A New Hope for Star Wars: How JJ Abrams Fooled Us All

[Pinky's Brain]

I'm too old for his ****.

I think JJ's Star Trek was a disaster.

 

[Areloch]

So, I've never really been a Trek fan or anything, but I've seen some episodes, and a few of the movies.

In light of my Trek-plebeian-ness, I found Abrams' movies to be fine, if a bit silly.

So what exactly makes them fail as "true" Trek movies? As others pointed out in here, it's not exactly the first time ST has pushed the tech side of things to the side, and Trek had it's own moments of intense action and hand-to-hand fights(well, as much as was possible with such a low budget and incredible amounts of cheese).

 

[Jandau]

Literally the first thing I said after seeing the 2009 Star Trek film was "This was a good Star Wars movie, but a terrible Star Trek one". I hated that film, as well as the second one, for exactly the same reason. But this is also the reason I was pretty happy when I heard Abrams was doing Star Wars.

 

[MoltenSilver]

Honestly the points raised in defense of Abrams here are the exact reason my heart sank when they announced Abrams: we've already seen an Abrams' Star Wars movie, why do we need another one? Especially with such a guaranteed money-maker, why not give some up-and-coming director the metaphorical golden ticket to the chocolate factory to see what they can really do? If it flops, it'll still make a dumptruck full of money and the studio can just blame the director and shuffle in a new one, and if it's great then the studio has a now instant big-name director presumably locked under a very favourable contract.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

I have a great deal of hope for Star Wars 7. Not only because of Abrams, but also because he's surrounded by ''really great people''. Lawrence Kasdan (co-writer of ''Empire Strikes Back'') co-wrote the screenplay with Abrams, based on an initial script by Michael Arndt (''Toy Story 3''). Lucas is involved as creative consultant (which means things stay true to the series without him overreaching himself). John Williams is back doing the score (and never drops the ball on these things). The original cast are back, I could go on. It's in safe hands, is how I feel about it.

 

[chikusho]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

 

[m00se]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

 

[Christian Neihart]

He didn't really do a good job of making Star Trek movie. He made a dumb action movie in space, and in place of good characterization he supercharged all of their personality traits and told the fans that kept the name going for decades to "Shut up, nerds! This isn't for you!"

He couldn't even tell a story without future spock telling the plot to the audience and why Khan's a bad guy.

Star wars isn't a sure thing here, and he'll be forever known as Jar Jar Abrams if he screws it up.

I'm still pissed about white washing Khan and having the stupidest, most telegraphed twist in cinema this side of M. Night Shyamalan. The first Abram's Star Trek remains my favorite though.

 

[Christian Neihart]

I have no confidence in Abrams after Star Trek: Into Darkness. That movie was just awful.

 

[m00se]

Honestly the points raised in defense of Abrams here are the exact reason my heart sank when they announced Abrams: we've already seen an Abrams' Star Wars movie, why do we need another one? Especially with such a guaranteed money-maker, why not give some up-and-coming director the metaphorical golden ticket to the chocolate factory to see what they can really do? If it flops, it'll still make a dumptruck full of money and the studio can just blame the director and shuffle in a new one, and if it's great then the studio has a now instant big-name director presumably locked under a very favourable contract.

The way I see it, this film represents a $4.7 Billion investment for Disney and it needs to not just make the expected money of being a new Star Wars film (which, I agree, will be there whether this movie is a steaming turd or a masterpiece). This film needs to make all-of-the-money. It needs to blow all-of-the-minds. This film needs to leave a fantastic first impression to old and new fans, because Disney has lots of plans for the Star Wars Universe in the future, and they know just how possible it is for fans to turn on this beloved franchise if it isn't done perfectly right. They wouldn't bet that much money on some up-and-coming, possibly brilliant director. If we know anything by this point, it is that Disney will pay whatever it takes to bring us more Star Wars, and considering how smartly they have handled the Marvel Universe, I am highly confident that they will do whatever it takes to do it justice.

There is just too much riding on this, and Disney knows it. I am thrilled that Abrams is at the helm with this film, because he makes the most sense out of all the active directors out there right now.

 

[Something Amyss]

I thought this was something everyone already knew, TBH.

 

[Something Amyss]

Star Trek was a passable Star Wars movie, but as a Star Trek movie it failed in every way.

I don't know about that. It managed to entertain my parents, who were Trekkies before most of the people complaining were born. This is something that none of the TNG movies could accomplish.

 

[Zontar]

Star Trek was a passable Star Wars movie, but as a Star Trek movie it failed in every way.

I don't know about that. It managed to entertain my parents, who were Trekkies before most of the people complaining were born. This is something that none of the TNG movies could accomplish.

Yes but the TNG movies where pretty bad, being half the reason the franchise died for 5 years (Enterprise and Voyager being the other half).

Though something which confuses me to this day is why First Contact didn't have the crew from DS9. Apart from the extras actually having names in that case, and the animosity that Sisko has for Picard coupled with their mutual hatred of the Borg could have been enough to hold the whole film.

 

[m00se]

I see you are brave enough to praise Abrams' Star Trek. Well, I hope you're prepared for the comments of disgruntled Sta-

He didn't really do a good job of making Star Trek movie. He made a dumb action movie in space

Well, that was fast.

I agree that his 2009 Star movie was not much of a Trek and more Wars in anything but the setting, therefore not a good Star Trek. Well, if he messes up Star Wars at least SW fans and Trekies will finally share something - their fiery hate for J.J. Abrams.

I truly, truly hope (and have a good amount of confidence) that Abrams will not mess it up. I loved the Abrams Star Trek. Yes, the flare was a bit much, but considering how entertained I was by the film itself, I am really eager to see what he has done with SW.

My philosophy as a movie enthusiast is to embrace what I love and forget about what I don't. I understand that hate is part of the powah of the dahk side, but I'd rather not spend my time seething in hatred of what is so wrong with certain franchises. Some things out there are terrible, and universally condemned as such (or find a demographic and make lots of money and an unreasonable number of sequels even while remaining terrible, like Twilight). What interests me are movies and other bits of entertainment that are considered by the majority to be terrible, but that I personally love.

Time and again I have noticed a few minor weak points being blown out of proportion and cited by people who want to convince you why you shouldn't enjoy yourself while watching a particular film or show.

I know how much fun it can be to jump on hate bandwagons, and there is some truly awful entertainment out there that should be spat upon and chastised for existing as it does, but not every subject of hate deserves it.

The biggest argument against Star Trek that I have heard is that it wasn't Trek enough. I understand that position, and agree with the point. However, it is still a well-paced, funny, spectacular and totally entertaining movie, so...I don't care as much that it isn't the Trek that fans were hoping for or expecting. The franchise was 40 years old by that point, and had been explored through a number of great iterations on TV and the big screen. The owners of Trek could have kept that thread going, but they made the choice to hit the reset button and give the director's chair to a guy who admitted several times that he was not a Trek fan when he started the project. This was a deliberate choice, and while it left a tremendous wake of pissed off fans (which these days seems more and more like an inevitability), it made for a very entertaining science fiction movie, and that is what I care about.

 

[chikusho]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

No, the Hero's Journey does not involve planet-destroying superweapons as a rule. They do however involve the "Belly of the whale" which is preceded by an event that makes the hero accept his or her responsibility in the quest. Such as the destruction of something significant or something that the hero(s) holds dear.

Now, on an interplanetary level where the entire universe is at play, the capability to do destroy a planet is not only expected, but also pretty tame.

Your point is also kind of reduntant, considering the fact that JJ Abrams didn't write Star Trek (2009). It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

 

[m00se]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

No, the Hero's Journey does not involve planet-destroying superweapons as a rule. They do however involve the "Belly of the whale" which is preceded by an event that makes the hero accept his or her responsibility in the quest. Such as the destruction of something significant or something that the hero(s) holds dear.

Now, on an interplanetary level where the entire universe is at play, the capability to do destroy a planet is not only expected, but also pretty tame.

Your point is also kind of reduntant, considering the fact that JJ Abrams didn't write Star Trek (2009). It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

First of all, how many Hollywood blockbusters in the past 40 years have involved the destruction of one planet and the near-destruction of a second? I can only think of two. Now, granted, intergalactic adventure movies aren't exactly a dime a dozen, but I cannot think of any example of that specific plot point other than the movies I wrote about. Guardians of the Galaxy almost went there, but didn't quite make it.

Personally, I'd like to think that George Lucas saw Abram's Trek film, recognized the clear and deliberate tribute to the Star Wars universe which that film was, and then made the decision to see what other writers and directors could do with his universe (I'm sure the money helped, but Lucas was stupidly rich before Disney came knocking).

I should have nodded to the Hero's Journey in the article itself, but the connections between these two films is more specific than those broad strokes (which can be told in so many different ways, as you know).

Regarding the argument that Abrams didn't write the script, I did give credit to the writers in the article and I also mentioned that Abrams was there to help form the script, and his input was crucial to formulating the final movie. If you look into it, you can see that Abrams clearly wanted to include nods to Star Wars in the film, which he did.

I'm not making this up, and I wasn't born yesterday.

Edit: OMFG I forgot about Man of Steel, but even then the connection branches off because Krypton blew up on its own, and Earth was threatened by that terraforming drill...I'm pretty sure that's it though. Three movies in 40 years. It isn't the obvious device you perceive it to be.

The point is, the impact of the Hero's Journey is everywhere, and the direct inspiration it had on Star Wars is common knowledge. That has been written about to death already. It seemed unnecessary to explain the relevance of the Hero's Journey connection in the article, but in retrospect I should have included a line or two about it.

 

[chikusho]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

No, the Hero's Journey does not involve planet-destroying superweapons as a rule. They do however involve the "Belly of the whale" which is preceded by an event that makes the hero accept his or her responsibility in the quest. Such as the destruction of something significant or something that the hero(s) holds dear.

Now, on an interplanetary level where the entire universe is at play, the capability to do destroy a planet is not only expected, but also pretty tame.

Your point is also kind of reduntant, considering the fact that JJ Abrams didn't write Star Trek (2009). It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

First of all, how many Hollywood blockbusters in the past 40 years have involved the destruction of one planet and the near-destruction of a second? I can only think of two. Now, granted, intergalactic adventure movies aren't exactly a dime a dozen, but I cannot think of any example of that specific plot point other than the movies I wrote about. Guardians of the Galaxy almost went there, but didn't quite make it.

Personally, I'd like to think that George Lucas saw Abram's Trek film, recognized the clear and deliberate tribute to the Star Wars universe which that film was, and then made the decision to see what other writers and directors could do with his universe (I'm sure the money helped, but Lucas was stupidly rich before Disney came knocking).

I should have nodded to the Hero's Journey in the article itself, but the connections between these two films is more specific than those broad strokes (which can be told in so many different ways, as you know).

Regarding the argument that Abrams didn't write the script, I did give credit to the writers in the article and I also mentioned that Abrams was there to help form the script, and his input was crucial to formulating the final movie. If you look into it, you can see that Abrams clearly wanted to include nods to Star Wars in the film, which he did.

I'm not making this up, and I wasn't born yesterday.

Edit: OMFG I forgot about Man of Steel, but even then the connection branches off because Krypton blew up on its own, and Earth was threatened by that terraforming drill...I'm pretty sure that's it though. Three movies in 40 years. It isn't the obvious device you perceive it to be.

The point is, the impact of the Hero's Journey is everywhere, and the direct inspiration it had on Star Wars is common knowledge. That has been written about to death already. It seemed unnecessary to explain the relevance of the Hero's Journey connection in the article, but in retrospect I should have included a line or two about it.

Let's see.. The space tyrant Sador blows up a planet in Battle Beyond The Stars (1980).
Battlefield Earth has Psychlo blown up by a nuke.
The Alpha-Omega Bomb in Beneath the Planet of the Apes ended up destroying the entire earth.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy also has Earth destroyed, only to make way for a galactic highway.
Men in Black II has Serleena casually destroy a number of planets.
Also, both Star Trek 2 and 3 have significant planets destroyed; Ceti Alpha VI and Genesis respectively.

I'm not sure about release year, but that makes it 8. There's also multiple occurrences in TV, Literature and other forms of media.

Also, I agree that it's the details where each variation of those stories stand out. I disagree, however, that the details these movies are similar enough to draw a direct comparison (beyond the broad strokes you brought up). If we disregard the planetary destruction, there's not really a single common thread between the two. Both of the leads were orphaned, sure, but Luke had a family at the beginning of the movie and secretly his dad is still around - his call to action was forced while Kirk had it as an actual driving force. Both were 'recruited', but Kirk into an established program at the pinnacle of human achievement by a real 'recocgnized commander' and Luke into a secret mission to respond to a secret distress call by an old hermit uncle. Spock and Solo couldn't be more dissimilar, and might even be considered characteristic opposites considering that Spock is logical and calculating while Solo is brash and selfish. And both "Has a love interest" and "must stop the villain" are too general to even really bring up, even though the details in these cases are also dissimilar enough not to necessarily be considered parallels.

 

[gridsleep]

And do not forget the stupidest, most stubborn villain in the history of anything. No, either one, really. It does not matter.

 

[m00se]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

No, the Hero's Journey does not involve planet-destroying superweapons as a rule. They do however involve the "Belly of the whale" which is preceded by an event that makes the hero accept his or her responsibility in the quest. Such as the destruction of something significant or something that the hero(s) holds dear.

Now, on an interplanetary level where the entire universe is at play, the capability to do destroy a planet is not only expected, but also pretty tame.

Your point is also kind of reduntant, considering the fact that JJ Abrams didn't write Star Trek (2009). It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

First of all, how many Hollywood blockbusters in the past 40 years have involved the destruction of one planet and the near-destruction of a second? I can only think of two. Now, granted, intergalactic adventure movies aren't exactly a dime a dozen, but I cannot think of any example of that specific plot point other than the movies I wrote about. Guardians of the Galaxy almost went there, but didn't quite make it.

Personally, I'd like to think that George Lucas saw Abram's Trek film, recognized the clear and deliberate tribute to the Star Wars universe which that film was, and then made the decision to see what other writers and directors could do with his universe (I'm sure the money helped, but Lucas was stupidly rich before Disney came knocking).

I should have nodded to the Hero's Journey in the article itself, but the connections between these two films is more specific than those broad strokes (which can be told in so many different ways, as you know).

Regarding the argument that Abrams didn't write the script, I did give credit to the writers in the article and I also mentioned that Abrams was there to help form the script, and his input was crucial to formulating the final movie. If you look into it, you can see that Abrams clearly wanted to include nods to Star Wars in the film, which he did.

I'm not making this up, and I wasn't born yesterday.

Edit: OMFG I forgot about Man of Steel, but even then the connection branches off because Krypton blew up on its own, and Earth was threatened by that terraforming drill...I'm pretty sure that's it though. Three movies in 40 years. It isn't the obvious device you perceive it to be.

The point is, the impact of the Hero's Journey is everywhere, and the direct inspiration it had on Star Wars is common knowledge. That has been written about to death already. It seemed unnecessary to explain the relevance of the Hero's Journey connection in the article, but in retrospect I should have included a line or two about it.

Let's see.. The space tyrant Sador blows up a planet in Battle Beyond The Stars (1980).
Battlefield Earth has Psychlo blown up by a nuke.
The Alpha-Omega Bomb in Beneath the Planet of the Apes ended up destroying the entire earth.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy also has Earth destroyed, only to make way for a galactic highway.
Men in Black II has Serleena casually destroy a number of planets.
Also, both Star Trek 2 and 3 have significant planets destroyed; Ceti Alpha VI and Genesis respectively.

I'm not sure about release year, but that makes it 8. There's also multiple occurrences in TV, Literature and other forms of media.

Also, I agree that it's the details where each variation of those stories stand out. I disagree, however, that the details these movies are similar enough to draw a direct comparison (beyond the broad strokes you brought up). If we disregard the planetary destruction, there's not really a single common thread between the two. Both of the leads were orphaned, sure, but Luke had a family at the beginning of the movie and secretly his dad is still around - his call to action was forced while Kirk had it as an actual driving force. Both were 'recruited', but Kirk into an established program at the pinnacle of human achievement by a real 'recocgnized commander' and Luke into a secret mission to respond to a secret distress call by an old hermit uncle. Spock and Solo couldn't be more dissimilar, and might even be considered characteristic opposites considering that Spock is logical and calculating while Solo is brash and selfish. And both "Has a love interest" and "must stop the villain" are too general to even really bring up, even though the details in these cases are also dissimilar enough not to necessarily be considered parallels.

First, I'm glad that our conversation has blossomed to a more civil level. Second, thanks for the other planets-blown-up examples, this is an interesting topic, and I am happy to pursue it further.

The specific scenario that connects A New Hope with Star Trek is a super-weapon that can destroy an entire planet that is used once to demonstrate its effectiveness, and then threatened to be used once more against a second target as the climax of a film. When you consider the giant-laser delivery system for the planet-destroying weapon, all of the other examples start to lose their place in comparison. You say that I should throw out that one common thread, so that I might see how generic the comparison really is, but I argue that that one common point between Star Wars: A New Hope, and Star Trek is the reason why this isn't just another Hero's Journey, but is in fact a direct tribute to Star Wars. All of the other comparisons added to that are merely icing on the cake.

At the end of the day, you argue your point well, and I hope we can come to some sort of agree-to-disagree arrangement. What you may see as universal and generic comparisons, I see as deliberate and intentional tributes that should have been called out and already well-discussed. At the end of the day I am super hyped to see what Abrams does for the Star Wars universe.

 

[Scow2]

So, this article is really about how Kevin Mooseles discovered the Hero's Journey?

Does the Hero's Journey involve planet-destroying superweapons? I'm not too clear on that point. The deeper that a person digs into Hollywood, the more one can see how almost every film is a version of another, older story. But the details are where each variation of those stories stand out. The article is about how the Star Trek reboot isn't taking the same template of the Hero's Journey used by George Lucas, but is rather working with the specific template of Episode IV and branching out from there.

My point is that JJ Abrams is the ultimate Star Wars fanboy.

No, the Hero's Journey does not involve planet-destroying superweapons as a rule. They do however involve the "Belly of the whale" which is preceded by an event that makes the hero accept his or her responsibility in the quest. Such as the destruction of something significant or something that the hero(s) holds dear.

Now, on an interplanetary level where the entire universe is at play, the capability to do destroy a planet is not only expected, but also pretty tame.

Your point is also kind of reduntant, considering the fact that JJ Abrams didn't write Star Trek (2009). It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

First of all, how many Hollywood blockbusters in the past 40 years have involved the destruction of one planet and the near-destruction of a second? I can only think of two. Now, granted, intergalactic adventure movies aren't exactly a dime a dozen, but I cannot think of any example of that specific plot point other than the movies I wrote about. Guardians of the Galaxy almost went there, but didn't quite make it.

Personally, I'd like to think that George Lucas saw Abram's Trek film, recognized the clear and deliberate tribute to the Star Wars universe which that film was, and then made the decision to see what other writers and directors could do with his universe (I'm sure the money helped, but Lucas was stupidly rich before Disney came knocking).

I should have nodded to the Hero's Journey in the article itself, but the connections between these two films is more specific than those broad strokes (which can be told in so many different ways, as you know).

Regarding the argument that Abrams didn't write the script, I did give credit to the writers in the article and I also mentioned that Abrams was there to help form the script, and his input was crucial to formulating the final movie. If you look into it, you can see that Abrams clearly wanted to include nods to Star Wars in the film, which he did.

I'm not making this up, and I wasn't born yesterday.

Edit: OMFG I forgot about Man of Steel, but even then the connection branches off because Krypton blew up on its own, and Earth was threatened by that terraforming drill...I'm pretty sure that's it though. Three movies in 40 years. It isn't the obvious device you perceive it to be.

The point is, the impact of the Hero's Journey is everywhere, and the direct inspiration it had on Star Wars is common knowledge. That has been written about to death already. It seemed unnecessary to explain the relevance of the Hero's Journey connection in the article, but in retrospect I should have included a line or two about it.

Let's see.. The space tyrant Sador blows up a planet in Battle Beyond The Stars (1980).
Battlefield Earth has Psychlo blown up by a nuke.
The Alpha-Omega Bomb in Beneath the Planet of the Apes ended up destroying the entire earth.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy also has Earth destroyed, only to make way for a galactic highway.
Men in Black II has Serleena casually destroy a number of planets.
Also, both Star Trek 2 and 3 have significant planets destroyed; Ceti Alpha VI and Genesis respectively.

You also forgot the animated films Duck Dodgers in the 21st and 1/2 Century (All but a small speck of an entire planet was destroyed), and the far more serious Titan AE (Earth again)