Comments on: Abrams: Star Wars AND Star Trek

By: JWPlatt

JWPlatt — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 17:06:00 +0000

I don’t believe your picture is a very good estimation of JJ’s deserved reaction. You totally missed the lens flare.

By: bydefault

bydefault — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:11:00 +0000

Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder…

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:46:00 +0000

With all of the negative comments, insults, vindictive criticisms, and other bad statements that have been directed toward J.J. Abrams since the release of the 2009 prequel reboot, I’m surprised Abrams hasn’t responded with the following symbol depicted in the picture below(i.e. read between the lines).

You talk about him ruining Star Trek? Let us not forget that Rick Berman almost ruined it, nearly a decade past. Now it seems that the purists are starting to ruin it with their thrice daily swil toward the man who brought life back into it! Let alone the fools at Farragut Films and their corrupted business partners!

Most illogical and undignified!

By: Shikarnov

Shikarnov — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:35:00 +0000

No, not like Berman. But somebody who can work within the established framework that is the Star Trek Universe. James Kirk, for example, used to be a role model. He was somebody to respect and admire; somebody to emulate. He was the epitome of the idea that, if you work hard, you can accomplish anything. JJ’s Kirk is nothing more than a street kid that fell up; power came to him because of destiny, teaching us that life is a crapshoot and that fate has more to do with our successes and failures than effort or ability. Roddenberry, as a Humanist, would be aghast.

By: trekfan

trekfan — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:27:00 +0000

Jar Jar Abrams ruined it. It’s paradoxical that he got the laurels. He had nothing to do with Star Trek before, he’s not really familiarized with it, nor does he personally appreciate it. And his writing team is mediocre at best. I’d take Rick Berman any time. He, of course, is done with Trek, but while he was there he tried to give his best to preserve the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s Trek. Jar Jar managed to throw all that out of the airlock and even receive praise for it. Yeah, “alternate universe”, I know… Pft.

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:20:00 +0000

Probably not. And really, for all it’s flaws it was quite good. Now though, he has two major franchises to handle, with two very different styles (up until 2009). I think it would be bad, and lazy, if he were to approach them both the same way. And I do maintain that his more dynamic, action-favoring style is more suited to Star Wars than it is to Star Trek.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:00:00 +0000

Rick Berman nearly ruined Star Trek. I would hardly qualify him as the right man.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:48:00 +0000

Even after more than a decade, fans are still having a problem with the Star Wars prequels!

Not to change the subject, but, what the hell is so bad about the prequels? I never had a problem with them, Jar Jar Binks, or anything else about them. Sure, I would have like to have seen Anakin’s dark side start to emerge in The Phantom Menace, or have Terence Stamp’s character have more screen time, or even Episode II’s subtite be The Clone Wars. But, really fans are making the prequels out to be something disasterous, like the Black Plague, itself.

The Star Wars saga is George Lucas’s baby. He can do whatever the hell he wants to do with it.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:35:00 +0000

Isn’t that what Vic Mignogna and Farragut Films are trying to do with Starship Farragut and Star Trek Continues. Look at Farragut’s last episode written by Paul R. Sieber. That was a boring, bleak CV filler.

By: bydefault

bydefault — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:34:00 +0000

Yes, JJ ≠ Star Trek. He’s just the lucky stiff chosen by Paramount after his Mission Impossible movie raked in the big bucks. I found much of Nemesis quite cringe-worthy and agree there was a need for a change of direction. I was impressed by the first part of Star Trek 2009 yet there are so many inanities in the rest of the film that do not hold up under repeated viewings. Also, the spirit of the film is so contrary to that of the rest of the Star Trek universe. It’s a Star Trek film without the soul of a Star Trek film. It bears no resemblance to films in which extreme measures were taken to rescue the ship or fellow crewmembers – hell, even time travel was used to rescue whales. Now we’re expected to embrace a film series which so casually accepts the destruction of the planet Vulcan in order to remold Spock into an intergalactic orphan? I am open to a fresh take on Star Trek but, please, not one in the vein of the JJ-verse. I’m sure another film led by a visionary director and gifted scriptwriters could be just as successful for the studio and be well-received by Star Trek fans and general audiences.