View Single Post
Old April 27 2013, 11:38 PM   #27
Danger Ace
Danger Ace's Avatar
Location: California
Re: Abrams: Star Trek Maybe

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Has the hypothetical one person in question actually been put in such a position, though, or has he merely been hired to direct a single picture (written and produced by others not of his own selection) in one franchise while continuing to carry out his job as producer (with option to direct) of a set of films in the other?
Well, if you are coyly referring to J.J. Abrams and "Star Wars" then I would really appreciate a citation of source that says he will have no input or voice in the creative aspects of the film (including editing and aesthetics not to mention script developement) because I really can't imagine him showing up for work like some Fred Flintstone and just punching -in and -out.

I mean, if he is going to be so "hands off" then why hire him? Disney wouldn't, they want that "Abrams touch" - which boils back down to him bringing the same bag-of-tricks to "Star Wars" that he brought to "Star Trek."

Sector 7 wrote: View Post
Star Trek was all but dead and buried until JJ Abrams via Bad Robot took the reigns. Now Star Trek is popular and profitable. Disney, who now owns Star Wars, recognized this fact and asked JJ Abrams to direct SW7.
On one hand I appreciate Abrams work on and role in reviving "Star Trek," BUT on the other I firmly believe many others could have accomplished similar magic. Paramount's generous allowance of time and resources was the single biggest reason for Trek's revival. If they had appraoched Insurrection, Nemesis and Enterprise with the same attitude then the franchise wouldn't have even needed reviving.

Disney wants their new property to be as popular and profitable as Star Trek... yes, Star Trek is now a role model for another franchise. It is good to be a Trekkie these days!
The last Trek film brought in something like $385 million worldwide while the last Star Wars film did roughly $850 million worldwide - meaning if the Star Wars, Ep. VII did Trek (2009) business then it would be deemed a major, major disappointment.

Box office numbers via Box Office Mojo

Ovation wrote: View Post
As for Abrams and Star Wars--he's a hired gun. He's not running the whole operation like he is with Trek at the moment.
I am from a time that mistrusts too much power in too few hands. A time that had strict limits on media ownership so as to prevent only select voices from shouting down and distorting the perceptions of the masses. I've seen the effects of those restrictions being loosened and then done away with. All the dire predictions of which largely coming to pass. I would simply hate for "Star Trek" becoming the latest example of history repeating itself.

Again, we are for the most part the sum total of our experiences. For me, it causes worry to see things get reduced to the same few people and companies. Just as I hate to see all things get boiled down to the same common denominators. No insult or offense intended, just an opinion.
Danger Ace

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