ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Why is JJ Abrams directing the next Trek movie?

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Jan. 29 2010, 11:24 pm

I don't understand why he has to be the man to now solely run the show, and why other directors can't direct it?  Does he soley own Trek now?

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jan. 29 2010, 11:52 pm

At this point he is only confirmed to be the producer. It is only likely that he will direct, but not confirmed yet.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 30 2010, 8:59 am

Besides the fact that he's said repeatedly that he is uncertain whether or not he will direct...I'm not sure where your concern comes from. The last movie was obviously widely successful. Why would anyone at Paramount want to change a key member of the team that helped create the film. He's going to produce the film, that is a certainty.

That would be like WB pulling Christopher Nolan from the Batman films. It's nonsense.

TrekFan1701E

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14979

Report this Jan. 30 2010, 1:54 pm

Quote (RedShirtGuyNumber1001 @ Jan. 29 2010, 11:24 pm)
I don't understand why he has to be the man to now solely run the show, and why other directors can't direct it? ?Does he soley own Trek now?

He did a great job directing the movie and he should direct the sequel.

captbates

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12614

Report this Jan. 30 2010, 2:06 pm

There's far too much hate for JJ, like the others have said here he did a good job with XI. Doesn't it make sense that the movies follow "one" direction, set down by one person, or maybe a small group of producers for the sake of continuity?
I definately don't want different directors coming in and filming their own individual "idea" of what Trek should be, not yet anyway.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Jan. 30 2010, 3:09 pm

I also think Abrams did a good job and I wish to see him direct the sequel and apply what he learned with the 1st film. I like the team they have and hope they become very inspired with the sequel.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 31 2010, 10:09 am

Quote (captbates @ Jan. 30 2010, 2:06 pm)
There's far too much hate for JJ, like the others have said here he did a good job with XI. Doesn't it make sense that the movies follow "one" direction, set down by one person, or maybe a small group of producers for the sake of continuity?
I definately don't want different directors coming in and filming their own individual "idea" of what Trek should be, not yet anyway.

Of course there is! But, a segment of fans would have hated WHOEVER they put in charge of the franchise no matter what. You have to realize that!

If it isn't EXACTLY what THEY would have done themselves, they are going to hate that person with every fiber of their existance.

It's a sad commentary on the state-of-mind of some Trek fans.

lion_tone

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Feb. 03 2010, 11:46 am

Abrams = $$$.

That's why you have him direct. With one movie he brought a once-proud, but dying franchise back to the mainstream...in a big way. You all should be kissing his ass EVEN IF you hated the movie.

He is one of the top-10 most important people in Star Trek history for his triumph.

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Feb. 03 2010, 1:21 pm

Quote (lion_tone @ Feb. 03 2010, 4:46 pm)
Abrams = $$$.

That's why you have him direct. With one movie he brought a once-proud, but dying franchise back to the mainstream...in a big way. You all should be kissing his ass EVEN IF you hated the movie.

He is one of the top-10 most important people in Star Trek history for his triumph.

1. Gene Coon
2. Michael Piller
3. Gene Roddenberry
4. Nicholas Meyer
5. Leonard Nimoy
6. Bob Justman
7. William Shatner
8. DC Fontana
9. Rick Berman
10. Harve Bennett

One good film doesn't get you in the top league.

/ I'm still wrestling over whether Piller should be below Roddenberry. Considering how Piller saved TNG, co-created DS9 and then got Behr and Moore on the show, the man is legend.

// Feck it. I'm putting him second.

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 9:43 am

I don't hate the man, in fact I think he did a great job with the newest movie.  I do think he takes credit for things that were not his doing, like saying "he" is the one who brought Trek back.  I believe that it was the fans, and a new fan base that brought trek back, not just him alone.

In spite of that I do like how he was able to make a great story, my only concern is that Abrams might get bored with it, and then decide he wants to move on.  If that happens does Trek die again?  This is why I think Trek should be like Bond.  Bond has endured because of solid producers, and because different directors are allowed to come in and direct new stories.  It doesn't always work, but Bond has been able to endure for more than 30 years, so it is a proven working tactic.  Your thoughts?

drellan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 163

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 10:02 am

Quote (derrickjon @ Jan. 30 2010, 12:23 am)
Why wouldn't he? Star Trek 11 was hugely successful. It also shows that he does care about the franchise and the huge stamp that he has put in it. While some members of this forum may hate the guy, you can't say Abrams doesn't care about the franchise, even if you don't agree with the direction he took it.

I for one am okay with him being involved for now. He wants it to be big and he isn't afraid to spend money on it.

JJ doesn't care about the franchise. He cares about himself and "his name". He admits he was never a fan of the franchise.

What happened was that JJ seen an opportunity of taking something that he labeled as "for geeks only", and make it "cool and mainstream" thus giving himself the credit of being the savior of a dying franchise.

I, for one, am offended by JJ and the writers.

RedShirtGuyNumber1001

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2016

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 11:44 am

I don't mind Trek being mainstream at all.  I kind of get annoyed with geeks anyway, and don't like to be classified as a geek just because I like Star Trek.  Geeks are OCD microscopic fools who can't enjoy a story for what it is and have to point out all of these insignificant things that don't really matter or pertain to the story that you are watching.

Eddogegr3

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 235

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 12:20 pm

I have loved almost all things JJ before I heard he was taking over trek.

Alias was awesome.  Lost was for a while.  Heck, my wife got me into Felicity and that isn't too bad for that genre.

I liked MI3 (it had strong Alias influence).

So, I naturally liked what he has done with Trek and (mostly) did great casting.  And the fact that Nimoy signed off on this film--and he rejected crap like Generations--then, agreed to this and even un-retired.

I thought the new film was great and I am glad he will be part of the next two.

But to go back to my other thread, I ALSO love Star Trek PRE JJ.  I know it was heading in the wrong direction and I may be scarred for life that we will never see 24th century trek.  All I can hope for is that JJ at the very least shows we are in the same universe and brings familiar plot points in to remind me that this IS Star Trek.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 12:30 pm

Quote (drellan @ Feb. 04 2010, 10:02 am)
Quote (derrickjon @ Jan. 30 2010, 12:23 am)
Why wouldn't he? Star Trek 11 was hugely successful. It also shows that he does care about the franchise and the huge stamp that he has put in it. While some members of this forum may hate the guy, you can't say Abrams doesn't care about the franchise, even if you don't agree with the direction he took it.

I for one am okay with him being involved for now. He wants it to be big and he isn't afraid to spend money on it.

JJ doesn't care about the franchise. He cares about himself and "his name". He admits he was never a fan of the franchise.

What happened was that JJ seen an opportunity of taking something that he labeled as "for geeks only", and make it "cool and mainstream" thus giving himself the credit of being the savior of a dying franchise.

I, for one, am offended by JJ and the writers.

What do you find so offensive? Upon what do you draw the conclusion that he doesn't "care about the franchise???" Is it becuase he made a movie that doesn't appeal to your individual tastes? If so, that's a rather selfish and uninformed statement to make.

Also, you only tell half the story on what Abrams has said about "not being a fan." What he said is that he was never originally a fan of the show, but as he became more familliar with it, he fell in love with the concepts and the characters. What's wrong with that?? How is that any different than Nick Meyer or Harve Bennett, who also made very successful Star Trek films despite not being fans or having seen much of the original show? How is it different than anyone else "discovering" Star Trek?

Where did Abrams say that other Trek was "for geeks only?" That sounds more like media BS than something that Abrams said.

How much of this are you pulling straight out of your rectal cavity?

I'd say Nick Meyer was just as concerned (if not MORE concerned) about doing things "his way" than Abrams and company was. Do you find Meyer and his films offensive as well? Just curious if you hold the same consistent standards, or if there is something else (as I suspect) behind your feelings.

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Feb. 04 2010, 12:32 pm

Quote (RedShirtGuyNumber1001 @ Jan. 29 2010, 11:24 pm)
I don't understand why he has to be the man to now solely run the show, and why other directors can't direct it? ¿Does he soley own Trek now?

I was hoping that Gates McFadden would direct. Her direction of the episode "Genesis" was sublime.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum