Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[davejames]

Trek is hardly the first thing that comes to mind when I think of JJ Abrams. It's more likely to be Lost or Alias.

[RoJoHen]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Why not?

Directors go cross genre with franchises all the time.

A Peter Jackson Harry Potter series would just now be releasing The Prisonor of Azkaban: Part 2.

[JarodRussell]

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

Why not?

Directors go cross genre with franchises all the time.

Perhaps Chris Nolan should do Iron Man 4 then.

[JD]

I'd be up for that.

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, that sounds kinda cool.

[Harvey]

BillJ wrote:

---

While it's different people, you'd have thought The Final Frontier would've had a bigger budget based on the financial success of the prior four films. Paramount may not let another director draw up a huge budget for a follow-up that isn't done by Abrams.

Watching the films now, it's hard to believe, but the studio did give Shatner more money than Nimoy had on the fourth film.

Nimoy's movie cost the studio $22 million to produce (it came under its $23 million budget). Shatner's movie cost the studio $32 million (going over its $31.25 million budget).

[CorporalClegg]

JD wrote:

---

I'd be up for that.

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Yeah, that sounds kinda cool.

Totally.

[Greg Cox]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Creative incest. Should Peter Jackson have directed Harry Potter films? Or should George Lucas have directed The Motion Picture back then?

Should James Cameron have directed TERMINATOR and ALIENS?

Should Irwin Kershner have directed THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN?

Should Martin Campbell have directed GOLDENEYE and THE MASK OF ZORRO?

Should James Whale have directed FRANKENSTEIN and THE INVISIBLE MAN?

Are directors only allowed one franchise per career? Of course not, that would be silly.

(P.S. I would so buy a ticket to see Nolan's take on IRON MAN.)

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Wow, crazy news if true. I'm generally speaking a fan, so I'm OK with the choice, he'll do a good job bringing back the OT sense of fun. But also kind of disappointed considering all the talent out there that the same guy is doing Star Trek and Star Wars. Generally speaking I hope we don't have the same "creative voice" in both properties.

It seems strange how much later they are picking a director than the writer. Most directors who were rumored all had projects happening and couldn't commit.

[Dream]

Harvey wrote:

---

Watching the films now, it's hard to believe, but the studio did give Shatner more money than Nimoy had on the fourth film.

Nimoy's movie cost the studio $22 million to produce (it came under its $23 million budget). Shatner's movie cost the studio $32 million (going over its $31.25 million budget).

It's quite funny that TUC cost $27 million, LESS than TFF, but TUC still looks so much better!

[davejames]

Harvey wrote:

---

Watching the films now, it's hard to believe, but the studio did give Shatner more money than Nimoy had on the fourth film.

Nimoy's movie cost the studio $22 million to produce (it came under its $23 million budget). Shatner's movie cost the studio $32 million (going over its $31.25 million budget).

Clearly that extra money did not go to the special effects department.

[Bob Karo]

Is it too early to give a totally meaningless nomination to Brad Bird to direct Trek XIII?

[Greg Cox]

Again, this is nothing new. Back in the day, Leo McCarey directed both Laurel & Hardy and The Marx Bros. I doubt if audiences had any problem with this.

So what's the problem with Abrams doing both Wars and Trek, as long as the scheduling works?

[flavaflav]

As long as he has zero input with the story and visual style, fine. otherwise, pass.

[CorporalClegg]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

So what's the problem with Abrams doing both Wars and Trek, as long as the scheduling works?

Nothing.

But my guess he hold produces Trek III. Also, it doesn't seem like Orci and Kurtzman will be going with him to Lucasfilm. My guess they write STIII while he's directing Star Wars.