Hey folks I am very curious to know which sci fi franchise you think JJ did a better job on?
I will admit that I throughly enjoyed his Star Trek reboot (Star Trek 2009 & Star Trek Into Darkness) much much more than his Star Wars movies (The Force Awakens & The Rise of Skywalker) .
Star Trek (2009) was a total blast (solid reboot imo) and had such a superior cast of new actors/ characters in it. The chemistry between all the actors/actresses was great and felt totally natural. Also, major kudos to JJ for casting Chris Pine as Kirk! He was born to play that role.
Then there is the bad. I was actually stoked about The Force Awakens after seeing the 1st teaser trailer but was totally let down by it after seeing the film in theaters. I don't even know where to begin haha. I guess I'll start with the new younger cast members who were all lackluster and had zero chemistry together. Plus, Adam Driver as the emo Darth Vader fanboy was pretty fucking terrible/cringeworthy. Couldn't stand him in that role at all. IMO Eric Bana (as Nero) and even Benedict Cumberbatch (as Khan) were much better villains .
I'll probably be in the minority here regarding this topic but I'd love to hear your thoughts . Thanks! [Reply]
I agree that his Star Trek movies are better, but only because his Star Wars movies are so bad. They make the Transformers movies seem well-written and clever. [Reply]
The Force Awakens was just a carbon copy of A New Hope, only with flashier graphics. The Rise of Skywalker was just a disaster, but that wasn't all necessarily his fault as he was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit by then.
I can probably agree with his Star Trek being much better than his Star Wars. Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike is severely underappreciated in both films - he lends a gravitas to both stories in that role. [Reply]
For me, The Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker were far better films overall as compared to the 2009 reboot of Star Trek and the sequel, Into Darkness.
2009 Star Trek changed canon far too much for my taste and had far too many coincidences (Kirk dumped off the ship, only to find an older Spock and a young Montgomery Scott for starters), although it was a fairly enjoyable popcorn film.
Into Darkness was an epic disaster, IMO. Replacing a Sikh warlord with a British man was absolutely ridiculous and the overall plot had nothing original to it, other than the father of Carol Marcus being a traitor to the Federation.
The bad Star Trek movies were better than the bad Star Wars movies, but at the end of the day they all pretty much sucked. Jar Jar Abrams needs to fucking die. :-) [Reply]
If forced to choose one of the four to watch, it is definitely the 2009 Star Trek. Sure it is flawed as hell, but still loads better than the other three. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
If forced to choose one of the four to watch, it is definitely the 2009 Star Trek. Sure it is flawed as hell, but still loads better than the other three.
Everything else was just a fucking ripoff. [Reply]
I think both franchises need some new blood to get them back to representing a positive future instead of a bleak and darker version of the present times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
If forced to choose one of the four to watch, it is definitely the 2009 Star Trek. Sure it is flawed as hell, but still loads better than the other three.
I watched the other night while on the treadmill and while it definitely has its fun moments, the villain was pretty weak.
I also think that another 10-15 minutes of run time focusing on the individual characters would have made the film much stronger. I understand that it's a reboot but for first time Trek viewers, the film just didn't provide much in terms of backstory for characters such as Uhuru, Sulu, Chekov, Montgomery Scott, Spock and so on.
It's like Abrams just assumed everyone was already familiar with their backstories. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
If forced to choose one of the four to watch, it is definitely the 2009 Star Trek. Sure it is flawed as hell, but still loads better than the other three.
The worst thing about the 2009 Star Trek was Nero. He had absolutely no reason to bear Spock any ill will. That was just dumb. There was a comic book that gave a bit of backstory to it - the reason Spock was unable to save Romulus in time is because he was denied entry into Romulan space by their government until it was too late. If they thought that would make things better, it didn't.
Nero hating Spock, the Federation, and basically everybody else that had exactly dick to do with the supernova - dumb.
A mining vessel (even if it is from the future) being able to take out a fleet of warships - dumb.
Red matter - dumb.
Spock stranded on the moon of Vulcan, which never before had a moon - dumb.
Spock and Scotty just happening to be on the same non-existent moon - dumb.
Transwarp beaming - dumb.
The interior of the Enterprise being some giant open air factory looking thing - dumb.
Uhura basically being the linguistic equivalent to Data - dumb. In Star Trek VI she had to fumble through actual books to fake speaking Klingon.
Uhura and Spock being a couple - dumb.
The only saving grace was a good, likeable cast that had excellent chemistry. It certainly had its moments. But overall, silly and sad. [Reply]
Another thing I liked about JJ's Star Trek reboot was the casting of Karl Urban as Bones. Urban flat out rules in pretty much everything I've seen him in and he had great comedic timing in those Star Trek films. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
The worst thing about the 2009 Star Trek was Nero. He had absolutely no reason to bear Spock any ill will. That was just dumb. There was a comic book that gave a bit of backstory to it - the reason Spock was unable to save Romulus in time is because he was denied entry into Romulan space by their government until it was too late. If they thought that would make things better, it didn't.
Nero hating Spock, the Federation, and basically everybody else that had exactly dick to do with the supernova - dumb.
A mining vessel (even if it is from the future) being able to take out a fleet of warships - dumb.
Red matter - dumb.
Spock stranded on the moon of Vulcan, which never before had a moon - dumb.
Spock and Scotty just happening to be on the same non-existent moon - dumb.
Transwarp beaming - dumb.
The interior of the Enterprise being some giant open air factory looking thing - dumb.
Uhura basically being the linguistic equivalent to Data - dumb. In Star Trek VI she had to fumble through actual books to fake speaking Klingon.
Uhura and Spock being a couple - dumb.
The only saving grace was a good, likeable cast that had excellent chemistry. It certainly had its moments. But overall, silly and sad.
The Narada was actually a Romulan/Borg hybrid vessel armed to the teeth, but, you're still correct with all of that. Like I said, Pike was a real pleasant surprise for me in that movie. I liked the cast as well, but Greenwood brought something to an otherwise thrown away character that drew me in a little more.
And just because you brought it up - if a single drop of Red Matter could create a black hole that could swallow Vulcan, how come the entire beach ball sized glob of it didn't create a supermassive blackhole that swallowed the entire galaxy? Absolute bullshit. Lol [Reply]
Originally Posted by sully1983:
Appreciate all the feedback so far folks!
Another thing I liked about JJ's Star Trek reboot was the casting of Karl Urban as Bones. Urban flat out rules in pretty much everything I've seen him in and he had great comedic timing in those Star Trek films.
Another bonus, he was nails as Bones. Hell I thought Chris Pine did great as a young and brash Kirk. They all hit their roles. [Reply]
