YARN
Fleet Captain
The question is whether it could be adequately diminished such that he could do justice to both franchises.
Abrams: Star Wars AND Star Trek
- Thread starter TrekToday
- Start date
The question is whether it could be adequately diminished such that he could do justice to both franchises.
Correct. And, in your opinion, the answer is...?
No.
The difference between an immensely talented man like Abrams working in the current movie business and people like Spielberg, or Lucas, or Scott, or a number of others in the last generation is that they were able to build their reputations creating original films based on their own ideas - or, at the very least, based on source material that didn't have a studio's fingerprints on it several times over.
Today even the best seem to spend most of their careers toiling to deliver product for one franchise or another - movies adding to an already existing series, remakes, flicks generated from comic books, toys, old TV shows and even board games.
I'm sure that Abrams will deliver an awesome Star Wars movie, and more great Star Trek. But he's not going to be remembered decades from now for his films if he's not able to create memorable original hits.
No, none at all.
YARN
Fleet Captain
You have that answer. I think he should focus his efforts on the new franchise. It's true that a person can attempt to do many things at once, but rather than try to ride two horse at once, he should over the reins to another rider.
I agree that the latest film may benefit from this news (it is, after all, already in the can), but the third Trek film would now be competing for attention with the very first film in the restart of the most beloved film franchise in history.
If Star Wars is not a hit, if it is another prequels-type nightmare, this could really hurt JJ. A new Star Wars movie must be great. Trek, on the other hand, was so tired and weak that a decent entry would be heralded as an achievement. JJ has stated that for him Star Wars is sacred and that he would not approach it lightly (indeed, he claimed that he would not approach it at all - I guess $$$ solved that problem). I don't blame him and I think he should focus his efforts on SW.
It's a good thing that guys like Abrams aren't dependent for career guidance on kids posting on the Internet.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Indeed, the groupthink and blind JJ nut-hugging in this forum alone might cause him to think he could walk on water and drown.
I think most of the folks who've expressed a positive opinion of the film in this forum have a pretty grounded view of the film and Abrams.
I understand, yes, thank you. I do now see why he could never beat Spielberg because of his successful original screenplays compared to JJ's
But in my above quoted statement my 'key words' were: "geekdom wise", meaning among fandom.
Any reference to screenplays is notably absent in my post. Some directors write and some don't; some directors make movies like E.T. and Star Wars...and some directors make franchise flicks like Mission Impossible and Star Trek. Abrams got in a good shot with Super 8, but while it made a tidy profit it did not win wide praise or a place in recent film history as particularly memorable. He's still short a Jaws or an American Graffitti, much less an E.T., a Star Wars or an Alien before he can ascend into the pantheon alongside his heroes and mentors.
Abrams has written a script or two, as has Lucas (I really don't know if Spielberg writes, I'm embarrassed to admit). Nonetheless, my point stands.
"Among geekdom?" Fuck "geekdom;" nerd praise don't feed the bulldog. OTOH, Lucas and Spielberg pretty much invented skiffy movie geekdom.
We're not drinking the punch.
So my interpreting you're statement: "he's not going to be remembered decades from now for his films if he's not able to create memorable original hits." to mean original screenplays (IOW: "written by") was totally off the mark?
Appreciate the honesty. :Thumbsup: I was off base with my "J.J. could "never" beat Spielberg" statement, his career isn't over yet...
Last edited:
Super 8 was proof enough to me that he's got the chops to take Spielberg on at his own game (and possibly even win at it too! 
).
I do think there's a dividing line between Star Wars and Star Trek though. I think if I'm being honest I'd say Star Trek's star had really faded considerably by 2008, so Abrams probably had a lot of autonomy on that production (a lot of people were genuinely surprised at how well it turned out), whereas Star Wars' had never really disppeared from the radar. People may not have liked the prequel trilogy particularly, nor any of the fiddling-while-Rome-burns that Lucas did to the original films ("CGI Jabba"? Get outta here!), but I don't think Star Wars had the same kind of 'credibility problem' that Trek had prior to 2009. Lucas was able to relaunch SW any dozen number of ways and there would always be a cachet of interest in it... I'm not sure if Star Trek always had the same kind of goodwill behind it. So people were pleasantly surprised.
I think what I'm trying to say is that taking on Star Wars is a much higher pressure job than taking on Star Trek. There's more scope for failure in the Star Wars universe, especially if you're going to make a sequel that takes place after the classic original trilogy. If Star Trek had bombed, IMO, it would have flown under the radar a lot more.
If Star Wars gets screwed -- even if it's not his fault, but rather because of decisions made by TPTB above his head -- then it'd be a career killer.
).I do think there's a dividing line between Star Wars and Star Trek though. I think if I'm being honest I'd say Star Trek's star had really faded considerably by 2008, so Abrams probably had a lot of autonomy on that production (a lot of people were genuinely surprised at how well it turned out), whereas Star Wars' had never really disppeared from the radar. People may not have liked the prequel trilogy particularly, nor any of the fiddling-while-Rome-burns that Lucas did to the original films ("CGI Jabba"? Get outta here!), but I don't think Star Wars had the same kind of 'credibility problem' that Trek had prior to 2009. Lucas was able to relaunch SW any dozen number of ways and there would always be a cachet of interest in it... I'm not sure if Star Trek always had the same kind of goodwill behind it. So people were pleasantly surprised.
I think what I'm trying to say is that taking on Star Wars is a much higher pressure job than taking on Star Trek. There's more scope for failure in the Star Wars universe, especially if you're going to make a sequel that takes place after the classic original trilogy. If Star Trek had bombed, IMO, it would have flown under the radar a lot more.
If Star Wars gets screwed -- even if it's not his fault, but rather because of decisions made by TPTB above his head -- then it'd be a career killer.
/\ Exactly. If NuWars tanks, Hollywood's little golden boy can take the Lucas bashing for a change.
On top of all the Abrams bashing, he'll have quite a busy day.
On top of all the Abrams bashing, he'll have quite a busy day.
OTOH, Lucas and Spielberg pretty much invented skiffy movie geekdom.
Okay, the old codger in me has to object to that statement. Believe it or not, there were science fiction movies and fans and fandom before Lucas and Spielberg.
What about George Pal and Jack Arnold and Ray Harryhausen, not to mention Starlog magazine and Forrest J. Ackerman and Famous Monsters of Filmland? I remember watching "Science Fiction Theater" on Saturday afternoons long before anybody had ever heard of Luke Skywalker or E.T. What about 2001 and Logan's Run and Quatermass and Barbarella and, heck, the entire Planet of the Apes phenomenon, which included movies, novels, comic books, toys, and fan magazines?
As I recall, I attended my first convention back in '75 or so, at least two years before Star Wars debuted.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Super 8 was proof enough to me that he's got the chops to take Spielberg on at his own game (and possibly even win at it too!
Spielberg gave us Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET, Jurassic Park, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, AI. Lincoln has 12 Oscar nominations.
He has miles to go before he's in Spielberg territory. JJ's cultish fans are legion in this subforum, but this decision will be made by a much larger jury.
I agree that he has his work cut out for him, which is why I think he should hand off Trek.
If Star Trek III is a dud, no one of any real consequence will care. If the next Star Wars film is a flop, it will be more than just fandom that responds with torches and pitchforks. Indeed, if he hands off Star Trek III and III turns out to be a dud, people will say, "Well, it's not his fault, he was busy on Star Wars."
I find it amusing that you're already making excuses; "Abrams had autonomy on Trek" and then conjecturing that the TPTB might tank his career with Star Wars by depriving him of that autonomy. Disney took a mountain of cash and said "Shut up and take my money!" He took it. Now he has to wear the pants.
JJ isn't my first choice for Star Wars, but he's in my top 5. Let's stop with the prophylactic apologia and see if he delivers the goods. I am hoping for something good - I mean I don't like the idea of a new SW film, but if you had to make one, JJ is the type of guy you want helming it, especially since Spielberg has announced that there is no way he'd ever direct one (and unlike JJ, you can believe him on this score).
I dunno know, but here's a thought. Lucas was an unknown up and coming director when he pitched Star Wars. He pitched it to many studios before 20th agreed to do it.
You'd think that Lucas would remember what that felt like and search the film schools looking for a really talented guy/gal like him, who just needs a chance and not go with an A lister like JJ ???
I dunno know, just a thought.
You'd think that Lucas would remember what that felt like and search the film schools looking for a really talented guy/gal like him, who just needs a chance and not go with an A lister like JJ ???
I dunno know, just a thought.
Um, he had already directed American Graffiti, which was a huge hit at the time.
So he wasn't exactly an unknown newbie.
Yes. Spielberg is an example of a director who has never been noted as the writer of his films. Lucas has done both. Cameron is another guy who creates original hits which he both writes and directs. OTOH, Ridley Scott didn't write Alien or Blade Runner.
What they do all have in common is having produced and directed original movies (though not exclusively) throughout their careers - not having written them.
Even if Lucas were inclined towards this train of thought -- and who knows, he might very well be
-- it isn't him who wears the pants anymore. The decision making process has probably shifted upstairs to the House Of Mouse.
