Saturday, November 18, 2006

Abrams Still Not Committed to Directing Trek XI

Earlier this month, an article came out on SyFy portal regarding Trek XI.

Until the story and script has been finalized, Abrams says he's not sure that he's the right person to direct the upcoming Trek XI flick, which rumors're saying will dramatize the first Kirk-Spock meeting.

When I read between the lines, I have the feeling this is due in part to long talks he's had with Shatner, who told him that his Kirk character is "uncastable" and that Matt Damon's people have announced that the actor isn't interested in playing a young Kirk.

To me, this fits in the pattern of Abrams' behavior to date with many of his TV projects. He takes something on and is excited about it in the beginning, then falls out of love, gets restless, leaves someone else behind to handle it for him, then jumps to another project which he also abandons later on.

I had serious doubts when I heard that Abrams was selected to bring Trek back to the screen. A lot of good candidates were passed over, including director Bryan Singer ("X Men" 1 & 2 and "Superman Returns").

IMHO, Abrams is something of a dabbler who works with other people's ideas, but is unable to develop them over the long term once he exhausts the initial storylines of the first season or two.

People like Ron Moore ("Galactica" & "DS9"), Brad Wright ("SG1" & "Atlantis"), and Joss Whedon ("Buffy," "Angel," "Firefly," & "Serenity") stick with their projects through thick and thin.

I don't feel that Abrams has shown that quality so far. It's my impression that he's having trouble making his young Kirk story float, so he's getting ready to pass the buck along to someone else while he goes back to playing musical chairs with his other projects.

Incidentally, I would prefer to see a Trek film with new characters and storylines. At the very least, something with a new chapter set in TNG, DS9, or ENT.

Boris

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Boris: that's interesting what you say about Abrams being excited about a project until he exhausts the pilot's initial premise. I was a BIG Lost fan until Season 3--Lost being my first Abram's show--but Abrams has lost me as a viewer. The first 2 seasons were tighter and seemed to have an ultimate purpose but Season 3 just seems like alot of random happenings just pulled out of the writers' hat. Abrams has raised a good many big questions about the island, the plane crash, the Darma initiative, the others, Rousseau...but when he was interviewed by TV guide he said he was going to answer viewers questions...however, they're all little questions like how Jack got his tattoo. I give a flying flip how Jack got his tattoo. I want to know the answers to the larger questions. I have this sneaky feeling that despite Abrams and his associate producer saying they had a master plan from the beginning, there is no master plan and now they're trying to pull storylines out of their asses to try to keep viewers. The episodes have also gotten randomly violent, meaning there doesn't seem to be any purpose to the violence other than to just be violent. The story isn't ultimately served by the violence.

Bama Sue

Anonymous said...

I've been very pleased with season three, actually. It's been tight and focused, which is more than I can say for S2. It's important that with Lost, Abrams had a hand in creating it, but it's not his baby. It never was. Lindelof and Cuse should get bulk of the credit and the blame for how the show is going.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about "Lost" anymore. I still watch it and I did find the cliffhanger episode to be very enthralling, so I'll be back to it in February.

I'm 50-50 with it this season, half frustrated but still finding some episodes to be compelling. I'm just very irritated that after utilizing a huge ensemble cast for two seasons, they decided to narrow the focus this year and leave us hanging about many characters. On the other hand, the drama and tension is ratcheted up because they spend some time allowing characters/relationships develop along with good subtext.

For me, last season was the disaster from which season 3 is struggling to recover. Although last season picked up in the last group of episodes--and that was a hell of a climax when Michael murdered two characters in cold blood. Yet the producers/writers left that storyline untouched this year, as far as the aftermath for Michael and his son--and Hurley's grief. Sure, I trust that they aren't ignoring it, but they have lost a lot of audience trust by not delivering the right story advancement at the right time. People go all summer wondering what happened only to be presented with a new story to follow.

Viewers are giving up because they don't trust the show to deliver. Who wants to invest in yet another story and set of characters when there's no telling if satisfaction will be found? Yes, the nature of an American series is that it has to aim to be on the air indefinitely, so they have to keep presenting new mysteries after solving older ones. That doesn't make it any more watchable after a few years.

Now that I've started watching "Prison Break" and "24", I've come to appreciate how those shows can pull the viewer along without real resolution. The plots are so much more tangible--you know what the characters are striving for even if there's always a new struggle presented as soon as one goal is attained.

If I would change a single thing about Lost, it would be the flashbacks. They bore the hell out of me, no matter how relevant they are supposed to be. I'm at the point where I practically walk away--although I really hope to see more of Kate's ex-husband (Nathan Fillion? Not sure, the actor from "Firefly"). Maybe they can airlift him onto the island.

Boris Layupan said...

I feel that Abrams has a share along with Lindelof and Cuse in the
credit and blame for Lost's uneven success.

It's not his baby because he abandoned it. His name's on the
production credits, though, and he does provide his two cents (from a
distance) by commenting on scripts and planned storylines.

Berman and Braga kept denying how they were responsible for recycled
Trek TV plots and the use of T'Pol as a sex kitten as the ratings
went downhill and the show got cancelled.

Abrams and his Alias collaborators (Jeff Pinkner, Jesse Alexander,
et. al) were all going on about what great episodes they produced in seasons 3-5, what great additions they made to the cast, etc.

Lena Olin not coming back after season 2 didn't help. Destroying SD
6 in season 2 was something the show didn't recover from. They
resurrected it under the guise of APO in season 4, then threw it all
away when they killed Michael Vaughn in the first episode of season 5.

That started the recent spate of killing popular characters on film
and TV. Killing a character can help ramp up the drama, but it has
major consequences that can often lead to the end of the story.
Killing Jean Grey, Cyclops and Professor X in "X-Men 3" put that franchise into prequel territory (I wonder how they'll handle "X4"?). Killing Vaughn helped shorten season 5 and get
Alias cancelled even though the producers cooked up Vaughn's half-
baked faked death when the actor was nice enough to come back.

Killing Anna Lucia and Libby in season 2 undermined the episodes that went into establishing them and trying to get viewers to invest. Eko had to be killed because the actor didn't want to stay on the show long term. IMHO, the producers didn't work out his character arc 100%. I'm assuming it was Smokezilla that was impersonating Eko's brother Remy, who kept appearing and disappearing, and asking him to
confess his sins. For what purpose? Why wait till the end of the episode to kill Eko other than they needed scenes to fill air time. When Eko says he didn't sin and that every good and bad thing he's done was because he had to survive, what does that say about the character's development and emotional journey? If he was on one. I also am not impressed with Smokezilla and I thought Eko's death could've been done off scene with the viewers hearing it, then seeing his mangled body, like Greg Grunberg's unnamed pilot character in one of the earliest episodes or like some of the characters that bit it in say, Alien 2.

Boris Layupan said...

I feel that Abrams has a share along with Lindelof and Cuse in the
credit and blame for Lost's uneven success.

It's not his baby because he abandoned it. His name's on the
production credits, though, and he does provide his two cents (from a
distance) by commenting on scripts and planned storylines.

Berman and Braga kept denying how they were responsible for recycled
Trek TV plots and the use of T'Pol as a sex kitten as the ratings
went downhill and the show got cancelled.

Abrams and his Alias collaborators (Jeff Pinkner, Jesse Alexander,
et. al) were all going on about what great episodes they produced in seasons 3-5, what great additions they made to the cast, etc.

Lena Olin not coming back after season 2 didn't help. Destroying SD
6 in season 2 was something the show didn't recover from. They
resurrected it under the guise of APO in season 4, then threw it all
away when they killed Michael Vaughn in the first episode of season 5.

That started the recent spate of killing popular characters on film
and TV. Killing a character can help ramp up the drama, but it has
major consequences that can often lead to the end of the story.
Killing Jean Grey, Cyclops and Professor X in "X-Men 3" put that franchise into prequel territory (I wonder how they'll handle "X4"?). Killing Vaughn helped shorten season 5 and get
Alias cancelled even though the producers cooked up Vaughn's half-
baked faked death when the actor was nice enough to come back.

Killing Anna Lucia and Libby in season 2 undermined the episodes that went into establishing them and trying to get viewers to invest. Eko had to be killed because the actor didn't want to stay on the show long term. IMHO, the producers didn't work out his character arc 100%. I'm assuming it was Smokezilla that was impersonating Eko's brother Remy, who kept appearing and disappearing, and asking him to
confess his sins. For what purpose? Why wait till the end of the episode to kill Eko other than they needed scenes to fill air time. When Eko says he didn't sin and that every good and bad thing he's done was because he had to survive, what does that say about the character's development and emotional journey? If he was on one. I also am not impressed with Smokezilla and I thought Eko's death could've been done off scene with the viewers hearing it, then seeing his mangled body, like Greg Grunberg's unnamed pilot character in one of the earliest episodes or like some of the characters that bit it in say, Alien 2.

Personally, I feel that Benjamin, the leader of the Others, dying
from a cancerous growth on his spine, is a weak causus belli for the current storyline. He sends Ethan and Goodwin to infiltrate both sets of survivors in order to see if anyone can help him with his
cancer. And Jack, who's a neurosurgeon, just happens to fit the bill.

And I can't help but wonder how the Others can get complete bios of
everyone, get recent novels for 2004 for their book club, watch the
2004 World Series, give Michael and Walt the means to leave the
island but not leave themselves, and a million other things. I can't
say I believe in the show anymore.

I do like Juliet so far, though. Can't help but wonder if she'll
become Jack's new flame? And even though Kate says she loves Sawyer,
I suspect she'll confess to having feelings for Jack also if she's
thrown in danger's way with him too.

> Now that I've started >watching "Prison Break" and "24", >I've come to appreciate how those >shows can pull the viewer along >without real resolution.

It's my understanding that the producers for those shows, especially Prison Break, know that their series premise has a definite arc of possible storylines and will look to end their shows on a high note rather than allow them to drag on and outlive their raison d'etre.

I had ignored 24 till last season when I got hooked by the President
Logan storyline of being the hidden antagonist and Bauer living
minute to minute as a fugitive protag.

Prison Break's second season is hitting on all cylinders so far and
coming up with nice new developments built plausibly on the first season. I'd ignored them last year, then tuned in on the season opener out of curiosity.

> If I would change a single thing about Lost, it would be the flashbacks.

I think the Lost producers have gotten trapped into thinking that the flashbacks have to be part of every episode. I think they're going to the well too often with that device. I thought it was interesting to see that Kate got married to Mal of "Firefly" fame while she was on the run, but what does that do for her situation on the island?

Anonymous said...

The writers and producers really want LOST to be a five-season show, with a possible movie conclusion. While I frown about the whole major motion picture idea, I'm happy with the idea of the show lasting for five seasons. Let's just hope the network
doesn't screw that up.

--Shara

Boris Layupan said...

Hopefully, the series will end on a good note (whenever that happens).