star trek 3 without jjabrams - Page 3

Magellan · February 12 2013, 09:56 AM

Even for fans of new Star Trek I'm not sure losing JJ is going to be all that devastating. For the most part I think changing directors can keep a movie series fresh. It's not like this is his baby and we can't even imagine anyone else making a good Star Trek movie. We've had good ones by other directors before, no reason we wont have more after him.

SalvorHardin · February 12 2013, 10:22 AM

AllStarEntprise wrote:

Hmm so between now and 2016 (Trek's 50th anniversary) JJ is supposed to direct and produce, Star Wars VII, Star Trek XIII, and Mission Impossible 5, and any other movie and TV projects he aspires to complete....

I hear he might also be taking over as Pope and rebooting the Catholic church now that Benedict XVI is stepping down.

heavy lids · February 12 2013, 04:14 PM

SalvorHardin wrote:

AllStarEntprise wrote:

Hmm so between now and 2016 (Trek's 50th anniversary) JJ is supposed to direct and produce, Star Wars VII, Star Trek XIII, and Mission Impossible 5, and any other movie and TV projects he aspires to complete....

I hear he might also be taking over as Pope and rebooting the Catholic church now that Benedict XVI is stepping down.

Hahahahaha.

Dix · February 12 2013, 05:58 PM

BillJ wrote:

A bunch of Trek nerds luckily are not in charge of the new films.

It's worse. A bunch of ungifted dilettantes are in charge.

Nerys Myk wrote:

Why would they want that? Are they afraid that there would be three successful Trek films in a row?

I guess they don't want to wait for the King of Lens Flares to finish with all those other projects.

Dukhat wrote:

Er, why?

Why not?

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

Because a group a "fans" want Star Trek to remain something only a small and shrinking fanbase enjoys until it eventually dies out.

That worn out false choice again.

AllStarEntprise wrote:

The man is an artist.

The man is a con artist.

Magellan wrote:

It's not like this is his baby and we can't even imagine anyone else making a good Star Trek movie. We've had good ones by other directors before, no reason we wont have more after him.

Exactly.

Admiral Buzzkill · February 12 2013, 06:06 PM

Dix wrote:

BillJ wrote:

A bunch of Trek nerds luckily are not in charge of the new films.

It's worse.

No. Nothing would be worse than that.

In the meantime, most of us are enjoying the new Star Trek.

And Abrams is not going to "take a break" after the Star Wars movie.

Konata Izumi · February 12 2013, 08:24 PM

My Name Is Legion wrote:

And Abrams is not going to "take a break" after the Star Wars movie.

Why couldn't that happen?

AllStarEntprise wrote:

The man is an artist. Not a director for hire.

With all respect to him as an artist, I hope he's more of a director for hire in Star Wars - do the technical stuff great but leave the blobby look to Star Trek. Here it was fresh, in Star Wars it'd be doing it wrong.

...not that I can remember anything about them, but it's edgy and post-TOS Trek's smooth, aren't they? Maybe the prequels are more blobby though. Still different from Trek.

anh165 · February 12 2013, 08:27 PM

Dix, stop being so selfish with this call for tired rehashed cheese trek, the needs of the many easily outweigh yours buddy.

There is a huge back catalogue of berman-era nelix cheese fest trek you can loop over and over.

Konata Izumi · February 12 2013, 08:33 PM

^Can't there be different new type of Trek? Also he's got to tell someone how it's ruined to him. Otherwise things would progress like American Psycho

yousirname · February 12 2013, 08:46 PM

I feel like Abrams' presence or absence as director of the third film is largely irrelevant. Given the success of ST09 and assuming the success of STID, Paramount aren't apt to sign off on some massive tonal or stylistic shift for the third film - don't mess with success and all that. Any incoming director would presumably be required to stay within shouting distance of Abrams' treatment of the material.

anh165 · February 12 2013, 09:06 PM

The original 6 movies had different directors, yet the styling and tempo of storyline seemed to carry through all of them.

All though I think ST V had very much lead character self-indulgence in it not dissimilar to what you'd find in Insurrection and Nemesis.

Dukhat · February 12 2013, 11:42 PM

Dix wrote:

It's worse. A bunch of ungifted dilettantes are in charge.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

I guess they don't want to wait for the King of Lens Flares to finish with all those other projects.

Wow, yet another joke about lens flares! I've been hearing this silly joke for four years and it never gets old!

Why not?

You stated that you think he should not make the films anymore. I asked you why. "Why not" isn't a valid answer.

The man is a con artist.

Yep, he conned people out of $300 million dollars of their money, and looks to be about to do the same thing again four years later. And in all that time nobody's caught on to his dastardly deeds. He's a con artist, alright!

CorporalClegg · February 13 2013, 02:28 AM

Dukhat wrote:

Dix wrote:

It's worse. A bunch of ungifted dilettantes are in charge.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

He's just jelly.

Mirror Sulu · February 17 2013, 07:38 AM

Two words:

Nick. Meyer.

BillJ · February 17 2013, 08:18 AM

Mirror Sulu wrote:

Two words:

Nick. Meyer.

Three words:

Box. Office. Bomb.

Meyer's day has come and gone. I think he'd be ill-equipped to make a summer tent pole movie now.

Enterprise is Great · February 18 2013, 11:50 PM

When was the last time Meyer even directed a movie?

February 12 2013, 09:56 AM	#31
Magellan Lieutenant	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams Even for fans of new Star Trek I'm not sure losing JJ is going to be all that devastating. For the most part I think changing directors can keep a movie series fresh. It's not like this is his baby and we can't even imagine anyone else making a good Star Trek movie. We've had good ones by other directors before, no reason we wont have more after him.

February 12 2013, 08:27 PM	#37
anh165 Lieutenant Commander	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams Dix, stop being so selfish with this call for tired rehashed cheese trek, the needs of the many easily outweigh yours buddy. There is a huge back catalogue of berman-era nelix cheese fest trek you can loop over and over.

February 12 2013, 08:33 PM	#38
Konata Izumi Lieutenant Commander Location: Helsinki, Finland	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams ^Can't there be different new type of Trek? Also he's got to tell someone how it's ruined to him. Otherwise things would progress like American Psycho

February 12 2013, 08:46 PM	#39
yousirname Commander	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams I feel like Abrams' presence or absence as director of the third film is largely irrelevant. Given the success of ST09 and assuming the success of STID, Paramount aren't apt to sign off on some massive tonal or stylistic shift for the third film - don't mess with success and all that. Any incoming director would presumably be required to stay within shouting distance of Abrams' treatment of the material.

February 12 2013, 09:06 PM	#40
anh165 Lieutenant Commander	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams The original 6 movies had different directors, yet the styling and tempo of storyline seemed to carry through all of them. All though I think ST V had very much lead character self-indulgence in it not dissimilar to what you'd find in Insurrection and Nemesis.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 17 2013, 07:38 AM	#43
Mirror Sulu Lieutenant Junior Grade Location: N. Ireland	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams Two words: Nick. Meyer.

February 18 2013, 11:50 PM	#45
Enterprise is Great Rear Admiral	Re: star trek 3 without jjabrams When was the last time Meyer even directed a movie? __________________ JJverse Star Trek...is gonna rock again! On May 17, 2013!