Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[brian577]

Says the guy who wasn't a fan until he got a hold of the franchise and only did it because "space movies are cool" http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/...rs-episode-vii

Wasn't sure if this would go here or the Star Trek XI+ topic. Move if necessary.

[DalekJim]

I want a Trekkie with zero interest in Star Wars or ever making a film that resembles Star Wars to write and direct Episode VII. Then us and the Wars fans will be even in the franchise bastardisation stakes and be able to enjoy each other's movies.

[MacLeod]

I can understand his point. He just wants to enjoy a movie franchise that he likes, rather than being invovled in it.

[inflatabledalek]

His loyalty to Trek could simply be down to them being a gainful source of happy employment. He doesn't have to have been a pre-existing fan to have developed an attachment to where he works.

[Dream]

Well, Abrams could still direct Episode 9 when the time comes.

[Nerys Myk]

Turns Star Wars what? Over? Into a rabbit? On? Off?

[The Wormhole]

As I understand things, Abrams turned Star Wars down (or more accurately declined to puruse it, do we even know if he was offered or in serious consideration?) becuase he's too much of a fan that he didn't think directing a Star Wars movie would work out.

And I hate to say this (I really do. Really do) but he's right. Having a fan in power either as a writer or director is rarely a good idea, and can be worse depending on how much a fan they are. Take Superman Returns for example, directed by Superman uberfan Bryan Singer. That's not exactly the most popular Superman movie out there. Hell, it's taken seven years for the next Superman movie and that's a bloody reboot of the franchise.

[DalekJim]

Never really understood that argument myself. Having a fan who cares about things like continuity is always going to be preferable to me than some random media tool who is doing it for the cash being the writer.

Having fans in charge hasn't done the revived Doctor Who any harm.

[JarodRussell]

Ha, the guy is probably kicking his own ass right now because his contract prevents him from doing Star Wars in the near future.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Never really understood that argument myself. Having a fan who cares about things like continuity is always going to be preferable to me than some random media tool who is doing it for the cash being the writer.

Having fans in charge hasn't done the revived Doctor Who any harm.

Depends on the fan and the franchise. While Abrams was a casual fan, other members of the "Supreme Court" are more "serious". So its not like Star Trek is being run by folks with no knowledge of continuity.

Doctor Who's timey wimey nature lends to a looser continuity. And fans who come pros don't tend to be the OCD types.

[DalekJim]

I think being a fan is less important than being somebody that is willing to make the effort to understand the source material. I think JJ Abrams loves blockbuster action movies with no deeper substance or meaning like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, his idols are Lucas and Spielberg. That is fine and a valid way of viewing filmmaking and cinema in general. I am a huge, huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock and most of his movies are thrill rides with no deeper intent.


Unfortunately, I don't think Star Trek works much as a blockbuster action/adventure rollercoaster movie. When it works best, it has science-fiction ideas and philosophy behind it. Unfortunately, that is the type of movie that JJ Abrams has no interest in making at all.

I don't mind that JJ Abrams isn't a Trek fan. Afterall, none of my friends or family are . I mind that he isn't interested in the possibilities of science-fiction beyond emotional stimuli. He wants to make movies that make people feel and don't make them think. Unfortunately, I think that is utterly, perversely wrong for Star Trek. On the other hand, I think a director hugely interested in exploring science-fiction concepts would be ill suited to Star Wars as he'd lose sight of the swash buckling nature of the saga.

[Nerys Myk]

When have Star Trek films ( or even Star Trek in general) been deep and substantial? Did I miss an installment? The films since TWOK have always been action oriented. What passes for deep in Trek couldn't drown an ant. They've always been more about feeling than thinking, too. It might be time for Trek fans to stop deluding themselves.

[DalekJim]

I'm not deluding myself at all, I could take or leave most of the Star Trek films. Apart from The Motion Picture which is brilliant because it's everything Abrams' Trek isn't.

The best Star Trek stories to me are ones like The Inner Light or even The Cage. Ones that value sci-fi ideas over action thrills. I'm not too fussed about a lot of the gung-ho stuff in the movies (I think First Contact is insanely overrated!).

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I'm not deluding myself at all, I could take or leave most of the Star Trek films. Apart from The Motion Picture which is brilliant because it's everything Abrams' Trek isn't.

It's also a boring, poorly written 2001 wannabe that's further away from Star Trek than Abrams film could ever be.

[DalekJim]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

It's also a boring, poorly written 2001 wannabe that's further away from Star Trek than Abrams film could ever be.

Horses for courses. I find the Abrams reboot a dull, empty affair and think The Motion Picture is a hypnotic, entirely cinematic work of science-fiction.

And I'd much rather a Trek film aim to try to be 2001 than Star Wars or Transformers. More my kinda thing.