Your Star Trek Magic Formula Pitch?

[WattsNoo]

bye.

 

[The Doctor]

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That opinion is not particularly relevant to anyone in the film business, nor does it constitute 'corruption.'

 

[WattsNoo]

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That opinion is not particularly relevant to anyone in the film business, nor does it constitute 'corruption.'

But it is relevant to anyone with ethics...and thus is relevant to what is right and wrong in this world.

If you think for one second that Star Trek has been placed in the right hands and is being handled with the respect it deserves...then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Franklin]

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That opinion is not particularly relevant to anyone in the film business, nor does it constitute 'corruption.'

But it is relevant to anyone with ethics...and thus is relevant to what is right and wrong in this world.

If you think for one second that Star Trek has been placed in the right hands and is being handled with the respect it deserves...then we have nothing to discuss.

Robert Wise wasn't a TOS fan, and plenty of fans rank TMP as their favorite Trek movie. Nicholas Meyer wasn't a fan, and TWOK is called a classic. Harve Bennett had never even seen an episode of TOS before signing on, and he was pretty good for the franchise.

But JJ Abrams says he was never really a fan and he gets scalded with hot oil over it by some? Why?

Edited to add: We apparently have nothing to discuss, because I believe that entrusting Abrams with Trek turned out to be a stroke of genius. He's done a terrific job.

 

[Sindatur]

That opinion is not particularly relevant to anyone in the film business, nor does it constitute 'corruption.'

But it is relevant to anyone with ethics...and thus is relevant to what is right and wrong in this world.

If you think for one second that Star Trek has been placed in the right hands and is being handled with the respect it deserves...then we have nothing to discuss.

Robert Wise wasn't a TOS fan, and plenty of fans rank TMP as their favorite Trek movie. Nicholas Meyer wasn't a fan, and TWOK is called a classic. Harve Bennett had never even seen an episode of TOS before signing on, and he was pretty good for the franchise.

But JJ Abrams says he was never really a fan and he gets scalded with hot oil over it by some? Why?

Edited to add: We apparently have nothing to discuss, because I believe that entrusting Abrams with Trek turned out to be a stroke of genius. He's done a terrific job.

If you're gonna stoop so low as to drag facts into the debate, there's no point in continuing

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hold up there oh naive one.

You need a new definition of success. Don't confuse being "up in the cut" with a powerful motion picture cartel where people open doors for you because of family connections etc. as "Success."

Practically every success story is simply a matter of 'Who you know" or better still "Who knows you." Unless you invent something unexpected like a Xerox machine, you prolly got your success from family connections, theft, drugs or the biggest mystery of all...you were born to it.

The thing with JJ is that he's just someone up in the cut. One of many.

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That's actually corruption. In a truly successful context Studio Heads would have let a Trek fan helm the project. At least to be true to a cash cow that Star Trek is. That should tell you all you need to know about "the business" How it does not 'care' about its products.

JJ in my book is not so much successful as connected. But that goes for everyone who is ''successful.."

Successful is making a product that gains critical, financial and popular acclaim. JJ's Trek has all three. You don't get to work on the projects Abrams has based on "family" connections or being "up the cut". Hollywood is a you're only as good as your last product type industry. Your "daddy" may get you in the door, but it's what you do that keeps you in the room.

But it is relevant to anyone with ethics...and thus is relevant to what is right and wrong in this world.

Are you serious? You're trying to claim working a project ( an entertainment project) that you weren't a fan of is an example of "bad ethics"? Wow. Get some perspective.

 

[Smellmet]

Hold up there oh naive one.In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

And this is a statement that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and manages to insult the previous poster.

Bravo!

 

[Mudd]

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That opinion is not particularly relevant to anyone in the film business, nor does it constitute 'corruption.'

But it is relevant to anyone with ethics...and thus is relevant to what is right and wrong in this world.

No.

If you think for one second that Star Trek has been placed in the right hands and is being handled with the respect it deserves...then we have nothing to discuss.

Works for me. Good luck with your magic pitches.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That's actually corruption. In a truly successful context Studio Heads would have let a Trek fan helm the project.

Balderdash.

Hold up there oh naive one.In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

And this is a statement that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and manages to insult the previous poster.

Bravo!

Well, we don't have any rule requiring that people always make sense, but WattsNoo, you'll want to avoid getting into the habit of insulting other posters too directly. Keep it at the level of generalized "Trek as Archie & Veronica"-type insults to our collective intelligence and you'll probably be OK.

Probably.

 

[BillJ]

...

In my opinion getting a job producing/directing/writing etc a movie whose story you are not a fan or, whose philosophy you 'don't get' is not success.

That's actually corruption. In a truly successful context Studio Heads would have let a Trek fan helm the project.

Balderdash.

This. Wise wasn't a fan. Meyer wasn't a fan. Bennett wasn't a fan. Berman wasn't a fan.

Where does this nonsense about a fan being needed come from?

 

[SeerSGB]

I asked for your pitch. So far no one has given me one.

What I said above is exactly what I want from Star Trek...

Magic formula? Kirk and Spock take on crazy shit. It worked in the 70's, 80's and even now.

That's all I need Star Trek to be. Love the Abrams films and been watching Trek since 1975.

Yeup. All I want is for it to be fun and be entertaining.

 

[doubleohfive]

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are wrong.

 

[doubleohfive]

I asked for your pitch. So far no one has given me one.

What I said above is exactly what I want from Star Trek...

Magic formula? Kirk and Spock take on crazy shit. It worked in the 70's, 80's and even now.

That's all I need Star Trek to be. Love the Abrams films and been watching Trek since 1975.

Yeup. All I want is for it to be fun and be entertaining.

+1