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

[BillJ]

Abrams is hardly an auteur.

Disney doesn't give a fuck, they just want a billion dollar movie and figure Abrams is the one best qualified to make that happen.

 

[DalekJim]

Abrams is hardly an auteur.

Disney doesn't give a fuck, they just want a billion dollar movie and figure Abrams is the one best qualified to make that happen.

What does that have to do with the point I was making, or the discussion we were having, about who has the most creative control on the movie?

 

[Ovation]

No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).

I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.

In the case of, say, episodes of Aaron Sorkin TV shows, the directorial presence is often negligible; their main duty being to orchestrate the walk-and-talks that balance out the massive dialogue dumps. This is the main difference between TV and movies - in TV, directors have little to no control over the script, and are often discouraged from getting too flashy, especially when a house style has already been established.

Ergo, the extent of Abrams' influence will likely depend on how much creative input the producers allow him. Star Wars movies also have a very classical style, with very little of the handheld-heavy/you're right there verve of MI:III and Trek XI. It'll be interesting to see which influence will win out - but then again, the ultra-propulsive feel of Abrams' movies are in large part due to the intensity of their scripts.

With respect to TV, directors are far less important as "authors", in relation to script and pacing (house style is important), so I agree with your Sorkin example. They remain crucial, in my view, regarding the actors' performances--I'd wager any time an established character seems "out of character" on a TV series, the flaw was likely in the direction. However, my overall point was directed at film direction, rather than TV direction.

No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films

I've seen every existing film Alfred Hitchcock directed (I wrote my university dissertation on Freudian themes in his work and got the only A in the class!), and very few of his 50+ films are serious misfires. Stuff like Murder, Secret Agent, The Paradine Case and Torn Curtain are weak but when you make that many films you're bound to go wrong sometimes. Hell, Torn Curtain contains one of the finest murder scenes of his career.

Torn Curtain's murder scene is a classic (best part of the movie by far) but it is a weaker Hitchcock film. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is also a weak entry in his filmography. Jamaica Inn is a poor effort, period (Hitchcock or no).

I love Hitchcock's films, he is my favourite director by a country mile but my point in raising his weaker entries is that one cannot dismiss a director with a notable body of work based on a few lesser efforts. Moreover, while Hitchcock releases were often successful, a good number of them were not initially popular and have only become highly respected in hindsight. I am not, in any way, suggesting Abrams is in the same league as Hitchcock but I prefer to judge his overall worthiness as a director after a few more releases. I was merely pointing out that Abrams will have, like any film director, a significant impact (positive or negative) on the quality of whatever film he is directing and that it is wrong to dismiss him (or any director) as irrelevant or "disposable" (as one poster did above). Whether masters or journeymen, directors play a key role in the filmmaking process.

 

[FPAlpha]

It really varies from movie to movie. I'd wager heavily that Abrams will have FAR less influence on Wars than he did with Trek. Disney are gonna be keeping a very close eye indeed.

Nobody even mentions Richard Marquand when discussing Return of the Jedi.

I don't know for sure.

One thing i was extremely hesitant about The Avengers after they announced Joss Whedon to helm it was how much would Marvel meddle in his affairs. Joss has proven before that the's the nerd god, that he knows his Marvel universe (he's written some pretty popular stuff for Marvel) and that he knows how to write good scenes. However he was still an untried blockbuster movie director.. as much as we like Serenity that's all he has to show concerning a movie director career and the movie, strictly speaking, flopped at the box office.

However someone, somewhere at Marvel knew to keep the hands off the creative process and let Joss do his thing and he delivered one of the most successful movies of all time.

It can happen with Abrams.. he has more clout than Whedon, has produced some profitable and generelly favorable reviewed movies and he's got a fitting style for such movies. The question is how much freedom has Abrams negotiated before signing the deal?

I hope it's a lot.. i don't want to ever see another Jar Jar or anything else in a Star Wars movie who's there to make the small kids laugh. There are better ways to do this as Pixar has proven. I'm confident that Abrams has worked out a good deal with Disney because he doesn't need Star Wars to bolster his rep but Disney needs a good reboot of the franchise and after Trek Abrams seems to be the man.

One can only hope.. of course the fandom can be outta luck and Abrams delivers a pile of crap but i somehow doubt it.

 

[stj]

Indeed. I've seen scripts that have gone through at least seven writers.

But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers. It is almost a mathematical law that the quality of a script is inversely proportional to the number of screenwriters. The belief that the director is the primary creator and the script is so much sausage is, near as I can tell, the main cause for Hollywood's powerful tendency towards mediocrity. Unless you are just horrified at an idea that can be implicitly critical of the Hollywood system, I don't know what the arguments are really about.

Scriptwriter is primary creator doesn't equate to director doesn't matter. Also, not all film is scripted, and the director is the primary creator in those cases. The people who emphasize the importance of the director migh wonder, though, why so little film is unscripted.

It is true that the modern system tends to invest the most power in the director (except when the bankable star is directing his or her performance, plus who knows what else.) Being the studio's man is not the same as being the main creator. The issue is further confused by director's so often being writers, cinematographers and editors, which are also important creative roles.

Since director's edit the films, every theatrical release is the real director's cut. Who's editing the double dip fake director's cut releases?

 

[CorporalClegg]

But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers.

Cough. Casablanca. Cough.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

No director is perfect (even Hitchcock made a few less than stellar films) but the single most crucial person working on a film is the director (or, a behind the scenes de facto director if the official one cannot do the job).

I don't entirely agree; I think the writer(s) are the most important people - but then, this is fungible, as directors can usually order rewrites, and new passes from different authors. Ridley Scott, for instance, bought a revisionist script about the Sheriff of Notthingham and ordered massive rewrites until it became Robin Hood Begins.

In the case of, say, episodes of Aaron Sorkin TV shows, the directorial presence is often negligible; their main duty being to orchestrate the walk-and-talks that balance out the massive dialogue dumps. This is the main difference between TV and movies - in TV, directors have little to no control over the script, and are often discouraged from getting too flashy, especially when a house style has already been established.

I've always heard that with film it's directors and with TV it's writers that call the shots.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
That's about it in a nutshell. But TV and film are two totally different beasts.

 

[Set Harth]

Did not know Arndt wrote Oblivion.

You learn something new every day...

 

[DalekJim]

I've always heard that with film it's directors and with TV it's writers that call the shots.

Uh, unless the writer is also a showrunner than a writer has zero power over how the episode turns out. In fact, the showrunner could re-write your whole script and you'd have no say in it.

Writers generally have fuck-all power in film or TV.

 

[DalekJim]

Since director's edit the films, every theatrical release is the real director's cut.

Uh, what? Like.... what? As a film student and filmmaker this is complete monkey jibberish to me. Directors rarely get final cut. In fact they almost NEVER do on the kinda big budget action films we're talking about here. Once you've finished your last day of shooting, that is it in terms of guaranteed power. You will present the producers your cut and if they don't like it they will get somebody else in to edit it, take away your footage from ever being touched by you and you're fucked forever.

Orson Welles' Magnificent Ambersons was completely butchered by this happening. He WAS given final cut for Citizen Kane and it was treated as a miracle as it was so rare.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Indeed. I've seen scripts that have gone through at least seven writers.

But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers. It is almost a mathematical law that the quality of a script is inversely proportional to the number of screenwriters. The belief that the director is the primary creator and the script is so much sausage is, near as I can tell, the main cause for Hollywood's powerful tendency towards mediocrity. Unless you are just horrified at an idea that can be implicitly critical of the Hollywood system, I don't know what the arguments are really about.

Scriptwriter is primary creator doesn't equate to director doesn't matter. Also, not all film is scripted, and the director is the primary creator in those cases. The people who emphasize the importance of the director migh wonder, though, why so little film is unscripted.

It is true that the modern system tends to invest the most power in the director (except when the bankable star is directing his or her performance, plus who knows what else.) Being the studio's man is not the same as being the main creator. The issue is further confused by director's so often being writers, cinematographers and editors, which are also important creative roles.

Since director's edit the films, every theatrical release is the real director's cut. Who's editing the double dip fake director's cut releases?

Um. This post is completely lacking in the concept of "producers." Have you heard of them before?

Uh, what? Like.... what? As a film student and filmmaker this is complete monkey jibberish to me. Directors rarely get final cut. In fact they almost NEVER do on the kinda big budget action films we're talking about here. Once you've finished your last day of shooting, that is it in terms of guaranteed power. You will present the producers your cut and if they don't like it they will get somebody else in to edit it, take away your footage from ever being touched by you and you're fucked forever.

Orson Welles' Magnificent Ambersons was completely butchered by this happening. He WAS given final cut for Citizen Kane and it was treated as a miracle as it was so rare.

Yup. Most theatrical releases are "producer's cut." There are certainly directors in Hollywood who have final cut (people like Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc.) but that is very, very rare. On popcorn stuff like action blockbusters and generic romantic comedies, the idea that the director has as much power as stj's post is laughable. It gives this entire system of how he or she thinks Hollywood works that's... completely lacking in producers. The most important people who are in charge of most films.

 

[DalekJim]

On popcorn stuff like action blockbusters and generic romantic comedies, the idea that the director has as much power as stj's post is laughable. It gives this entire system of how he or she thinks Hollywood works that's... completely lacking in producers. The most in charge of most films.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows how film works. I wonder who he or she thinks hires the directors and screenwriters?

Also, the one credited screenwriter on the movie will likely have been handed a script that has had five different writers working on it already. They will trim the script for pacing, add a bunch of jokes and maybe a comic relief sidekick before being given full writing credit.

Hardly full creative control?

The people who emphasize the importance of the director migh wonder, though, why so little film is unscripted.

WHAT!? So little film is unscripted because uh.... everybody needs to know what they're doing before the day of filming? JJ Abrams can't arrive at the bridge set and be like "Uh, OK can everybody please sit still for 2 hours while I quickly come up with what everybody says, where everybody stands and what happens? Oh, and I'm not gonna write it down at all for any of you to learn. Sorry!".

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows how film works. I wonder who he or she thinks hires the directors and screenwriters?

I think it's cause most people just have a vague idea of producers doing something with the money and the director is responsible for everything on screen, not realizing that if you and your production company own the film and put up the money for it, YOU'RE the one who's going to have final say to make sure you get your money back and that the film doesn't do anything crazy like kill off the lead's girlfriend. Again, there are exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions. In stj's illusion of how Hollywood works, it's some tug-and-pull war between scriptwriters and directors while completely misunderstanding what the people in those roles do.

WHAT!? So little film is unscripted because uh.... everybody needs to know what they're doing before the day of filming? JJ Abrams can't arrive at the bridge set and be like "Uh, OK can everybody please sit still for 2 hours while I quickly come up with what everybody says, where everybody stands and what happens? Oh, and I'm not gonna write it down at all for any of you to learn. Sorry!".

 

[DalekJim]

The belief that the director is the primary creator and the script is so much sausage is, near as I can tell, the main cause for Hollywood's powerful tendency towards mediocrity.

No. This couldn't be more opposite from what I believe. Hollywood is mediocre when the director isn't given enough power to put across their artistic vision. A film is great almost always because the director was given enough power to do what they wanted to do. It's mediocre because studio producers demand certain house styles and rules that can't be broken. There is no way in hell directors can be blamed for Hollywood's mediocrity.

 

[stj]

Well, I still think it would be more relevant to discuss Arndt than Abrams.

But you don't see good scripts that have gone through seven writers.

Cough. Casablanca. Cough.

"...almost a mathematical law..."

Directors rarely get final cut. In fact they almost NEVER do on the kinda big budget action films we're talking about here.

I don't know how I could have been so foolish as to confuse the director and the editor.

Um. This post is completely lacking in the concept of "producers." Have you heard of them before?

Yes. If I think a big star can have more clout on the movie than the director, then it stands to reason I think a producer can have more clout too. But it does seem to be the case that some big name directors are hired to do many of the jobs that producers usually do. For less famed people, I think of Gore Vidal's line, "the director is the brother-in-law..." Of the producer.

There are certainly directors in Hollywood who have final cut (people like Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc.) but that is very, very rare. On popcorn stuff like action blockbusters and generic romantic comedies, the idea that the director has as much power as stj's post is laughable. It gives this entire system of how he or she thinks Hollywood works that's... completely lacking in producers. The most important people who are in charge of most films.

I am so ashamed for thinking that the director was the primary creator of movies. I guess I was confused by the seemingly very large number of movies where directors are also producers. I guess that means anyone who thinks the director is most important is stupid like me.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows how film works. I wonder who he or she thinks hires the directors and screenwriters?

Those mysterious people with various kinds of producer attached to their names in the credits do the hiring, I thought. I thought that they were extremely powerful but that it was actually a little hard to say what they actually do after they hire the creative people.

Also, the one credited screenwriter on the movie will likely have been handed a script that has had five different writers working on it already. They will trim the script for pacing, add a bunch of jokes and maybe a comic relief sidekick before being given full writing credit.

Hardly full creative control?

I am aware of this, but oddly am still inclined to think that this doesn't improve the script, despite rarities like Casablanca.

WHAT!? So little film is unscripted because uh.... everybody needs to know what they're doing before the day of filming? JJ Abrams can't arrive at the bridge set and be like "Uh, OK can everybody please sit still for 2 hours while I quickly come up with what everybody says, where everybody stands and what happens? Oh, and I'm not gonna write it down at all for any of you to learn. Sorry!".

Improvisation may not be possible for FX, but FX are not a movie. The point is, that a script is the beginning of a movie, brought to life by sets, costumes and actors (a director guiding the process) then edited and scored. As powerful as the producer is, mostly they don't actually write a script, film a shot, act a role, score a scene, edit a film or supervise the cast and crew down in the trenches actually bringing a script to life.

I think it's cause most people just have a vague idea of producers doing something with the money and the director is responsible for everything on screen, not realizing that if you and your production company own the film and put up the money for it, YOU'RE the one who's going to have final say to make sure you get your money back and that the film doesn't do anything crazy like kill off the lead's girlfriend. Again, there are exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions. In stj's illusion of how Hollywood works, it's some tug-and-pull war between scriptwriters and directors while completely misunderstanding what the people in those roles do.

I'm so ashamed of myself for arguing that directors are not the main creators of movies I can barely breathe. In my weakness I am rolling on the floor.

The belief that the director is the primary creator and the script is so much sausage is, near as I can tell, the main cause for Hollywood's powerful tendency towards mediocrity.

No. This couldn't be more opposite from what I believe. Hollywood is mediocre when the director isn't given enough power to put across their artistic vision. A film is great almost always because the director was given enough power to do what they wanted to do. It's mediocre because studio producers demand certain house styles and rules that can't be broken. There is no way in hell directors can be blamed for Hollywood's mediocrity.

To be serious (finally,) it's certainly true that producers have more power than directors, at least the ones who are just directors, and not producer/directors, or writer/directors, or cinematographer/director, or editor/director or even composer/director. And the director may not be the most important creative force in a movie, but he is at least one of the creators in a collective enterprise. Giving the director more creative input is probably a good thing.

Nonetheless, I don't think the director ordering a script chopped up into bits for random rewrites has made a movie great. Nor do I think that a great movie ever started with a mediocre script, much less a bad one.

 

[davejames]

It can happen with Abrams.. he has more clout than Whedon, has produced some profitable and generelly favorable reviewed movies and he's got a fitting style for such movies. The question is how much freedom has Abrams negotiated before signing the deal?

I hope it's a lot.. i don't want to ever see another Jar Jar or anything else in a Star Wars movie who's there to make the small kids laugh. There are better ways to do this as Pixar has proven. I'm confident that Abrams has worked out a good deal with Disney because he doesn't need Star Wars to bolster his rep but Disney needs a good reboot of the franchise and after Trek Abrams seems to be the man.

I certainly hope so. But then again Spielberg has all the clout and power in the world (probably more than any director there's ever been), and he still had to bow to Lucas and all his crazy ideas for Indy 4.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Yes but Lucas was his close friend.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But then again Spielberg has all the clout and power in the world (probably more than any director there's ever been), and he still had to bow to Lucas and all his crazy ideas for Indy 4.

He chose to bow to Lucas.

 

[kirk55555]

Unless you're implying that its a weird episode to dislike.

It's a fairly popular one, and is I think widely considered to be one of the better episodes of Voyager. There are certainly far more unpopular episodes of the series!!

I could see not liking that episode. I can't see disliking it worse than say Melora from DS9 or Sub Rosa from TNG though.

Sub Rosa was bad, and it would probably be in my top 3 worst episodes, but its not worse than Seven of Nine learning romance. I've only seen Melora once, a long time ago, and I remember I didn't hate it. I thought it was stupid, but not an episode I'd say is the worst. There were seveal bad Seven episodes that would make the worst list for me, like Human Error, which is a close second. It only doesn't win the title of worst episode because STWOM just happens to be the one I remember better, but if I watched them back to back, it would probably be really difficult to chose which is #1 or #2.

I've said it before, if it was between him and being dead, it should have died.

There was someone here whose screen name escapes me at the moment, but he kept moving the goal posts back in regards to the 2009 movie, to the point where he was adamant that Star Trek was meant to appeal to a small audience and lose money. You two would probably hit it off well.

It doesn't just need to appeal to only a few people, but does that mean it needs to be turned into a generic action movie just so that people that think Transformers 2 is awesome will pay money to see it? Is there no middle ground between intense Sci Fi for nerds and Transformers/Twilight? I think there is, and it could have been done and been profitable. Instead, we got a movie made for people that don't like confusing things like plot or characters that aren't assh*&%s (like new Uhura), emo cry babies (and i'm talking about Quintos with that comment, I refuse to call him Spock, Sulu was more emotionless in this movie), or just plain stupid (Kirk, Nero, Chekov, red shirts that literally kill themselves with stupidity, etc). I just need more than no plot, lensflares, and characters that have less depth than Transformers/Twilight characters in a Star trek movie.