Would you want JJ Abrams to return as a director.

[valden]

My apologies in case a thread like this was already started, but I dont and i am not sure if this has been asked to fans on who they want as a director. however let say the film is giving an official go and the cast returns but would you want JJ Abrams to return as a director. Question.

Only thinking this based on JJ current news that he has a compelling script for star trek 4. I saw the news on trekmovie yersterday. okay

I know JJ Abrams is a controversial figure currently given the reception of STID and how the star wars sequels turned out but I am not one of those fans who will just jump on a band waggon and claim JJ had no talent, all he does is ruin and blah blah blah.

I think JJ made some mistake in his films, though not all were his doing. i also believe in second and even third chances, so I will be all in if JJ returns as a director, I have seen directors reach and surpass better heights when they returned to a franchise with better movies.

Take Bryan Singer (please ignore his personal life) for the most part he is still considered one of the best comic book directors ever. he made the first two x-men films, left to make a superman film. the superman film flopped and the third xmen 3 was quite a critical failure, he returned to direct the x-men franchise 9 years later after x-men 2 with days of future past DOFP and he ended up making a better film than even X-Men 2 . DOFP is one of the best if not the best xmen movies. Singer returned to form after a decade long absence with the x-men films.

I was there in 2009, i know the impact 09 trek had, it was huge, the fans are still around. it still gets some media love. I think there is still a chance star trek 4 can archive that again. If the xmen, mission impossible and even The Rocky/Creed franchise can achive that I think star trek 4 can. the actors are still young, hopefully healthy and all still fresh faced. They can come back for an epic swan song and yes I will like to see star trek 4 go all out for a final movie.

Why do they need a budget that cost more than 200m? They can make a film for 120-150m. top gun cost only 170m. how can paramount have spent more on STID?

The actors and cast are good and have acting talent especially Saldana, Urban, Quinto. Pine has a strong leading men presence. the acting talent of this cast can carry the series. they dont need a cost of 200 million

 

[Dr. San Guinary]

Sure! I got no beef with Abrams. I like the Trek movies he's done so far. If he returns for ST4, I'm all for it!

 

[valden]

Sure! I got no beef with Abrams. I like the Trek movies he's done so far. If he returns for ST4, I'm all for it!

Yes, I agree too. I dont really have much beef with him too. I started this thread here because it is been discussed in tremovie.com also and the discussion there always feel toxic to me. many of them seem to paint jj abrams as this evil director who only destorys franchises and i dont think that is fair or that is the average reception of fans either.

I think JJ Abrams in his heart feels he has something to proof after how the star wars sequel comes out. I really hope he can get a win again with a successful star trek 4. he seems to have been in hiding since 2019 after rise of skywalker flopped.

Chris Pine seems to want to make a movie again, however he does not want the marvel pressure money. I feel that is a good idea. who knows, maybe this time they dont chase the marvel money, they get the marvel money in the end. people are still surprised that Top Gun 2 was the highest grossing film of 2022 espcially whan tom cruise had not had a hit in 10 years outside the mission impossible series. I think star trek 4 can get to a top 5 box office height in 2025 again.

 

[Set Harth]

he seems to have been in hiding since 2019 after rise of skywalker flopped.

Making a billion dollars is flopping?

 

[valden]

Making a billion dollars is flopping?

By Disney box office standard, the rise of skywalker was a flop.

which is why chris pine is right. they should not chase the marvel disney money.

top gun 2 was a big smash for paramount, however if that was some avengers film, it will be a flop. giving that disney called age of ultron a flop and that film made 1.4 billion.

disney at this point competes with itself . Trek does not need to chase that. however with that can come a big surprise also in making money.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

With a good script. Yes.
But a new director would be more interesting.

 

[shapeshifter]

Yeah.

I think what is missing in all this ongoing lack of a new movie is a good script. Anyone have an unused one of those lying around?

 

[NCC-73515]

Frakes!

 

[AmandaSmith]

Yes, I have nothing against JJ. At this point I just want them to find and keep a director!

 

[somebuddyX]

No, get someone else. Not a dig at JJ but just so we someone else's idea of Trek. I'm hoping for something more contemplative, so I'd prefer like a Noah Hawley or Gareth Edwards type, but even if it was just another action blockbuster I'd like to see someone else's vision.

 

[Jedi Marso]

No.

Not only that, I believe his influences have had a detrimental effect on nu-Trek TV as well.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've enjoyed all of JJ's movies, even the weaker ones were entertaining so definitely would be happy for him to return. I liked his vision of Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Sure! I got no beef with Abrams. I like the Trek movies he's done so far. If he returns for ST4, I'm all for it!

Same.

 

[Headless_Hysteria]

I don’t have a problem with Abrams coming back. But I know what to expect with these films. Lens flare. The antagonists will be driven by revenge. A scantly clad woman will appear somewhere in the film (likely the first act). A starship will crash into water in the third act. There will be a lot of pew-pew action in between. The films are formulaic and it would be interesting to see if Abrams could do anything different with them.

 

[Dukhat]

I don’t have a problem with Abrams coming back. But I know what to expect with these films. Lens flare. The antagonists will be driven by revenge. A scantly clad woman will appear somewhere in the film (likely the first act). A starship will crash into water in the third act. There will be a lot of pew-pew action in between. The films are formulaic and it would be interesting to see if Abrams could do anything different with them.

So, like the movie directed by Justin Lin?

 

[M'Sharak]

I don’t have a problem with Abrams coming back. But I know what to expect with these films. Lens flare. The antagonists will be driven by revenge. A scantly clad woman will appear somewhere in the film (likely the first act). A starship will crash into water in the third act. There will be a lot of pew-pew action in between. The films are formulaic and it would be interesting to see if Abrams could do anything different with them.

Lens flare didn't begin in Star Trek with Abrams. (Yes, they were heavily-used in the 2009 Star Trek, but hardly new to Trek films as a visual effect. Go check out TMP.)

Antagonists driven by revenge? Yeah, Abrams didn't introduce that, either.

Scantily-clad women? No one ever did that in Star Trek before Abrams, right?

Starship crashing into water? Okay, we'll grant you that one (but it's not in every movie, so is it really formula?)

Pew! Pew! action? Also not terribly new with the Abrams movies, was it?

All of the Star Trek films have been formulaic. Most of what you're citing here* are examples of Abrams repeating already-established tropes.




* Except the starship crashing into water -- much less costly an effect to simply blow them up, and how many times have we seen that figure in Star Trek movies?

 

[Ovation]

would you want JJ Abrams to return as a director

Let’s see. He made my two favourite Trek movies (by a significant margin) and reinvigorated my overall interest in Trek to levels I hadn’t experienced since the seventies—so I’d have to say…yes. Yes I would.

 

[Headless_Hysteria]

Lens flare didn't begin in Star Trek with Abrams. (Yes, they were heavily-used in the 2009 Star Trek, but hardly new to Trek films as a visual effect. Go check out TMP.)

It did not start with Abrams. But its signature Abrams. Like explosions are with Michael Bay.

Antagonists driven by revenge? Yeah, Abrams didn't introduce that, either.

No, he did not invent it. But its been in three movies in a row. Compare that with the first ten films, were revenge only happens twice (TWOK, FC). And in the case of FC, they put a twist on that by having the protagonist want revenge in on the antagonists.

Scantily-clad women? No one ever did that in Star Trek before Abrams, right?

Again, how often did that happen before Abrams? I can only think of Uhura in TFF. And the lead up to the mind rape scene with Troi and Riker in NEM.

Starship crashing into water? Okay, we'll grant you that one (but it's not in every movie, so is it really formula?)

Two movies in a row (ID, BEY). Plus the drill in ST’’09 falls into the San Fransisco bay. Meanwhile, a starship crashing only happened once, in TVH.

Pew! Pew! action? Also not terribly new with the Abrams movies, was it?

No. But the first ten has their contemplative films. And sometime limited the pew pew to a single battle scene. The Abrams films see pew pew action like its Star Wars, while not even offering an ESB or AOTC/ROTS or TLJ scenario that favours the antagonists.

All of the Star Trek films have been formulaic. Most of what you're citing here* are examples of Abrams repeating already-established tropes.

For something that had the opportunity to do new things, its fallen into the formulaic rather quickly.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, how often did that happen before Abrams?

A couple of times. I belive it was called TOS.

For something that had the opportunity to do new things, its fallen into the formulaic rather quickly.

That's literally what Trek fans demand.

 

[M'Sharak]

That's literally what Trek fans demand.

Also Paramount.