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: 3948 |
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: 6736 |
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: 4006 |
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: 6736 |
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. |
anderbilt GROUP: Members POSTS: 2866 |
Report this
Feb. 01 2010, 12:28 pm
| Quote (RedShirtGuyNumber1001 @ Jan. 29 2010, 9:24 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? |
My guess is that he does. A dormant movie franchise is evidently open to homesteaders or squatters. This is how the great USA fulfilled its manifest destiny after all. We're seeing manifest destiny in movie franchises I guess. It's pretty exciting. |
|
anderbilt GROUP: Members POSTS: 2866 |
Report this
Feb. 02 2010, 10:00 pm
OF COURSE we mean "own" in the purely rhetorical and poetic sense, not literally. You "own" something if you're the acknowledged caretaker and gatekeeper of it. That's all we meant. CBS owns Star Trek all day long. For real.
|
lion_tone GROUP: Members POSTS: 1140 |
Report this
Feb. 03 2010, 11:46 am
Abrams = $$$.
That's why you have him direct. With one movie he brought a once-proud, but dying franchise back to the mainstream...in a big way. You all should be kissing his ass EVEN IF you hated the movie.
He is one of the top-10 most important people in Star Trek history for his triumph.
|
DS9TREK GROUP: Members POSTS: 14320 |
Report this
Feb. 03 2010, 1:21 pm
| Quote (lion_tone @ Feb. 03 2010, 4:46 pm) | Abrams = $$$.
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: 162 |
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.
|
