Jump to content

What Episode IX needs to do to save the ST


Recommended Posts

 

JJ Abrams also always breaks the rules and is arguably the biggest writer/director/producer working right now. Hes the modern day Speilberg.

 

I... respectfully disagree... in strong terms.
I dont mean in quality or creativity, I mean in that he is a director who has made a brand, has his own mini studio know for a certain style of film, works in multiple genres, is attached to more than one franchise, and shepards films by other filmmakers under his aegis who work within his style.

 

Theres very few people who have done that, and Speilberg and Abrams are among those few. Whether you like his movies or not is irrelevant, Im talking about his position in Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I want a Cantina scene in which Lando has to get up on stage and fill in for one of the alien musicians. He puts on some star shaped ocular enhancers (space shades) and lays down a sick Parliament-esq

When I first saw this I read it as Racist Leia and thought what an odd and inappropriate idea to save the sequel trilogy. Although I cant imagine recasting her would have a much better reaction than

Yes.   Literally, yes.   That is a screenwriter's job, to make things logic proof so they aren't questioned. Obviously, when you get deep into the weeds with a franchise like Star Wars were some fan

I'm just looking at his personal filmography and Bad Robot and (aside from noticing he worked with Harrison Ford 3 times) all I see are 4 of his 5 director credits being inferior sequels plus one decently received horror film, and producer credits that consist of a scattering of forgotten small movies, most of which lost money, and the Cloverfield franchise which sprung from Drew Goddard, who I would peg as Joss Whedon's disciple more than Abrams', the last of which didn't even merit a theatrical release.

 

He's had more success on television, though even that's run dry outside of his limited involvement in Westworld in the last decade.

 

Sorry, I don't see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare him to Speilberg circa 1983. That’s what I am saying. Again, it’s his placement and involvement in projects. What you think of his films is not the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

JJ Abrams also always breaks the rules and is arguably the biggest writer/director/producer working right now. Hes the modern day Speilberg.

I... respectfully disagree... in strong terms.
I dont mean in quality or creativity, I mean in that he is a director who has made a brand, has his own mini studio know for a certain style of film, works in multiple genres, is attached to more than one franchise, and shepards films by other filmmakers under his aegis who work within his style.

 

Theres very few people who have done that, and Speilberg and Abrams are among those few. Whether you like his movies or not is irrelevant, Im talking about his position in Hollywood.

 

I agree he is the modern day equivalent, just not nearly as talented as Spielberg in his prime. But that said, I think that Tank makes a fair comparison.

 

Also to be fair, JJ is probably about as good as Spielberg is now. I am no JJ fan by any means, but I think I understand what Tank is getting at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank, I wasn;t mocking your page. Thats why I added the little line about it being more impressive than mine. I think it's awesome you are working and making a living in the field you want. I hope one day you are making a movie with a 200 mil budget, hell making a Star Wars movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point wasn’t about Speiulberg, the point was JJ is a guy who loves to break the basic rules of screenwriting and he’s one of the top 5 directors in Hollywood, and yet his work is very divisive.

 

Breaking the rules well usually amounts to amazing movies. When you try and fail, you get TLJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank, I wasn;t mocking your page. Thats why I added the little line about it being more impressive than mine. I think it's awesome you are working and making a living in the field you want. I hope one day you are making a movie with a 200 mil budget, hell making a Star Wars movie.

 

You know part of me would LOVE that... but man, it certainly puts a target on you. I dont know if Id want that sort of pressure/heat. Arguing with you all is fun. If I had to do it with ther world at large? Yikes...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare him to Speilberg circa 1983. That’s what I am saying. Again, it’s his placement and involvement in projects. What you think of his films is not the point.

I honestly don't see the projects. Maybe we can look back in 15 years and he'll be a mogul like Spielberg became, but right now there's just not much there and, near as I can tell, there aren't any significant movies in the pipeline that he's shepherding through outside of Episode IX of course :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is somebody seriously trying to argue that JJ Abrams isn't HUGE in Hollywood right now. AS huge as Spielberg? Love him or hate him (I shew more towards hate myself) you gotta admit to the facts on the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Compare him to Speilberg circa 1983. Thats what I am saying. Again, its his placement and involvement in projects. What you think of his films is not the point.

I honestly don't see the projects. Maybe we can look back in 15 years and he'll be a mogul like Spielberg became, but right now there's just not much there and, near as I can tell, there aren't any significant movies in the pipeline that he's shepherding through outside of Episode IX of course :shrug:

He's directed more Star Wars movies than anyone outside of Lucas. He's directed two Star Trek films. He is an EP on the Mission Impossible franchise, he shepards the Cloverfield Franchise, he's producing a show based on the work of Stephen King. He created one of the biggest modern hit TV shows. Bad Robot is the only mini studio specifically on a mission to produce mid-budget scifi films. They also produce TV, books, and comics.

 

Amblin in the 80s was the model for Bad Robot.

 

Name me one other person with that kind of pedigree working today. I can think of two, but even they aren't as diverse as Abrams.

 

Actually, don't. I'm not having an argument about a description of somebody when I was making a point about something else. You're not going to Glenn Beck me into this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is somebody seriously trying to argue that JJ Abrams isn't HUGE in Hollywood right now. AS huge as Spielberg? Love him or hate him (I shew more towards hate myself) you gotta admit to the facts on the ground.

 

Not saying he's not something. I mean, he's got the biggest domestic movie of all-time in his back pocket, so I'm sure he's got some pull (though TFA was his most recent movie, so I'm not sure how it would give him the pull Tank claims he has to break rules in his other films). But his Star Trek films barely made a profit when he was at the helm. His latest producing credit movie was sold to Netflix. He directed the lowest-grossing Mission: Impossible movie (by a fairly hefty margin). Most of his television shows lately have been one-and-done.

 

Forget Spielberg, I don't think he's anywhere near Michael Bay level yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you will about Star Trek into Darkness and "The Wet Fart", JJ is good at generating a feel. And he nailed the feel of TFA which TLJ totally didn't have. To me, the SW "feel" is more important than any rule breaking, story tweaking, misplaced humour, titty milking, expectation subverting, action extravaganza stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I think Solo has been the only one of the four so far to really capture the SW feel. (to be fair though, I don't Rogue One was necessarily trying to)

That's interesting. I haven't seen Solo yet because the trailer made me think it was just going to be a marvel movie. But you have piqued my interest now. Maybe it will come to Netflix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is somebody seriously trying to argue that JJ Abrams isn't HUGE in Hollywood right now. AS huge as Spielberg? Love him or hate him (I shew more towards hate myself) you gotta admit to the facts on the ground.

Not saying he's not something. I mean, he's got the biggest domestic movie of all-time in his back pocket, so I'm sure he's got some pull (though TFA was his most recent movie, so I'm not sure how it would give him the pull Tank claims he has to break rules in his other films). But his Star Trek films barely made a profit when he was at the helm. His latest producing credit movie was sold to Netflix. He directed the lowest-grossing Mission: Impossible movie (by a fairly hefty margin). Most of his television shows lately have been one-and-done.

 

Forget Spielberg, I don't think he's anywhere near Michael Bay level yet.

This is one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've ever seen. You don't believe a word of this.

 

Tank was right to bail on this tangent. Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Say what you will about Star Trek into Darkness and "The Wet Fart", JJ is good at generating a feel. And he nailed the feel of TFA which TLJ totally didn't have. To me, the SW "feel" is more important than any rule breaking, story tweaking, misplaced humour, titty milking, expectation subverting, action extravaganza stuff.

The thing is you can only string people along for a certain amount of time before they get wise to your shtick and tune out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One movie can't save two mediocre-to-bad films. I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility for 9 to end up being a legitimately good film, but there's nothing it can do to retroactively color the others. And in order for it to be good it would have to be a standalone film, basically. I think Rian Johnson was trying to do that with Last Jedi, but seemed to be too fascinated with "subverting tropes" or whatever. So, he was still essentially tethered to the first film, which was too open ended. And now Abrams is tied to the bastardization of his own non-starter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've ever seen. You don't believe a word of this.

 

Defending each point:

 

Claim: "His Star Trek films barely made a profit when he was at the helm."

 

Evidence: Star Trek's Worldwide was $387 million on a $150 million budget. Into Darkness's worldwide was $467 million on a $190 million budget. Using the simplified 2x box office rule of thumb, both Star Trek films got about $43.5 million in profit. Star Trek Beyond, which he produced, earned $343 million on a $185 million budget and is about $13.5 million under water.

 

The Star Trek films he directed were only moderate successes. It didn't take a big drop in box office receipts for the series to lose profitability and there's a reason why they've been slow to get a 4th movie started.

 

Claim: His latest producing credit movie was sold to Netflix.

 

Evidence: That's just a fact.

 

Claim: He directed the lowest-grossing Mission: Impossible movie (by a fairly hefty margin).

 

Evidence: This is also a fact.

 

Claim: Most of his television shows lately have been one-and-done.

 

Evidence: Abrams has a much stronger record on television than he does on the big screen, with with Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe, and Person of Interest under his belt. But his record the last few years, even as his film profile has gone up has been spotty at best.

 

Of his 7 television shows in the last 6 years, only two have seen a second season.

 

Claim: I don't think he's anywhere near Michael Bay level yet.

 

Evidence: In terms of film, Bay wins this easily. For his director credits, all four Transformers movies, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, both Bad Boys movies, and The Rock are all more profitable than any of Abrams' movies save TFA and Super 8. As a producer, he has the Purge franchise, A Quiet Place, the Ouiji movies, and a slew of profitable horror remakes. Which make for a fairly good mix of borrowed and original IP. Furthermore, his production company Platinum Dunes which shares no overlap with his directing credits has made 17 movies in the past 15 years and all but two of them saw profit with at least 8 seeing more than triple its budget in profit and going as high as 15x with the first Purge movie.

 

Bad Robot's track record is more decidedly mixed even though they do have overlap with Abrams' films. 4 of their 14 movies probably lost money. And their only super-profitable movies were the Cloverfield movies, Super 8, TFA, and the Mission: Impossible movies Abrams didn't direct. Of those, only Cloverfield and Super 8 are success Abrams can claim any real credit for. Star Wars is its own beast and Mission: Impossible is Cruise's baby.

 

On television, Bay doesn't have the history, but he's arguably more successful lately.

 

If I were asked to invest money into one of the two, Bay's the easy choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...