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

JJ on The Sequel

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 1:53 pm

so, again you fail to provide actual evidence to support your claims.


why am I not supprised?


you do know its your job to bak up your claims when you make wuch statements on a public debate forum.


and I did look it us, and as I guessed, you arent exactly telling the full story.


JJs team took issue with CBS useing TOS merchandise to promote the 2009 film.


Paramout had promised JJ's team that they [Bad Robot] would control all premotinal merchandise for the 09 film.....but then CBS started releaseing TOS merchandise and premoting the new film with out Bad robots input.


So it was similar to a new Mc donalds opening across the street from an older one.


and to tell the truth, I found it odd that TRU had TOS toys on pegs next to JJ Trek toys., classic phasor next to tos phasor....././


me I bought the tos stuff

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 19 2013, 2:06 pm

Yay, you found something on your own.  Kudos. You get a peanut.


By the way, nothing is my job here. Are you paying me weekly? 


 


And actually, no. No where in the article does it state that CBS was using TOS merchandise to promote NuTrek.  JJ Abrams claimed there was "confusion" between old merchandise and new.  Reread the article.


 


"Much to the dismay of Bad Robot, CBS' merchandising arm continued to create memorabilia and products based on the cast of the original 1960s series and market them to Trekkies. The production company did market research and found that there was brand confusion between Abrams' rebooted Enterprise crew and the one starring William Shatner and DeForest Kelley."


In other words, new fans couldn't tell the difference between Shatner and Pine.


"TheWrap has learned that Bad Robot asked CBS to stop making products featuring the original cast, but talks broke down over money. "


CBS and Bad Robot are two separate entities.  And CBS doesn't need Bad Robot's permission for anything. It's vice versa.


"The rights to the original television series from the 1960s remained with CBS after it split off from Paramount’s corporate parent Viacom in 2006, while the studio retained the rights to the film series. CBS also held onto the ability to create future “Star Trek” TV shows."


CBS owns the TV show rights and Paramount owns movie rights. CBS is not beholden to Abrams for anything. Abrams wanted a halt on merchandise because he felt that TOS merchandise was "competition" for NuTrek.   

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 2:27 pm

keep the childish commentery to yourself.


 


it is indeed your job to back up your claims if you expect to be taken seriously and not as a troll thats just complaining to complain.


 


so far I've treated you with respect and have addressed everything you have posted with at least as much an open mind as possible.


 


And I read the full artical and about 7 other related ones...........so that I could get the whole picture, seems you need to do the same.. And yes,JJ sited brans confusion..........because they were promoting 09 trek on tos merchandise...


 


qand its true, CBS doesn't need Bad Robot's permission for anything., iCBS is required to work with Pramount on all deals.And thats were the problem lies on this issue.


 


either Paramount over teped its boundries when it promised Bad Robot full control of promotinal merchandise oversight, or CBS was out of line in promoting the new film with tos merchandise.


Photobucket

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 19 2013, 2:44 pm

I'll be childish if I want. You're not the boss of me.


And I provided the link previously.  Can't help it if you can't be arsed to look on the board.  There's only one article.  After that there's just links that rehashed the original article.


CBS is a separate entity. It's not obligated to worry about NuTrek. It sells TOS merchandise.  


."because they were promoting 09 trek on tos merchandise."


What does that even mean?  It can't brand TOS merchandise as NuTrek or vice versa.  It can increase production of TOS mechandise to coincide with NuTrek, which it has every right to do. For example, if Bibi Besch were still alive and she started appearing at conventions because she was the original Carol Marcus to coincide with STID, there's nothing wrong with that.  It's not stopping Alice Eve from promoting herself. It was all legal. 


Paramount must license the “Star Trek” characters from CBS Consumer Products for film merchandising.


Anyway you slice it, JJ Abrams wanted to halt production of TOS merchandise.  Hence my dispute to the fact that both incarnations could live side by side.


Basically it came down to 


Abrams: "Your Star Trek stuff is selling more than my Star Trek stuff. Stop it!"


CBS:  "We make 20 million a year from merchandise, GFYS."


Abrams: "BUT PARAMOUNT PROMISED I COULD CONTROL ALL THE THINGS!"


CBS: "Tough.  We're going to continue to make original  stuff. We can't help it if no one wants your stuff".


Abrams: "WAHHHHH!! I'M NOT MAKING ANY TV SERIES OR ANYTHING! MEANIES! I'M GOING TO STAR WARS!!!!"


CBS: "Paramount, control your kid."


Paramount: "*sigh* This is why we can't have nice things."


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 3:27 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 19 2013, 2:44 pm

>I'll be childish if I want. You're not the boss of me.
but why?


being childdish is the resort of those with week debating skills.


if this is what can be expected from you then why waste everyones time?


I repeat, its your job to back up your own claims, regardless if you posted it previously on this or an other topic.Other wise you cant expect anyone to take your word for anything.


Can't help it if you can't be arsed to look on the board.


"arsed"?


anyway, There's more then one article to be found.  After that there's just links that rehashed the original article.


CBS is a separate entity...........that is obligated to work with Paramount on all multi-media deals.


What does that even mean?


marking items with "see the new film". having tos merchandise on the same shelfs as nu-trek merchandise....some of this was done


and I dont deny that CBS had the right to do so, my point is that JJ also had the right to want to stop production based on what he was promissed.


what it really it comes down to is poor cominications between the 2 owners of the trek franchise.and ZJJ was never given rights to any TV series, regardless of what the artical claims.


JJ may have had hope of producing a series, but he never struck a deal with cbs


Photobucket

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 19 2013, 3:51 pm

"arsed"


Having TOS merchandise on the same shelf as NuTrek is on the retailer. That has NOTHING to do with CBS or Paramount.  Unless JJ Abrams wants to go into stores and start tearing apart shelves, that is not even part of the equation. 


Again, CBS was well within their rights.  If JJ's movie cannot compete with TOS merchandise, then the solution  is to resort to stopping TOS merchadise?  How about coming up with merchandise that will sell? Trek merchandise is purchased by adults for the most part. And no adults wanted JJs toys.  Neither did kids.


The bottom line still remains, JJ wanted to halt production of TOS merchandise, which is a shitbag thing to do.


 


So as far as the two incarnations living side by side, apparently that's a big, fat negative according to JJ.


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 4:23 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 19 2013, 3:51 pm

>

>"arsed"

>


thanks for the defintion, but it seems you were the one that couldnt be bothered o back up your claim.But what ever.


Having TOS merchandise on the same shelf as NuTrek is on the retailer.


you are ompletly and totally wrong when it comes to larger retailers.diaplay plans, end cap designs and signage must all be approved on new, incoming merchandise by special reps that answer to cbs/paramount.


its why you'll see special displays of new film toys near the enterss of tru stores.


and Again, i dont deny that CBS was well within their rights.


But so was JJ's in mqking his request under the promiss he was made.


 Trek merchandise is purchased by adults for the most part. And no adults wanted JJs toys.  Neither did kids.


DONT CONFUSE YOUR OPINION WITH FACT


I atleast wanted a toy of the new ip


The bottom line still remains, JJ wanted to halt production of TOS merchandise, which is a shitbag thing to do.


 again, under the promis he was given, he was within his rights to make the request


but yeah, it was a stupid move to try, as to how it relates to the whole "co-exsist" delema...........seems the issue is more gray then black and white


Photobucket

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:32 pm

Trek merchandise is purchased by adults for the most part. And no adults wanted JJs toys.  Neither did kids.


 


DONT CONFUSE YOUR OPINION WITH FACT


How are sales opinions? NuTrek toy sales were dismal.  TOS outsold it. Not my opinion.  It's demographics.


 


Having TOS merchandise on the same shelf as NuTrek is on the retailer.


you are ompletly and totally wrong when it comes to larger retailers.diaplay plans, end cap designs and signage must all be approved on new, incoming merchandise by special reps that answer to cbs/paramount.


Bullshit.  Now you're just making stuff up. No store I ever worked in ever had "reps" come in. What the hell do you think that staff is going to rearrange the entire store to meet with one distributors planogram? We got displays from the distributor and we stuck them in various places. Design and signage comes in pre printed and we put it wherever we liked.  No one from CBS ever came in on a shift and said "put this here, not here".  When 2009 came out we got boxes of NuTrek toys, boxes of TOS toys and we put them where the MOD decided.  It's been like that for every movie tie in we've gotten since 97. 

karmaFire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:55 pm

Abrams made a great IRONIC Star Trek movie, a spoof of something iconic. IRONY sells, but it's disposable, forgettable. It's made by someone who doesn't like Star Trek for people who don't like Star Trek. Making lots of money and calling it Star Trek with Kirk and Spock does not make it Star Trek.


For those of you who like space battles and hot chicks, but don't want to be asked to think, let me lay it out for you. Star Trek asks deep questions and reflects upon the society we live in. More than anything, it shows an optimistic future for humanity worth aspiring to. Roddenberry wanted to inspire people to be better by showing a future where we were more civilized, an Earth where people didn't squabble over money and resources but looked outward to explore the galaxy and meet new life.

Where Abrams steps out of bounds is by calling it Star Trek but denying everything that it actually is, yet constantly referencing everything from the original series and movies. If he wants to do his own Trek-themed movie or reimagine the characters, that could be OK, but not if he constantly rips off and misuses the best lines, characters and situations.

Abrams version of Kirk & Pine's performance are ironic swipes at the character. When Kirk breaks Starfleet rules or get with a girl, it's interesting because that isn't his normal. He's a discplined commander who follows the rules, seeks peaceful communication with new species and never flirts with women under his command. If he broke with his character all the time, it's not interesting and he's not worthy of respect. THe same for Spock's emotions. He has feelings but he almost never reveals them. That makes it interesting when he does.


Abrams cheapens both characters by making Kirk an irresponsible, selfish jerk who has nothing going on upstairs, hits on every girl and breaks every rule. Spock is showing emotions so often that you'd think other Vulcans would boot him from membership. It's not only a disservice to the characters and makes them uninteresting, it's a lousy message. Today's youth often don't know what to do with themselves. It's easy to be aimless and irresponsible. Showing an irresponsible punk getting handed command of a starship is slacker-youth fantasy. It makes lots of money but it's stupid and cheap.


It's sad because there's so much great work that went into the movie that's completely wasted when the characters and plot are derivate of superior sources at best and mindless drivel at worst.


Throw stones at Shatner's Kirk all you want, but time has proven his is the most successful and iconic sci-fi character of all time. 40 years from now, Shatner's Kirk and James Earl Jones' Dark Vader will still be iconic while the Abrams/Chris Pine Kirk and Hayden Christiansen's Vader will be willfully forgotten. No offense to the the actors.


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:07 pm

That's interesting, karmaFire...


 


Because, what I got out of Into Darkness was the whole point was RECOGNIZING and dealing with Kirks immaturity and inexperience. We saw that there are consequences and Kirks character evolves significantly from the beginning of the 2009 film to th end of Into Darkness. I for oneAnn glad that characters in this version change and evolve rather just get presented as static, perfect people. There's nothing interesting or dramatic about that. 

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:16 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 19 2013, 7:32 pm

> How are sales opinions? NuTrek toy sales were dismal.  TOS outsold it. Not my opinion.  It's demographics.


you didnt speak of sale figures and demagraphics


 you said "no adults wanted jj-trek toys" and thats an opinion.


Having TOS merchandise on the same shelf as NuTrek is on the retailer.


Bullshit.  Now you're just making stuff up. No store I ever worked in ever had "reps" come in.


no bs in any way.Just about every major manufacture/producer of merchandise has vendors,either at the corprate level, or store visiting level. So either you worked for small stores in very small towns or you were just unaware of the goinges ons in your own stores.


I've worked retail my entire life, since the age of 13 till my sickness force me to take a leave a few years back.I myself have been a vendor for a few companies, and yes, retail stores do their best to accomdate their entire stores to meet with as many of the distributors plans.


after all, its all part of the deals they make to carry the merchandise, square footage of shalfspace, of the signage, possible end caps, how many pegs for hanging merchandise.,seasonal prime realestate for the merchndise near the entrane or endcap space in the main isle.


and I never said the vendors came from itslf, but they do come from the toy manufactoring companies.Hasbro hase vendors, Parcker brothers, Mattel..........they all have vendors.


sounds like you work for a TRU, I worked as a vendor for Evenflo baby products back in the 90's.I seviced 4 different TRU in the NYC area as well as a few smaller stores.


Photobucket

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:36 pm

I've spoken to company reps who where re arranging shelves at toysRus on more than one occasion. 

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 19 2013, 8:59 pm

Quote: wissa @ May. 19 2013, 8:36 pm

>

>I've spoken to company reps who where re arranging shelves at toysRus on more than one occasion. 

>
thank you very much


Photobucket

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 19 2013, 10:17 pm

 


Trek merchandise is purchased by adults for the most part. And no adults wanted JJs toys.  Neither did kids.


Um, I do. And seeing as how several retailers in my area SOLD OUT before I could buy them, I would argue against that.


 


DONT CONFUSE YOUR OPINION WITH FACT


How are sales opinions? NuTrek toy sales were dismal.  TOS outsold it. Not my opinion.  It's demographics.


 


Having TOS merchandise on the same shelf as NuTrek is on the retailer.


you are ompletly and totally wrong when it comes to larger retailers.diaplay plans, end cap designs and signage must all be approved on new, incoming merchandise by special reps that answer to cbs/paramount.


Bullshit.  Now you're just making stuff up. No store I ever worked in ever had "reps" come in. What the hell do you think that staff is going to rearrange the entire store to meet with one distributors planogram? We got displays from the distributor and we stuck them in various places. Design and signage comes in pre printed and we put it wherever we liked.  No one from CBS ever came in on a shift and said "put this here, not here".  When 2009 came out we got boxes of NuTrek toys, boxes of TOS toys and we put them where the MOD decided.  It's been like that for every movie tie in we've gotten since 97. 


 


Not sure what retailer you work for, but the one I work for, and several I have evaluated received plan-o-grams straight from the vendor. I have worked personally with reps for the retailer I work for, so it is not out of line for reps to work with their product. It depends on the chain on how it is managed.


And yes, I have had to rearrange entire set ups to suit vendors, higher ups and other powers that be. My retail model may not be the only one, but my experience tells me that vendors have more pull than consumers realize.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 19 2013, 10:20 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 19 2013, 8:07 pm

>

>That's interesting, karmaFire...

>Because, what I got out of Into Darkness was the whole point was RECOGNIZING and dealing with Kirks immaturity and inexperience. We saw that there are consequences and Kirks character evolves significantly from the beginning of the 2009 film to th end of Into Darkness. I for oneAnn glad that characters in this version change and evolve rather just get presented as static, perfect people. There's nothing interesting or dramatic about that. 

>


I had to quote this because this is why Kirk in Trek 09 is so endearing to me. He is not perfect, he is a flawed human being needing guidance, not the perfect commander we saw in TOS.

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