they are.