#BringinRiker

[Shaka Zulu]

Never heard of the other directors. The films they've directed, I know about, but not them or if they have the skills. Lin seems he's little more than a pop video director, so he surely has to be out unless Paramount are aiming very low.

I imagine the Fast and Furious films are technically very demanding plus he seems to get good work from the actors. How is getting someone like that "aiming very low"?

That's true. They are technically demanding from the stunts (and filming of) perspective, but the Fast and Furious films are what they are: car stunts, titties, and little else. Put it this way, would you want Michael Bay directing the next Trek film? As a massive 80s Transformers fan, even I'm sick of what he's done to the franchise. Brilliant first film (probably due to Spielberg's influence), I've always given him that, but the rest were utter shite.

Lin directs films with little storyline, dialogue or depth, just like Bay. Turn up pissed with your mates to the 11pm showing, pay your money and unplug your brain for 2 hours. He should use his talents where they're likely to be appreciated. I don't think that "where" is the Trek franchise.

Why is it that you and a lot of other people can't get that Star Trek's always been an action franchise?

 

[2takesfrakes]

... Frakes might be too old to be changing gears, though.

He may yet chance upon another opportunity, somewhere, somehow and have another flash in the pan that gets people talking about what else he might be capable of, as a director. But ... when First Contact succeeded so spectacularly, that was when he should've made his mark, but that didn't happen. "Almost" only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. It's great, though, to see that fans are still so supportive of him - that they really appreciate his contributions to STAR TREK. Unfortunately, that does not equate to being the "right" director for a franchise like this reboot.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Why is it that you and a lot of other people can't get that Star Trek's always been an action franchise?

Action/adventure, please...at least there's room in "adventure" for the wonder that Trek at least occasionally tries to inspire.

Star Trek has never *just* been bang bang shoot shoot, even in cases where the less active sections of the stories were less successful.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Why is it that you and a lot of other people can't get that Star Trek's always been an action franchise?

That would be because Star Trek was never an action film franchise until Paramount gave it to Abrams.

Purely out of interest, and because I'm desperate to see you try and justify your comment, which of the TOS and TNG movies do see as being action films? And I mean action in the same way that say Die Hard is an action film.

That reminds me. Must get my Die Hard Blu-ray out for Christmas Eve. I always promise myself I'll watch it Christmas Eve, but never do.

 

[Cyke101]

Why is it that you and a lot of other people can't get that Star Trek's always been an action franchise?

That would be because Star Trek was never an action film franchise until Paramount gave it to Abrams.

Purely out of interest, and because I'm desperate to see you try and justify your comment, which of the TOS and TNG movies do see as being action films? And I mean action in the same way that say Die Hard is an action film.

That reminds me. Must get my Die Hard Blu-ray out for Christmas Eve. I always promise myself I'll watch it Christmas Eve, but never do.

First Contact was very specifically meant to be an action film, with no less than five firefights/action pieces going on. It also gave birth to Action Picard, who during the climax of VIII - X seemed to be the opposite of TV Picard, ready to shoot and punch his way to victory.

Nemesis had almost too much action for it (I love ship battles as much as the next guy, but that went on for too long and was pretty boring, like a Zack Snyder fight).

But with that said, the original version of First Contact had Picard helping Cochrane on Earth (A-Plot) while Riker tried to defend the Enterprise (B-Plot). Stewart asked that their roles be switched, and it also gave Frakes more time for his directing duties. But since Picard is the movie's emphasis, that meant that defending the Enterprise became the movie's focus, so action took over.

And from Wikipedia's entry:

Action film is a film genre in which one or more heroes are thrust into a series of challenges that typically include physical feats, extended fight scenes, violence, and frantic chases. Action films tend to feature a resourceful character struggling against incredible odds, which include life-threatening situations, a villain, or a pursuit which generally concludes in victory for the hero.

...Trek movie history has had plenty of those elements, albeit a little low on the frantic chases (though Riker and LaForge chasing Cochrane had comic violence with the phaser blast). That second sentence in there also strongly reminds me of Kirk from the Search for Spock.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Picard always had Convenient Action Hero Timing -- a handful of episodes cast him in the role. What was that one with him fending off pirates on the ship or something? "Starship Mine", maybe? That always springs to mind, even if I can't recall its details.

But yeah, VIII onward standardized it. I never really thought much about it though. Figured there were plenty of calmer more episodic adventures happening for him between films. All we were seeing at that point in the journey were the more explosive "two-parters."

Nice Snyder jab though, ha.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

 

[BillJ]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

I still don't get it? Michael Bay films are action films, Die Hard movies are "action films". I think the Abrams films fit squarely with the "films with action" category.

If people are getting out of joint thinking the Abrams films are "action films" then they will stroke out if someone like Bay ever gets ahold of the franchise.

 

[Cyke101]

Since Die Hard keeps getting mentioned, I'd like to throw it out there that Die Hard changed the game when it came to action films. But still, aside from TMP and TVH, the average pre-Abrams Trek film had as much action as, say, the French Connection, which was still a kinetic action movie, just nowhere near the scale of Die Hard. So comparing any Hollywood movie to Die Hard in terms of action seems to be ill-fitting, as if comparing any drama to The Grapes of Wrath was ever useful.

Energy blasts, exploding starships, fist fights, high-stakes tension -- that's definitely action. By comparison, the Blues Brothers has absolutely no fist fighting and and just one or two explosions, but it's classically listed as an action comedy (now, watching hundreds of Starfleet vessels crash endlessly into each other while trying to get Kirk who just stole the Enterprise -- I'll gladly watch that).

 

[Amaris]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

"For all time."

Yes, both movies, and now infinity has passed, the heat death of the universe has occurred, and the atoms that still remember way, way, way back, beyond the before times, to the age of wondrous photons, where the universe moved, and expanded, and soared outward, thrusting into the aether, before the age of J.J., when Star Trek wasn't an action film.

For all time.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Yep. To add to your point, Lin's first movie single-handedly saved the franchise. The second movie performed badly, and if the third movie followed suit, it would've been over. There wouldn't be a fourth movie, and thus subsequent movies, without Lin.

Nonsense. F&F movies are pro-wrestling for the big screen. No one cares if there's a good or bad director. What saved the "franchise" is Paul Walker and his decision to drive 90mph on a city street.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

"For all time."

Yes, both movies, and now infinity has passed, the heat death of the universe has occurred, and the atoms that still remember way, way, way back, beyond the before times, to the age of wondrous photons, where the universe moved, and expanded, and soared outward, thrusting into the aether, before the age of J.J., when Star Trek wasn't an action film.

For all time.

Yeah... 'Cause they're so going back to the way things used to be. That's sure to do well at the box office.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

I still don't get it? Michael Bay films are action films, Die Hard movies are "action films". I think the Abrams films fit squarely with the "films with action" category.

If people are getting out of joint thinking the Abrams films are "action films" then they will stroke out if someone like Bay ever gets ahold of the franchise.

Like the movies or not, they're definitely more like action films than the past films used to be. There's nothing wrong with that though. Most sci-fi films are pretty much action films these days with exceptions like MOON or INTERSTELLAR. The studios feel that if the Star Trek brand is to survive, they should be more like action films. Or, more specifically, like STAR WARS and get the kind of appeal that franchise has.

 

[Amaris]

I think that, prior to NuTrek, Star Trek movies in general could be considered "films with action", rather than "action films". But yes, Trek 09 pretty much codified those expectations for all time.

"For all time."

Yes, both movies, and now infinity has passed, the heat death of the universe has occurred, and the atoms that still remember way, way, way back, beyond the before times, to the age of wondrous photons, where the universe moved, and expanded, and soared outward, thrusting into the aether, before the age of J.J., when Star Trek wasn't an action film.

For all time.

Yeah... 'Cause they're so going back to the way things used to be. That's sure to do well at the box office.

You don't understand, mortal, it will be for all time.

 

[Cyke101]

Yep. To add to your point, Lin's first movie single-handedly saved the franchise. The second movie performed badly, and if the third movie followed suit, it would've been over. There wouldn't be a fourth movie, and thus subsequent movies, without Lin.

Nonsense. F&F movies are pro-wrestling for the big screen. No one cares if there's a good or bad director. What saved the "franchise" is Paul Walker and his decision to drive 90mph on a city street.

Yet the studio kept bringing Justin Lin back for sequel after sequel, and now his name gets thrown around for projects like the next Bourne movie, the next Star Trek, and the next season of True Detective. There's a bit more going on there than just a brand seemingly healing itself; a bit more calculated than a flash in the pan. Paramount, and Hollywood in general, believes he can maintain consistency, that he can take the ball and run with it.

Like the movies or not, they're definitely more like action films than the past films used to be. There's nothing wrong with that though. Most sci-fi films are pretty much action films these days with exceptions like MOON or INTERSTELLAR.

Without spoiling anything, Interstellar has one action sequence that really felt shoehorned in and out of place. Other than that, I fully agree with you that there's nothing wrong with keeping Trek more action-oriented.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Why is it that you and a lot of other people can't get that Star Trek's always been an action franchise?

That would be because Star Trek was never an action film franchise until Paramount gave it to Abrams.

Purely out of interest, and because I'm desperate to see you try and justify your comment, which of the TOS and TNG movies do see as being action films? And I mean action in the same way that say Die Hard is an action film.

That reminds me. Must get my Die Hard Blu-ray out for Christmas Eve. I always promise myself I'll watch it Christmas Eve, but never do.

Star Trek was always an action franchise from the pilot episode and the previous movies (WOK, TSFS, FF, TUC, Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection.) And let's face facts-it's a space opera, not hard sci-fi like 2001. People just want to be in denial, but they know this is true, and even Roddenberry pitched it to NBC thusly Just because one movie was like 2001 doesn't mean it is like 2001. And at least Into Darkness focused on a rea-world concern about terrorism and 9/11.

 

[Smellmet]

What saved the "franchise" is Paul Walker and his decision to drive 90mph on a city street.

Bullshit. Fast & Furious 6 grossed 788 million dollars worldwide well before Walker's death.

 

[Admiral Bear]

Just to throw this out there, aside from Nemesis and Insurrection, for Trek films for which there are available budget figures, Trek doesn't gross more than 3 times its budget at the worldwide box office.

TWOK cost $11.2m and grossed $79m US domestic. The most successful Trek film in history.

Generations cost $35m and grossed $118m

First Contact - no budget figure (assuming $40m), grossed $146m

JJ Trek cost $150m, grossed $385m

Into Darkness cost $190m and grossed $467m

It's clear from these figures that if you spend more money on a Trek film, you don't make any more profit. A $150m film doesn't give you any greater profit than a $40m film. It even gives you less. Unless the next film stinks, I'm not sure it matters who directs it. We could all go to film making school for a few months and then direct it. The film still wouldn't take more than 2.5 times its budget.

Abrams hasn't opened Trek up to the masses with his wider appeal and action film approach. He's just twice been given a fat budget and got reasonably lucky.

 

[Amaris]

Just to throw this out there, aside from Nemesis and Insurrection, for Trek films for which there are available budget figures, Trek doesn't gross more than 3 times its budget at the worldwide box office.

TWOK cost $11.2m and grossed $79m US domestic. The most successful Trek film in history.

Generations cost $35m and grossed $118m

First Contact - no budget figure (assuming $40m), grossed $146m

JJ Trek cost $150m, grossed $385m

Into Darkness cost $190m and grossed $467m

It's clear from these figures that if you spend more money on a Trek film, you don't make any more profit. A $150m film doesn't give you any greater profit than a $40m film. It even gives you less. Unless the next film stinks, I'm not sure it matters who directs it. We could all go to film making school for a few months and then direct it. The film still wouldn't take more than 2.5 times its budget.

Abrams hasn't opened Trek up to the masses with his wider appeal and action film approach. He's just twice been given a fat budget and got reasonably lucky.

You have nothing with which to back this up. Seriously, guy, J.J. made two critically and financially successful films that gained wide popularity. It happened. Saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

 

[Devon]

Abrams hasn't opened Trek up to the masses with his wider appeal and action film approach. He's just twice been given a fat budget and got reasonably lucky.

So who are under the impression bought tickets? Or did the money just "show up?" That's almost what it sounds like you're saying.