• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Has J.J. Abrams ever directed a bad movie?

Status
Not open for further replies.
brandonh83 said:
You nailed it. This is what I was bringing up in my post on the last page. Most criticisms I see against it seemingly boil down to fanboy drivel or harping too much on stupid shit.
Click to expand...

Wow this is so fucking wrong. I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

If your defense is "you're not supposed to think!" that's not a defense. Don't make a fucking Star Trek movie if you want the audience to turn their brain off, make it something else. The whole thing was hollow nostalgia pandering with no sense at all behind the events that were happening.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
I think the "fan" aspect is increasingly overstated/overinflated. It suggests he half-assed it because he didn't really care, and that fandom itself is an automatic positive in the filmmaking process. I think there's plenty of examples (Star Trek II is a particularly great one, Empire Strikes Back is another) that go to the idea that being a fan plays very little (if any) role in the resultant quality of the film.

The problems with both Star Trek films are apparent in Super 8 and Mission Impossible, as well, just to varying degrees. And I'm fairly certain the catalyst for those problems isn't his level of fandom or passion for the film he's working on.

The fandom aspect is marketing driven. Its not really relevant to his filmmaking abilities at all.
Click to expand...

You know thinking about his other films (i don't much TBH as although competent I always find they have no spark) I agree with you. Fan was perhaps the wrong word. Disengaged is what I'm really trying to evoke. I just felt in his ST films (in fact many of his films) there's just a certain passion missing, a spark of true belief in the tale being told. He's very, very competent but rather soulless now that I consider it. I'd argue he rarely gets strong performances from actors either, although Weller by default delivers that by himself.

The first ST though there did seem to be a good air of fun and camaraderie, a sense of a team coming together. But the second film essentially squandered that by taking the route of focusing on the cliche nature of the characters instead.

He does seem fairly passionate about Star Wars though, at least in interviews, etc. I really hope that transfers that to the actual film (and the actors).
 
Fathom said:
Wow this is so fucking wrong. I'll just leave this here...
Click to expand...

I didn't say you're not supposed to think. If anything I think people over think stuff. I said that when people complain it's usually this sort of thing, and I outlined why I think for example the Khan vs Spock complaint is rubbish. Not once did I say the movie is flaw-free either.
 
brandonh83 said:
Is that the only part of my post you saw? These things aren't so black and white. There are countless factors as to why what Abrams did with Armageddon absolutely does not apply here one iota. If Abrams continued to write scripts like that there'd be some pause, but that isn't the case and hasn't been for a long time.
Click to expand...
Yeah I read your post. I just think it's a stretch to say the least that Armageddon doesn't apply "one iota." He does write scripts like that. Sorry.
 
uncelestial said:
Yeah I read your post. I just think it's a stretch to say the least that Armageddon doesn't apply "one iota." He does write scripts like that. Sorry.
Click to expand...

It was 17 years ago. People improve and he has. He's made plenty of accomplishments since, and he's also not the only writer on SW. Like I said these things aren't this or that. It's not as simple as "well he wrote a bad script for a Michael Bay movie 20 years ago so I'm worried about this Star Wars movie despite two decades of creative exercise and growth."

Martin Campbell directed Casino Royale as well as Vertical Limit and that real shitty Zorro movie. If SW turns out a dud it won't be because he wrote Armageddon in 1997.
 
brandonh83 said:
It was 17 years ago. People improve and he has. He's made plenty of accomplishments since, and he's also not the only writer on SW. Like I said these things aren't this or that. It's not as simple as "well he wrote a bad script for a Michael Bay movie 20 years ago so I'm worried about this Star Wars movie despite two decades of creative exercise and growth."

Martin Campbell directed Casino Royale as well as Vertical Limit and that real shitty Zorro movie. If SW turns out a dud it won't be because he wrote Armageddon in 1997.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with anything you just wrote, but the growth you're talking about (in my book) ranges from "literally the movie in the world that annoys me the most" to "a forgetablle, dumbed-down but sorta fun Star Trek movie." He hasn't quite even reached "good" and now I can't help but have my hype dulled by knowing he started at "indefensibly horrible." Them's the breaks. I can't really debate what is essentially a visceral reaction with you, but if it helps illustrate where I'm coming from: I once almost punched someone in the face for tauntingly singing "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" at me in a loud voice.
 
uncelestial said:
I can't disagree with anything you just wrote, but the growth you're talking about (in my book) ranges from "literally the movie in the world that annoys me the most" to "a forgetablle, dumbed-down but sorta fun Star Trek movie." He hasn't quite even reached "good" and now I can't help but have my hype dulled by knowing he started at "indefensibly horrible." Them's the breaks. I can't really debate what is essentially a visceral reaction with you, but if it helps illustrate where I'm coming from: I once almost punched someone in the face for tauntingly singing "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" at me in a loud voice.
Click to expand...

And your opinion is totally fair. Not everyone is going to like everything, but in his defense Armageddon was successful and some found it enjoyable. IMO it's one of Bay's better movies, whatever that may mean between persons. While you may not like what he's been doing, it's safe to say that his work nowadays is nothing at all like Armageddon. He was younger and hired to write a dumb summer blockbuster directed by Michael Bay. I wouldn't hold that against him really. If all of his work were like Armageddon I'd be worried, but it's not, not even close.

My one and only point is that Abrams has did so much stuff since then that it's pretty irrelevant to tag him for a stupid blockbuster he scripted way back when.
 
genjiZERO said:
I was going to say Cloverfield - which is on my all-time most hated list - but I see he only produced it.
Click to expand...

JJ Abrams sucks because I was hyped to the moon for Cloverfield and Super 8 and I associate him with the crushing disappointment I felt walking out of the theater.
 
uncelestial said:
I can't disagree with anything you just wrote, but the growth you're talking about (in my book) ranges from "literally the movie in the world that annoys me the most" to "a forgetablle, dumbed-down but sorta fun Star Trek movie." He hasn't quite even reached "good" and now I can't help but have my hype dulled by knowing he started at "indefensibly horrible." Them's the breaks. I can't really debate what is essentially a visceral reaction with you, but if it helps illustrate where I'm coming from: I once almost punched someone in the face for tauntingly singing "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing" at me in a loud voice.
Click to expand...

He wasn't the only writer of Armageddon. Jonathan Hensleigh also wrote that after Die Hard 3 and is credited with story and screenplay. JJ is only credited with screenplay so he probably did a dialogue pass on it.

Armageddon is one of the best and dumbest movies out there. Unapologetically visual and overwrought. I'm just curious whether Bay knows that it is ridiculous and made it intentionally so.
 
I kinda like JJ Abrams films. I don't downright hate any of them, but I still don't love any of them.

MI:III was way better than the awful MI:2 so JJ gets points there. Ghost Protocol just happened to be even better (Rogue Nation as well, to a lesser extent)

Star Trek was about the best Hollywood-blockbuster style reboot of Trek we could expect. We're never going to get the older style, smaller scale, trek films, not with studios wanting a few large tentpoles rather than mid-range action (rather like videogames). It certainly wasn't perfect, but I mostly like it.

Super 8 was like a throwback to the 80's Spielberg type of film and was great for the way it built up atmosphere, have the characters some depth and presented a mystery- which it just quickly gave away and conveniently wrapped up in the last five minutes.

Star Trek Into Darkness. Well, on first viewing, I was entertained but slightly disappointed (Cumberbatch give a great performance, but he's miscast as Khan. Why call the palest man on the Planet Khan. And have the totally illogical twisting of the story to try and appease the fanboys when you only make it worse...
Second viewing was almost hate-viewing. By the third viewing, I made peace with the fact it squandered an opportunity and just enjoyed it as a disposable popcorn flick, the same way I might tolerate Insurrection in rewatching the Trek films- it's at least not as unwatchable as Nemesis.

So, to date, JJ hasn't made yet a great film but I feel he does have it in him. Let's hope that Force Awakens is that film.

or maybe we've seen his best and he's always going to be stuck around 7/10 or B+ films
 
He's consistent but far from being a master, or at least has yet to provide proof of it. He brings the entertainment every time, I'll give him that.
 
EGM1966 said:
Fan was perhaps the wrong word. Disengaged is what I'm really trying to evoke. I just felt in his ST films (in fact many of his films) there's just a certain passion missing, a spark of true belief in the tale being told. He's very, very competent but rather soulless now that I consider it. I'd argue he rarely gets strong performances from actors either, although Weller by default delivers that by himself.

The first ST though there did seem to be a good air of fun and camaraderie, a sense of a team coming together. But the second film essentially squandered that by taking the route of focusing on the cliche nature of the characters instead.

He does seem fairly passionate about Star Wars though, at least in interviews, etc. I really hope that transfers that to the actual film (and the actors).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely see where you're coming from. I think I'm just a little more forgiving of the guy. But I can't deny that there's definitely a slickness and a superficiality to EVERYTHING he's done. He's a pop musician, basically. I mean, pop music can kick you in the chest if you're in the right space for it. But even the depths he tries to plumb don't go that deep - which is why Super 8 doesn't work at all. Spielberg plucks heartstrings whether you wanna be manipulated like that or not. Abrams? With Abrams, you gotta want to get your tears jerked for those moments to work.

(that said: the plane-crash and immediate fallout in the LOST pilot, and the loss of the Kelvin pre-titles in Star Trek, are damned good pieces of filmmaking, period, and are likely the two single best things Abrams has ever done as a director)

But yeah, it's weird that Super 8 was supposed to be his real passion project, the thesis paper of what makes JJ Abrams a filmmaker, and it didn't work. It'd be funny if Star Wars was the film that finally got him to put all the pieces in place without snagging his feet on the carpet.
 
Seems crazy to me that he's only started directing movies almost 10 years ago (Mission: Impossible III) and now he's doing Star Wars, with two Star Trek movies under his belt.

I've enjoyed everything he's directed.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
Yeah, I definitely see where you're coming from. I think I'm just a little more forgiving of the guy. But I can't deny that there's definitely a slickness and a superficiality to EVERYTHING he's done. He's a pop musician, basically. I mean, pop music can kick you in the chest if you're in the right space for it. But even the depths he tries to plumb don't go that deep - which is why Super 8 doesn't work at all. Spielberg plucks heartstrings whether you wanna be manipulated like that or not. Abrams? With Abrams, you gotta want to get your tears jerked for those moments to work.

(that said: the plane-crash and immediate fallout in the LOST pilot, and the loss of the Kelvin pre-titles in Star Trek, are damned good pieces of filmmaking, period, and are likely the two single best things Abrams has ever done as a director)

But yeah, it's weird that Super 8 was supposed to be his real passion project, the thesis paper of what makes JJ Abrams a filmmaker, and it didn't work. It'd be funny if Star Wars was the film that finally got him to put all the pieces in place without snagging his feet on the carpet.
Click to expand...
A few niggles aside the sequence with the Kelvin is indeed the best complete sequence he's filmed, probably followed by Lost pilot as you say.

I find him very competent but yeah, a pop musician is probably a good way to t it. That's pretty much what I feel. I feel he might finally deliver a full, consistent film with Start Wars. I sure hope so anyway. I'll be really disappointed if it's a series of nicely shot sequences that are structurally flawed or average like much of his longer film work.

I did like Fringe a lot though so I'll give him that.
 
The marketing for Cloverfield had me thinking he directed it for several years. I'm kinda surprised that he has directed so few movies actually. I had no idea MI3 was his feature film debut O_o
 
If Super 8 isn't considered bad then it's a very fine line above being bad

Some of it was the kid actors, but the end just completely fell apart and killed the movie for me.
 
cLOUDo said:
Still don't get it, why he was choose to direct episode vii
Click to expand...

Kathleen Kennedy, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg all thought highly of him. Seeing what he'd done with Star Trek (which was pretty amazing, considering that series had been turfed by about a decade of bland television and bad filmmaking, and you could argue there was another five or so years of pop-culture inertia at work on top of that) couldn't have hurt, either.

Basically, he was Kennedy's first choice. So that's why he got the gig.

edit: Just saw this over at Slashfilm: Apparently JJ Abrams literally broke his back making Star Wars.
 
Both his Star Trek movies were/are great, and I really enjoyed Super 8. I have only seen MI3 once but I remember it being very entertaining.

So yeah, he's a good director in my book.
 
LosDaddie said:
Both his Star Trek movies were/are great, and I really enjoyed Super 8. I have only seen MI3 once but I remember it being very entertaining.

So yeah, he's a good director in my book.
Click to expand...


Ditto. Aside from not watching Super 8 I have enjoyed his movies throughly. The pacing of his films keep me enthralled. MI3 best MI movie. I love Star Trek and I like 2009 better than the other Star Trek movies aside from maybe Generations.
 
I've liked everything he's directed so far.

MI3 was very good, thanks to Phillip Seymour Hoffman being a fantastic antagonist.

I loved Super 8 and the two Star Treks. Star Wars will be entertaining I have no doubt. Abrams wears his fanboyism on his sleeve, so I think Star Wars is in good hands. He's a much better writer/director than, say, Zack Snyder.

I've seen genuinely bad, terrible, shit movies. Abrams movies don't even come close to that area. He's also a director that has created a visual style for himself that you immediately associate with him (not just the lens flares!). He's good. He could even be great with more films under his belt.
 
I didn't like Star Trek and Super 8.

I liked Mission Impossible III.

As for the Force Awakens, going to wait to see the movie to make a final judgement on it.
 
Cheebo said:
Writer:

Armageddon (1998)
Click to expand...
304-Gone-Girl-quotes.gif
 
Fuchsdh said:
Care to explain this line? I've honestly never heard someone, even those who dislike the new Star Trek films, complain about the casting outside the "Khan was whitewashed!" business.
Click to expand...

I don't think Chris Pine is leading man material. For starters his face is just too much, it's actually exhausting to look at. His face is like a whole pot of well balanced soup reduced to a single table spoon, it's too rich. He doesn't have any natural dignity/authority. He comes off as a clown high on amphetamine in everything he does. Maybe that's what they were going for in the new Star Trek movies, I mean it's kinda paced like that... but that's a whole other issue of wrongs in the movies. I could go on with the rest of the cast but he is my major issue and tbh everything about these movies are utter shit and at some point it just becomes meaningless to waste energy on it.

oh one more thing: it's probably my pick for all time worst use of music in movies. The theme isn't particularly good, it's very safe and by the books, it could be worse for sure and I guess it serves its purpose in being a generic sci fi tune for a shitty movie. what is inexcusable though is how they decided to pester the whole fucking movie with it. I feel like it was on 80% of the time. I actually turned the tv off in the middle of a rewatch a few years ago because I was so sick of hearing the same over the top melody over and over again
 
I wanted to like both of his Star Trek movies, but I couldn't get into either. The first one wasn't horrible though and far from the worst Trek movie, but I still wasn't feeling it. Into Darkness felt like a misstep, I felt like I was watching a Star Wars movie in Trek clothing. Ehh.

Super 8 was OK, I thought. Mission Impossible 3 was the best one of the first three, but it was still kind of meh. But I still have high hopes for Star Wars.
 
Super 8 was boring and cliched (I get that was somewhat the point, but it didn't work for me) and Into darkness was very badly written.

The rest are ok, nothing great, nothing too bad.

I do think SW is in good hands, as long as Lucas is not writing we are good.
 
Dr. Kaos said:
If only there was a way to research it...

I just watched an interview of his about directing MI5 and Star Wars and I'm starting to wonder if this guy isn't a bona fide legend.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Love all his films. However you are asking this on neogaf where someone will find all his films terrible.
 
Walpurgis said:
Really? I always wanted to watch it as a kid but never got around to it. What's wrong with it?
Click to expand...
Absolutely fantastic film and really well shot. Some of the best sound mixing I've ever heard as well. The bluray itself is really good.

Thoroughly enjoyable. Don't listen the majority of this forum on movies or music, if your taste disagrees with theirs you should be fine.
 
Yeah, I like his stuff, but he's not on the level of like a Spielberg where just about every movie he's made is a homerun. Not many directors are that good, though.
 
I've never been a big fan of Abrams. It's weird...I don't think anything he's done is bad, really, in fact I think he generally makes good stuff, but he's always struck me as sort of soulless?

He started Alias, and worked on it for awhile, and then he got bored and it went downhill. Jumped to Lost, basically only worked on that for the first season, then bailed. Breaks into movies. He did a Mission Impossible, did Star Trek for awhile, now he's on Star Wars....and on and on.

It just seems like he doesn't really have a passion for anything, and is just collecting franchises or something. And Super 8 was basically an 80s Spielberg parody. IDK, he just always feels hollow to me and I can't quite put my finger on it.

Hoping for good things from Star Wars though, it looks good so far.
 
I've dug all his movies so far. The only one I have negative thoughts of is Super 8 because I ended up being forced to watch it four times.
 
scitek said:
Yeah, I like his stuff, but he's not on the level of like a Spielberg where just about every movie he's made is a homerun. Not many directors are that good, though.
Click to expand...

what?! Spielberg one of da gawds but his filmography is littered with shit.

It's the price of being so prolific.
 
Star Trek was pretty bad
Star Trek ID was a piddling pile of cat diarrhea

All I could picture was robo fucking cop sitting in the ship's captain's chair...
 
Super 8 is the closest to bad, but I'd characterize it more as uneven. I wanted so badly to love it and it had a good first half. Eventually it goes off the rails and completely fell apart by the end.

I thought M:I3 was awesome, I must be in the minority there
 
HalfBakedProphet said:
Super 8 is the closest to bad, but I'd characterize it more as uneven. I wanted so badly to love it and it had a good first half. Eventually it goes off the rails and completely fell apart by the end.

I thought M:I3 was awesome, I must be in the minority there
Click to expand...

Yup, M:I3 is great. He overdid it a bit with the shaky cam, but it's still probably his best movie.
 
He's never made a bad or horrible movie, the flipside I don't think any of his movies are all that great either. Enjoyable for the handful of times I've watched them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Has anyone ever had to deal with this?
9
444
Dr.Guru of Peru replied
S Craig Zahler has started production on his next movie
4
220
Mister Apoc replied
The worst movie reboot ever
Opinion  2
64
2K
Krafter replied
  • Poll
Everyone on Earth has to press a button
8 9 10 11 12
584
849
Meicyn replied
New Dredd movie in development. Directed by…. Taika Waititi
2
88
3K
spookyfish replied
Top Bottom