The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

Urh

New member
Oct 9, 2010
216
0
0
I still think Bob is being too generous in regards to Abram's Star Trek. As a dumb sci-fi/action movie, it's average at best, but as a Star Trek movie it's terrible. Empty is the perfect word to describe it. It felt like a movie masquerading around in a Star Trek skin suit, not unlike the bug in Men in Black.

Bob does touch on an important point, one which Jim Sterling has also commented on - this apparent rise in the acceptance of mediocrity. I think part of the problem is that there appears to be an increasing number of people out there who don't appear to understand that it is possible to like something while simultaneously criticising its flaws, and yearning for better (it certainly explains why some people think that Yahtzee hates everything). Another possibility is that people are increasingly afraid to be seen as complaining too much - the trouble is that if you don't complain at all it creates the false belief that all is well and perfect (when it clearly isn't).
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
As long as its all original in story, concept and characters. An its filmed dirty and real and on film sets and mostly in real world area. A desert, a forest or whatever. No green screen. JJ could do a good job if its set in reality, the originals were good because of the fact that even though it had robots and aliens, the setting was real. The prequel trilogy everything looked fake and it was difficult to believe anything and also all those three movies were just nods and winks to the original trilogy. Any original stuff in it sucked badly. Although the emperor was awesome......he is like freddy krugar in space. lol
 

Goliath100

New member
Sep 29, 2009
437
0
0
If Abrams want to do this right he should just fill the theaters with poison gas. It will the world a better place. (My First one was Empire Strikes back, and this is the answer to Bob's question in PM review)
 

Mumorpuger

This is a...!
Apr 8, 2009
606
0
0
Okay, I can understand not liking the choice of Abrams because he will make a good-not-great film. Everyone wants their beloved franchise to have a film that becomes the year's best.
 

Satosuke

New member
Dec 18, 2007
167
0
0
I was neither happy nor angry to see Abrams announced as the director for Star Wars VII and I wondered what had Bob in such a row over it. Now I understand why. As a movie I really liked Star Trek, but as something part of the Star Trek mythos it fell pretty flat, with only the pitch-perfect casting being its saving grace (especially Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy). Not even that could stop the feeling of betrayal I felt as a long time Trek fan.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
Well the longer episode version of your displeasure was certainly more insightful and reasonable than the short burst rant version. Can't say how I feel really. Never was into Star Trek and I haven't even seen the Abrams one, let along most of his other work.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
You know what Bob, you don't often do this, but you convinced me.

I'm one of the few who really, really liked Star Trek as a fun Sci-Fi movie, but you're absolutely right. It's safe.

Safe is the last thing I WANT Star Wars to be and it doesn't have to be. As you said, hundreds of millions of people will see it on title alone. Thus, you could put Uwe Boll in charge and it would STILL make obscene amounts of money.

It's such a beautiful chance to do something new and interesting, but from a business standpoint, Abrams makes perfect sense.

After all, there's nothing massive companies like Disney love more than safe, shallow and marketable.

Dammit Bob, now I'm sad.

Though I do have to nitpick what you said at the end. I don't think it's US that accepted mediocrity. The nerds, the fanboys, the people that make up our culture NEVER accepted that. The people that DID are the normal movie goers that outnumber us 100 to 1.

I'd love it if you could come up with a solution, but I don't see one anywhere...

ALSO: I have to say I am still fairly hopeful because of the writer. The guy who made my entire childhood cry at once in Toy Story 3 could do some interesting things with Star Wars.
 

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
The answer to the last question is a resounding: yes.

But it's not just limited to films, it's a problem in almost every creative industry and indeed virtually all industries. About the only area anyone is seemingly willing to excel at these days is making money.
 

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
Ultra-Chronic Monstah said:
Unfortunately, none of it even matters. Abrams could create the greatest sci-fi films in cinematic history with Episode VII, and people would still complain about it. Star Wars has become too romanticised by the fanboys. While the critics might call it a technical masterpiece, many will whine that it's "just not Star Wars". I love and still care about the franchise. It's a part of my childhood and adulthood, but I'm prepared for the internet to collectively gather their pitchforks when Episode VII is released.
And do you know why those fanboys still say it's not Star Wars regardless of how perfectly OK any other films might be...it's because the first trilogy had a unique spirit all of its own even if it was marred by various production issues.

That's the difference between something great and something that's just good...unique creative energy.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
The Gentleman said:
I do find it odd that they picked the same guy who did Star Trek to do Star Wars. They're two almost entirely different franchises that share only a word and a target audience demographic.

Think about that: other than the general "sci fi" genre, what exactly do the two series have in common from a content perspective?
They're both sci-fi nerd franchises which have seen their best days and are in desperate need of revamping for the sake of new audiences, if they hope to survive beyond an old cult status?

I don't have a problem with Abrams. I really don't. I don't put enough significance on either Star Trek or Star Wars these days to really worry about the idea that they are being helmed by the same guy. Other directors, such as James Cameron, has managed to contribute to multiple sci-fi franchises without corrupting them or ruining them, so I know for a fact that multi-tasking can be done pretty well. As for Abrams directing Star Wars...I think it will be the writer that will make or break Star Wars, rather than the direction. Abrams knows how to paint a scene, how to create tension, how to do action shots etc. Mechanically, I think he's fine for the job of making an exciting family orientated space opera - as he already did with Star Trek.

Bob wants Star Wars to be something more than a good film. He wants it to be memorable, but Sci-fi and geek movies are dime a dozen. A director's personal signature only helps so much in making a movie last the test of time. Joss Whedon could never have made Avengers more than just a movie I watched once, and never bothered with again. Who knows if Avengers, as good as it is, will stand the test of time?
 

Screamarie

New member
Mar 16, 2008
1,055
0
0
I agree wholeheartedly with Bob about "nerd" movies being too safe and I agree that we, as fans, are part of the problem. We don't want people to screw with our favorite fandoms so we ***** and moan until the only thing directors feel they can do is put on the most blandest, middle of the road tripe that will hopefully not offend too many people.

BUT! I also feel that there's a bit of "we have to make sure this has mass appeal" thing too. I mean come on, the transformers movies...I don't feel that was made for transformers fans, not really. It was made for what I believe most people call "bro-douches" who want to see a giant robot piss on a man and another giant robot with wrecking balls for...well...balls. Those were made because everyone knew the transformers nerds were going to see at least the first one, so they got their money there, but then they made it not appeal to them so they could get even more money elsewhere in other demographics.

That or Michael Bay is just a total idiot...or both...yeah...yeah I like both.
 

darksakul

Old Man? I am not that old .....
Jun 14, 2008
629
0
0
I notice during Bob's rant his accent started to slip in here and there. Specially when he said certain key words like Star Wars. I do not think this would happen unless Bob was emotional meaning to be he truly believes what he is saying and this J.J. Abrams thing is really bugging the hell out of him. I just hoping that Bob's emotions is a driving force and not just clouding his own judgement.

It also made me rethink the choice of J.J. Abrams for Star Wars and I would think Disney would pick a director who better or worst pick a director with a clear and exciting vision.

Bob is right Abrams is good but he kinda blah as well, other than bad lens flare in the Star Trek reboot their nothing that really made it really great compared to the older trek films.

I also notice TV, Movies, Video Games and even books has gotten blah or mediocre lately.
 

TheSchaef

New member
Feb 1, 2008
430
0
0
This at least wasn't a foray back into the "I don't like lens flare" category of criticism.

I don't deny that Abrams might be getting a bit more geek cred than he deserves, but frankly, I enjoyed Fringe and Alias (which seems conspicuous for its absence in his list of TV shows in the video), and MI3 was the best of the lot.

I would love to see Whedon or Bird or even Snyder helm one of these pictures. I think Martin Campbell would have been a great choice also; I love his visual style, and he showed in the Zorro movies that he can make a fun, light action-adventure with humor and heart. But I suspect that after Green Lantern, nobody will let him within 12 parsecs of a geek movie again, which is too bad.

I can't say I would be in favor of throwing it to someone like Blomkamp or Aronofsky or Fincher or Insert Your "Auteur" Director of Choice Here. The movies they make are excellent but they carry a different vibe. Star Wars was never thinly-veiled political satire, or a stark psychological drama, or noir-style pervasive moral darkness. There have been times when Lucas thought he would be clever and liken the Empire to Republican presidencies, or make us feel the dark descent of Anakin into the Dark Side, but they never fit well into the mythos he himself created.

And maybe it's wrong to assume Blomkamp couldn't shift gears, that he would necessarily try to draw parallels between the Star Wars universe and the African diamond conflicts, or whatever. But no more than to assume a director Bob regards as pedestrian couldn't do the same job. Clearly I would feel more comfortable with one of my aforementioned preferences, if only because I can mentally connect their style to my perception of the Star Wars universe. But Abrams made Star Trek 09 a fun romp with characters I loved to see on screen. If that's all he does for Star Wars, it will still be exactly what the franchise needs to recover from the Lucas hubris.

Like Bob, I don't claim my opinion as certain. Like he reserves the right to be pleasantly surprised, my view of Abrams is best described as cautiously optimistic.
 

Dangit2019

New member
Aug 8, 2011
2,449
0
0
uanime5 said:
It's not the directors or fanboys who want movies to be safe, it's the people who own the rights to the merchandising. They want a safe movie that won't alienate people so they can sell t-shirts, games, and toys to as many people as possible. They don't want another Django where some pressure group prevents toy sales because they didn't like the movie.
This.

I mean, has Bob forgotten that fanboys don't own the industry? J.J. Abrams is what makes sense to a Disney executive who hears "Star Wars" and thinks "that's that Jar Jar movie, right?"

I don't mind Abrams taking a shot at this, though. If anything, the visuals used in Abrahms films are great and dynamic (even if they sadly get forlorn by everybody who thinks they're masters of cinematography because they know what lens flare is). I do wish that he breaks out of his comfort zone, because even though I liked Super 8 and Star Trek, he needs to take the franchise in a new direction that still has it's soul.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Everyone wants safer that's why it sells. What about the Noland Batman films, his vision was a bit off....
 

Littaly

New member
Jun 26, 2008
1,810
0
0
I see what you say about this, yet I can't seem to muster up any strong feelings one way or the other. I haven't been able to since the whole Star Wars continuation was announced, and I'm a guy who practically worshiped Star Wars no more than five or six years ago. It's like Star Wars had its time and place for me and now I don't really care what happens to it, it's a strange feeling, or at least alien to me :-/