"What Star Trek Into Darkness Could Tell Us About ..." Topic

…J.J. Abrams Star Wars.

"…But looking pretty alone will not make for a good Star Wars film, and much of the criticism leveled at Into Darkness has been aimed squarely at the story itself. There are plot holes, uneven emotional tones (the Mr. Spock and James T. Kirk relationship is central to the movie, but it never hits home fully), and a few too many references to Treks of yore. A classic line is a classic line, but Bones doesn't need to keep dropping "Dammit man, I'm a doctor!" just to establish his Bones-iness. In short, as io9 points out, at some point in Darkness fanservice becomes the movie and it begins to feel more like a tribute than an extension of a broader narrative.

That's less likely to happen with Star Wars because in addition to the writer¨CToy Story 3 scribe Michael ArndCthe one thing we know about the script of Episode VII that is known is that it's an ¡°original story. Despite the alternate Abramsverse timeline created for 2009 as Star Trek and Into Darkness, they were still prequels and had to play by some pre-established rules. Arndt and Lucasfilm/Disney seem poised to create new Star Wars tales from whole cloth, not pick up threads from previous canon, which gives Abrams¡'movie a lot more space (literally, figuratively) to play in.

That said, there are rumors that former Star Wars faces like Harrison Ford/Han Solo and Carrie Fisher/Leia will return. And in the event that they do, Abrams can handle it. For all of the missteps in Darkness self-referencing, he did a fine job working original Spock Leonard Nimoy into the 2009 Trek film. He just needs to lean more toward the fun, loose feel of his first Trek film and not the trying-a-bit-too-hard vibe of the second.

Bottom line: While there are still a lot of pitfalls for Abrams to avoid in his forthcoming Star Wars, they won't be the same ones he faced with Trek. He's a visionary at making space spectacles and his "Mystery Box" formula of keeping things under wraps until butts are in seats (and sometimes even after that) lends itself well to this brave new world of uncharted Star Wars territory. And, by his own admission, he was always more of a Millennium Falcon fan than an Enterprise lover…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Into Darkness was like listening to a really bad remix of your favourite eighties song.

It comes down to who JJ Abrams has as scriptwriters.

Early on with the news that the new Star Wars movies were to be made without Lucas helming them or taking a large writing role, Lawrence Kasdan was mentioned as being hired to write them. Kasdan is a good scriptwriter.

However, JJ Abrams relies on his established writing partnership, Orci & Kurtzmann…the guys that gave you the Trek movies and the Transformers movies. Along with them, Into Darkness had Damien Lindelof, the man who's responsible for the muddled and logic defying moments of Prometheus.

So if those three are going to be the new Star Wars scriptwriters, then I wouldn't hold out much hope for a clever and well written movie. Sure, you'll get non stop action and spectacular set pieces but none of it will stand up to any thought or scrutiny.

I think, it reminds me of that saying from early space program, repeatedly said in "The Right Stuff" … "No Bucks … No Buck Rogers" … Or to put it in street vernacular, "It's All About The Benjamins !" …

It comes down to who JJ Abrams has as scriptwriters.

This. It's always this.

I thought it was decent. A friend of mine who had never seen an episode of the original star trek loved this film.

"Into Darkness had Damien Lindelof, the man who's responsible for the muddled and logic defying moments of Prometheus."

No wonder it was a mess.

Can't do any worse than Lucas!

Hope there's still time to remove that clone slop from my young one's heads!

Just saw the new star trek move….. Wow its a non stop roller coaster ride. You don't get a chance to enjoy it or understand what is happening. Its bambambambambam from start to end.

Meh, I enjoyed it actually. But I have never been a Trekkie.

Sure, it was a mess, but I guess my expectations were low enough to allow me to enjoy it.

Also consider this: Just like Star Wars, they are not really even TRYING to cater to the old ST fan, they want new fans for the franchise. Glossy, lens flares, stuff blowing up. Expect a lot more of it.

I have like both Trek movies and as has been said. How can he screw up more than Lucas. I have hope for these films. I feel the force is strong in this one.

If Star Wars VII is to get off the ground and stay off the ground, you need someone like Irvin Kershner to get it there. Debatable perhaps, but Empire Strikes Back is what made Stars Wars more than a one-shot wonder and finally cemented its place in American culture; despite what Lucas might say.

JJ Abrams is solid. But if he has people around him who were active in the abortions of Transformers and Prometheus, this will level out to unmitigated disaster – after the Prequels, I really wonder whether Star Wars will be panned entirely to quick-buck atmosphere rather than lasting for generations thanks onlyto the original trilogy.

On the hand, the new series are likely targeting fun more than the epic side of film, so maybe that is all anyone wants.

JJ Abrams is a smart cookie: His Star Trek movies aren't made for people like me, long term fans who like the balance between action and intelligent stories. His movies are for casual Trek fans which is why every famous character or bit has to be shoved in there, whether it makes sense or not. He keeps the action constant which will please the majority of moviegoers, especially males aged 15-30 who are the biggest percentage of cinemagoers. I would argue that as pure, simplistic entertainment his Star Trek movies are alright. As Star Trek, they are awful.

I was getting all bent out of shape worrying about the next set of movies and the possible destruction of the EU. However, I have come to terms with it and will just sit back and enjoy seeing epic battles on a big screen :)

I just hope its not Jedi Centric. I know it's blaspheme but the jedi cause more problems then any other element. Part of the reason the trilogy sucked was because all the main warrior characters are the same. Other then Anikan but I blame that disaster on the actor and Lucas. The clone wars tv series shows how the character can be done right.

It still strikes me that the basic elements of the prequel are epic! Massive droid army clashing with an army of clones. Both sides being run by the same evil master who is playing with the galaxy in order to gain absolute control. The problems starts with the words "Roger, Roger" and the fact that EVERYONE in that movie is a pawn! Not even Yoda gets a clue. Would have been a lot cooler if they had a core set of characters who knew something was up and were trying to save the galaxy not just playing into the hand of the enemy.

My hope is that they give me a great tale of beating the odds and a group of characters that are amazing to watch. My hope is that it is a lot like the Hobbit. An adventure wrapped in tales of a wider universe. All I need is a few sequences where Han tells war stories to the new group. Complete with epic CGI flashbacks.

You have to admit that JJA is good at tapping into the typical American's desire for a movie that is non-stop action, with lots of things that go boom. I think he is being smarter than we give him credit for.

People nowadays in general aren't like we Trekkies. They want movies that don't require you to think any, just entertain me with fights and explosions and lots of eye candy. People like we Trekkies are a dying breed by and large. The majority of the population wants comic-book movies with minimal plot, no depth, and lots of action and explosions. So that's what the producers/writers give them, for in the end it's about the almighty buck after all. You can thank the corporate suits for that. :(

I'll give the new Star Wars a chance, but I don't hold very high hopes for it.

Well, in all fairness, StarWars movies cannot really be 'original' either at this point, and will demand much referencing and franchise-selling. If one were to make an original movie, one would make an original concept. This is not about story telling and integrity, this is about making piles of money (from people who will watch anything because it has a name attached to it… oh and lots of exploshuns and brooding… plots require too much thinking as evidenced by Prometheus, Lost, JJTrek, Tranformers, etc… etc…) I expect 'StarWars XXIII' to resemble every other pile of recently produced sci-fi franchise marketing.

Lucas smeared his own work, yes… very very badly… but it COULD be worse… only time will tell.

Sorry, I thought this Star Trek was great. In fact, I liked it better than any Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan.

Enjoyed the chemistry between the characters and I am impressed by how they have captured the essence of the originals without being parodies.

Thanks,

Pat

You have to admit that JJA is good at tapping into the typical American's desire for a movie that is non-stop action, with lots of things that go boom. I think he is being smarter than we give him credit for.

Oh, I never said he wasn't smart. Abrams knows how to make a big spectacle, even better than Michael Bay and possibly even Lucas. BOOM! BAM! ZOOM! ZIP! But don't stop to ask whether any of it makes sense, or even follows any internal logic, because that's not what he's about. If you want a guy who can pull in audiences and make the screen light up with action, Abrams is your man.
If you want somebody who can make an intelligent movie that explores real themes about humanity while still offering intrigue and entertainment (which is the point of the best Science Fiction, and the best Trek), look elsewhere. Those elements are neither Abrams's forte nor his objectives.

Oddly, I'm on record here as stating that I think Abrams is perfect for Star Wars— it's pure space opera spectacle to begin with, and he's perfectly cut out for that.

Just curious my friend Parzival, who you consider as a good director to made a SF movie which offerd intrigue and intertainment but with real themes about humanity?

Amicalement
Armand

Here are my suggestions of writers and directors who have a track record of thinking sci-fi:

Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code)
Joss Wheedon (Firefly, Serenity)
Andrew Nicoll (Gattaca, In Time)
Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Or, take a director and a writing team not normally known for genre action movies and give it to them. It worked out for Sam Mendes directing Skyfall.

I saw the movie last night and loved it!

The opening scene is quite the riposte to the Enterprise worship from the opening scene of Star Trek The Motionless Picture!