Comments on: Abrams Still Not Sure If He Will Direct Star Trek XI

By: JON

JON — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:54:22 +0000

Star Trek needs a visionary to re-invigorate it.Not a producer who’s gonna hand it off to a director du jour .I don’t get why Abrams comes across as so willy nilly about such an important property.He could be the next George Lucas if he does this right (forget Rodenberry and Meyer comparisons).My point is this…Star Trek needs a one man ( a father-so to speak)to take his vision to the screen and make it work.That means,Abrams needs to be producer ,director and writer.Hiring a director means that director is going to be beholden to others expectations(producers,fans,canon,etc.) and creativity will suffer.

By: acb

acb — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:24:08 +0000

That is my whole point JON. The issue with much of the general public is that when they see a film and then see a moment like the previous ones i had listed in my post, they go on to attribute those faults to the entire film, ala idealistic views of black and white. It is either this or that, it is either “unbelievable” or it is crap. NO in between, which is very unfair for many films out there. They never really look at films such as Returns and attempt try to figure out their actual issues with it. And the arguement can be made vice-versa with people whole accepting a film as great simply on the basis of some notions of feeling they need to (ie. Pirates of the Carribean 2).

The issue is that there is a very BIG difference between a film that is, as u put it, “a dud,” and one that is just good or decent but could have been great. Returns did have many moments that were actually quite good, and it had those moments that really needed the time to be thought through and readjusted. Those issues i presented before were moments in the film that were not impossiblities to fix, and are easily adjustable for the next film. Its all a matter of seeing the layerwork really of a piece and then saying honestly “ok, that actually is not bad but this is what can be done to make it better.” But like a said, there are alot of normal viewers who do not do this, perhaps because they dont have to creativity to see “other choices.”

And actually if u look at the reviews for the film, it is actually in the 75%-80% positive for Superman Returns. Dont believe me, check out rottentomatoes.com. Then if u look at the reviews that were negative, they say the same thing i do. They point out the moments that were very off for the film.

By: Cervantes

Cervantes — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:16:47 +0000

How about this guy Neill Blomkamp that was going to direct the now sadly on hold “Halo”? This guy is an AMAZING talent, as anyone who has seen his shorts will testify.

Try to catch his “Alone in Joburg” mini movie and tell me you wouldn’t like to see some of that creativity in any proposed Star Trek reboot.

Studios should bite their hands off to get this guy onboard for a big screen opus.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:47:27 +0000

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if William Shatner portrayed George Samuel Kirk, the original first officer of the Enterprise, as James T. Kirk’s father in STXI? Kirk would be close to his father and would on occasion consol with his father the Admiral (or retired)?

Spock as Sarek? I think it could happen.

By: mikeg

mikeg — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:30:27 +0000

Yes, the problem with the TNG films is that they were glorified tv episodes. I agree with Mr. Cohen about First Contact… it was only those darker moments which set it apart from the other films. Apparently, the producers of the TNG films forgot, or never learned about, the matter of “high concept”. And with little or no character development, how could those films rise above the level of mediocrity? The producers knew the characters so well they never bothered to reveal anything about them. And when they tried (like having Picard learn about the loss of his family), it came across as contrived.

Yes, ST:V and TMP are better films than what some proclaim. While they were not “high impact” films (like TWOK or IV), they were MOVIES, not souped-up tv episodes. Remember Leonard Nimoy saying, “When we set out to make a feature we said ‘This is the movies… it’s gotta be big!” And if the TOS films did fail at times with high concept, they made up for it by making the most of the family of characters. ST:III is the best example of this, IMO.

Yes, William Shatner did an admirable job on V with what he was given from the snobbish Paramount. Shatner is a bright, talented guy who deserves every bit of attention he gets these days. I think he would be a great choice to direct, and with Abrams producing I’m sure Shatner would receive the proper amount of respect – and funding – from Paramount.

By: JON

JON — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:57:42 +0000

ACB. My friends who saw it told me not to waste my time and the word of mouth,reviews etc confirmed it.A dud.

By: acb

acb — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:20:21 +0000

Ok, the same statement i made for St: V, TMP, and Generations i am now going to adhere to Superman Returns. Just because a film decides to take on telling a form of a story rather than all out action does not make it a poor movie by any means. If u look at Returns, the material is fairly faithful to the multiple incarnations of Superman. That (like ST: V; TMP and Generations) is not to say that Returns did not have its faults by any means. Namely in:

*Brandon Routh not reaching the range in emotions as Reeve did. It is not that Routh can not, it is more that he seemed still overwhelmed by the material and its following.

*The fluctuation in not making it clear just how the kryptonite actually affects Supes. The really missed the mark by not being consistent here.

*Luthor’s scheme being contrived and pointless. This should have been a revenge piece all the way with Luthor’s main focus on killing Superman and that be it.

*Lois hitting her head way so many times that a normal person would be………well dead.

*Lack of material early on in the film before Superman actually “returns” to make u reconnect with the character.

*and failing to incorporate into the story just how the world had actually moved on and how Supes needed to find a place for himself again. It seemed more like he should his face and everyone was willing to accept him back with open arms. It would have been better to have seen him having to fight for a purpose.

Even with those faults though, the film was still a good film. It simply needed to be tweaked. Besides JON, it is a poor arguement to use a film which u never actually saw as an example for your arguement……leave those types of things to the politicians and studio execs

By: JON

JON — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:04:22 +0000

Bryan Singer is directing the sequel to Superman Returns ,and He admits it will be “the Wrath of Kahn” of the Superman franchise?That’s like Robert wise saying “Star Trek :The Motion Picture”sucked.Don’t these Producers ever learn?They re hiring the same guy who sunk the return of the Superman franchise to do the sequel.The ticket buying traditional superman audience was so put off by Singer’s INTERPRETATION that they ,myself included,avoided that movie in droves.In the real world if you screw up you get fired and someone else cleans up your mess.Like Nick Meyer did.Want to kill Trek?Hire Bryan Singer to run a picture with limited appeal to an over-budgeted fiasco with even MORE limited appeal.

By: Sybok

Sybok — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:33:26 +0000

Anthony, if you have any clout with CBS, maybe you can lobby CBS Paramount to do use CBS Digital to work with Shatner and create the version of Final Frontier that he wanted. Why would any one buy the current one on HD DVD?

And I’d prefer an “Id” monster “Devil”, akin to Forbidden Planet than the “rock men”.

Just a wild and crazy thought, but while Bill’s still with us, why not?

By: Viking

Viking — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:21:54 +0000

All the directors above would have their strong points, but I wouldn’t endorse Mickey Friggin’ Mouse until I had an inkling of what the script was about. ‘Nuff said.