Abrams Directing Star Wars

[RoJoHen]

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

Stop using so many examples. Nobody likes a showoff.

 

[YARN]

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?

He's said it more than once over a span of several years and it is part of his general shtick about how he is an outsider and was a Star Wars fan as a kid (his quality assurance that as an "outsider" he will not ruin it by going Trekkie on the wide audience). It's not that big a deal, but it would be nice not to read these words again when trying to get the inside scoop on nu-Trek.

____________________________________

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

Legally obligated? No. But it would be nice to be more rhetorically sensitive to the entire fan base.

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

What??? He didn't say it for the benefit of Trek fans, but prospective new fans.

Why would Trek fans "need" to hear this? Why wouldn't Star Wars fans?

What a strangely punitive attitude.

 

[CorporalClegg]

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.

He never turned anything into anything else.

BTW those thinking he'll still direct Trek 3 are delusional.

$20 says he does.

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.

OMG! OMG! OMG! Where's the panic button!!!!!???

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.

Why do people continuously act like this was some freakishly abnormal hiatus?

In any case, I don't see why a guy as talented as Abrams should be limited to one project at a time.

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.

More with the panic button?

For on thing, it's a pretty safe bet STIII has already been written. Even if it hasn't, there is zero indication Kurtzman and Orci are involved with Star Wars. In fact, I bet if it were up to Orci, he'd just assume stay with Trek.

I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base,

It needed to be said, and he said it.

The fact that he hurt your feelings is irrelevant.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anniversaries mean something. It's a matter of pride, of accomplishment, that something can endure and still be remembered and loved and treasured 50 years after it's released...

Yeah, yeah. That doesn't mean deciding to spend 150 million dollars on a movie in a given year just because it's a birthday/anniversary what-have-you, when other business decisions make more sense.

You're selling something to a dedicated fan base you can leverage an anniversary - you're selling it to a big audience with no sentimental attachment to it, as is necessary for films as expensive as the new Trek movies, that kind of thing means a lot less.

I wonder if he'll say it. It's something you shouldn't say to any fan base,

It needed to be said, and he said it.

The fact that he hurt your feelings is irrelevant.

Damn straight - not just irrelevant, but a good thing. Need to break a few eggs.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Yeah, yeah. That doesn't mean deciding to spend 150 million dollars on a movie in a given year just because it's a birthday/anniversary what-have-you, when other business decisions make more sense.

You're selling something to a dedicated fan base you can leverage an anniversary - you're selling it to a big audience with no sentimental attachment to it, as is necessary for films as expensive as the new Trek movies, that kind of thing means a lot less.

As I said, this year, Doctor Who is getting a lot of mileage out of its "50th!!!!" celebration. You think that's just for the hardcore fanatics?? To the general public, "anniversary," especially something like the 50th, is synonymous with "special." For the casual viewer who vaguely remembers TNG on syndication and distinctly remembers enjoying the '09 film, a Trek film promoted as one for the "50th anniversary" says, "They're planning something special, I should probably see what's up," even if they have no sentimental attachment.

Damn straight - not just irrelevant, but a good thing. Need to break a few eggs.

Can you go through one post without insulting other fans?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Damn straight - not just irrelevant, but a good thing. Need to break a few eggs.

Can you go through one post without insulting other fans?

You messed up your quote tags, dude - if you're going to nit me for being "insulting," at least get my handle right.

 

[YARN]

Damn straight - not just irrelevant, but a good thing. Need to break a few eggs.

Hmm? If it is a "good thing" then it is indeed relevant. That is, fan feelings are relevant; these feelings needed to be hurt, and JJ was the guy to do it.

At any rate, why do you think fan feelings needed to be hurt?

 

[Ryan8bit]

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

You messed up your quote tags, dude - if you're going to nit me for being "insulting," at least get my handle right.

Sorry, was paring down the quotes within quotes and got mixed up. Fixed.

At any rate, why do you think fan feelings needed to be hurt?

A good deal of his posts have some sort of anti-fandom snark to it like "I'm a fan of Star Trek, I could take or leave Star Trek fandom " or something like that. You get used to it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Awesome.

A good deal of his posts have some sort of anti-fandom snark to it like "I'm a fan of Star Trek, I could take or leave Star Trek fandom " or something like that. You get used to it.

Can you blame him? The fandom can be exasperating at times.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Can you blame him? The fandom can be exasperating at times.

It's the personal attack aspect. I don't particularly like JJ Abrams' work but I have no issues with him as a human being or person. I have an issue with the work of art he contributed towards and I have no problems or issues with anyone who expresses any opinion about a fictional work. I do have a problem with people attacking others, whether it be anti-Trek '09 people bashing Abrams personally or pro-Trek '09 people saying it's needed for other people to have their feelings hurt.

 

[Greg Cox]

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?

Exactly. Nobody I know was offended, and I like to think that most of us are not so prickly and/or insecure that the studios have to worry about bruising our delicate little feelings by not sucking up to us enough.

As long as the movie is good, I don't care if I'm being properly "respected" or not. All that matters is the final product.

And I suspect that most moviegoers feel the same way.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Star Trek needed that to be said since there was a low point. Star Wars never had a low point, it doesn't need to be said. It was already made for a lot of people.

Of course, there might need to be some statements regarding the prequels.

 

[Franklin]

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.

Not because anybody asked, and just to be an outlier, I saw "Star Wars" in the theater when it first came out. I only saw it once. It did nothing for me. I've still only seen it once, and it's the only "Star Wars" movie out of all of them that I've ever seen in any format. By contrast, the only Trek movie I've missed is "Nemesis".

Then again, I'm not much of a sci-fi fan outside of Trek, which probably makes me an ever bigger outlier. I have heard enough, however, to know that "Star Wars" is very popular.

 

[Saul]

JJ holds Star Trek in one palm and Star Wars in the other.

So while he directs Star Wars we need Speilberg or someone to come in and direct Star Trek 3

A good deal of his posts have some sort of anti-fandom snark to it like "I'm a fan of Star Trek, I could take or leave Star Trek fandom " or something like that. You get used to it.

Can you blame him? The fandom can be exasperating at times.

So can those that constantly respond to fandom's exasperation.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...pro-Trek '09 people saying it's needed for other people to have their feelings hurt.

I'm sorry, who the hell gets their feelings hurt by some director they've never met saying something in the press about a movie he's making?

Making clear that the movie is aimed at entertaining as many people as possible is part of getting the necessary message out there to the people who need to be attracted to 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

Stop using so many examples. Nobody likes a showoff.

What can I say? I'm long-winded.

One more example. Ron Moore did DS9. Ron Moore did BSG. Did anybody have an issue with that?

Bottom line: a guy who directed a couple of movies in a popular sf series is going to direct a movie in another popular sf series.

I fail to see the problem.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek needed that to be said since there was a low point. Star Wars never had a low point, it doesn't need to be said. It was already made for a lot of people.

Of course, there might need to be some statements regarding the prequels.

It was said because Star Trek fans exhibit an unusual level of entitlement, and Abrams was demonstrating he had no obligation to pander to them. It was a political thing to say.

However, some seem to have mistaken it as some kind of affront and think that he was out to get them, which is, of course, somewhat ironic.

 

[Ryan8bit]

It was said because Star Trek fans exhibit an unusual level of entitlement, and Abrams was demonstrating he had no obligation to pander to them.

Star Wars fans are just the same if not worse. I mean, at least most Star Trek fans were happy with the latest Trek movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What's amazing is that people are still butthurt over things said by a stranger to reporters four years ago.

Star Wars fans are just the same if not worse. I mean, at least most Star Trek fans were happy with the latest Trek movie.

Well, we got a better movie last time out than the Star Wars people did.