Did JJ Abrams ruin Star Trek?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes! I have never been a fan of Star Trek, but Spock was very sexy. Will have to rethink my view of Star Trek.

While I liked Simon Pegg as Scotty (his accent reminded of somebody, probably Dave Lister in "Red Dwarf"), I have to say this movie was only a larger dose of the wrong medicine. See, TOS was two things: a political utopian vision in which Americans, Russsians, Japanese, Blacks and an alien who looked like the Devil peacefully explored the universe together; and TV's first introduction to serious, "thinking man's" science fiction, with names like Theodore Sturgeon, Harlan Ellison and Fredric Brown involved - an antidote to Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, which were all about running around in silly costumes and blowing up things. "Star Trek" the movie throws out the political ideals and the intelligent science fiction and returns to the Flash Gordon formula. That may appeal to some, but not to me.

IMO, the only true heir to Gene Roddenberry's vision is "Stargate", which unashamedly appropriated all the good bits of "Star Trek" and put them in a politically sound, science-centric context.

being the last person in north America who hasn't seen the film...

I've read enough of the spoilers to go just to see how they do x and y...

supposedly the bridge looks like an Apple store...

I barely got to see the 3rd season of TOS, liked most of the rest of the series (except for TAS [the animated series]) and if Enterprise had had the direction it had in season 4 that it did in season 1, it would have been on for 7 years (even with that craptastic final episode....sigh...

Each generation (no pun intended) tends to bring a different outlook to the franchise; it's kinda 'gen-x' now, and playing to gen y...so it probably depends on how old you are as to how you might like it...

Although, they did NOT pretend the rest never happened. Spock even acknowledged some of the differences as with Kirk's father.

So what's to ruin? Something that silly is just so much putty to be molded any way you like. It's like getting mad at Disney for making such a silly Hercules. They were loads of silly Hercules movies already. What's one more? Yes, Star Trek is overall better and has plenty of good shows and movies, but it is by no means some divine and perfect franchise that never saw more than the occasion bad episode or film. After that last Trek TNG film, really, they couldn't sink any lower in my estimation.

Although, they did NOT pretend the rest never happened. Spock even acknowledged some of the differences as with Kirk's father.

True, but it did succeed. It was one of those projects that could have only gone one of two ways. It could have been a flop. Kind of like the Watchmen, they were both heavily hyped and Watchmen sort of failed. I did not think the last TNG film was bad, they tried to wrap up 40 years of continuity and 10 years of TNG continuity in two hours. It did feel rushed, what with Riker and Troi marrying, Data dying and then coming back as B-4 and then Riker finally accepting a promotion. It felt forced. Like they wanted to just end it. I think it was sad how they handled it. But, Spock Prime( Nimoy) comes from that timeline in the future.

ok...finally saw it.. I caught a few 'continuity and canon' flubs, but nothing to stop the story. The villain wasn't very two-dimensional...and I kept thinking 'Star Trek on Ritalin' (not ri-tal-in, the stuff they had to find on Flint's world in TOS.... Bounce bounce flash flash, swing the camera, do-si-do...

Still, a fun coupla hours...

I loved Abrams' Star Trek film, though I don't think it was very Star Trek-y, as Star Trek is all about cerebral thinking rather than big 'splosions. (Then again this was the original series, which was pretty dumb when compared with more inteligent outings, most notably "The Next Generation.") The cerebral aspect is, of course, what the Abrams film fails at, because it's NOT an inteligent film.

But did it ruin Star Trek? No. Star Trek has more or less completely sucked for how many years and iterations now? Abrams made an exceptionally fun film that felt in the spirit of the original series and got the characters down. I think making an overly cerebral film would have been a mistake; look what happened with the "Matrix" sequels--the pace was killed thanks to the films' obsession with trying to be as philosophical as possible, and this didn't mesh well with the fight scenes. Abrams needed to make a film that would get audiences excited, would draw people in, would please the crowds. Now that that's done, let's hope he can make something a bit deeper.

DS9 is actually my favorite Trek... I've seen it described as the 'most un-Trek-like Trek', so I don't know what that says about my preferences...

Voyager I thought started off well (and felt a lot closer to TOS to me than even TNG did) but then it went downhill and I lost interest. I thought that it fell into the trap of focusing on two or three characters at the expense of the others, which, to be honest, TOS and TNG did as well. TOS - Kirk, Spock and McCoy, TNG - Picard and Data, Voyager - Janeway and Seven (and maybe the Doctor). One thing I really appreciated about DS9 is that that never happened. It ended up with a huge regular and supporting cast, but practically everybody was given attention and character development.

Ds9 initial seasons do have the occasional "Badapple" episode. But I find that they are still quite under-rated. After all, there were also some really GREAT episodes in the first couple of seasons. Like "the Foresaken", which whaever else may be said about it was just so much FUN. And directly after that, "Dramatis Personae" and "Duet" (Possibly one of the most intense early episodes ever.)

Oh and I would never ever dream of forgetting to mention "Captive Pursuit" because that was the one with TOSK!! Tosk is awesome.

And second season had "The Wire" and "Armaggedon Game" and "Whispers", some great stuff in all of those with Bashir and O'Brien ~ separately/together. Those two had some great stuff. And also the Wire for Bashir and Garak - I think it was Garak's third episode. (Past Prologue / Cardassians / The Wire.. and then MUGarak in Crossover.) yay. Oh and Crossover was pretty good too with the intendant and the Mirror Universe and with Odo exploding like an overheated marshmallow.

Season three had some good stuff too.

But I would agree that the later seasons had some of the best episodes ever EVER especially with the Dominion and the war and all that. I think the first few seasons had a lot more in common with TNG in that they were more disconnected and with less grandiose arcs and other such things. And those involved were far more familiar with the characters later, and it showed. But the early stuff was also great at introducing those characters, all of whom were developed so well as the series progressed.

Thank goodness they didn't cancel it.

-----------------------
Oh hang on. I just remembered the original question. Did JJ ruin Star Trek? No. Because even if the movie had been bad, then original Trek and all those other seasons etc will still remain. The other series aren't going to go away because of this AU. With luck, JJ's movies could well provide the impetus for a new series.

For me, I didn't like the movie. It was always running. There was not one quiet moment in the movie, always with a fast rhythm and no way to blow off a little. There also that a good science-fiction movie should be thoughtful, which in that case is not. Oh and I didn't like the music. Background music with no personality nor emotions and "explainning" the action.

Actually yeah. I won't say I didn't like the movie in general but that's one aspect that I wasn't too keen on. There were definitely times when it seemed to be more concerned with making a spectacle than with telling a story. I went home and watched some DVDs of deep space nine the same day as I first saw the movie, and I was thinking, "Yeah that wasn't bad but this is still the kind of Trek I prefer."

Mind you the movie did have it's moments. That scene with Bones running after Kirk and randomly sticking him with shots was funny as hell!

You know what I think J.J. Abrams did to Star Trek? He sodomized and dumbed it down into a gratuitous action film with an almost nonexistent plot... just like Transformers! The acting was terrible, the characterization and themes were extremely poorly developed, the humor was elementary-school level and the very fact that this movie is considered a sci-fi masterpiece is a blantant sign that mankind is becoming a herd of sheep.

Abrams, go to Hell. Both you and Michael Bay.

Just to add if I hadn't already.

The part of the movie I found quite unwatchable was that BLOODY strobe effect towards the end. Hated that.

I saw the preview showing of the new Star Trek movie for my sister's birthday. The plotline and "science" was kind of childish and reminiscent to something Ed Wood would make. However, the characterisation was very satisfying to the point where I forgot everything that was wrong with it.

The CG and other special effects were good, but it was quite hard to watch a lot of the combat scenes and anytime there were strobe lighting effects.

McCoy wasn't scrawny or southern enough (his accent was only suothern when he was angry), but besides that, he was still the same old angry, alchoholic, PMSing "Bones" McCoy we all know and love.

I was a little worried about Spock, but the actor portrayed him very well. I was, however, quite annoyed at at the Spock/Uhura pairing. It just happened so fast!

And Chekov....he was the best!

So, yeah- I give it a 7/10