J.J. Abrams Signs Up To Direct Star Wars VII
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
People, why bother letting this colour your expectations? How about ignoring all VII-related news aside from release dates and trailers? Some times you don't get what you expected, and that can be good or bad. Go into this with cautious optimism, and forget all of the previous post-VI stuff for now. Or even treat these movies as a parallel universe, we're kinda used to doing that for other series. The only thing I expect from Episode VII is a quality science-fiction movie set in the "Star Wars" universe, taking place after the events of "Episode VI." I'm pretty sure MovieBob once said that you can make a good movie out of anything, but that sometimes comes at the cost of destroying the source material. So relax, it's just a movie. This will not affect the really important things in your life if you don't like it. And if you don't like it, go back to the stuff about "Star Wars" that you do like. There is absolutely nothing sacred any more, especially your favourites.
Eh. The Abrams Star Trek movies were basically star wars anyway. Not much of a leap to making an actual star wars film, now is it? XD
Pity.
For a moment, I was actually curious how Affleck would have approached Star Wars.
Star Trek 2009 was OK..exploitative of nostalgia to be sure, but at this stage that's the best one can hope for from these franchises. Though this does dash any hopes of watching a good story in a Star Wars film again, instead of just action set piece after action set piece.
The fact that Abrams was adamant about doing a Star Wars film before, and has now flip-flopped instills me with more fear than confidence (the last time I saw this denial-flip-flop in relation to a cash-cow franchise, it was Michael Bay and Transformers).
For a moment, I was actually curious how Affleck would have approached Star Wars.
Star Trek 2009 was OK..exploitative of nostalgia to be sure, but at this stage that's the best one can hope for from these franchises. Though this does dash any hopes of watching a good story in a Star Wars film again, instead of just action set piece after action set piece.
The fact that Abrams was adamant about doing a Star Wars film before, and has now flip-flopped instills me with more fear than confidence (the last time I saw this denial-flip-flop in relation to a cash-cow franchise, it was Michael Bay and Transformers).
I figured Disney would try to get at least one of the films made by him, if only for the fanboy dollars. Still don't care about the franchise anymore, but it'll make its money back no sweat -- and at this point, that's all that really matters.
So every part of the review where he criticized the movie was genuine, but the numerous parts he displayed affection for it were tongue-in-cheeck? Saying it was a "guilty pleasure", that it was "well shot, well light", and "a pretty darn good action movie".Dexter111 said:
Sounds like you're simply ignoring every arguement you didn't agree with.
Awe nuts, I was really counting on Joss Whedon to do this. I still need to see the Star Trek '09, but if Abrams does this anything like Lost, than you have to watch the first 5 minutes of the movie or it will never make sense at all. Well, only time will tell if this works or not.
I don't think we can say J.J. Abrams saved Star Trek because the property just sits dormant between films. People might show up to watch the Star Trek movie but it seems to be forgotten as soon as the next big Hollywood film comes out.
I think the new Star Wars films should be better than the prequel films, but I'm not sure if Abrams will make it anything more than your standard action film that just happens to be set in the Star Wars universe.
Let's just hope that when Disney was writing up the contract they put in a stipulation that lens flair can not be used in the film.
I think the new Star Wars films should be better than the prequel films, but I'm not sure if Abrams will make it anything more than your standard action film that just happens to be set in the Star Wars universe.
Let's just hope that when Disney was writing up the contract they put in a stipulation that lens flair can not be used in the film.
Apologies in advance for obnoxious post carving.
"I refuse to believe that he defiled sacred ground." Also, I disagree that 2009 was a bad film in the franchise going by its standard. Lets take your description of the film shall we?
If I was even slightly less charitable, your description of the franchise as "a solid job of integrating high-concept sci-fi with character drama and even action" really only fits two films in the series (Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country).
Magichead said:
"I refuse to believe that he defiled sacred ground." Also, I disagree that 2009 was a bad film in the franchise going by its standard. Lets take your description of the film shall we?
Now aside from that I disagree that '09 was devoid of ethical or emotional impact, do you think that your description of 2009 doesn't describe Voyage Home, First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis? While the former two films may have had their moments, their main plots are no smarter or complex then 2009's. And Insurrection was just a dull summer film that falls apart the instant you think about the Baku.
If I was even slightly less charitable, your description of the franchise as "a solid job of integrating high-concept sci-fi with character drama and even action" really only fits two films in the series (Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country).
See the above. This brings me to my main point, while you may have disliked the Abrams film, you can't claim he ruined the franchise given the hit and miss quality of it. (Also, everyone forgets that The TOS Films, TNG and The TNG films all had shaky or terrible starts before becoming good).
I'm not too biased towards him directing this film since I'm not a crazed Star Wars fan,but I'm also not impressed with a large majority of his films either...and the Star Wars films are legendary sooo as long as he lives up to the expectations of George Lucas it's A ok!
_ | |
// \\ |***| |
\\_// | | *
_ | |
// \\ |***| |
\\_// | | *
Oh terrific, another opportunity to rape the Star Wars franchise of what little dignity still remains. At this point the plot may as well be pulled together by having people randomly pic ideas out of a hat, good move Disney. This movie has the potential to be about as entertain as watching a time team omnibus whilst having Margret thatcher attempting to give a lap dance.
I can see the appeal of the movie to those not familiar with Star Trek. (To be honest I've only ever watched a handful of episodes and most of the films myself). But I was really bothered by the lack of depth in that film. It was basically a revenge plot where Star Trek movies are usually known for exploring something much more interesting and deeper in human nature (through science fiction). I get that it was entertaining though. I just hope Abrams brings the heart George Lucas put in to the original trilogy. If he dumbs it down or does not have the openness, purity of honesty of George then, like all Abrams other work, it's going to be 'good enough for a night out', but no where near the cultural phenomenon that Star Wars became.SkarKrow said:
For the record, I just watched Episode I /again/ tonight. I stand by my statement that I like it more every time I re-watch it. I have no idea why it's so hated, let alone why so many people think Episode II was better.
