http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0774061/
Something about this seems a little fishy, I haven't heard him say anything quite so blunt before, usually he says he's trying to make something everyone will like. Maybe he just got fed up after a while?
(IMDB) Abrams to Purists: "Don't Waste Your Time"
- Thread starter Mr. Adventure
- Start date
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0774061/
Something about this seems a little fishy, I haven't heard him say anything quite so blunt before, usually he says he's trying to make something everyone will like. Maybe he just got fed up after a while?
The only fishy thing for the purists who can't get beyond the alternate universe idea is the fact the movie may actually be successful and critically acclaimed.
If he said it, it is just a forewarning. Nothing wrong with that, and it is probably good advice.
"(IMDB) Abrams to Purists: 'Don't Waste Your Time'"?????
This wasn't a comment made about "purists". It was a comment about Shatner supporters.
I'm one but not really the other. It would have been "nice" for him to be in it, but he wasn't NEEDED. I'm sure the movie will be great, even without him.
You might want to change the title of the thread.
By the way, as long as they explain the changes are due to a timeline change (which they more or less do) and don't simply IGNORE the original timeline, I'm okay with it. I can see this movie reviving Trek, and reviving it well. (And I haven't even seen it yet. Not for another twelve hours or so, that is. Heh he heh...)
This wasn't a comment made about "purists". It was a comment about Shatner supporters.
I'm one but not really the other. It would have been "nice" for him to be in it, but he wasn't NEEDED. I'm sure the movie will be great, even without him.
You might want to change the title of the thread.
By the way, as long as they explain the changes are due to a timeline change (which they more or less do) and don't simply IGNORE the original timeline, I'm okay with it. I can see this movie reviving Trek, and reviving it well. (And I haven't even seen it yet. Not for another twelve hours or so, that is. Heh he heh...)
Sound. AND fury.
Check the link, I'm just following IMDB's lead.
Nice addition, the real article has a little more flow to it.
I think one of the movie's flaws was that it was trying to be too many things to too many people. It succeeds in spite of that, IMO, but I read a review in which the reviewer thought Nimoy spoiled the whole thing, basically. You can't please everyone all the time, and I guess Abrams might be acknowledging that. If you take a look at some of the questions submitted for the Memory Alpha interview, I get where he's coming from.
Well, Abrams' definition of "Purist" is someone who would like ONLY a Star Trek film that looks exactly like TOS TV, and thinks Shatner absolutely NEEDS to be in this...
...if that is the group he is addressing, that I think that is good advice. Those "purists" as Abrams defines them will probably not like this film.
...if that is the group he is addressing, that I think that is good advice. Those "purists" as Abrams defines them will probably not like this film.
Maybe JJ is yeah getting tired of this question...?
I agree it would of been nice to have Willy.....it really really would of....but it's not necessary (I guess). The only reason I'd really want to see him partipate in this project in some way is because he's getting old and inevitably he won't be able to partipate in the future if he's dead and then that oppty is gone forever.
I'm not boarding the bash billy bandwagon...ya'll need to show some respect for the original captain...i don't care what you think about him after Tos ended...but have respect for his role as the original capt...he helped make Trek the icon it is today. Sorry if this is now off topic but I do tend to do that.
It's off topic in this thread but not that other one about Shatner sucking... although really, who, aside from that poster evidently, doesn't like Shatner? No bash Bill bandwagon here.
Essentially it's another William Shatner SNL sketch moment, where someone connected with the franchise gets tired of being barracked by the purists and tells them where to get off.
After reading some of the minor, niggly nitpicks in some of the other threads ("Pink-skinned Vulcans"? WTF?) being blown up to huge issues, I can see why he would make comments like this. I happen to agree with him.
After reading some of the minor, niggly nitpicks in some of the other threads ("Pink-skinned Vulcans"? WTF?) being blown up to huge issues, I can see why he would make comments like this. I happen to agree with him.
Abrams was wise to warn the "purists" or whatever you wanna call them to stay away. Already you're seeing it in the review thread how some people are throwing fits and condemn the movie because of mostly minor variations on the Trek of old, not realizing of course that the old Trek has long run its course, and that a new vision that dares to change things is the only way for this franchise to survive another (hopefully) 43 years.
Then, OTOH, take me. I've always loved TOS the most, and cared less and less about every consecutive show. I missed those old characters after they had their swan song in 1991. Now having seen the film, I am overjoyed at having them back. And thrilled that we're finally heading into uncharted territory again. Which is not in spite of, but because of, the various minor and also the, shall we say, cataclysmic changes to the Trek universe made by this film. Keeping everything in line with what we've seen before produces predictable prequels like Star Wars Episodes I-III (which people hated) or Enterprise (which people hated). The REAL purists stayed away from any Star Trek since 1969! And I respect that. The folks round here who think Star Trek is their property and who presume to declare the new movie "not canon" because the bridge looks so modern or because Kirk has blue eyes or something irrelevant like that should just shut it! I'm getting sick of it.
Then, OTOH, take me. I've always loved TOS the most, and cared less and less about every consecutive show. I missed those old characters after they had their swan song in 1991. Now having seen the film, I am overjoyed at having them back. And thrilled that we're finally heading into uncharted territory again. Which is not in spite of, but because of, the various minor and also the, shall we say, cataclysmic changes to the Trek universe made by this film. Keeping everything in line with what we've seen before produces predictable prequels like Star Wars Episodes I-III (which people hated) or Enterprise (which people hated). The REAL purists stayed away from any Star Trek since 1969! And I respect that. The folks round here who think Star Trek is their property and who presume to declare the new movie "not canon" because the bridge looks so modern or because Kirk has blue eyes or something irrelevant like that should just shut it! I'm getting sick of it.
Thanks for the little tid-bit about things going on in that thread, Eddie. I cannot wait till I can read it so that was a nice preview.
