Abrams: Star Trek Maybe

[Ovation]

I'd love a Tarantino Trek, but if people think Abrams et al. have strayed too far from the "Roddenberry vision thing", well…

And "those people" puzzle me.

The most unique, rare feature of the "Star Trek" franchise is that it was purposely crafted to be able to tell any story one could imagine - why in hell do "those people" want to shackle it to some nebulous ideal?

I'd like to see Matthew Vaughan try his hand at it. But I'm happy with what Abrams is doing so far, so no rush to pass it off to someone else.

I don't know that name (Mathew Vaughan), but I would be open to him or anyone else.

Vaughan directed X-Men: First Class, among other things, and was quite successful with his take on classic characters as their younger selves (and the casting was good for this scenario--so similarities with Trek). His visual aesthetic differs enough from Abrams so that he would not be a carbon copy, but he appears capable of refreshing and respecting an existing set of characters.

As for Abrams and Star Wars--he's a hired gun. He's not running the whole operation like he is with Trek at the moment.

 

[TheCutestofBorg]

I personally would have liked to have seen Peter Jackson direct Star Trek or even better Star Wars. Having recently watched the "hobbit" extras on Blu-Ray and seeing how his style is so close to George Lucas during the OT. I think he would have done a terrific job. It seems he believes in real sets and I like that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I believe Abrams is a fan of real sets as well.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I never understood the mindset that just because he signed on for Star Wars then he couldn't do Star Trek. It will be 3 to 4 years before the next Trek movie comes out, plenty of time for him to do both.

I'm guessing 3 years. Trek's 50th anniversary is in 2016 and I'm sure Paramount will want something out.

 

[donners22]

Gee, with his succinct summation of what he feels makes "Star Trek" so relevant and enduring, “Hey, it wouldn’t be Star Trek if there weren’t some hot young actors, women and men, in various moments of either undress or flirtation.”

Wow, I got my fingers crossed ... not.

Hey, it's better than Bryan Burk who thinks Star Trek is people standing around talking at a screen.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I believe Abrams is a fan of real sets as well.

Yep.
The Enterprise interiors are all interconnected real sets to give just one example. Bridge, corridors and everything.

 

[Danger Ace]

Has the hypothetical one person in question actually been put in such a position, though, or has he merely been hired to direct a single picture (written and produced by others not of his own selection) in one franchise while continuing to carry out his job as producer (with option to direct) of a set of films in the other?

Well, if you are coyly referring to J.J. Abrams and "Star Wars" then I would really appreciate a citation of source that says he will have no input or voice in the creative aspects of the film (including editing and aesthetics not to mention script developement) because I really can't imagine him showing up for work like some Fred Flintstone and just punching -in and -out.

I mean, if he is going to be so "hands off" then why hire him? Disney wouldn't, they want that "Abrams touch" - which boils back down to him bringing the same bag-of-tricks to "Star Wars" that he brought to "Star Trek."

Star Trek was all but dead and buried until JJ Abrams via Bad Robot took the reigns. Now Star Trek is popular and profitable. Disney, who now owns Star Wars, recognized this fact and asked JJ Abrams to direct SW7.

On one hand I appreciate Abrams work on and role in reviving "Star Trek," BUT on the other I firmly believe many others could have accomplished similar magic. Paramount's generous allowance of time and resources was the single biggest reason for Trek's revival. If they had appraoched Insurrection, Nemesis and Enterprise with the same attitude then the franchise wouldn't have even needed reviving.

Disney wants their new property to be as popular and profitable as Star Trek... yes, Star Trek is now a role model for another franchise. It is good to be a Trekkie these days!

The last Trek film brought in something like $385 million worldwide while the last Star Wars film did roughly $850 million worldwide - meaning if the Star Wars, Ep. VII did Trek (2009) business then it would be deemed a major, major disappointment.

Box office numbers via Box Office Mojo

As for Abrams and Star Wars--he's a hired gun. He's not running the whole operation like he is with Trek at the moment.

I am from a time that mistrusts too much power in too few hands. A time that had strict limits on media ownership so as to prevent only select voices from shouting down and distorting the perceptions of the masses. I've seen the effects of those restrictions being loosened and then done away with. All the dire predictions of which largely coming to pass. I would simply hate for "Star Trek" becoming the latest example of history repeating itself.

Again, we are for the most part the sum total of our experiences. For me, it causes worry to see things get reduced to the same few people and companies. Just as I hate to see all things get boiled down to the same common denominators. No insult or offense intended, just an opinion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I am from a time that mistrusts too much power in too few hands. A time that had strict limits on media ownership so as to prevent only select voices from shouting down and distorting the perceptions of the masses. I've seen the effects of those restrictions being loosened and then done away with. All the dire predictions of which largely coming to pass. I would simply hate for "Star Trek" becoming the latest example of history repeating itself.

Um, we're talking about a guy who makes movies, not the guy in charge of the studio/network/publishing house. Abrams making Star Trek and Star Wars is not going to turn him into Rupert Murdoch.

 

[M'Sharak]

Has the hypothetical one person in question actually been put in such a position, though, or has he merely been hired to direct a single picture (written and produced by others not of his own selection) in one franchise while continuing to carry out his job as producer (with option to direct) of a set of films in the other?

Well, if you are coyly referring to J.J. Abrams and "Star Wars"

Was I being coy, or was I doing no more than alluding to the same "one person" about whom you had only just been expressing so much concern?

...then I would really appreciate a citation of source that says he will have no input or voice in the creative aspects of the film (including editing and aesthetics not to mention script developement[sic]) because I really can't imagine him showing up for work like some Fred Flintstone and just punching -in and -out.

I mean, if he is going to be so "hands off" then why hire him? Disney wouldn't, they want that "Abrams touch" - which boils back down to him bringing the same bag-of-tricks to "Star Wars" that he brought to "Star Trek."

Ah, that lovely "creak" of goalposts moving. Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone should be expected to provide a citation of source proving anything at all in response to someone who seems to have no compunction whatsoever about freely lobbing unsupportable rhetorical spitballs such as "why should one person... be put in control...?"

I also question why should one person... be put in control of the two biggest space-opera franchises?

or "so why put it all in one person's hands... ?"

...so why put it all in one person's hands, to have both seen through just one set of eyes, to be given just one voice?

or "one person needlessly being given a creative monopoly"

It is a question of one person needlessly being given a creative monoply[sic] by virtue of having the reigns[sic] of the two biggest science-fiction franchises going.

or "cornering any market"

I would hope people would argue against anyone cornering any market. Would we want only one conglomerate making all the movies? All the news? All the ... anything?

Aren't you more or less obligated to provide support for your own sound and fury first before demanding that any responders prove you wrong? You could begin by making a solid argument for your contention that Abrams is being given complete control of the "Star Wars" franchise; with that as a foundation, the rest ought to be a piece of cake.

 

[Danger Ace]

Um, we're talking about a guy who makes movies, not the guy in charge of the studio/network/publishing house. Abrams making Star Trek and Star Wars is not going to turn him into Rupert Murdoch.

Um, same difference, same principles at play, therefore it is an error on your part to try and minimalize things in order to invalidate or disprove my thesis because it doesn't. I went from big picture to small, but going from small to big works just as well in the making of my point.

My point has not been about Abrams being on par with a Rupert Murdoch or Studio Chief or CEO of a media conglom. It is about his bringing the same POV, perspective, tastes, sensibilities, back-of-tricks to two members of the same genre. It is about his being a footsoldier in the army of an industry that is forever looking to reduce things to a formula by which to homogenize.

Sadly, it is one of those things that if a person (or persons)can't grasp or forsee the magnitude or danger of then it is hard to educate them into at least understanding the concepts and ideas being discussed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Um, we're talking about a guy who makes movies, not the guy in charge of the studio/network/publishing house. Abrams making Star Trek and Star Wars is not going to turn him into Rupert Murdoch.

Um, same difference, same principles at play, therefore it is an error on your part to try and minimalize things in order to invalidate or disprove my thesis because it doesn't. I went from big picture to small, but going from small to big works just as well in the making of my point.

My point has not been about Abrams being on par with a Rupert Murdoch or Studio Chief or CEO of a media conglom. It is about his bringing the same POV, perspective, tastes, sensibilities, back-of-tricks to two members of the same genre. It is about his being a footsoldier in the army of an industry that is forever looking to reduce things to a formula by which to homogenize.

Sadly, it is one of those things that if a person (or persons)can't grasp or forsee the magnitude or danger of then it is hard to educate them into at least understanding the concepts and ideas being discussed.

I get what you're trying to say. I just don't buy it. Star Trek and Star Wars aren't that far apart in the first place. That said, Abrams is smart enough and talented enough to put forward the things that are different.

When people start using loaded terms like "footsoldier", "the magnitude or danger" and "educate" in reference to what is basically entertainment I have to laugh at the seriousness and hyperbole of it all. Especially when they are in "talk down to mode".

 

[Danger Ace]

Was I being coy, or was I doing no more than alluding to the same "one person" about whom you had only just been expressing so much concern?

No, you were being coy. You quoted the portion of my post where I was plainly stating that my position wasn't centered on Abrams specifically but based on a general principle.

Ah, that lovely "creak" of goalposts moving.

Please cite where I have "moved the goalposts."

You could begin by making a solid argument for your contention that Abrams is being given complete control of the "Star Wars" franchise...

Easy peasy as it is a far more incredulous claim to make that someone of Abrams standing would sign on to be a flunky with no voice or influence in a project he undertakes. JJ Abrams has demonstrably worked his way up the ladder in Hollywood to greater power and control over his "projects" from scoring a film at age 16 to present. (IMDB).

Oh yeah, Abrams company Bad Robot is also producing (with Disney and Kathleen Kennedy).

 

[M'Sharak]

Please cite where I have "moved the goalposts."

You did so at least twice more in your post immediately preceding this one, and if constructing a solid argument to support your assertion were as "easy peasy" as you say, we would have seen it already. There's nothing to your case but arm-waving.

 

[Therin of Andor]

JJ: "I'm sorry, I must turn down your kind offer to direct your next blockbuster feature film because... no one man should have such power over more than one mega franchise at a time."

LOL.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Abrams will do a fine job with both Star Wars and Star Trek. There are actually things of some importance going on in the world to which one can devote one's concern for the future, rather than exaggerating the importance of who directs which Hollywood movie.

 

[Opus]

I am from a time that mistrusts too much power in too few hands. A time that had strict limits on media ownership so as to prevent only select voices from shouting down and distorting the perceptions of the masses. I've seen the effects of those restrictions being loosened and then done away with. All the dire predictions of which largely coming to pass. I would simply hate for "Star Trek" becoming the latest example of history repeating itself.

Again, we are for the most part the sum total of our experiences. For me, it causes worry to see things get reduced to the same few people and companies. Just as I hate to see all things get boiled down to the same common denominators. No insult or offense intended, just an opinion.

It's just movies...

 

[Danger Ace]

You did so at least twice more in your post immediately preceding this one ...

So you keep saying.

JJ: "I'm sorry, I must turn down your kind offer to direct your next blockbuster feature film because... no one man should have such power over more than one mega franchise at a time."

LOL.

Principiis obsta et finem respice.

Abrams will do a fine job with both Star Wars and Star Trek. There are actually things of some importance going on in the world to which one can devote one's concern for the future, rather than exaggerating the importance of who directs which Hollywood movie.

Well, I will agree that there will probably be a striking similarity ... er ... conformity ... consistency between the two.

]
It's just movies...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Xaios]

Yes, that analogy makes perfect sense. If we're not vigilant, Paramount and JJ Abrams will take us in our sleep.

 

[Melakon]

I think Alex Proyas or Philip Noyce could be interesting. Walter Hill, if he's not burned out after the Supernova fiasco.

And if we really want to turn the franchise on its pointed ear, the Farrelly Brothers.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Yes, that analogy makes perfect sense. If we're not vigilant, Paramount and JJ Abrams will take us in our sleep.

They already came and wiped your Prime Universe videos, DVDs and Blu-Rays.