Pro-Abrams/Trek Paramount CEO Contract Extended + Hollywood Vet Predicts ‘Star Trek’ Blockbuster January 8, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Abrams, Paramount, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Today it was announced that Paramount CEO Brad Grey’s contract has been extended until 2014. One of Grey’s first actions after joining Paramount in 2005 was signing JJ Abrams and his Bad Robot production company to a multi-picture deal, which included Star Trek as its first big film. Abrams and Trek are now being cited as part of the reasoning for Grey’s extension.
Hollywood vet predicts Grey’s Trek will be a ‘blockbuster’
If it weren’t for Brad Grey, there may not be a tent pole Star Trek film in production now. After the box office failure of Nemesis in 2002 and the cancellation of Enterprise in 2005, there was not a lot of appetite for Trek at the studio. Before Grey joined Paramount there was a script in development ("Star Trek The Beginning" written by Erik Jendresen), but that project was going nowhere by time Grey came on board. In 2005 Grey became impressed with how Abrams was handling Mission: Impossible: III (which was directed by Abrams and co-written with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman). During that same period Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman began talks with Paramount about their idea for bringing back Star Trek. Shortly after M:I:III’s release in 2006 Paramount announced Abrams’ new multi picture deal (including Star Trek), with Grey calling Abrams "the next Steven Spielberg."
Today former Warner Brothers chief Bob Daly, who is now consulting Paramount, cited the Abrams deal and Star Trek as key feathers in Grey’s cap, telling THR:
I think Brad’s done a very good job. The place was pretty empty when he got there, but he’s developed some franchises. Getting (producer-director) J.J. Abrams was a really big coup. I think ‘Star Trek’ is going to be a blockbuster. Brad’s Chapter 1 was getting his own team in place. In Chapter 2, he’ll have to watch costs, watch overhead and come up with a couple of hit movies a year. That’s the way it works.
For his part, Abrams is also quoted in the article, saying of Grey:
I could not ask for or imagine a better creative partnership.
What does this mean for Trek?
This may all seem like Hollywood studio politics, however any student of Trek history (and reader of the various biographies and ‘making of’ books) can tell you that having the head of the studio in your corner is very important for Star Trek. Right now Abrams and Trek have Paramount (and its parent Viacom) very excited. Hopefully Mr. Daly is right and they will still be excited after the returns come in, which means that we could be talking seriously about the next Star Trek movie before the year is out.
TrekMovie.com Trivia Alert:
The article linked above ("Paramount Signs JJ Abrams For Star Trek XI" on July 15, 2006), was the first ever article for TrekMovie.com. It was originally published at the beta site (stxi.blogspot.com) and then moved over to the permanent site in August 2006 (without the original comments). And in case you are wondering, this article is the 2,082nd.
Loading ...
Comments»
I just can’t for May to come around!
All good news for now! Let’s hope the film lives up to the hype and we see Star Trek’s franchise reborn!
*can’t wait*
May just can’t get here fast enough!
Super exited. Lets hope they screen the flick for reviewers lol.
You know, I just watched the DS9 episode “Trials and Tribbleations.” That had to be one of the best episodes in all of Star Trek. It was so perfectly done. And for some reason it makes even dislike what Abrams is doing in ths movie even more.
Another positive sign…. good
#6 Wild Man
Ok, someone will ask… might as well be me.
Why?
Way to go Paramount AND Trekmovie.com.
Keep your fingers crossed folks. When you factor in the budget and the upcoming marketing blitz, this one is gonna have to make upwards of 300 million to be considered a hit. The last trek movie to hit that mark was…?
And the sky’s the limit….
#8
I can’t really put my finger on it. I saw the documentary on the dvd about the episode and they talked about how the team that worked on it tried so hard and their best not to change anything and keep everything true to the TOS. And the end result is that the Enterprise looks beautiful, the props look great, everything made perfect sense when Sisko and Dax would talk about how the technology, the style, and fashion of the era. It was genius and they worked so hard to preserve that for the fans.
Now here comes Abrams and Co. They change everything upside and turn this movie into what seems to be like mainstream action flick. The enterprise looks hideous, the interior looks like a mix of star wars and an apple store. There is nothing in this movie that makes it a star trek movie. That’s just my opinion though.
it seems like I have been visiting Trekmovie.com Since almost the begining. i cant believe it has already been since october 2006 that i started coming on here.. i wonder how many hours i have invested in reading articles lol
I can’t wait for the movie to come out and shut all the haters up.
OMG! I CAN’T WAIT!
I KNOW this movie is awesome! Even before I see it! Cuz I’m open to anything anyone does!
The next Steven Spielberg? The same Spielberg that made crap like War of the Worlds and Munich?
16,
The same Spielberg that made
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Blue Brothers
E.T.
Indiana Jones I, II, and III
Jurassic Park
Yes, THAT Spielberg.
12: “….”They change everything upside and turn this movie into what seems to be like mainstream action flick. The enterprise looks hideous, the interior looks like a mix of star wars and an apple store. There is nothing in this movie that makes it a star trek movie. That’s just my opinion though.”
I agree. It’s great to hear the ‘Tribulations’ team express how hard they tried to match the original. They went through a thinking process of how to tell a story in the TOS era and hit a home run. It was great to watch. Even TOS remastered got me back to the TV. I made sure to keep the calendar clear for Saturday afternoon—even though I have seen every episode before and knew the main characters were not going to die.
re: WILD MAN OF BORNEO…
I usually never comment on entries made by nay-sayers…however…I do agree that “Trials and Tribblations” was one of the best Trek episodes ever, but to think that the look and style of 60’s Trek could hold up in theaters today is just plain ludicrous. The ONLY people who would dish out $8.50 to see it would be old, hardcore fans. Mr. Abrams and Co. are definitely right in making changes to appeal to a larger audience. After all, this is a movie…it’s how studios make their money…soooooo, mass appeal equals $$$$$.
I for one welcome an updated (and retro) version of my favorite saga. I applaud J.J. and crew for what I’ve seen so far. Is it all up to what I would like to see? No, of course not (at least based on what little I have seen). But, it looks VERY cool…sounds like it may have a good story, great characters we know and love, and many of the things and ideals that we all love in Star Trek.
If thew movie appeals to you so little then all I can suggest is do not go see it.
OK, I’m done…sorry for the rant. I will now go back to my positive posts that I usually (if rarely) make.
Thanks again for the venue, Anthony.
I don’t agree but I will qualify my statement with…”I haven’t seen it yet”. They tend to show the “action” in the trailers… movement, sound… stuff to get the attention of people in front of the screen or tube.
Plus… Nimoy likes it and more importantly… Mrs. Nimoy likes it.
Some things change… but Trek can still be Trek despite change.
#16: Munich wasn’t crap.
“The next Steven Spielberg?”
How about waiting until Abrams produces one movie that’s as good as the average Spielberg movie from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, before calling him the next Spielberg, ay?
Since this laudation of Abrams has been brought up, I would like to say that he seems rather shallow and superficial for an artist. He seems like someone who’s had a rather easy time getting to where he is, and doesn’t consider it to be of any benefit to himself to risk anything in his art. Actually, I am hesitant to even call him an artist as he seems more of a craftsman churning out his aim-to-please work.
I don’t see any Schindler’s Lists or Saving Private Ryans on Abrams’ resume. And, I sure don’t see anything artistically meaningful. I just see a lot of cheap pop for the masses and maybe a decent Star Trek movie.
And, that’s fine. Churning out relatively mindless, soulless movies has its place. But, the reward for those kinds of movies is precisely what their maker was striving for when he made them: money.
So, let Abrams and his employers have their money. But, I, for one, am not having any of this Abrams-congratulation-hoopla before he’s earned it. And, as far as I’m concerned, all that he’s earned thus far are his paychecks.
And, I’ll be just as generous with my praise if the new Star Trek film deserves it.
21 HMS,
Agreed. Also, remember, the whiners make up an incredibly small portion of the movie-goers. This is why these “reboots” have been so bloody successful. You should have SEEN the flak that X-Men, Iron Man, and Spider Man endured. All were obscenely successful. Even the new Star Wars movies (1, 2, and 3) were all incredibly good, despite Jar Jar and Hayden.
Aside from my complaining about those who complain, I find Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto incredibly attractive and cannot wait to see them in action.
#16 – War of the Worlds and Munich were pretty damn good. Those of us familiar with the original novels upon which they were based are pretty pleased.
Based on his performance, if Abrams is involved with a film I am automatically interested.
I want an Original Series CGI like Clone wars except not Clone wars. With the classic original actors (that are with us still). Kinda like the animated series except with updated animation. Thats the only way (if it were possible) we would see anything close to what was.
Now its time to move ahead and have an optimistic open mind to the new brand and new faces. The promotional blitz is going to be like nothing seen before in Trek guys so be prepared, make no mistake this movie is going to be giant, if I am wrong ill still have all the pasts Treks, they will never go away or lose there luster in my eyes.
TOG#24- I reach, my brother.
As a pure die-hard fan of The Original Series I can say there are some things about the look of this movie that, so far, I don’t care for. However, I am not the producer, the director or the studio who’s ass is on the line here. JJ Abrams does not work for me so I don’t get to call the shots.
As a fan all I get to do is go and spend my money at the box office and then bitch and moan afterwords or sing praises. Which ever.
Bearing that in mind I will go to the theater with the intention of seeing SOMEONE ELSES interpretation of Star Trek. I can enjoy it, I can hate it, or I can sort of like it. What ever.
My point is, what ever the out come of this movie, I will not be in the least bit disapointed, or upset or angry. In fact, my guess is I’ll freakin’ love the thing and that’ll be just great. Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.
I for one an soooo glad we are getting new TOS movies, and not that pre-Enterprise crap they were thinking about. A prequel to a pre-quel series that was flopping? Why? It would have been so unlike Trek that I was getting sick thinking about it. Thankfully, they abandoned that idea like a diaper in a Kmart buggie.
Changed as it is, I think even an altered TOS-based series is preferable to anything else we could be getting.
^23 That One Guy
I appreciate that modern movies are adept at “delivering the goods” to a modern audience. But Cygnus X1 is spot on when he laments the workmanlike nature of what is, essentially, pandering to the lowest common denominator. When did maximizing shareholder value become the great imperative? (I say this as an MBA and practicing corporate finance consultant.) There was a time, no so long ago, when having something to say and saying it was considered much more important than earning a living. Mind you, no one suggests earning a living is wrong! But having something worthwhile to say, whatever its popularity, was more valuable.
Unfortunately, “blockbusters” have very little to say to their audiences, which is further and further removed from the Western canon, and so endless, frenetic motion and noise substitute for ideas of any substnace
Does this mean Star Trek, in its literary pretension, is relegated to a small audience that grows smaller each year? Yes, it does. iTrek will no doubt be a gargantuan money-maker but as Wall Street itself demonstrated in its self-immolation (at taxpayer expense I remind you)…
All the glitters is not gold.
And there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy. Or words to that effect.
I myself long for Dr Kirk’s “Permanent Things” to once again be fashionably common and cutting edge boring. (And I should point out that would be Dr Russell – , not Jackson Roy – Kirk, the late and much missed mentor to the lucky few that knew him.)
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
#16
WOTW = $600 worldwide box office gross
Munich = Nominated for 5 Oscars including Best Picture & Best Director
So yeah, *that* Spielberg.
Spielberg was great up until he got into his World War II phase.
Hey Anthony!
Congrats on article #2,082!!! She’s a sweet, sweet website… :-)
Ok. Nay Sayers. it is all about Money. They havt to make some changes to speak to the Non fans and fans in general and they are keeping with Tos Trek to keep us Hard core fans happy. it is threading a very Small needle but i believe they are doing a great job. Everything i have seen tells me this will be the best Trek Since The Wrath of Khan. This Movie will not please everyone but hey at least most Everyone will be pleased. even me. A Hard Core trek fan Since 1975.
Isn’t it a touch hasty to start picking Abrams apart based on the Spielberg comment? He didn’t make it himself, did he? No. You can’t control hyperbole courtesy of a third party.
In terms of Spielberg’s ‘artistry’, he started out in much the same way as Abrams has. His first big winner, Jaws, gave birth to the ‘blockbuster’ genre as we know it. Private Ryan & Schindler’s List weren’t until *much* later in his career. Who’s to say JJ doesn’t have one of those in his future? And who says Grey’s comparison wasn’t with reference to Spielberg’s early work? No need to label him shallow or soulless.
PS – And I’d argue that ‘The Color Purple’ and ‘Empire of the Sun’ are far superior to either SPR or SL (as films).
#19
I would have to agree. I basically started with TOS when it first came in syndication, and watched the episodes over and over and over again. I have also enjoyed all the subsequent series (even though a few episodes and setups made me cringe). I have to realize that what was great in the 60s, 70, and even early 80s will not continue forever. Us early TOS fans will get older and die out, and basically Star Trek will be a series of trivia questions in 20-30 years if not updated somewhat. TNG and the later series do not bring the same loyalty from fans that TOS had so strong and so long. I want my kids to have Star Trek that they can identify with, but still basically true to the original. My family and I are pumped for May. Just four months to go!
It is Fantastic that the Heads of Paramount is in full Support of Trek. this is the Best thing that could have happened to the Franchase and since Gene Passed Away and the last ones in charge did not know what to do Random Chance played in Treks faver. ( In Plaine non vulcan Englise we were lucky)I think J.J and Bob Orici and Alex kurtzman are great Writers and Directors and Producers and I truly Believe Gene Roddenberry would be very pleased to see what and how they are doing with the franchise. Majel Barrett Roddenberry loved it and she even lent her voice one more time and Nimoy Himself even came out of Retirement to Be Spock One more time for all of Us fans. Now if 2 of the Biggest Stars of Trek who where there when it all started back in the Mid Sixtys give there Seal of Approval to this Movie then im all in and Thank the Supreame Court and Brad Grey for Bringing back The greatest Scifi Show Of all Time. Star Trek.
Wow. 4 Months to the Day we will See Star Trek.
Oh.Im glad they did not name the Move Star Trek 11 or give it a tittle. I love that they are simply calling it. Star Trek
Saving Private Ryan is hardly an artsy movie. It probably has more action sequences in it than his Indiana Jones movies
I’m still bitter about Nemesis being the last TNG film, Enterprise getting cancelled, and Star Trek: The Experience closing. BUT the effort, talent, and money put into this movie ALMOST make it better! Let this be a jumpstart to more movies and series.
#42. Morn Speaks. I Completly Agree with you. May This Movie bring more Books and More Movies and Help Reopen the Experence in Las Vegas.
Everyone thinking of passing up the new movie because you don’t like the new ship or are offended by Kirk driving a car better realize that this is make or break for Trek. If this bombs, there won’t be ANY Trek except the fanwank novels and video games for at least 10 years.
No one is going to give it a do-over. This is our only chance.
If you have issues, and want to work to make the NEXT movie better, then fine. If people keep dumping on THIS movie or stay home, there probably won’t BE a next movie or TV show or anything.
If you want to live, and get even better, you need to support this movie AT THE BOX OFFICE. Not on DVD, not on OnDemand, not by illegally downloading it, not by watching it on cable. We get one shot- the BOX OFFICE.
I meant “if you want STAR TREK to live…” in the last paragraph above.. I left out the “Star Trek”!
Hey J.J and Bob And Alex. On the Next Movie can you make it About the Terran Empire. Oh ok then How About a Little cross over. Oh ok. Bob and Alex and J.J and Anthony. Your Agonisers please!.
Gosh this is so exciting!!! Can you guys believe this? This is actually happening…woot!
Holy crud… it IS 4 months to the day!
“Before Grey joined Paramount there was a script in development (”Star Trek The Beginning” written by Erik Jendresen), but that never had high level support and was going nowhere by time Grey came on board.”
Exactly so.
Good to hear that they’re so confident about the new movie. :)
32. Enterprise –
“Spielberg was great up until he got into his World War II phase.”
Okay, Enterprise, I know you love to instigate but I gotta take exception with that comment (big surprise?). Spielberg has remained consistantly excellent as a director. “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan” are not just great ‘WW2 movies’, they are great films and, yes, art. Private Ryan had some incredible action sequences but they were *never* simply action-for-action’s-sake-alone. And one of his more recent efforts, “War of the Worlds”, is one of the better sci-fi films in recent memory — certainly in terms of a ‘remake’ if you want to look at it that way (like that awful “Day The Earth Stood Still”) it actually surpasses and delivers. Personally I find his later films even better than many of his earlier ones. Go watch “Munich”, too.
If a studio head — let alone the studio head Star Trek reports to — compares Abrams to Spielberg (and I agree he’s onto something here), that’s high praise indeed. Sure, you could argur that like Martin Scorcese there’ve been a few head-scratchers there (”Hook”?) but all in all he’s still innovating and still making great films.
Yes # 48 hat one Guy. We are a mere 4 months away from the Movie. This is just takeing to long. Need to see the Movie.
46. Capt Mike Of The Terran Empire –
“Hey J.J and Bob And Alex. On the Next Movie can you make it About the Terran Empire. Oh ok then How About a Little cross over. Oh ok. Bob and Alex and J.J and Anthony. Your Agonisers please!.”
I’ve been thinking about what we know about the new movie — that we probably are looking at an alternate timeline and it may not be ‘resolved’ by movie’s end — and wondering what stories in an alternate timeline would *beg* for a new twist. “Space Seed”. Can you imagine a new alternate meeting between Kirk and (a recast) Khan?! He’s definately the greatest individual Trek villain of all time. Why not??
Hey # 52. You are Right. Maybe have Khan as the Imperer of the Terran Empire. But we will see what Happens. Should be a Great Movie. 4 Months to the day to Go.
War of the Worlds was just bad. It had zero interesting characters, and there was just no tension.
Saving Private Ryan is a much better movie than Schindler’s List. It just has a better story and direction. I think Tom Hanks was much better than Leam Neeson.
Who was it that said “so many artists, so little art”?
That’s how I feel about Hollywoods current crop of filmmakers. And for that fact, musicians, songwriters, poets, and everyone else with a myspace account and dreams of fame despite an obscene lack of talent.
I saw Cloverfield and nearly fell over laughing until it dawned on me they weren’t giving me my money back, and it’s not a comedy. I hope Abrams does Trek right, or it’s one more nail in the coffin for this franchise.
So Anthony, what was article 1,701? ;)
Here’s to J.J. and Paramount for believing in the hopeful message of Star Trek again.
With the way things are going in the world, we need all the hope we can get.
#22: “I don’t see any Schindler’s Lists or Saving Private Ryans on Abrams’ resume. And, I sure don’t see anything artistically meaningful. I just see a lot of cheap pop for the masses…”
You mean like “Duel” and “Jaws” and “1941?” LOL
21. HMS Enterprise
#16: Munich wasn’t crap.
#21. Oh yes it was crap, more like stacked crap.
#59: “#21. Oh yes it was crap, more like stacked crap.”
I’m sure that’s intended to be really clever, but it doesn’t actually say anything.
Golly, I wish had the good taste and talent that all the Haters here seem to think they have. I too would then also believe that I was better than everyone else, everywhere else.
It must be a horrible burden to sit in front of your knock-off laptop computer, knowing how absolutely incredible you are and how terrible losers like Speilberg, Lucas, Abrams, and every other artist working to entertain you are.
Too bad that you don’t have anything better to do than Hate. I’ve got an idea. . .how ’bout contributing something positive to the conversation?
This is a studio head that is 100% behind the franchise! Yes, it’s for selfish capitalistic reasons, but I am perfectly okay with that. After all, it’s still a free market economy. If the film is great and the marketing folks do their job correctly, the audience will come. All we can do now is try to help get the word out about the movie and help get more tushies in the seats.
I can see many parallels between JJ and SSB early careers. Some of my favorites of SSB are A I , Minority Report, Close Encounters, I. Jones, Private Ryan just t name a few. I really have enjoyed the work so far from JJ. I liked MI3 a lot personally, and Lost has been a favorite of mine, but JJ influence on Lost diminished after a time. Same with Alias.The Jury is still out for me with Fringe, but it didnt start well for me but it is getting better. Lets not forget that JJ is so much more that just a director. He is known for assembling great collaborative efforts with slick writers, composers, etc.
I also felt JJ was not too much unlike Roland Emericks early career remembering Universal Soldier, Stargate and Independence Day. Lets hope ST is not JJs Godzilla remake. So there is that fear in the back of my mind.
This movie however isnt about JJ so much as its about a team of talented folks. JJs direction is critical but it isnt the whole picture. When has anyone seen Paramount behind and ST production like this one? I sure havent. I have always felt ST was shortchanged with econo budgets and half measures and frankly wished I didnt have to fill in the blanks with my imagination. Sure Treks had its past high benchmarks but it always fell short of what I thought it should or could be. As much as I love classic ST with my all, I just am damn stoked it is getting this much backing now and a new focus.
This is an exciting time and I agree with the poster who said and I paraphrase ..THIS IS IT!, make it or break time for the ST future.
Okay!
We can all agree with the fact that even Spielberg started out small.
So let’s give Abrams a chance to show us that his “Star Trek” can be like Spielberg’s “Jaws”!
But if JJ make’s a movie as BAD as A.I. then he deserves all the scorn he gets!!
Star Trek has ALWAYS been about the money. TOS was not on Public Television, but on NBC.
It was expensive to produce, and the 3rd season was granted to fans depsite Nielsen’s ratings, and finally put to rest because of lack of interest from advertisers and a crappy timeslot.
TMP exists solely because of the success of $tar Wars. TNG exists because of TVH, and so on.
Publicly traded companies are owned by there shareholders,and CS Lewis, it’s always been the imperative, especially today. James Cawley does great work for no return, but he doesn’t have people in his face looking for 10% per year.
I am sure Brad Grey went in front of analysts and investors to unveil the 2009 lineup and projected a certain return on investment for this film. He’s expected now to produce an Iron Man and an Indy on a regular basis. I heard Beverly Hills Cop is now slated for a re-boot as well.
At least the money is being made honestly ;-).
“the next Steven Spielberg”?! Yeah, I think not. Seems like half of Hollywood right now is bowing before JJ but I think that’s because his movie’s bring in the big bucks, not so much for true quality. Because yeah, MI III is better than something like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s list…yeah, when hell freezes over. The more of this stuff that comes in, the more I think everybody’s singing the praises of JJ and such to sell this movie, and probably more that he’ll make, but we’ll see. JJ’s never touched something like Star Trek before, something with a vast and ungodly loyal fan base. But what’s done is done, the movie’s made, finished, and now we wait till judgment day. I hope my skepticism has been misplaced, I hope this is not just a good movie, but a good Star Trek, and it brings back the franchise in a good way…but stuff like this makes that seem less likely each time I see it.
64….At least the money is being made honestly ;-).
Absolutely the only reason its being done is for revenue generation. This is not some Indy film made from the pure love of the art. James Cawley could more fit that definition and his work is much appreciated as such. You can see his care for the little details that only a die hard could appreciate.
What we have though is a group of Star Trek lovers and Star Trek appreciators working on the guts of this thing. Thats a great foundation and I believe the folks on the ground are the factors to be concerned with here. I can tell ya that although the movie moving to summer sucked, it was Paramount’s call to move it based on their spread sheet showing bottled fire in this movie.
Lost is on JJ’s resume, so that is a HUGE plus. But, he also has Fringe, too, which well, really sucks.
30. C.S. Lewis – January 8, 2009 and Cygnus X1
“… But Cygnus X1 is spot on when he laments the workmanlike nature of what is, essentially, pandering to the lowest common denominator. ”
If you are referring to this movie, none of us has seen it. At least give it a chance to hit the theater before judging or comparing.
#56 – I was thinking the same thing!
Congrats to Anthony and his valiant Crew for putting this awesome website up for us all to enjoy! I hope Anthony realizes HIS website is everything STARTREK.COM should have been but NEVER WAS! Trekmovie.com is so good I would PAY FOR and SUBSCRIBE to it!!!
I also love almost all of Spielbergs movies and JJ is not in his league yet….I say yet….And I happen to have thought AI was a fantastic and original movie….A collaberation between Spielberg and Kubricks final works….it looks amazing and affected me emotionally….as the android attempts to be human…and yes….that has been covered before in trek including even the Pinnochio reference but still AI was very poignant, original and really told a story unlike any other movie out there….
A friend of mine at work saw the IMAX trailer for Star Trek when he saw the day the earth stood still and he predicts star trek will be the new biggest movie ever, thats how much it blew him away and hes not even a star trek fan.
I also wonder about the naysayers for the new movie….They seem to try to pin all the blame for what they dont like on JJ when as many have pointed out….there are many creative individuals involved…from Nimoy to Majel…from the ORCI who obviously Loves Trek , to JJ and most recently Ben Burrt amazing sound work. I cannot wait to see and experience this movie. its going to be bigger badder and more fun than any star trek movie ever made….even if it isnt pure trek…IT IS TREK! Remember that all you naysayers! They had to up the ante in every way for modern film audiences yet try to stay true to the spirit of Trek and it sounds like they have tried very hard to do this and if they make Star Trek POPULAR then More power to them!!!!
Thanks to JJ and the ORCI and all involved for caring about us fans as well….touches like Majel as the computer voice, Nimoys involvement etc…all prove they care about the fans and are trying to make this movie for everyone! Lets all hope that thanks to them Star Trek will Live Long and Prosper!
They are bringing Star Trek back from hell. They are giving us top notch actors, directors, writers. They are spending a lot of money on Trek. Trek was dead and thery are (trying to) resurrect it with an unmatched effort in all Trek history.
We should be glad and happy, don’t you think? :)
#71: “We should be glad and happy, don’t you think? :)”
Either that, or silent, OR the option that many prefer: droning bores.
35. sean – January 8, 2009
—- Isn’t it a touch hasty to start picking Abrams apart based on the Spielberg comment? He didn’t make it himself, did he? No. You can’t control hyperbole courtesy of a third party.
In terms of Spielberg’s ‘artistry’, he started out in much the same way as Abrams has. His first big winner, Jaws, gave birth to the ‘blockbuster’ genre as we know it. Private Ryan & Schindler’s List weren’t until *much* later in his career. Who’s to say JJ doesn’t have one of those in his future? And who says Grey’s comparison wasn’t with reference to Spielberg’s early work? No need to label him shallow or soulless. —-
Of course, Abrams didn’t compare himself to Spielberg, but the comparison elicited my opinion nonetheless.
Sure, Spielberg didn’t do his more meaningful work until a bit later in his career. Though, you raise a good point about Empire of the Sun — one of my favorites which had slipped my mind — but, I would add that he made it 12 years after Jaws, in 1987, and that JJ Abrams has been at it for 10 years already.
Who’s to say that Abrams doesn’t have an Empire of the Sun or Saving Private Ryan in his future? I’ll be impressed if he does, and when that day comes, I will assent to the comparison with Steven Spielberg.
But, as yet, it hasn’t, and he hasn’t, and I’m not impressed.
To be perfectly frank, it’s been all that I could do to contain my irritation and resentment since learning that JJ Abrams had been given the keys to the Trek franchise, along with the myriad other projects that he’s churning out at the same time. It’s hard to see how this new Trek film could have been a labor of love to someone with so many other jobs to do. And, yes, Trek deserves to be a labor of love. It deserves to be the focus of attention of its director. It deserves a director like Nick Meyer, and not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am or churn-e’m-out treatment. It would’ve been nice for Trek to go to someone who would have appreciated it more. Abrams isn’t even a Trek fan. This is just another job to him. Just another notch on his belt and another few million to pile into his bank account.
As far as Abrams being shallow as an artist and churning out soulless work, I really can’t escape that indictment of him, I’m afraid. I mean, where’s the counterexample? Where’s the Abrams project that hits you in the gut and makes you see the world in a different way for a couple of hours? Where’s the Abrams project that literally makes you forget that you’re sitting in a movie theater? I’m looking at his resume, and I just don’t see it.
But, none of this means that the film won’t be enjoyable, of course. I’ll be absolutely shocked, however, if it turns out to be a meaningful film, like WOK. I’m expecting a good time, explosions, chasing, flashing lights and a few laughs. And, again, there’s nothing wrong with that, per se. But, Trek deserves better. The brainchild of Gene Roddenberry deserves better. Trek was originally about mind-blowing concepts filmed on a shoe-string budget, and I’m afraid that the new film is going to be the exact opposite. But, we shall see. Prove me wrong, JJ. Shut my big, hatin’ mouth.
58. Dennis Bailey – January 8, 2009
—- #22: “I don’t see any Schindler’s Lists or Saving Private Ryans on Abrams’ resume. And, I sure don’t see anything artistically meaningful. I just see a lot of cheap pop for the masses…”
You mean like “Duel” and “Jaws” and “1941?” LOL —-
Yes, like those.
But, not like Empire of the Sun, Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan.
And, even Spielberg’s poppier, genre-esque movies, like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Poltergeist, were vastly more powerful than anything that Abrams has churned out.
#12—-”There is nothing in this movie that makes it a star trek movie.”
You say this, yet the reasons you cite are purely asthetic. Is that all Star Trek means?
First and foremost to me—-Star Trek is a vision. It is a vision of a possible future in which Humanity does not destroy itself, but instead, unites, both to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the “final frontier”.
There has been nothing I have read or seen thusfar which indicates to me that this vision has been compromised.
Second, the Star Trek I grew up on (TOS) was just as sexy, adventurous, romantic, action-oriented and humorous as it was thought-provoking. In other words, it was fun.
Everything I have seen and heard thusfar does indicate to me that Star Trek has returned to its roots.
If you’re looking for nostalgic asthetics like those featured in DS9’s “Trials And Tribblations”, then you will no doubt be disappointed.
I’m looking for Star Trek, and to me, that has very little to do with asthetics, if at all.
The next Steven Spielberg? Great – I can hardly wait for “Captain Kirk and the Planet of the Crustal Skull”. Woo – hoo – what a blockbuster that will be.
RE: # 28. Lt Atkins – January 8, 2009
“My point is, what ever the out come of this movie, I will not be in the least bit disapointed, or upset or angry. In fact, my guess is I’ll freakin’ love the thing and that’ll be just great.”
You’ve decided IN ADVANCE (months before the film is released) that, no matter what happens, you will not be disappointed with a movie. It’s great that you are willing to make that kind of commitment – for the rest of us – the proof is in the pudding.
Next you write,
“Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.”
It is shameful that you would attempt to deny our right to free speech in the name of corporate intellectual property rights. I suppose you think that Disney “owns” our fairly tales simply because they vociferous claim to have purchased our folk stories and branded them with service marks, trade marks, and copy rights? Do send a royalty to AOL Timewarner when you sing “Happy Birth Day to You”? Summy-Birchard Music and the Hill foundation would no doubt appreciate it, if you would respect their property by paying them a voluntary fee the next time you use their song.
No one, not even Paramount owns our culture, and Trek (geeky as it may be) is culturally iconic even today (which is why they are trying to cash in on it).
Does Paramount have the sole and exclusive right to do anything they wish with Star Trek? Yes. And we are well aware of that. Indeed, this is a source of concern for some. But don’t tell us that we don’t have the right to discuss, debate, and gripe about it.
#76—-”It is shameful that you would attempt to deny our right to free speech in the name of corporate intellectual property rights. ”
Where does that poster say, or even imply such a thing. At no point does he ever attempt to deny your right to free speech. He’s simply voicing his own thoughts.
Talk about melodramatic. It’s also a complete misrepresentation. I even wondered if you actually read that post before you drew a conclusion.
#28 has absoluetly nothing in his post of which to be ashamed.
“But don’t tell us that we don’t have the right to discuss, debate, and gripe about it.”
He didn’t.
Just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn’t mean he/she is supressing your right to free speech. You cannot have it both ways. Either one can voice his/her opinion, or one cannot.
If you or anyone else does not wish your opinion to be subject to discussion or debate, then the solution is simple—-do not post it publicly!
Otherwise, accept that when you voice a public opinion, some people may inevitably post opinions which vary from yours, and enjoy the discussion and/or debate.
You are confusing an opinion which may be different from your own with censorship, and that isn’t the same thing. #28’s opinion isn’t presented as any more legitimate than yours or anyone else’s, and he doesn’t even come close to doing what you are accusing him of doing.
It’s amazing that some ‘trekkies’, of all people, people can be so close-minded that they will can a Star Trek movie without actually watching it!
& by the way Anthony, I look forward to the next 2082 articles. You’re doing great!
Proof that there is fear and bias on both sides
If some haters are motivated by fear of losing the past, some lovers are motivated by fear of losing the future:
“44. Odkin – January 8, 2009
Everyone thinking of passing up the new movie because you don’t like the new ship or are offended by Kirk driving a car better realize that this is make or break for Trek. If this bombs, there won’t be ANY Trek except the fanwank novels and video games for at least 10 years.
No one is going to give it a do-over. This is our only chance.
If you have issues, and want to work to make the NEXT movie better, then fine. If people keep dumping on THIS movie or stay home, there probably won’t BE a next movie or TV show or anything.
If you want to live, and get even better, you need to support this movie AT THE BOX OFFICE. Not on DVD, not on OnDemand, not by illegally downloading it, not by watching it on cable. We get one shot- the BOX OFFICE.”
People here understand that it is goofy to demand that people hate a film before it is even released and before there is good enough evidence to form an opinion either way. The same reasoning, however, does not appear to click as well when it comes to the demand that we must love the film before we’ve even seen it.
I refuse to love a movie in advance simply because of the fear that the film might tank (and take a beloved franchise with it).
I refuse to hate the film in advance. There are some troubling signs and some promising signs. And it is cool to express and explore both, however, the final evaluation will be produced by the film itself. In post 44 we have a demand to drink the Kool Aid lest Star Trek die! Sorry, Star Trek will have to live and die on its own merits. A generation of younger viewers will determine its fate.
2, 082 articles!!!!
May the great bird of the galaxy bless you and keep you Anthony, thank you for this wonderful site.
Kudos to the trekmovie team!!
#79—”People here understand that it is goofy to demand that people hate a film before it is even released and before there is good enough evidence to form an opinion either way. The same reasoning, however, does not appear to click as well when it comes to the demand that we must love the film before we’ve even seen it.”
Who here has demanded that we love the film before we’ve seen it?
An “opinion” being presented which suggests that we not determine that it’s bad before giving it a chance does not equate to that, nor does yet another “opinion” that fans should pay to see it out of sheer loyalty to the franchise.
And you have yet to show how #28’s post attempts to suppress anyone’s right to free speech or dissention.
I guess you’ve given up on that assertion. I wouldn’t blame you, particularly since there was nothing in that post to support it.
Trekker,
I didn’t know there was timer running on post replies – are you now running the site?
“Where does that poster say, or even imply such a thing.”
Where he says,
“Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.”
In the context of his paragraph, this invites the reading that ownership = protection from criticism. It is hard to see what else one should make of that statement. The brute fact that Paramount legally owns rights to the franchise and so may do what they please is trivially true. Moreover, this vacuously true reading would not contribute any exhortative force to the rest of the post which is targeted at addressing complaints. The only way this statement connects with the rest of the post is if the fact of ownership (and it rights) somehow links to his argument against advanced complaints against the film.
#82—All he is doing is stating the obvious fact that Paramount owns the rights to Star Trek, and you and I have no creative control.
How does that equate to suppressing your right to free speech?
Moreover, #28’s post in entirely in the first person. He speaks for no one but himself. All he does is attempt to explain why he will not be disappointed. Obviously, he doesn’t feel there would be any point.
I think that you, my friend, either need a little “brushup” on your reading comprehension skills, or you simply misrepresented his post in order to facilitate your own agenda—which seems to be painting those whose opinions are not of dissent as somehow violating your right to free speech or dissent.
No one is suppressing your right to voice an opinion. But, once again, if you do not wish that opinion to be subject to debate—-then do not post it in a public forum.
“Who here has demanded that we love the film before we’ve seen it?”
The post in question comes close enough to saying it directly that it deserves commentary.
Let’s go line by line…
“Everyone thinking of passing up the new movie because you don’t like the new ship or are offended by Kirk driving a car better realize that this is make or break for Trek. If this bombs, there won’t be ANY Trek except the fanwank novels and video games for at least 10 years.”
Very BAD things will happen if this Trek tanks. And people thinking of not spending their money to see it had better consider this.
The next line,
“No one is going to give it a do-over. This is our only chance.”
It appears we are in dire straights. We have been given a natural ultimatum and the cost of failure is unfathomable.
Next,
“If you have issues, and want to work to make the NEXT movie better, then fine. If people keep dumping on THIS movie or stay home, there probably won’t BE a next movie or TV show or anything.”
Here we are warned not to criticize the movie before it comes out and we are also warned that not spending money on the film will also have bad consequences.
Next,
“If you want to live,”
No doubt a Freudian slip, but it certainly fits in with the panicky intonations of this post. Oh Noes! Star Trek will die if you criticize it!
“and get even better, you need to support this movie AT THE BOX OFFICE. Not on DVD, not on OnDemand, not by illegally downloading it, not by watching it on cable. We get one shot- the BOX OFFICE.”
Here, the financial demand/warning is repeated: MAKE SURE ST XI HAS A BIG OPENING BOX OFFICE OR ELSE! (who needs corporate plants when you have distressed Trekkers barking “DRINK MORE OVALTINE!”).
Minimally, this post says, “If you aren’t in love with the film, then shut up or you will kill all of Trek. And love or hate it, make sure you are there to support it on opening weekend (make sure to show your love for Trekdom financially!).
So no, it is not necessarily a demand that we “love” the film, it is just an excited plea for solidarity that presents a situation so dire that it is the functional equivalent of an imperative. We don’t have to sing the praises of ST XI, we just need to shut up if we can’t. Love or hate it, however, we must spend our money on it (at the theater) or bad things will happen.
Now, if our only publicly permissible (if we agree that Trek, in general, is great and that dissing the film will irrevocably damage Trekdom, this follows) behavior is favorable behavior, only lovers are granted a voice. Moreover, that we must needs buy a ticket (which is an implicit sign of audience support/love of the film), indicates that even haters should pretend to be lovers on opening weekend – OR ELSE!
2,082 and going strong!
“You are confusing an opinion which may be different from your own with censorship, and that isn’t the same thing. #28’s opinion isn’t presented as any more legitimate than yours or anyone else’s, and he doesn’t even come close to doing what you are accusing him of doing.”
How could I be accusing him/her of censorship? Anthony has the power to censor – the rest of us only have the power to gripe, argue, and discourse.
The attempt to deny free speech to all is not based in the coercive power of the censor, but rather based on an appeal to property rights.
Trekker, I see that you have not replied to my most recent post and so must have quit your claim because you reallize you are wrong. ; )
“#83 All he is doing is stating the obvious fact that Paramount owns the rights to Star Trek, and you and I have no creative control.”
If so, the claim is trivial, vacuous, a cog in a machine that turns nothing. I suggest you revisit the analysis of post #82.
#86—”How could I be accusing him/her of censorship?”
Quite clearly, in fact:
”It is shameful that you would attempt to deny our right to free speech in the name of corporate intellectual property rights. ”
and,
“But don’t tell us that we don’t have the right to discuss, debate, and gripe about it.”
Sounds like an accusation of censorship to me.
The point is that #28 did none of things you accused him of doing. You misrepresented his/her words to suit your agenda.
#84—”So no, it is not necessarily a demand that we “love” the film, it is just an excited plea for solidarity that presents a situation so dire that it is the functional equivalent of an imperative. ”
Not necessarily? It isn’t at all.
The poster does, in my opinion, exaggerate the need for solidarity among Trek fans (when we all know that the only thing all Trek fans will ever agree upon is that we all like Star Trek in one form or another), but not once does he make any “demands” at all. He is in no position to make a “demand”. He can only make a plea for others to follow him.
He insists that his opinion is valid, and I think he does present it as an imperative. But what he insists upon is that fans pay to see it in theaters—not that they must form an opinion one way or the other.
In other words, he/she believes that if a fan determines that it isn’t worth seeing before giving it a chance, the film is doomed to failure. He is, for whatever reason, using fear as motivation to see the film. It’s still just one person’s opinion, no matter how imperative he/she presents it to be.
“…the rest of us only have the power to gripe, argue, and discourse.”
Which isn’t at all threatened by any one person’s opinion, or even the opinions of a thousand. No one here has ever taken away your right to dissent.
There are rules, of course, concerning language and personal attacks, etc., but no one will ever be able to suppress your attempts to voice a dissenting opinion—so long as you obey the rules.
#88
Quite clearly, in fact:
”It is shameful that you would attempt to deny our right to free speech in the name of corporate intellectual property rights. ”
and,
“But don’t tell us that we don’t have the right to discuss, debate, and gripe about it.”
Sounds like an accusation of censorship to me.”
Sounds like you need to brush up on your reading skills. Censorship, as I said before, is coercive power. Example: Anthony can censor, where Closettrekker can only pretend he is a mod. : )
To say argue that one does not have a valid right to make a sort of claim, does not mean that one has the coercive power to stop someone from making that sort of claim.
There is more deliciousness in your post I would like to address.
YARN #84—”So no, it is not necessarily a demand that we “love” the film, it is just an excited plea for solidarity that presents a situation so dire that it is the functional equivalent of an imperative. ”
Trekker “Not necessarily? It isn’t at all.”
But then you agree,
“I think he does present it as an imperative.”
I’ll let you sort that one out.
“He is in no position to make a “demand”. He can only make a plea for others to follow him.”
Just because one makes a demand, it does not follow that the demand will be respected or obeyed.
You seem to think that a demand or order can only be issued from a party which can guarantee or assure compliance of the other party. When we say that a person is on no place to make a demand we don’t necessarily mean that that force is implied behind the demand. Sometimes we mean that a person is less persuasive for making a demand when they are already on “thin ice” with us. Sometimes a person can make a demand without implied force, because rights, duties, customs, etc. obligate us to some degree. When a demand goes well beyond custom and duties, however, we will tell the person that they are in no place to make demands (i.e., you have no right, it is not proper – NOT – you lack the coercive power to force me to act).
What you are saying is really, “He is in no position to make demands backed up by force.” But note that the poster does indeed appeal to force, the force of consequences (not consequences s/he will bring about, but which s/he claims will follow not heeding his warning). Hence, if we are rational, we MUST silence our opposition and cough up money on opening weekend. It is a natural ultimatum. S/he does not hold the club, nature does.
The poster does, in my opinion, exaggerate the need for solidarity among Trek fans (when we all know that the only thing all Trek fans will ever agree upon is that we all like Star Trek in one form or another), but not once does he make any “demands” at all. He is in no position to make a “demand”. He can only make a plea for others to follow him.
He insists that his opinion is valid, and I think he does present it as an imperative. But what he insists upon is that fans pay to see it in theaters—not that they must form an opinion one way or the other.
In other words, he/she believes that if a fan determines that it isn’t worth seeing before giving it a chance, the film is doomed to failure. He is, for whatever reason, using fear as motivation to see the film. It’s still just one person’s opinion, no matter how imperative he/she presents it to be.
#89—I am, by no means, a moderator. However, I am protesting your habit of misrepresenting the posts of another just so you can cry that you and other readers are the victims of attempts by others to suppress your right to free speech and dissent.
If you have something to say—just say it.
There is no reason to twist the words of others in order to validate your point, whatever it may be.
#28 did not come close to saying anything near what you presented it to say. It wasn’t even in the ballpark.
Voicing a contrary opinion does not equate to the suppression of another.
# 91 I think these posts speak for themselves…
“Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.”
“This is our only chance… If you want to live, and get even better, you need to support this movie AT THE BOX OFFICE… …If this bombs, there won’t be ANY Trek except the fanwank novels and video games for at least 10 years.”
#92—Those are, first of all, from two different posters.
The first poster only tells why he will not be disappointed, and never comes close to even suggesting that you have no right to dissent.
The second poster only attempts to persuade others not to ignore the film at the box office, and gives his opinion as to why it is (in his mind) “imperative”.
My concern is what you did with post #28. You accused him of an action he never attempted. Period. You were untruthful, and put words in his mouth.
I think you were desperately seeking out a poster to villainize, so that you could play the victim of censorship.
“Those are, first of all, from two different posters.”
No kidding? You said,
“There is no reason to twist the words of others in order to validate your point, whatever it may be.”
The word “others” is plural which indicates we are speaking of more than one person, yes? Did we really need to clear this up???
“My concern is what you did with post #28. You accused him of an action he never attempted. Period. You were untruthful, and put words in his mouth.”
I have already provided analysis as to why his/her words (the ones I featured in post #92) certainly gives the appearance of a complaint that people should not criticize that which they do not own. You have yet to deal with that analysis. Come to think of it, you have not addressed the bulk of the analysis I have offered…
“I think you were desperately seeking out a poster to villainize, so that you could play the victim of censorship.”
Again, I don’t think any particular poster (save for Anthony) has the power to censor another poster. What I find objectionable is the (apparent) argument that non-owners do not have the right of criticism – that we “should not” criticize the film.
Closettrekker and Yarn
enough! get a room
Wow!
Let me clarify myself (if I can).
I got really bumed-out by the Lost in Space fiasco. So I decided I wouldn’t let myself get that emotionaly invested in a movie franchise ever again. When Lord of the Rings came out, that was cool. Sure, it wasn’t exactly the movie I would have made but then it was entertaining and a well made film.
So, seeing LOTR without any expectations that this movie would be an experience as close to nirvana as I was going to get allowed me the freedom to simply enjoy it for what it was: A FRICKIN’ MOVIE! Get it?
So JJ and Paramount can make what ever kind of movie they feel like. It’s theirs to make. If its a good movie, great. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. If it sucks, which I doubt, I wont waste my time crying about it. However, more importantly I refuse to waste my time worrying and fretting over how this movie might turn out.
You people (complainers) sound like someone who has paid to have a house built for them and you have no say in how it is being built. Well, I’m sorry but that is just not a very realistic view the situation.
#96
“So, seeing LOTR without any expectations that this movie would be an experience as close to nirvana as I was going to get allowed me the freedom to simply enjoy it for what it was: A FRICKIN’ MOVIE! Get it?”
By that logic, if you went into the film with low expectations (rather than none), you might have an even more pleasant experience (by being that much more surprised/impressed. : )
“So JJ and Paramount can make what ever kind of movie they feel like. It’s theirs to make. If its a good movie, great. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. If it sucks, which I doubt, I wont waste my time crying about it.”
This is less contentious than your original statement:
“Bottom line. We fans don’t own Star Trek! Paramount does and they are entitled to do whatever the hell they want to with it.”
Beyond the obvious statement of fact, however, I am still unsure of what to make of this…
So, because you can’t have the film “built to your specifications” and because you’ve been burned by other franchises, you say “Hey, it’s yours, I don’t care either way”?
Are you telling us, we should do the same thing? We should protect ourselves against disappointment by becoming disintrested? We should accept the fact that we don’t have control, that it is not ours, and make our peace with what comes? Was the first post an attempt to throw a cold glass of water in the face of bickering over things we have no control over?
#97
“We should accept the fact that we don’t have control, that it is not ours, and make our peace with what comes?”
That pretty much sums it up. however, it was never my intention to throw a cold glass of water in anyones face. My appologies to you if I came across that way.
the bickering is a bit much though.
sorry
And another thing:
Your extrapolation of my logic is incorrect. Having a low expectation rather than no expectation at all borders on self delusion and I can not advocate that sort thinking. It can adversely affect one’s ability to make rational decisions and maintain a positive outlook.
#73
‘10 years’ is a confusing number, to me. He’s only directed one film, and that was in 2006. I’d agree he hasn’t done anything so far that matches Empire of the Sun or The Color Purple. Still, Color Purple was over 25 years into Spielberg’s career. So I think JJ has some time left.
This is exciting stuff! In 2006 when Star Trek was getting ready to celebrate it’s 40th Aniversarry I had a bitter taste in my mouth because there was no series in production and no movie in the works, and then boom we learn that there will is in fact be a new movie and in the works and the 40th Aniversarry turns into a re-birth!! :)
The fact that the movie was pushed back to May, while disapointing at the time, showed the confididence Paramount has in the movie and now that Brad Grey has had his contract extended partially due to Star Trek! Leads to a very bright future for Star Trek!!
I predict an announcement of the next movie to coincide with the DVD release of Star Trek later in the year!
Also remember that Paramount interviewed both employees and customers at Star Trek the Experience on closing day and we were told they were going to include the goodbye to the experience on the new star trek movie when it is released to dvd…I hope that is true and we get to see it….
Lots to comment on –
Spielberg is a tremendous director, and a hell of a visionary. His films led a transformation of Hollywood from the mid 1970s forward.
Anyone who says that there are no interesting characters in Spielberg’s WoTW obviously forgot Harlan Ogilvy, played to perfection by Tim Robbins. Yes, yes, Tom Cruise was in it. We have to look past that.
JJ Abrams, like him or hate him, is the golden boy in Hollywood right now. MI-III did very well, and Lost has been a runaway success. I don’ think that either reflects his true abilities, just as 1941, * Batteries Not Included, and “Pinky and the Brain” did not reflect Spielberg’s potential as a producer or director. Given time, JJ just might be able to move away from pop-oriented material, to films with more specificity, more depth.
Spielberg himself said that he would not have written “Close Encounters” the way he did in the 1970s, that in retrospect, it did not reflect his views on family, fatherhood, and his own priorities or values as a father.
Give JJ some time, and some living. We’ll see some gold from him yet. Hopefully, starting right around May 9 of THIS YEAR.
“That pretty much sums it up. however, it was never my intention to throw a cold glass of water in anyones face. My appologies to you if I came across that way.
the bickering is a bit much though.
sorry”
Please don’t apologize – I’ll start feeling bad and have to apologize for my own excesses, and this could, in turn, influence other posters and we would no longer be able to enjoy uncivil discourse on this site.
Seriously, don’t feel bad, this is merely “Theatre of the Nerd.”
If the above is your intended meaning, fair enough. Your original statement (especially when read in its entirety) gave me a much different impression.
At any rate, I can see what you mean, but the whole point of this site is to get pumped up and to share speculations, news, hopes, fears, etc. This website is intrinsically erosive to your stated goal of neutrality/disinterest.
I agree that we should not make proclamations about the goodness or badness of the thing before anyone has seen it, but I am all for discussing scenarios, possibilties, new facts, and so on.
We can’t control what is going to happen but it is cathartic, to kibbitz, and gripe, and guess.
More from Lt. Atkins
“Your extrapolation of my logic is incorrect. Having a low expectation rather than no expectation at all borders on self delusion and I can not advocate that sort thinking. It can adversely affect one’s ability to make rational decisions and maintain a positive outlook.”
Please note the emoticon in that part of the post – I was kidding you.
But, if you want to get real about it, there is some research that does show there are some benefits to negative thinking. It helps people prepare for worst case scenarios and allows for people to be pleasantly surprised when things turn out well.
Besides this, if one’s expectation is evidence-based, then it is not irrational to form an expectation based on this evidence. I, for example, expect that the milk will still be in the fridge when I go to the kitchen.
Such expectations can be defeated, but we cannot navigate the world without these sorts of assumptions. Since we cannot be “blank slates”, it also follows, that we cannot be entirely free of evaluative predictions either (e.g., I expect that I will hate the taste sweet potatoes the next time I taste them as much as I have in the past). And this undermines your goal of objective disinterest. You will never be tabula rasa – a Star Trek fan cannot buy a ticket for a Star Trek movie and not have a buzz of anticipation (be it excited glee or dread or both).
In terms of personal experience, I have only been really soured on a film (in terms of preexisting bias) when I went to the film with expectations that it would be fantabulous based on critical buzz and word-of-mouth. I cannot recall an occasion when I expected that a film might not be so good, found it was better, and was not pleasantly surprised.
re: #105
Right, this is also known as “hedging,” as in stock-trading, for example.
If you go into the film expecting to be disappointed and the movie turns out more or less as you had expected, then you walk out not too let down, but with the pride of having accurately judged the film in advance of seeing it and the right of I-told-you-so.
If you go into the film expecting to be disappointed and the movie turns out to be better than you had predicted, then you may have lost the right of I-told-you-so, but you’ve gained something much more valuable — a good and possibly enriching experience.
If you go into the film with Pollyanna expectations and the film delivers, then it’s your birthday and you’ve won all around.
However, if you go into the film with Pollyanna expectations, and the film doesn’t live up to them, then not only have you lost the right of I-told-you-so, but you have had a bad experience and walk away from the film disappointed and disillusioned.
So, economically speaking, it really pays to have low expectations and be somewhat of a curmudgeon. Though, if you become so married to your curmudgeonly expectations that you invest your pride in those expectations and in your arguments here in support of them, then you may refuse to enjoy the film even if it turns out to be good, in order to save face. And, then you will find yourself to have lost in both respects.
Therefore, the safest position seems to be one of relatively low expectations modestly held. The pragmatist in me holds this position, but the pie-eyed optimist in me fights to raise my expectations a bit higher, especially when exposed to the marketing campaign of the film, which includes a stamp of approval of the sagacious Leonard Nimoy and the Bob Orci PR charm offensive.