I also assuming that there are countless talented people who love the source material, and better to give them a chance than giving it to someone who just makes content.
I am not going with “hire fans” bullshit, just that there are so many actual directors in the industry who already have a passion for it, so it is just a marketing choice to hire someone for the name.
Art is art, not content, when it is turned to content we get slop like those movies.
i mean, i’m a musician. there’s music i love and music i hate. from my perspective, about a quarter of the music i make, i don’t really like that much. but you know, i get to make music with people i love, and that is the real point from my perspective. and in my region, there are maybe three or four musicians who can match me technically and none who can match the mental work i put into it. so like, they want me to play even if i dislike the music. and i want to play even if i dislike the music, because i’m still making art.
does hearing the mental process from another field about similar decisions help explain it?
Are you saying he’s not an actual director? What makes someone an “actual director”?
Why do you think it was a marketing choice to pick him? He wasn’t exactly a major director at the time. He was far from unknown but he didn’t have a lot of movies.
Which Star Trek to you is art and not content? I assume you mean made as a passion and not for commercial purposes?
I feel like that’s just ignorant of how movies are actually made.
Is it content because it’s popular and you don’t like it?
The Abraham Star Trek movies were just forgettable. he tried to turn star trek into star wars. They are content made in meeting rooms by executives, not really creative decisions or story telling.
To a lesser degree that happens to every major movie,
You had a director who actually liked the subject. It’s right there in the interview. Wasn’t a fan as a child, liked it as an adult.
It sounds like you didn’t like the movie, so you’re saying it was because the director lacked something or the writers lacked something relating to “art”, instead of just saying you didn’t like the movie.
All but the most niche movies are about making money. That’s what they are. People can make good movies, but they’re all still fundamentally about money. The entire star trek franchise exists to make money.
The early movies were made as a cash grab to chase after Star wars money. You’ve got the movie director saying the series is boring and being selected because he can make it for cheaper.
It’s fine to not like the movie, but acting like the movie can’t be good because those making it have financial incentives? C’mon.
I also assuming that there are countless talented people who love the source material, and better to give them a chance than giving it to someone who just makes content.
I am not going with “hire fans” bullshit, just that there are so many actual directors in the industry who already have a passion for it, so it is just a marketing choice to hire someone for the name.
Art is art, not content, when it is turned to content we get slop like those movies.
i mean, i’m a musician. there’s music i love and music i hate. from my perspective, about a quarter of the music i make, i don’t really like that much. but you know, i get to make music with people i love, and that is the real point from my perspective. and in my region, there are maybe three or four musicians who can match me technically and none who can match the mental work i put into it. so like, they want me to play even if i dislike the music. and i want to play even if i dislike the music, because i’m still making art.
does hearing the mental process from another field about similar decisions help explain it?
Are you saying he’s not an actual director? What makes someone an “actual director”?
Why do you think it was a marketing choice to pick him? He wasn’t exactly a major director at the time. He was far from unknown but he didn’t have a lot of movies.
Which Star Trek to you is art and not content? I assume you mean made as a passion and not for commercial purposes?
I feel like that’s just ignorant of how movies are actually made.
Is it content because it’s popular and you don’t like it?
Meant directors who actually like the subject.
The Abraham Star Trek movies were just forgettable. he tried to turn star trek into star wars. They are content made in meeting rooms by executives, not really creative decisions or story telling.
To a lesser degree that happens to every major movie,
You had a director who actually liked the subject. It’s right there in the interview. Wasn’t a fan as a child, liked it as an adult.
It sounds like you didn’t like the movie, so you’re saying it was because the director lacked something or the writers lacked something relating to “art”, instead of just saying you didn’t like the movie.
All but the most niche movies are about making money. That’s what they are. People can make good movies, but they’re all still fundamentally about money. The entire star trek franchise exists to make money.
The early movies were made as a cash grab to chase after Star wars money. You’ve got the movie director saying the series is boring and being selected because he can make it for cheaper.
It’s fine to not like the movie, but acting like the movie can’t be good because those making it have financial incentives? C’mon.