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

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't really hate J.J Abrams, but I do hate the Star Trek reboots. Although to be fair Star Trek (2009) would have been alright if it weren't for all that time travel bullshit. If they'd just started with a fresh continuity and canon without trying to tie it into the old one I would've been fine with it, as far removed from Roddenberry's original vision as it was. Star Trek Into Darkness on the other hand was just bad all over, esp. those dress uniforms. Seriously the costume designer needs to be flogged for that.

 

[Valkrex]

I honestly don't understand the hatred towards the Star Trek Reboots. I really enjoyed Into Darkness, and while I wasn't really into the original series or films, I saw it with my father who was and he enjoyed the Abrams films immensely. I always hear people say the reboots "shit all over the source material", but whenever I ask about it no one ever explains HOW its doing a disservice to the originals.

I just get flamed out of the room without an explanation so I'm genuinely curious.

 

[JET1971]

I don't get why lens flares are being added to films and games. lens flares were always a sign of bad camera work, lighting, or positioning and any scene with lens flare had to be redone for big budget films. Now they intentionally add them for some strange reason, maybe as homage to all the B rated classics that didn't have the budget to redo scenes with lens flare. Whatever the reason they need to just stop adding them, they were considered bad in the past because it just looks terrible.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think Abrams is good with coming up with ideas/premises but he sucks at finishing them. Lost, Alias, and Fringe all started out good but ended poorly. The first season of Lost is really awesome but it just goes straight downhill from there. Super 8 was the same, the 1st 2 acts were great but the 3rd act was horribly cliched, at least put a bit of twist on the whole "the alien is actually good" thing that's been done to death.

People liked Star Trek Into Darkness at 1st? I saw it once and thought it sucked, and I liked the first Star Trek movie. So much of the movie was handled so badly and scenes just weren't thought out like when Khan kills Pike with the ship shooting into the office or whatever, why didn't everyone just run down the hallway like Kirk did? It was just a horribly executed scene. The story itself was just horribly bland as well. The opening of the movie was more interesting than anything afterward.

 

[D.Strormer]

So I'll disclaimer this right off the bat as my subjective opinion and if you disagree, fantastic, enjoy your freedom.

I do not, nor have I ever liked, JJ Abrams, and the reason is primarily because he's not Michael Bay terrible. JJ Abrams is a limp grip handshake of a director. He's a watered down beer of a director. There's no substance there, not really. He's a master at creating something that checks off every box on the list of what has to be in one of this or that type of film in order to be "successful" coupled with a deft marketing hand. Star Trek, I found, was incredibly mediocre. It had the characters, it had the ship, it looked (relatively) nice, but it didn't have any spark. No life to it. It was bland and tasteless and quickly forgotten outside of the most surface level of viewing. (Thus all the lens flare jokes. No one could remember anything more important.) Likewise, Super 8 was a bland photocopy of Stephen Spielberg's style. He can imitate, he can create something unique, but it all falls flat in the end because there's nothing there to really take home and chew on.

For all their many (MANY) flaws, the Star Wars prequels did give us a few things to think about. Honestly, as much as you might hate Anakin in the movies, the idea that the bloated, bureaucratic society that supported the republic was the greatest component to its own downfall was well-reflected by the fact that the films themselves were taken down by almost the same thing. (Not a fat joke at Lucas' expense, but rather a comment on the films being a product of their own bloated, self-important origin.) And those films did check off everything on the list. We had jedi battles (some very good and some truly awful), red lightsabers, obtuse dialogue, several planets, and an incredibly obvious, contrived, and linear storyline. That's Star Wars, guys. It was the love and the dedication and the life of it all that made the old films work, not quality writing and directing.

Abrams is many things, but the three people most likely to murder a franchise are its director, its writer(s), and its casting director. Abrams is, imho, a red mark on that list. With Disney's power behind it, I'm hoping the first is saved by the other two, but I'll not hold by breath this time around. Then again, it doesn't matter, because the next Star Wars films are already guaranteed to make more money than (insert wildly inappropriate simile) on name recognition alone, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the fact that the greatest living actor on Earth will be in it and, good or bad, I'll enjoy that. It can't be worse than Indiana Jones 4... can it?

 

[tzimize]

"The internet hates J.J. Abrams because he's middle of the road, and the internet does NOT like middle of the road."

Holy shit, did you guys nail it perfectly this week.

Yeah I guess. I havent seen a single thing by JJ that I liked. I didnt HATE any of it, but it was all MEH. Star Trek, didnt see it (not a trekkie), his other movies, meh. Super 8, mega-meh. It wanted to be ET at some point and something else entirely at another point and it just didnt make me care at all.

Ultimately the writers is what will make or break the new Star Wars, but honestly...since its sold to disney now, all its gonna be is some douche walking around who they're gonna try to sell to the 14 year old girls. The geeks will come anyway, they just want to expand the audience.

FUCK! I HATE 14 year old girls. In general girls shouldnt be allowed to consume cultural products until at LEAST 20 years of age and a serious course of movie/music appreciation/history.

 

[David Chadwell]

Does no one remember seasons 1-4 of ALIAS? Sydney Bristow, one of the great female protagonists along Sarah Connor and Kim Possible - torn between her preternatural badassery and her desire to remain merely human. Long term constructed and delivered build ups through clever acts of antagonists and interweaving plot threads?

I'm not saying that I am pro-Abrams having movies. I am wondering why this never comes up in discussing his work. Felicity, Fringe, etc. get into the conversation more.

 

[wswordsmen]

I think your basic premise is totally and completely wrong. The reason Star Trek and Star Wars are so big today is because, when you watch the good parts of the franchises, they hold up after repeated viewings and long periods of time. Abrams movies seem to have the opposite properties they get worse after repeated viewings and do not hold up when thought about later.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

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.

Look, I can't argue with your gripe about the ending. Wrath of Khan is sacred ground, and that rubbed a lot of fans the wrong way. Personally, I loved pretty much the entire movie, including the ending. Nothing is ever going to match Spock's death in Wrath of Khan, so I don't even try to hold Into Darkness' ending to that standard. I did, however, like how they switched up that scene in Into Darkness, and how Abrams and Company reimagined the whole Khan lore. Khan as a conscripted Starfleet supersoldier? Loved it. Starfleet Admiral Marcus being the primary villain? Loved it. Khan and Kirk working together? Loved it, loved it, loved it.*
*(disclaimer: you're conversing with someone who also loves Star Trek TMP and Search for Spock and finds Undiscovered Country almost laughably bad, so take my taste in Trek films with a grain of salt)

To you last point about why the hell they even made Into Darkness in the first place....here's the ironic thing: I think Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman made Into Darkness a Khan retelling as a fan service. Basically, they re-imagined Space Seed/Wrath of Khan as an obligation to the fans. To them, making a new Trek movie without Khan would be like making the Darkn Knight without the Joker. And ironically, a lot of the hardcore fans ended up hating it, while casual movie-goers and folks that know little to nothing about Trek seemed to love it. So there you have it.

 

[Red Panda]

You thought the ending to lost was bad? The ending of fringe made me throw up more vomit then the laws of the physical universe state should be possible. Talk about taking a great show and throwing it in the dumpster in the final season.

 

[Gennadios]

Well, JJ was never a fan of Star Trek, he basically took the first scifi property he was offered and tried to turn it into Star Wars to begin with.

As far as SW goes, I think he's a great person to take over from Lucas, his work generally doesn't say too much to hide the fact that there isn't any thought behind it. The same writing style worked great for the original trilogy and fell apart when Lucas decided he had talent and actually tried to convey a message.

Basically, I'm glad he's getting Star Wars, JJ's the perfect fit, but I really hope he gets the f*ck out of directing Star Trek, he's not really ideal for the series.

 

[Olas]

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.

I would rather a series stay dead than be warped and milked just because there's money to be made. Case in point: Episode VII. There shouldn't be one. The Skywalker story was done, and no mystery box Abrams hamfistedly shoves into this film will make it anything other than a shameless cash grab.

Also for the record, I'd watch Star Trek Nemesis twice before I'd watch Into Darkness once. Wretched fucking film.

Nobodies forcing you to watch the new films. The fact that you despise them for some yet unexplained reason isn't justifiable reason to wish them out of existence so that nobody else can enjoy them. You're free to watch Star Trek Nemisis (which is not one of the worst ones in my opinion) all you want, and nothing Abrams does will "warp" that or any of the existing films.

I also don't see any reason to be up in arms about the "mystery box" considering there was no mystery about the Star Trek reboot and barely one for Into Darkness. It seems he's downplaying that gimmick more and more, which I think is a good thing, although it was hardly much more than a marketing technique anyway.

 

[MorganL4]

To you last point about why the hell they even made Into Darkness in the first place....here's the ironic thing: I think Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman made Into Darkness a Khan retelling as a fan service. Basically, they re-imagined Space Seed/Wrath of Khan as an obligation to the fans. To them, making a new Trek movie without Khan would be like making the Darkn Knight without the Joker. And ironically, a lot of the hardcore fans ended up hating it, while casual movie-goers and folks that know little to nothing about Trek seemed to love it. So there you have it.

Let's assume you're right... If you are right, then they failed from the outset. THE WHOLE POINT of Star Trek is to explore new ideas, challenge societal standards, to tread new ground, and inspire and challenge new generations of scientists and engineers to create "futuristic" technology. I mean the whole reason we have The MRI machine is because in an episode of TOS there was a scanner they could put people through on this one planet, and they would immediately know what was wrong with them. A guy saw that, said to himself: This should exist, and he started to build the damn thing. The whole reason we got Wolfenstien and DOOM was because in TNG some guys saw what the hollowdeck could do and so they went and created a 3D (as 3D as was possible at the time) environment for a shooter. TOS had the first ever interracial kiss on television. DS9 had the 2nd ever lesbian kiss on television, at the time it caused all kinds of outcry and commotion. A few years later Will & Grace premiered and gay kissing was happening every other episode and no one cared... In 2010 or 2011 (I can't remember the exact year) we effectively invented the dermal re-generator that Dr. Crusher used on Riker and Worf and a whole host of other characters. And in 2012 we invented the teleporter. (It can't actually teleport things very far, or very big things nothing bigger than some crumbs or it will overheat, but it DOES exist.) THAT is the point behind Star Trek. THAT is what makes trek trek. Levar Burton has said that his most proud moments as an actor are when people walk up to him and say, "I became an engineer because of you." Do you honestly think ANYONE is going to say that about Simon Peg? I'm not knocking Peg as an actor, I am just making the point. Trek is set in the future FOR THE PURPOSE of blazing new ground. If you are just making it to appease fans, then you don't understand it, and should not even TOUCH the license. Hell, Abrams actively angered me in his Into Darkness Jon Stewart interview when he said, "I was never really a big Star Trek fan until I was given the license, I was always more of a Star Wars guy." He has admitted that he does not actually know what he is doing, not as a director, but as an innovator. When Wrath of Khan came out, how many young minds do you think were introduced to and had their minds blown by the very concept of terraforming a planet? With Into Darkness how many kids do you think had their minds blown at the concept of magic supersoildier blood that cures radiation poisoning? (the most mind-boggling technology I can think of in Into Darkness). I hope that made my point.

 

[fangclaw]

the very last thing you said about the lens flares confuses me.
You said that the lens flare in a movie is "just there" yet a lens flair a game is annoying without any argument to back that statement up.

for me personally a lens flare is just there in both movies and games, i never really notice them and because of that i can't see why you or anyone can say they are good in one yet not the other.

 

[leviadragon99]

Honestly I don't have much of an opinion of him one way or the other, I think he did okay on the first Star Trek reboot, and rather botched the second instalment, I liked Lost for a while even if it wore out it's welcome, but the ending really was rubbish and I never saw super-8 so that leaves me fairly neutral overall on him.

And for the record, while I don't think there's anything wrong with people's opinions changing over time as they think about things more, I have to say that I ended up rather disliking Into Darkness partway through the movie where the rather wince-inducing "tribute" to Wrath of Khan started up, not however long it took for the movie to make it to DVD.

The main issue with him tackling Star Wars is that I really don't think someone average and middle-of-the-road is the best person to tackle that property (arguably shouldn't have been given Star Trek either, but that's kind of moot at this point) We need a visionary, someone to take things in a creative, bold, even risky new direction, because so much of Star Wars lore is already treading over the same ground. It's fun sometimes, but it's gotten to the point where it's a noticeable trend that we on the internet make jokes about, the technology of any given era being interchangeable, force lightning is the default evil power, stuff like that.

 

[Azuaron]

I have a complicated relationship with JJ Abrams. I really liked Lost (especially the beginning, when he was actually involved). I really liked Cloverfield (even though people seem to forget he didn't actually write or direct it). His Mission Impossibles were passable. I like his idea of the mystery box (his actual idea, not what people SAY was his idea--go listen to his TED talk, it bears little-to-no resemblance to how people talk about "mystery box marketing"). Super 8 was passable (Spielbergian kid adventures aren't really my thing).

I liked the first Star Trek reboot, though even then, he seemed pretty determined to stomp all over Star Trek's basic science fiction nature (building the Enterprise on the surface of the Earth? That's just stupid.)

But my God was Into Darkness bad. I walked out of the theater saying how bad it was. I watched it recently at home and drove my wife crazy commentating throughout the entire movie at all the stupid crap that was going on. It's like the three writers of the movie couldn't agree on anything, so held a contest where the winner was whoever could get the stupidest idea on film.

As for Star Wars, well, I gave up on Star Wars years ago. I honestly couldn't care less if the Abrams Star Wars ends up being bad because, as far as I'm concerned, Lucas already ruined that property.