The quotes from the post seem to be messed up, so I apologize for not quoting and responding.
I don't know what any of the other people's backgrounds are that post on this board, so I can't compare conclusively what my knowledge is versus everyone else.
All I can say is that based on the people I talk to on a somewhat regular basis at Paramount that is the case. Take it or leave it, it doesn't bother me. I am simply here like everyone else sharing my insight and the little bit that I know (or have been told). If being snarky about it entertains you, go for it. I'm all for snarky!
I discussed Berman's involvement at the beginning of Trek as more of a counter to what you implied was J.J. Abrams getting a blank slate and carte blanche to do what he likes on Star Trek. If I misread your implication, please forgive me. I did infer that from your statement of "J.J. Abrams signed his picture deal with the provision that he would get to make his Trek movie."
And just as an aside, I don't have the time to look it up, so I might be wrong, but I don't remember any reports out there that tied Abrams' current picture deal with Paramount to Star Trek or involving Star Trek. But maybe it's something I forgot about.
Fine. That's your opinion.
I think stating opinion is what the message boards are about, isn't it?
We don't know about any "directive" that was handed out to Abrams and you have yet to even prove that there is one.
I made a statement. Take it or leave it. I am not reporting here right now. I am being friendly and sharing some insight. I see you taking every single detail I shared about "Star Trek: The Beginning" as if it were gospel, without question and without having to prove anything. Yet a throwaway line where I stated there was a directive that goes contrary to your belief (no matter where it is based) that Abrams is the world's No. 1 Star Trek fan, and he's so powerful that he can create anything he wants, is wrong.
If Paramount was willing to give someone carte blanche, why are they accepting and rejecting scripts then? They had their "dream team" together two years ago with the likes of Jendresen and several others, but even they didn't get carte blanche.
And I like J.J. and all, but the only real commercial success he has had has been in television. He is still quite unproven when it comes to movies (see: Mission: Impossible III), so I would be utterly shocked if Paramount was going to give him the same freedoms they would give to someone like a Steven Spielberg (who, by the way, is probably the only director Paramount uses that can do whatever he wants).
You talked about J.J.'s studio contract -- something I have never seen -- would you care to share more details about it? Or is this "proving" thing and discussing opinions and insights as if they're fact only go one way?
If Abrams goes on record saying "Paramount wanted x,y, z" that's one thing.
Oh, I see. So, you're all about it not being real until Paramount brands it as real. Not sure why you're hanging around news sites like this then ... you can be completely satisfied reading the Paramount press release wire.
Berman certainly said as much during the production of some of his films.
Care to share some examples? If Rick Berman was so upfront about things when he was running the franchise ... then why is he writing a book being billed as a "tell-all"? Haven't we already been told all?
For all we know Paramount gave Abrams the keys and let him drive the Jag.
Maybe he did. No one has ever reflected that much to me from Paramount, but it doesn't mean it's not true.
But I highly, highly, highly doubt it. That might be a fan's dream, but it's not how business -- especially Hollywood business -- works.
The truth is probably in the middle somewhere, but you're not Paramount and you are presenting opinions as fact.
Am I? Might it be because it IS fact?
In the whole Series V development process, Paramount was open to all ideas, as long as they involved a starship with the name "Enterprise" on it. That was their directive for the series and it was very much intended for the series to take over the movie franchise from TNG (although Paramount thought that TNG would last a little longer at the box office than they did).
That's very different from what said in your previous post, but at least what you said has been documented by reputable sources.
I'm sorry ... in what way? I just looked back at my previous post (I assume you are talking about this one:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8004266#Post8004266) but I don't see anything that contradicts what you quoted above. Could you please elaborate? Thanks!
You aren't in the "Business." You write a sci-fi blog. The fact that any of these people would even talk to you about any inside info is a testament to your success with your endeavours, but don't kid yourself.
Well, I don't know how you define "business" in Number6-Land, but in my world, "business" is defined as an action which generates income.
SyFy Portal is owned by an incorporated entity. We have advertising revenue that generates decent flows of income into said business. To me, that would qualify as a business. I certainly don't do the site for my health.
Hate to hear what your opinion is of TrekToday. I would count them as a news site "in the business," but then again, that's how I look at us.
Again..a very solid opinion, but as far as we've been told
Told by who?
Abrams stint at the helm is a one shot and it's success will indicate whether or not more films get made in the immediate future.
Oh that's right, because Paramount conditionally looking at expanding the franchise into future films isn't the same as Paramount looking to possibly expand the franchise into a long-term concept.
According to all sources,
All? I'm sorry, you just spent this entire post trying to deride not only me but my "blog" as you call it ... yet you are providing absolute quantities? "All" means there are zero others ... can you show me how you came to that conclusion, because that would state not only a fact, but a fact that cannot be disputed.
I might just run a "blog," but in journalism, we would consider that a big no-no.
Paramount had no immediate plans to trot out any more Trek, until Abrams pitched his idea and that pitch was part of his deal to produce other films for Paramount.
I am curious to who "all" these sources are. And like I said above, I can't remember when Abrams signed his new development deal, and I have not seen the development deal, so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it.
But since I don't want to leave you hanging, I found out that Abrams signed his deal both with Paramount and Warner Bros. in June 2006. In Wikipedia's listing of the information, it cites as its source CTV:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st...b=Entertainment
Nothing there indicates any Trek connection at all. Wouldn't that automatically discount "all sources," or is CTV not a source?
But who knows. Maybe Wikipedia is wrong. I mean, they also say that Abrams was announced as part of the Trek movie team in April 2006, three months before he signed a new production deal with Paramount, which would make your statements of Abrams saying "This is my movie, and I want it my way" as part of the deal to be unlikely.
And even with your blustering about how important you think you are there still is nothing to suggest that the directive you insist on even exists.
Nor is there anything to suggest that I am "blustering about how important" I am.
If you want to be rude, go somewhere else. There were some questions in this thread dating back a month or so, and since I was the main reporter covering that incarnation of Star Trek and armed with answers to questions, I came here.
But if me adding to the discussion is going to be met with rudeness, then I won't bother to do it again.
There is one thing to question information I provide. I was fine with that. What I am NOT fine with is personally attacking me ("blustering" about my importance? Referring to our news operation as a "sci-fi blog"?) That was not needed.
