J.J. Abrams Signs Up To Direct Star Wars VII

[Neverhoodian]

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.

You and me both. Personally, I think Episode I is the only good Star Wars prequel.

I'll warrant it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The midichlorians explanation is stupid, Amidala is a deadpan statue, and implying that Anakin is "space Jesus" just doesn't work. However, it's easy enough for me to overlook/retcon these elements (for example, I tell myself that the Jedi had it backwards: midichlorians are a byproduct of the Force instead of creating it) and enjoy the rest of the film as a whole.

Hell, I even like Jar Jar Binks.

 

[katsabas]

snip

You know, logic is a pretty big thing to throw around once you start talking about a series which includes spaceships, interstellar travel, time travel and in general, technology that we don't even know if it's ever gonna exist.

Abrams has consistently saved 3 franchises and made a kick ass series (apart from the finale, which was, you know, a bit of a cop-out). Abrams' Star Trek could not include the whole canon of the series it was based on, simply because it was a cinema release. What would everyone have to do, watch the entire series in order to understand what the hell is going on ?

You are actually saying that to gain the favor of the Trekkies, the rest of the world would have homework assignments. That's nice.

 

[MasterBrief]

This will be interesting. Not really for anymore Star Wars movies but I think he will be better than Ben Affleck but Faverau would have been a good pick as well. Can't believe Affleck was in line before Joss Whedon, that is just wrong.

 

[Mauler]

Am I actually the only Star Wars blindingly following into dark pit of commercializm Fan who actually looks forward to the New star wars movie... Hope it would be a prequel like about the old republick times or future whith jaden solo...

 

[J Tyran]

It was basically a revenge plot.

The Star Trek film argued to be the best by many fans was a revenge plot. In fact many of the films heavily featured revenge plots, either as the main plot or a sub plot.

 

[The White Hunter]

Am I the only person on this site who likes Abrams movies?

I really enjoyed the star trek reboot, sat down my my good friend with a beer and watched it. Was a damn fine movie.

And Zachary Quinto was in it.

What, do you have a crush on him? That's no reason to like a bland action movie masquerading as sci-fi.

I did at the time being a dumb teenager, but he's a pretty good actor, he was great in Heroes.

I honestly just enjoyed the movie, it wasn't anything amazing but it was entertaining and very watchable. I haven't seen the original star trek films and I probably never will, since I'm not big on movies and I very rarely watch them, it's only on rare occasions that I go and rent a film.

I prefer to play games or watch anime, things like that.

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.

Don't get me wrong it wasn't amazing and it was hardly cerebral, but I certainly enjoyed watching it and it made for part of a decent night in.

I've still not seen the last couple of star wars films that came out to be honest, I haven't seen those special editions either I just liked the original trilogy a lot when I was a kid. Hopefully it's good, then I might bother to watch them. So long as he channels the goodness of the indiana jones movies and star wars we'll be fine, if he looks anywhere else in George's library for inspiration then the movie will be doomed from it's inception.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

hidden snip roll 20+ to see

Can we count star wars episode VII oops we left the lens cover on the whole time and all you get is the audio as worse and blame it on the director?

Wouldn't that be an improvement over the last one?

 

[Fredvdp]

I'm fine with Abrams. He's not the best possible choice, but not the worst either. I'm curious if he'll bring Michael Giacchino aboard as his composer or if he'll ask John Williams. I like both composers, so at least I'll enjoy the soundtrack.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

snip

You know, logic is a pretty big thing to throw around once you start talking about a series which includes spaceships, interstellar travel, time travel and in general, technology that we don't even know if it's ever gonna exist.

Abrams has consistently saved 3 franchises and made a kick ass series (apart from the finale, which was, you know, a bit of a cop-out). Abrams' Star Trek could not include the whole canon of the series it was based on, simply because it was a cinema release. What would everyone have to do, watch the entire series in order to understand what the hell is going on ?

You are actually saying that to gain the favor of the Trekkies, the rest of the world would have homework assignments. That's nice.

Wow. You have managed to completely miss what I was actually complaining about, propped up Abrams' other work, and and make it sound like I am being unreasonable in a relatively short post. Good job.

No where have I suggested anyone has to have previous knowledge of Star Trek to make sense of a Star Trek movie. Ever seen ST:II The Wrath of Khan? That is a self-contained film maintaining its own internal logic and plot construction, with no expectation of previous knowledge of the series in order to enjoy it. And that's the one where the villian is actually from an episode of the series. And it still doesn't require you to know who he is.

ST '09 makes no attempt to uphold the franchise' principles. It is 80% action, 10% lens flare, and 10% character development of people that the fans already know, so the development is bland, omnidirectional, and contrary to what we already know and love. Granted, Abrams didn't give a damn about Star Trek to begin with so it's no surprise he pulled stupid shit like having Spock and Uhura together, or making Kirk out like a selfish preening twat, so I'll drop that argument.

What the movie does fail to do is make any internal sense. How do YOU explain how Nero disappeared for a quarter century between the opening and the second act? How do YOU explain why Old Spock was on the exact same desolate planet that New Spock stranded Kirk on? How do YOU explain what the fuck Starfleet is going to do about a black hole orbiting the earth, causing massive gravitational disturbances on humanity's home planet? How does it make any sense to YOU that Kirk gets promoted from a cadet, currently on trial for cheating on an important exam, straight to CAPTAINING THE GODDAMN FLAGSHIP. Really, I would love to hear how any of this makes sense to someone.

And finally, how do you explain turning a forty-plus year franchise with a reputation for strong character drama, scientific inquiry, moral quandaries, and a pretty consistent tone of all this throughout its history, into a familiar sci-fi action romp with only tangential relation to its characters, core principles, and story design? I'm sorry, but it's hard for a lifelong fan to just let these things go because Hollywood's latest darling thinks they mean nothing.

 

[afroebob]

Wow... lots of really stupid things being said here. I mean a lot. First of all, the idea that Abrams is somehow going to 'destroy the canon of Star Wars because he doesn't care' blah blah blah is easily the most idiotic thing being thrown around. Look at the damn title of the article, he is the director. Not the writer. He has little to no influence on what is in the script (and therefore if they follow cannon). Second of all, the lens flare thing, while there is SOME validity to what you are saying that is really more of the cinematographer's 'fault' (honestly, while they hay have gone a bit overboard I thought the movie looked really nice). However, Abrams did give the OK for the flares and it is POSSIBLE he could try to get the Star Wars cinematographer to do the same thing, but considering the fact that he already did this on Star Trek even if for some reason he wanted to do it on Star Wars I highly doubt Disney would even let him. Remember, he signed on to be the director, not the writer or the producer.

Anyways, the ignorance is strong if this forum.

 

[Elate]

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.

As much as I love Joss, he wouldn't be the right choice for this. He's good at making "group" films/series, about a group of close knit, or to be close knit people, and the dynamics between them. And he's REALLY good at it, but I don't think he would be cut out for something the scope of Star Wars, it's more of an epic journey than a group dynamics film, sorta.

Personally, aside from the lens flare, I liked Star Trek '09, they pointed out several times that it was a new universe, and they achieved wide appeal, while managing to stay mostly accurate to the general sci-fi science.. I don't understand the hate for that film.

 

[katsabas]

snip

Everything you question can be explained in generic sci fi terms. Maybe Nero time traveled. Since we are talking about the same person and Spock was from the future, he somehow knew. Kirk getting promoted is the classic 'sped up life achievement' most people have come to expect. As for the hole, hell if I know. Never bothered with it. You think about this sort of stuff way too much and let them get in the way of you enjoying a movie. Fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it.

As for the chars, they are NOT the ones you expected to see. Why ? Different universe. You've never heard of parallel universes ? The fact that you and a lot of others ST fans don't like it is kind of eclipsed due to the fact that you could not be pleased in any way possible. Not in a movie that spans a bit over, what, 2 hrs ? You expect a, like you say, 40 years franchise to be somehow toppled by a modern remake ? Or the remake to be as good as the series ? Sure, cause things that take so long to come out never blow up in our faces.

I saw character development and I liked both Kirk and Spock. So boo to you, there are different tastes out there. What a surprise, huh ? So what if the fans didn't like it ? The rest of the world did and now they are paying a lot more attention when someone says Star Trek.

 

[zvate]

I think its a good choice. Rather then find someone who will try to engage the underlying philosophy or character bull that has been so badly miss-handled with the more recent movies they got someone who will just make a compitant action movie involving lightsabers. A good starting point I would be willing to buy a ticket to see.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

snip

Everything you question can be explained in generic sci fi terms. Maybe Nero time traveled. Since we are talking about the same person and Spock was from the future, he somehow knew. Kirk getting promoted is the classic 'sped up life achievement' most people have come to expect. As for the hole, hell if I know. Never bothered with it. You think about this sort of stuff way too much and let them get in the way of you enjoying a movie. Fair enough, your time, you choose how to spend it.

As for the chars, they are NOT the ones you expected to see. Why ? Different universe. You've never heard of parallel universes ? The fact that you and a lot of others ST fans don't like it is kind of eclipsed due to the fact that you could not be pleased in any way possible. Not in a movie that spans a bit over, what, 2 hrs ? You expect a, like you say, 40 years franchise to be somehow toppled by a modern remake ? Or the remake to be as good as the series ? Sure, cause things that take so long to come out never blow up in our faces.

I saw character development and I liked both Kirk and Spock. So boo to you, there are different tastes out there. What a surprise, huh ? So what if the fans didn't like it ? The rest of the world did and now they are paying a lot more attention when someone says Star Trek.

I will give the movie credit for this: an aquaintance of mine who had never seen Star Trek in any form watched the movie and decided to give the shows a shot, and ended up loving them. So it is at least keeping Trek in the minds of modern audiences.

I don't want to attack anyone who liked the movie. It's all up to you to make your own opinions about it. I'm just sort of confused about why someone would enjoy it in any capacity beyond a dumb action flick. Plot holes matter a lot less when you are being entertained by lasers and explosions, for sure. My problem is that Star Trek is not about sacrificing story structure and logic in favor of action set pieces. It actually makes an attempt to be coherent (unless you're watching Voyager). I think too much about the plot holes? I want to get more out of Star Trek than I would get from "Transformers 3." I can't just forgive and forget incredible mistakes in the very premises of the plot if I want to be intellectually engaged.

As to why the characters are different...When I first saw ST 2009 I didn't hate it. I liked seeing my old favorite characters back on screen, and kept an eye out for all the little nods to the continuity that reboots usually include. It was fun to watch. The only thing that really bothered me at first was the way the timeline reset. It meant everything about the original ST continuity was either erased forever, or was inconsequential because it's hard to care about anyone when there are infinite parallel universe copies of them.

I have since gotten over this. TNG did episodes like that a lot, with copies of crew members and forays into alternate timelines and universes. So I would have to be bothered by TNG as well, and I can't stay mad at that show. I got over it. But the more I watched ST 2009 and the more I thought about it, the more I see mistakes that are not covered by the parellel universe excuse. The point of a parallel universe is to ask "what if?" To see our favorite familiar characters in either a new situation, or with a new personality, such as the evil Kirk & Co. in the episode "Mirror, Mirror."

This reboot does not do that. It does address the issue of what would happen if Kirk grew up without a father, so him I can forgive. But why is Spock suddenly such an emotional prick because of the single event Nero changed that would have had no effect on him at all? How could anyone be okay with his bizarre, out-of-left-field romance with Uhura? Scotty is now a cheesy comic relief character, apparently. Chekov shouldn't even be on the ship at this point, but of course they weren't going to leave him out. And the casting is a problem too. I'm not sure I like Chris Pine as Kirk. Zachary Quinto is a decent actor, but his Spock is too much like Sylar from "Heroes." Just a bit creepy and flippant; he doesn't have the ability to pull off what Leonard Nimoy did, and be charismatic even without emotion. John Cho does not work for me as Sulu. I do appreciate Karl Urban trying his damndest to pull off a convincing Dr. McCoy. Simon Pegg, though; I love the guy, but he is certainly no Scotty. And Tyler Perry is the Head of Starfleet? Now I think I've seen everything.

The first duty of a franchise remake or reboot is to get the tone and the familiar elements right. The fans are the people you need to please. Both for financial purposes and because it's just fucking polite. How many game series have dumped their fanbases in favor of wider appeal? It's a dick move, plain and simple. This is what the creators of ST 2009 have done. And I am righteously pissed off.

 

[ViciousTide]

Drew Karpyshyn, author of the Darth bane Triology NYT best seller and the author of KOTR xbox games, let him write and direct the movies!

 

[redmoretrout]

Holy crap seven pages of hate? I can't believe this many people are still passionate enough about Star Wars to give a damn.

 

[Oroboros]

Honestly I am not surprised. I seem to recall an interview I read somewhere where JJ Abrams said he was a bigger fan of Star Wars than Star Trek, and that's obvious from his (IMO horrible) handling of Star Trek-It feel far more like a Star Wars Prequel movie than a Star Trek movie (much less the Star Trek Series). As many complaints as I have about his handling of Star Trek (and there are many) I can't see him screwing up Star Wars to the magnitude he did Star Trek, as he obviously holds it in a much higher esteem (just read his comments on being chosen for the Star Wars sequels). Besides, considering how unbelievably popular his Star Trek movie was even with all of its glaring flaws, and consdiering how much money the Star Wars prequels made despite the widespread dislike for them-I really can't see the Star Wars sequels beign commercial failures even if they were absolute cinematic garbage. At least with this news I can hope for JJ Abrams to be slowly seperated from the Star Trek franchise so It can get a more respectful revival.

 

[floppylobster]

It was basically a revenge plot.

The Star Trek film argued to be the best by many fans was a revenge plot. In fact many of the films heavily featured revenge plots, either as the main plot or a sub plot.

Right. So we've seen that, we've explored that. It's been done.

Although Wrath of Khan was more about Kirk being an asshole for most of his life and it all catching up with him. Because of that, it felt it had more weight because it was Kirk's own selfish history that ended up putting his crew (and eventually his family) at risk. And included a scene of his best friend being completely unselfish to counterpoint his actions. Plus it had the whole genesis angle which was interesting.

Abrams Star Trek was just more like, 'you killed my daddy so I'm going to kill you'. The ensemble cast was good, there was action, comedy and it all move along at a pace. It just felt a little hollow. I don't outright hate Abrams I just find him a little safe and predictable which doesn't lend itself well to Star Wars.