View Single Post
Old April 26 2013, 08:54 PM   #14
Danger Ace
Danger Ace's Avatar
Location: California
Re: Abrams: Star Trek Maybe

Ovation wrote: View Post
I'd love a Tarantino Trek, but if people think Abrams et al. have strayed too far from the "Roddenberry vision thing", well…
And "those people" puzzle me.

The most unique, rare feature of the "Star Trek" franchise is that it was purposely crafted to be able to tell any story one could imagine - why in hell do "those people" want to shackle it to some nebulous ideal?

I'd like to see Matthew Vaughan try his hand at it. But I'm happy with what Abrams is doing so far, so no rush to pass it off to someone else.
I don't know that name (Mathew Vaughan), but I would be open to him or anyone else. I'd love for a woman to be given the reigns if for no other reason than to see a different perspective, hear a different voice.

In order to live up to the "infinite diversity in infinite combination" we need a diversity of contributors and a diversity of stories being told.

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
I'd certainly like to see him [J.J. Abrams] back. If not, whoever he hires to do the job will do just fine.
Please, do not take this personal, but I don't. It's not that I think Abrams is evil (because I do not) - his best years are still ahead - it is just that he still needs to broaden his repertoire.

I also question why should one person (regardless of who that person is) be put in control of the two biggest space-opera franchises?

There are a lot of equally talented people who could do wonderous things with either - so why put it all in one person's hands, to have both seen through just one set of eyes, to be given just one voice?

And it is not just one person doing both at different times in their career, but at the same time ... it is stiffling and cynical and really not right whereby more folks should object.

Indranee wrote:
Wait, you're kidding, right?

NONE of those people will ever do Trek.
Maybe those specific names wouldn't. Then again maybe they would. Some in Hollywood only make certain types of films because they are the only type of films they are allowed to make - IOW, they might jump at the opportunity.

In any event, my thesis is one of diversity. Some would say if something ain't broke then don't fix it ... except with Star Trek, if you are only getting one type of story and one type of storytelling then it is broke.

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Have we all forgotten William Ware Theiss's stock-in-trade, throughout TOS - and even TNG Season One?
You shame me in that it is only right to give William Ware Theiss thanks and praise for his minimalist approach to Star Trek. Salute.

RollTide1017 wrote: View Post
I never understood the mindset that just because he signed on for Star Wars then he couldn't do Star Trek.
It is a question of one person needlessly being given a creative monoply by virtue of having the reigns of the two biggest science-fiction franchises going. I think if Abrams was a bit more mature he would hand of "Star Trek 3" to someone else just on principle and out of decency.

I would hope people would argue against anyone cornering any market. Would we want only one conglomerate making all the movies? All the news? All the ... anything? We shouldn't and I don't.

Again, my opinion.
Danger Ace

Yes, Virginia, this post is an expression of my opinion.
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote