• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

S.J. Clarkson To Direct Next Star Trek Movie, First Female Director in (Movie) Franchise’s History

Status
Not open for further replies.
Linn had no experience with Trek but didn't he direct some of the "Fast and Furious" movies? Those things seem to be able to print money so why his hiring might not have been seen as a positive to Trek fans because nobody wants Trek to be "Fast and the Furious" I can see how those movies might be a selling point to some casual fans.

Directors aren't always hired based solely on what specific things they've done before. What they've worked on is generally not as important to the people hiring them as how they've worked on it -- how good a job they've done at getting the work done on time and within the budget, acting professionally on set and in meetings, getting along well with their coworkers, all sorts of behind-the-scenes things aside from what the audience sees on the screen. Sometimes it's also about networking -- who you know, who you trust, who you've been wanting to work with, who goes to the same gym or enrolls their kids in the same day care as you, etc. That's why film or TV creators can often still get work after a big flop -- because they aren't assessed based on a single gig, but rather on their whole career record. Publicity and popularity can be a factor, but it's not the only factor.
 
No, neither Wise, Baird, Abrams, or Lin had any prior Trek experience either. Counting Clarkson, that's 6 directors without prior Trek experience and 4 directors with -- and of the "with," only two had actual directing experience on Trek. So it's dead wrong to claim that prior experience with Trek is the norm

But Wise, Abrams, Lin and Baird all had major motion picture experience before Paramount handed them a movie with the kind of budget and scope that this film should have. Yes I understand they all had to start somewhere but like I've said it just makes me uneasy.

And the fact that people generally like Meyer's work on Trek should disprove the idea that prior experience is necessary. It's really bizarre to me that so many fans assume that someone hired to do a job would be incapable of learning how to do it if they didn't know already.

Trek got vary lucky with Nick Meyer and hopefully it happens again. It takes time to learn how to do a job the right way, and we aren't talking about learning how to change the oil on a car here we're talking about directing a big film, I would think a lot of it is instinct. We've seen where the director or writer thought he had the right idea because he was a fan boy or didn't really know Trek at all but then ended up giving us a stupid film, case in point Nemesis! Sometimes we get a Nick Meyer and sometimes we get a John Logan or a Stuart Baird.

You get hired to do a job, you do a period of training. You do research. You learn the things you're obligated to learn in order to do the job.

Some people might but she's already a trained TV director so maybe she already thinks she knows what she's doing and maybe she does maybe she doesn't we will see. Hopefully she's not a fan Girl who thinks she already knows Trek and does do the research and think a lot about the film.

I mean, come on, look at S.J. Clarkson's sizeable filmography. She's worked on dozens of different series on two continents over the past 16 years. Obviously she knows how to adapt to a new series or franchise. She didn't need to have prior Marvel experience to do acclaimed work on Jessica Jones and The Defenders, so why should she need prior Star Trek experience to do well on Trek?

I did look at her IMDB before I posted on this tread and what I saw was that she's directed a lot of TV and no major motion picture projects which is why I feel the way I do about it.

I respect your opinion Christopher and kind of understand where you're coming from but nothing you've said makes me feel any better about this and something tells me we aren't going to see eye to eye on this so how about we don't keep going round and round with it.
 
Some people might but she's already a trained TV director so maybe she already thinks she knows what she's doing and maybe she does maybe she doesn't we will see. Hopefully she's not a fan Girl who thinks she already knows Trek and does do the research and think a lot about the film.

Oh, now you're really reaching for arbitrary excuses to be negative. Give it a rest.


I did look at her IMDB before I posted on this tread and what I saw was that she's directed a lot of TV and no major motion picture projects which is why I feel the way I do about it.

And you know what? TV these days is much, much better than movies. It's smarter, richer, more creative, more inclusive, more innovative. The only advantage movies have is money, and that often leads to self-indulgent spectacle at the expense of story. I have more faith in a director who's only done TV than I have in one who's only done feature films. It's no coincidence that several of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's best directors came from a TV background. TV storytelling makes movies better. And Star Trek is a franchise that's always been better on TV than in movies.
 
Oh, now you're really reaching for arbitrary excuses to be negative. Give it a rest.

Not reaching for anything just stating a what if because every situation is different and I Lets not forget that all I said was I felt uneasy about a director that didn't have any motion picture experience which is nothing more then my feelings on it, then you tried to school me on it as if I was wrong but I'm not anymore wrong then you are because these things are just our opinions on this matter. Also the give it a rest thing is really not necessary at all, I'm sorry if your upset over it, you should know that I'm not and never was I just don't see a reason for us to keep going round and round on it.

And you know what? TV these days is much, much better than movies. It's smarter, richer, more creative, more inclusive, more innovative. The only advantage movies have is money, and that often leads to self-indulgent spectacle at the expense of story. I have more faith in a director who's only done TV than I have in one who's only done feature films. It's no coincidence that several of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's best directors came from a TV background. TV storytelling makes movies better. And Star Trek is a franchise that's always been better on TV than in movies.

I couldn't agree more. Some TV shows in this day and age are better then a lot of the crap movies we get but you keep bring up Marvel as an example. Star Trek is a very different thing then a Marvel TV show or movie and I would argue that it should and does have a vary different feeling and tone then a marvel film or TV show. So just because you can adapt from a show like Orange is the new black to Jessica Jones and be good at both doesn't mean you can go from Jessica Jones to Star Trek and make a good Trek film. Being good at one doesn't mean being good at the other every show is different and Star Trek is not like Orange is the new Black or Jessica Jones.
 
because these things are just our opinions on this matter.

No, they're not "just" opinions. They're pre-emptive rejections of someone who's done nothing to deserve them. They're part of a culture of exclusion, gatekeeping, and hostility to new members and new ideas that's poisoned modern genre fandom. And to hear such attitudes directed toward a female director in particular is very disturbing, given the climate of harassment and abuse women in fandom and media are routinely subjected to by people who don't want them there.

Star Trek is supposed to be about approaching the new and different with wonder and open-mindedness, not resistance and suspicion. It's supposed to be about breaking new ground and welcoming diverse members into the community, both in-story and in real life. Would it kill you to be a little optimistic? To give someone a fair chance rather than making up reasons to expect them to fail?
 
My unease isn't with Ms. Clarkson, it is with what kind of stamp she's going to be able to put on this movie. Is this a case where the script is pretty much locked down and she's simply following the writers lead (much like the Berman films), or is she going to be able to revise the script as she sees fit.
 
The first film with a big ship about to destroy earth
The second film with Khan
The third film where the enterprise gets destroyed
The fourth film where there's time travel

Let's just hope they skip film number 5!!!
I'll give you Into Darkness, but you're really reaching to compare the other films.
 
No, they're not "just" opinions. They're pre-emptive rejections of someone who's done nothing to deserve them.

You can call it what you want a feeling or an opinion or whatever but I'm entitled to feel the way I do about it just like you and there's nothing you can do about it. I haven't rejected anyone so stop trying to clam that I have all I said in my first post was it made me a little uneasy and I'm sorry that the fact that Paramount hired someone with no big movie experience does. You're the one that is now turning it into a sexist thing not me and I get it now you're the crusader that has to defend women's right and that's the real reason you just can't let it go even though I've tried two time already to get you to stop, It could be a guy and I would feel the same way. For the record my boss is female and I've worked for her for years. I don't have a problem working for women and this isn't about gender it's about experience, I never said I wasn't going to give her a chance to prove me wrong in fact I've said I hope my feeling is proven wrong. I can't help but wonder which one of us is really the sexist one since you're the one who's mind automatically jumped to the conclusion that I feel the way I feel because she's female.

Star Trek is supposed to be about approaching the new and different with wonder and open-mindedness, not resistance and suspicion. It's supposed to be about breaking new ground and welcoming diverse members into the community, both in-story and in real life.

Thanks for telling me what Star Trek is all about I had no idea and I've only been a fan for 35 years!!

Would it kill you to be a little optimistic? To give someone a fair chance rather than making up reasons to expect them to fail?

I'm sorry at what point did I say I was boycotting this movie or not giving her a chance to prove me wrong? and at what point did I make up reason to expect her to fail? all I've done is counter you're points with my own but nothing I've said was a made up fact. Also you don't know me or anything about me so give it up. I'm sorry I'm not backing down but you really need to stop trying to bully people into agreeing with you, everyone can have an opinion and it doesn't have to be the same as yours. You've blown this hole thing way out of proportion by jumping to conclusions about why I feel the way I do about it, again YOU DON"T KNOW ME so give it a rest.

You can reply if you want but you're now on my ignore list so I won't see it, sorry I have better things to do with my time then argue with you.
 
Last edited:
No, they're not "just" opinions. They're pre-emptive rejections of someone who's done nothing to deserve them. They're part of a culture of exclusion, gatekeeping, and hostility to new members and new ideas that's poisoned modern genre fandom. And to hear such attitudes directed toward a female director in particular is very disturbing, given the climate of harassment and abuse women in fandom and media are routinely subjected to by people who don't want them there.

Star Trek is supposed to be about approaching the new and different with wonder and open-mindedness, not resistance and suspicion. It's supposed to be about breaking new ground and welcoming diverse members into the community, both in-story and in real life. Would it kill you to be a little optimistic? To give someone a fair chance rather than making up reasons to expect them to fail?
Yeh!
 
Any excuse to put two of the three best Chris' on screen is fine by me. Maybe Captain America can make some sort of cameo for the trifecta?

Holodeck comics, perhaps? :lol:

But seriously folks, hooray for more Kelvin Trek. Tarantino's pitch is never going to get made.

Star Trek The Three Tenors
starring
Chris Pine as James T Kirk
Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk Snr
Chris Evans as George Kirk Jnr
 
If the trend towards "we (aka Humans, Earth, Federation) are the problem, not the other" (Khan, Marcus, Krall) continues, we might see Janice Lester as villainess in this one.
Nah this Federation does not have a issue with female captains (Although in STID were all those admirals humans males? mmmmm)
 
You can call it what you want a feeling or an opinion or whatever but I'm entitled to feel the way I do about it just like you and there's nothing you can do about it. I haven't rejected anyone so stop trying to clam that I have all I said in my first post was it made me a little uneasy and I'm sorry that the fact that Paramount hired someone with no big movie experience does. You're the one that is now turning it into a sexist thing not me and I get it now you're the crusader that has to defend women's right and that's the real reason you just can't let it go even though I've tried two time already to get you to stop, It could be a guy and I would feel the same way. For the record my boss is female and I've worked for her for years. I don't have a problem working for women and this isn't about gender it's about experience, I never said I wasn't going to give her a chance to prove me wrong in fact I've said I hope my feeling is proven wrong. I can't help but wonder which one of us is really the sexist one since you're the one who's mind automatically jumped to the conclusion that I feel the way I feel because she's female.

[ ... ]

Thanks for telling me what Star Trek is all about I had no idea and I've only been a fan for 35 years!!

[ ... ]

I'm sorry at what point did I say I was boycotting this movie or not giving her a chance to prove me wrong? and at what point did I make up reason to expect her to fail? all I've done is counter you're points with my own but nothing I've said was a made up fact. Also you don't know me or anything about me so give it up. I'm sorry I'm not backing down but you really need to stop trying to bully people into agreeing with you, everyone can have an opinion and it doesn't have to be the same as yours. You've blown this hole thing way out of proportion by jumping to conclusions about why I feel the way I do about it, again YOU DON"T KNOW ME so give it a rest.
The time for you to have given it a rest was before making a post like this.

Nothing in any of @Christopher 's responses to your posts in this thread was attacking you personally. He took exception to statements you made, and he offered arguments against them. That is the way discussion is supposed to work.

In the post above, you've clearly taken those criticisms personally when they were not intended as such, and you've responded with personal attacks against @Christopher (bolded passages). This is something you shouldn't do.

Address, argue against, even attack the substance of the post, and you'd be OK. Never, under any circumstances, are you to attack the person making the post.

Post, not poster.

You can reply if you want but you're now on my ignore list so I won't see it, sorry I have better things to do with my time then argue with you.
This is another no-no (underlined passage).

Announcing that you're putting another poster on Ignore can and sometimes will be warnable as trolling. Since you're new, I'll let this stand as a caution only, but you really want to avoid repeating the mistake.
 
I've been on online forums since their inception. I've never seen a bigger bully than you moderate any kind of forum, who takes such obvious delight in thesee humiliating shows in public where you generally imperiously announce that they aren't allowed to talk back. Christ, just send a PM and stop being so appalling to human beings talking about a fun franchise.
 
The first film with a big ship about to destroy earth
The second film with Khan
The third film where the enterprise gets destroyed
The fourth film where there's time travel

Let's just hope they skip film number 5!!!
If anyone can make Spock's crazy half brother and a quest to find God in the centre of the galaxy AWESOME, it's Quentin Tarantino. And it looks like he's doing the next film after this one. So I say, go for it!
 
I've been on online forums since their inception. I've never seen a bigger bully than you moderate any kind of forum, who takes such obvious delight in these humiliating shows in public where you generally imperiously announce that they aren't allowed to talk back. Christ, just send a PM and stop being so appalling to human beings talking about a fun franchise.
There was nothing bullying or humiliating said in M'Sharak's post. He was simply doing his job as a mod, and was in fact being lenient and giving the poster a "friendly" for something which can result in an infraction if continued.

We are instructed to make our mod admonishments and infractions public for the sake of transparency and because they aren't purely aimed at the person receiving the friendly warning or infraction, but rather at everyone so they can see what behavior to avoid in the future.

The "Comments to PM" remarks you are referring to (though it wasn't said here) is specifically to avoid thread derailing tangents, and grandstanding against mod actions in the wrong venue. The poster is not being told to shut up, they are being told to take it to the proper first step in the process of pleading your case or making a complaint about a moderator action.

Now, let's please move on and drop this tangent before it derails the thread further, and bear in mind that no infraction was given, so it's really not worth making a big deal out of.
 
If anyone can make Spock's crazy half brother and a quest to find God in the centre of the galaxy AWESOME, it's Quentin Tarantino. And it looks like he's doing the next film after this one. So I say, go for it!

I'm not a fan of Tarantino. But then I'm not a fan of Final Frontier either, so maybe it will work.

Ok the other hand I find Insurrection the best TNG film, voyage home the best TOS film, and Beyond the best kelvin film, so I'm not a "normal" person.
 
I dont think anyone would be out to remake TFF, but could there be elements of it worth saving?
Vulcans are now a small and limited diaspora, possibly vulnerable to some leader like Sybok on the periphery of the federation.
 
Ok the other hand I find Insurrection the best TNG film, voyage home the best TOS film, and Beyond the best kelvin film, so I'm not a "normal" person.

I think a lot of people consider The Voyage Home one of the best TOS films, at least. It and TWOK are the two favorites, usually. I'm more of an oddball for liking TMP best. And for liking Nemesis.

I do agree that Beyond is the best Kelvin film. And INS is an underrated TNG film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top