jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

[SalvorHardin]

I thought someone from Paramount already said Bad Robot would be producing the third installment?

They did.

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.
Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”
“J.J. will continue to develop projects for us including a new ‘Mission: Impossible,’ and he is committed to produce another ‘Star Trek,’” Moore said Friday afternoon.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013...cting-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In the future all franchises are Disney's.

Here's looking to the next John Carter.

Here's looking to the next Avengers.

Here's a 1970s cult-classic TV show (video below) that could use re-booting with a film franchise.
It doesn't need to be Abrams, but it would be great if some studio finally gives this TV show a big-picture treatment (I've heard rumors about a possible film, but just rumors).

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvURidpkCY[/yt]

 

[ITL]

^ UFO was cheesy awesome. And The Cumberbatch's mum was in it, too.

 

[Hound of UIster]

In the future all franchises are Disney's.

Here's looking to the next John Carter.

One movie that I wish Disney would give a sequel to.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^ UFO was cheesy awesome.

The effects were all Gerry Anderson (Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlett, Space 1999), and they DID have a certain cheesiness, but in a good way. The show itself (story-wise) was often very well done.

And The Cumberbatch's mum was in it, too.

I just looked that up! I obviously remember Virginia Lake from UFO (she was one of the many hotties on that show), but I seriously had no idea that the actress (Wanda Ventham) was Cumberbatch's mother. I'm not sure how I ever missed that.

Thanks for that!


EDIT TO ADD:
Colonel Virginia Lake (Wanda Ventham -- Cumberbatch's mum):

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSwV7KJkw84[/yt]

.

 

[YARN]

It's looking more and more like Bad Robot may not be involved in Star Trek XIII....

From trekmovie.com, post #790: http://trekmovie.com/2013/01/24/the-force-is-with-jj-j-j-abrams-to-direct-next-star-wars-for-disney/

Disappointed is not exact;y the right word. We have been a great band over here, so it’s more bitter sweet when the band may to break up to do other things, simply because we’ve had so much fun. But doing other things is natural and healthy.

I think Star Trek will continue to grow beautifully, with or without us because there are so many people who love this franchise and have great stories to tell.

And to see my friend JJ achieve an impossible dream (cue music) brings genuine joy. He is one of the true good guys in the world.

Well, well, someone who is actually in the know acknowledges that this is a big change and that JJ is moving on to bigger and better things. But don't let that temper your flat denials and blind optimism.

LOL, see post #604 in that thread.

Seems like my "forbidden" metaphor has appeared there too.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In the future all franchises are Disney's.

Here's looking to the next John Carter.

One movie that I wish Disney would give a sequel to.

Did you like the first one, or are you hoping they do a better job the next time around?

Personally, I fondly remember the Edgar Rice Burroughs books (although I haven't read them in years) but didn't really like last year's film version all that much. I would like to see them make a sequel, but hopefully do a better job.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Well, well, someone who is actually in the know

You mean someone like the Paramount Vice Chairman?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.
Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013...cting-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

 

[YARN]

Well, well, someone who is actually in the know

You mean someone like the Paramount Vice Chairman?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.
Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013...cting-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

Wow, he will be involved "in some capacity" with a "possible" third film as a "producer" (executive, associate, producer in name only?). That statement says very little, really.

I'll take the reluctant testimony of a creative insider than the boiler-plate assurance of a studio suit in damage control mode.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well, well, someone who is actually in the know

You mean someone like the Paramount Vice Chairman?

According to Paramount Vice Chairman Rob Moore, Abrams — who directed both 2009′s “Star Trek” and the upcoming sequel “Star Trek Into Darkness” — will still be involved in some capacity with a possible third “Trek” movie, at the minimum as a producer, if not also directing the film.
Moore also pointed out that Abrams will continue to play a role in another of the studio’s most valuable franchises, “Mission: Impossible.”

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013...cting-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

Wow, he will be involved "in some capacity" with a "possible" third film as a "producer" (executive, associate, producer in name only?). That statement says very little, really.

I'll take the reluctant testimony of a creative insider than the boiler-plate assurance of a studio suit in damage control mode.

You really like spinning everything just to fit your argument, don't you?

 

[Anji]

I think its way too soon to say who will be directing future ST or SW movies until the ones that JJ have been contracted to do have been made.

Afterall, the proof is in the pudding. If these movies fail I bet both companies will find a way to release him from these contracts.

I would like say, though, if JJ is doing all these new, hot movies, that doesn't leave any room for any up and coming directors. Which is a pity. Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

And second, if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

 

[YARN]

You mean someone like the Paramount Vice Chairman?

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2013...cting-star-wars-what-happens-to-star-trek/#/0

Wow, he will be involved "in some capacity" with a "possible" third film as a "producer" (executive, associate, producer in name only?). That statement says very little, really.

I'll take the reluctant testimony of a creative insider than the boiler-plate assurance of a studio suit in damage control mode.

You really like spinning everything just to fit your argument, don't you?

No, I just like being on the right side of the argument.

John Elway, for example, offered a similar noncommittal/lukewarm assurance last year when he stated that Tim Tebow would be the starting quarterback going into training camp for the Broncos. This was as much as he could really say, and even so, they still traded the Tebow-circus to the Jets before training camp.

And reluctant testimony (e.g., Orci) really is more valuable, because it cuts against the grain of the bias of the witness. If mom testifies that her baby is a saint and would never hurt anyone, we shrug, because we expect that mother would be biased to protect her child. When mom, however, reluctantly testifies that her son is violent and vicious, we take note that this is probably true for if she were to lie she would lie in the other direction.

More JJ from same link:

“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things."

So much for loyalty. But hey, throw me a few million and I'll dump Star Trek as well.

 

[CorporalClegg]

From punchbowls to Tebow?

Are you for real?

 

[Tom Servo]

Wow, he will be involved "in some capacity" with a "possible" third film as a "producer" (executive, associate, producer in name only?). That statement says very little, really.

I'll take the reluctant testimony of a creative insider than the boiler-plate assurance of a studio suit in damage control mode.

You really like spinning everything just to fit your argument, don't you?

No, I just like being on the right side of the argument.

John Elway, for example, offered a similar noncommittal/lukewarm assurance last year when he stated that Tim Tebow would be the starting quarterback going into training camp for the Broncos. This was as much as he could really say, and even so, they still traded the Tebow-circus to the Jets before training camp.

And reluctant testimony (e.g., Orci) really is more valuable, because it cuts against the grain of the bias of the witness. If mom testifies that her baby is a saint and would never hurt anyone, we shrug, because we expect that mother would be biased to protect her child. When mom, however, reluctantly testifies that her son is violent and vicious, we take note that this is probably true for if she were to lie she would lie in the other direction.

And I could do with Bob Orci's quote the exact same thing you did to the other quote. The simple fact is, we don't know whats going to happen with the third film. Paramount doesn't know. Bob Orci doesn't know. All that IS known is that JJ is under contract with Paramount for a third film in some capacity Period. I would say most likely that JJ won't direct it, and that one of his directorial buddies like Matt Reeves will probably do it, while Abrams produces. Your continued insistence that it's all over and that Bad Robot and JJ are through with Trek, just because you think they are, and so it'll fit your random high school dance analogy, is tiresome.

 

[YARN]

From punchbowls to Tebow?

I know! How dare I use metaphors and examples. It's like I have a life and a knowledge base that exists outside of Star Trek or something.

Are you for real?

Are you? Do you have anything substantive to say? Or are you going to keep complaining about the form of the argument since it appears you cannot engage with the actual matter of the argument?

_________________________

And I could do with Bob Orci's quote the exact same thing you did to the other quote.

Then do so. Let's not talk about what you could do. Do it.

The simple fact is, we don't know whats going to happen with the third film.

To a certainty? No. Can we project what is likely? Yes.

Paramount doesn't know. Bob Orci doesn't know.

And this in itself would seem to cut against the grain against of that desperate optimism that everything is normal or better than ever.

All that IS known is that JJ is under contract with Paramount for a third film in some capacity Period.

"In some capacity" - which really shows how tenuously he is now linked with the film.

I would say most likely that JJ won't direct it,

There you go! We can say things after all! We have exceeded the "Period!" you so adamantly announced in the prior sentence. And I happen to agree with this prediction.

and that one of his directorial buddies like Matt Reeves will probably do it, while Abrams produces. Your continued insistence that it's all over and that Bad Robot and JJ are through with Trek,

When did I say this? Exactly? Hmm? I said that JJ will now be substantively focused on Star Wars. Your prediction coincided with my own. Why are we arguing?

just because you think they are, and so it'll fit your random high school dance analogy, is tiresome.

My argument does not stand on any metaphor, rather a metaphor serves to elucidate a relationship by comparison. It makes what should be obvious to others more perspicuous.

 

[Photoman15]

I think its way too soon to say who will be directing future ST or SW movies until the ones that JJ have been contracted to do have been made.

Afterall, the proof is in the pudding. If these movies fail I bet both companies will find a way to release him from these contracts.

I would like say, though, if JJ is doing all these new, hot movies, that doesn't leave any room for any up and coming directors. Which is a pity. Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

And second, if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

How do you figure this is a conflict of interest? Maybe to nerds around the world who can't like both ST & SW, but not to movie studios.
Directors are never tied down to one studio.
And it looks as if Bad Robot will still be co-producing the next Trek film (if there is one, and I assume there will be). No conflict of interest.

 

[The Wormhole]

Hell, Abrams was employed by Disney (working on Lost) when he first worked with Paramount on Mission Impossible and then moved onto Trek. Nothing new here, really.

 

[YARN]

I think its way too soon to say who will be directing future ST or SW movies until the ones that JJ have been contracted to do have been made.

Afterall, the proof is in the pudding. If these movies fail I bet both companies will find a way to release him from these contracts.

I would like say, though, if JJ is doing all these new, hot movies, that doesn't leave any room for any up and coming directors. Which is a pity. Being a creative all my life, I have always believed in giving new talent a chance...it's only fair.

And second, if I was Paramount and I found out what JJ was pulling, he'd be fired plain and simple. Working on these two movies is a conflict of interest and I, as a producer, would feel betrayed. It's about ethics. I'd even do it to Spielberg if did this to me.

How do you figure this is a conflict of interest? Maybe to nerds around the world who can't like both ST & SW, but not to movie studios.
Directors are never tied down to one studio.
And it looks as if Bad Robot will still be co-producing the next Trek film (if there is one, and I assume there will be). No conflict of interest.

TMP was made (rather than a new series) because Paramount wanted to compete with 20th Century Fox's hot new property. The whole reason Trek got into the film business was to compete with Star Wars.

Star Trek and Star Wars are most visible and lucrative sci-fi franchises in history. They are the Coke and Pepsi of Sci-Fi. Would it be a conflict of interest if the Chairman of marketing ofr Pepsi announced that he would be helming Coke's new marketing campaign?

There is an argument to be had that it is an ethical conflict of interest.

My contention, however, is that what really matters is that it does amount to a conflict in terms of time, creativity, and attention. Star Wars is HUGE. JJ will really need to focus on this property. Ethical or not, there are only so many hours in a day.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I know! How dare I use metaphors and examples.

Well conceived metaphors and analogies are always welcome.

It's like I have a life and a knowledge base that exists outside of Star Trek or something.

Good for you.

Are you? Do you have anything substantive to say? Or are you going to keep complaining about the form of the argument since it appears you cannot engage with the actual matter of the argument?

I engage plenty, and I attribute as much matter and substance as the argument necessitates, which is to say none.

My argument does not stand on any metaphor, rather a metaphor serves to elucidate a relationship by comparison. It makes what should be obvious to others more perspicuous.

Your argument doesn't stand on anything. That's the whole problem. You've made an ostentatious show of crying over the spilt milk. You can blame the cat, the wind, or Sid the wily dairy gnome. In the end you have to clean up and move on. The rest of us did that on Friday. Yet you continue to play the victim where there was no crime. Now the shit has curdled on the floor.

Move on, dude and find something better to occupy your time. At the very least, you can always hang with Tebow by the punchbowl and watch Sanchez do the tango with his career.

 

[royalfan5]

Except that Coke and Pepsi are perpetually locked in competition against each other in a wide variety of places at all times. A Trek Film and A Wars Film will likely never be released in anything resembling the same time slot. Plus, it's not like people are out there thinking that in the next two years I am only going to see one Sci-Fi movie, because the same guy is directing both.