• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Don't watch any film directed by JJ Abrams

S

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
After the utter fiasco he made of Star Trek, he can't be trusted to direct anything else.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I thought the new Star Treks were delightful and he's a wildly successful director that people love.
Click to expand...

His Star Treks are crap. They are action/adventure not Sci-Fi.
 
solletica said:
After the utter fiasco he made of Star Trek, he can't be trusted to direct anything else.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll get right on that. Just threw out my Star Wars tickets for tonight. Thanks for the warning.
 
Ikari said:
His Star Treks are crap. They are action/adventure not Sci-Fi.
Click to expand...

Completely true, and that's Abrams' style--thoughtless action combined w/excessive goofiness.
 
Kobie said:
Sure, I'll get right on that. Just threw out my Star Wars tickets for tonight. Thanks for the warning.
Click to expand...

They may not be refundable.
 
Ikari said:
His Star Treks are crap. They are action/adventure not Sci-Fi.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The first one I watched through. The second one, we turned off the TV part-way through. Not my thing. Action-heavy movies bore me.

Same thing with Bourne. Watched the first, but felt no desire to see any of the others. Shame, because a lot more could have been done with the idea if it was not just a pure action flick.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I thought the new Star Treks were delightful and he's a wildly successful director that people love.
Click to expand...

Do people really love him or just the corporate media? I had never heard of him before this Star Wars movie. I just googled to see what big movies he has made. Nothing.

Gone Fishin? he wrote that did he? And he made the tv show Felicity? Cool. Mission Impossible 3 seems to be the biggest thing he did before being contracted to do Star Trek. He is a manufactured celebrity. The media talks about him more than anyone else. He made Alias did he? Wow. Is that how he became so loved and the best thing since sliced bread? Or was it Felicity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Abrams

Did anyone see The Suburbans? Morning Glory? And what the hell is Infinitely Polar Bear?

I cant believe that this guy made Felicity episodes. That is hilarious.

This guy is a CIA minion and his fame has been manufactured by the CIA controlled US corporate media. The US needs some big name directors - and this is all you got? Jesus Christ.

edit - I love his name. So cool. JJ Abrams. I am so happy that Star Wars is all about JJ Abrams now and not Star Wars...

edit- Oh. He did Lost. Jesus Christ I hate that and people that watched it. That was the stupidest thing ever. I hated the ads. So it was Lost that made him bigtime. And not Felicity.

edit- Someone told me that Lost had a character called John Locke and that this had some hidden meaning reference to the real father of America - pommy John Locke. JJ Abrams is a CIA minion. Did anyone actually understand Lost?
 
Last edited:
Maybe there was more to Felicity than there seemed to be from the ads for it.



edit- Did you guys know that JJ Abrams was co-composer of the Felicity theme song? Im serious. HA! This guy is very talented. No wonder the CIA like him so much.
 
Come now. Are you really saying that J J Abrams makes movies that are not enjoyable ?

Or were you really just disappointed by it falling short of your own expectations ?

Realistically, i empathize for him. TV is easier to pander to a cult following, movies need a broader appeal. That's why i think it's fair for the Star Trek movies to have a bit more universal appeal. I still enjoyed them even if i might have envisioned it differently myself.

For Star Wars, i'm just glad ANYONE other than Lucas is involved. I feel like you're suggesting The Phantom Menace was better than The Force Awakens will be, and the thought that somebody might seriously entertain that claim makes me a little sick.
 
The latest Star Trek movies were fine light sci-fi space adventure movies; they were just bad at being Star Trek movies. Beyond looks even worse in this regard, but Abrams isn't involved, the Fast & Furious guy is.

(But then, Insurrection and Nemesis were just ****ing terrible all around, so they could only go up from there.)
 
I enjoyed the first Star Trek reboot, though didn't care for Into Darkness.

I very much enjoyed The Force Awakens.

So far, when it comes to sci-fi, he's batting .666 with me.
 
Zyphlin said:
I enjoyed the first Star Trek reboot, though didn't care for Into Darkness.

I very much enjoyed The Force Awakens.

So far, when it comes to sci-fi, he's batting .666 with me.
Click to expand...

.750 for me, since I thought Super 8 was godawful. I liked both Star Treks and TFA.

I didn't think Into Darkness was that bad, but only because I am viewing the new series as a clean reboot to enjoy for what it is. Does it compare to Wrath of Khan, the best (BY FAR) Star Trek movie ever made? No. Is it really keeping in line with what Star Trek movies usual are? No. But viewing it and the reboot starter as a standalone entity, it's not horrible.

Star Trek films, ranked (with official Kobie Movie Awesomeness Scores):
ORIGINAL CAST
1. The Wrath of Khan -- 9/10
2. The Undiscovered Country -- 7/10
3. The Voyage Home -- 7/10
4. The Search For Spock -- 6/10
5. The Motion Picture -- 5/10
6. The Final Frontier -- 3/10

NEXT GENERATION CAST
1. First Contact -- 6/10
2. Generations -- 6/10
3. Nemesis -- 6/10
4. Insurrection (really encapsulated how piss-boring ST:TNG was) -- 2/10

REBOOT
1. Star Trek -- 8/10
2. Into Darkness -- 6/10
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I thought the new Star Treks were delightful and he's a wildly successful director that people love.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I have seen three of his movies and liked two of them quite a lot (ST09 and Star Wars VII). His second Star Trek movie (Into Darkness) was IMO a mixed bag. But hey, even the old Star Trek movies produced duds here and there.
 
Seems the complaints have to do more with writing than directing.
 
JayDubya said:
The latest Star Trek movies were fine light sci-fi space adventure movies; they were just bad at being Star Trek movies. Beyond looks even worse in this regard, but Abrams isn't involved, the Fast & Furious guy is.

(But then, Insurrection and Nemesis were just ****ing terrible all around, so they could only go up from there.)
Click to expand...

I love Star Trek since I'm 7 years old and don't feel Abrams' style is "not Star Trek".

IMO, it's just limited to one aspect that has always been part of Star Trek from the very beginning. Since 1966, Star Trek has always had action-heavy episodes and episodes with pretty thin stories. "The Doomsday Machine" is a good example for a TOS episode (from 1967 IIRC) that is not much more than space fights and action, but it's one of the fan favorites. So is "Obsession".

So action-heavy, relatively thin stories are really not something Abrams invented, when it comes to Star Trek.

Although I'd say Star Trek has always been more than just that, and so far, Abrams has failed providing other aspects that are just as much at the heart of Star Trek, too. But IMO, that's not his fault, it's the problem of the format:

When you have a tv series with 24+ episodes per season, you can address different tastes, make an experimental episode here and there, or "filler" bottle shows that compensate lack of f/x with good dialogue and acting. Even if the result is not popular, it doesn't matter, because people will turn in again, because "next week, it will be better again".

Producers of multi-million dollar popcorn flicks don't have that freedom. They have to pander to mass appeal, that's part of the job description.


To a lesser extent, even the old Star Trek movies suffered because of that, IMO. Star Trek really is a tv animal. The big screen movies are just nice additions, IMO. The truly good stuff was on the small screen.
 
solletica said:
After the utter fiasco he made of Star Trek, he can't be trusted to direct anything else.
Click to expand...

Though - as a Trekkie - I agree that he has turned the series from a great sci-fi series to an action-adventure series....I think you are taking it too seriously.

Star Trek died when Enterprise was cancelled (not that it was all that great). I assumed the day that show died was the end of Star Trek for all intents and purposes. I blame Rick Berman more then I blame J.J. Abrams.

Unless another Roddenberry-type who follows the Star Trek 'bible' to a 't' comes around AND gets enough backing...I am afraid the true Star Trek universe is gone for good.


While I enjoy the new series, they are clearly rather dumbed down/actioned up for the masses.

Great sci-fi (imo) is about the writing/concepts...not the special effects/action. The former makes you really think...the latter (generally) does not.
 
The first two Trek reboots were too focused on the apocalypse. Hopefully the third one returns to, you know, actually exploring space?

I wish they didn't reboot the original series. It's not about honoring it but lacking the creativity and risk to do something new. I'm tired of hollywood recycling classics over and over, only to botch them. They should've just made a new Trek that was post-dominion war. The possibilities would be endless. They rebooted TOS because Enterprise was an abysmal failure and the Trek franchise needed a success, so they went with something safe.

But no, they had to do TOS "the next generation" instead, which does nothing to capture TOS. I don't like the actors, the constant action, or the salaciousness. The reboots have moved away from intellectualism and addressing humanity's philosophical problems, and reverted to the lowest common denominator. Like most modern reboots.
 
DA60 said:
Though - as a Trekkie - I agree that he has turned the series from a great sci-fi series to an action-adventure series....I think you are taking it too seriously.

Star Trek died when Enterprise was cancelled (not that it was all that great). I assumed the day that show died was the end of Star Trek for all intents and purposes. I blame Rick Berman more then I blame J.J. Abrams.

Unless another Roddenberry-type who follows the Star Trek 'bible' to a 't' comes around AND gets enough backing...I am afraid the true Star Trek universe is gone for good.


While I enjoy the new series, they are clearly rather dumbed down/actioned up for the masses.

Great sci-fi (imo) is about the writing/concepts...not the special effects/action. The former makes you really think...the latter (generally) does not.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is the format, as I wrote above.

When you expect a multi-million dollar popcorn blockbuster to be as deep as hundreds of hours of tv, your expectations are wrong, not the blockbuster.

Star Trek is a tv animal, it is not really at home on the big screen, never was. Whenever it was truly good, it was on the small screen. Even the 10 "old" Star Trek movies, most of the time, suffered from the too-much-action, too-much-mass-appeal, though the problem was never as big, as none of them was a true blockbuster (well okay, maybe TMP was, but most agree that's not one of the best). All others were just in the $15-$50 million range, unlike NuTrek, which is $150 million+. For me, the movies have never been more than a nice addition to the tv series' -- the real heart of Star Trek has always been tv.

So I put my hopes in the new tv series that's announced for Jan 2017. The third new movie is just an appetizer for the real deal, at best.

Or... you never know, they might well mess up the new series. The good thing about Star Trek is, right from the beginning, it was never constantly brilliant. It has always been hit and miss. On tv, this isn't so bad, because next week's episode will be better again ... that doesn't work when you just get one movie in 4 years.
 
Regarding Henry
Forever Young
Gone Fishin'
Armageddon
Alias
Fringe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom