• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Star Trek has survived many different directors. Frankly, it's amazing that Star Trek still exists at all. I'm sure everything will work itself out. At least now Hollywood has an idea of what a new, successful Trek franchise can look like.

I just hope that Paramount doesn't cut the budget for Trek 3 in response.
 
Star Trek has survived many different directors. Frankly, it's amazing that Star Trek still exists at all. I'm sure everything will work itself out. At least now Hollywood has an idea of what a new, successful Trek franchise can look like.

I just hope that Paramount doesn't cut the budget for Trek 3 in response.

Probably all depends on who they'd get to replace Abrams.
 
Star Trek has survived many different directors. Frankly, it's amazing that Star Trek still exists at all. I'm sure everything will work itself out. At least now Hollywood has an idea of what a new, successful Trek franchise can look like.

I just hope that Paramount doesn't cut the budget for Trek 3 in response.

Assuming STID makes a good profit and since Bad Robot and Abrams will still be involved in some way, why would they?
 
I just hope we won't have to wait another 4 years for it.

Considering Disney apparently wants to do a film every 2-3 years, I don't think they're going to let any director wait four years to do a sequel.

Disney and Lucasfilm still haven't confirmed this yet so it's still wait and see. I've been of a fan of JJ since Alias. I loved Lost and thought he saved the Star Trek franchise with the last film. He's got definite flaws as a filmmaker and writer but I think he's a good choice for this.
 
Abrams was in part criticized for making Star Trek too much like Star Wars. It does not logically follow that he will ruin Wars too (unless you think he will make it too much like Trek...?) :p
 
^That's actually a pretty good point.
I'm a big fan of Abrams so if and at this point it's still a big if, he is doing SWVII I'm thrilled. At this point the only people I would be happier about would be Whedon or Speilberg, and I'm pretty sure those two have been 100% ruled out.
 
Star Trek has survived many different directors. Frankly, it's amazing that Star Trek still exists at all. I'm sure everything will work itself out. At least now Hollywood has an idea of what a new, successful Trek franchise can look like.

I just hope that Paramount doesn't cut the budget for Trek 3 in response.

Assuming STID makes a good profit and since Bad Robot and Abrams will still be involved in some way, why would they?

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.
 
Interesting news. Not sure what to think at the moment, but part of me likes this news, while other part of me wants to know who will direct the next trek movie?
 
Interesting news. Not sure what to think at the moment, but part of me likes this news, while other part of me wants to know who will direct the next trek movie?

Why couldn't Abrams do both, hypothetically?

There's no rule that says you have to commit yourself to one franchise exclusively. Or can't alterate between series.

Just saying.
 
Creative incest. Should Peter Jackson have directed Harry Potter films? Or should George Lucas have directed The Motion Picture back then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top