So Justin Lin is a Star Trek fan.....

[M'Sharak]

Now, I don't like being cynical. I really don't.

But I remember some fans being very critical about JJ not being a Trek fan, but a Star Wars fan. And now the new director turns out to be a Trekkie.

And part of me just can't help but wonder if that's some kind of PR stunt, with JJ now doing Star Wars 7. Do the studios think it will look good to have a fan direct the new Star Trek? And have Lin claim to be a Trekkie?

Damn, I gues I am that cynical....

Going by what Lin said in the interview under discussion in this thread, when Abrams approached Lin concerning the position, he didn't know anything at all about whether Lin liked Star Trek or not. Given no solid reason to think otherwise, I'd assume, first and foremost, that Abrams went to Lin because he thought Lin might be the right guy for the gig.

That he also turns out to have been a fan is a happy coincidence.

I can be pretty cynical or skeptical about a lot of things, but I'm not inclined to view this as anything but a case of "hiring a guy to direct a film, based on his demonstrated ability and aptitude for the job".

 

[Cyke101]

Justin Lin isn't exactly a household name; not like Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Burton, etc. So I also doubt that he was hired for any sort of celebrity name brand recognition (few directors are hired for that reason, too). His track record, however, was enough to hire him.

 

[RoJoHen]

Justin Lin isn't exactly a household name; not like Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Burton, etc. So I also doubt that he was hired for any sort of celebrity name brand recognition (few directors are hired for that reason, too). His track record, however, was enough to hire him.

Indeed. I've never even heard of the guy until this thread!

 

[Malaika]

Justin is a fan but I don't think he's a 'trekkie' or big fanboy about it (which is good) My impression from his interview is that trek holds a special space in his heart because his parents were fans and watching the episodes with them was the only time in the day he could spend with his parents because the rest of the day they worked. He also mentioned that the other kids could go watch movies on the big screen while he didn't so they were star wars kids while he was the star trek kid only. It's sweet what trek represented to him.

As for JJ not being a fan, not that it's a requirement for me but for the sake of the argument: he actually said he wasn't a fan as a CHILD because he didn't get it as a kid (not so crazy to imagine) but when he watched it as an adult he became a fan. He might not be a trekkie but he doesn't hate it and he knows the characters.

 

[Mudd]

What Lin's saying is that he has an emotional connection to the material; the project is resonant with him in terms of his childhood. That gives me a lot more hopeful feeling than would, for example, some claim that he's a trekkie or that he's immersing himself 24/7 in Trek lore to prepare for the assignment.

 

[BillJ]

What Lin's saying is that he has an emotional connection to the material; the project is resonant with him in terms of his childhood. That gives me a lot more hopeful feeling than would, for example, some claim that he's a trekkie or that he's immersing himself 24/7 in Trek lore to prepare for the assignment.

+1

 

[Greg Cox]

And we should probably acknowledge that there's a whole spectrum of STAR TREK fans out there. The world is full of casual fans who have watched and enjoyed various versions of STAR TREK over the years, but who don't necessarily take part in organized "fandom," attend conventions, write fan fiction, learn Klingon, read the novels (sob), or argue on the internet about what constitutes a fan.

Doesn't mean that they don't have fond memories of watching this series or that movie and have some degree of interest in and affection for STAR TREK. Which means they're STAR TREK fans--to varying degrees.

It's not an either/or thing.

 

[johnjm22]

I don't care if Lin is a fan or not, but I do care that he respects ST. Which he clearly does.

For example, I don't feel like Stuart Baird cared much about ST.

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

 

[Christopher]

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

I think STID suffered from respecting ST too much, to the point of slavish homage. Although I think that comes more from Lindelof than Abrams. Lindelof was the one who insisted on using Khan.

Although there were some ways in which STID respected the legacy of Trek very well. I really liked the way it recreated the "Arena"/"Devil in the Dark" dynamic of Kirk being gung-ho to attack a perceived enemy over Spock's objections, then belatedly listening to Spock's urgings and attempting a more peaceful solution.

 

[Firebird]

What Lin's saying is that he has an emotional connection to the material; the project is resonant with him in terms of his childhood. That gives me a lot more hopeful feeling than would, for example, some claim that he's a trekkie or that he's immersing himself 24/7 in Trek lore to prepare for the assignment.

It's that childhood resonance is what makes everything we've seen for JJ's Episode VII look so good, IMO. Having the influence go that far back brings a special feel to the approach for the project. Knowing Lin has that kind of connection to Star Trek gives me plenty of confidence. That's the better foot to start out on than JJ's repeated statement of "I was never a Star Trek fan, but..." during all the press tours for ST09.

 

[BillJ]

That's the better foot to start out on than JJ's repeated statement of "I was never a Star Trek fan, but..." during all the press tours for ST09.

I still don't get why Abrams stating he wasn't a fan is such an issue? Would you rather he lied to you?

 

[johnjm22]

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

I think STID suffered from respecting ST too much, to the point of slavish homage. Although I think that comes more from Lindelof than Abrams. Lindelof was the one who insisted on using Khan.

I understand that perspective, but to me it wasn't about respect, it was about pandering.

It felt like the filmakers had a long check list of items they wanted to include in the movie. The script was connecting the dots between check list items. It seemed very lazy and formulaic to me. That's why I got the impression JJ didn't care much about it.

 

[fireproof78]

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

I think STID suffered from respecting ST too much, to the point of slavish homage. Although I think that comes more from Lindelof than Abrams. Lindelof was the one who insisted on using Khan.

I understand that perspective, but to me it wasn't about respect, it was about pandering.

It felt like the filmakers had a long check list of items they wanted to include in the movie. The script was connecting the dots between check list items. It seemed very lazy and formulaic to me. That's why I got the impression JJ didn't care much about it.

How so?

Khan didn't enter it until Lindlof suggested it, so ,the idea of a check list is rather baffling to me to be honest

I agree with Christopher's perspective, too, in that I think STID tried too hard to hold on to Trek lore, rather than moving forward, and allowing the consequences of the world they built carry forward. They did to some degree, but tied themselves to the continuity too much, in my opinion, mostly because of the long shadow TWOK continues to cast.

 

[Christopher]

That's why I got the impression JJ didn't care much about it.

It's too easy to assume that if something doesn't work out right, or at least not to our satisfaction, that it's because the people involved didn't care. But life isn't so straightforward. Sometimes people can make a sincere, passionate effort to do the best job they can and it still turns out disappointing. Especially in something as complicated to make as a motion picture, with so very many things that can go wrong. So it's really not fair to make assumptions about how much people cared.

I mean, surely you've attempted to do things that didn't turn out well, even when you really did care and tried your hardest. I know I have, and I'm sure everyone else has too. Caring is not a guarantee of success.

As for being formulaic, that isn't necessarily lazy. Sometimes it's just that someone gets an idea in their head about how something should be done, and they commit to it so much that it's hard for them to see alternatives. Being overly fixated on a goal is the opposite of being lazy. So both laziness and its opposite can produce similar results. Another reason why it's risky to speculate about the motives behind the results we see.

 

[johnjm22]

I didn't say the people involved didn't care. I said it felt that way, and gave off that impression. I have no doubt that Orci cared. (Although I'm not a fan of his work).

I understand what you're saying Chris about things not being so straightforward. I've worked many creative projects. Sometimes a project comes out great, and sometimes things don't work, but in the end you don't necessarily know why.

Still, I stand by my statement that the movie excessively, and needlessly pandered. Which it absolutely did.

 

[BillJ]

It's too easy to assume that if something doesn't work out right, or at least not to our satisfaction, that it's because the people involved didn't care. But life isn't so straightforward. Sometimes people can make a sincere, passionate effort to do the best job they can and it still turns out disappointing. Especially in something as complicated to make as a motion picture, with so very many things that can go wrong. So it's really not fair to make assumptions about how much people cared.

I mean, surely you've attempted to do things that didn't turn out well, even when you really did care and tried your hardest. I know I have, and I'm sure everyone else has too. Caring is not a guarantee of success.

As for being formulaic, that isn't necessarily lazy. Sometimes it's just that someone gets an idea in their head about how something should be done, and they commit to it so much that it's hard for them to see alternatives. Being overly fixated on a goal is the opposite of being lazy. So both laziness and its opposite can produce similar results. Another reason why it's risky to speculate about the motives behind the results we see.

I don't agree with Christopher often, but he is spot on here. Plus, it is hard to hang everything on the creators when we have no idea what kind of input and pressures Paramount put on the production.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't say the people involved didn't care. I said it felt that way, and gave off that impression. I have no doubt that Orci cared. (Although I'm not a fan of his work).

I understand what you're saying Chris about things not being so straightforward. I've worked many creative projects. Sometimes a project comes out great, and sometimes things don't work, but in the end you don't necessarily know why.

Still, I stand by my statement that the movie excessively, and needlessly pandered. Which it absolutely did.

If my project got panned as "not Star Trek enough" I would probably pander too.

It's hard not to be insulted by that.

 

[drt]

Plus, it is hard to hang everything on the creators when we have no idea what kind of input and pressures Paramount put on the production.

Yeah, I would be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of pressure coming from Paramount to use Khan in STID.

And back to the OP, I've actually thought that the Abrams' "I wasn't really a Star Trek fan" bit was probably encouraged/exaggerated by Paramount's marketing folks as part of the "not your father's Star Trek" campaign.

 

[Morpheus 02]

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

I think STID suffered from respecting ST too much, to the point of slavish homage. Although I think that comes more from Lindelof than Abrams. Lindelof was the one who insisted on using Khan.

Although there were some ways in which STID respected the legacy of Trek very well. I really liked the way it recreated the "Arena"/"Devil in the Dark" dynamic of Kirk being gung-ho to attack a perceived enemy over Spock's objections, then belatedly listening to Spock's urgings and attempting a more peaceful solution.

Was Khan actually slavish homage, or trying to exploit a known moneymaker?

Some have implied that Abrams didn't care/respect ST, but I never felt like that was the case with ST2009. STID is another story.

I think STID suffered from respecting ST too much, to the point of slavish homage. Although I think that comes more from Lindelof than Abrams. Lindelof was the one who insisted on using Khan.

I understand that perspective, but to me it wasn't about respect, it was about pandering.

It felt like the filmakers had a long check list of items they wanted to include in the movie. The script was connecting the dots between check list items. It seemed very lazy and formulaic to me. That's why I got the impression JJ didn't care much about it.

IS it homage or trying to duplicate success without being too original?

Khan wasn't homage -- that was simply using the most-loved Trek villain...but doing so in a way that didn't make much sense in this new movie universe.

The opposite was Christopher Pike... not a whole lot like his TOS appearance...but due to acting by Bruce Greenwood, his short scenes made him a legit reason why this situation was "personal" for Kirk.

Plus, it is hard to hang everything on the creators when we have no idea what kind of input and pressures Paramount put on the production.

Yeah, I would be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of pressure coming from Paramount to use Khan in STID.

And back to the OP, I've actually thought that the Abrams' "I wasn't really a Star Trek fan" bit was probably encouraged/exaggerated by Paramount's marketing folks as part of the "not your father's Star Trek" campaign.

I also feel like the studio gave that pressure in the same way execs insisted on a time travel aspect in Enterprise.

khan "worked" then, just like the original crew. Why not now?

It doesn't matter who's a fan and who isn't. It's a nonsense standard. There are tons of fanfic writers and fan filmmakers who do terrible work, although there are some who do quite well. Love for a property does not equal skill at writing or filmmaking. Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Trek fan -- in fact, he was rather contemptuous of Roddenberry's optimistic view of the future -- and yet most people think highly of his Trek movies.

Besides, it's well-known that the "Supreme Court" behind the Bad Robot films includes two devoted Trek fans, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof, as well as outsiders like Abrams and Bryan Burk. Among them, they provided a balance of both fan and non-fan perspectives, which is exactly what you need for a project like this, that needs to appeal to broader audiences as well as established fans.

And arguably it was Lindelof's fanboy insistence on including Wrath of Khan homages that damaged Into Darkness. It can be a bad idea for a filmmaker to be too much of a fan of a property. Good writing or filmmaking requires the ability to kill your darlings -- to step back from sentiment and self-indulgence and take a hard, critical look at what works and what doesn't. It's good to be able to consider your property with an objective eye. (By analogy, I've always found that some of the most insightful and understanding portrayals of religion in fiction have come from atheist or agnostic writers. They have the ability to step back and get perspective on the subject rather than being mired in a single viewpoint.)

Anyway, this whole insistence on whether directors are fans or not is just another obnoxious exercise in gatekeeping, an attempt to mark territory and claim that only fans should be allowed to participate. Which is an odious and harmful attitude. It's not bad to let outsiders into the clubhouse. We should want to share the things we enjoy with other people. Fandom is supposed to be about liking things. It should be more about "Hey, guys, look at how cool this is, you wanna play too?" rather than "Stay away, the precious is mineses!"

To say "It doesn't matter who's a fan and who isn't. It's a nonsense standard." to me is really off...

Really, being someone who is known as a great director or actor doesn't guarantee a good film either. Spielberg has messed up a few things in his day. And Bryan Singer, who made a solid success with a comic book-based Movie (X-Men), somehow messed up Superman Returns. Or actors -- we all know several films that even the best actors have made that just stunk.

And with Robert Wise...TMP was in a time pre-internet, and very few viewing options (as well as Trek hunger)...i doubt it would've done as well in today's climate. As a child, i think i recalled the movie being a ripoff of 3 episodes (the Nomad episode, Doomsday Machine, and something else i am forgetting), and certainly as a 6 year old, fell asleep in.


What a "fanboy" can also add is hype. That's especially important in this world of social media, and short attention spans.

So the Flash Gordon TV series..which the 2nd half actually felt like a modern take on Gordon, lost so many people early on, that it never got a chance to recover (ratings-wise)

On the flip-side, the Flash has gotten much more excitement due to judiciously using people of the past (like the 1990's series leads), and so new announcements about merely casting choices get pre-show excitement.

Or movie-wise...the Raimi Spiderman movies are accessible to kids and casual fans...but the fans get hyped about the Spiderman theme thrown in, or a well-played J. Jonah Jameson (which, as a result of "fanboy" casting, gets JK Simmons some recognition to help him do other more serious work & respect)

A fanboy who is also a good director/producer knows which elements from the past and how it should be done to make the new feature make sense.

They know how to make a feature that the general audience will like, but fanboys will love and see & talk about multiple times.

Oh, and not being a fan can also make you blind to things that made that property popular in the first place, and help you frame the movie correctly. The Nemesis director was famous for not knowing Trek .. and you can feel it in the film.

Christopher..you point out Nicholas Meyer being director of the successful Trek 2...but it was Harve Bennett who came up with the storyline...and though Harve as well wasn't a "fan" early on....he became a student of Trek, and did the original binge watching to understand it enough to pick out a good "seed" to grow his movie.

 

[DeMilburn]

I think if you look at this way, Star Wars and Star Trek have had such a HUGE impact on popular culture the vast majority of people are going to fall into one side or the other. So people who make films, almost all them would be able, I think I could say with some confidence, admit to being a fan of one or the other. As being film makers they would have looked at these universes and marveled. Plus the fact that they where released many years ago, a lot of people have seen Trek / Wars at an early age and could not help but fall in love with one or the other. I would summise that if Lin was not a trek fan, they would not have mentioned it in any capacity. Much the same way that it was JJ himself who declared his Star Wars preference.