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)
The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Ultra-Chronic Monstah said:
That's the difference between something great and something that's just good...unique creative energy.
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?The Gentleman said:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This.uanime5 said:
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.
Everyone wants safer that's why it sells. What about the Noland Batman films, his vision was a bit off....
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 :-/
I love the choice, after all, he's the one who directed the ONLY Star Trek movie I really enjoyed, and Super 8 was just beautiful in my opinion.
But I do agree that "fanboyism" overprotects properties that it sees as belonging to THEM (as in, Mass Effect belongs to us, not EA or Bioware or whomever; that is ultimately a lie, fanboys just took it hostage), in a retarded and childish, albeit well intentioned, way of maintaining, for instance, the fidelity of a given character. However... Mister Bob is guilty himself of that behavior...
But I do agree that "fanboyism" overprotects properties that it sees as belonging to THEM (as in, Mass Effect belongs to us, not EA or Bioware or whomever; that is ultimately a lie, fanboys just took it hostage), in a retarded and childish, albeit well intentioned, way of maintaining, for instance, the fidelity of a given character. However... Mister Bob is guilty himself of that behavior...
Yeah, a bit off topic here but, does anyone know whte name of the cartoon at 5:13? Bob always puts in the old cartoon references and some i can remember. THe ones i don't always stick with me until I can figure it out. I know those animal totems came out of their chests to help beat the bad guys, but i can't remember the name.
OT: I have never liked or disliked JJ, I always had a feeling of "meh". Realistically I just don't anticipate a sense of wonder and awe from the pending Star Wars films. I really hope that changes...
edit: nevermind I found it,
<youtube=ZCnmM8mSM7I>
OT: I have never liked or disliked JJ, I always had a feeling of "meh". Realistically I just don't anticipate a sense of wonder and awe from the pending Star Wars films. I really hope that changes...
edit: nevermind I found it,
<youtube=ZCnmM8mSM7I>
This is the reason why I watch movies for fun and don't get too into good/bad/mediocre or other movie related stuff so I can enjoy the films.
I liked the new spider-man except for how they made Lizard
I still like phantom menace and the new movies, well the third one was a bit... meh, but still
I have a friend who started studying movies a year ago (he studies writing scripts) and I'd hate to do that, he can't enjoy movies anymore, well I don't think he can, he reads too much into everything
I know a bad movie when I see one or then I just don't like it due to not being my type of movie but the only thing I've actually hated so far as a whole was DBZ evolution because I was such a huge fan as a kid and teenager
I liked the new spider-man except for how they made Lizard
I still like phantom menace and the new movies, well the third one was a bit... meh, but still
I have a friend who started studying movies a year ago (he studies writing scripts) and I'd hate to do that, he can't enjoy movies anymore, well I don't think he can, he reads too much into everything
I know a bad movie when I see one or then I just don't like it due to not being my type of movie but the only thing I've actually hated so far as a whole was DBZ evolution because I was such a huge fan as a kid and teenager
This might be a mini rant but fanboy has turned from meaning "hardcore loyal fan of the game" to the connotation that "You are a blind mindless sheep".Orks da best said:
Why would people change the connotation of the word fanboy to a negative one? Well the answer is quite simple (at least to me). People who are considered fanboys go against the grain these days and normally don't care if others don't agree with them because they are enjoying said games/franchises. However, the increase of trolls and their desire not only to start fights but also to make sure that people should hate the games/franchises as well have actually become the social norm.
Really it is quite disturbing to me. I think about all the classic games that came out during the NES, SNES, n64/ps1 era and there were 0 trolls and fanboy terms were rarely used and if used was meant in a positive way. Now it is just another social norm to hate on something but if you are still passionate and a hardcore loyal fan you are looked down upon and insulted with terms such as fanboy to get you to conform to their social standards.