RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,813
Posts: 5,472,395
Members: 25,038
Currently online: 413
Newest member: N7Operative21

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30 2013, 08:16 PM   #571
controlfreak
Commander
 
Location: Under foot.
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
controlfreak wrote: View Post
Abrams is the Nerd King of all of us.. Star Trek and Star Wars, and they'll both be worth watching!! Maybe a Trek vs. Wars film in the vein of AVP...I don't think Abrams is going to abandon the Trek franchise any time soon. He's only doing the one Star Wars for now. I like how everyone is freaking out, though.. I don't see why he can't do both. Wouldn't you want to do both if you could?
A bit like Betty or Veronica, isn't it?
You know you would if you could!! That's quite a sandwich.
__________________
I'm sorry, officer, but that's definitely not a breathalizer.
controlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 08:19 PM   #572
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Last I checked, you weren't the final arbiter of 'artistic use of lens flare.'

I found their use added to the frenetic energy that set Trek 09 apart from the other installments.
__________________
Some say that his helmet is bigger on the inside and that his favourite food group is nomex.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 08:21 PM   #573
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

trevanian wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
No one expects a Michelin Star meal. Just good cheeseburgers. We'll go somewhere else for gourmet when we feel like it.
Awful lot of effort going into defending the makers of cheeseburgers. Would make Ray Kroc proud.

THROWBACK's summary of the video intrigues me, as it touches on the notions that seem most essentially wrong with the Abrams treatment (apart from his horrid and childish visual treatment.) Will have to give it a watch.
Even Julia Child was on record as loving Burger King's french fries (but not McDonalds').

You go in knowing what to expect, and when it's done right, you're satisfied. And, a well-made cheeseburger is harder to find than one would think it should be, too.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 08:34 PM   #574
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Ovation wrote: View Post
So what? Really. So what? It's not like either Paramount or Disney owes the movie-going public anything by a specific date.In fact, neither of them owes us anything at all.
Nor do we owe anything to them. We don't owe them our time our attention or our hard earned dollars. We could simply take a pass on both franchises and they couldn't do a thing about it.

Seeing as how, however, they do want our money, and seeing as how Nemesis (and how many other failed films?) proved that not just anything will get our support, they do owe us.... ...something. It's not a moral imperative, but an economic imperative.

And seeing as how millions of dollars, careers, and even the health studios themselves are at stake, it turns out they owe us quite a bit.

They need to keep our interest, our good will, and most importantly our hope and faith.

Ovation wrote: View Post
They are entirely free to produce a film and release it when they damn well please.
Not really. As corporations, studios have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to make money. Studios cannot simply do anything they please, but must actively seek to turn a profit. They could not, therefore, push a release date to 2065, spend millions in development, and claim to be acting in good faith to their shareholders.

Since their legal charge and (apparent) self-interest is to maximize profit, they must, in fact, focus their efforts on the best strategies for exploiting their properties. They cannot simply do anything they please. If they did, they will not be in business for very long.

And what makes money? Making the public happy. Turns out we matter after all.

When lobbyists finally gain enough power to force congress to pass a law requiring us to buy movie tickets, perhaps it won't matter (we already have film copyright being protected and investigated by the Dept. of Homeland Security, as if video piracy makes one a homegrown terrorist), but until then, their fates depend on our tastes.

Ovation wrote: View Post
We are entitled to like, dislike or be indifferent to whatever they release--that is the extent of our rights.
And what else do you think happens on an anonymous internet forum (the few that are left now that Reddit and Facebook are ascendant)?

We are not only entitled to like and dislike, but to speak of our likes and dislikes and to express how we feel things ought to be. There is absolutely nothing improper about this and no amount of railing about the private property of filmmakers will make it otherwise.

Our talk here is not hurting their property. It does absolutely nothing, at least not directly, to impel or impede their plans or profits. Our talk here is just talk.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 08:56 PM   #575
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Franklin wrote: View Post
You go in knowing what to expect, and when it's done right, you're satisfied. And, a well-made cheeseburger is harder to find than one would think it should be, too.
Who doesn't love cheeseburgers?

There's an independent place two blocks from my front door, Stage Burger, that has the best cheeseburgers around. It's hard to find a place in this part of the country that offers sliced avocado - as distinct from guacamole, which a lot of places do.

Cheeburger, Cheeburger isn't bad, either, but they're more notable for their "frings" baskets.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 09:20 PM   #576
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

YARN wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
So what? Really. So what? It's not like either Paramount or Disney owes the movie-going public anything by a specific date.In fact, neither of them owes us anything at all.
Nor do we owe anything to them. We don't owe them our time our attention or our hard earned dollars. We could simply take a pass on both franchises and they couldn't do a thing about it.
Exactly my point.

Seeing as how, however, they do want our money, and seeing as how Nemesis (and how many other failed films?) proved that not just anything will get our support, they do owe us.... ...something. It's not a moral imperative, but an economic imperative.
Nope. They still owe us nothing. They can ask for our money in return for their product, but we are not owed anything prior to the handing over of the money--and even after that, we are not owed satisfaction.
And seeing as how millions of dollars, careers, and even the health studios themselves are at stake, it turns out they owe us quite a bit.
Nope. They only owe us an entertainment experience IF we choose to fork over the money. They are not required to satisfy us in any way. It is, of course, in their interest to satisfy as many people as possible, if they wish to stay in business, but they most certainly do NOT have to satisfy any one person in particular.
They need to keep our interest, our good will, and most importantly our hope and faith.
Judging by their past track record, collectively, they've already done this many times and will very likely do so again.

Ovation wrote: View Post
They are entirely free to produce a film and release it when they damn well please.
Not really. As corporations, studios have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to make money. Studios cannot simply do anything they please, but must actively seek to turn a profit. They could not, therefore, push a release date to 2065, spend millions in development, and claim to be acting in good faith to their shareholders.
Well, if you're going to parse technicalities to this degree in a causal discussion board, ok. They are beholden to their shareholders. Technically, as long as they convince the shareholders that a profit will be made, in some fashion or another, even with a release date of 2065, then they are free to do so. Of course, you knew perfectly well that I meant the "when they damn well please" in relation to the general public. I forgot I was responding to the kind of pedant who looks for technical exceptions to make tangential points in order to avoid conceding the larger, more obvious point. Won't happen again.

Since their legal charge and (apparent) self-interest is to maximize profit, they must, in fact, focus their efforts on the best strategies for exploiting their properties. They cannot simply do anything they please. If they did, they will not be in business for very long.
How they choose to act in order to remain in business is entirely up to them. Even whether they choose to remain in business is entirely up to them. There would be consequences to bad choices, of course, but they are still free to make them.

And what makes money? Making the public happy. Turns out we matter after all.
I'd say they're quite skilled at doing so, given the very high degree of happiness they have, collectively, engendered among the public (measured by the only criterion that matters--the number of people who paid to see the work).

When lobbyists finally gain enough power to force congress to pass a law requiring us to buy movie tickets, perhaps it won't matter (we already have film copyright being protected and investigated by the Dept. of Homeland Security, as if video piracy makes one a homegrown terrorist), but until then, their fates depend on our tastes.
In that case, their fates seem rather promising, given the evidence available. But they remain free to offer what they want, when they want (subject, of course, to shareholder approval--don't want to forget the technicalities).

Ovation wrote: View Post
We are entitled to like, dislike or be indifferent to whatever they release--that is the extent of our rights.
And what else do you think happens on an anonymous internet forum (the few that are left now that Reddit and Facebook are ascendant)?

We are not only entitled to like and dislike, but to speak of our likes and dislikes and to express how we feel things ought to be. There is absolutely nothing improper about this and no amount of railing about the private property of filmmakers will make it otherwise.

Our talk here is not hurting their property. It does absolutely nothing, at least not directly, to impel or impede their plans or profits. Our talk here is just talk.
Certainly. People are free to talk all they like--whether they like Abrams' work, hate it or are unmoved by it. Never have I said otherwise. However, I will continue to say, as I am entirely correct in the matter, that no artistic producer (in the broadest sense, encompassing all manner of formats) owes anything in particular to the audience prior to receiving compensation of some sort and, subsequent to that compensation, owes ONLY an artistic product. NEVER does such a producer owe anyone whatsoever any form of satisfaction.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 09:43 PM   #577
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
You go in knowing what to expect, and when it's done right, you're satisfied. And, a well-made cheeseburger is harder to find than one would think it should be, too.
Who doesn't love cheeseburgers?

There's an independent place two blocks from my front door, Stage Burger, that has the best cheeseburgers around. It's hard to find a place in this part of the country that offers sliced avocado - as distinct from guacamole, which a lot of places do.

Cheeburger, Cheeburger isn't bad, either, but they're more notable for their "frings" baskets.
Actully got my picture on their wall for eating the Pounder (20 oz.) cheeseburger at the original Cheeburger, Cheeburger in Sanibel, FL a few years ago.

Spelunkers in Front Royal, VA (out by Skyline Drive). Best ever. Period. Frozen custard, too.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 09:46 PM   #578
ThunderAeroI
Rear Admiral
 
ThunderAeroI's Avatar
 
Location: Perpetually being chased by airplanes
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

I guess this then asks the question: What is the core difference between the two? I don't even know hoe to answer that question.

One seems more for grown-ups and one seems for kids, but really what is different about their souls?
__________________
No Where to be found, but everywhere you are - I'll be there looking for ways to save your life.
ThunderAeroI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 09:54 PM   #579
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Are we talking Cheeburger, Cheeburger vs. McDonald's or Trek vs. Wars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:05 PM   #580
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Enough with the cheeseburger analogies, I'm getting hungry.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:08 PM   #581
ThunderAeroI
Rear Admiral
 
ThunderAeroI's Avatar
 
Location: Perpetually being chased by airplanes
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Ovation wrote: View Post
Are we talking Cheeburger, Cheeburger vs. McDonald's or Trek vs. Wars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well I am talking about the shows. What is it that makes them different, what about their souls are different.
__________________
No Where to be found, but everywhere you are - I'll be there looking for ways to save your life.
ThunderAeroI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:24 PM   #582
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

ThunderAeroI wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Are we talking Cheeburger, Cheeburger vs. McDonald's or Trek vs. Wars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well I am talking about the shows. What is it that makes them different, what about their souls are different.
Does that matter? Even if their "souls" are different, that just means that a director has to adapt his style to fit the tone or genre or "soul" of whatever his current project is.

There's no reason a director can't make a gritty crime drama, then turn around and make a frothy romantic comedy that's completely different in tone. Ditto with different varieties of science fiction and space opera. You do STAR WARS when you're doing STAR WARS and you do STAR TREK when you're doing STAR TREK . . . and, hopefully, you don't forget which franchise you're working on today.

To paraphrase Mae West, "souls" have nothing to with it!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:43 PM   #583
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Ovation wrote: View Post
Are we talking Cheeburger, Cheeburger vs. McDonald's or Trek vs. Wars? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm all about the burgers.

All of this talk about "souls" boils down to, well, what talk about souls always does: a distraction from what's real. When you run out of actual facts to support your position, start gibbering about "soul," and "essence." Since neither are actual entities that can be defined, you can claim whatever you want.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:44 PM   #584
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
Enough with the cheeseburger analogies, I'm getting hungry.
OK, then how about this: "Star Trek" is like a nice lager, while "Star Wars" is more of an ale....

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
ThunderAeroI wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
Are we talking Cheeburger, Cheeburger vs. McDonald's or Trek vs. Wars? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well I am talking about the shows. What is it that makes them different, what about their souls are different.
Does that matter? Even if their "souls" are different, that just means that a director has to adapt his style to fit the tone or genre or "soul" of whatever his current project is.
I certainly think Abrams will be capable of both. He's got a chance to basically manage the team he grew up rooting for as a kid. Based on that, and the ownership he probably feels for SW as a life-long fan, it will be interesting to see if SW fans think he caught the franchise's "soul" or not. They may scrutinize him and be more critical than some Trek fans were.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30 2013, 10:47 PM   #585
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

Franklin wrote: View Post
SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
Enough with the cheeseburger analogies, I'm getting hungry.
OK, then how about this: "Star Trek" is like a nice lager, while "Star Wars" is more of an ale....
Getting thirsty now after eating all these burgers.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.