JJ Abrams as a Film-Maker

[AnakinFlair]

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.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[/quote]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. [/QUOTE]

To be fair, after the Prequels I probably would have tossed out anything that Lucas had given me.

Personally, I think Abrams could be a very good director and is a very good producer. It's just his reliance on 'Mystery Boxes', which are just shorthand for 'well, we'll figure it out later!' that makes him feel like a hack.

[Cyke]

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.

Thing is, here's how the size goes:

NX-01 < TOS Enterprise < Voyager

But in terms of movement, it was also then:

agile to slow to agile

So even from a narrative sense it's inconsistent. The NX-01 was close to the same length as the TOS Enterprise as well, so if it's a size thing, Kirk's Enterprise should be swifter than Voyager but it's not. If tech advances are to be accounted for, the NX-01 should be the most sluggish of all three ships, but it's not.

We can credit special effects or things like that, but narratively TOS was keen to show that any severe turns they had to do would be shown. She rarely turned on a dime as much as the NX-01 or Voyager.

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.)

I feel like your initial concern is why they put the Pike speech in there at the beginning of Into Darkness -- that is, an indictment of Kirk that agreed with a lot of the criticisms of NuKirk in '09. Th Indeed, I like '09 more than Into Darkness, but the end of '09 ultimately saw Kirk rewarded for his overall recklessness, and that reinforces behavior, or rather that Kirk at the end of '09 was basically the same Kirk in the middle of the movie. Into Darkness, I felt, was more deliberate about Kirk's progression than '09 was, almost like a take-2. (Also, I hate the movie's usage of Khan -- or even the fact that they used Khan at all -- as much as anyone else here, but some of Kirk's key development moments were in reaction to Khan, including Kirk eventually realizing that he was wrong to pursue revenge). Into Darkness showed two different Kirks: one at the beginning and one by the end.

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.)

The movie provides all the justification it needs -- it was Kirk using the Enterprise as his own personal plaything. Doesn't need to get more technical or scientific than that (and in-story or character justification =/= logical justification, since Kirk was purposely written to be illogical). It's a narrative reason to build the case that Kirk wasn't a good captain. If it serves no scientific advantage to Kirk, it wouldn't matter to him because at the time, his priority was on being cool and having fun. That's an intentional character flaw.

At that point, it's no one else's fault other than Kirk's, and Pike made sure to hammer that home. It's akin to Riker's ridiculous tactics of ordering flight maneuvers and shield status rather than fighting back, or the suspiciously selective Mutara Nebula (why just the shields and sensors? Wouldn't other systems be just as compromised?), or the drawn out wormhole sequence in TMP (BEEEEEELLAAAAAAYYYY THAAAAAAAAT PHAAAAAAASER ORRRRRDERRRRR), or even that the Enterprise-A undergoing catastrophic malfunctions was dispatched on an emergency mission. All of those are staples of Trek, but that makes them no less silly or more justified. (and the Kelvin Enterprise wasn't the first on-screen Starfleet vessel shown operating underwater or in a liquid substance like a submarine)

[Pinsir]

His Star Trek films are considered to be pretty bad by the community and TFA isn't highly regarded by Star Wars fans either. In film, he hasn't really produced a classic movie. Super 8 had a lot a buzz around it at the time and it is kind of a proto Stranger Things, but its just been completely forgotten. This isn't because the film is bad or anything, rather, its because it feels like it has no unique identity.

FYI, I voted yes.

[stargazer01]

I think he has talent. He makes flashy and entertaining movies that general audiences like. He seems to lack original ideas for established franchises, though. His movies and characters seem a bit shallow.

[Theleviathan]

He's a talented producer. He probably shouldn't write or direct much though.

The Force Awakens was such a derivative turd it should've killed his career.

[titanfan]

His Star Trek films are considered to be pretty bad by the community and TFA isn't highly regarded by Star Wars fans either. In film, he hasn't really produced a classic movie. Super 8 had a lot a buzz around it at the time and it is kind of a proto Stranger Things, but its just been completely forgotten. This isn't because the film is bad or anything, rather, its because it feels like it has no unique identity.

FYI, I voted yes.

To be fair, his job for the Star Trek films wasn't really to please the Star Trek fans. He was trying to please those that wanted Star Trek to have a wider viewing audience. They were well received critically.

Star Wars I would argue it would be impossible to please everyone but that was pretty much as fan-servicey a movie as you could make. (Which is also why a lot of people didn't like it, I know)

[Beaddle]

To be fair, his job for the Star Trek films wasn't really to please the Star Trek fans. He was trying to please those that wanted Star Trek to have a wider viewing audience. They were well received critically.

Star Wars I would argue it would be impossible to please everyone but that was pretty much as fan-servicey a movie as you could make. (Which is also why a lot of people didn't like it, I know)

He was not a trek fan but a star wars fan. he made a better trek movie of the 2 but at the same time trek was not overly controlled by the studio like episode 7. its hard to tell what his star wars movie would have been like if it was made under Fox or Paramount.

[superduperman]

He ruined Star Trek and Star Wars, so....

And by "ruined" I'm not some whiny incel saying that the lead in Star Wars should have been male, I mean he LITERALLY ruined Star Trek. The "Kelvin timeline" was completely pointless. There was no reason it couldn't take place in an alternate universe. You didn't have to literally wipe out the TV shows. As for his Star Wars; less problematic but not good. The way he treated the original cast is a different story. I get that the only way to get Ford to come back was to kill off Solo but he couldn't die heroically or something? No one in Star Wars got a happy ending. No one. Leia spent her whole life fighting the Empire in some form or another. Luke went off to mope. Han and Chewie went back to being criminals. This isn't the ending anyone wanted after Jedi. I think Rey and Finn and Poe could work as characters but just the way the original cast got treated makes their story less enjoyable.

Force Awakens was a re-hash of New Hope. Last Jedi was a re-hash of Empire. If the pattern continues, I have a pretty good idea what the next one's going to be like. Abrams is overrated. I don't want him anywhere near more franchises that I love.

[Beaddle]

He ruined Star Trek and Star Wars, so....

And by "ruined" I'm not some whiny incel saying that the lead in Star Wars should have been male, I mean he LITERALLY ruined Star Trek. The "Kelvin timeline" was completely pointless. There was no reason it couldn't take place in an alternate universe. You didn't have to literally wipe out the TV shows. As for his Star Wars; less problematic but not good. The way he treated the original cast is a different story. I get that the only way to get Ford to come back was to kill off Solo but he couldn't die heroically or something? No one in Star Wars got a happy ending. No one. Leia spent her whole life fighting the Empire in some form or another. Luke went off to mope. Han and Chewie went back to being criminals. This isn't the ending anyone wanted after Jedi. I think Rey and Finn and Poe could work as characters but just the way the original cast got treated makes their story less enjoyable.

Force Awakens was a re-hash of New Hope. Last Jedi was a re-hash of Empire. If the pattern continues, I have a pretty good idea what the next one's going to be like. Abrams is overrated. I don't want him anywhere near more franchises that I love.

The original cast in star wars 7 were off.

I could tell Leonard Nimoy was loving every minute in Star Trek 2009 unlike Harrison Ford that was phoning it in for star wars 7. Was that JJ fault or was it the script?

[Midvillian1322]

The original cast in star wars 7 were off.

I could tell Leonard Nimoy was loving every minute in Star Trek 2009 unlike Harrison Ford that was phoning it in for star wars 7. Was that JJ fault or was it the script?

I'm guessing your implication was that its Disneys fault?

[WebLurker]

Thing is, here's how the size goes:

NX-01 < TOS Enterprise < Voyager

Oh, you're right. How embarrassing.

But in terms of movement, it was also then:

agile to slow to agile

So even from a narrative sense it's inconsistent. The NX-01 was close to the same length as the TOS Enterprise as well, so if it's a size thing, Kirk's Enterprise should be swifter than Voyager but it's not. If tech advances are to be accounted for, the NX-01 should be the most sluggish of all three ships, but it's not.

We can credit special effects or things like that, but narratively TOS was keen to show that any severe turns they had to do would be shown. She rarely turned on a dime as much as the NX-01 or Voyager.

Given the more limited effects at the time, I guess I wrote all that off as just that. I do have to admit that of the problems and inconsistencies in the franchise, this type doesn't really bother me much. I find numbers-based stuff (speeds, coordinates, dimensions, the map of the Galaxy, etc.) easier to gloss over in the franchise more then discrepancies in the show's history and whatnot.

I feel like your initial concern is why they put the Pike speech in there at the beginning of Into Darkness -- that is, an indictment of Kirk that agreed with a lot of the criticisms of NuKirk in '09. Th Indeed, I like '09 more than Into Darkness, but the end of '09 ultimately saw Kirk rewarded for his overall recklessness, and that reinforces behavior, or rather that Kirk at the end of '09 was basically the same Kirk in the middle of the movie. Into Darkness, I felt, was more deliberate about Kirk's progression than '09 was, almost like a take-2. (Also, I hate the movie's usage of Khan -- or even the fact that they used Khan at all -- as much as anyone else here, but some of Kirk's key development moments were in reaction to Khan, including Kirk eventually realizing that he was wrong to pursue revenge). Into Darkness showed two different Kirks: one at the beginning and one by the end.

Maybe, but I guess that it's still sloppy to cover the same ground twice. Wish that they'd done something else for Kirk in the first movie, then having his stupid success in that one (seriously, him going from disgraced cadet to captain at once makes zero sense) feed the hubris that he needs to overcome in part two.

The movie provides all the justification it needs -- it was Kirk using the Enterprise as his own personal plaything. Doesn't need to get more technical or scientific than that (and in-story or character justification =/= logical justification, since Kirk was purposely written to be illogical). It's a narrative reason to build the case that Kirk wasn't a good captain. If it serves no scientific advantage to Kirk, it wouldn't matter to him because at the time, his priority was on being cool and having fun. That's an intentional character flaw.

Kirk breaking the prime directive was enough to get that point across, IMHO, and actually makes sense that he'd do it. There's no way that submerging the ship makes any sense, even if he was treating it like his own toy.

At that point, it's no one else's fault other than Kirk's, and Pike made sure to hammer that home. It's akin to Riker's ridiculous tactics of ordering flight maneuvers and shield status rather than fighting back...

Was that the first Khan face off in the second movie? Thought that Kirk's error in judgement there seemed more plausible in terms of why he'd do that.

...or the suspiciously selective Mutara Nebula (why just the shields and sensors? Wouldn't other systems be just as compromised?)...

That one made sense, since none of the other systems would be compromised and it leveled the playing field for them. "Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik."

...or the drawn out wormhole sequence in TMP (BEEEEEELLAAAAAAYYYY THAAAAAAAAT PHAAAAAAASER ORRRRRDERRRRR)...

As I recall, that was to show that Kirk wasn't up to speed on the ship's upgrades. (Yeah, it's overly long, but still.)

...or even that the Enterprise-A undergoing catastrophic malfunctions was dispatched on an emergency mission.

Wasn't that another one of those overused "only ship in the area" things?

All of those are staples of Trek, but that makes them no less silly or more justified. (and the Kelvin Enterprise wasn't the first on-screen Starfleet vessel shown operating underwater or in a liquid substance like a submarine)

Any besides Voyager in fluidic space.

The "Kelvin timeline" was completely pointless. There was no reason it couldn't take place in an alternate universe. You didn't have to literally wipe out the TV shows.

You do realize that the idea is that the Kelvin Timeline is another quantum reality, as shown in "Parallels" (TNG) that didn't overwrite the original timeline? Heck, even before DSC and Picard showed that the prime universe is intact post-Kelvin, "Parallels" would've been enough to prove that the pre-Kelvin iteration of the franchise still existed somewhere in the Star Trek multiverse.

[superduperman]

Picard takes place in the Kelvin timeline.

[Beaddle]

Picard takes place in the Kelvin timeline.

You don't say?

where did you hear this?

[C_Miller]

Picard takes place in the Kelvin timeline.

No it doesn't. It takes place in the Prime timeline after the destruction of Romulus. The Kelvin timeline is an alternate timeline created when Spock went back in time to prevent it, but the Prime timeline still exists and this is where Picard takes place.

[WebLurker]

Picard takes place in the Kelvin timeline.

No, it's prime timeline, as has been stated everywhere.