Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek 4 (14)


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#101 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 27 March 2018 - 12:37 PM

Your probably right, more so because I don't think they can count on Treks Fan base to get the numbers. Regardless of the marketing, I was dead set against going to it in the theater because I really didn't like "Darkness". 

 

So they needed a good marketing campaign to get the average joe in the seat.  



#102 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 27 March 2018 - 02:27 PM

I think Star Trek Beyond failed to get the numbers that both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness got was primarily as a result of a terrible marketing campaign. Sabotage and Rihanna? Thats not how you push a Star Trek film in its 50th year - even one made for a larger audience than just Trek fans. What Paramount have failed to grasp is that Star Trek is an important cultural phenomenon. Its influence and impact is not lost on those not entirely familiar with Star Trek and its rather insulting that Paramount dumbed down in Beyonds marketing.

Though I would also say that the story was just as forgettable as the marketing for the movie. The problem was that they didnt stick to their guns! They (the studio, Abrams) freaked out over the Internet nerd backlash from Into Darkness and whilst critics werent as bowled over by it as the 2009 movie, they werent exactly screaming about the same things the fans were screaming about. Into Darkness was not a great Star Trek movie but it was not the worse movie ever made. Rather than forgetting about it in Beyond, they should of done a straight up sequel movie with the plots and characters Khan/John Harrison introduced to us in ID and built a better story from the threads that were planted in Into Darkness rather than copping out and doing something totally new, kinda cool but very forgettable.

Yes Beyond is probably the closest thematically to a TOS episode but that goes against what these new Star Trek movies were all about. The Kelvin Timeline was setup to be an alternate universe to the Star Trek we knew and what better way to celebrate its 50 years by doing something that like the 2009 movie did, respect the original but do something new and fresh and exciting.

It all kind of fell short of being an unforgettable experience like the 2009 movie was. Its the Jurassic Park 3 of the Kelvin Timeline movies.

#103 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 28 March 2018 - 06:29 AM

What Paramount have failed to grasp is that Star Trek is an important cultural phenomenon.

 

I'm still a fan... but I know its importance, culturally has certainly faded, I will add that the JJ movies did seem to revitalize somewhat the big Las Vegas trek Convention, as I went to it for a number of years before and then at least one year after the 2009 movie... and attendance was up... but it used to be that Paramount had theme parks and Trek was all over them... and the Hilton Las Vegas Trek Experiences was awesome... spent some good times at Quarks... except for the time I drank too (two) many Warp Core Breeches ;-) 



#104 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 28 March 2018 - 08:05 AM

 
I'm still a fan... but I know its importance, culturally has certainly faded, I will add that the JJ movies did seem to revitalize somewhat the big Las Vegas trek Convention, as I went to it for a number of years before and then at least one year after the 2009 movie... and attendance was up... but it used to be that Paramount had theme parks and Trek was all over them... and the Hilton Las Vegas Trek Experiences was awesome... spent some good times at Quarks... except for the time I drank too (two) many Warp Core Breeches ;-) 


Paramount left it too late to act on the success of Star Trek. I have long held the belief that JJ Abrams plan for Star Trek was one that should of been embraced by both Paramount and by CBS.

Had that plan to create a multi-faceted franchise that was produced for multiple media platforms such as film, TV, animation and merchandise, I feel we would be looking at a true Star Trek renascence right now.

Paramount though left it way too long between 2009 and Into Darkness. Even if they had wanted to wait for Abrams, they should of commissioned Bad Robot to put together a creative team to develop an animated Kelvin Timeline series.

The Kelvin Timeline is a far more open and optimistic place than the Timeline Discovery is occupying and I think it could be a fantastic place for an animated Star Trek series.

There would be things Id change about the Kelvin movies we got, but the overriding change id make is that I wish they had hit it hard once they knew Star Trek was the brilliant success it was.

In short, Abrams was right and yet again a studio showed its true, out of touch outlook by denying Abrams the shot of turning Star Trek Into a multi-platformed mass media and merchandising juggernaut.

The themes and storytelling were always something that could of been woven closer to what fans love Star Trek for - it was never a reason to get the jitters and start listening to us (the fans). In actual fact, CBSs Discovery should of been a Kelvin Timeline series quite honestly, rather than a visual reboot of the prime timeline.

#105 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 28 March 2018 - 08:53 AM

The more I re-watch Discovery... and I do find it re-watchable... I tend think its fine as a fine incarnation of Trek... basically its what I'll call dystopic humanism trek. Sure I have issues with it... which I won't regurgitate, and those haven't changed, but I can at least re-watch episodes and enjoy them. 

 

I'm sure that if they had done a kelvin timeline, I would have equally enjoyed and had issues with it... because Trek just works better as a TV show for me... I still think JJ is a hack... so no JJ was never the right person to take the Trek Tiller, as such I don't think any opportunity was lost. 



#106 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 28 March 2018 - 09:37 AM

The more I re-watch Discovery... and I do find it re-watchable... I tend think its fine as a fine incarnation of Trek... basically its what I'll call dystopic humanism trek. Sure I have issues with it... which I won't regurgitate, and those haven't changed, but I can at least re-watch episodes and enjoy them.


Discovery is a great TV show, it fails a little at being great Star Trek but I think that is a general problem that has faced Star Trek since Deep Space Nine.

It is rewatchable once you start watching it. Its getting into the mindset of watching it again.
 

I'm sure that if they had done a kelvin timeline, I would have equally enjoyed and had issues with it... because Trek just works better as a TV show for me... I still think JJ is a hack... so no JJ was never the right person to take the Trek Tiller, as such I don't think any opportunity was lost. 


Whilst I think he is heavily inspired by Steven Spielberg, I think his hack status is kind of unwarranted. I dont think theres an original idea coming out of Hollywood in general and I dont think Abrams can be held responsible.

Both of his Star Trek movies and his Star Wars movie are quality made productions. His care and attention to detail is something that is highly regarded. What Abrams needs to do moving forward is to produce and hire amazing up and coming talents to direct and make his productions because Abrams is a master at producing and while he is a solid director too, I agree, he is far too inspired by Spielberg. His production company Bad Robot is something every aspiring movie student should be aiming to achieve themselves.

The Kelvin movies lack the gravitas that comes with the legacy of doing a movie set within a rich mythology such as Star Treks and those are the issues I have with his Star Trek movies; they arent woven into this fantastic, rich and expansive mythology and the Easter eggs put into each of the films feel forced and for the sake of keeping the fans happy rather than beautifully folded into the stories.

Picard, Data and the Enterprise E could of been woven into Star Trek, Khan or Spock Prime never needed to be in Into Darkness, and Beyond, well Beyond just fell short of being a great movie.

#107 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 28 March 2018 - 02:04 PM

Influenced by Spielberg or Lucas?  Spielberg, while having some misses I respect... Lucas is a confirmed Hack IMO... a two trick pony at best for directing (American Graffiti and Star Wars). JJ is no Spielberg... but he is a hack like Lucas IMO! Quite frankly I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more Razzie Noms!



#108 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 28 March 2018 - 07:23 PM

Influenced by Spielberg or Lucas?  Spielberg, while having some misses I respect... Lucas is a confirmed Hack IMO... a two trick pony at best for directing (American Graffiti and Star Wars). JJ is no Spielberg... but he is a hack like Lucas IMO! Quite frankly I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more Razzie Noms!



The reason Abrams hasnt been nominated for a Razzie is because he produces and directs solid movies and TV shows. Clearly Abrams has been channeling Spielberg his entire life. Super 8 is his love letter to Steven Spielberg and superbly goes to show how much he has been inspired by him. Abrams has a very distinct tone to his movies and TV shows. Be it Star Trek, Mission Impossible 3, Star Wars, Cloverfield, Super 8, Lost, Fringe... Like Spielberg, you know youre watching a JJ Abrams movie. Now thats either a good thing or a bad thing depending on your own tastes but as far as Im concerned, I think its a very naive thing to say someone like Abrams or Lucas is a hack, two people whove made hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars and created not only huge juggernaut franchises or contributed to the revival of two huge franchises, but their own production houses. In terms of Lucas, he revolutionised cinema with his help in creating ILM. These guys arent hacks just because theyve made bad decisions on occasions.

Im not suggesting that either Abrams or Lucas havent made questionable movies, but theyre not hacks. If we are to judge them as such then we would be wrong to do so because it would make Roddenberry just as much of a hack... Star Trek is The Twiight Zone, its Forbidden Planet and Wagon Train, alright so the former beat cop and WWII pilot had the idea sure, his philosophy was ballsy ok but Gene L. Coon put it into practice, writers like Harlan Ellison and Ray Bradbury and DC Fontana all added to and elevated his initial idea for Star Trek. I mean who holds Andromeda in the same regard as Star Trek? Nobody. Roddenberrys early TNG episodes where garbage! Recycled from old TOS plots, TMP was a snore... TNG didnt get good until Roddenberrys involvement lessened. Wrath of Khan; arguably considered the best Star Trek movie; Roddenberrys involvement was minimal. The Undiscovered Country; he hated.

Roddenberry much like Lucas, much like Abrams borrowed from what had worked in the past, from those who had inspired him. Where Roddenberry was inspired by the likes of science fiction writers of the 40s and 50s and shows like Forbidden Planet, Abrams is clearly inspired and influenced by The Twighlight Zone, Steven Spielberg and Star Wars. That doesnt make him any more of a hack than Roddenberry.

I think its very easy for us to pound away at our keyboards yelling about what we dont like about JJ Abrams or George Lucas, but these are two very successful film producers whove made a ton of money and whove also seen talented men and women to take their properties or ideas forward, they have directed or produced critically acclaimed movies and developed, expanded and saved mega blockbuster franchises. These men arent hacks.

Lets not forget that before 2009, Star Trek was dead and buried. There was no suggestion that anyone else was going to take it on. Abrams did and sure I, like many fans have legitimate problems with his take on Star Trek but actually, that 2009 movie is superb and arguably the greatest Star Trek movie since Khan both creatively and most certainly financially. These achievements cannot be dismissed and Abrams hard work at dragging Star Trek from a backwater TV network to a multi-million dollar movie franchise that had people take notice should not be belittled.

The fundamental problems with Star Trek didnt begin with Abrams and while I dont agree with all the decisions he has made with his Star Trek movies, that doesnt mean someone else would of done a better job. He elevated the Star Trek franchise as a whole, and while his creative decisions had mixed results, his first Trek movie was superb based upon what audiences expect from a movie today (or in 2009). I think where Star Trek is now is in a position where theyre likely going to do a soft reboot with Abrams remaining as producer and with his production company Bad Robot, support the next team coming in to make the next movie; be it Quentin Tarantino or someone else.

Whoever it may be, there will be those of us who love what the next movie is, and those of us who dont - it will never be what we all want though because we as a collective group of fans are so divided on what we think is true Star Trek, that there is no right or wrong way for anyone to approach a Star Trek movie or TV series anymore.

#109 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 29 March 2018 - 03:55 AM

JJ has been nominated for a razzie.. for worst screen play for Armageddon. I said "I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more Razzie Noms!"  Lucas has like 3... but JJ is young... I'm sure he'll get more... he may even win one!

 

Its your​ option that JJs good... thats fine... its my​ opinion that he's a hack, and I stand by that.  If you like his work thats great!  I don't like much of anything he's directed, written, or produced. 

 

JJ himself says his influences are people like Lucas, John Ford, and  Terrence Malick  so I was just surprised at the comparison to Spielberg... don't think I had seen that before so thats why I was asking if you maybe meant Lucas.  

 

I think your giving JJ a bunch of credit that he doesn't deserve... he's been involved in 3 trek movies, and he had nothing to do with Discovery... and for all its flaws, I find it a better effort than anything he's done. I think even if the last three movies hadn't been made we would have gotten Discovery, because that has more to do with the success of online streaming and dystopic reboots like BSG than anything JJ has done. 

 

But getting more back on topic... Clearly JJ will be involved in the next film, and it sounds like QT may be involved in some capacity too, which I find intriguing because I generally like QTs body of work. A number of people like..  Frakes seem pretty enthusiastic... others like Pegg seem to be adopting a wait and see attitude, but no one seems outright negative about the idea. 



#110 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 29 March 2018 - 03:44 PM

I dont think any of us here, unless theres someone here who has created their own billion dollar production company, and had multiple successes, making various studios billions of dollars and entertaining millions of people around the world, whatever the creative issues we all have with these various incarnations of Star Trek, have any right to call someone a hack whos made a success from their passions. I think that represents two dimensional thinking. You like what you like, doesnt mean what you dont like is terrible.

I think all we can take from the information we have on the next Star Trek movie is that there will be another one. As to what the movie is, is entirely speculative right now. I think the recent news surrounding Tarantinos relationship with Uma Thurman has perhaps dampened interest in him doing Star Trek but who knows. It seems like two scripts are out there for it.

Another possibility is that with the news that CBS might be buying Viacom (including Paramount) it may put the breaks on whatever Bad Robot and Paramount are currently working on. Who knows.

#111 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 30 March 2018 - 03:24 AM

Its my opinion. If I want to call JJ a Hack I can... and I do have the right... in this country its actually embodied in a bill of rights.  if you have an issue with the word "Hack"  I'm happy to elaborate... I think JJ is a cheap, mediocre, second-rate practitioner who relies entirely on the "Mystery Box" concept for his work, yet fails to use it as a proper Mcguffin... as done in QTs Pulp Fiction with the  contents of the brief case. JJs a lot like M. Night Shyamalan, who basically has singular gimmick. This is not to say that their work isn't well made (in most cases), but it also doesn't mean I think something that is well made, is good. I think this is true of Lucas too... most people agree the SW prequels were well made... but good?? Not so much. 



#112 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 30 March 2018 - 05:43 AM

I know its your right to call Abrams and Lucas and anyone else you dont appreciate a hack and you didnt need to elaborate. I just think that its not very respectful.

I have my issues with JJ Abrams and George Lucas for that matter but the issues are to do with their creative direction, not their ability to produce and direct great movies and TV series and on top of that, build incredible production companies that have shaped the way films are made. I think branding them as hacks is over the top when their success in the industry is well proven.

I dont think directing is either Abrams of Lucass strength and certainly neither are as good as Quentin Tarantino or Christopher Nolan, or The Russo Beothers or Steven Spielberg or Christopher Macquarie, or John Lassiter, but they are great storytellers and fantastic producers. They know what people to approach to follow through with their stories and ideas. That being said, Abrams direction is still pretty decent and without being on set with him, working with him, I dont think you or I have enough information about him to brand him a hack. Same goes for Lucas. It may be that you dont like their works, you dont like the films or the stories theyve directed or produced or created and that you think Abrams has only one film in him, A New Hope, that he applies to every film he directs. But that is all subjective. We can go into watch the same Abrams movie be it Star Trek or The Force Awakens and come out with two completely different opinions on those movies.

And while I agree the prequel Star Wars trilogy was utter garbage in every sense of the word, the same cant be said for Abrams Star Trek trilogy, nor can it be recorded as fact since there are a lot of younger Star Wars fans who grew up becoming fans of Star Wars because of those three prequels, again, it has to be chalked up to all films being subjective. Theyre not good movies, not at all but like I said, film is subjective and no one who hasnt worked with these men is really in a position to brand them hacks.

We also have to put all of this into perspective. Abrams isnt the only one responsible for his three Star Trek movies. Dozens of people make decisions on franchise films and while i am sure a lot of the decisions were made by Abrams, If you want to go off on anyone, go off on the studios. Time after time studios get it completely wrong. Executives whove never made a film in their lives, never even visited a film set are just looking at the facts and figures, making the same mistakes over and over again and believeing films like Star Trek, Star Wars and super hero movies are beneath their Ivy League education.

I believe there is only one man in Hollywood who is a genius at both producing and pleasing executive decisions; he heads up Marvel Studios, his name; is Kevin.

#113 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 30 March 2018 - 07:43 AM

If your offended that I call the JJ's, Lucas's and Shyamalan's hacks...which they are... there is an "Ignore" feature on this site... or instead of just saying more of the same thing over and over as you like to do... and focusing on what you don't like about my opinion... we can go back to talking about the prospects for the next movie. 



#114 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 31 March 2018 - 10:12 AM

If your offended that I call the JJ's, Lucas's and Shyamalan's hacks...which they are... there is an "Ignore" feature on this site... or instead of just saying more of the same thing over and over as you like to do... and focusing on what you don't like about my opinion... we can go back to talking about the prospects for the next movie. 

Woah woah woah... Ill gloss over the insulting remarks made against me but hold on there sport, Im not offended. I just dont agree with you. I think youre being over the top calling them both hacks. Who are you to call them that? Seems a bit ridiculous to me when normally your opinions are well reasoned and balanced.

I think we as a collective need to take a step back. As movies, the two Abrams Star Trek movies and the one Justin Lin/JJ Abrams movie are great. Furthermore, they all succeed critically and with audiences. Even Star Trek Beyond, the lowest performing Kelvin movie, is held in high regard by not just critics, audiences but many outspoken internet Star Trek fans too.

They may fail for the individual in many regard as good Star Trek stories for reasons only an individual Star Trek fan can really debate with others, but that doesnt mean they fail as movies, theres no denying that all three of the Bad Robot/JJ Abrams movies have outperformed most if not all of the older Star Trek movies, they have all done incredibly well.

Calling Abrams a Hack is like a petulant child throwing his or her toys out of the crib because what he or she wants is something only he or she understands. I am assuming that the definition of hack in the manner you mean is this:

A writer or journalist producing dull, unoriginal work.
"Sunday newspaper hacks earn their livings on such gullibilities"

Abrams is no Sunday newspaper journalist. His body of work may be heavily influenced and inspired by others but he alone is not responsible for the outcome, you cannot therefore blindly call him or any other creative working as part of a massive team of creative people as well as studio executives and other partners expecting a return on their investment a hack. You have no rationale behind your accusations, nor do you hold the requisite information to make such a remark, unless Goth, you worked with JJ on both of his Star Trek movies or was there every step of the way as George Lucas created Star Wars; a little known Sci-Fi franchise, ILM; just some backwater hack ridden cgi house, Skywalker Sound, THX, Producer on Indiana Jones, creator of Lucasfilm...

Facts are there that go against what you believe to be true but I guess truth and fact these days are both a little harder to believe.

As for Star Trek 4... what is there actually to talk about? First of all, if you really truly believe that Abrams is a hack then why are you still interested in this project, the last I heard he was still very much involved in Star Treks big screen outings and although fact and truth arent easy to swallow right now; Its a dead end right now. There are no prospects to this fictional movie until the project moves on from speculative wondering about what might be to actual news about what could or will eventually be.

#115 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 April 2018 - 10:25 AM

Some people need to chill here or I'll shut it down. 

 



#116 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 02 April 2018 - 09:14 AM

I dont think any of us here, unless theres someone here who has created their own billion dollar production company, and had multiple successes, making various studios billions of dollars and entertaining millions of people around the world, whatever the creative issues we all have with these various incarnations of Star Trek, have any right to call someone a hack whos made a success from their passions.

 
As an observer, this is effectively an "appeal to authority" or "appeal to accomplishment" logical fallacy.  You're attempting to shut down an opinion using basically the same argument as: "when you've run a company, then you can criticize the President".  You're not going to find it easy to gain acquiescence from those of us on this side of the pond with that approach.
 
I also find JJ a hack.  I've enjoyed watching several of his productions.  Probably LOST the most, in terms of my engagement.  That was sort of where my interest in JJ began and roughly where it ends.
 
I've heard him compared to Spielberg quite often.  I think it is mainly because of:
His somewhat meteoric rise
His renaissance-man-like capabilities (within the film industry)
The similar mystical/sci-fantasy (yet grounded in reality) nature of the subject matter of his early efforts
His similar storytelling structure
His understanding of the importance and execution of story beats, audience relatability, etc
His being in general a darling that everyone gets along with, enjoys working for, and approves of
The fact that everything he does has been successful in at least one sense, if not every
And yes, of course, Super8 (which wasn't really that good, I'd take any Spielberg film any day of the week over that)
 
All of that is true, and yet, I walk away from most of his work feeling like I just had a relatively hollow experience and no desire to return to it anytime soon.  I also often walk away, as a sci-fi fan, angry that it was far more fantasy than I personally prefer to see in entertainment being billed as sci-fi.
 
Rattle off a list of Spielberg films, and just about every one of them strikes as a memorable film worth revisiting regularly, often with new appreciation growing out of each repeat viewing.  Abrams...doesn't generally pull me back in that way.  But some of it may be that I'm now into the age of adulthood where everything just seems like an unnecessary rehash of the classics I grew up on.



#117 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:50 AM

Abrams is an accomplished film producer, director and writer. Is he the best producer, director, writer? In my opinion no. He isnt a hack though. I wouldnt even call Michael Bay a hack and hes terrible at filmmaking. Good lord!

The reason I think people throw that word around is because of perhaps we misunderstand what that word implies. Abrams cant be a hack this early in his film making career; his first big feature film break was Mission Impossible 3 followed by Star Trek, a mere 9 years ago, Steven Spielbergs first big break was Jaws after a string of disastrous movies before it and while I know a lot of this is down to you and others feelings on his take on Star Trek, in the end history will make its own conclusions on whether Abrams is remembered as a great director in the same Parthenon of great directors such as Spielberg, Hitchcock and Kubrick - even then, while I doubt history will remember Abrams in the same light as those masters, he continues today to make profitable and critically popular movies and continues to have major influence over billion dollar franchises such as Star Trek and Star Wars. You and others may not find some or all of his work very well produced, directed or written, but that doesnt make him a hack. I dont even know if you can be a hack in the creative industry? Art imitates life and ultimately art imitates art.

The trouble I think and in my opinion here and why some may call Abrams and Lucas hacks is the confusion over who to blame for a broader problem with Hollywood films and as a sidebar; confusion tends to creep in I believe due to the access we have over overbloated opinions (like my own on this forum) spread across the internet and forums and social media. These personal opinions I feel tend to magnify exponentially the feelings only a few disgruntled fans share over the decisions and creative choices of just one film producers take on a storied franchise, that individual has invested thousands of dollars and hours of passion into. If only Abrams had told his Star Trek story back in the 80s...

The days of imagination and risk taking by Hollywood studios is over at least for now. Theres far too much money and far more to loose if a film does not sell so they do the safe bet, they want the next Star Wars or the next Jurassic Park. Its become the norm for success to be measured by how close to a billion dollars a film makes. Im very much generalising here because I simply do not care to understand the economics of Hollywood, but as a fanboy looking in from the outside, I can see hundreds of films being produced and only one or two stories being told and thank god there are still filmmakers out there like Spielberg and like Abrams and those who are even better at directing than either of those, still making these handful of stories exciting and compelling.

Abrams isnt a hack, hes a talented producer and storyteller with both critical and financial success to his name, but ultimately he is tied by the industry that pays him; hes doing what every other director like him does in Hollywood and that is by telling a handful of stories over and over again in a slightly different way and as technologies and techniques improve. Thats not his fault, thats just the business he is in because thats what we as audiences love going to see.

Whether its Ryan Johnsons Last Jedi or Abrams Into Darkness, or Trevorrows Jurassic World or any of the Marvel movies, or Spielbergs Jurassic Park, Lucass Star Wars and his awful prequels or Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, or Christopher Nolans Dark Knight trilogy... they all move to the same story beats and formula. Each of those directors has a very identifiable style, and they all borrow from history to make their own movies. Are they all hacks? No.

There is though a clear stagnant feeling in Hollywood films right now and I think personally even the most mediocre of movies that show just an ounce of originality to them are overly praised and held aloft like some brilliant piece of art. I guess the reason for this stagnation in Hollywood at the moment though is because weve seen it all before, but moreso we love seeing it still! We love remembering how things once were great, The Force Awakens was a lovein for A New Hope, were making movies that are even driven by nostalgia (see Ready Player One) and perhaps were just waiting for the next big thing to transform cinema, the next director to come in, have a studio take a risk on him or her and for the game to change again in the way that Star Wars transformed it, in the way that Jurassic Park transformed it and in the way Lord of the Rings transformed it.

Then again when youre still making billions off of the formula studios use to this day, why change it.

If you still dont agree with me thats fine, Im not really here to change peoples minds but when you have Steven Spielberg, who is such a talented man praise Abrams to the point where theyve collaborated and will continue to collaborate, I think it is woefully cynical and misguided to call him a hack for making a Star Trek or Star Wars movie you dont care for.

#118 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 02 April 2018 - 12:11 PM

If you're using the Star Wars Prequels as some definitive statement of Lucas being a hack, then Peter Jackson is a hack since The Hobbit Trilogy is regarded as being garbage compared to Lord of the Rings.

The problem with the Prequels was Lucas being surrounded by yes men that wouldn’t tell him no. Lucas was heavily involved with The Clone Wars tv show, but had Dave Filoni with him to help, and it was an amazing series.

#119 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 02 April 2018 - 01:00 PM

The problem with the Prequels was Lucas being surrounded by yes men that wouldnt tell him no. Lucas was heavily involved with The Clone Wars tv show, but had Dave Filoni with him to help, and it was an amazing series.


Absolutely.

It is interesting that since The Last Jedi, a lot of Star Wars fans long for the days of the prequels... It may be interesting to see if popularity in the prequel trilogy develops as the kids brought up watching them as their first experience of Star Wars, grow up into adulthood. They may not have flown with the older generation of Star Wars fan but the kids who must be in their teens or twenties by now... who knows, I dont think anyone working successfully in Hollywood is a hack.

I believe that the likes of Abrams and Lucas are better at doing some things than they are at doing other things and lets not forget here that both of JJ Abrams Star Trek movies have been both critically and financially successful and remain with audiences who arent outraged fanboys as some of the better Star Trek movies - even Into Darkness, although generally not held in the same regard as its predecessor, is still regarded as better than most of the Star Trek films some fans seem to hold so dear.

#120 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 02 April 2018 - 01:16 PM

I agree Whirlygig... which is why I've stopped short of trying to counter argue ad hominem's or straw man arguments. 

 

Alteran195... maybe... or is he closer to a one trick pony... he absolutely messed up the Hobbit... and he really hasn't been given much since...  but I won't go there.

 

But moving on to other "involved" personnel... I'm with holding judgement on Kurtzman's hack status. I'm not particularly impressed with much of his writing or directing either,   but he seems to have decided that maybe his talents are better suited in producing... as his writing and directing credits are small and he's clearly moved to producing.... if the mark of a good producer is to ensure a high quality product is done with-in budget and on time... then I think he's generally hit that mark... I'm not sure the producer can be blamed for plot issues, or directing style... basically they need to ensure the project can turn a buck, and I guess it all depends on what quality means these days... something that is high quality isn't necessarily judge to be good. 

 

Just look at Discovery... there is nothing wrong with the quality of that product IMO... my issues are mostly with plot and writing and I'm more apt to blame the show runners in that regard than Kurtzman. My point in all this is Kurtzman is currently named as the producer for Trek 4, and I think, based on his previous work we will see a gorgeous product... even if we don't like the story! 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users