No Right Answer: What's Our Deal With J.J. Abrams?

Recommended Videos

80sboy

New member
May 23, 2013
167
0
0
I say the problem with JJ is is that he's almost there. Almost a really good director. He know how to make a movie look and feel good. Good pacing, good action, good characters. But there's just something missing. What that is is good story. The stories and the actual plot suck most of the time. Look at LOST. in the end it was all about a damn smoke monster, and happy reunions in the afterlife. The last Star Trek movie was a weak rip on Wrath of Khan. Cloverfield is one of his better films because it had hardly any plot at all. I thinks.

All in all, JJ Abrams is the master of polishing a Turd to a mirror shine.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
Mcoffey said:
I don't dislike JJ Abrams because he loves his material and he's successful. If I hated people for that I'd also hate Quentin Tarantino. I dislike JJ Abrams because he made a films that are a bastardization of a series that is very dear to me, and because those shitty films were successful, they have set the course for the franchise to be shitty for years to come. He has ruined Star Trek for the foreseeable future. And since he's just a shit writer and director in general, clinging to one stupid gimmick (His bullshit mystery box), he's going to fuck up Star Wars too.
I agree with you that he's destroyed Star Trek. BUT he made Star Trek that way because he really wanted to make Star Wars and I think he'll be better suited to it. I disagree with NRA though, JJ Abrahms has absolutely no love for Star Trek and it shows. In my mind the single most annoying thing he did wasn't the action, it was turning the Enterprise crew from professionals with doctorates into emotinally immature love sick playboys that do everything on guts and heart. Professionalism and respect for science and knowledge was one of the few things that every iteration of Star Trek had to one degree or another and his movies have none of this. And than there is of course after that everything else.
I don't hate abrahms he's just not the sort of director that gets me excited and hopeful beyond the fact I think he'll probably do better with Star Wars. Abrahms star trek aren't bad action movies, they're good to decent even, but they are abominations of Star Trek movies. They are called Star Trek movies only because of name recognition.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
I don't quite consider LOST to be a JJ Abrams property - he didn't really have much to do with the majority of the show beyond "Executive Producer", that wonderful catch-all term for "Someone who's powerful enough to get money from us." So I don't hold the end of LOST against him. Cloverfield I refused to go see due to shakey cam and that the trailers gave me nausea (not normal for me), I didn't see Super 8 because it just didn't appeal to me. Looking over his IMDB page, there's a few things of his I've wanted to check out but just never did - Alias, Fringe, Person of Interest and Revolution. And I did enjoy Felicity, back when I thought Kerri Russel was drop dead gorgeous.

However, I've actively disliked his take on Star Trek since I saw the movie in the theatre. There was never a point where I like it, and I've been called a troll (not here, not on this issue) because I've actively criticized his take on Star Trek, which I see as essentially him making sub-par Star Wars movies. Which, ironically, is what makes me actually enthusiastic about his take on Star Wars.

Star Wars don't give a crap if you promote some Rebel from Barely Trained Recruit to Captain Of The Flagship in just a few days. Star Wars don't give a crap if you say "Use the Red Matter!" and leave it at that. Star Wars don't care if you gots the Magic Blood that resurrects peoples. Star Wars don't give a crap about using a sword to fight people probably armed with laser guns. Star Wars don't bat an eyeball at a laser that implodes planets. Star Wars don't care nothin' 'bout hiding a fleet of ships behind a rock. Star Wars don't know no geography, so you can be fightin' on Tattooine one minute, jump to hyperdrive then not be able to finish the expository dialogue before gettin' shot out of hyperspace outside Naboo. These are the things Star Wars says "Yeah, we did that - so what?". And we Star Wars fans go "Booya!" then laugh at the Star Trek fans who are having apocalyptic fits as our Star Trek gets this dumbed down idiot treatment.

So while I hate, loathe, dislike, gnash my teeth over his Star Trek crap, I'm going to go see his Star Wars in the Theatres because as Star Wars films, I've actually kind of liked his Star Trek stuff.
 

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
I certainly know I don't have a problem with him. I haven't seen a J.J. movie or television show I disliked (that obviously doesn't mean such things couldn't change)

Maybe a problem some people have with him, is that he's doing a lot of work, and increasingly with properties that have very loyal and interested fans. It might be similar to disliking anything when you've had too much exposure to it (pizza not included)

It might just be nerd's inherent touchiness as well, who knows.

Given my relative illiteracy when it comes to Star Trek pre TNG, I didn't have the unfortunate displeasure of having to compare A to B and was instead able to just enjoy the story.

I've gone back and watched Khan however, and I liked Into Darkness's take on it more.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
Copper Zen said:
J.J. Abrams was and is a major fan of Star Trek (despite what some folks who hate him/his work claim). He's also a major fan of Star Wars.
If this is true, then it might be accurate to say that JJ Abrams loves Star Trek in the same way that Tea Party Conservatives love the Founding Fathers of the USA.
 

Crazy Zaul

New member
Oct 5, 2010
1,217
0
0
I like most of the TV JJ has been to some extent involved in but only 1 or 2 of the movies.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Anyone whom I've ever talked to that didn't like Abrams did so simply to be a contrarian. They had to disagree with the consensus or they didn't feel like the smartest person in the room. No one has ever been able to articulate WHY Abrams sucks, only THAT he sucks because of 'reasons'.
I know lens flare was brought up and yes that can be annoying, but Abrams is far from the only director to use that. It seems like everything Abrams does 'wrong' other directors also do but get a free pass on.

Why is Abrams hated but Tarantino isn't hated for his lack of originality? Or Joss for recycling characters and dialogue between his projects? Or Lucas for being bland and predictable? Or Spielberg for be contrived? Or Coppola for being boring as shit?!
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Mcoffey said:
I don't dislike JJ Abrams because he loves his material and he's successful. If I hated people for that I'd also hate Quentin Tarantino. I dislike JJ Abrams because he made a films that are a bastardization of a series that is very dear to me, and because those shitty films were successful, they have set the course for the franchise to be shitty for years to come. He has ruined Star Trek for the foreseeable future. And since he's just a shit writer and director in general, clinging to one stupid gimmick (His bullshit mystery box), he's going to fuck up Star Wars too.
Face it, Star Trek was dead in the water when JJ picked it up. The last 2 Star Trek films before the reboot were commercial and critical flops, as was the prequel tv show. You may not like the new direction of the series, but at least it HAS a direction and possible future now. Before Abrams' reboot it was just a tired old franchise that was rapidly losing it's relevancy even within the geek culture that had sustained it for so many years.

On top of that, you can hardly call Abrams' 'shitty writing and directing' below average (much less a low point) for the series up until then. Star Trek has always had it's highs and lows. Perhaps the biggest mistake of Into Darkness was that it was trying to be a remake of one of the franchises better movies rather than one of it's more embarrassing ones.
 

The Grim Ace

New member
May 20, 2010
483
0
0
My main experience with him is the Star Wars films and they were great action movies, mediocre at best Star Trek films though. I don't mean that in the "Star Trek isn't supposed to have action" sense but there really is a mood and an aesthetic to Star Trek that he didn't capture all that well. Plus, Star Trek primarily focusing on Earth and its solar system is just a waste of all the possibilities that there could be in a Star Trek setting. Though, bringing his sensibilities to Star Wars, possible terrible script (going off purported leaks) aside, might not be a terrible idea.

Also the Lens Flare jokes will stop once it stops being a fairly routine things in his movies, they're stupid jokes but completely fair.
 

Darknacht

New member
May 13, 2009
849
0
0
The reason that opinion of his Star Trek movies started dropping when they came out on dvd is that its all spectral. Once people start to sit down and watch it at home they realize that its just a bunch of action pieces strung together by a poorly written plot, but that isn't a surprise since the writers are the same people that wrote Transformers. I have not really like any thing he has done so far so I don't have any big expectations for the new Star Wars, but its got to be better of with out Lucas.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
Tono Makt said:
I don't quite consider LOST to be a JJ Abrams property - he didn't really have much to do with the majority of the show beyond "Executive Producer", that wonderful catch-all term for "Someone who's powerful enough to get money from us." So I don't hold the end of LOST against him. Cloverfield I refused to go see due to shakey cam and that the trailers gave me nausea (not normal for me), I didn't see Super 8 because it just didn't appeal to me. Looking over his IMDB page, there's a few things of his I've wanted to check out but just never did - Alias, Fringe, Person of Interest and Revolution. And I did enjoy Felicity, back when I thought Kerri Russel was drop dead gorgeous.
Abrams is in charge of Person of Interest? I always forget that, since I associate it with Jonathan Nolan (brother of Christopher).
But check out Fringe; it's not as weird as Lost, since Abrams had a couple of other guys pull back on his chain so its more focused, and there's the novelty of a sci-fi series that was on FOX and not cancelled within 2 seasons.
 

Sonder Saunters

New member
Oct 24, 2009
77
0
0
He's not really amazing, he's not terrible, he's middle of the road. Does this mean that he's the perfect person for Star Wars? Because only a Sith deals in absolutes.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Good video. I didn't actually realize how much Internet hate there was for Abrams, and I thought the point about this hindsight criticism of his films was pretty compelling.

My own view is this: I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan. I eat, sleep, and breath Trek. And I love both of Abrams' contributions to Trek. Absolutely adore them. The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie, and the best thing to happen to the franchise in more than a decade (maybe First Contact or even All Good Things...). And while I get a lot of the criticism of Into Darkness (a rehash of ST2, a predictable plot reveal, etc.) I personally thought it was great, as did pretty every NON-Trek fan that I know. And maybe that's the catch with Abrams -- he's never going to satisfy a lot of the hardcore Trek folks for a variety of reasons, be it lens flares or rewriting Trek canon or whatever. But whether you like the rebooots or not, it's a fact that Abrams brought Trek more to the mainstream and made it "cool." And I'm not going to fault him for that. I'm going to applaud him.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
What do you mean "After the fact"? My friends and I were actively angry about Into Darkness WHILE THE FILM WAS STILL ROLLING!!! If I hadn't been sitting next to an 8 year old kid, I would have yelled out a number of obscenities right there in the theater.

That said, I did and still do think that the original reboot was solid.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
MorganL4 said:
What do you mean "After the fact"? My friends and I were actively angry about Into Darkness WHILE THE FILM WAS STILL ROLLING!!! If I hadn't been sitting next to an 8 year old kid, I would have yelled out a number of obscenities right there in the theater.

That said, I did and still do think that the original reboot was solid.
Just curious, what was the first flashpoint for your dislike of Into Darkness? I've asked this of other Trek fans I know, and I've gotten a wide variety of answers, ranging from the opening scene ("Kirk would never break the Prime Directive so blatantly!") to the Klingons ("They didn't look like real Klingons!"). Honestly curious here, not poking fun at all.
 

Jeroenr

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
21
ZZoMBiE13 said:
If you didn't notice the lens flare in Star Trek, you need glasses.

But for the record, that was never my problem with Star Trek anyway. My problem is yet another time travel pile of nonsense, yet another director who has talent but no real love of the property (same as Nemesis), and frankly a pretty dull story all things told.

That said, I've liked more JJ than I've disliked. I liked ALIAS, I liked LOST, I liked his Mission Impossible. Even Super 8.

Oh the other list though. Cloverfield was horrendously bad. But I can put that on the hate list because I don't like shakey cam found footage films.

As for the upcoming Star Wars, I'm cautiously hopeful. And hell, it's not like it could be as bad as the prequels, right?
To me the time travel was a big issue with Star Trek as well, and by JJ own admission he did it just to reset the continuity.
To be honest, nit pickers would have a field day if he hadn't.
But it does feel like a cop-out.

Also it feels like he made Star Trek as an application letter for Star Wars.

And also by his own admission he never saw an episode, and didn't after getting the job.
In the second one he appeared to have done his homework a bit better(or his writers did).


Star Wars is a series he does knows and care's about, so for now let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
Exley97 said:
MorganL4 said:
What do you mean "After the fact"? My friends and I were actively angry about Into Darkness WHILE THE FILM WAS STILL ROLLING!!! If I hadn't been sitting next to an 8 year old kid, I would have yelled out a number of obscenities right there in the theater.

That said, I did and still do think that the original reboot was solid.
Just curious, what was the first flashpoint for your dislike of Into Darkness? I've asked this of other Trek fans I know, and I've gotten a wide variety of answers, ranging from the opening scene ("Kirk would never break the Prime Directive so blatantly!") to the Klingons ("They didn't look like real Klingons!"). Honestly curious here, not poking fun at all.
Well, to be fair, Kirk ignored the prime directive at almost every turn. (if you really want I can start to list episodes) To steal a line from another series, I think Kirk always saw the prime directive as "more of a set of guidelines, than actual rules." So I had no issue with that, as it fit his character. I did notice the Klingon thing, and though it annoyed me I was willing to let it slide. And I figured that the "big reveal" that Khan was the villain of the peace was just lacking as a reveal for me because I found out Benedict Cumberbatch was going to play Khan about a week after the movie was announced to exist as a work in progress. And whilst I prefer Montalbán portrayal of the character, I think Cumberbatch did a fine job. What actively ANGERED me, and my friends was the total lack of imagination and direct cut and paste of the most dramatic scene in Star Trek history. Which of course was immediately followed by the film violating its own canon by allowing Khan to be knocked out by a couple phaser blasts which previously hadn't even made him do more than flinch just 6 scenes prior. If you can't be creative enough to come up with your own dramatic ending (an ending that was completely made null and void just 10 minutes screen time later.... You see the reason that scene worked in Wrath was because for 2 years of real actual time the character of Spock was dead, as far as any fan was concerned), and lack the ability to adhere AT LEAST to the canon YOU create (why I was willing to overlook the Klingon thing) then you might as well not even make the film in the first place.
 

bluepotatosack

New member
Mar 17, 2011
499
0
0
It's funny, all the criticism I've ever heard about his Star Trek films were that they were too much like Star Wars. Now people are worried about him directing Star Wars because of that? That does not follow.