Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did JJ Abrams respect the EU for Star Trek in his reboots?

If he did, there's a good chance he'll do the same for the Force Awakens I believe

Most of the Star Trek equivalent of "Expanded Universe" was never really considered any sort of "canon" IIRC, and IIRC it doesn't play into the newer movies either way really.

As for Star Wars, well, the prequels already borked a bunch of the EU, and the EU got really absurd in a lot of places, if it gets flushed and started over, I wouldn't be all that upset. From what previews we've seen, I don't think the EU is going to be adhered to much at all.

Hell no. JJ Abrams pooped all over what made Star Trek different from most sci-fi and made it generic sci-fi with lazers and Aliens.
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

That's not what Disney said.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

That's not what Disney said.

And Abrams' ST was enjoyable to everyone I know personally. So what do I care if a couple people online throw a pissy fit over his movies? Everyone I know in person loved them.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

No matter how many times you say that, it will never be true.

And everyone loves Micheal Bay movies I know....
Doesnt mean its good. It gakked all over what star trek is supposed to be about

Everybody loves Michael Bay movies?

Why else would they make money?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And everyone loves Micheal Bay movies I know....
Doesnt mean its good. It gakked all over what star trek is supposed to be about

Reallllllyyyyy....and what did he get wrong? Kirk banged a green alien chick. Check. Kirk doesn't play by the rules. Check. Spock uses logic. Check. Bones is emotional. Check. Exploration took place. Check. The Enterprise rescued the Federation. Check. They boldly went where no man had gone before? Check-an alternate timeline.

Yup. Totally destroyed "real Star Trek". Right.


Oh, whoops. Didn't have terrible dialogue when written by Shatner. My bad! New Trek sucks because acting.

No, it suck because star trek isnt all PEW PEW LAZERS and friggin sword fights. Its alot more morality, alot more slow paced and alot more intelligent.

Also the interior sets try to make sense.

The bridge is not supposed to be a tanning parlor.
The engineering deck is not supposed to be a pipe farm.

That plus other things, the interiors dont firt the exteriors a lot of the time. Its the USS Enterprise not the Tardis.

Agreed on the whole pacing thing also.

I have not yet seen a Star Trek movie without the photon torpedoes being fired off. And while not a sword fight per say, a Klingon killed Kirk's son Marcus with a blade. So...one quick minute long saber duel from Harold/Sulu and the use of a weapon that gets used in every ST movie is enough to ruin the new ones? Okay...I'm glad we cleared THAT terrible mistake up!

The first new one was about Kirk overcoming himself and the limitations he put on himself after his mom went to crap from losing Thor, using original thought instead of blindly following the rules of Starfleet (which is exactly what Kirk has always and will always do in every iteration). Honestly, calling the first of the new ST movies non-intelligent really makes it sound like you didn't get it.

And slow paced? The #1 Star Trek movie was Wrath of Khan: in the first few minutes, Chekov becomes mind controlled along with his captain, who shortly thereafter kills himself to prevent himself from killing Kirk. This being after a couple panic induced moments of realizing "Oh gak, this is where Khan landed! feth me! Run!"

I will grant that Khan from ST:WoK was more menacing than the new Cumber-Khan. But that's about all.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its alot more morality, alot more slow paced and alot more intelligent.

Did you actually watch the more recent Star Trek series/movies? Star Trek hasn't been about anything besides generic scifi and milking the cash cow for a long time.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why else would they make money?

Because some people like them, but not everybody?

You know, his treatment of Star Trek is what makes me so confident he will do an awesome job with The Force Awakens. He brought that much fun and zest into Star Trek, and filled it with snappy quips, cheerful action shootups and a round, world destroying object. Frankly, in hindsight it looks like an audition for Star Wars.

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

That's not what Disney said.

Not at all. In fact Star Wars Rebels has officially blessed The Clone Wars as canon with the introduction of Ahsoka Tano into it (apparently she's a Rebellion cell operator, which is seven different kinds of awesome if you're a fan of the Clone Warss). At Star Wars Weekend two weeks ago (which i was at ! woot!) James Arnold Taylor (obi wants voice) and TIya Sicar (Sabine's) also disclosed that Captain Rex is making a comeback in Rebels as well (and we were shown footage in a symposium). So that's basically the whole-hog blessing of the entire Clone Wars story lines by Disney (who is the operator behind Star Wars Rebels).

So Disney has not pooped all over the EU, and they certainly never said that.

Though i wouldn't be surprised if some things exit stage left and others are entered into canon.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And everyone loves Micheal Bay movies I know....
Doesnt mean its good. It gakked all over what star trek is supposed to be about

I have to agree here.

As for the movies themselves, the first one was fun. the second one sucked old man camel balls.
Watch Wrath of Khan and see what the real movie was like.

 Haight wrote:
Not at all. In fact Star Wars Rebels has officially blessed The Clone Wars as canon with the introduction of Ahsoka Tano into it (apparently she's a Rebellion cell operator,

Disney said from day 1 that Star Wars: The Clone Wars was canon, along with the 6 films, Star Wars: Rebels, and the new line of novels. What wasn't canon is Star Wars: Clone Wars (the Gendy series), but even that is debatable given that the events in that series lead directly into Revenge of the Sith. (e.g., Grievous's chest getting crushed and Palpatine getting "abducted")

Really, it's the old novels and comics that are out, which is fine. The best of those elements will make their way back into the series at some point, the worst of it will die an ignoble death in "Legends" land. Anything that removes Karen Travis and her mando-fetish from the world is A-Okay in my book.

As always, my advice is to treat the films as a slab of mindless entertainment, something to pass away a few hours.

When subjected to critical analysis, Star Wars sinks like the Titanic, but it's still fun to watch.

Star Trek was a show of its time - the bright optimism of the 1960s that envisioned a brighter future - hence the multi-ethnic cast and moral driven story lines. Sadly, the Star Trek vision has been replaced by the cynicism of our times.

As a lover of Star Trek growing up (mostly Next Generation and DS9) I absolutely love what Abrams did with Star Trek. Him being onboard is the only reason I'll go see the new Star Wars in theatres.

And I second that Lucas did far worse to the expanded universe in the prequels than Disney/Abrams is likely to do.

 Hulksmash wrote:
As a lover of Star Trek growing up (mostly Next Generation and DS9) I absolutely love what Abrams did with Star Trek. Him being onboard is the only reason I'll go see the new Star Wars in theatres.

And I second that Lucas did far worse to the expanded universe in the prequels than Disney/Abrams is likely to do.

I agree that Lucas made a mess of things, but at the end of the day, it was his property to do with as he saw fit.

Logically, scrapping the EU makes sense, but I feel sorry for people who invested into it through books, games, comics etc

@Do_I_Not_Like_That

Oh it was. Just doesn't mean I have to like that he basically shat on Zhan's trilogy which breathed new life into the literary EU. I realize there is a ton of bad out there in the EU but at least being respectful to some source material that helped print you money for over a decade would have been nice.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, disney said "EU doesnt exist anymore, all novels, tv, games, porn parodies and so for are not canon and are What IF"

That's not what Disney said.

And Abrams' ST was enjoyable to everyone I know personally. So what do I care if a couple people online throw a pissy fit over his movies? Everyone I know in person loved them.

It was enjoyable in the sense that they were good films, but they were terrible Star Trek films (in the sense that they entirely missed the point of what Star Trek is. Compared to actual Star Trek films... well they were better than anything produced since The Undiscovered Country at least, so theres that), but they would have been outstanding Star Wars films.

Abrams's first Trek film was okay. Its excellent pacing really covers a lot of its flaws on the first viewing. But the villain was completely uninteresting, the destruction of Vulcan was painfully disproportionate, and including Leonard Nimoy felt more like parody than connection or homage. Still, there are some great moments, like when Pike dares Kirk to do better than his dad. The second one falls way short, both of its slightly better than average predecessor and the immensely superior film after which it is patterned. Cumberbatch is terribly miscast in a role written by someone who clearly did not understand or care about the character. The crew's interpersonal dynamic, the great strength of TOS, feels no more special than anything in a generic network drama. I was pretty into the movie the first time I saw it. I went back to the theater the next day and fell asleep.

 Manchu wrote:
Abrams's first Trek film was okay. Its excellent pacing really covers a lot of its flaws on the first viewing. But the villain was completely uninteresting, the destruction of Vulcan was painfully disproportionate, and including Leonard Nimoy felt more like parody than connection or homage. Still, there are some great moments, like when Pike dares Kirk to do better than his dad. The second one falls way short, both of its slightly better than average successor and the immensely superior film after which it is patterned. Cumberbatch is terribly miscast in a role written by someone who clearly did not understand or care about the character. The crew's interpersonal dynamic, the great strength of TOS, feels no more special than anything in a generic network drama. I was pretty into the movie the first time I saw it. I went back to the theater the next day and fell asleep.

An excellent summary.

Let's just hope that the rumor is true that his Star Trek suffered thanks to his heart belonging to Star Wars.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Abrams's first Trek film was okay. Its excellent pacing really covers a lot of its flaws on the first viewing. But the villain was completely uninteresting, the destruction of Vulcan was painfully disproportionate, and including Leonard Nimoy felt more like parody than connection or homage. Still, there are some great moments, like when Pike dares Kirk to do better than his dad. The second one falls way short, both of its slightly better than average successor and the immensely superior film after which it is patterned. Cumberbatch is terribly miscast in a role written by someone who clearly did not understand or care about the character. The crew's interpersonal dynamic, the great strength of TOS, feels no more special than anything in a generic network drama. I was pretty into the movie the first time I saw it. I went back to the theater the next day and fell asleep.

An excellent summary.

Agreed. The first one is decent enough, if still worse than most of the original/TNG films, and ultimately, got the point/feel/style right. I could have done without Nimoy and any of the Spock/Uhura drama.

Into Darkness, on the other hand, was a complete mess. Khan should never have been redone, the focus on action over story/theme was off, the crew failed to develop in any meaningful direction, and the writing was just poor, for a Trek movie or otherwise. The final insult to injury came when they shoehorned in a broken redux of the most iconic, touching and powerful scenes in Star Trek history for... Well, I'm still not sure what for.

To put it in Star Wars terms, imagine a remake of Empire Strikes Back where Luke, having bested Vader in combat, revealed that he was Vader's son,, and then asked him "search your feelings, you know it to be true."

 Paradigm wrote:
To put it in Star Wars terms, imagine a remake of Empire Strikes Back where Luke, having bested Vader in combat, revealed that he was Vader's son,, and then asked him "search your feelings, you know it to be true."

I laugh but you've seriously got me a bit worried, too.

I think "what Star Trek is supposed to be" largely depends on what series (and I think you can consider the movies with the original cast as a series on its own) you consider to be the definitive ST. Because they were all quite different.

Roddenberry originally pitched ST as a western in space, IIRC. And sure, the original series dealt with social issues, etc. But it was an action/adventure show at its heart. Hell, just about every fight sequence in series history looked like a western barroom brawl.

It occurs to me that Abrams' ST actually had a barroom brawl. And a lot of other elements and tonal qualities that reminded me of the original series, as a guy who was raised on that series. It probably doesn't remind people of TNG, and maybe that's an issue for those who gravitate toward THAT series.

This debate regarding Abrams' ST films reminds me a lot of the debate over Man of Steel. "That wasn't Superman!" "Superman wouldn't do that!" Etc. But which Superman and when?

And when you peel it all apart, you realize that the critics don't even fully agree on what "is" and "isn't." They just agree that something doesn't match their individual visions. And this is completely inevitable for characters/settings/stories/etc. that have been different things at different times.

I wasn't crazy about Into Darkness either, but I didn't hate it with the ferocity that some seem to have. Exchange Cumberbatch for a more convincingly menacing actor, remove the reactor scene and stick more closely to a 'Space Seed'-inspired story, and suddenly the movie jumps up an entire letter grade, IMO. But I like that Abrams took some risks and was willing to break eggs in his films, because the original series did those things too.