ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Didn't ask your opinion. Just pointing out that pegg's statements on ST at least had the backing of the industry and critics. While his critique of the prequels also had that.

 

honestly critical reception doesn't make a movie good as everybody has their own tastes.
actually JJ's Star Trek is not really a reboot it's a continuation of Next Generation and from there an alternative timeline was created. So him telling others not to complain when he himself does so is the same thing as they are both continuations.

 

I agree about the films. The original Trek films are great in my opinion. But the series is horrid. Loved it as a kid but I can only watch a handful of the episodes now.

deneuves I don't care if you asked for my opinion or not. You got it anyway and I'll continue to give it if I feel like giving it.

 

Just from a critical standpoint, Tos movies had 1 very well reviewed entry (Wrath of Khan). The rest were either mixed/slight positive or panned. Obviously JJ's Trek doesn't reach Khan but the other movies? None of them are particularly beloved outside of Trek fandom.

 

ST(I)D is a pretty terrible film, but it's still better than TMP, TFF, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

 

I know the RT scores. And after the huge success that was First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis were rather meh (especially the latter).
Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness are fun to watch, they were successful, but they have nothing really to do with the pre-reboot Trek in the opinion of many Trek fans. There's literally nothing left from Gene Roddenberrys vision. They're basically summer action blockbusters with no depth, at least that's the consensus among those Trek fans. That's were the complains come from. "This isn't the Trek I grew up with". Sounds familiar, right?
And Pegg says to them they should move on, but he himself says the same about the Prequels.

 

I think most dissenters' problem with the PT is just that they're not good movies. Not that it's too different. If TPM was a 95% film and still got the same complaint, then you could draw the comparison.

 

like I always said about JJ Star Trek movies, they were Star Wars movies disguised as Star Trek movies.

 

OK, so there's the line I've been watching you move towards. The thread is too close to bashing and PT vs. OT battles. Everyone please move along and get back on topic.

 

I've still gotta see Into Darkness, but the nostalgia and fan love is IMHO clouding Trekkies' appraisal of pre-reboot Trek. When Nimoy died I watched Wrath of Khan for the first time in maybe 30 years. It's held up as the best of Trek and, frankly, it just isn't that good. Certainly no better than Trek '09. It comes of as a good two-part TV episode, and when compared to things like Blade Runner (released the same year), ESB, Close Encounters, etc., etc., it's a bit of a dud. What's more, by the time Trek was rebooted, the franchise had been run into the ground. It was a case of reboot or die.

Maybe the reboot wasn't that thoughtful, but it's not like classic Trek films were up there with 2001 anyway. It's all space opera--it's just that classic Trek films thought they were smarter than they actually were.

 

I'll take the worst Trek film over 2001 any day of the week.

 

The point is that fans think the best Trek movies were the thinking man's big screen science fiction, when really, they were just as "dumb" as SW, just more ponderous.

 

That's because hardcore Trek fans are as pretentious as the Federation. If I want thinking man science fiction I'll read Isaac Asimov.

 

so why are we discussing Trek when JJ mentioned SW gold aka the Holiday Special...

 

To be fair, i do see why Trek fans got angry, i watched some Original series episodes and i realy liked how each one tried to deal with a real social issue, as well as other serious themes. Trek 09 paved the way for great stories to be told, unfortunately, Into Darkness, while well made, did many of the same things and didn't realy progress the story. The only Trek films i've watched were Abrams's, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, and i feel like none of them has realy captured the magic of Roddenberry's vision.

ST wasn't perfect, but the general idea is what makes it different from current blockbuster space operas and allows it to deal with certain stories films like Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy will never do. I still respect Abrams for reinvigorating Star Trek though, and he was able to make good films out of screenplays written by the Transformers team, it's impressive the films turned out so well. Whenever Trek goes back to tv, they should probably try staying in the rebooted timeline too.

Anyway, Abrams is more suited for Star Wars, someone has already mentioned it here before, but his Star Trek films were pretty much Star Wars films disguised as ST.

 

You're right, the series often had depth. As a film franchise, Trek always felt to me like the they were space opera with none of the fun of SW nor the depth of the Trek series. (The exceptions might be Voyage Home and First Contact--need to watch them again.) It really was the worst of both worlds, and the sort of films only fans of the shows could really appreciate.

So I feel it's a mistake to attack Abrams for robbing Star Trek of its depth when deep stories were never the forte of the Trek films anyway. If we were talking about a new series, it'd be a different matter.

 

See I was never a Star Trek fan so when I watched JJ's ST I was happily surprised, I think in some ways he 'Star-Warsified' ST a little (made it more exciting and fast paced).

 

which isn't the point of Trek and even the older movies like scoundrel said still had the Star Trek feel.
JJ trek movies were enjoyable movies but terrible Trek and had almost nothing to do with the essence of the franchise.