New JJ Abrams interview

[daveyNY]

I am sooo glad I like Star Trek for what it is...

Not what I want it to be.

[BillJ]

thumbtack wrote:

---

42 million domestic. 17 million foreign.

This. Likely this would've been the box office as well if the name Star Trek wasn't attached at all.

[The Mirrorball Man]

BillJ wrote:

---

This. Likely this would've been the box office as well if the name Star Trek wasn't attached at all.

True. Before Star Trek, the last Trek movie I had the opportunity to see in a movie theater was First Contact. The next two were straight-to-DVD here.

[JarodRussell]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

True. Before Star Trek, the last Trek movie I had the opportunity to see in a movie theater was First Contact. The next two were straight-to-DVD here.

So you're the one to blame.

[The Mirrorball Man]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

So you're the one to blame.

I'm not making myself clear. What I'm saying is that these movies, Insurrection and Nemesis, were not distributed in Switzerland due to lack of interest. I couldn't have seen them in a theater even if I had wanted to.

[M'Sharak]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I'm not making myself clear. What I'm saying is that these movies, Insurrection and Nemesis, were not distributed in Switzerland due to lack of interest. I couldn't have seen them in a theater even if I had wanted to.

You were clear enough. That was just Jarod being funny.

[AloriaDax]

Why would you make a Star Trek movie that is not for Star Trek fans? This is why I don't like this dude. He doesn't care about the lifelong Star Trek fans such as myself. Why should I care about him or anything that comes out of his mouth?

[AloriaDax]

SalvorHardin wrote:

---

As expected, he doesn't give anything serious away.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/169...j-abrams.jhtml

This is what I am talking about. This is why I DGAF about this guy. This is why he pisses me off. He loves that they didn't make the movie for the fans? What is that? Who did you make it for then? He's not even a fan. I wish someone who was a fan was doing the new movies. Someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job at making me care about the "NuTrek".

[AloriaDax]

urbandk wrote:

---

JJ was booked, so MTV just replayed an interview he gave four years ago.

also

There needs to be a JJ apology tour for him to individually apologize to every fan whose feelings he hurt.

I'll stand in line for that.

[AloriaDax]

Jaro Stun wrote:

---

I'm pretty sick of their neverending "we make Star Trek which is not really a Star Trek, so don't worry..."
Just me personally, I feel insulted when I see this.

They are trying so hard to make it NOT feel, look or watch like Star Trek.
You ask why?

Star Trek is a brand, like any other. They know, Star Trek fans will go see it regardless of anything else, just because of the two magical words in the title.

Which means all the rest of potential audience remains, which will NOT see it, just because "Star Trek is the nerdy stuff", and they must try hard to persuade them, especially by smirking on the fans of the lore they abuse.

What we get now is
- Avengers with Star Trek in the title or
- Dark Knight with Star Trek in the title
- Star Wars with Star Trek in the title, etc.
basically any movie that happened to grab a substantial audience in the past, thinking - "let's do the same thing just put the guys into geeky Trek uniforms"

I so much more appreciate the honest effort of CBS to remaster TNG and maybe later series as well. Despite S2 "disaster" they are investing into the franchise I grew to love.
What JJ is doing is just grabbing some money, here and now. You think this will re-energize Star Trek? Spawn a new series? Think again. At best, one more movie to go and we are back where we have been at the end of Enterprise.

Disclaimer: I know I will go see that movie. Because I like good movies and good scifi movies. This may be one. But by far, I don't consider this Star Trek. It is waaay something else.

I'm going through the conversation. But YES to Jaro Stun!

[Ovation]

AloriaDax wrote:

---

This is what I am talking about. This is why I DGAF about this guy. This is why he pisses me off. He loves that they didn't make the movie for the fans? What is that? Who did you make it for then? He's not even a fan. I wish someone who was a fan was doing the new movies. Someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job at making me care about the "NuTrek".

You do understand that Paramount studios is a "for profit" business that does not have as its primary mission the goal of ensuring a tiny group of purists will have their expectations met at the expense of attaining commercial success, right?

Moreover, you are being far too literal-minded in your quest to feel offence at what Abrams said. The context of his statement is clearly meant to indicate the film was made to be intelligible and interesting to the general public, as well as Star Trek fans (rather than for Trek fans first and everyone else later). As a fan since 1973, having seen every episode ever made (many in multiples of ten, for TOS, the rest at least 3 time each, if not more), every movie (again, multiple times each) and having read over 100 novels and nearly as many comics set in the Trek universe, I have ZERO problems with Abrams' statement--I applaud it wholeheartedly. He's not dismissing Trek fans, he's trying to enlarge the scope of its fan base. So far, he's doing quite well in that endeavour.

Does every last Trek fan have to like Abrams' version? Of course not. It's like ice cream. I love ice cream. I'm the biggest fan of ice cream I know. I don't like every flavour of ice cream out there, though (I loathe pistachio ice cream, for one thing). Others love pistachio ice cream. Good for them. I don't but I also don't deny pistachio ice cream is actually ice cream. Different flavours for different tastes.

As for your statement that "someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job"--no guarantees there. I love Star Trek (inasmuch as one can "love" an entertainment franchise) but I have no skills in filmmaking that even remotely rival those of Abrams and co. And while I may be going out on a limb here, neither, I suspect, do you.

[marc0702]

If he made a film for Star Trek fans only, it would have had Nemesis box-office results, as I'm sure we're the only ones that saw it in theaters.

[Dale Sams]

Ovation wrote:

---

You do understand that Paramount studios is a "for profit" business that does not have as its primary mission the goal of ensuring a tiny group of purists will have their expectations met at the expense of attaining commercial success, right?

Moreover, you are being far too literal-minded in your quest to feel offence at what Abrams said. The context of his statement is clearly meant to indicate the film was made to be intelligible and interesting to the general public, as well as Star Trek fans (rather than for Trek fans first and everyone else later). As a fan since 1973, having seen every episode ever made (many in multiples of ten, for TOS, the rest at least 3 time each, if not more), every movie (again, multiple times each) and having read over 100 novels and nearly as many comics set in the Trek universe, I have ZERO problems with Abrams' statement--I applaud it wholeheartedly. He's not dismissing Trek fans, he's trying to enlarge the scope of its fan base. So far, he's doing quite well in that endeavour.

Does every last Trek fan have to like Abrams' version? Of course not. It's like ice cream. I love ice cream. I'm the biggest fan of ice cream I know. I don't like every flavour of ice cream out there, though (I loathe pistachio ice cream, for one thing). Others love pistachio ice cream. Good for them. I don't but I also don't deny pistachio ice cream is actually ice cream. Different flavours for different tastes.

As for your statement that "someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job"--no guarantees there. I love Star Trek (inasmuch as one can "love" an entertainment franchise) but I have no skills in filmmaking that even remotely rival those of Abrams and co. And while I may be going out on a limb here, neither, I suspect, do you.

*My* trek would have been lauded as one of the greatest Trek films ever produced...would have made $15million and been responsible for killing off the franchise.

[AloriaDax]

Ovation wrote:

---

You do understand that Paramount studios is a "for profit" business that does not have as its primary mission the goal of ensuring a tiny group of purists will have their expectations met at the expense of attaining commercial success, right?

Moreover, you are being far too literal-minded in your quest to feel offence at what Abrams said. The context of his statement is clearly meant to indicate the film was made to be intelligible and interesting to the general public, as well as Star Trek fans (rather than for Trek fans first and everyone else later). As a fan since 1973, having seen every episode ever made (many in multiples of ten, for TOS, the rest at least 3 time each, if not more), every movie (again, multiple times each) and having read over 100 novels and nearly as many comics set in the Trek universe, I have ZERO problems with Abrams' statement--I applaud it wholeheartedly. He's not dismissing Trek fans, he's trying to enlarge the scope of its fan base. So far, he's doing quite well in that endeavour.

Does every last Trek fan have to like Abrams' version? Of course not. It's like ice cream. I love ice cream. I'm the biggest fan of ice cream I know. I don't like every flavour of ice cream out there, though (I loathe pistachio ice cream, for one thing). Others love pistachio ice cream. Good for them. I don't but I also don't deny pistachio ice cream is actually ice cream. Different flavours for different tastes.

As for your statement that "someone who loves Star Trek would have done a much better job"--no guarantees there. I love Star Trek (inasmuch as one can "love" an entertainment franchise) but I have no skills in filmmaking that even remotely rival those of Abrams and co. And while I may be going out on a limb here, neither, I suspect, do you.

Oh yes, I understand that. But my understanding of it in no way contributes to me liking it. I understand that people want money and devise all kinds of schemes to get it. And okay, when it comes to Star Trek I am a purest, but it's because I have loved it so much for so long that when someone comes in and admits to not being a fan and admits to not making his Star Trek movies for the fans I do take issue with that. If I didn't say this, I meant that someone who loves Star Trek would do a much better job at making me like the new movies. And my movie making abilities have nothing do to with any of this. Just because I am not making movies doesn't mean I don't have a right to dislike and complain about them. They want me to pay my money to see them, that gives me a right to have an opinion.

[Ovation]

Sure. Just as I have the right not to like pistachio ice cream (though my opinion is more meaningful, if only to myself, if I've actually tasted pistachio ice cream--same applies to the latest Trek movie, incidentally). I even have the right to complain about pistachio ice cream. What I don't have the right to do is suggest that those who like pistachio ice cream are not really lovers of ice cream or that that particular flavour is not real ice cream. I also have no right to expect that anything but pistachio will be made in the future, when it comes down to it (even if I would be highly disappointed if that were the case).

No one is forcing anyone who doesn't like the flavour of Trek served up by Abrams to watch it. It really is that simple. No one is "owed" any particular type of entertainment from any creator of such. You are simply free to choose whether or not it is to your liking.