jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It doesn't make much difference whether he directs Trek 3 or not - no one's ever expected him to go on directing all of them; he wasn't even a sure thing a year and a half ago for the second one. What matters for now is that he and Bad Robot are running the show.

A few movies down the line we should expect another reboot with a new team anyway - see Batman; Spider-Man; X-Men.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

It doesn't make much difference whether he directs Trek 3 or not - no one's ever expected him to go on directing all of them; he wasn't even a sure thing a year and a half ago for the second one. What matters for now is that he and Bad Robot are running the show...

If I recall correctly, wasn't there some talk back in 2006 whether he would actually be directing the first one or not? He and Bad Robot were set to produce, but whether he would also direct was still a question at the time.

[CorporalClegg]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

If I recall correctly, wasn't there some talk back in 2006 whether he would actually be directing the first one or not? He and Bad Robot were set to produce, but whether he would also direct was still a question at the time.

Yup.

There was even a little talk that he might not direct ST09 IIRC.

[Tom Servo]

YARN wrote:

---

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

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?

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).

Fair enough. I think we all just hope we continue to get quality Trek for years to come.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

If I recall correctly, wasn't there some talk back in 2006 whether he would actually be directing the first one or not? He and Bad Robot were set to produce, but whether he would also direct was still a question at the time.

Yeah. Paramount didn't sign up Bad Robot just to get Abrams behind the camera. For example, after directing Mission Impossible III he produced but did not direct Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and everyone at the studio was very happy with that.

[CorporalClegg]

My ultimate hope is this whole escapade is the extra leverage Paramount needs to convince CBS to get a series going.

As I previously said in one of these threads, we are in an era where television has surpassed film in scope, depth, and all-around quality of storytelling, and there is no Star Trek show on the airwaves. I think that's a real shame.

I think it's the perfect time to go back, and this might be just the kick in the rear TPTB needed.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why would they do that if Into Darkness is a success? The natural and sensible thing then is to go ahead with the third movie.

Maybe Abrams will get Brad Bird to direct it?


OTOH, there is simply no clear path to big success with a Trek TV series in the current industry.

[Ovation]

Anji wrote:

---

I would like say, though, if JJ is doing all these new, hot movies, that doesn't leave any room for any up and coming directors. Which is a pity. Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. Commercial Hollywood studios are NOT charity organizations with the obligation to promote "up and coming directors". They are businesses interested in making a profit. Besides, Abrams, Nolan, Vaughn, hell, even Spielberg at one time, were all "up and coming directors". Why should they not reap the benefits of their earlier work when it becomes possible to do so?

[The Mirrorball Man]

Besides, Hollywood is producing hundreds of movies every year. It's not as if Star Trek was the only opportunity for up and coming directors to prove their worth.

[Franklin]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

My ultimate hope is this whole escapade is the extra leverage Paramount needs to convince CBS to get a series going.

As I previously said in one of these threads, we are in an era where television has surpassed film in scope, depth, and all-around quality of storytelling, and there is no Star Trek show on the airwaves. I think that's a real shame.

I think it's the perfect time to go back, and this might be just the kick in the rear TPTB needed.

I agree with what you say about the much higher quality of the production values of many TV series in recent years, but for what it's worth, I've honestly gotten to the point where I have little or no interest in a new Trek TV series, any more. At least not just any Trek TV series. A very high quality, well-funded, and well-cast attempt to bring Kirk et al back to TV might cause my eyebrow to rise.

[royalfan5]

Franklin wrote:

---

I agree with what you say about the much higher quality of the production values of many TV series in recent years, but for what it's worth, I've honestly gotten to the point where I have little or no interest in a new Trek TV series, any more. At least not just any Trek TV series. A very high quality, well-funded, and well-cast attempt to bring Kirk et al back to TV might cause my eyebrow to rise.

Honestly at this point, I'd be more interested in a Trek series that aired on Showtime instead of over the air channels. I think that might allow them push things a little more.

[Franklin]

royalfan5 wrote:

---

Honestly at this point, I'd be more interested in a Trek series that aired on Showtime instead of over the air channels. I think that might allow them push things a little more.

Or like a lot of BBC series, just six or fewer episodes a season, but with a lot of effort put into each.
Still, I think it would only catch my interest if they brought the original TOS crew back to TV. I can't see myself getting invested in yet another version of Trek in yet another time and setting with yet another set of characters in maybe yet another universe.

[DarthTom]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

My ultimate hope is this whole escapade is the extra leverage Paramount needs to convince CBS to get a series going.

As I previously said in one of these threads, we are in an era where television has surpassed film in scope, depth, and all-around quality of storytelling, and there is no Star Trek show on the airwaves. I think that's a real shame.

I think it's the perfect time to go back, and this might be just the kick in the rear TPTB needed.

Shows like Trek are very expensive to make for television and almost have to be home run from the get go to pay for themselves.

Look at all of the high production quality TV shows that didn't get renewed because even though the their ratings were adequate it simply doesn't make financial sense to make them.

Revolution is one of the few shows returning that probably cost a lot of money to make compartiavely to the hugely popular Dancing with the Stars which cost a pittance to produce.

TV success stories like The Walking Dead are an anomaly in today's 300 channel environment.


I'm not sure the ratings would be there for Trek to pay for itself on regular broadcast television and still do it right in terms of production quality.

[USS Excelsior]

[CorporalClegg]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Why would they do that if Into Darkness is a success? The natural and sensible thing then is to go ahead with the third movie.

Maybe Abrams will get Brad Bird to direct it?


OTOH, there is simply no clear path to big success with a Trek TV series in the current industry.

I didn't mean a series instead of a third film. It's a foregone conclusion that, unless STID is a total flop, which it won't be, there will be a third film.

However, the future beyond that isn't nearly as clear now. Even since ST09 was first announced, there has been scuttlebutt that it was intended to be a trilogy. That makes sense. Hollywood loves trilogies. And I think the news puts it more in the "likely" column.

Sure, Bad Robot could finish the third film and say "full steam ahead!" For all we know, Disney only intends this to be a one film gig and plan to pass EpiVIII off to Whedon, Affleck, Verbinski, etc.

On the other hand, Paramount might find themselves facing, at best, a recasting and staffing or, at worst, another reboot and may feel that Star Trek simply lacks the ubiquitous slate comics have that so easy allow for multiple restarts.

However, for awhile now the rumor-mill has been churning out Trek series talk. It seems like Paramount has had its hand on the red phone to CBS for awhile now, but hasn't had reason to start dialing--even if STID is success.

So instead of risking things on the unknown future of the film franchise, the CBS/Paramount PTB could decide that, between the second and third films, they start putting the pieces in place for a series to hit the ground after the third film. That way they can keep the momentum going while they decided what to do about the fourth.

It has the added bonus of allowing for Abrams to put his stamp on it (and perhaps supply a couple of his TV minions) while requiring very little of him physically. Then they'd just bring in MacFarlane, JMS, or whatever name is flavorful that week.

Franklin wrote:

---

I agree with what you say about the much higher quality of the production values of many TV series in recent years, but for what it's worth, I've honestly gotten to the point where I have little or no interest in a new Trek TV series, any more. At least not just any Trek TV series. A very high quality, well-funded, and well-cast attempt to bring Kirk et al back to TV might cause my eyebrow to rise.

See, I believe Trek simply works best on television. My biggest problem with film Trek is it does seem limited to one type of film. Since TWOK, there's really been one template that all films have followed, save one. Each film has gone outside the various lines, sure, but only slightly. And as the years have passed, that template seems to have become more ridged and strict. In fact, I don't know if TVH gets made today.

Don't get me wrong, I love the template. As long as they keep making them, I continue to go see them, and as long as they're of good, I'll enjoy them. However, a little variety would be nice.

This is especially true when you consider the stories Trek seems to be best at--the classics. Corbominte, City, Inner Light, Vistor, etc. all work so much better on television, and I just don't see a story of those various natures to ever be made into blockbuster films.