View Poll Results: Is JJ Abrams a talented Film-Maker

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    22 55.00%
  • No

    6 15.00%
  • Talented but overrated

    12 30.00%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58
  1. #1
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default JJ Abrams as a Film-Maker

    I was going to say JJ as a director but since he writes, directs and produces, I chose to go with film maker as it covers mostly everything.

    This is a general question but what are your personal opinions of him as a film maker?

    I seem to be getting the feeling he is seen as an ''emperor has no cloths type of film maker''. A person whose talents is only a mask filled with limitations or he is a dumbed down mash up off Cameron/Spielberg/Nolan all rolled into one person?
    Last edited by Beaddle; 09-04-2019 at 03:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    He makes movies exactly how I like them. To me, he's one of the best. Much better film maker than TV-show runner.

  3. #3
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by titanfan View Post
    He makes movies exactly how I like them. To me, he's one of the best. Much better film maker than TV-show runner.
    Shout out to his admin skills, too. If he's a producer and not director or writing a movie (like the last couple Mission: Impossible movies, or Star Trek Beyond, or even TV like Westworld), he sure knows how to pick the right people for the job. (though, counterpoint in fairness -- I liked The Last Jedi but I also understand where those who were displeased are coming from)
    Last edited by Cyke; 09-04-2019 at 12:18 PM.

  4. #4
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    Shout out to his admin skills, too. If he's a producer and not director or writing a movie (like the last couple Mission: Impossible movies, or Star Trek Beyond, or even TV like Westworld), he sure knows how to pick the right people for the job. (though, counterpoint in fairness -- I liked The Last Jedi but I also understand where those who were displeased are coming from)
    Fans do get to him although he denies it. The harsh fan criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness led to a reverse course for Star Trek Beyond. I have no doubt the same will apply with Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker despite JJ saying the opposite.

  5. #5
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Fans do get to him although he denies it. The harsh fan criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness led to a reverse course for Star Trek Beyond. I have no doubt the same will apply with Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker despite JJ saying the opposite.
    That's perfectly fine. In the end fans are the recipients and offer critiques. Anyone who believes they have the right answer all the time never lasts long in this business. Even if he doesn't realize it, just so long as it helps him deliver a quality product, very few would really mind it.

  6. #6
    Incredible Member Mr Cochese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    602

    Default

    He’s a hack, copying Spielberg in a purely technical sense without any understanding of how his film-making works. All surface and no feeling.

  7. #7
    Spectacular Member PoorStudent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    124

    Default

    He feels like a producer first, and tends to make decisions based on popularity/commercial choices over substance/ideas. With the exception of Star Wars, I think every trailer to a movie he's made/tv show has a woman in her underwear/bra and it always feels a little desperate. I think this is also why all the characters in Star Wars are young, which with Hux it really sticks out. See:



    I think his whole Mystery Box ideas that the mystery is more important then the ideas is a lazy, Rod Sterling and Gene Roddenberry had the ideas to back up the mystery, he doesn't. See Star Trek Into Darkness/Lost/Westworld for examples.

    Also when Star Wars was passed over to Disney, Lucas gave them his ideas for the next three and he tossed them out in favor of his own. And yet he always talks about what a big fan he is of Star Wars, it feels very corporate and disingenuous.

    Having said all that, I do think there is a momentum and energy to his films that I think he does well. He's like a slightly smarter Michael Bay, but equally as shallow.

  8. #8
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,184

    Default

    I've seen stuff he's made that I liked and stuff I didn't. I have noticed, like them or hate them, that he does generally good job of putting the characters front and center, which I appreciate. I disliked Kelvin Kirk and liked Rey, but in both cases, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what made them tick and that they'd had gone somewhere from where they were when we first me them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Fans do get to him although he denies it. The harsh fan criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness led to a reverse course for Star Trek Beyond. I have no doubt the same will apply with Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker despite JJ saying the opposite.
    Did it, or was it just a factor in the change of director (JJ Abrams was marketed as a guy who didn't care about Star Trek the franchise, while Justin Lin was a fan of the Original Series, at least)?
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  9. #9
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    409

    Default

    I don't feel right voting, as I don't think I've ever enjoyed an Abrams production. I watched part of one episode of Lost, found nothing about it compelling. I thought his Star Trek films felt like parodies, and I washed my hands of Star Wars based on how he handled the original characters. I don't know of another creator with whom I have such antipathy. That said, I see the impact his creations have on others, so I am loathe to call him a hack. I just fundamentally disagree with his take on things.

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,096

    Default

    Dude produced 10 Cloverfield Lane and Fringe.

    Let's see folks griping about the guy gripe or criticize half as well as those came out.

  11. #11
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    7,770

    Default

    Like most directors JJ has made stuff I like and stuff I dont. I think hes a talented dude. Hes not a hack but hes not an all time great either.

  12. #12
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    5,921

    Default

    I like J.J Abrams.

    I actually think he's one of the best around. He hasn't made anything I didn't enjoy which is something I simply cant say for most film makers today.
    "Obviously not all conservatives are racists/bigots but all racists/bigots claim to be conservative"- Unknown

  13. #13
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoorStudent View Post
    He's like a slightly smarter Michael Bay, but equally as shallow.
    Bay could have made star trek into darkness for all I care, that was such a bad star trek movie, really shallow. JJ was just throwing in silly action scenes before any character could finish a conversation and spock and khan fighting on a moving car flight urgh. I won't really say it's as bad as Bay but it was as bad as X3.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Cochese View Post
    He’s a hack, copying Spielberg in a purely technical sense without any understanding of how his film-making works. All surface and no feeling.
    I sort of agree, I still bang my head when I see the Enterprise rise out of the water in into darkness. it's so stupid.

    it looks good but there was no feelings , so yeah it was shallow. great visuals, zero substance.

    The carol scene from into darkness is worse though.


    the strip scene from the first film was okay, Uhura was in her room changing her dress not knowing Kirk was there, carol had no reason to dress down.

  14. #14
    Extraordinary Member Cyke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    I sort of agree, I still bang my head when I see the Enterprise rise out of the water in into darkness. it's so stupid.

    it looks good but there was no feelings , so yeah it was shallow. great visuals, zero substance.
    Respectfully disagree about that part (and just that part). I'll credit Abrams with instilling Starfleet ships with weight once again, and that adds to their grandiose majesty. These things have always been behemoths since the 60s, but Voyager and Enterprise made them seem too lightweight at times (Defiant gets a pass from me because it's supposed to be that fast, and oftentimes flew circles around a lumbering giant like an Excelsior class or a Cardassian ship to show that point). The TOS Enterprise/Refit/A, the Enterprise-D, etc. all felt massive and moved accordingly, and it was nice to see Starfleet ships as lumbering giants once more, in particular the fleet mobilization in ST09. I'm also glad that Discovery took a similar cue, such as the final battle of season 2.

    But moreso, that grandiose majesty also served another point in the movie itself -- such a striking visual really screwed up the indigenous population and was a severe violation of the Prime Directive. On some level it was a visual metaphor of Abrams-Kirk's arrogant need to constantly flaunt and show off and the dire consequences that come with it (Into Darkness is always among my bottom 3 Trek films, but I will always appreciate the handling of Kirk's own character arc, transforming him from reckless hot shot in ST09 to responsible Shatner-esque captain in Beyond).

    If we're questioning why a starship would be underwater, I'd point out that it's far from the silliest or needlessly reckless thing we've seen in Trek, in both the Prime and Abrams timelines.
    Last edited by Cyke; 09-05-2019 at 08:59 AM.

  15. #15
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    Respectfully disagree about that part (and just that part). I'll credit Abrams with instilling Starfleet ships with weight once again, and that adds to their grandiose majesty. These things have always been behemoths since the 60s, but Voyager and Enterprise made them seem too lightweight at times
    Voyager and Enterprise NX-01 were smaller ships then the big rigs, so does make some sense that, for the theatrics, they'd be more agile. Not sure I'm fond of the design (the attempt to mesh the classics TOS look with Apple tech is really cartoony, at best), but I will concede that the big battle of the alt-1701 in Beyond was really good and the point that the ship really grew on me. (The Franklin was my favorite and I think that's because it really did look look like an ENT-era ship, creating the compromise between sticking to the roots of the franchise while putting a new spin that I'd wanted from the movies overall since the '09 original.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    (Into Darkness is always among my bottom 3 Trek films, but I will always appreciate the handling of Kirk's own character arc, transforming him from reckless hot shot in ST09 to responsible Shatner-esque captain in Beyond).
    I feel like Kirk was badly served by Into Darkness, with the pointless rehashing of his '09 movie story arc (learns humility to be worthy of the captain's chair) instead of moving it forward or finding a way to show that Kirk had remembered the lessons from the previous movies even if he still had a way to go. Chris Pine did well (the "I'm sorry" moment is a favorite of mine from this series), so I think the blame lies with the writers and director on this point. (Do agree that Beyond did Kirk well, showing him to be living up to the original TV version in a way that that not only fit his character arc but also was welcome to people like me who wanted to see Kirk played more like the he was back in TOS the show.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyke View Post
    If we're questioning why a starship would be underwater, I'd point out that it's far from the silliest or needlessly reckless thing we've seen in Trek, in both the Prime and Abrams timelines.
    I don't know about that, but I think the problem with the submerged ship is that the movie itself doesn't justify it and points out why it's a bad idea. Since we're told from the beginning by Scotty that the water will damage the ship and there's no counterpoint, it's just Kirk making a stupid mistake for no reason (not to mention the plot hole that the Enterprise could've beamed up everyone from orbit once the two prongs of the mission were completed). Moral is, if you're going to have a bone-headed decision in the movie, lampshading that it is bone-headed does not let you off the hook. (Impressive visuals, though.)
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •