Even if you think Star Trek 2009 is the anti-Trek, you've gotta admit that JJ knows how to put together a-dare I say it- slick and engaging action movie.
So what the FUCK happened to The Force Awakens?
It literally feels like he did not shoot that movie.
It feels like someone poorly aping the guy who made Star Trek '09 mixed with a guy poorly aping Lucas's direction of A New Hope.
>So what the FUCK happened to The Force Awakens?
Disney
I liked the first few minutes of that movie until thor dies then it's
DAn it dan it on the plehhh nit
and it lost me
It seems that way when you're watching them. But it doesn't stick in the mind or heart.
A great action movie stays with you and compels further viewings.
All his work has this transient quality to it. It lacks some important aspect.
Some understanding of primal storytelling. Some deeper semantic resonance.
There's a never that transcendent "Holy shit" moment.
He just forever teases and baits that such a moment will appear, and it never does.
I actually think he achieves this with ST09.
None of his other movies do though.
I agree OP, and would even go as far to say that Star Trek 2009 is one of the best action flicks in the past ten years. The plot actually existed and wasn't terrible, there was a degree of character development, and above all it had charm.
TFA lacks all of the above. All it kept was the smooth veneer, and literally nothing else.
>Star Trek 09 wasn't fucking terrible
I wish this meme would end.
>abrams Star Kek was slick and engaging
I mean, the thing is that JJ's style of directing worked for the soft reboot of Trek. Trek as a show is usually slow-paced and takes time to explore characters, to develop character relationships, and to develop the plot. JJ's Trek 2009 was sort of a shot of adrenaline in the arm of the Trek movie franchise. He hyper charged a lot of things to make the movie "exciting" and able to appeal to a wider audience than just Trek nerds (like me).
Star Wars, in contrast, is already widely loved as a movie franchise and already packed with action, adventure, and romance. It didn't need JJ's trademark hypercharging to reboot it. Also, I'm sure it was Disney that made sure to include lots of nostalgic elements from sprinkled cheeky references to the overall plot structure and feel. Also Kathleen Kennedy is a cunt.
Holy shit your right. I can't remember any scenes from that movie besides people falling down and some lense flare.
>Also, I'm sure it was Disney that made sure to include lots of nostalgic elements from sprinkled cheeky references to the overall plot structure and feel.
I'm beginning to think this too. I used to think JJ was just a rabid PT hater and yearned for muh practical effects, but then I remembered that his Star Trek movies are approaching PT-level CGI "density".
.
Nailed it.
TFA could have been simply mediocre, but it's abysmal editing turned it into unwatchable trash.
Even Mike Stoklasa said it was fine for what it is; an action movie. Its not true Star Trek and thats fine. Thinking youll get a true Trek film in today's market especially post STD is just showing how retarded you are.
As for OP's question, I have no idea why TFA was shit but it was shit.
While I liked them in a 6/10, good-enough-for-what-it-was kind of way, I can hardly remember anything from the two JJ Treks. He has a problem with creating memorable moments in amongst and the DYNAMIC JJ stuff.
When something from his films does stick in my memory, it is one of the shit parts. Like Cumberbatch dramatically enunciating 'Khaaan'. I won't forget that, I suppose. So it creates this problem of:
>decent bits = ultimately forgettable
>bad bits = so scaldingly shit that they burn themselves into the memory and become the main points of discussion whenever the film is mentioned.
It skews things towards an overly negative perception of the film.
The force Awakens was miles better than those shitty Star Trek movies.
TFA:
No real character arc for the main character (Rey)
No consistent motivation for the supporting character (Finn)
And, as we learned from the prequels, a shitty fucking script that gave the main characters cringy dialogue.
The plot was generally shallow and full of holes. There was no world building to explain why the first order was so powerful and why the resistance (#fuckdrumpf) were plucky underdogs even though they won the war 30 years ago. Even some good old exposition would have helped.
Star Trek was not a good movie, but it hit all the story beats. It made sense even if it was stupid. And told a relatively coherent, if dumb, action story.
>you've gotta admit that JJ knows how to put together a-dare I say it- slick and engaging action movie
You forget about Into Darkness? Even if you liked Star Trek 2009, that shitheap should've given you cause to question his abilities.
That's because he wanted to fool overly nostalgic OT fanboys into watching TFA by proclaiming that they were going old school by having "real sets and practical effects", when in actuality it was the same cg heavy bullshit with a few sets and shitty alien costumes thrown in. He doesn't give a fuck about fans, just their money. Nobody would have given a shit if he just didn't talk about it constantly.
No they aren't. If you're a star trek fan and hate the movies they're from a different timeline so you can pretend they don't exist. If you hated TFA you have to live knowing that it will always be canon and that Luke Han and Leia's accomplishments in the OT will never matter.
All I think JJ is good for when it comes to directing/producing movies is making them efficiently and under budget. He doesn't know how to slow down and have decent exposition. It doesn't need to be LOTR-tier speeches, but just a few scenes here and there in some movies to establish things about the setting so I don't have annoying questions rattling around in my head during the course of the movie. Or he could spend some time developing characters a little more so I care about them during action scenes when they're in peril. Mainly speaking about TFA with the last two points. He loves to hyper charge action and emotions of the moment instead of letting character interaction and development engender a stronger connection to the characters on screen.
>Even Mike Stoklasa
argument to authority is not an argument, especially if you're talking about some alcoholic e-"""celeb""" from fucking Milwaukee
>no real character arc for the main character (Rey)
That's because Nu Wars is a trilogy like the OG movies. Rey's arc is to be determined. The real problem with Rey's character is she doesn't have real character flaws. She's being mocked up as really strong in the Force (even stronger than Luke, as is implied by the TLJ trailer), but instead of struggling to use it, she's able to tap into it with no (ZERO) training at all (Luke at least had SOME minimal training and guidance from Obi Wan in IV) with seeming ease. Also, just about everyone she meets almost instantly likes her. I would have been fine if she was made to be super stronk in the Force if they would have at least had her be some sort of clutz when trying to tap into the Force or SOMETHING. Show that she lacks discipline and training. Show that she's impulsive and that her anger causes her to lose control and almost slip into going darkside (would have been good for when Kylo killed Han). tl;dr Her arc is desu as this is a trilogy, but she's all but a Mary Sue in terms of being OP and too likeable by other characters.
All of your other points I pretty much agree with solidly.
>desu
To be determined. God dammit, fucking filters.
A New Hope works as a stand alone story and Luke has a complete arc in it. Empire Strikes Back starts an entirely new arc for Luke, but that doesn't mean his character wasn't already developed in the previous movie.
That's a load of shit. The OT was never planned to be a trilogy, so they wrapped up everything in ANH, which is why the arcs the characters go through and the ending are so satisfying. The force awakens on the other hand has shitty characters with no backstory and no arcs because JJ is a shit writer. And the ending is the worst in the whole series.
being trekkie tier, ive never felt for star wars fans as much as i did after watching into darkness (and also understanding what happened with fringe) and knowing what was coming next
my heart and soul hates this man
fpbp
Exactly what's wrong with Marvel movies. Disney refuses to let directors take any risks with their IPs. All their movies are safe and offer no real sense of suspense.
The first ten minutes of '09 Trek is an absolute perfect reimagining of what Star Trek would look like if it was made today. It has a cold open into some weird shit in space and attempts at diplomacy, even though it's more fast-paced than I'd like. The Kelvin itself looks like shit but the inside looks great and the fight feels captivating and like it has weight. The rest of the movie after that is just absolute horseshit characters flung together that feels like a panel of studio execs wrote it with its constant "references" to the original series.
TFA was just kinda boring, both in story and visually. None of the shots really stand out in memory.
>Even Mike Stoklassa
does anyone else remember when people who were under the age of 18 weren't allowed on this site?
But what if I told you Abrams had a decent amount of control on TFA (he directed, cowrote, produced it) and it was still bad?
I liked Star Trek 09 but now I'm interested in the universe and want to get more into it.
Can someone please tell me where to begin, what to watch or stay away from? Are movies canon? This shit is overwhelming.