• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    This won’t be popular, but I LOVED his first two Trek movies. Acting was on point without making a caricature of the original people. The call backs in the Kahn movie were great. Both were exciting, engaging, all that.

    I have no idea what happened in the third movie. Tried to watch it 4 times. Still never finished it, can’t tell you a thing about it.

    Begin my punishment. My body is ready.

    • dalekcaan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      I definitely enjoyed the movies, but at the risk of sounding like a gatekeeper, they didn’t really feel like Trek. It felt more to me like an action sci-fi in the vein of, say, Avatar, with a coat of Trek paint to lure the fans in.

      Still enjoyable, mind you, but not really something I remember when I think of the Trek universe.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The '09 Star Trek movie, judged on its merits as a Star Trek movie, was a pretty good Star Wars movie.

          • willis936@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Reminder: the only new Trek since Enterprise are devoid of Berman / Roddenberry and are the Kurtzman abominations. Discovery and Picard are Star Wars sequel trilogy tier.

            • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              You do realize that Frakes is ALL OVER the new Treks? Is fucking Commander Riker not Trek enough for you?

              • willis936@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                The presence of the legendary Patrick Stewart, the most iconic of all Trek actors, does not make Picard a Trek show. It makes it even worse. It’s like if you brought Mark Hammill back to Star Wars to be a grumpy slouch.

    • a_fancy_kiwi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No I completely agree with you. Without those first two Abrams Trek movies, I probably wouldn’t have ever watched any of the Trek shows.

      Him and Rian Johnson fucked Star Wars though. Completely ruined it for me and I refuse to watch any new Star Wars content.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I will honestly say that, as someone who did not like Rogue One (I seem to be in a small minority), Andor was one of the best sci-fi series I’d seen in a while. I recommend watching it. It’s only barely related to the rest of Star Wars. There’s no Force or Jedi in it.

        • Orbituary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Rogue One and Solo were my two favorite of the Disney abominations. They were solid movies. Andor was amazing and could be watched by anyone who liked sci-fi: the story was compelling.

          If they told more stories about not-jedi or troopers, it would be great.

    • Klanky@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      The third one was just…fine. Like I’m so ambivalent towards it, I don’t have any feeling about it.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Right? I like Zachary Quinto as an actor, but that Spock was not Spock. And yes, I know, the Kelvin Event changed everything… so why not just invent new characters instead of shoehorning new personalities into beloved ones?

        • OpenStars@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          B/c like modern AI, it was more “cost-effective” to simply take the older ones, and do whatever they wanted with them, regardless of our consent.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            And just as lazy.

            Heaven forbid we have all original characters. We can’t even have them in Disco and SNW and I like Disco and SNW… but Star Trek and Star Wars both have this Dickensian issue where every show has to be connected to every other show not just through the worldbuilding that has already been done, they actually have to share characters at least sometimes. As fun as crossovers can be, if they were even just kept to a bare minimum it would be nice.

            They’re doing a Starfleet Academy show next. I assume it will have Tilly in it. What if it had zero characters in common with any of the other shows except for the very occasional crossover or reference, and maybe never with any of the main casts of any of the other series?

            • OpenStars@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              When Gene Roddenberry was in charge, things were better. I guess that’s almost stupid to say b/c of how trivially obvious it is but… there it is. He was the original mind behind it all, and without him, the rest is simply cashing in ca-CHING on what he built. I could barely finish watching Enterprise, and (don’t hate me, at least not too much) haven’t been able to force myself to watch anything newer since. Even at the price of “free”, it isn’t the same return on investment compared to e.g. re-watching old episodes of Babylon 5 or something.

              But please, don’t mind me and definitely I hope that nobody deprives themselves of at least checking that stuff out to see if it might be for them.

              • ExhibiCat@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                I really don’t like the new shows either. They’re too flashy, it’s all about the spectacle.

                Try the Orville though. It’s what TNG was but modern and with a bit more humour. I think it’s amazing.

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Agreed.

      Also, I don’t hate the SW 7-9 any more than the previous six. They are sci-fi spectacles and none of them were brilliant pieces of writing. Plot holes and magic galore.

    • Damdy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The first one was pretty great, I couldn’t get through the second though and actually heard good things about the third. The second put me off even trying the third.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I hated the 2009 movie and Into Darkness, but Beyond was okay-ish.

      (Apparently unlike you, I care about ridiculous plot holes so big they destroy the entire premise of Star Trek – after all, (a) how is Starfleet anything but a farce if a mutinous cadet can be promoted straight to captain, (b) what’s the point of starships if you can just beam between star systems, and (c) what’s the point of any dramatic conflict if you can fuckin’ cure death?!)

      • MelodiousFunk@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        (a) how is Starfleet anything but a farce if a mutinous cadet can be promoted straight to captain

        Pike tagging Kirk like that jolted me right out of the first movie. Just… no. I still found it enjoyable overall, but the contrivances really detracted from the experience.

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        what’s the point of any dramatic conflict if you can fuckin’ cure death?!)

        To be fair, Into Darkness isn’t the only Trek thing to have that problem. Lower Decks even makes the relative ease with which main characters return from the dead a plot point.

    • ummthatguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Early Lost was solid. Then, we got the other “others,” they killed off the best character, and the ending everybody predicted (which was vehemently denied) totally happened.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I said this elsewhere in the thread. I was with Lost all the way to the end. I kept thinking, “okay, we will get answers.” And then we got to the final episode. Most of the mysteries were not answered and the ones that were did not get very good answers.

        It pissed me off as much as the last episode of BSG pissed me off for the same “let’s just throw everything we’ve built out the window, fuck it” reason.

      • wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wasn’t Abrams only involved with the production of the pilot and then minimally involved with the first season? From my understanding he pretty much had no involvement and Damien Lindelof had to scratch teeth to try and get some insight on where to go forward.

        Then between the writers strikes and well…

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Abrams starting something with no idea of where it will go or what’s in his mystery box then handing it off to someone else to finish was basically his entire career. I’m not sure he ever actually had to finish anything until Rise of Skywalker.

  • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Competent Director, and completely incompetent story teller. Just like Rian Johnson!

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, Rian Johnson is a pretty shit storyteller as well.

        A competent storyteller would have seen that Carrie Fisher died, looked at the release window of the movie, with a full year left, and then ordered a single reshoot to kill Leia off instead of pulling a Space Merry Poppins.

        He also completely abandoned Finn’s Force potential in favor of whatever the fuck that casino raid was.

        And then there was the noble sacrifice that Finn was going to make, which was foiled because he decided that Finn should have a love interest, but didn’t lay any of the groundwork for it, and the sacrifice could have actually saved the day.

        So instead, he invents the hyperspace kamikaze.

        Honestly, that entire movie felt like a long filler sequence. The stakes never actually changed, and there was no payoff of anything. It was a placeholder movie, only meant to be the second in a trilogy. And the fans hated it so much that the last movie spent a good amount of runtime retconning it all.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          There’s also him taking the whole buildup of Snoke as the big bad and then turning him into just some dude who dies right after being encountered.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              8 months ago

              The Extended Universe (which Disney rightfully expunged from canon) actually explained Palpatine’s return quite well.

              And yes, it was cloning. Palpatine cloned himself a bunch of times, and used the dark side of the force to body hop to a new clone when the old one wore out. Which they did at an accelerated pace due to the corrupting influence of the dark side.

              That was the original reason why Vader was more machine than man, because the Dark side, for all its power, was literally stripping the life out of them.

              Then Lucas came along with the prequels and decided, no, the dark side isn’t some corrosive thing, it’s just the force being used by mean people.

              I mean, seriously? What difference is there between the light side and the dark side when you watch the movies? Seems to be none. Just that the dark side is fueled by emotion? That it? Okay then.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Worse than that- in the prequels, the Jedi were pretty fucking awful too. They propped up the corrupt Old Republic and what they did with children was just inexcusable, so if they represented the light side of the force, the light side isn’t that much better than the dark side, if better at all.

                And if it’s all so morally ambiguous, why does The Force have two sides to it?

                • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Worse than that- in the prequels, the Jedi were pretty fucking awful too.

                  Well ya. That WAS the point. Anakin literally said “from my point of view the Jedi are evil”, and it’s because the Jedi completely lost what it meant to find balance with the force.

                  And the Force has two sides because it has two opposing, but directly related aspects. Like positive and negative charges, or light and dark (in the conceptual sense). How can you tell the light without darkness?

                  IIRC, this is something the EU had explored with Luke. He approaches his New Jedi Order with a balanced mindset of the Force.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Which could have been a good twist, but instead it was a wet turd in a sea of sUbVeRtInG eXpEcTaTiOnS

        • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          This take assumes all of this was his decision and not the studio with billions sunk into a franchise they were desperate to milk.

          Look at his other movies, like Brick or Knives Out, he can direct a movie to fucking greatness. And he is committed to writing AND directing so the only way those ham fisted bullshit narrative loopholes could find their way into his movie is if it was put there by studio interference. I agree that he had a couple of bad ideas which changed the physics of Star Wars, showing a misunderstanding of the material, but he was always a film nerd who loved Star Wars for its technical innovations and story telling techniques and not a committed fan who loved the universe.

          Rian Johnson is a good director who had uncharacteristic ideas in his one big studio movie that didn’t fit his normal output.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The thing is- Brick and Knives Out are not sci-fi. It takes a certain kind of person to do sci-fi properly and it wasn’t him. Norman Jewison was a great director, but I wouldn’t call Rollerball an amazing piece of science fiction. Robert Altman’s only science fiction film, Quintet, was rightfully a flop because it was awful. Howard Hawks was an incredible director, but The Thing from Another World, his only science fiction movie, is pretty darn cheesy.

            All three men were very talented, but none of them really understood sci-fi.

        • a_fancy_kiwi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          6 movies that tell the rise, fall, and redemption of the Skywalker family just for 3 more movies to have them stumble, fall again, die out, and ultimately have the galaxy be saved by the big bad’s grand daughter who came out of no where, but it’s ok, she’s a Skywalker in spirit 🤷‍♂️

        • OpenStars@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Late-stage capitalism sucks donkey balls. There’s nothing at all wrong with money, but to chase after it to the exclusion of all else… is not so good. :-(

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Chasing short term profits undermines the possibility of building a brand on quality beyond the expansion and buyout phase. So many companies that were known for making quality products with quality service were bought out and run into the ground as shadows of their former selves after being bought out by investment firms that wanted the name and reputation but not the actual production and support costs that the brand was built on.

            • OpenStars@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              It’s parasitism - they latch onto something successful, then as you said run it into the ground, then leave it to someone else to deal with the mess. It is SO MUCH HARDER to build something as a mutualistic symbiosis, hence it’s easier if they just… don’t.:-(

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I meant that J J Abrams has done some good work as well, like Fringe and Lost and Cloverfield.

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    Oooh yes. it wasn’t enough to lens flare any joy out of one of my beloved star franchises, you just had to snoke your way into two of them! If you lay hands on Stargate now as well, I’ll go auldimately insane!

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you lay hands on Stargate now as well

      Wait, no. What?

      Is this a thing that’s been talked about?

  • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    The problem is he makes decent-to-good original films then slaps a thin veneer of franchise on it. Zero respect for what he’s actually making a movie of.

  • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I honestly don’t mind his movies. Movie Trek has always been action for the most part anyways and, also, would kind of fuck up the characters. Hell First Contact turned Picard into a mentally unhinged action hero.

    Also I still say Kirk being a rocker fucking fits yo.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Also I still say Kirk being a rocker fucking fits yo.

      Except that it’s like calling you a rocker because you listen to Vivaldi. Star Trek used to pretend music ended with classical. Then J.J. decided to pretend it ended with the Beastie Boys.

      Now don’t get me wrong, I like the Beastie Boys and Sabotage is a terrific song… but it would be a weird quirk like Alex listening to Beethoven in A Clockwork Orange, not a sign that he’s a rockin’ rebel.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Eh true, but you hit on what drove me so fucking crazy in…basically all of it. The only listen to music thats already classic by our standards. Music thats classic by our standards. I hated that.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It did annoy me in other Trek shows, but it was only in the J. J. movie where it was meant to show ‘Kirk is a badass kid.’ When Data played in a string quartet on TNG, it wasn’t meant to show how cool Data was.

    • DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fringe started amazing, then hit the wall fucking hard in the final season. Classic Abrams. Even he didn’t know what was really going on and when he had to start explaining shit it fell apart in a right hurry. See Lost for further examples.

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t know if he is any good as I can’t get past the generic plots and can’t see anything but lens flare.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      All he has are those two things and mystery boxes that are empty.

      JJ is a hype man with nothing to support it quality wise, but he does seem to make things that make money so Hollywood loves him.

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I love his non fandom stuff, but the major franchises should have kept him far away from them, he should just stick to original content.

  • Belgdore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    We as a culture need to realize that JJ Abrams is just a less edgy Michael Bay.

    They both take beloved franchises and do everything they can to kill any interest the old fans have while failing to make something new and interesting for the younger fans. Then they fall back on the aesthetic of the old parts of the franchise, without any of the charm, and keep the same story structure and bad jokes as their new version of the franchise.

  • niktemadur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    His constant hurling of “mystery boxes” at us was annoying enough. Things like Luke’s lightsaber and Maz Kanata’s “that is a story for another time”… really? REALLY? Abrams had no backstory for this, at all, he just threw it in there as a fetishistic compulsion, along with so many other things. Which is why none of his stories land in the end.

    Speaking of which, then there’s his ending TFA in the middle of a scene, as if this was an episode of “Lost” and stay tuned for next week’s installment, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

    But the clincher for me is the completely lazy disregard for science and how science works. Instead of doing the homework to at least try to approximate reality, he just did whatever got him to the next page of the saccharine script, to put whatever characters together because it was convenient for him.

    In the process of all this, he made the galaxy feel small and flat, instead of vast and grandiose.