ST Master Filmmaking Team announced! JJ now writing the script

His new Trek take are some pretty slick films. I was skeptical to say the least about the Trek reboot but thoroughly enjoyed it. And yeah the FX were great. I particularly enjoyed the scene in Trek when Kirk and Spock are on the Romulan ship, the ssound FX in that scene of the blaster shots pinging and sinking into metal is pretty sweet. Gee, I wonder who . . .

 

Yeah, I enjoyed them too. And yeah, that scene is pretty great. I love the lighting in that one. Ben Burtt did a great job with the sound, as usual. I don't understand all the dislike for those films.

 

I think the effects in JJ's Star Trek are very good and, for me, the best thing about the films. Without doubt, the effects in Ep VII will be second to none.

 

Nerd rage leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Or as the saying goes, "Misery loves company," so in one form or another every nerd on the planet is raging against something. We are a suffering lot. In my case, my nerd rage is against Ben Affleck as Batman.

 

I completely agree on your last point. I have no doubt the the sound and visuals in Episode VII will be top-notch.

 

Agreed.

 

My problem with Abrams is that he can get the big action scenes right, but his film was never able to capture the tenderness, intimate scenes properly.

 

For some people, not others, based I what I've read here.

 

I actually think this is something JJ's Star Trek suffered from i.e. the set pieces and big action scenes were pretty bland (IMO). I liked the space dive scene in the first one (which was pretty much replicated in ST:Into Darkness), but personally I'm struggling to think of anything that comes close to the action scenes in the existing Star Wars films. Saying that, I think JJ will have to 'up his game' for Ep VII... and even if Ep VII isn't as good as the existing Star Wars films, I'm sure it will be better than Star Trek.

 

I think there are definitely scenes where Abrams does capture tenderness and intimacy. The problem I have with him is that he often seems to sacrifice character coherency and context for action scenes.

One of the biggest examples I can think of is 2009's Star Trek where, with the deletion of one scene, JJ Abrams basically ruined Kirk's story by destroying the context of his actions. Originally, for that film, there was a scene showing Jim being verbally abused by his stepfather and abandoned by his brother because his brother ran away -- unable to take it anymore. And when it was cut, it reduced the audience's understanding of Kirk as a character. Instead of being a story about a kid who lost his way -- who was made to feel worthless and like nothing all his life -- it became a story about a guy who baselessly arrogant and a jerk. Who came across more like an entitled frat-boy than someone who had been betrayed by authority figures and was looking for guidance.

The conversation with Pike in the bar -- in context of the deleted scene -- is so much more meaningful because it shows that someone finally expects something from Kirk and doesn't believe that he's worthless. It's a real turnaround point for him. Instead, the way it plays out in the film, it just comes across as a bit random -- why does it matter to Kirk if Pike challenges him?

I'm a big believer in allowing characters to be jerks and whiners as long as you properly put their actions into context -- let the audience understand why a character is the way he or she is.

That doesn't take away from some other issues I had with Abrams, though. I never understood why his Spock was introduced being so petty and borderline cruel. I also have major problems with how he utilizes Uhura as a vehicle to vocalize Spock's emotional state but reserves all of Spock most intense and earnest feelings for Kirk. But I won't launch into my rants on those topics.

 

I don't disagree with your overall view... but I do think JJ was right in exorcising that earlier scene for the sake of both pacing and internal logic. It's implicit that adolescent Jim is a bit of a handful... I don't think the audience need to understand anything more about his home life. For me, the film showing that his stepfather was perhaps the reason why he rebelled raises more questions than it does answers e.g. if the reason Jim Kirk is a bit of an arrogant arse is because his real father died and his stepfather was a swine, why does Kirk basically become the same adult showing the same behaviour/characteristics (altered timeline versus unaltered timeline)? Therefore that particular scene, with his step dad/brother, becomes problematic because it implies something that doesn't stack up... for me anyhow...

 

I disagree.

Stealing a car and almost killing oneself by driving it off a cliff as a young teen is not being "a bit of a handful." Spock's childhood reactions are understandable -- getting picked on day in and day could certainly lead to a physical altercation. Throughout the films, Kirk shows major problems with authority and this isn't really explained in the film. His father dying isn't really an excuse since he still had his mother and the film still implies that there's a father-figure back home (the phone call with the Nokia product placement gives this impression).

And here's the thing -- the characters aren't the same as the original series and at this point, given all the changes, they shouldn't try to be. Spock was radically altered from the original series to the new films. In the original series, he was so uncomfortable with his human side that he once confessed to Jim (in a situation where he was not in control of his faculties) that merely feeling friendship for him made him feel ashamed and that he had never been able to tell his mother that he loved her. In the new films, by contrast, Spock is already comfortable enough with his human side that he not only has a girlfriend, but feels free to kiss her in public -- something he would never, ever do in the original series. And it was Kirk's backstory that was far more radically altered than Spock's -- trying to make I'm into the same character as the original series is what wouldn't add up when Spock is already so greatly altered.

But look at it this way -- Kirk's reaction in Into Darkness, when Pike tells him that he's asked for Kirk to be his First Officer -- is made infinitely more meaningful when you include the cut scene as part of his backstory. In the film, Kirk is surprised, doesn't know what to say, and is on the verge of tears. And then Pike comforts him and reminds him everything will be alright "son." When you have the deleted scene, though, you understand that Kirk is so touched because he's not used to people in authority sticking up for him. He's not used to the people who should have protected him being there for him and believes he has to do everything on his own and screw anyone who tries to stop him. His stepfather was an abusive jerk, his mother left him with the man, and then his older brother walked out as well -- so Pike standing not only by him, but up for him, means a lot. And it makes Pike's subsequent death hit all that much harder.

 

IMO the one in the 09 film was better.

The STID one felt too much like a video game.

A specific video game.

A specific Star Wars video game.

 

Well I think it's pretty much a nature versus nurture debate. The film shows (regardless of what we think of JJ's interpretation of Kirk) is that this is a man who still grows up to be head strong, a ladies man, a fierce friend, a fierce enemy, a man who doesn't believe in a no win situation... and still 'cheats' on the Kobayashi Maru test... and ultimately becomes captain of the Enterprise. So I'm wondering how the new films depict a fundamentally different character??? Therefore, his childhood has little bearing because he would have ended up pretty much the same man anyway, doing the same thing regardless. It's not as if the new Star Trek films show him becoming an artist, teacher or scientist... He's doing exactly the same stuff. Therefore the 'nature' of Kirk is more fundamental than the 'nurture' aspect.

 

JJ is in Cleveland for some reason. Did shots with him at ABC Tavern last night.

 

Hmm…we seem to be getting a bit off topic, so I'll just say we can agree to disagree. I think the important thing to recognize is that a lot of Kirk's characteristics will be the same because he's still filling the same role. He is first and foremost a military officer. But he's also much more impulsive and prone to recklessness, especially where emotions are involved, than Kirk of TOS. Part of that might be due to youth, but I think it also has to do with his life being upended. The Kirk of TOS wouldn't disregard orders lightly. He broke the rules, but only when he thought it was important and took responsibility. Abrams' Kirk brushes the rules off and doesn't hesitate to lie because he doesn't feel he needs to own up to anyone. Again, there's that lack of respect for authority there. TOS Kirk might have been a maverick, but he still respected the chain of command to the best of his abilities.

 

The original Star Trek films show that Kirk cheated on a fairly major test in Starfleet Academy, he nicked the Enterprise and disobeyed Starfleet orders - he's exactly the type of person who believes in doing it his way... if he thinks he's right. That's not to say that he doesn't have a moral code, or isn't wiling to take orders. I don't believe JJ is at all trying to depict James Kirk as being 'altered' or changed... and if anything, that's the fault (IMO) of JJ for not digging deeper with the death of his father.

 

LEGO Star Wars: The Videogame?

 

The problems with the new Star Trek films have little to do with Abrams as a director and everything to do with the screenwriters... but then you all knew that. The scripts lack any really thoughtful science fiction concepts and don't do anything to convey the beauty or grandeur of space, and they certainly don't pay anything beyond the most perfunctory lip service to the basic philosophical ideas that Star Trek was about. There's barely a hint of Roddenberry flavor to them; it's as simple as that.

 

It depends on wether one has issues with his directing style... but I understand what you are stating... and JJ would indeed be blameless for the screenwriting assuming he had zero influence on the story or script. My assumption is that he would have to approve both the script and the story (at least for Star Trek ID)? But I'm not sure what his wider role was...

 

I was thinking of the TFU series.

 

Yup I was just funnin' with ya.

 

its going to be awesome jj Abrams is awsome cant wait

 

I know its waaaaaaay off topic, but The Lego Movie looks friggin phenomenal.