Charlie Rose

johnchar  05/14/2011 03:11 AM Report

JJ rocks. He speaks to a younger generation. If you want to compare him to the Wrath of Khan or DS9, you must be watching this from a old folks home. He blew the Star Trek series out of the water and opened it up to a wider audience no other director in the franchise has ever dreamed of. Can't wait for Super 8 or anything else from this genius.

Christopher  05/13/2009 12:58 AM Report

I just saw the movie, it is pretty good. It isn't the Wrath of Khan but certainly in the top tier of Star Trek movies. As far as the reservations I had in my previous post, all the things I was afraid of occurred (blaring music, bad jokes, an extra lousy love story between Auhora and Spock, and a general dumbing down for teenagers between 13-14 years old). Yet, the movie was pretty good for reasons the critics have elaborated on enough.

Everyone I talk to is yearning for more Ridley Scott, more Christopher Nolan, more James Cameron and less Tony Scott and Michael Bay. I have to put JJ in the second category.

Christopher  05/13/2009 12:58 AM Report

I just saw the movie, it is pretty good. It isn't the Wrath of Khan but certainly in the top tier of Star Trek movies. As far as the reservations I had in my previous post, all the things I was afraid of occurred (blaring music, bad jokes, an extra lousy love story between Auhora and Spock, and a general dumbing down for teenagers between 13-14 years old). Yet, the movie was pretty good for reasons the critics have elaborated on enough.

Everyone I talk to is yearning for more Ridley Scott, more Christopher Nolan, more James Cameron and less Tony Scott and Michael Bay. I have to put JJ in the second category.

LA007  05/10/2009 04:58 PM Report

I don't think it makes sense to bash Abrams right now. He is still a relatively young writer / director / producer who has accomplished a great deal. Any comments that regard his earlier work as "rough" is simply drawing attention to an obvious fact: he is growing. Say what you want about Mission 3, but as long as his films get progressively "better" (which seems to be the case) I'll be a happy critic.

Muldfeld  05/08/2009 02:19 AM Report

I'm very disappointed that, despite years of begging Charlie to interview a fine mind like that of Ronald D. Moore of Battlestar Galactica -- and of having my comments about the show's political importance printed or forwarded to Charlie in 2007 -- he has failed to get Moore, a fan of the show, and is all too eager to get the popular money-maker J.J. Abrams at the drop of a hat.

This man is part of a long-running trend by Paramount Pictures to depoliticize Star Trek and refrain from anything truly challenging. All Abrams' work is fluff -- sensationalism and cheap gimmicks and dramatic formula with no sense of psychologically based dramatic realism or even true originality. "Alias" is bad "James Bond"; "Fringe" is watered down "X-Files" without the sense of subtlety or quality suspense, let alone political commentary. I don't quite know what "Lost" is, but Abrams is dishonest in taking so much credit for a show he hasn't worked on beyond the pilot, and it's pretty empty on dramatic realism or anything beyond gimmicky plot twists, and relies on "evil" originating from preposterously manipulative and downright cruel parents of nearly all the characters, who themselves are archetypes and not fully rounded characters.

Just as Paramount was all too eager to have Rick Berman hurt the franchise with ratings-driven approaches, Abrams is an extension of that by dumbing things down and opting for more action. There's no heart in his work -- just calculated, cynical writing aimed to achieve easy character moments to appease the mainstream without every getting too serious or heavy -- you know, realistic! So, all his shows are filled with self-conscious and unrealistic moments of levity between pointless shock and awe that has very little story or worthwhile drama to it.

Moreover, there is absolutely no political insight, which was so richly added to the franchise by the unprecedented work of Ira Steven Behr from Season 3 onward on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Even in his less cynical days, Berman wrote a pretty gutsy exploration of understandable terrorism in occupied territories with Michael Piller in "The Maquis" episode of DS9. Behr and his staff explored terrorism honestly in addition to a justified wariness of unfettered capitalism and the darker side of our heroes. Unlike prior and future incarnations of Star Trek, DS9 was the first to truly ask hard questions of the audience by placing the moral dilemmas among the main cast with whom the audience rooted and identified. Before and after DS9, Star Trek stories always had alien cultures behaving immorally, so the crew of the Enterprise could always look down upon them condescendingly and speechify to them by the end of one episode about the wrongs of their ways; similarly, the audience was always in the position of thinking that it was "the other" that was petty for getting into civil wars, wanting revenge, and for other moral breaches; the post-9/11 world showed me otherwise, but people like Behr already knew about Vietnam and various other eggregious acts by "our" side. On DS9 -- long before 9/11 -- Ira Behr and his staff understood that the main cast could be realistic and do terrible things in the name of security or fear or whatever human conditions make humans do such things.

So, Capt. Sisko quietly is happy to allow a Federation-manufactured virus destroy his enemy -- commit genocide -- and is even prepared to present the Romulans false intelligence reports to get them to join the war against the Dominion. Gul Dukat is able to justify betrayal of the Bajoran people and the Federation for the sake of joining the Dominion and returning national pride to his beaten people and rescuing his own professional status in the process; he was not unlike many war criminals and not even among the worst because he had a degree of leniency in how he treated the Bajoran people during the occupation. Kira and Damar showed how terrorism was needed to oust an occupying force (first the Cardassians, then the Domionion) and how collaborators were hard to tolerate. Moreover, I related very much to Odo -- a member of the invasive Changelings -- living among the "solids" who was always suspect for his loyalty; he was the foreigner and went through many of the issues Muslims living in the West go through -- both loving the people among whom he lived and also wanting the best for his people abroad; feeling pulled by two conflicting worlds and loyalties to both, he wanted the war to stop. In fact, the Dominion was never portrayed as evil, but actually a parallel with Israel, Stalin's Soviet Union or any nation so desperate for security that it seeks a buffer zone and total control within it. The Dominion had been persecuted for millennia by "solids" and refused to trust them and waged war to suppress them to ensure their security by denying freedom to others. In the end, it was their love for Odo that led to their loss of the war, but also ultimately their survival. They weren't unrelatable enemies like the Borg or the typical Star Trek foes. They were something more true to our world. Indeed, all the villains in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine showed how conflict emerged not from a clash between good heroes and inherent evil, but between differing perspectives and interests -- as is the case in the real world.

This was heady stuff for Star Trek and it was brilliantly and humorously written, too! Ira Steven Behr gets little recognition because the mainstream didn't fall in love with DS9's moral ambiguity and complexity and lush characters, and wanted the same old from Star Trek. Paramount very much reinforced this attitude, paying little attention to DS9 over its 7-year run -- so Behr and his writers could do whatever they wanted -- and ensuring that the end of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Voyager, Enterprise, and the Next Generation films never alienated some cynical notion of viewer conservatism and formulaic storytelling.

Indeed, Paramount's selection of J.J. Abrams is in line with their determination to ensure Star Trek doesn't ask hard questions the way DS9 did and that the cash flows in by appealing to fans who only want pure escapism. This is sad because Ira Behr -- and even to some extent Gene Roddenberry -- proved that Star Trek was capable of so much more: to make viewers think and change how they approached the world for the better. Ira Behr showed how we're all capable of kindness and cruelty, and this is something he continued on Seasons 3 and 4 of The 4400 and Ron Moore explored to great effect on Battlestar Galactica.

Now, thanks to a mindless audience, a disgustingly profit-driven Paramount Pictures, and talk show hosts, cynical critics, and media figures like yourself that are only interested in popularity, Abrams will reinvent Trek for years to come -- in Star Wars-style fluff. It shall never come even close to Ira Steven Behr's vision.

Imagine if your viewers were so ruthless in their viewing habits, Charlie. They'd all be watching Larry King because he's more famous and has higher ratings. You know better than to just follow the money and the headlines, Charlie. Please interview those with integrity like Ira Behr (who's now the head writer for Crash Season 2) and Ron Moore, Charlie; they've forgone so much profit because they really wanted to make challenging art that really does stand the test of time, and they'd love to talk to you.

NoPardonforMichaelMilken  05/06/2009 07:17 AM Report

Like Kirk, J.J. Abrams is another rich punk on the Nepotism Express. Without daddy, Gerry Abrams, J.J. is renting videos at some dump outside Sarah Abrams College. Abrams has one interest: to further the argument that only those of money, power, and privilege can accomplish anything in life. The Ivy League, Wall Street, and the CIA employ this corrupt argument on a daily basis to destroy our nation.

Call me when J.J. Abrams tosses himself off a building. Then I'll be interested. Until then, J.J. is just another Luci Goldberg's obese little, another Sick Willie Kristol, another John P. Normanson. Without Nepotism, Abrams, like the others, is a pure loser.

Christopher  05/06/2009 04:06 AM Report

Being quite the action/sci-fi movie buff, I am anxious to watch the new Star Trek, but my expectations are low because MI3 was not that good and not as good as the first one. It gives me the impression he is just another average action director with the regular cliches (his unfufilled character scenario has been done so many times, it borders the pathetic), not in the Ridley Scott/James Cameron league at all. I hope the film surprises me. But judging from the takes, it looks like the big music blaring during the action scenes, stupid comic relief one liners. Think about the captain Kirk character, cocky as hell, pretentious, gets everything he wants, he is a rebel rich kid...I mean, or super smart or has uncanny ability.

I can't wait to see it though:-)

Gustav  05/05/2009 03:09 PM Report

Maybe I'm the only one who respects this man.

In my mind he extremely good in visualizing emotion. The viewer can't help but feel the way the scene is intended to feel.

Lost and Mission Impossible 3 were both awesome in that aspect, Fringe is more causal but it's still easy to see that JJ had something to do with it.

I'd really love to see an original film made by him, see where it goes. But I wouldn't want to see another "lost", but something showing extreme adrenaline and intense emotion.

doodahdaze  05/05/2009 02:54 PM Report

Maybe there's "talent" in that box?... Just a thought.

doodahdaze  05/05/2009 02:36 PM Report

This guy should idolize people like, Spielberg, Kubrik, and Orson Wells, because he will NEVER be in the same league. His work is pretty stereotypical, BORING, hokie TV drama, blah blah blah... I just can't watch that crap. Maybe it's the acting? All I know, is that it sucks... The Star Trek movie, REALLY looks stupid. Like something a 10 year old would do.

REMant  05/05/2009 01:30 PM Report

You must be kidding. There has never been a decent, much less a good, American-made television mystery series, and the best were made a half-century ago. I don't know about Star Trek, tho it does seem everything has already been said there, but it seems to me that dreaming big about space is about the last thing we need right now. The Bush space program should IMHO be scrapped entirely along with the antique and poorly designed shuttles, and more effort put into unmanned research. As Eisenhower said long ago, it is just plain crazy - and that was when we had money. I'm sorry I don't understand either the level of idolatry that animates film and TV freaks, but I think it must be central to their experience. And there is certainly a connection between mystery and idolatry. You can't really idolize someone you know intimately.