jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

[The Wormhole]

royalfan5 wrote:

---

A Trek Film and A Wars Film will likely never be released in anything resembling the same time slot.

Plus, only once has a Trek movie and a Wars movie been released in the same year: 2002 with AOTC and Nemesis. And even then, there's seven months seperating the two movies.

[Therin of Andor]

Anji wrote:

---

Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

New talent will always emerge, but you really want Hollywood to nuture a series of one-hit wonders?

if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

I seem to recall fan speculation that Whoopi Goldberg signing a huge contract with Disney would preclude her participation in TNG's Season 5. I sent her a fan letter and she replied with an autographed photo, "See you next season."

I'm glad I don't work for you. How is "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" a "conflict of interest"? They are quite different takes on the science fantasy genre and serve different demographics with only some crossover.

[Greg Cox]

royalfan5 wrote:

---

Plus, it's not like people are out there thinking that in the next two years I am only going to see one Sci-Fi movie, because the same guy is directing both.

That's it in a nutshell. In what universe does the average person decide that they can only see one movie with "STAR" in the title, directed by J. J. Abrams, over the course of a few years?

Let's be honest: 99.9999% of us are going to see both movies, regardless of who is directing them. So where's harm?

More importantly: a successful STAR TREK movie does not hurt STAR WARS, and vise versa, unless they're both opening within a few weeks of each other. Good scifi movies just make people want more good scifi movies.

[YARN]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Well conceived metaphors and analogies are always welcome.

In that case, there shouldn't be a problem.

Seeing as how you have not laid out any criteria for good examples and metaphors this is an empty statement. It would be like dismissing an argument as lacking substance without showing how the argument lacks substance. Not surprisingly, this is the next move you make...

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

I engage plenty, and I attribute as much matter and substance as the argument necessitates, which is to say none.

OK. And I say the opposite. How's that for proof!

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Your argument doesn't stand on anything.

No, my argument stands on reasoned grounds. See how easy it is to just make claims? This is a wonderful new mode of analysis you've introduced us to.

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

That's the whole problem. You've made an ostentatious show of crying over the spilt milk. You can blame the cat, the wind, or Sid the wily dairy gnome. In the end you have to clean up and move on. The rest of us did that on Friday. Yet you continue to play the victim where there was no crime. Now the shit has curdled on the floor.

But I am not crying. I find the whole thing amusing.

I am basically content that JJ is directing Star Wars (a little nervous, but hopeful) and I don't really care what happens with the 3rd film. I am, however, pointing out to the nu-faithful that change is indeed a comin'

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Move on, dude and find something better to occupy your time. At the very least, you can always hang with Tebow by the punchbowl and watch Sanchez do the tango with his career.

I suppose it is a shameful thing to be preoccupied by a message board, but then again, you're here, so I guess I am no worse off than you are on that count.

[royalfan5]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

That's it in a nutshell. In what universe does the average person decide that they can only see one movie with "STAR" in the title, directed by J. J. Abrams, over the course of a few years.

Let's be honest: 99.9999% of us are going to see both movies, regardless of who is directing them. So where's harm?

Even if they did come out the same day, I'd probably back to back it, although I would see Trek first.

[CorporalClegg]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

I'm glad I don't work for you. How is "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" a "conflict of interest"? They are quite different takes on the science fantasy genre and serve different demographics with only some crossover.

One could summarize both in nearly identical sentences. But, yes, in practice they are two completely different beasts.

Like Greg suggested, I love both, expect great things from both, and will be in line on opening day to see both.

And the studios would never allow them to face-off.

[Greg Cox]

Anji wrote:

---

Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

Well, as a "creative" myself, let me just point out that, at any given time, I'm usually working for at least three different franchises, from various studios and publishers.

As long as I meet my deadlines, and don't prioritize one project over another, nobody has ever complained to me about conflicts of interest . . . .

It's all about logistics and time-management. Nothing more.

[Tom Servo]

YARN wrote:

---

In that case, there shouldn't be a problem.

Seeing as how you have not laid out any criteria for good examples and metaphors this is an empty statement. It would be like dismissing an argument as lacking substance without showing how the argument lacks substance. Not surprisingly, this is the next move you make...

OK. And I say the opposite. How's that for proof!



No, my argument stands on reasoned grounds. See how easy it is to just make claims? This is a wonderful new mode of analysis you've introduced us to.

But I am not crying. I find the whole thing amusing.

I am basically content that JJ is directing Star Wars (a little nervous, but hopeful) and I don't really care what happens with the 3rd film. I am, however, pointing out to the nu-faithful that change is indeed a comin'

I suppose it is a shameful thing to be preoccupied by a message board, but then again, you're here, so I guess I am no worse off than you are on that count.

No, you think change is coming. And you seem to be hammering that home quite nicely. If nuTrek wasn't your thing, then at this point it's just gloating on your part to those of us that do enjoy it, that JJ is working on something else as well.

And if you really don't care about what happens with the third film, why do keep reiterating what you think is going to happen to it?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Tom Servo wrote:

---

...why do keep reiterating what you think is going to happen to it?

Who cares? It's not the least bit interesting.

"The new Star Trek movie is from that guy who did the last Star Wars movie" is a very good thing for Star Trek. That's just flat-out true.

[Tom Servo]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Who cares? It's not the least bit interesting.

"The new Star Trek movie is from that guy who did the last Star Wars movie" is a very good thing for Star Trek. That's just flat-out true.

Very true. Good point.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Anji wrote:

---

And second, if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

George Lucas and Lucasfilm produced Raiders of the Lost Ark for Paramount in 1981 between producing Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Return of the Jedi (1983) for 20th Century Fox. I realize that Raiders was not "space sci-fi", but it had very much the same audience demographic as the Star Wars films.

It is very common for directors and producers to work with multiple studios. There is no "conflict of interest". This is not 1940s Hollywood "studio system" with exclusive studio contracts.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anji wrote:

---

And second, if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

This may be one reason that you're not a movie studio executive - because by the standards of the business there is no "conflict of interest" here. None.

There's no downside for Paramount to continuing their business relationship with Bad Robot. If anything, they might worry about the company being wooed away.

[YARN]

Tom Servo wrote:

---

No, you think change is coming.

Change is already upon us. That was a big announcement.

Tom Servo wrote:

---

If nuTrek wasn't your thing, then at this point it's just gloating on your part to those of us that do enjoy it, that JJ is working on something else as well.

I do like nu-Trek. I think the last film was better than most other Trek movies. It was much better than Nemesis. I am looking forward to part 2.

If my line of analysis, however, is upsetting to you, I'll leave off. Fair enough?

Tom Servo wrote:

---

And if you really don't care about what happens with the third film, why do keep reiterating what you think is going to happen to it?

I care more about characterizing general conditions more than the particulars of the next film. It's too soon to really worry about the quality of the next film, but we can certainly note that it appears that the positioning of creative talent in the franchise is on the move. I can be interested in one (more proximate concern) than another (more distant concern).

[BillJ]

All I know is that if I can't scrape together twenty bucks over a years time to see two films, my life will have taken an incredibly bad turn.

I think Abrams competing with himself is a good thing for both franchises. Even if he's only sitting in the producers chair for Trek 3.

[CorporalClegg]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think Abrams competing with himself is a good thing for both franchises. Even if he's only sitting in the producers chair for Trek 3.

+1