People root for presidents to fail. A film doesn't surprise me at all.
Justin Lin is directing Star Trek XIII
- Thread starter Hythlodeus
- Start date
Misery loves company.
What bothers a lot of fans about nuTrek, though they may not admit it to themselves, is that it exists because Star Trek failed. They identify themselves with that failure and spend tremendous creative energy rationalizing the fact away, generally with some variation of "bad Trek failed, Trek done right would be a success." That's absolutely meaningless, of course. Star Trek failed and the property died.
I'm sorry, Mods, but aren't Dennis' and BillJ's posts here ever so slightly flaming? I don't appreciate sourcing several articles of problems with the studio and film, and then being told i'm a pathetic little person with no life. I have never once said I wished the film would fail, if you check all my posts Ive cited a personal dislike of Bob Orci. That is it. I've said ive heard things from other people, and now I'm being personally attacked for saying this. I've made it very clear that everything I'm saying could well be smoke being blown up my ass and I've said that several times too. Earlier one these exact people were questioning me on the script NOT being thrown out, and now it turns out it has been. Now they are launching personal attacks when I haven't said a damned thing about the contents of their characters. Surely this isn't OK?
Interesting perspective. When at one time there two Trek Series on TV, new films in the pipeline, new novels being released regularly, etc. it has to be tough to see a tired franchise take a short break and reset itself. But that reset was needed. Star Trek is a resilient franchise and the nuTrek films have proven there is an audience, an eager audience for new Trek material.
No matter what you may feel about nuTrek, the commercial success of the films proves there is a market out there for Trek, one that can be tapped for many years to come.
A
Amaris
Guest
Me too. You wonder whether that person realizes a failing President, or failing government, could mean horrible, awful ramifications for everyone else in the country. I figure those people are the kind that feel if they can't have what they want, then no one can, and so they bust the football and stomp away angrily.
You've contributed more to this forum in a single post than one of the aforementioned posters has contributed in the entire time he's been here.
Keep the info coming. If true, I'm not sure if it's good news or bad news, but it is interesting and it does make sense based on what's gone on recently.
That's pretty negative to look at Star Trek as a failure. By that logic every show is a failure because they all end at some point. I would look at it with a glass half full and say nuTrek exists because Star Trek succeeded in making a franchise something special that people thought was worth breathing new life into.
This discussion is reminiscent of a quote I once heard in Doctor Who.
("The Face of Evil")
No, shows that end when producers decide it's a good time for them to end are not failures. Those that have terrible ratings and end up getting cancelled are by definition failures. By so many measurable metrics, Star Trek did fail with the tail end of Voyager and Enterprise, paired with Insurrection and Nemesis. That's an objective truth, not some subjective judgment of whether a glass is half full or empty.
That is true if you're a producer and your definition of failure is dollar signs. Then an excel spreadsheet can tell you whether or not a show was a failure. And really the only good time for a producer to end a show is when it's not going to make them any more money or they don't predict it to make more.
There's more to measure as a failure than just money. Critically, the shows weren't received as well either.
Also, there are plenty of shows that end for creative reasons, not money reasons.
Sorry, I amended your post because there were a lot of interesting points in there that I wanted to respond to, but didn't feel the need to repeat it.
First of all, ID was not the death knell for Paramount's business or the main reason they laid off 110 employees. I read that article and ID was not to blame, but rather a lot of things, with ID being the last in that long line.
Secondly, merchandising. Obviously, there are many ways to interpret it, but it seemed to boil down to Abrams being unwilling to fight with CBS over distribution rights. I don't fault him for not wanting to have to compete, essentially, against himself when marketing his product, especially in an economy when people have limited monies to spend. Essentially, Abrams gave up fighting with CBS because it was not going to end well. Merchandising rights are a complicated legal tangle for Star Trek. How much money in lawyers and time and effort should they tie up with that fight? Does changes at Paramount mean that I will get better merchandising? Doubtful, in my opinion.
Amazing Spiderman 2-um, why did Orci have blood on his hands for that one? A quick review of the film's general performance (boxofficemojo.com aggregate, as well as IMDB and Wikipedia for budget information) indicate that the film was rather successful, grossing 500 million (roughly), and while reviews were mixed, it was hardly a flop.
I'm not faulting Paramount here for making the business decisions they did, but I think it comes down to business, and not anything personal with Orci. BR still have some say in the producer capacity, so I would not be counting them out (yet), and if they are, then I personally will miss their influence.
Right I agree, and yet the expectation here is that Star Trek go on forever. And it's said that Lin is a great choice because he knows how to fill seats and spawn more sequels. So here we are praising the choice for a chance at more movies and at the same time saying Trek is a failure for not stopping at a high point.
I'm just saying I wouldn't say Star Trek as a whole was a failure when it had years of success and inspired a reboot, just because it rode the train downhill towards the end. I'm not going to say nuTrek was a failure if it goes back into hibernation in the future when we've already got good movies out of it.
First:
If you wish to report what you believe to be an infraction of any rule or if you otherwise wish to call a moderator's attention to something for any reason, you should use the "Notify Moderator" button ->
Second:
No, you haven't been flamed. Some people could have used a little more restraint in referring to other fans generally, but that's about all I'm seeing.
Using the Notify Moderator button, or by sending me a PM, show me where anyone has said that to you, specifically, and in so many words.
You have not been and are not being personally attacked. Some have simply been skeptical concerning some information cited by you, but that's not the same thing. The information is not you; you are not the information. A criticism of the information (up to and including outright dismissal of same) does not in any way constitute a personal attack.
Now let there be no more grandstanding and let's all get back to discussing what is known and verifiable, and let's not have a squabble over a bunch of stuff which has been rumored but cannot at this time be verified.
Assuming this is legit... I'm starting to get excited. My jaw dropped just reading this (whatever it means), and I'm looking forward to a no-holds-barred, pull-out-the-stops, give-the-people-what-they-want romp
EDIT: While I'm not a Justin Lin expert (haven't seen the F&F movies), I take his involvement as a huge plus, perhaps he's the man to make this movie really happen and give us the adrenaline rush I know I'm looking for out of a great movie!
I'm guessing it refers to the Shatner story and supposed leaked plot details from a little while ago. Whether that's still the story now Lin is in charge is anyone's guess.
Fair enough M'Sharak.
Can I just summarise the point I was trying to make in one sentence?
Production of Trek 3 ground to a halt over the past few months and I think something more important than a bad script or director was to blame.
Of course Trek 3 is being made. No, I don't want it to fail. Don't put words in my mouth.
Can I just summarise the point I was trying to make in one sentence?
Production of Trek 3 ground to a halt over the past few months and I think something more important than a bad script or director was to blame.
Of course Trek 3 is being made. No, I don't want it to fail. Don't put words in my mouth.
Justin Lin may be most famous for the Fast & Furious films, but he started out as an indie guy on films like Shopping for Fangs and Better Luck Tomorrow. Of the five contenders, he had by far the longest and most diverse resume; the other four only directed a handful of films. He’s directed dramas, episodes of Community, and a mockumentary, even if he’s most famous for action now. In fact, he has the longest and most diverse resume of any Trek film director with only two exceptions: Robert Wise, and Nicholas Meyer before Star Trek VI (Lin is more experienced than Meyer was when he went into Star Trek II).
I’ve honestly only seen his Better Luck Tomorrow. I thought it was a fascinating, if flawed take on the Asian American experience, which famously won the fierce defense of Roger Ebert. As with Shopping for Fangs, the film starred John Cho. Shopping for Fangs highlighted the experiences of gay Asians, something still rare in films.
Of all the directors of Trek films, his resume is the longest and most diverse with two exceptions: Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer (the latter only as he went into VI; Meyer had a smaller resume going into Star Trek II).
He seems like someone eager to try new things all the time, with an original perspective. But beyond that, he’s also someone willing to fight for what he believes in. For his first Fast & Furious film, it was originally going to depict Japan as stereotypically exotic, but he fought for the film to respect its place in the 21st century.
Here's an interview with Justin Lin regarding the sixth film in the Fast series. At 5:10 he's asked about his approach to dialogue vs. dialogue, and later, at 15:25, he answers a question on genre and cites Altman's Nashville as a bigger influence than action films on his Fast films.
I am interested in his thoughts on Star Trek. I don’t care if he’s always been a fan, but I do care if, after taking it all in, he respects what makes it unique. That's what Bennett and Meyer did, even though they were outsiders. I think this could be a very interesting choice, and am eager to see what he has to say about Trek.
It should also be noted that he's the first non-white director to helm a Star Trek film. That's a pretty big deal, especially after the despicable whitewashing of Khan in the previous film. There are experiences at play there that may potentially give the film some added perspective. Check out this profile in Variety.
I’ve honestly only seen his Better Luck Tomorrow. I thought it was a fascinating, if flawed take on the Asian American experience, which famously won the fierce defense of Roger Ebert. As with Shopping for Fangs, the film starred John Cho. Shopping for Fangs highlighted the experiences of gay Asians, something still rare in films.
Of all the directors of Trek films, his resume is the longest and most diverse with two exceptions: Robert Wise and Nicholas Meyer (the latter only as he went into VI; Meyer had a smaller resume going into Star Trek II).
He seems like someone eager to try new things all the time, with an original perspective. But beyond that, he’s also someone willing to fight for what he believes in. For his first Fast & Furious film, it was originally going to depict Japan as stereotypically exotic, but he fought for the film to respect its place in the 21st century.
Here's an interview with Justin Lin regarding the sixth film in the Fast series. At 5:10 he's asked about his approach to dialogue vs. dialogue, and later, at 15:25, he answers a question on genre and cites Altman's Nashville as a bigger influence than action films on his Fast films.
I am interested in his thoughts on Star Trek. I don’t care if he’s always been a fan, but I do care if, after taking it all in, he respects what makes it unique. That's what Bennett and Meyer did, even though they were outsiders. I think this could be a very interesting choice, and am eager to see what he has to say about Trek.
It should also be noted that he's the first non-white director to helm a Star Trek film. That's a pretty big deal, especially after the despicable whitewashing of Khan in the previous film. There are experiences at play there that may potentially give the film some added perspective. Check out this profile in Variety.
Last edited:
Indeed.
In the case of Trek, I assume the people gleefully rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the third film's failure believe it will accomplish two things:
1. Vindication of their view that JJTrek is terrible.
2. Such failure prompting a return to "real" Trek.
Of course, even if the next film bombs, the bean counters would never in a billion billion years decide "this movie failed because it adhered insufficiently to the desires of a minority of diehard fans." Such fans are simply not numerous enough to matter. Never have been, never will be.
I am pleasantly surprised that most reactions to Lin in this thread have been positive. People seem to be shitting themselves elsewhere. I have no doubt that Lin will provide a clean transition from JJ's style to his own. Whatever the story ends up being, we're pretty much guaranteed a well-executed thrill ride, which is all most people are looking for at the cineplex.