JJ Abrams 'Emotionally Hurt' by Star Trek Game

Gameranx: "Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness director JJ Abrams has commented on the video game tie-in saying "emotionally it hurt"."

[AsimLeonheart]

lol. These movie based games hurt all of us buddy. I wonder when will we be saved from these terrible games. They have been tormenting everyone since the legendary E.T.

[porkChop]

I see you've never played The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena. 2 amazing licensed games in one package. You should try them sometime.

[AsimLeonheart]

Well, I agree I have not but I know that that game is an exception to the rule. :-)

[Gazondaily]

Don't forget Goldeneye!

[ApolloTheBoss]

Spider-Man 2 is another exception.

[aLiEnViSiToR]

True, true but not all... its like they make one or two great games after movies every 10 years :[

[TwistingWords]

It needed more glare

[MadMen]

more cowbell.

[Bercilak]

Has anyone with less talent and creativity ever been more full of themselves than Abrams? I doubt it.

[BlackPrince 42]

Yeah, it's not as if he's created anything emotionally compelling. He's just made a half dozen bad to mediocre movies, and produced some mediocre TV.

[Bercilak]

Yup. That's about it.

I did think of someone else, though: Ronald Moore.

[araman]

Can't tell if sarcasm or...

[StillGray]

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Baka-akaB]

Says you . He's created at least two series deemed cult with Lost and Fringe or Person of Interest.

He salvaged the star trek movie franchise after it was ruined by stuff like Nemesis .

He turned around the profitable but mediocre Mission Impossible movie franchise into something worth watching at least .

He produced one of the movies that so far used best the annoying "mockumentary" fake CAM footage this past decade (Cloverfield) . Incidentally it was also one of the best giant monster movie of the past 25 decades .

And as an "hack" he's now given the reins of the Star Wars movie franchise .

Yeah this does not sound like the usual bitter internet . Not at all

[Pintheshadows]

I liked Fringe but season 5 was horrible. I won't say he is awful or anything as he isn't and I like things he has created. However, as an avid Star Trek fan, I will say he didn't rescue the franchise, what he did was take the characters and icons (Enterprise) and mangled them into your typical popcorn flick gutting any intelligence or imagination in the process. By the time he was done, it was only Star Trek in name.

He'll be great for Star Wars though considering that is pretty much what the new Star Trek films seem to be going for.

[coolbeans]

I think some Trekkies are still hurt from the rebooted series morphing a once-intelligent, focused sci-fi series into another bunch of popcorn-munching action flicks; so I guess "what goes around, comes around" could apply here.

[SeraphimBlade]

Maybe the devs saw the script for Into Darkness and decided to take revenge?

[coolbeans]

Oh snap! :P

Strangely enough, I was going back and forth about mentioning Into Darkness in the back of my head before posting initial comment.

[BlackTar187]

I've been a star trek fan for over 20+yrs. That said I'm happy we get more star trek. Need to get over yourselves Star Trek had died and was gonna stay dead. What Abrams did wasn't exactly true to star trek roots but he made it relevant again.

As a fan of star trek for 20+ years and going to a couple of Trek cons in that time im happy enough to overlook some issues to get new star trek and new fans and new enthusiasm for the series.

OT:

I wasn't a huge fan of Into Darkness when i saw it in theaters but i have to say i found it a bit better on Blu Ray. So take that for what it's worth.

[coolbeans]

I suppose now would be the best time to stress the "some" part since I've seen/heard quite a few responses like your own.

"That said I'm happy we get more star trek."

Oh absolutely. I certainly can't dog him for taking the initiative and being essentially THE guy to revive the series and bring a new flock of fans in--and I think he's pretty solid at the technical side of film-making. The only thing I can't stand is how empty these new films feel. Were it not for gratuitous amounts of lens flare, I'd honestly find no other signature to suggest everything wasn't design-by-committee.

[Pintheshadows]

Actually, it wasn't, just before accepting JJ's pitch they had 3 on the table regarding new series. One of them helmed by Bryan Singer. The 'Star Trek was dying' rumour is absolute nonsense. What was dying was the cinematic TNG experiences.

It is called franchise fatigue which is exactly why they reached out for new input. Just a shame they chose JJ. Bryan Singer is actually a Trek fan and his pitch was excellent. It was effectively the fall of Rome projected onto the Federation.

Paramount almost accepted it as well. This reboot crashed the damn party.

[blackmanone]

Coolbeans, I couldn't agree more. I don't get the downvotes, other than casual fans that prefer the bang-bang to story development.

The whole thing about ST failing and needing this new style to succeed says more about us than it does the people that make the movies.

People say the old ST failed because it isn't what the cinema going public wanted. Well people are stupid, and because of that we got bang-bang space adventures without a hint of what made them special in the first plans.

The new series hasn't succeeded because it's better, but instead because it caters to the lowest common denominator.

[Baka-akaB]

It's false to claim that every Trek fans dislike the new (flawed) franchise .

I would never argue that it's better (well except that it's still better than Nemesis imo ) . Hell it could have been a new ip or be instead some mass effect movie , it might have been better

If anything , i dont even get why they kicked Frakes of the director seat after two massively successuly and critically acclaimed movies .
Holywood fight hard these day to even keep the same director for a whole trilogy , here they had one able and ready then they did ... this .

Anyway , my point above is that JJ still commercially revived the franchise and to some degrée critically . And no it wouldnt necessarily worked that way with just anybody . The recent few summer blockbuster flops proves there is a limit to dumping crap on mainstream public .

[BlackTar187]

That means nothing all that means nothing when you get no more stories from the verse. So grats on acknowledging what all of us older star trek fans understands but with all the said still leaves the Verse dying.

Fans like me want more stories.

When i went to SF Trek con in 2012 everyone cheered for Star trek into darkness and everyone was happy about Star Trek(2010). Not every star trek fan is willing to kill the verse becasue of some fake moral obligation to remaining the same in a different era.

That said of course the originals were better but ill take what i can get. People were so excited for Star trek returning for a sequel that its hard to think that elitest are anywhere but behind a computer screen.

[BlackTar187]

Take what i said with a friendly smile. I don't like to offend fellow trekkies. I come off as very passionate and a little coarse i apologize.

[blackmanone]

You're right, Baka. I didn't mean to imply that all Trek fans have to dislike the new ones or they're not real Trek fans.

I'm the only person in a family of four that dislikes the new Trek (Didn't mind the first, loathed the second), and you're right again, I'd rather have pew-pew Trek than nothing at all.

I just miss the days when ST had more in common with 2001 than it did Star Wars.

What the hell, BlackTar? You're much too nice for the internet (especially this place). Get out of here :)

[XboxFun]

Star Trek into Darkness, Super 8 and Cloverfield emotionally and physically hurt me.
So I guess payback is a b$%ch eh Mr. Abrams.

[brianace]

Now that you've moved on to the new Star Wars trilogy, you better get some salve for that butthurt, JJ. To say that Star Wars games have a checkered reputation for quality is an understatement. And if you're gonna play in George's sandbox, be prepared for them to release a multi platform wet turd onto store shelves to promote the flick.

[MilkMan]

Yup, this game sucked ass!

[blackmanone]

The games "hurt" me as a ST fan no more than his movies did.

Everyone loves to complain about Nemesis, but I'd take it over the new trek anyday of the week.

[Pintheshadows]

I'm glad he is moving on.

He turned Star Trek into a faceless popcorn flick and removed all sense of intelligence and creativity from it. Worse, in Into Darkness he seemed to forget that he'd already made one film building the character's relationships with each other but they just hadn't moved on. It was like they had been in stasis or had been kept away from each other.

The whole point of Star Trek is that it doesn't appeal to a majority of the dribbling masses. When it does everything that makes it Trek fades away.

I hope Rupert Wyatt adds some imagination back into the franchise. I really liked Rise of the Planet of the Apes (despite its absurd title). And maybe he'll add a few philosophical points to mull over as well. I've never been so disappointed as I was when I left Into Darkness and all I had to say was the bit with *insert something exploding here* or *insert Spock does something inexplicably superhuman* looked nice.

[blackmanone]

Rupert Wyatt could make a great Trek movie. Of course, it will probably not appeal to the new crowd and he'll get replaced with the GI Joe director after one movie. That's the Hollywood I've come to know.

[Hicken]

Popcorn flick. Is that a new phrase or something?

Anyway. I'ma big Star Trek fan, and I loved the new movies. I think you're putting too much of your own expectations into ST, and assuming that because you see the series that way, it was intended to be that way.

As for me, when I left Into Darkness, I was talking about the parts that paralleled Wrath of Khan, and the parts that wee subverted.

[Pintheshadows]

The term popcorn flick has been around for a while now.

And my expectations of Star Trek are forged because that is what Star Trek is. It has always been brave a philosophical. There was nothing of Star Trek in Into Darkness. It was a pure 'play it safe' summer movie.

It explored nothing. It did nothing brave or new and the fact that all it could do in your mind was slightly subvert The Wrath of Khan without the relationships between Khan and the Enterprise crew being sufficiently developed shows how poor it was.

Of course ST was intended to be that way. It was Rodenberry's vision for it. He wanted something brave and bold that explored complicated subjects. Not a series of flashy set pieces. I mean for crying out loud, the original series featured an Sulu and Uhura. At the time that alone was unprecedented.

[OhhWerd]

i like the game :)

[Activemessiah]

lol