Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Great, he helped ruined Star Trek

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Great, he helped ruined Star Trek

---

If by "ruined" you mean "made the most popular film in the entire series - which a relative few oldschool fans hate" then, sure.

Ill admit the script for Star Trek was weak, but that had a lot to do with the strike at the time. I thought he nailed the characterizations, myself.

And really - my biggest problem with it was that it felt too much like.... a Star Wars film. So, his moving on to Star Wars proper seems like a hell of a good fit to me.

---

Quote:

---

Contrary to popular misbelief, his involvement in LOST is extremely marginal: He was asked to help fleshing out a concept for a show when the guy who had the initial idea (then ABC chairman Lloyd Braun) was not happy with what the first guy asked to flesh out the concept (Jeffrey Lieber) had come up with. Abrams was never really committed to the show, and had another (rejected) pilot called The Catch that he was already working on, so another guy (Damon Lindelof) was hired to flesh out the concept for the show together with Abrams (they threw everything Lieber had previously come up with out of the window, effectively leaving only Braun's initial idea intact. Regardless, Lieber was later granted a ridiculous 60% creator's credit after taking legal action). Abrams wrote and directed the pilot and then went off to direct Mission Impossible III just as the first season was taking off, arguably similar to his abandonment of Alias for Lost. Lindelof, suddenly left alone with the Showrunner burden, considered quitting too, but was convinced by his former co-writer (Carlton Cuse) to stay. Cuse then joined the show as a second showrunner, and has been pulling the strings together with Lindelof ever since.

Abrams later briefly returned and wrote the season 3 premiere together with Lindelof, but apparently realized the show really wasn't for him. Regardless, he's still officially credited as an executive producer as of season 6 (the final season), even though he has repeatedly confirmed in interviews that he has nothing to do with the show anymore, and all he really does is approve everything Lindelof and Cuse come up with. (Lindelof even once joked that Jimmy Kimmel knows more about LOST than Abrams does.)

Now, guess who both the mainstream media and casual viewers still constantly refer to as the "mastermind" behind LOST. Hint: This article is about him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
Hey M52NICKERSON.

I just wanted to ask because I'm genuinely confused. Was his Star Trek really that bad to Trek fans? Because I honestly thought it was way better than any of the previous star trek films. (apart from Wrath of Khan)

So to an uninitiated Star trek viewer can you or someone else please point out why it was so bad? And why you think he ruined it?

I'm not trying to be confrontation by the way, I'm just curious.

°...Well here I am.°

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:


One of my biggest problems with it is that it is a re-boot which seemed to go out of it's way to destroy the old Trek story line. Had it been a straight re-boot that would have been fine, but no it used a shitty time travel device to de away with the history of all the other series and movies.

---

Quote:

---

Storymark stated one of the problems. While the film was popular it was not a Star Trek film. It did not even look like a Star Trek film. Star Trek was almost always more about tackling ethical and moral questions than it was about action. The new movie changed that even more that some of the other movies in the series did.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
No, it didn't. They specifically address it in the dialog of the film itself. Nothing is re-witten - it's a new, divergent timeline, ala the Mirror Universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Now, I can understand the complaints of those who felt there was a lack of the philosophical/ethical issues that Trek often deals with - but its hardly like they've done that with each and every story. Wrath of Khan was not a deep philosophical treatise, nor were many of the best episodes of all the varried series.

"Wagon-train in space" does not always require Socrates, so to speak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Nor is it true that all old-school fans disliked the reboot. I personally know a LOT more old fans who liked the reboot than those who didn't. Which is not to dismis the complaints of those who didn't like it - but to pretend that view is anything approaching universal is simply fallacious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Yes, it was a big, splashy adventure film - which argubly saved Trek from fading into irrelevence. The franchise as it was was running on fumes, financially and creatively. The reboot gave it a shot in the arm that was desperately needed. Something as expensive to make as Trek cannot survive by catering to a small audience exclusively.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Personally, I think Trek is better suited to TV anyway - so having Abrams move over to Star Wars strikes me as a very good thing - aside from feeling he'll make a damned good Star Wars flick - Im hoping his stepping away from the films will open the door to a new TV series. Here's hoping.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Well perhaps it was time for it to go. I'm not a big fan of keeping things going if it means gutting what it once was. Even if you wanted an action film to get newer and younger fans it still did not have to be one with plot problems and an overall crappy story line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Eh, the script from what I hear is something to do with a new character who's supposed to be Luke's daughter (something I'm not too excited about yet) and ignores the EU, which is good and bad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, you know there was a writer's strike, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
If he does the same sort of job on SW that he did on Trek, then I guess that's one more movie I won't bother watching. :)

Then again, he couldn't do much worse than what Lucas did with the last three.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, you know there was a writer's strike, right?

---

Yes, but a director like Abrams has enough say to get some things changed, which he should have. More so because he is a writter.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Thats not how it works. The script they had when the strike started is what they had to shoot. Making changes was simply not allowed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
I wonder if this is the Titanic getting ready to set sail for New York, where will the story go from here? Are they going to hire Ford, Hamilton and Fisher to play their old charcters? They're all old and fat, will he recast them?

STAR WARS Episode VII: Return of the Fat Old Jedi who is now doing Cartoon Voices for Scale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
I wonder if this is the Titanic getting ready to set sail for New York, where will the story go from here? Are they going to hire Ford, Hamilton and Fisher to play their old charcters? They're all old and fat, will he recast them?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Thats not how it works. The script they had when the strike started is what they had to shoot. Making changes was simply not allowed.

---

No, he chose not to. While it would have pissed off the union he and the writers were members and could have made changes. Thing is the most Abrams has expressed that he wanted to change where some lines. So the overall script that was competed before the strike was what they wanted.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
I wonder if this is the Titanic getting ready to set sail for New York, where will the story go from here? Are they going to hire Ford, Hamilton and Fisher to play their old charcters? They're all old and fat, will he recast them?

---

Im pretty sure Disney can afford a gym and a few personal trainers, should they decide to use those actors.

And they've already been pretty clear that new characters would be the focus, and anyone showing up from the older films would be smaller roles, so you unpucker.



Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
Hey M52NICKERSON.

I just wanted to ask because I'm genuinely confused. Was his Star Trek really that bad to Trek fans? Because I honestly thought it was way better than any of the previous star trek films. (apart from Wrath of Khan)

So to an uninitiated Star trek viewer can you or someone else please point out why it was so bad? And why you think he ruined it?

I'm not trying to be confrontation by the way, I'm just curious.

°...Well here I am.°

---