Half-TV: Why JJ Abrams gave up on Trek

[Bob in Jersey]

Plain and simple, CBS was not interested in "parking" the TOS merch despite the obvious differences... TheWrap

-- BOB

[Dave Sikula]

So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.

--Dave Sikula

[Tom Wolper]

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dave Sikula <dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So one guy's plan to bilk suckers out of millions was thwarted by a corporation's desire to bilk suckers out of millions? Color me uninterested.

Or to put it another way, in case we needed a reminder, TV is just a business.

[PGage]

I don't care too much about the multiplatform mediaverse, but I am one of the millions of suckers who is happily bilked out out of $10 to see Star Trek films (well, I think it as $13 to see this in 3D).  I think it is clear that Abrams has created the two most successful film adaptations of a television show ever, and I am bummed that an inability to agree on a marketing and mechanizing strategy is going to deprive us of additional JJ Star Trek versions. It is also irritating that Star Wars is going to get the full JJ treatment instead. I enjoy Star Wars, and even liked the new ones (well, the last of the new ones) well enough. But I am of a generation and a community that sees far (far) more potential for interesting and meaningful story-telling in the Star Trek universe than the Star Wars universe, though I suppose  if Star Wars 7 and beyond are freed from Lucus-control it merely provides an open canvas for JJ to do whatever he wants, which may prove worthwhile.

[David Bruggeman]

Is JJ getting the keys to the full kingdom, or is he only handling the next Episodes (though I guess only 7 is a confirmed deal)?  By point of comparison, is he Joss Whedon, or whomever at Marvel is coordinating all their 'Phases' (Avengers ended Phase 1, Iron Man 3 starts Phase 2)

Let's also remember that JJ can have a wide degree of involvement in his projects.  He's much more hands on in his directed films than in produced films or recent television work.

Sent from my iPad

--
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[M-D November]

Also, FWIW, I believe Bad Robot is signed up for at least one more "Trek" film, unless Paramount decides there's a conflict of interest with "Star Wars" and somehow ends their partnership on "Trek"...

[Dave Sikula]

I, too, was bilked out of my hard-earned dough for the 3D/IMAX presentation and couldn't disagree more about his creating a "successful" film adaptation of Star Trek. No Trekkie I, but to my untrained eye, the movies have almost nothing in common with the spirit and ideas of the show beyond the names and basic concepts (Enterrpise, transporters, phasers). I found the sequel to be mostly a dumb shoot-em-up, with no real connection to the original. (This is to say nothing of the massive plot holes that riddle the thing.)

--Dave Sikula

[stannc]

I don't want to reveal plot points only a week into its run, but Roddenberry's M.O. was to comment on current events veiled in science fiction stories. The first big "explosion scene" immediately reminded me of the Boston Marathon.

-Stan

[David Bruggeman]

Which would have more weight had principal photography not been in the can for about a year.

Of course, IMO.

David

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2013, at 6:30 PM, stannc <sta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't want to reveal plot points only a week into its run, but Roddenberry's M.O. was to comment on current events veiled in science fiction stories. The first big "explosion scene" immediately reminded me of the Boston Marathon.
>
> -Stan
>

[PGage]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Dave Sikula <dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I, too, was bilked out of my hard-earned dough for the 3D/IMAX presentation and couldn't disagree more about his creating a "successful" film adaptation of Star Trek. No Trekkie I, but to my untrained eye, the movies have almost nothing in common with the spirit and ideas of the show beyond the names and basic concepts (Enterrpise, transporters, phasers). I found the sequel to be mostly a dumb shoot-em-up, with no real connection to the original. (This is to say nothing of the massive plot holes that riddle the thing.)

Well, you disagree with me even more than you say here explicitly, as my claim is that he has created the two most successful film adaptations of a television show ever, not just a successful adaption of Star Trek. 

It is too early to go over the specific plot points that would allow me to attempt to rebut your point that the current film has nothing in common with the original other than names and basic concepts, but I think most fans of the original tv and films, even if they do not like JJ's films, will be able to cite a lot more commonalities than that.

As stannc notes, Roddenberry explored current events in his space show - he also explored relationships. I think Abrams is doing the same - arguably the reboot is allowing him to get into the relationship issues in even greater depth than the restrictions of the 1960s would ever have allowed GR, and the second film is clearly exploring issues raised by the Bush-Obama "War" on terrorism in terms that are more subversive and critical of conventional opinion than anything Roddenberry ever did.

[David Bruggeman]

A particular concern I have with STID is that it's an odd case of too much tell, not enough show in many of the relationships tested in the film. For all the points of homage get right, I think the attempt to hew closer to the original than the 2000 film (I can't get more specific w/o spoiling) manages to force two movies' worth of story into one. Had there been a Marvel-like plan in place where films that didn't focus on the main characters were OK, I think a lot of this could have been avoided, and some of the parties getting early kudos could have really shown (rather than told) their stuff.

Bottom line for me, while these films are better, many of the people behind them have been responsible for some pretty empty films (looking at those monster and living car movies, mostly). And JJ remains a decent TV guy for a film director. Not unlike Trek in terms of film vs. TV.

I suppose I'm really complaining about how this good space action movie could have been a great movie. And complaining about how a particular gimmick really got in the way of the people making the film.

David

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2013, at 8:22 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is too early to go over the specific plot points that would allow me to attempt to rebut your point that the current film has nothing in common with the original other than names and basic concepts, but I think most fans of the original tv and films, even if they do not like JJ's films, will be able to cite a lot more commonalities than that.
>

> As stannc notes, Roddenberry explored current events in his space show - he also explored relationships. I think Abrams is doing the same - arguably the reboot is allowing him to get into the relationship issues in even greater depth than the restrictions of the 1960s would ever allowed GR, and the second film is clearly exploring issues raised by the Bush-Obama "War" on terrorism in terms that are more subversive and critical of conventional opinion than anything Roddenberry ever did.
>

[David Bruggeman]

Me type not so good on iPad...

Points of homage *done* right, not get right.

2009 film, not 2000 film.

David

Sent from my iPad