Weakness of JJ Abrams as a director?

[ray245]

I have just seen the new Star Trek movie, and based on what I have seen, I am not sure if Abrams will be a good director for Star Wars.

Some of his weakness as a director I feel is his inability to make a good and thoughtful action movie. A few of his movies often seems to have problems developing any sort of emotional hook for the audience. Characters are often not being given enough developments on the script, and thus making it difficult for me at the least to relate to them. The lack of character progress is another sore point in his movies. Characters rarely change as a person even after they undergo life changing events in the film. Hence, I find it difficult to care for his characters, and whenever someone important were killed on-screen, it often feels over-dramatic and artificial.

This is just some of my thoughts about Abrams as the director for the next Star Wars movie. Perhaps he might prove me wrong as he is working with new writers like Michael Arndt and Geroge Lucas. So what do you think are some of Abrams' flaw as a director and story teller?

[Stark]

You sure are obsessed with the idea!

Your list of complaints is not only hilarious given the 2009 movie actually had more interesting characters and was built on more growth than the old ones, but also because of what passes for acting and character in a Star Wars film.

I think you need to consider the idea that by pre-hating Abrams movies you make it very easy for yourself to nod and say 'yep another crap Abrams movie' without ever being open to any alternatives.

[ray245]

You sure are obsessed with the idea!

Your list of complaints is not only hilarious given the 2009 movie actually had more interesting characters and was built on more growth than the old ones, but also because of what passes for acting and character in a Star Wars film.

Why are we only judging the 2009 movie to the older Star Trek films? Shouldn't we benchmark his two Star Trek films with all the other sci-fi/fantasy movies out there? Do you think the 2009 was an above average movie?

I think you need to consider the idea that by pre-hating Abrams movies you make it very easy for yourself to nod and say 'yep another crap Abrams movie' without ever being open to any alternatives.

I've given the new Star Trek sequel a fresh try, but it doesn't have the emotional hook that will make me really enjoy the movie. Don't get me wrong, I do not think the new film or the 2009 were horrible or bad movies. I just didn't feel there were as good as many people make it out to be either. I just find Abram's works (including his other movies and TV shows) to be fairly average.

Or perhaps I am not being open-minded enough because I didn't enjoy STiD that much?

[Stark]

Probably because your terror of Abrams is motivated entirely by your childish fear that he'll 'ruin' Star Wars. When you say he writes bad stories (ps he's a director) I can only respond that the last Abrams movie I saw had heaps of powerful character work with strong emotional motivations and character growth - and was indeed built on injecting character into flat and lifeless characters. I can't agree with your statements. Since I know you hate his work and want to save your security blanket from his hateful touch, I can only repeat that if you already hate a movie, it's very difficult for watching it to change your mind.

I don't even care who directs films. The only reason I even know Abrams' name is because of people like you hating him. I just watch movies.

[ray245]

Probably because your terror of Abrams is motivated entirely by your childish fear that he'll 'ruin' Star Wars. When you say he writes bad stories (ps he's a director) I can only respond that the last Abrams movie I saw had heaps of powerful character work with strong emotional motivations and character growth - and was indeed built on injecting character into flat and lifeless characters. I can't agree with your statements. Since I know you hate his work and want to save your security blanket from his hateful touch, I can only repeat that if you already hate a movie, it's very difficult for watching it to change your mind.

I don't even care who directs films. The only reason I even know Abrams' name is because of people like you hating him. I just watch movies.

Perhaps, but do you not think I already formed an opinion on Abrams before he was even selected as the new director of Star Wars?

[Stark]

That's... That's my point, Ray. You're just looking for ways to confirm your existing opinion rather than being open to a new one. This means the content of what you see is almost irrelevant, because it's easy to ignore the parts that aren't so bad and just remember the parts that are bad - because they make you feel warm and fuzzy for being 'right'.

'Aha!' You'll say 'I knew he had weak characters!' While blithely ignoring all the good character work. You'll feel right and you'll feel good, because you already 'know'.

I wanted to hate the new Star Trek movie because I hate Star Trek because its boring lifeless dogshit for fat people, but when I saw it I was honest enough to admit I liked it. It would have been easy to leave and say OH MY GOD TRANSWARP BEAMING SO STUPID and felt good about being 'right'.

[ray245]

That's... That's my point, Ray. You're just looking for ways to confirm your existing opinion rather than being open to a new one. This means the content of what you see is almost irrelevant, because it's easy to ignore the parts that aren't so bad and just remember the parts that are bad - because they make you feel warm and fuzzy for being 'right'.

I don't think I have a pre-existing opinion before watching the 2009 movie. Why would I have that if my first real exposure to the franchise is via the 2009 film?

'Aha!' You'll say 'I knew he had weak characters!' While blithely ignoring all the good character work. You'll feel right and you'll feel good, because you already 'know'.

The existence of character work alone does not necessary mean it is good. Either because of the script, the director, the acting or even the score, many emotional scenes in these films failed to draw me in. In comparison to films by some other popular directors like Chris Nolan, the character work in JJ Abrams movies is quite bad in my opinion.

I wanted to hate the new Star Trek movie because I hate Star Trek because its boring lifeless dogshit for fat people, but when I saw it I was honest enough to admit I liked it. It would have been easy to leave and say OH MY GOD TRANSWARP BEAMING SO STUPID and felt good about being 'right'.

I didn't want to hate the new Star Trek films. I simply wanted to experience an emotional journey while having a fun time watching it. I didn't get that in the films by Abrams.

[Stark]

Have you attempted to connect what you didn't like to Abrams as a director? If you aren't compelled by Kirk driving Spock to a breakdown over the annihilation of his race in order to save his own, is that due to something Abrams has done?

I mean this seems pretty futile if all you can do is endlessly repeat 'I didn't like it' with the silent 'I won't like Star Wars either' on the end.

[ray245]

Have you attempted to connect what you didn't like to Abrams as a director? If you aren't compelled by Kirk driving Spock to a breakdown over the annihilation of his race in order to save his own, is that due to something Abrams has done?

The acting in that particular scene felt weak in comparison to how much emotion Spock should be going through. If the actors Abrams selected couldn't offer the range of expression required or act it out, then the responsibility lies with the director.

However, the biggest issue with some of Abrams' work is I find it difficult to like the characters. Especially with regards to Kirk, it felt as if we are forced to like him as a protagonist without giving us any good and valid reason to do so. If Kirk was my commander in real life, I would literally hate his guts quite a bit.

[Stark]

Sylar's performance as Spock appears to be well-received, and I think he did a great job selling the Vulcan lie that they are emotionless (when they clearly aren't). Again, do you consider Nimoy's 40 years of wooden acting the fault of the million directors that told him where to stand?

Your reaction, to me, shows clear nostalgia goggles. Regardless, Kirk is supposed to be an irrepressable, reckless hot-head; he's always been an idiot audiences would hate if it wasn't a big camp joke because of all the people his stupid decisions get killed. But I thought you said the characters didn't change in Abrams films? How then can you criticise Kirks emotional journey, his life literally book-ended by Nero's insanity?

Should we compare Kirk growing up and forming lasting relationships and stepping into responsibility and command to Ewan Macgregor's absolutely appalling performance as Obi Plank Kenobi? This is obviously irrelevant to Abrams films, but I think it's pretty relevant to your fears that his work is bad and will ruin Star Wars.

[ray245]

Sylar's performance as Spock appears to be well-received, and I think he did a great job selling the Vulcan lie that they are emotionless (when they clearly aren't). Again, do you consider Nimoy's 40 years of wooden acting the fault of the million directors that told him where to stand?

I didn't watch any of the old Star Trek so I cannot judge if Nimoy's acting is any better or worse than Quinto. However, I feel that there are other actors that manage to better able to express emotions in a supposedly emotionless character. Take Ryan Gosling's performance in Drive for instance and how he manage to cover emotions with minimum facial expression.

Your reaction, to me, shows clear nostalgia goggles.

How can I have nostalgia goggles if I never ever watched any old the old Star Trek shows and movies?

Regardless, Kirk is supposed to be an irrepressable, reckless hot-head; he's always been an idiot audiences would hate if it wasn't a big camp joke because of all the people his stupid decisions get killed.

That's the challenge for actor isn't it? To make an unlikeable character likeable in the eyes of the audience. I am not sure if Shatner ever manage to accomplish that but Chris Pine did a pretty bad job in making me like him.

But I thought you said the characters didn't change in Abrams films? How then can you criticise Kirks emotional journey, his life literally book-ended by Nero's insanity?

I feel that the film was supposed to show Kirk's emotional journey and how he evolve from a hot-headed irresponsible person into a commander people will follow. I just do not think either of the two movies manage to accomplish that.

Should we compare Kirk growing up and forming lasting relationships and stepping into responsibility and command to Ewan Macgregor's absolutely appalling performance as Obi Plank Kenobi? This is obviously irrelevant to Abrams films, but I think it's pretty relevant to your fears that his work is bad and will ruin Star Wars.

The two roles are obviously different in the first place, and I am not arguing for the performance of any actors in Star Wars. And why should we hold the performance of the actors in the other Star Wars films as the benchmark of how good the next Star Wars should be? JJ Abrams might not be a bad director, but I think there are many other directors with much stronger film making attributes than him.

[Stark]

But you can neither describe those film making characteristics or highlight how his are any worse than Star Wars was already. What exactly are you afraid of? A man whose movies you don't like will make Star Wars movies you don't like? Pal, for many people that happened a decade ago.

I mean, that you're complaining about the acting without any reference just blows me away. The first movie suffers for trying to pander to and please old fans, and it would be pretty funny if their efforts to ape old performances (which in this case basically means 'ham it up' and 'act poorly') caused you to refuse to engage with the work.

Sadly, unless you've got more than ' I like x' and 'I don't like y' you'll have trouble discussing your fears in more meaningful ways.

[ray245]

But you can neither describe those film making characteristics or highlight how his are any worse than Star Wars was already. What exactly are you afraid of? A man whose movies you don't like will make Star Wars movies you don't like? Pal, for many people that happened a decade ago.

Why should all the previous Star Wars films be held as the benchmark of how good the next film should be?

[Stark]

So are you pointing at Star Trek and saying 'these movies are not better than Star Wars enough'? Is what you're really saying that you want a Star Wars movie that has the same level of writing, performances and impact as an actual, proper movie, and you're obsession with Abrams is just a side effect?

Cause when you say 'is he a good director for Star Wars' and then 'why should we use Star Wars movies as a benchmark' it's a bit... Y'know... Odd.

[ray245]

I was hoping for the next Star Wars movie to have the same level of writing, direction and acting as a proper movie. Is that too much to ask for? After all, if other fantasy/sci-fi movies can have a higher quality of acting and directing, it is not too much to ask for.

[Batman]

What, exactly, is the benchmark for a 'proper' movie?

[ray245]

What, exactly, is the benchmark for a 'proper' movie?

Lord of the Rings if you are talking about the sci-fi/fantasy genre. So many other excellent movies whereby the direction and acting is much better includes Moon, Inception, E.T. and Sunshine.

[Batman]

Um-the only one of the LotR movies I'd actually consider 'good' was Fellowship, the other two lived on FX and visuals (which were admittedly brilliant) and media hype. Never heard of Moon or Sunshine. Mind you, I never hear of a lot of things but if they were on the scale of Wars, Trek or the LotR movies I think I'd have noticed.

[Flagg]

Um-the only one of the LotR movies I'd actually consider 'good' was Fellowship, the other two lived on FX and visuals (which were admittedly brilliant) and media hype. Never heard of Moon or Sunshine. Mind you, I never hear of a lot of things but if they were on the scale of Wars, Trek or the LotR movies I think I'd have noticed.

Sunshine and Moon are way fucking better than any of those. Why am I not shocked you've never heard of them?

[Batman]

If I'd have to guess I'd say they weren't massive budget known franchise movies everybody is going to watch?

[Flagg]

If I'd have to guess I'd say they weren't massive budget known franchise movies everybody is going to watch?

No, like I said they are good.

[Batman]

Somebody's not been paying attention. Trek and Wars-big budget everybody watches them movies even if they turn out to stink. Your movies-brilliant movies that that sort of fail to get the popularity that Trek/Wars ones do.

[ray245]

I would assume most sci-fi fans would have watched the really good sci-fi films.

[Flagg]

I would assume most sci-fi fans would have watched the really good sci-fi films.

Interesting assumption but unlikely to be the case.

[Stark]

There's a difference between people who watch Star Wars, which is a household name, and that watch science fiction movies in general.

But Ray, if you're expecting Star Wars to undergo a huge transformation and not be Flash Gordon villain punching stuff that doesn't seem very realistic. It's a huge brand and they'll play to the brand no matter who the director is. If you want an actual powerful film that engages you in complex drama and asks difficult questions, maybe it'd be safer to go watch those kind of movies instead of waiting for Star Wars to become something it isn't.

Ironically Abrams significantly 'grew up' Star Trek in his films (regardless of what you think of the performances) so there is a non-zero chance his Star Wars movies might have a different tone.