The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

[malestrithe]

Ironically enough, Abrams stole more than one plot line from Star Wars when making Star Trek. Although when they made the joke, Cracked overlooked that it was the Heroes Journey subplot they were following.

That being said, Star Wars should be ejected into the dustbin of history, but it will never be.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Meh, at the end of the day, it's the general public (not us) who are in powers seeing how it was the general publics that love Star Trek and Lost (well the first season or two).

 

[Rblade]

every time I hear about star wars I hope we get this but with more money

Spoiler

 

[Abomination]

Let me get this straight, Bob is upset JJ is going to be director because he's an artist but not a Michaelangelo or Picasso level of artist? He's not famous enough or he doesn't have enough of a style? What he has is experience and while he doesn't make great movies he doesn't make bad movies either? Capable of emulating other directors styles but doesn't have his own defined style?

He sounds perfect for Star Wars. It's something that'll write itself and it has a relatively strict lore to adhere to. It sounds like JJ works well when given a set of parameters he needs to adhere to. He's a safe bet.

I'm happy with a safe bet for Star Wars. I don't want to risk the movies being terrible at a chance of them being super amazing. I just want a trilogy of live action Star Wars films.

All the other potential big names in the industry are otherwise occupied with their own projects or would be incompatible with the Disney model - Peter Jackson comes to mind what with OWNING his own studio and CGI business, what's the point of hiring a direction who has those things, would be most comfortable using those things when you're Disney and are also known for having those things yourself?

It's Star Wars, the fanbase has been bitten and now they're twice shy. It's a good call to play the safe bet.

 

[Trishbot]

I'm sorry, but I HAVE to disagree on some things. I agree that I don't know much about J.J. Abrams from his films, but to say that he is without a vision, or that the examples Bob points out are somehow driven by vision, is a discredit to both.

Peter Jackson has spent the last DECADE adapting someone else's work, someone else's vision, through the lens of his own interpretation of the material. It's a great interpretation and adaptation, but it's not exactly a mind-blowingly unique vision(like District 9, to use Bob's example). Sam Raimi's Spider-man borrowed HEAVILY from pre-existing material, almost beat for beat; as a comic fan, I can point out exactly what scenes he rips off/pays homage to in the first two films almost scene for scene. Even Avengers, which I adored, relies heavily on pre-existing ideas, relationships, characters, and even Joss Whedon was a "safe" pick for an ensemble movie with heroes. When he was picked, NOBODY thought he was going to drop the ball on characterization between the heroes and villains. Nobody. It was as safe a pick as you can imagine (even if it was, initially, an unlikely choice given his limited success elsewhere).

Even then, George Lucas, well... I'll go ahead and say it. George Lucas was a "visionary" but he ALWAYS had a terrible vision. The version of Star Wars that came to theaters was NOT his vision. It was a vision altered, distilled, butchered, and modified by people and editors and storytellers much more gifted and driven by much stronger vision than Lucas ever had in his entire life. Lucas was the spark, but the blazing inferno of Star Wars was created by people with much more fire and talent in their hearts and imaginations, and there's a very good reason Lucas wasn't "satisfied", and never will be, with what these people did to his originally awful conception.

Would I have picked J.J. Abrams? Probably not, but I don't think he's a bad choice. You're right, Bob. He's "safe". But, well, "safe" isn't what you think it means in this case. He's "safe" because he's NOT safe. He's unproven, like you said, in this regard. Star Trek had its faults, but it was widely divergent from ANY Star Trek ANYTHING that came before. It was both respectful to its history yet modern and dynamic. It ushered in new ideas and supplanted old ones. It was daring and brave, yet also "safe" and familiar to old Trekkie fans. It was the best mix of gamble and assured success, but that's what made the movie, and J.J. Abrams, a good pick for it.

You give Star Wars too much power, Bob. You ask "who is this man who has the gall to influence billions of people"? Well, let him make the movie and then find out. You could've asked that about ANY director at some point. "Who is this guy directing Empire Strikes Back that's not Lucas? Who does HE think he is?" "Who is this James Cameron making Aliens after Ridley Scott changed sci-fi horror forever in the original?" "Seriously? We're giving Lord of the Rings to the guy who did Dead Alive/Braindead?!" "Hey, let's give Spider-man to the guy who did EVIL DEAD! Are you KIDDING me?"

Speaking of which... DAMN, I'm so utterly sick of Bob being chronically unable to move past The Amazing Spider-man movie. He just won't let it go. It pops up every bloody time and has been going on almost non-stop for a year now. Seriously, most people LIKE THE DAMN FILM. Bob complains about a lack of risk and falling back on "safe" ideas... what's "safe" about replacing the entire cast of an original film series less than five years after the last, doing a total reboot of an origin story people already think they know, changing an iconic costume, dropping the familiar love interest in favor of a new one, and putting many utterly unique new spins on the well-known property (for better or worse)? Like it or not, it was NOT a "safe" thing to do.

Also... Bob, for the record, "mediocre" basically MEANS "average" - "of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate: The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive. Synonyms: undistinguished, commonplace, pedestrian, everyday; run-of-the-mill."

Anyway, I find it silly to judge a decision before we've seen what the man can do with it first. At the very least, seriously, it HAS to be a step up from the prequel trilogy. Even if it's not a homerun, it can't get any worse than "Attack of the Clones" or "The Clone Wars" movies.

 

[Aetrion]

I miss oldschool Star Trek, where an episode could be just people talking in a room, but the parallels their story had to real life politics gave it a lot of gravity.

Anyways, I personally think Star Trek and Star Wars both need to just go away. They are both trapped in IP limbo. They aren't public domain and probably never will be, even though they have become a cultural cornerstone, so they will never take on a life as rich as myths of old and become the subject of countless adaptations and retellings. (Imagine someone owned the rights to norse mythology, or the arthurian legend, we'd be deprived of a lot of good stories)

We need new franchises of a similar scope. If the existing universes can never really be set free and become molded by all who enjoy them then real creativity just has to come from doing something new entirely.

 

[Farther than stars]

Uhm... The Dalai Lama isn't elected.

When you put it that way the prospect of Abrams directing the new Star Wars is even more terrifying than I initially thought, but you know what? I just don't care about Star Wars anymore.

That's probably the only way to win in this situation.

 

[castlewise]

Well bob, on that last part on fanboys, I agree with you.

But I think fanboys have not only affect the movie industy, they have affect the game industy too, just look at ME 3, just ugh.

Since when did fanboy become another word for hater.

There does seem to be a lot of entitlement these days. I'm not saying fans of a series should eat up everything produced for them unquestioningly, but people need to accept that their vision, or even the community's vision, of what a property should be is not the only acceptable vision. (To be fair it may not be so much that fans are more entitled in general, just that the internet is a huge echochamber and a vocal minority can seem larger than they are.)

 

[Frybird]

Calling "Star Trek" too safe while praising (again) "The Avengers" speaks books to me about how biased Bob actually is.

Because...seriously, i like "The Avengers", very much so, but what risk has Whedon taken on that Abrams didn't.

Both have made a movie based on a risk THE STUDIOS have taken and managed to not piss off the Fanboys (admittedly, Whedon moreso) by delivering a decent Action Flick with some cool scenes, a by-the-books forgettable premise, a fun new look at a well established character (Hulk/Spock) and a seemingly crazy decision that may or may not be fully explored in the sequel.

It just happened to be that Bob liked one more than the other for reasons i reeeeeeeeeeaally couldn't possibly fathom.

Even as for "deserved better", you have to look at how massively skeptical everyone was before Star Trek based on it being a while that the movie series that has always been shaky at best brought up something that actually entertained more people than just the fanboys. It may not have been all the Geeks have hoped for, but it worked out pretty well.

EDIT: And yes i actually like every one of Abrams' MOVIES beyond just finding it "okay and forgettable" and go so far as to say that MI3 is the best of the series, even if it is less clever than the first one.

 

[Farther than stars]

I'm sorry, but I HAVE to disagree on some things. I agree that I don't know much about J.J. Abrams from his films, but to say that he is without a vision, or that the examples Bob points out are somehow driven by vision, is a discredit to both.

Peter Jackson has spent the last DECADE adapting someone else's work, someone else's vision, through the lens of his own interpretation of the material. It's a great interpretation and adaptation, but it's not exactly a mind-blowingly unique vision(like District 9, to use Bob's example). Sam Raimi's Spider-man borrowed HEAVILY from pre-existing material, almost beat for beat; as a comic fan, I can point out exactly what scenes he rips off/pays homage to in the first two films almost scene for scene. Even Avengers, which I adored, relies heavily on pre-existing ideas, relationships, characters, and even Joss Whedon was a "safe" pick for an ensemble movie with heroes. When he was picked, NOBODY thought he was going to drop the ball on characterization between the heroes and villains. Nobody. It was as safe a pick as you can imagine (even if it was, initially, an unlikely choice given his limited success elsewhere).

Anyway, I find it silly to judge a decision before we've seen what the man can do with it first. At the very least, seriously, it HAS to be a step up from the prequel trilogy. Even if it's not a homerun, it can't get any worse than "Attack of the Clones" or "The Clone Wars" movies.

Actually, it's not true that those directors didn't add their own vision to those pre-existing works. Making a film is about more than just the plot. You have to factor in so many more elements: pacing, editing, composition, colour pallet, etc. And that's where directors really get to show their creativity. That's what I think Bob meant by the prequels being better than anything Abrams will (probably) make, because "The Phantom Menace" actually excels in all of those areas; it's just that the plot doesn't develop beyond being a backstory for Darth Vader.

P.S. And the acting was bad. There was that too.

P.P.S. With the notable exceptions of Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, I agree with Bob that none of Abrams' movies are ''great'' movies, but then again, none of them are strictly speaking bad. The trailer for the new Star Trek movie looks pretty neat, so when that comes out, I guess we'll have a definitive awnser to the question what to make of J.J. Abrams as a director.

With that said, I do sincerely hope that every moviemaker working today has learned a valueable lesson from The Avengers: namely that you can make tons of money when you decide to take risks. Some of the best ''franchise movies'' out there are the best and made a ton of money because of that. But it took one massive one to see that even something we've all seen before in Transformers that in can actally be done properly.

My fear is mostly that on the whole, Star Wars is a mostly dead franchise. Or, quoting Yathzee: '' I'd call it the last nail in Star Wars ' coffin, but we won't even be able to put the lid on before people start queuing up to rape its corpse.'' I think that both trilogies form complete stories, I don't really see the whole point of making an Episode VII.

BTW: Bob, seriously now. Pick an accent and stick with it, don't switch all the time. Try just to speak regular American English, because the real stuff will never arrive at your side of the Atlantic. Oh, and the Boston accent sounds fwiggin' ridiclulous.

 

[dubious_wolf]

Bob, I think what you have to consider is how many times our franchises have been burned by people who don't know or care what they were doing with the material. If safe and committee driven movies produce the closest facsimile to the properties we know and love I think a lot more people are ok with that. I think there is also a surge in the number of "fans" and as a result any time you have more people to please the more watered down the material has to be. I think going forward you'll simply see big blockbusters and franchises going to the committees. It's a sime fact that we just don't have as much say in things. The Avengers didn't earn 1.5 billion on the backs of marvel fans alone after all.

 

[metalslug10]

its kinda funny and ironic that someone like moviebob who complains so much that gamers, fanboys (etc etc) whine too much does nothing BUT whine himself

 

[Zer0Saber]

Brooklyn Bob seems to be comming out more often. Anyway, I'm normaly a glass half empty kind of guy, and when I heard JJ was going to direct StarWars, I tought at least now it has a better chance to not be horrible. I would love to have the awe of the original trilogy, but life has has repeatedly crushed my hopes and dreams. Now with Michael Arndt writing, the possibility of Abrams doing a good job, and even Disney canning the 3D re-re-re-ect... releases, I feel like things are getting better. I should expect the universes nut-shot to be very painfull.

 

[aceman67]

I am so looking forward to you eating your shoe on this one Bob. Hell, I'm a Baker. I might just bake you a shoe shaped cake and ship it to you.

I think that all your nay saying is coming from a sense of jaded cynicism stemming from the failures and disappointment of other comic book movies (The pre Nolan Batman Movies, Spider-man 2, 3 and Amazing Spider-Man, the list goes on.) that otherwise just didn't live up to their hype.

JJ Abrams is a Good director, he's made Good films, and great TV shows. I loved the last Star Trek movie BECAUSE it was different then the previous established Trek-movie formulaic. Like you said in your video, Star Wars needs new life and new direction, and JJ will give it that.

But I do have to give you something Bob, and I mean this: You at least made your argument. It was well thought out and articulated, which is a hell of alot better then most of the ones I see coming from the Star Trek and Star Wars communities I frequent.

Man, those places are steaming piles of vitriol right now...