Would anybody like to be J.J. Abrams if... it tanks ?

Will he be derided and spat upon all the days of his life ? or will he be relegated to sweeping floors in a Walmart in South Dakota the rest of his days ? Will he and Berman hid their faces in disgrace and shame for all the millions of dollars have been poured into this production or is he that sure of what he is doing that nothing can go wrong ?

 

I wouldn't want to be J.J. Abrams even if this film is a huge success. Not to disparage Abrams, I just love being me, beyond all reason and sense. A true narcissist.

Ahem. Abrams has had quite a successful career so far. If the film tanks, that would be a severe setback, but I can't see that finishing him in Hollywood... just limiting his options and his spending power.

 

Well, they are spending a helluva lot of money for it to tank. I can see it being a severe set back if things go wrong. Albeit, this is only Star Trek, but enough people are watching what happens that there's probably a lot of pressure riding on the back of this project.

 

Given that Abrams is a hot property and has a number of other projects in development for TV and films it's not as if he'll find himself out of work and unemployable.

At this point, Paramount would be more likely to write a Trek failure off as "we put the best people on this and it tanked - AGAIN. There's nothing in this property worth investing in any more."

 

^^ I agree. He would survive, and film Trek, not so much.

 

I believe he's got a TV series in the works.

If the film bombs, it'll certainly effect Star Trek more than those involved, but it won't be a good thing all round. I'd expect the franchise to be shelved indefinitely, but hey, that's what I felt when I heard ENT was cancelled. Damn thing won't die on me.

 

Yep. I agree. Abrams will get up, dust himself off, and go on.

Trek...not so much.

 

I would love to be JJ Abrams... failures and all.

 

Yea, but really, who would get it again ?

 

Get what again?

 

Regardless of the quality, I just cant see this film tanking. At least not financially.

The amount of hype, plus all the marketing they will do - the film will have to be completely atrocious to make no money back. These things are relative of course, but I think worse case scenario the movie will make a modest return - even if it gets poor reviews...

Oh, and I'd love to be J.J. Abrams. Flop or not, the guy still has a big career ahead of him.

 

Actually, I sort of can. In fact, I'd put the likelihood of this movie fulfilling the studio's highest expectations for it at somewhat worse than 50/50.

It might be hard for the studio to take an absolute bath on this thing, but it could easily be a big disappointment to the studio.

The budget is between 120 and 150 million dollars.

No "Star Trek" film ever released has come close to earning the kind of money in first-run that this film will have to pull in to be a success.

Abrams is a very good, very smart, very talented guy and he's surrounded himself with the same. Nonetheless, his last feature film was "Mission: Impossible III" - part of a popular franchise, and a good movie which had a budget of (guess what) 150 million dollars. It disappointed the studio's expectations.

One would think, given the sixty-some year track record of the "Superman" franchise and the success of Bryan Singer's "X-Men" films that Singer and Superman would have been a match made in Heaven. Again, a good film (your mileage may vary, but nonetheless...) rather than a brilliant film, which made hundreds of millions of dollars in first run but had a huge budget. It disappointed the studio that backed it.

Neither "Mission: Impossible III" nor "Superman Returns" performed badly enough to kill off their respective franchises with certainty - both eventually made some profit for their studios, but took a lot longer to pay out than the folks investing in these things are looking for. So a disappointing "Star Trek" film (as opposed to a financial disaster of the "Poseidon" variety), which is certainly possible, may not kill the Franchise altogether, but it would probably permanently cripple the notion of Trek as a viable movie franchise.

 

The guardian of forever would say kiddie flick to me and I in no way will go see it on principle.

 

Nooooo.....

Well, I'm crossing everything.

 

And why does the Guardian of Forever scream Kiddie Flick?

 

I'd agree that the guardian is somewhat corney, despite being so oft-used in novels/fanon and popular. It is just a large donut-shaped plot device providing it's own exposition. Which basically is; if you talk in weird non-sequitors people will eventually just shut up and accept that it works, and stop asking questions.

 

Wait... wait I thought you worshiped GR's brilliance, "The City on the Edge of Forever" is thought as one of the definitive embodiment of "Star Trek" and if its at all in anyway included in the film you'd consider it "kiddie" (yeah I'm sure Harlan Ellison would love that notion...)?

Could be more that its just because JJ Abrams might deign to use the Guardian that you would find it "kiddie"? Its hard not to think that given the premise of this thread.

Sharr

 

Abrams has been annointed by Hollywood -- MI:3 wasn't a great movie, nor did it do incredible box office, but it didn't cripple his career. Enough people in power want him to succeed, and like Shia LeBoeuf, he will have a successful career in spite of any real or perceived failures.