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

J.J. Abrams Proves Himself as the Saviour of Star Trek!

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this May. 19 2013, 6:09 pm

PrincessBarbara, STAR TREK Gene Roddenberry-style,
or Rick Berman-style is many a splendored thing,
except COMMERCIAL! Neither VOYAGE HOME, or FIRST
CONTACT had the tremendous popular acceptance that
STAR TREK, 2009 had ... or its sequel has! It really is
about time that STAR TREK entered the MAINSTREAM.


Rodenberry started a brand that is very adaptable to
change so that it can speak to every generation. J.J.
Abrams and his creative teams have given STAR TREK a
fresh spin to help it accomplish this important mission.


Through mainstream acceptance, even more fans have STAR TREK as
a standard to rally around for collectibles, cosplay and perhaps, most
importantly, a fairy tale that could one day come true: All men united,
everywhere, in common cause, for the betterment of Mankind.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 19 2013, 7:00 pm

Frakes,


 


Fantastic post. Old Trek is awesome. New Trek is awesome.They are different, but they are symbiotic and they support each other. 


Youre right, it IS about time Trek came into the mainstream. I'd much rather be able to share this great franchise with more people than just have it to myself. Trek is n experience best shared. 

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this May. 20 2013, 2:05 am

"Trek is an experience best shared" - I like that!
This preaching to the choir doesn't cut it, anymore.
It's actually become COOL to be a STAR TREK fan!
That's ... wow! J.J. Abrams has done a beautiful thing.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 20 2013, 6:23 am

Frakes,


 


Absolutely,


 


In essence, there are two types of fans: Those who DON'T want Star Trek to be cool and those who do.


Those who don't want to keep it in an isolated little exclusive bottle and consider it a safe haven for like-minded people. Those who di want it to be cool are the ones who believe "Star Trek is an experience best shared." I love the fact that I can enjoy Star Trek not just by myself now, but through other people's eyes as well. It's also nice to debate and get fresh perspectives from those who are just getting into the franchise, as opposed to old dogs like us who have been here forever. It's part of what makes it so enjoyable.


Those who want to have it be isolated and have it function as a "members only club" forget that anyting that's not growing is dying...and are also somewhat selfish. It's exclusivity, which is unfortunately the opposite message at the very core of Star Trek (IDIC / inclusion)!


 

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:07 am

Hahaha! This is a windup right?


What other people think of you is none of your business.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:20 am

STID is not performing well as expected according to Forbes. 


http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/19/weekend-box-office-star-trek-into-darkness-opens-with-just-84-million/


 


The article makes several strong points, including that the secrecy Khan was shrouded in may have hurt the film.


It also mentions competing against The Great Gatsby for female audiences and that the upcoming Hangover III and Fast and the Furious 6 may hobble it.  


And I may add, After Earth is coming out on the 31st. STID is trying to straddle the fence between make Trekkies happy and we need a summer blockbuster.  It may not be providing enough Trek for die hards to go see it two or three times (something I usually did with previous Trek films) and if non Trekkies are looking for action, then Fast and Furious provides that it a much more practiced form, plus it has The Rock in it, and he's still a huge selling point for a large portion of the make demographic.


So apparently everything is riding on overseas box office now, which the article estimates will be subpar.


"The likely end result of this genuinely disappointing debut and probably disappointing final gross is that Paramount will clean house as much as they can for the third Star Trek film."


If the box office tanks, JJ Abrams is not the savior. He will be far from one.


So, there you go.  If the numbers don't reach expectations, then JJ Abrams will probably not be around for 2016.   He's going to be knee deep in Star Wars as it is.  Personally, I wouldn't want anyone focused on the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek unless they were laser focused on it, and I don't think Abrams will be.


 


 


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

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:32 am

If Abrams were to return for 2016 it can only really mean that he would be focused very precisely. He has a track record of making popular, successful and critically well received films and shows. He's in a good placeto pick and choose exactly what he wants to do. If most of us were him, however, it would be tempting to not return to Star Trek even if we loved it because of the vulgar hecklers in the audience.

If he does not return we're in a bad place. The fan base has been very abusive and it's not like Star Trek has been overly successful at the theater in general. We'd be lucky to see someone like Nicholas Meyer return to give us something comprehensive and interesting like STVI. At worst we'd end up with Michael Bay or M. Knight Shamylan (sp?)

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 8:50 am

Quote:

If Abrams were to return for 2016 it can only really mean that he would be focused very precisely. He has a track record of making popular, successful and critically well received films and shows.


 


Wut? Uhhhhhh WUT?  Did you read the link I posted? Try this one:


He has no proven track record at the box office. "As a director, J.J. Abrams has a limited history at the box office. His only other efforts are 2011′s relatively low-budget ($50 million) Super 8, and 2006′s Mission: Impossible III."


His TV record has nothing to do with movies.  They are two entirely different fiscal models. 


 


Quote:

He's in a good place to pick and choose exactly what he wants to do.


Uh, no. If STID underperforms, Paramount will most likely not let him do a third. Right now I would imagine Paramount executives are not too happy.


 


"Hecklers" have nothing to do with it. It's about money and creative control.  Abrams is focused on Star Wars now, which is more lucrative and always has been and will most likely allow him to control all points of media and marketing.  


If STID fails it's no one's fault but Abrams for delivering a substandard product.  If Star Trek gets "into trouble" don't look to the fans who complained, look at the man who directed the movie.  Blaming naysayers in the fanbase for a movies failure is not how this works.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 20 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 20 2013, 8:50 am

>

>If STID fails it's no one's fault but Abrams for delivering a substandard product.  If Star Trek gets "into trouble" don't look to the fans who complained, look at the man who directed the movie.  Blaming naysayers in the fanbase for a movies failure is not how this works.

>


Hold up. STID is underperforming domestically but it is not by any stretch of the imagination doing poorly. It will almost surely make back what it took to produce and then some. Paramount execs won't be crying in their beers over the performance of this movie. Almost all sequels don't do as well as the original film.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 10:36 am

Right now, the overseas box office is going to deliver the verdict if JJ Abrams is the next Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan, who can deliver movies that honors the source material enough to make fanboys happy or the next Michael Bay, who has become an injoke for making shiny, loud pieces of $h!t.  We're not sure which, yet.


If Paramount's plan was to create a new, 800 pound gorilla franchise like Marvel, specifically the Avengers, which not only was a box office success, but is spawning TV spinoffs, with Star Trek and the numbers don't add up, then the plan will in fact be a failure. I don't think "breaking slightly above even" is what they had in mind.  Marvel right now has the most profitable franschise in movies.  Transformers....eh not so much.


The only difference between people who dislike Abrams and Bay is a generational gap.  Old Trekkies are, well, older for the most part.  Transformers and Ninja Turtles fans are younger and louder.   


And honestly, STID probably has until June 14 to improve domestically, because when Man of Steel open, ZackSnyder and Chris Nolan are poised to pants Abrams and take his lunch money.


God help Abrams if he messes up Star Wars, though.


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

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this May. 20 2013, 11:57 am

The good news is, no matter what, it will certainly out-perform Nemesis and Insurrection and will undoubtedly warrant one more movie. 


Right now, it is tracking identically with Star Trek 2009 which was considered a smash success...and STID is doing even better internationally, by more than double. 


So, people can spin it however they like, but the film is still going to be a success, regardless of whether or not it meets expectations. It will CERTAINLY be a success compared to most of the other films in the franchise. So, relatively speaking, it is still doing its job.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 20 2013, 2:09 pm

1) Despite contradictions, ST is roughly continuous from ENT to VOY. Everything pretty much took place in the same universe (except for mirror episodes) in chronological order until 2009. In comics you have the golden age, silver age, bronze age and alternate universe comics. Special editions. Sagas. Mash ups. Comic reboots are common (40+ years of prime timeline ST vs storyline changes every few years for comics.) ST vs Marvel/DC vs Transformers is an apple/orange/grape comparison. There is far more material for Marvel and DC to draw from than either the Transformers or ST franchises combined.


2) Fans of DC and Marvel comics b*tch and moan about Nolan and Whedon's films just as much as Trekkies b*tch and moan about JJ Abram's reboots. They also b*tch and moan whenever the story line is changed. So their feelings get hurt way more often than Trekkies.


3) Michael Bay makes mindless fluff but his films consistently make money hand over fist. This is why he always has something lined up. Don't confuse critical acclaim with popularity. Studios care about $$$$$$$$$. They don't care about you personally, vision or canon. And you are sadly mistaken if you think Marvel's franchise quality is always consistent and profitable. Thor, Ghost Rider, Blade, Elektra, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Daredevil, The Punisher, Captain America and many sequels did poorly at the box office.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm


DC's history is even worse: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=dccomics.htm


4) Sequels, in general, do not gross as much as original films. This applies even to prime timeline ST movies. In fact, STID (with only a few weeks of being open) and ST09 have higher WORLDWIDE grosses than any other ST films set in the prime timeline: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm


Bottom line, I have MANY issues with STID (and addressed them in the appropriate thread) but it's not a failure. I'm really gonna need the diehard fans to accept that JJ's uneven attempts to reboot ST have done far more to help the franchise than to hinder it AND that the old ST is never coming back. Hug your teddies, punch a safe object, cry, but the franchise has changed. Deal with it.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 2:49 pm

We'll see.  The numbers don't lie.  I have no doubt that Paramount will produce something for 2016. But beyond that is a toss up right now.  If Abrams fails to meet their foreign market goals then there may very well be a house cleaning or scrapping of the franchise all together.  And if the box office can survive the next three weeks domestically. 


 


Marvel's top ten earners beat out STID in opening weekends, btw.  Right now, Marvel has the middas touch.  

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 20 2013, 4:28 pm

Quote: bunkey @ May. 20 2013, 2:49 pm

>

>We'll see.  The numbers don't lie.  I have no doubt that Paramount will produce something for 2016. But beyond that is a toss up right now.  If Abrams fails to meet their foreign market goals then there may very well be a house cleaning or scrapping of the franchise all together.  And if the box office can survive the next three weeks domestically. 

>Marvel's top ten earners beat out STID in opening weekends, btw.  Right now, Marvel has the middas touch.  

>


Cherry picking points to highlight does not make your argument any more valid. Marvel has a bigger, more lucrative franchise because it has a bigger and broader fan base and material to work with. Stop comparing apples to oranges.


The numbers DON'T lie, sequels generally never do better than originals. And Marvel has had a plethora of duds. The new SHIELD series may or may not do well.


ST was all but scrapped as a franchise any damn way until Abrams and Paramount took a chance on making three movies. You seem to want to put the onus on Abrams as opposed to the fact that viewership for ST shows fell way off for each iteration after TNG AND most of the prime ST movies were not commercial blockbusters.


You have somehow deluded yourself into thinking that if Abrams had adhered to the PRIME WAY (amen and amen) that ST would be going gangbusters. When in fact the PRIME WAY is what led to the franchise's demise. At the very least Abrams gave the franchise a last hurrah and at the most a fresh start.


FACT, ST diehards like us aren't enough to sustain the franchise. If we were ENT would have done a 7 year run and more movies in the prime timeline would have been made. You don't have to like what Abrams has done but he breathed life into a franchise that was on its death bed.


Folks like you come off like selfish ex-lovers who think, "if I can't have him/her then no one can." ST isn't about you, you don't define ST and you alone (and your kindred) can't save it.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 20 2013, 5:17 pm

Quote:

ST diehards like us aren't enough to sustain the franchise. If we were ENT would have done a 7 year run and more movies in the prime timeline would have been made. You don't have to like what Abrams has done but he breathed life into a franchise that was on its death bed.


 


Star Trek fans have sustained the franchise for 47 years through a combined 21 years of 24th century related series.  That says a lot about the power of Trekkies/ers.  TNG, DS9 and VOY did not survive out of the goodness of Paramount's heart.


ENT didn't survive becaus it lacked enough quality material.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed ENT sometimes.  But not all the time. ENT was a case of goint to the well one too many time.  If the majority of fans choose not to support a particular incarnation of Trek they feel isn't good, or good enough, then it fails.  There's a portion of fans who will not simply swallow whatever is given to them for the sake of "taking one for the team".  I'm not going to be served a turn sandwich and smile and pretend it's delicious for the sake of not making waves. Star Trek fans have been spoiled from a steady diet of new Trek over an 18 year period. The absence of Trek from 2005 to 2009 wasn't a death knell. Fans went four years without new Trek material and people were declaring Trek all but dead until NuTrek came along. Four lousy years.  Talk about over dramatic.  


So if NuTrek fails or rather, underperforms, it's simply because it was not good enough.  Then Paramount has to go back to the drawing board, or shelve it.  Who knows? Maybe in 5 or 10 years we'll get something really worthy of the Star Trek name.  And we may never get more Star Trek.  But better there be no Star Trek than bad Star Trek.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar, darmokattanagra

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