Abrams Directing Star Wars

[Greg Cox]

Something is very wrong here. Having JJ direct Star Wars has nothing to do with artistic preference. This is about getting OUR money, boys and girls. I'm thinking they're trying to get the most out of the science fiction buck these days and trying to turn Star Trek fans into Star Wars fans and visa versa.

They want the two fandoms to be interchangeable so both studios get the most out of the sci-fi fans wallets.

I dunno. I've got a very bad feeling about this.

Honestly, I don't see the big deal. At any given point, creative folks are going to have multiple fires in the iron and work on a variety of different projects with a variety of different partners, sometimes even in the same genre. Doesn't mean they're all interchangable.

I mean, look at comic books. The same writers and artists go back and forth between Marvel and DC all the time. Jack Kirby, Marv Wolfman, John Byrne, Frank Miller, etc. Doesn't mean Superman is going to turn into Spider-Man and vise versa.

In the end, it's just a matter of logistics. If you can manage two franchises at once, more power to you.

 

[The Wormhole]

BTW y'all, with Abrams on board the movie has been renamed Star Wars Episode 07.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm thinking they're trying to get the most out of the science fiction buck these days and trying to turn Star Trek fans into Star Wars fans and visa versa.

Well, obviously. It's something they should have been doing from the beginning. Why wouldn't the Star Wars filmmakers want Trek fans to watch their movies and visa versa? If you're making an outer space adventure movie, wouldn't you want to try and attract people who are already fans of other outer space adventures?

 

[EJD1984]

There is one potential positive to this. Hopefully the NEW director of the next Trek film will give us a proper Engineering set.

 

[CorporalClegg]

And no Star Trek and Star Wars are not the same thing and they should never be.

Really? My bad. So which one is the silly space adventure with a swashbuckling leading man who fires laser weapons and chases after green-skinned dancing aliens?

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh, please, let's be honest: Trak fans and Wars fans have gone to the theatres to see all the movies of the "rival" franchise.

 

[RoJoHen]

If there's a spaceship in it, chances are I'll go see it.

 

[YARN]

I wonder if he'll say "This movie isn't made for Star Wars fans."

You only missed that joke by about 80 posts.

Hey, M'Sharak, how have you been?

I wasn't joking. I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base, but if he does, I'll at least have to give him kudos for not being inconsistent.

Now he's a Star Wars fan and SW has a much bigger fan base and is more iconic, so it will be interesting see if he plays this card or not.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I wasn't joking. I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base, but if he does, I'll at least have to give him kudos for not being inconsistent.

Now he's a Star Wars fan and SW has a much bigger fan base and is more iconic, so it will be interesting see if he plays this card or not.

He is neither required nor obligated to say anything of the sort.

Star Trek fans needed to hear it. Star Wars fans do not.

 

[The Wormhole]

I wonder if he'll say "This movie isn't made for Star Wars fans."

You only missed that joke by about 80 posts.

Hey, M'Sharak, how have you been?

I wasn't joking. I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base, but if he does, I'll at least have to give him kudos for not being inconsistent.

Now he's a Star Wars fan and SW has a much bigger fan base and is more iconic, so it will be interesting see if he plays this card or not.

You know, I'll jump up and down any opportunity to bad mouth Abrams (you know I will), but the "Not made for fans" comment is the proper approach. After all, if you want your movie to suceed you can't make it for the fans. It's too narrow an audience to get any real success.

Granted, Abrams needs to learn to respect his fans better than he does, but this comment is one thing he has done right.

 

[Greg Cox]

Something is very wrong here. Having JJ direct Star Wars has nothing to do with artistic preference. This is about getting OUR money, boys and girls. I'm thinking they're trying to get the most out of the science fiction buck these days and trying to turn Star Trek fans into Star Wars fans and visa versa.

They want the two fandoms to be interchangeable so both studios get the most out of the sci-fi fans wallets.

What's the worst that can happen? You go see a Star Wars film? A Star Wars fan checks out a Star Trek film? Studios do want the most people to come see their films. Unless, of course, you're Rick Berman.

Exactly. It's not like they're rival religions or sports teams or something. You're allowed to be a fan of both--and many other things as well.

I'm a STAR TREK fan. I'm a STAR WARS fan. I'm a PLANET OF THE APES fan. I'm a BUFFY fan. I'm a XENA fan. Etc.

Life is too short to confine yourself to just one "fandom."

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

He's probably a better fit for Star Wars than Star Trek.

Indeed; this news just makes me more pissed he did Trek in the first place than ever. I'm not a particularly big SW fan, but good for Abrams for making the film he already wanted to make; it's just a shame he had to turn another franchise into what he wanted all along in order to get there.

BTW those thinking he'll still direct Trek 3 are delusional. I do think there's a good chance we could get a great Trek 3 from another director out of this... but I could equally see Abrams saying "No, no, I ain't abandoning Trek! I'll do it! Well... maybe not. But don't make another one quite yet, Paramount! I'll... produce it! Yeah, just as soon as I'm done with SW." Then another SW. Then something else. The 50th anniversary is skipped. Trek 3 moves further and further away until... poof, the franchise had died once again.

Despite the '09 film's success, it still took 4 years to get the ball rolling again due to Abrams and Bad Robot wanting to do other things. This could very well be that magnified; if Abrams and Bad Robot still say they want to be involved but are intertwined with SW for the immediate future, I could easily see a scenario where, despite how successful Into Darkness is, Trek 3 doesn't happen or it's a very long time before it does.

 

[YARN]

You only missed that joke by about 80 posts.

Hey, M'Sharak, how have you been?

I wasn't joking. I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base, but if he does, I'll at least have to give him kudos for not being inconsistent.

Now he's a Star Wars fan and SW has a much bigger fan base and is more iconic, so it will be interesting see if he plays this card or not.

You know, I'll jump up and down any opportunity to bad mouth Abrams (you know I will), but the "Not made for fans" comment is the proper approach. After all, if you want your movie to suceed you can't make it for the fans. It's too narrow an audience to get any real success.

Granted, Abrams needs to learn to respect his fans better than he does, but this comment is one thing he has done right.

I hear you, but two points in reply

1. How you say it -- you don't have to say it is NOT made for fans. Rather, you say it is made for fans and non fans alike (i.e., "fun for the whole family).

2. When you say it -- when you're rebooting the franchise and worried about the larger audience in 2009, I can see the need to say it. After you first film has made gobs of money and the public is now OK with Trek films, you don't need to say it. The public has seen and approve. No need to reassure them in way that leaves Trekkies feel excluded.

 

[The Wormhole]

Despite the '09 film's success, it still took 4 years to get the ball rolling again due to Abrams and Bad Robot wanting to do other things. This could very well be that magnified; if Abrams and Bad Robot still say they want to be involved but are intertwined with SW for the immediate future, I could easily see a scenario where, despite how successful Into Darkness is, Trek 3 doesn't happen or it's a very long time before it does.

No, Paramount will want a Trek movie for 2016 and will do whatever it takes, including canning Abrams and finding someone who literally can get a script done "by the end of the month" to get that.

 

[RoJoHen]

As a Trekkie, I never felt excluded by what he said. Maybe the wording could have been different, but at no point did I feel like was saying "Trek fans won't like this."

Would it have been better if he said "I'm not only making this movie for Trek fans"? There, now Trek fans are still included. It was an interview. People say things. Do you know every single word that is going to come out of your mouth every time someone asks you a question?

 

[Dale Sams]

(Kirk gets up to leave)

CAROL MARCUS: "Where are you going Jim??"

KIRK: "I guess I'm going nowhere!"

(Kirk leaves)

 

[The Wormhole]

Hey, M'Sharak, how have you been?

I wasn't joking. I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base, but if he does, I'll at least have to give him kudos for not being inconsistent.

Now he's a Star Wars fan and SW has a much bigger fan base and is more iconic, so it will be interesting see if he plays this card or not.

You know, I'll jump up and down any opportunity to bad mouth Abrams (you know I will), but the "Not made for fans" comment is the proper approach. After all, if you want your movie to suceed you can't make it for the fans. It's too narrow an audience to get any real success.

Granted, Abrams needs to learn to respect his fans better than he does, but this comment is one thing he has done right.

I hear you, but two points in reply

1. How you say it -- you don't have to say it is NOT made for fans. Rather, you say it is made for fans and non fans alike (i.e., "fun for the whole family).

2. When you say it -- when you're rebooting the franchise and worried about the larger audience in 2009, I can see the need to say it. After you first film has made gobs of money and the public is now OK with Trek films, you don't need to say it. The public has seen and approve. No need to reassure them in way that leaves Trekkies feel excluded.

Yes, if one wants to be polite and professional. But Abrams wants to be noticed, and therefore saying this the way he did achieves that goal. And I still think it's in better taste than when he took the time to say "I'm more of a Star Wars" fan in all his Trek XI interviews, even on the DVD. Now that just lacked class.

 

[RoJoHen]

There is simply no reason to treat Star Wars and Star Trek as if they are competing with each other? If you can use one to build up the other, I say go for it!

 

[Greg Cox]

No, you guys are being too naive. There's more to this.

And no Star Trek and Star Wars are not the same thing and they should never be.

But having the same director doesn't make them the same thing. Are Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park and, hell, Schindler's List the same thing because they're all directed by Spielberg?

Are Felicity and Alias and Lost the same things because they were all created by Abrams?

Are Indiana Jones and Star Wars the same thing because they were both created by Lucas?

Are Terminator and Avatar (and Titanic!) the same thing because they were all directed by James Cameron?

Heck, the late Robert Wise directed The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromedra Strain, The Haunting, Star Trek: The Motion Picture . . . and The Sound of Music.

You don't need to imply some sinister agenda just because the same director takes on more than one high-profile project. Or fear that any given director can only direct one kind of movie

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

How you say it -- you don't have to say it is NOT made for fans. Rather, you say it is made for fans and non fans alike (i.e., "fun for the whole family).

Precisely. There's a world of difference to me between saying that a movie isn't for a particular subset of people but for everyone and singling out and insulting a particular subset.

No, Paramount will want a Trek movie for 2016 and will do whatever it takes, including canning Abrams and finding someone who literally can get a script done "by the end of the month" to get that.

It's certainly possible, but the 4 year wait, despite '09's huge success, makes me skeptical and cautious.

I could also see this turning into a Superman Returns/X-Men 3 where the studio fumbles and rushes to do just what you suggested but ends up with a half-cooked script and hack director.