Posted on 06/10/2011 6:27:00 AM PDT by Neoavatara
J.J. Abrams, which is becoming this generations Steven Spielberg, has taken inspiration from Spielberg in a movie that is more family entertainment than Science Fiction. This has the feel of a late 70s – early 80s flick from Spielberg, and I could very comfortably have believed that he made this in the interim between Jaws and E.T.. The movie had me virtually giggling inside, making me remember what it was like to see those movies as a young child. It brings us back to an era that I guess is now long forgotten, of blissful summers and imaginations gone wild.
The story begins with a group of middle schoolers who, like many of us in that era, decided to make their own science fiction film, in this case a horror flick. It probably echoes the childhoods of both Abrams and Spielberg, who admit to doing the same thing as kids. While filming their own story, they happen to be witnesses to a horrible train accident. Of course, the creature being carried by the train is not your normal circus animal.
(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com ...
The problem is all the “framework” is retrofitted on a show that in it’s first run couldn’t even solidly decide what the main character’s middle initial was. Trek was designed as an episodic show with no continuity, then 20 years later the canon crowd came in and tried to pretend there were constant rules.
For all intents and purposes Abrams did work with a whole new set of characters. They just had the same names as the most popular and well known characters in the franchise.
The problem with the ones that care is they’re caring about the wrong thing. Even at the height of the canon era that was never the POINT of the show. It was always entertainment occasionally with a message. By making canon the point of the show you’re missing out on everything that’s made the show great and so long lasting. It’s like going to the Louvre and spending your time examining the paint on the walls.
It was awful; a disappointment especially considering that I expected more. Spielberg-type movies in the past always featured that held-back feeling of being understated. This film was at the opposite end of that spectrum, obnoxiously so.
Concise review of the film: malevolent ET on steroids.
Abrams’ ST film was better than any of its previous incarnations.
What Spielberg films are you talking about?
Um, no.
As filmmaking it was. I had always found ST unwatchable in any incarnation up until that film. So maybe I’m not a good barometer since I was never remotely a fan.
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion if you like it or not... but it simply wasn’t Star Trek. I also just plain don’t care for movies that give me motion sickness in the first 5 minutes. I hated that ghastly “Moulin Rouge” film, too. Vile.
“not Star Trek” doesn’t mean it was bad filmmaking. I understand how that would upset fans though. But this is the new ST going foward.
Actually, just as a film it was subpar. A lot of special effects and action and not bothering to explain a damn thing because Abrams & Co. found that to be “boring.” My parents saw it (and they are not Trek fans) and thought it was incomprehensible garbage.
It’s about the qualities needed to be a leader. The characters were well delineated and the dramatic confrontations between Kirk and Spock were fairly mature.
Oh my word. You and I are in total agreement about something. I might like Wrath of Khan a bit more because it’s got Khan, but yeah JJ’s is a solid film. Certainly better as far as film technique than any of the Frakes’ extreme close-up festivals.
There you go again. It WAS Star Trek, it was more Trek than ANY of the Trek movies since 4 and more Trek than ANY of the shows since TAS. It was great fun SF with out stupid boring whining UN talk. And yes they failed to explain a bunch of stuff, just like TOS. That’s what made it so clearly and purely REAL Trek. Real Trek doesn’t drown in explanation, real Trek gets on with the story. It wasn’t canon worship, for which all the sane Trekkies jump up and down in joy.
It’s a real film. BTW Super-8 is also excellent. I saw it last night. The most fun I’ve had in a movie theater in a long while.
Early Spielberg films felt understated because he didn’t have the budget. Once he started getting the fat cash to make movies with understatement evaporated. Look at Minority Report, that’s the kind of film he always wanted to make, but couldn’t. He’s a kitchen sink guy, the difference between Close Encounters and ET era Spielberg and now is just how many kitchen sinks can he buy.
As an homage to the early Spielberg the movie is pretty good. I love the kids’ zombie movie at the end, like the Romero chemical nod. It’s not a great movie, but it is a fun ride. Which when you really look at Spielberg’s history (and certainly JJ’s) that’s really always been his specialty, yeah sometimes he stumbles on gold but most of the time he spins a decent yarn pretty well and 3 years later you don’t even remember it existed.
I’m not going to rehash picking it apart for why it simply didn’t work. As a stand-alone, as I said, it just wasn’t very good.
Hey, man, if you like incoherent shoot-em-ups in outer space, Faux Trek is for you. Even the BAD TOS episodes made sense (even if they were silly) and cutting out explanations and motivations because you think it is “boring” IS bad filmmaking. Pardon me all over the place if I’d like to know what’s going on instead of a jump-cut to the next action sequence. If Abrams had done TWOK, he’d have cut it down to 5 minutes - the Eel scene, the Reliant vs. Enterprise scene and the Genesis Detonation and that would’ve been it. Besides, you keep mistaking me for a big TNG fan, I’m not. I’m a TOS fan. I wasn’t very big on the TNG films, they were OK, but nothing more. I will say it on and on, it was NOT a Trek film. I found it subpar as a film and outright insulting to Trek fans. A middle finger from Star Wars fanbois.
His best films are enduring though. Close Encounters and E.T. are great films that stick in the memory over 30 years later. I would add ‘War of the Worlds’ as well which I thought was shamefully underrated. And then there’s Schindler’s List...
You can't have a good sci-fi, "Area 51" themed movie without a military coverup. It's a necessary element of the genre.
Not to mention the fact that the Spielberg films this film is tipping the hat to (Close Encounters, E.T.) also had military coverups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.