I'm hoping Michael Bay is still in the running to direct. It'd be fun seeing how he manages to cram in footage of the US Armed Forces into a story set a long time ago in a a galaxy far, far away...
I'm suspecting the media+celebrity reaction is treating it as fact because it may have been a bit of an open-secret in their business that this was likely to happen.
...and now it's been confirmed 4 rlz, I'm suspecting I was right :cool:
Does this mean that whenever JJ Abrams appears at something like Comic Con, there could be queues of Star Trek AND Star Wars fans lining up side by side for autographs?
Will Abrams be expected to step down from Star Trek to devote his time and attention to Star Wars? It seems unfathomable that he'd be allowed to do both and have the same passion for both.
Why wouldn't he be allowed to do both? Star Trek 3 if there is another won't be till 2015 or 2016 plenty of time To do first Star Wars then the last trek then back to concentrate on Star Wars.
Why wouldn't he be allowed to do both? Star Trek 3 if there is another won't be till 2015 or 2016 plenty of time To do first Star Wars then the last trek then back to concentrate on Star Wars.
It just seems like there would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps I'm wrong. Logistically of course he could direct both. I was more referring to there being a creative conflict. While not identical, both franchises have a lot of similarities. I found Abrams first Star Trek movie to be reminiscent in parts of Star Wars.
It just seems like there would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps I'm wrong. Logistically of course he could direct both. I was more referring to there being a creative conflict. While not identical, both franchises have a lot of similarities. I found Abrams first Star Trek movie to be reminiscent in parts of Star Wars.
They're both set in space and have fast paced action-adventure. Thats's two similarities. What else? (You said they have a lot)
I don't see how any half decent director could have any kind of creative conflict, never mind someone like Abrams.
Isn't that enough? Those elements comprise the bulk of the stories.
Well, it's not enough really, not when you start off by saying they share a lot of similarities. But anyway, lets look at those two.
Space setting: just because share a setting does not mean they are similar. In Star Trek the reason for being set in space is scientific exploration, that informs the parameters and tone. For Star Wars it's, well, there is no specific reason really, it's simply backdrop.
Fast paced action: Star Wars is full of magic and wizards using their powers. There are no supernatural elements in Star Trek, the action is just a bunch of humans using whatever human skills they have. Again, parameters are set, creating a clear distinction between the two.
I can see how someone doing a crossword, not really paying attention and looking at the screen every now and then might think their similar.
As I said, I could be wrong. But I won't be surprised if Abrams steps down from Star Trek after his 2nd movie to concentrate on the Star Wars trilogy.
You cold be right. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't step down though, I personally have every confidence in his creative ability to handle both.
Comments
didn't you get the memo?
Wait... WHAT?!
It's not like Highlander has a whole heap of credibility to begin with, downhill after the first one is putting it mildly.
Any remake is unlikely to be worse than 2.
Clearly, JJ didn't.
What happens to Star Trek Into Darkness if it get a sequel? Knowing Paramount, it'll probably be directed by Michael Bay
:rolleyes:
I predict a riot!
Or more worryingly...
A CROSSOVER!
Star Trek vs Star Wars
That would be both amazing and disturbing at the same time
I rather have death by lens flare than overused cgi.
This is exactly what I've been saying. It was tired the first time it was mentioned, and now it's just dreary..
Abrams' is getting criticism for a movie people haven't yet seen. That's reasonable.
It just seems like there would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps I'm wrong. Logistically of course he could direct both. I was more referring to there being a creative conflict. While not identical, both franchises have a lot of similarities. I found Abrams first Star Trek movie to be reminiscent in parts of Star Wars.
They're both set in space and have fast paced action-adventure. Thats's two similarities. What else? (You said they have a lot)
I don't see how any half decent director could have any kind of creative conflict, never mind someone like Abrams.
Isn't that enough? Those elements comprise the bulk of the stories.
As I said, I could be wrong. But I won't be surprised if Abrams steps down from Star Trek after his 2nd movie to concentrate on the Star Wars trilogy.
Well, it's not enough really, not when you start off by saying they share a lot of similarities. But anyway, lets look at those two.
Space setting: just because share a setting does not mean they are similar. In Star Trek the reason for being set in space is scientific exploration, that informs the parameters and tone. For Star Wars it's, well, there is no specific reason really, it's simply backdrop.
Fast paced action: Star Wars is full of magic and wizards using their powers. There are no supernatural elements in Star Trek, the action is just a bunch of humans using whatever human skills they have. Again, parameters are set, creating a clear distinction between the two.
I can see how someone doing a crossword, not really paying attention and looking at the screen every now and then might think their similar.
You cold be right. Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't step down though, I personally have every confidence in his creative ability to handle both.