But it's still "his"? Most people would blame that one on its director.
Trek's future according to Paramount's new owners...
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Yep. It's his. Pretty much everyone accepts that Abrams was responsible for the third trilogy, making it "his".
Everyone except you, apparently.
Just walk away from it, man. Be an adult, own the "L" and move on. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Everyone except you, apparently.
Just walk away from it, man. Be an adult, own the "L" and move on. It really isn't that big of a deal.
This doesn't work, either.
I don't either. He has said explicitly Johnson made choices he wouldn't have made with the script. Sounds pretty clearly like he doesn't consider it his either. If anything, I think his not making the second one is what caused so many problems, there wasn't a clear vision going through all three movies. So the second one was what it was, then the third one had to pick up from there, which as Abrams has said is not where he would have left it.
IDK why they would do that if they were going to extend his contract, after the S31 debacle.
If they were going to extend his contract, it would make more sense to give him a short-term extension and have him on a very tight leash by making him focus exclusively on streaming movies and increase the output of them. And demand that he prove to them he can make good streaming movies before being allowed Paramount Pictures.
Paramount probably wants to mitigate risk, and would not want to have any box office bombs under Kurtzman.
Just a reminder, it's NOT Paramount anymore in anything but name.
Skydance is in charge now, all new people making the decisions.
Another reminder, the new CEO of the Paramount Name, is pals with Mr. Kurtzman.
We don't know anything for now, but it seems likely that Mr. Ellison will probably hang on to the guy that he's friends with and has managed to keep the Star Trek IP in the public eye for almost a decade now.
(BTW: Section-31 may have been a clunker, but everything else since the start of DISCOVERY has been very popular with the fans)
Just saying.
Last edited:
Because they'll look at the entire picture rather than one tiny part.
Save the overreaction for fans.I can't imagine Ellison saying, "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" after ONE clunker.
Whatever decision is made about Kurtzman's future, Section 31 will not factor in the decision making at all. Everyone stumbles occasionally, one stumble doesn't end careers.
I think some folks have ignored the fact that Section-31 pretty much ran afoul of the TMP condition.
It started out as a multi-episode series and got forced into a 90 minute movie.
We were lucky with The Motion Picture in that it had been a decade of only reruns beforehand and the fans were hungry for more new Trek adventures.
It was received at the time, mostly with applause from the fandom and did well enough to get Paramount to continue making movies.
Section-31 came at a time when a lot of fandom was Hellbent on wanting things to line up with their own particular headcanon.
(it doesn't excuse the clunkiness of the movie, but it does explain much of the fandom reaction)
It started out as a multi-episode series and got forced into a 90 minute movie.
We were lucky with The Motion Picture in that it had been a decade of only reruns beforehand and the fans were hungry for more new Trek adventures.
It was received at the time, mostly with applause from the fandom and did well enough to get Paramount to continue making movies.
Section-31 came at a time when a lot of fandom was Hellbent on wanting things to line up with their own particular headcanon.
(it doesn't excuse the clunkiness of the movie, but it does explain much of the fandom reaction)
Not to mention several elements of the fandom actively wanting to hate any new entry into the franchise's current era and certainly wanting to hate anything with direct ties to Discovery.
If Hollywood was so cutthroat to kill a career after a single failure, we'd have never heard of folks like Alfred Hitchcock or Steven Spielberg beyond a footnote in a book about cinema history.
Everyone has their bombs (Spielberg had 1941. Lucas had Howard the Duck and More American Graffiti. Coppola had Jack.)
Oh, Coppola has had more than a few, like One From the Heart. It failed so hard, it closed his Zoetrope Studios in LA.
I wouldn’t consider 1941 a bomb, per se. It’s been quite a long time since I’ve seen it but I always thought it was pretty good.
It's a lot better than its reputation. Even financially, 1941 wasn't a flop by a damn sight; it just didn't make Jaws or Close Encounters levels of money.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
