J.J. Abrams 'emotionally hurt' by Star Trek: The Video Game

#1 Posted by firecracker22 (532 posts) -
#2 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Sounds about right. The game was bad. Not super super bad but just bad. A cash grab if nothing else.

#3 Edited by Damodar (1301 posts) -

I can't imagine the game would have had anything more than a negligible effect on the movie. It's kind of a shitty thing to say. Between the limited time and money that the developers would have had and the fact that what he does isn't exactly high art, it seems like an unnecessary diss. Now the developers are going to be the ones who are emotionally hurt.

I'm more emotionally hurt that JJ Abrams has his mitts on the big two sci fi franchises.

#4 Edited by RonGalaxy (2868 posts) -

@damodar said:

I can't imagine the game would have had anything more than a negligible effect on the movie. It's kind of a shitty thing to say. Between the limited time and money that the developers would have had and the fact that what he does isn't exactly high art, it seems like an unnecessary diss. Now the developers are going to be the ones who are emotionally hurt.

I'm more emotionally hurt that JJ Abrams has his mitts on the big two sci fi franchises.

He's done with star trek now. He's not directing the next one/is no longer involved with that franchise (he might be involved in an advisement capacity, but I'm not sure)

#5 Posted by BurningStickMan (201 posts) -

Makes some sense, actually. He's the right age to remember LJN.

#6 Posted by Daneian (1207 posts) -

Pretty sure Gene Roddenberry would be emotionally hurt by Abrams two Star Trek films.

#7 Posted by Snail (8578 posts) -

When will this guy make a video-game?

#8 Edited by Turambar (6675 posts) -

I'm just somewhat interested in the Valve project Abrams briefly mentioned in that article.

#9 Edited by firecracker22 (532 posts) -

I don't know, I love TOS, but it seems like they did did right by it in the first film. Haven't seen Into Darkness yet, I should this weekend since I got it on blu-ray. And hearing so much about the other Star Trek films, it sounds like Abrams has managed a good way to make it happen on film. Star Trek is probably way better off being serialized, rather than condensed into two hours like a film demands. But, making it a successful blockbuster summer flick is something pretty cool, since I've heard people claim it'd be impossible for that brand.

And I don't know, that game was released a while before the film. Some people buy into the 'leaving a bad taste' factor, but I doubt there's anyway to back it up. But, it depends on who you ask. Some people are convinced that if you have some market tie-in to this other thing (in this case a film) that it can fuck with it's vibe. I'm not entirely convinced either, but I can understand how someone would feel that way.

Him on Star Wars can only be good. Considering how far off it's gotten with the prequel series. It can't get any worse, can it?

#10 Posted by Brodehouse (9581 posts) -

On JJ Abrams, get over yourself.

#11 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@firecracker22: While I don't necessarily like Abrams interpretation of the Star Trek series (mostly the blockbuster action approach, not necessarily the aesthetic which was spot on) I think he'll do fine with Star Wars. Star Wars is much more suited to that method and style of summer spectaculars.

#12 Posted by JasonR86 (9605 posts) -

Oh God. 'Emotionally hurt'? Ugh.

#13 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3005 posts) -

I was emotionally hurt by the last two seasons of Lost and Cloverfield. Oh yeah Fringe and Alcatraz hurt, just a little.

#14 Posted by LordAndrew (14424 posts) -

The game may be bad but I doubt it had much, if any, effect on Star Trek Into Darkness's performance. If bad Star Trek games had a negative impact on Star Trek as a whole, the franchise would have been dead before Abrams ever touched it.

#16 Posted by joshwent (2112 posts) -

Read the article, forgot the point, and now all I can say is, "Fuck. Please, please, PLEASE valve, don't make a fucking Portal movie."

#17 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

@daneian said:

Pretty sure Gene Roddenberry would be emotionally hurt by Abrams two Star Trek films.

Roddenberry didn't like what they did to Star Trek with the Wrath of Khan onwards and TNG only became good when he stopped being involved.

#18 Edited by Slag (3995 posts) -

I'm emotionally hurt by what J.J. Abrams (and Michael Bay) did to Transformers, so I guess we're even

#20 Posted by Hailinel (23868 posts) -

Abrams really needs some perspective if he doesn't realize that the vast majority of video game movie tie-ins are terrible by now.

#21 Posted by Milkman (16519 posts) -

@slag:

JJ Abrams did not work on the Transformers movies.

@hailinel said:

Abrams really needs some perspective if he doesn't realize that the vast majority of video game movie tie-ins are terrible by now.

Despite the disappointment, Abrams added that it isn't surprising for games based on films to be low in quality.

"I think that, the thing that we all know is that anyone who loves video games and loves movies," he said. "Very, very rarely does a movie based on a game, or a game based on a movie, really work. It usually ends up being something that everyone that goes to play feels like this was a marketing decision made by a room full of people that wanted to capitalize on a title. That's no way to make a game and no way to make a movie.

Don't really get people saying Abrams should get over himself for being "emotionally hurt." You put your life into something and it turns out to be shit. I'd probably be pretty upset too.

#22 Posted by Slag (3995 posts) -

@milkman said:

@slag:

JJ Abrams did not work on the Transformers movies.

Oh crap that's my bad, I got him mixed up with the Roberto Orci/Alex Kurtzman writing duo who worked on both Star Trek and Transformers.

#23 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -

You mean to tell me that the fucker who doused Star Trek in about seven thousand pounds of lens flare is talking about how he's hurt by a video game?

My fucking EYES are burned out of my head! Fuck Abrams.

#24 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

You mean to tell me that the fucker who doused Star Trek in about seven thousand pounds of lens flare is talking about how he's hurt by a video game?

My fucking EYES are burned out of my head! Fuck Abrams.

You think that was bad, imagine what he's gonna do to the next 6 Star Wars movies.

#25 Posted by Kaiserreich (684 posts) -

Star Trek fans 'emotionally hurt' by J.J. Abrams

#26 Edited by Sinusoidal (1285 posts) -

Abrams' style is much more suited to Star Wars than Star Trek. Bombast, flash, ultimately shallow. For better or for worse (definitely worse IMHO) he returned Trek back to its campy roots. Star Wars at this point could actually benefit from that.

I don't give two shits about his feelings.

#27 Posted by Sinusoidal (1285 posts) -

Abrams' style is much more suited to Star Wars than Star Trek. Bombast, flash, ultimately shallow. For better or for worse (definitely worse IMHO) he returned Trek back to its campy roots. Star Wars at this point could actually benefit from that.

I don't give two shits about his feelings.

#28 Edited by Korwin (2825 posts) -

Abrams' will do much better with Star Wars than Star Trek. Give that stuff back to Ron Moore to work with :P

#29 Posted by Rowr (5477 posts) -

it was a movie tie in game in the vein of every movie tie in game made since videogames started.

It really didn't need to be anything more than it is. I'm sure time, budget and restrictions on content could never allow it to be much more that fine.

#30 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

#31 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Well - he should take some time out of his day, learn gamedesign, found a studio, fund a game - and direct a good Star Trek game his own damn self!

No seriously, I'd love for J.J. to lend videogames more credence by taking them seriously enough to directing his own game. Now where's that Guillermo del Torro joint?

#32 Posted by ripelivejam (3528 posts) -

maybe all the jawas get marooned on a mysterious island...

#33 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@missacre said:

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

If I remember correctly, the recent Clone Wars show had a quite a few episodes with other protagonists than Jedis. Bountyhunters, diplomats, Mandalorians, Droids - that kind of stuff. Pretty damn underrated show, all things considered.

#34 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@seppli said:

@missacre said:

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

If I remember correctly, the recent Clone Wars show had a quite a few episodes with other protagonists than Jedis. Bountyhunters, diplomats, Mandalorians, Droids - that kind of stuff. Pretty damn underrated show, all things considered.

That's exactly why I love that show. I'd like to see something like that, but a full-length movie.

#35 Posted by crusader8463 (14413 posts) -

I'm emotionally hurt at what he has crapped out and called two Star Trek movies.

@seppli said:

@missacre said:

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

If I remember correctly, the recent Clone Wars show had a quite a few episodes with other protagonists than Jedis. Bountyhunters, diplomats, Mandalorians, Droids - that kind of stuff. Pretty damn underrated show, all things considered.

Indeed. Clone Wars is great. Which is why it got canned. The good ones always do.

#36 Edited by Sinusoidal (1285 posts) -

@missacre said:

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

Ask and ye shall receive!

#37 Posted by Missacre (566 posts) -

@missacre said:

Once, JUST ONCE, I'd like to see a Star Wars movie that doesn't revolve around Jedi, Darth whatever, or Boba Fett. I loved Episodes 1-6, but I'd like to see something new for once, like the 95% of the galaxy that's ignored.

Ask and ye shall receive!

Ugh, WHY is this place full of sarcastic responses? It seems like it's too much to ask.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.