RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,087
Posts: 5,399,001
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 537
Newest member: extremedalek

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


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 > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 27 2013, 06:03 PM   #436
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
It really varies from movie to movie. I'd wager heavily that Abrams will have FAR less influence on Wars than he did with Trek. Disney are gonna be keeping a very close eye indeed.

Nobody even mentions Richard Marquand when discussing Return of the Jedi.
If he has control over release date, I'd wager he has quite a bit of control. Seems like maybe Disney wanted him on Episode VII and may have made some concessions to make it happen.

Whether or not its a good thing... we'll see.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 06:46 PM   #437
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Ovation wrote: View Post
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).
I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.

In the case of, say, episodes of Aaron Sorkin TV shows, the directorial presence is often negligible; their main duty being to orchestrate the walk-and-talks that balance out the massive dialogue dumps. This is the main difference between TV and movies - in TV, directors have little to no control over the script, and are often discouraged from getting too flashy, especially when a house style has already been established.

Ergo, the extent of Abrams' influence will likely depend on how much creative input the producers allow him. Star Wars movies also have a very classical style, with very little of the handheld-heavy/you're right there verve of MI:III and Trek XI. It'll be interesting to see which influence will win out - but then again, the ultra-propulsive feel of Abrams' movies are in large part due to the intensity of their scripts.
Gaith is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 06:48 PM   #438
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Gaith wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).
I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.
Indeed. I've seen scripts that have gone through at least seven writers.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is online now  
Old January 27 2013, 07:01 PM   #439
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

It all depends on the contract between the director and the studio. In films like the ones we're talking about, it's really the producers that shape the movie. Abrams is hardly an auteur.

Avation wrote:
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films
I've seen every existing film Alfred Hitchcock directed (I wrote my university dissertation on Freudian themes in his work and got the only A in the class!), and very few of his 50+ films are serious misfires. Stuff like Murder, Secret Agent, The Paradine Case and Torn Curtain are weak but when you make that many films you're bound to go wrong sometimes. Hell, Torn Curtain contains one of the finest murder scenes of his career.

Last edited by DalekJim; January 27 2013 at 07:14 PM.
DalekJim is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 07:13 PM   #440
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Indeed. I've seen scripts that have gone through at least seven writers.
Aye. But, in a case when the only scriptwriter's work was respected, who was more important to Juno, Diablo Cody or Jason Reitman?

It's entirely possible that Disney was more interested in Abrams' name and reputation than in his creative input, and it's entirely possible Abrams agreed to be more or less a director-for-hire because he just couldn't resist the Star Wars glory. Time will tell...
Gaith is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 07:18 PM   #441
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Abrams is hardly an auteur.
Disney doesn't give a fuck, they just want a billion dollar movie and figure Abrams is the one best qualified to make that happen.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 07:20 PM   #442
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

BillJ wrote: View Post
DalekJim wrote: View Post
Abrams is hardly an auteur.
Disney doesn't give a fuck, they just want a billion dollar movie and figure Abrams is the one best qualified to make that happen.
What does that have to do with the point I was making, or the discussion we were having, about who has the most creative control on the movie?
DalekJim is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 07:32 PM   #443
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Gaith wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).
I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.

In the case of, say, episodes of Aaron Sorkin TV shows, the directorial presence is often negligible; their main duty being to orchestrate the walk-and-talks that balance out the massive dialogue dumps. This is the main difference between TV and movies - in TV, directors have little to no control over the script, and are often discouraged from getting too flashy, especially when a house style has already been established.

Ergo, the extent of Abrams' influence will likely depend on how much creative input the producers allow him. Star Wars movies also have a very classical style, with very little of the handheld-heavy/you're right there verve of MI:III and Trek XI. It'll be interesting to see which influence will win out - but then again, the ultra-propulsive feel of Abrams' movies are in large part due to the intensity of their scripts.
With respect to TV, directors are far less important as "authors", in relation to script and pacing (house style is important), so I agree with your Sorkin example. They remain crucial, in my view, regarding the actors' performances--I'd wager any time an established character seems "out of character" on a TV series, the flaw was likely in the direction. However, my overall point was directed at film direction, rather than TV direction.

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Avation wrote:
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films
I've seen every existing film Alfred Hitchcock directed (I wrote my university dissertation on Freudian themes in his work and got the only A in the class!), and very few of his 50+ films are serious misfires. Stuff like Murder, Secret Agent, The Paradine Case and Torn Curtain are weak but when you make that many films you're bound to go wrong sometimes. Hell, Torn Curtain contains one of the finest murder scenes of his career.
Torn Curtain's murder scene is a classic (best part of the movie by far) but it is a weaker Hitchcock film. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is also a weak entry in his filmography. Jamaica Inn is a poor effort, period (Hitchcock or no).

I love Hitchcock's films, he is my favourite director by a country mile but my point in raising his weaker entries is that one cannot dismiss a director with a notable body of work based on a few lesser efforts. Moreover, while Hitchcock releases were often successful, a good number of them were not initially popular and have only become highly respected in hindsight. I am not, in any way, suggesting Abrams is in the same league as Hitchcock but I prefer to judge his overall worthiness as a director after a few more releases. I was merely pointing out that Abrams will have, like any film director, a significant impact (positive or negative) on the quality of whatever film he is directing and that it is wrong to dismiss him (or any director) as irrelevant or "disposable" (as one poster did above). Whether masters or journeymen, directors play a key role in the filmmaking process.
Ovation is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 08:13 PM   #444
FPAlpha
Rear Admiral
 
FPAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Mannheim, Germany
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
It really varies from movie to movie. I'd wager heavily that Abrams will have FAR less influence on Wars than he did with Trek. Disney are gonna be keeping a very close eye indeed.

Nobody even mentions Richard Marquand when discussing Return of the Jedi.
I don't know for sure.

One thing i was extremely hesitant about The Avengers after they announced Joss Whedon to helm it was how much would Marvel meddle in his affairs. Joss has proven before that the's the nerd god, that he knows his Marvel universe (he's written some pretty popular stuff for Marvel) and that he knows how to write good scenes. However he was still an untried blockbuster movie director.. as much as we like Serenity that's all he has to show concerning a movie director career and the movie, strictly speaking, flopped at the box office.

However someone, somewhere at Marvel knew to keep the hands off the creative process and let Joss do his thing and he delivered one of the most successful movies of all time.

It can happen with Abrams.. he has more clout than Whedon, has produced some profitable and generelly favorable reviewed movies and he's got a fitting style for such movies. The question is how much freedom has Abrams negotiated before signing the deal?

I hope it's a lot.. i don't want to ever see another Jar Jar or anything else in a Star Wars movie who's there to make the small kids laugh. There are better ways to do this as Pixar has proven. I'm confident that Abrams has worked out a good deal with Disney because he doesn't need Star Wars to bolster his rep but Disney needs a good reboot of the franchise and after Trek Abrams seems to be the man.

One can only hope.. of course the fandom can be outta luck and Abrams delivers a pile of crap but i somehow doubt it.
__________________
"But that emergency was supposed to be the fall of an Avenger!" Phil Coulson
"Exactly!"
Nick Fury
FPAlpha is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 08:42 PM   #445
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Indeed. I've seen scripts that have gone through at least seven writers.
But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers. It is almost a mathematical law that the quality of a script is inversely proportional to the number of screenwriters. The belief that the director is the primary creator and the script is so much sausage is, near as I can tell, the main cause for Hollywood's powerful tendency towards mediocrity. Unless you are just horrified at an idea that can be implicitly critical of the Hollywood system, I don't know what the arguments are really about.

Scriptwriter is primary creator doesn't equate to director doesn't matter. Also, not all film is scripted, and the director is the primary creator in those cases. The people who emphasize the importance of the director migh wonder, though, why so little film is unscripted.

It is true that the modern system tends to invest the most power in the director (except when the bankable star is directing his or her performance, plus who knows what else.) Being the studio's man is not the same as being the main creator. The issue is further confused by director's so often being writers, cinematographers and editors, which are also important creative roles.

Since director's edit the films, every theatrical release is the real director's cut. Who's editing the double dip fake director's cut releases?
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 08:46 PM   #446
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

stj wrote: View Post
But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers.
Cough. Casablanca. Cough.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now  
Old January 27 2013, 08:48 PM   #447
Mr. Adventure
Admiral
 
Mr. Adventure's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Adventure
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Gaith wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).
I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.

In the case of, say, episodes of Aaron Sorkin TV shows, the directorial presence is often negligible; their main duty being to orchestrate the walk-and-talks that balance out the massive dialogue dumps. This is the main difference between TV and movies - in TV, directors have little to no control over the script, and are often discouraged from getting too flashy, especially when a house style has already been established.
I've always heard that with film it's directors and with TV it's writers that call the shots.
Mr. Adventure is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 08:51 PM   #448
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

^
That's about it in a nutshell. But TV and film are two totally different beasts.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is online now  
Old January 27 2013, 09:11 PM   #449
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Police State
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Did not know Arndt wrote Oblivion.

You learn something new every day...
__________________
"Your advertising's just dandy. Folks'd never guess you ain't got a thing to sell."
Set Harth is offline  
Old January 27 2013, 09:15 PM   #450
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

Mr. Adventure wrote: View Post
I've always heard that with film it's directors and with TV it's writers that call the shots.
Uh, unless the writer is also a showrunner than a writer has zero power over how the episode turns out. In fact, the showrunner could re-write your whole script and you'd have no say in it.

Writers generally have fuck-all power in film or TV.
DalekJim is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
j.j. abrams, star wars

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 04:29 AM.

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