Quote:
"You can't really make a movie for them."
What a rude thing to say. Every time this guy speaks he seems to just get closer and closer to disparaging what has come already.
But J.J. is right! He CANNOT make a film exclusively for us because the success of the franchise is depending on a new crop of younger fans, who never watched or cared before. J.J. Abrams actually knows Hollywood better than 98% of the Star Trek fan base, so please don't confuse realism and honesty with "arrogance".
The last time he tried stroking your egos by giving you a shred of hope Shatner could be in his movie, you accused him of lying when the inevitable happened and Denny Crane was left out of the picture. It's safe to say that Abrams has learned his lesson with the rabid fan base, and he is going to give it to us straight. This film HAS to be for everyone. It can be enjoyable to us, certainly.. but I like what I see from him. Even if the delicate flowers in the fan base don't.
-- Steve
"You can't really make a movie for them."
What a rude thing to say. Every time this guy speaks he seems to just get closer and closer to disparaging what has come already. He's clearly standing on the shoulders of giants, and all I see coming from him is the ADHD version of Star Trek with too much focus on glowing lights and intense emotional primetime hyperdrama.
There are star trek movies, episodes, that are watched again and again. Its a combination of story, familiarity with characters - it has evolved to become classic.
The opposite of this would be your summer blockbuster - its hyped, watched once, and fades into being forgotten. Im thinking J.J. Abrams is creating a big hit with no longevity.
I'd much rather see a well done series, something worthy of making into a higher-budget film. Why try and mainstream something that's not mainstream?
JJ has been praising this film like its going to be the next Star Wars, Gone with the Wind, Godfather, or Citizen Kane.
I am looking forward to this movie when it finally does come out a little more than a year from now.
The thing is... if this movie is anything short of those movies.... he'll be mightily disappointed.
He's giving this movie a lot to live up to, I just hope it does just what he says it will, but the pessimistic part of me is saying that it'll be just as lame as Insurrection or Generations.
Let's hope the hype is worth it!
--------
"So, how many years until your Pon Farr comes around again?"
-Trip
Every time I read that quote from Abrams, I think of that scandal a few years ago involving the fake critic who gave every movie a good review. Obviously he was getting paid off, but when asked about it, he said "I love to love movies". I have ALWAYS remembered that line because its so stupid.
So is this movie being made for THAT guy?
--------
It's time to separate the weak from the chafed, the men from the boys, the awkwardly feminine from the possibly Canadian.
I was a little off-put at first at the idea of going backwards to go forwards for "Star Trek" but then the way Abrams seems to be talking about his approach to the project has made me optimistic. At the end of the day, Star Trek has produced a lot of programming between the tv shows and the films and it has to be given new treatment for it to move forward. I personally would have like to have seen another TNG movie as a send off because I don't think Nemesis did that crew justice but now it's time to move on. The only shame now is that we all have to wait even longer for this film to come out!
Hey J.J.
I have complete confidense in you. I have been a fan since 1966. TOS is one of my eariest memories from behind the bars of a crib. I LOVE Star Trek. And I believe you will do it justice.
Don't let the haters get you down.
I only wish we didn't have to wait until summer of '09 to see it. My heart was set on Christmas!
Yer killin' me, dude!
Much love. Make a good movie!
Quote:
I thought the "treatment" Paramount gave STAR TREK: TMP was just as good, if not better than the treatment the current film is getting. Sure, the filmmakers weren't completely successful back then, but snagging Robert Wise as director; spending almost 100 million dollars (1980 dollars--way more than the current film cost); getting all the original cast members in the film; plus, a TREK film back then was a far greater risk because no one knew if people would spend money on a former TV show. All this certainly qualifies as good treatment to me. What is he talking about?
Some disagreements...
(1) Actually, the film was budgeted originally at $8 million, and ended up costing $40 million to make in 1979 - a rediculous amount, but grossed over $100 million worldwide, so it was still profitable.
(2) Getting all the cast members on board was not really cost prohibitive seeing as they were mostly only known for being on a 1960s TV show that was cancelled a decade earlier -- they were cheap to sign.
(3) I think everyone knew TMP would be successful because of what Star Wars had generated and the exponential cult popularity Star Trek was getting in reruns.
(4) I think Abrams was comparing his Star Trek film to the cookie-cutter Berman-era films of the 90's that never had a true "epic" feel to them. TMP was the last truly significant film in the Star Trek franchise... this one will be the second because of how much is riding on it, and how much it is being hyped amongst GENERAL audiences.. not just Trekkies who will fork over $10.50 anyway.
-- Steve
I thought the "treatment" Paramount gave STAR TREK: TMP was just as good, if not better than the treatment the current film is getting. Sure, the filmmakers weren't completely successful back then, but snagging Robert Wise as director; spending almost 100 million dollars (1980 dollars--way more than the current film cost); getting all the original cast members in the film; plus, a TREK film back then was a far greater risk because no one knew if people would spend money on a former TV show. All this certainly qualifies as good treatment to me. What is he talking about?
Quote from AP:
Abrams would not share plot details, saying only that the movie would remain faithful to the original
I'd say JJ understands that the wisdom in being faithful to TOS isn't about Trekkies, it's about classic science-fiction that became pop-cult legend. It's a timeless phenomenon that continues to touch the everyday masses. Even those who don't think of themselves as fans have an intuitive sense of what Star Trek was and should be.
--------
"Don't tell them that I love it."
These were my son's words after living with Ubuntu 8.04 on his laptop for a day. Interestingly, he said, "I never loved Windows either, but it always worked for me."
A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux ++ Live CD
"You can't really make a movie for them. As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you're in trouble."
That sounds like something Rick Berman would have said. In fact, I'm sure he said something eerily similar to that.
arrrr...
Modern special effects for tha big screen means it be a theatre experience... so blow me down in the aisles!
Is this to be a popcorn movie or a sci-fi film? Whose ta say? As Alexander Dumas says "Wait and hope."
arrrr....
see me webbypage
I've got mixed feelings. I've always felt Star Trek needed a little facelift in terms of style and imagery WITHOUT changing story canon... for the sake of opening up the universe a tad. But like what someone else said, I kind of feel like an unwanted pet Sir J.J. can't afford to get rid of. I don't know, I need a cookie.
*I almost spelled canon "cannon" just to spite some people.
Quote:
"You can't really make a movie for them. As soon as you start to guess what you think they are going to want to see, you're in trouble."
I don't think I've ever heard the fanbase described so succinctly, or accurately.
--------
"F**k you I won't do what you tell me!" Killing in the name of - Rage Against the Machine
RE: yup
by sb2004 @ 08:44:53 on May 02
I can't figure Abrams out. Half the time, it seems he genuinely likes and respects what has gone before him.
But lately, if one reads the stitches on the fastball, it seems like he detests what Star Trek has always been and wants to recreate in his own image.
When he says things like, "Well, we have one Trekkie writing for us, and we have Nimoy," it seems like he's throwing bones (or valentines) to the longtime fans, realizing that this movie can't be a success without us. However, if he could make the movie without having to take us into consideration, I sometimes get the impression he would.
It's like we're pests they can't afford to exterminate.
I dunno. This whole process has been murky and confusing, veiled with deception from the beginning. Before, whatever one might think of Berman and Braga (and definitely with Roddenberry), there was an openness with the fans, a genuine appreciation of them. I don't think we'll see that again. I certainly don't sense it from the latest crew (with Pegg and at times, Quinto being the lone exceptions).
I think the unstated intention here is to separate Trek as much as possible from the last 40 years in order to mainstream it and finally make it "cool." (And reap in billions of dollars from Paramount's cash cow.)
Oh well, it's just a movie.
This is exactly the kind of approach that Star Trek has always needed!
Can't wait for this.... =)
VoR
--------
"You're going straight in the Army, where you'll be sent straight to America's latest military quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything's possible with Commander Koo-Koo Bananas in charge!" --Homer Simpson
Sounds good to me.
--------
DISCLAIMER: Gary's views do not necessarily represent those of TrekWeb, and may not be serious, funny, interesting, or indeed understandable.
RE: Kewl
by Spartacus @ 02:49:27 on May 02
(1)
| 
