#BringinRiker
- Thread starter Bill Peters
- Start date
But going back to my earlier post, who would want to do it? Who's available to do it? Who has the experience of Trek?
With Abrams tied up doing Star Wars, Frakes may end up being the only viable choice. Look what happened when Paramount put Nemesis in the hands of Stuart Baird, someone with no experience of Star Trek. Now to be fair to him, the script was hogwash. He had very little to work with. I don't think there was ever much wrong with his direction per se. Marina's on record as saying the main cast where happy with the script for Nemesis, but they all hated the film. There's something wrong there.
The next Trek film will live and die by the story and the script, not by a director who may only be so so. Abrams had never done Trek, but the first reboot was successful because it had a good script, something which can't be said for Into Darkness.
At least, the new Bond movie allegedly has some massive script problems that make the as yet unwritten Star Trek XIII look like a masterpiece.
More great points from Admiral Bear!
I read a comment on Den of Geek and it made me think deeply and I could not help but agree. the comment said that it was strange how some trek fans loved to look to the past and not the future,ironic because star trek's main theme is about moving forward and I could not help but agree.
As much as fans love Frakes, I will rather not see him direct. He belongs to the classic past. I will rather see Edgar direct trek 3 and not someone from the past.
its the same with STID and the major flaw of the film, ST09 was a fresh start and was about moving forward. STID took a huge step back with all the rehashing and unnecessary referencing of the past even to the point of reacting a whole scene in WOK and that is why I am not a fan of the film.
I will love star trek 3 to be new and fresh in every possible way, a brand new criritcal acclaimed modern director like Edgar Wright and an original story that takes the series far into the future with no weird remembrance of the past is what the Trek Franchise needs.
As much as fans love Frakes, I will rather not see him direct. He belongs to the classic past. I will rather see Edgar direct trek 3 and not someone from the past.
its the same with STID and the major flaw of the film, ST09 was a fresh start and was about moving forward. STID took a huge step back with all the rehashing and unnecessary referencing of the past even to the point of reacting a whole scene in WOK and that is why I am not a fan of the film.
I will love star trek 3 to be new and fresh in every possible way, a brand new criritcal acclaimed modern director like Edgar Wright and an original story that takes the series far into the future with no weird remembrance of the past is what the Trek Franchise needs.
But going back to my earlier post, who would want to do it? Who's available to do it? Who has the experience of Trek?
With Abrams tied up doing Star Wars, Frakes may end up being the only viable choice. Look what happened when Paramount put Nemesis in the hands of Stuart Baird, someone with no experience of Star Trek. Now to be fair to him, the script was hogwash. He had very little to work with. I don't think there was ever much wrong with his direction per se. Marina's on record as saying the main cast where happy with the script for Nemesis, but they all hated the film. There's something wrong there.
The next Trek film will live and die by the story and the script, not by a director who may only be so so. Abrams had never done Trek, but the first reboot was successful because it had a good script, something which can't be said for Into Darkness.
At least, the new Bond movie allegedly has some massive script problems that make the as yet unwritten Star Trek XIII look like a masterpiece.
I can't believe I am actually agreeing with Maurice on something, but he's absolutely right, there. There are tons of directors out there that have zero sci fi, let alone, Star Trek experience that they can choose from. I think a clean slate of a director has a far better chance than Frakes does.
I personally wouldn't mind if Frakes got the job, but I would be very surprised if he did. First, the guy is like 20 years Orci's and Abrams' senior. To them, he's an old, has been. Thye are not interested in anything Frakes has to say. I mainly believe that the reason Frakes won't get the job is because of politics. They don't want anyone who had anything do do with the Berman/Braga era. It may not be fair, but because Frakes was the first of the spin off actors to get a shot at directing, he IS of that era. I think the next director will be someone with close ties with Abrams or Orci, that has done work with them. May or may not be an unknown, but I think they are going to get someone they believe is a team player and will direct in a way that carries out the material written they way they want it directed and produced. Not someone who has been on record of wanting to bring back a series spun off from the TNG era, like Frakes is, and has their own ideas what Star Trek ought to be.
Maybe for the 50th ann a look back to/celebration of the past is required
But going back to my earlier post, who would want to do it? Who's available to do it? Who has the experience of Trek?
With Abrams tied up doing Star Wars, Frakes may end up being the only viable choice. Look what happened when Paramount put Nemesis in the hands of Stuart Baird, someone with no experience of Star Trek. Now to be fair to him, the script was hogwash. He had very little to work with. I don't think there was ever much wrong with his direction per se. Marina's on record as saying the main cast where happy with the script for Nemesis, but they all hated the film. There's something wrong there.
The next Trek film will live and die by the story and the script, not by a director who may only be so so. Abrams had never done Trek, but the first reboot was successful because it had a good script, something which can't be said for Into Darkness.
At least, the new Bond movie allegedly has some massive script problems that make the as yet unwritten Star Trek XIII look like a masterpiece.
I can't believe I am actually agreeing with Maurice on something, but he's absolutely right, there. There are tons of directors out there that have zero sci fi, let alone, Star Trek experience that they can choose from. I think a clean slate of a director has a far better chance than Frakes does.
I personally wouldn't mind if Frakes got the job, but I would be very surprised if he did. First, the guy is like 20 years Orci's and Abrams' senior. To them, he's an old, has been. Thye are not interested in anything Frakes has to say. I mainly believe that the reason Frakes won't get the job is because of politics. They don't want anyone who had anything do do with the Berman/Braga era. It may not be fair, but because Frakes was the first of the spin off actors to get a shot at directing, he IS of that era. I think the next director will be someone with close ties with Abrams or Orci, that has done work with them. May or may not be an unknown, but I think they are going to get someone they believe is a team player and will direct in a way that carries out the material written they way they want it directed and produced. Not someone who has been on record of wanting to bring back a series spun off from the TNG era, like Frakes is, and has their own ideas what Star Trek ought to be.
exactly. You hit the nail on the heard with your words.
A CLEAN SLATE.
This s what star trek needs. we need to stop looking back.
With Shatner having fessed up to being in the new film (at least he was before Orci got fired), and given what we know about the story outline, a celebration of the past given the 50th coming up, was probably always the idea.
I partially disagree. I think you have to be careful with what you wish for. The results of a clean slate ie what we're all likely to get from it, are unknown. With the 50th coming up, I'd rather put the "50th Anniversary of Star Trek" movie in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. Paramount only gets one shot. They can't make another 50th anniversary movie if they give the first one to someone who fucks it up. This isn't the time for experimentation with the unknown.
If the film's successful, then you might get your clean slate after the 50th. However, I can see Paramount stopping Trek movies fairly soon. There's not enough box office interest. In the modern era, it can't keep making $150-$200m budget films that only gross $450m worldwide.
Star Trek is Gene's vision. It always has been, and always should be. Berman understood that when he took over TNG. Frakes understands it. Abrams doesn't. Orci doesn't. A clean slate is likely to produce something that simply isn't Star Trek. It'll be a generic space action movie with a ship called the USS Enterprise, and occasional references to Starfleet.
Serenity. vs. First Contact and Insurrection.
From a purely monetary standpoint (which - isn't that the whole argument a bunch of folks have been making about Bob Orci vs everyone else?) Frakes shitty little Sci Fi movies > Whedon's shitty little Sci Fi movies.
Plus, in a weird kinda crossover situation, Frakes directed what I would call the best episode of Dollhouse. So there's that too.
PLUS - the situation is different. Whedon, with only a $38 Million movie that made a loss was given the keys to the crowning achievement of what was already an almost billion dollar franchise to help further the brand. Frakes, IF given Trek 3 would be rounding out the Trilogy and contracts of the actors in an effort to make some money. There is no long term goal for this iteration of Trek on the silver screen. This is it.
Given the genre they work in, comparative success' of previous movies based on TV shows and significantly different goals in the directing chair, I'd say the potential for Frakes getting the gig isn't a million miles away in a universe where Whedon went from two failed FOX shows to the third biggest movie of all time.
Whedon has also done award-winning work. His directing and writing styles are taught in film schools and are emulated by others.
Frakes has none of that.
Frakes has none of that.
^ In response to that, I quote Perry Cox:
"Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring."
"Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring."
Uh-uh, pick that up. Don't you know there are fines for littering?^ In response to that, I quote Perry Cox:
"Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring."
Not in the slightest.
Not if anyone wants to like it.
It became Berman's version.
This has nothing to do with directing a film. This is merely lip service.
Yes, they also have careers and are gainfully employed at all times because of it. Pandering to "Gene's vision" is pandering to a small part of the fan base.
That's basically what Star Trek's always been.
Whedon won a Daytime Emmy award for Dr Horrible, and a Saturn for The Avengers.
Considering The Avengers is what I'm comparing Trek 3 too, thats not exactly relevant. Dr Horrible is the only award prior.
Now, don't get me wrong - Firefly is one of my favorite shows of all time, Dollhouse was OK and The Avengers is fucking spectacular, but purely on fiscal earnings and cinematic work - Frakes at this point has more bank than Whedon did prior to Avengers (which again, is what I'm alluding to with Trek 3).
Hence, when I say - there is precedent for the director of a small time sci fi show based on a TV show taking on a massive franchise, I mean it in those strict terms only. Of course I know Whedon did Buffy and Angel for a decade. And built up a stupidly loyal fanbase. Plus he co-wrote Toy Story, and script doctored pretty much most of the big hits of the 90s. But none of that has to do with the bank of his little sci fi film (which, again, Serenity was amazing and I love it very much - it didn't make back its budget though).
THAT is why I feel there is a comparison - purely in the realm of movies, Frakes made more money from his "little" sci fi projects...
...I just looked up Thunderbirds though, and holy fuck, I didn't realise it lost THAT much money. As much as I loved the TV show and hated that flick though, I can't blame Frakes entirely. Looking up the writers for it, everything they've worked on has been pretty fucking dire.
But then again, Whedon did script work on Waterworld, and we all know how that one turned out :P So I think theres still some credence to my theory.
I don't know if I would want Joss Whedon anywhere near Trek. His baby was Firefly - widely touted as the anti-Trek - and so I question how dedicated he could possibly be TO Trek.
And like I said, I really could give a shit how many awards he won. Okay, yeah, maybe he's won more of them than Frakes has, and maybe his directing credentials are more pronounced. But everybody's got to start somewhere. Jonathan Frakes has more of a ST pedigree than Whedon could ever hope to have. However good, or bad, his previous films might have done at the box office, Frakes' dedication to Star Trek is without question. That alone counts for a lot.
As for a "clean slate"? I see why people might want that, true, but be careful you don't wipe the slate so clean that it stops being Trek. Admiral Bear has a perfectly valid point: You can have a science fiction action movie, with ships named Enterprise, and operated by a 'Starfleet', but what still makes it Star Trek? As long as you keep that essential Trekkiness, I'm OK with it, but don't deviate too far from it.
And like I said, I really could give a shit how many awards he won. Okay, yeah, maybe he's won more of them than Frakes has, and maybe his directing credentials are more pronounced. But everybody's got to start somewhere. Jonathan Frakes has more of a ST pedigree than Whedon could ever hope to have. However good, or bad, his previous films might have done at the box office, Frakes' dedication to Star Trek is without question. That alone counts for a lot.
As for a "clean slate"? I see why people might want that, true, but be careful you don't wipe the slate so clean that it stops being Trek. Admiral Bear has a perfectly valid point: You can have a science fiction action movie, with ships named Enterprise, and operated by a 'Starfleet', but what still makes it Star Trek? As long as you keep that essential Trekkiness, I'm OK with it, but don't deviate too far from it.
I thought it was decent enough watching in the theater. But it was immediately forgettable for me after walking out of the theater and I've never had any desire to see it again (like all the Marvel films).
I actually have the opposite experience with MCU stuff. I avoided it until I was dragged to Avengers in 2012 because superheroes never interested me. Its success got louder and louder and I just constantly retreated. Then I saw it and... still didn't care. I liked some of the script and that was the extent of that.
Then in October of that year while visiting a friend in Arizona I was convinced to sit down and watch everything I had missed
The films of Phase 1 were of course a mixed bag but I thoroughly enjoyed a couple of them. She made me rewatch Avengers as a "finale" article and it was suddenly quite good. I got it, and I have seen it a few times since and caught all of Phase 2 in theaters. My fandom levels are nowhere near that of Trek or a few other things but I'm a happy casual dammit.
Uh, anyway, as for Frakes. Sure, why not. XIII is in such convoluted rumor-driven flux right now I don't even know what to believe. Wake me up after January and let me know if the new series rumor was true or not. Until then I'm utterly confused.
Then in October of that year while visiting a friend in Arizona I was convinced to sit down and watch everything I had missed
The films of Phase 1 were of course a mixed bag but I thoroughly enjoyed a couple of them. She made me rewatch Avengers as a "finale" article and it was suddenly quite good. I got it, and I have seen it a few times since and caught all of Phase 2 in theaters. My fandom levels are nowhere near that of Trek or a few other things but I'm a happy casual dammit.
Uh, anyway, as for Frakes. Sure, why not. XIII is in such convoluted rumor-driven flux right now I don't even know what to believe. Wake me up after January and let me know if the new series rumor was true or not. Until then I'm utterly confused.
I like Frakes but while he can make a good script better he can't do a lot with a mediocre one; FC was the second best Trek film but Insurrection one of the worst so I don't have enough confidence in him.
Regardless, displeased as I was with ID, Trek should be going forward and more innovative rather than backward or emulating another style. I would prefer a new Trek with a bit more of a TNG style rather than ID but that would still feel tired and like a cheat.
Regardless, displeased as I was with ID, Trek should be going forward and more innovative rather than backward or emulating another style. I would prefer a new Trek with a bit more of a TNG style rather than ID but that would still feel tired and like a cheat.
Similar threads
