The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

[MB202]

Okay, sure, nothing he's made sound that spectacular, but come on, are you really going to cry foul just because the new Star Wars movie might turn out to be merely average? Like you said about The Phantom Menace? Oy... Granted, I probably would have liked to see someone else more creative than Abrams direct the movies, hence why Zack Synder intrigues me, but still, the way Bob's been acting about it, it feels like he's reacting the same way if Michael Bay was put in charge. Explained here, it makes a little more sense why he's disappointed, but like I said, it's not THAT BAD of an announcement, and ESPECIALLY not as bad as he's made it sound since the announcement.

 

[MYWA]

Disclaimer: I hate JJ Abrams and I'm going to ***** about it and will unconditionally hate the new Star Trek AND Star Wars movies based purely on this notion regardless of their quality.

Actually, I found MovieBob's rant to be fairly frank and well-reasoned. He even admitted he may have overreacted. At no point did he say he "hated" J.J. Abrams, and he went of his way to explain exactly what his feelings were toward Abrams's output and why he felt that way. Now, you can disagree with his assessment of Abrams - after all, it's a matter of taste. But you don't get to do is try to paint it like MovieBob is being frothing-at-the-mouth irrational here, and paradoxically, it seems as though your cheap attempt to easily write him off as unwilling to properly respond to something he doesn't like in a reasonable and thoughtful manner betrays your own lack of willingness or ability to respond to something in a reasonable or thoughtful manner.

_______

As for MovieBob...Interesting take. I wouldn't have thought much either way about Abrams as director of the new Star Was movie, though I guess that's part of the problem. For one thing, I don't have much of a horse in this race, since I'm not that big into Star Wars. For another thing, this movie is to me a naked cash-grab until proven otherwise. As I see it, Disney could've done much worse than to recruit Abrams to direct. LOL @ Bob's naivete in thinking Disney bought Star Wars to break the mold and do something dangerous, interesting, or even just fun in a new way.

 

[jmarquiso]

MI 3 was the closest to the original TV series, and it took JJ Abrams to stand up to the other powerhouse that is Tom Cruise to make that work. MI4 came a touch more in that direction, but had less of the soul in it. Both are very good movies. I would argue that Abrams and Bird both outdid de Palma by a long shot.

Not that de Palma didn't have a good vision. Because he certainly did. But it was ultimately a forgetable Clancy-esque espionage picture about a guy in a mask, whereas MI 3 and Ghost Protocol were about themes that made the original series great - teamwork, for instance.

Were they "safer". I think that they were.

 

[SlightlyEvil]

I was bracing for yet another angry fanboy rant, but was pleasantly surprised by how much I agreed with you. I've been struggling to put my finger on what was wrong with putting J.J. Abrams behind the camera on Star Wars. I liked his Star Trek, and I'm looking forward to the next one (mainly because, as a Sherlock fan, I would watch Benedict Cumberbatch read the phone book); I even enjoyed Mission Impossible 3, though I can't really tell you anything that happened in it (apart from brain-bombs). Bob hit the nail on the head this time by pointing out Abrams' problem: he is technically proficient, but not exceptional; good, but not great. And Star Wars is the kind of property that needs a visionary. It doesn't even need to be remotely like Lucas' vision - KOTOR 2 showed us that - it just needs to be behind your story.

 

[luvd1]

Yeah, just a little foam mad ranting but the premise is still sound. JJ is a very mediocre director. if they wanted a movie that just doesnt suck they might as well give it to Paul W S Anderson, at lease he has some feeling. JJ Abrams movies all remind me of real Japanese robots, very uncanny valley.

 

[RoonMian]

No. The biggest science-fiction universe is still Perry Rhodan. That one is even still lacking a movie adaptation.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Well, I never like it when people are brought in to provide sequels for things that would be better if they just drowned in nostalgia (see my love of Halo crushed by 343 Industries), but I can't see too much wrong with JJ Abrams as a writer/director for Star Wars. With something like Star Wars, there's been far too much time for people to imagine how the story begins and ends, filling in those plot points now just seems like a really bad idea. Like when I enjoyed Halo because of the religious undertones about a zealous alien alliance trying to destroy the very thing they held sacred because their leadership was fooling them into fighting a war to increase their political power, much like what happened with the Crusades. When the story of the Forerunners got told, suddenly that all changed as the focus shifted from humans to Forerunners, who had at one point been alluded to as the same thing. Suddenly it wasn't a cautionary tale about blindly following your religious leaders, but instead a generic space opera about aliens that died and then came back again, like Mass Effect, Prometheus, and so many others. It was the ability for new writers to come in and put their own spin on the franchise that watered down its meaning and ruined its original greatness.
Just like with Star Wars. When the prequels introduced midichlorians, it killed the mystical nature of the Force. When they made Anakin an asshole, everyone stopped feeling bad for Darth Vader. I don't like knowing that we won't get something new and exciting from the new Star Wars trilogy, but I would like to come out at the end of it with a shred of love left for the originals, and the only way I can see that happening is if JJ Abrams treads very lightly on the subject matter.
And anyway, why not get the guy who made District 9 to make something new and exciting, like he did for District 9? I wouldn't want to waste that creative talent reiterating an old universe, no matter how much potential that universe had.

 

[walsfeo]

JJ Abrams: the HALO of film directors.
But still, do we know who the producer is?

You know, he would probably churn out a nice Halo movie. I'd see that.

I was initially against Abrams directing Star Wars but after further thought, and once seeing seeing this, I think he's a much better match for Star Wars than Trek. My objection had nothing to do with the fact one man helming two major geek institutions, but more on the fact he did a pretty poor job on Star Trek. Once I recognized that the story forms for the two are so different it's pretty obvious that he's more suited to Star Wars than Trek.

Trek needs something great to propel it into another strong TV series and extend the franchise. On the other hand Star Wars just needs something that is "pretty good", or at least doesn't completely suck. Really, at this point, Star Wars would benefit greatly from a movie where stuff happens and the viewers are just taken along for the ride without being hit in the head by stupid. I hate to say it but a jump to the middle, at least until someone with real passion for the story can be found, might be be just be what Star Wars needs.

 

[Thamian]

I'm not getting into the whole J.J Abrams question since the only thing of his I've even watched and that I lost the will to continue watching before the end of the second episode, so I'm really not qualified to comment.

However, in answer to the closing question, as far as I can see, no, audiences, fans, humanity, etc. are most definitely NOT afraid of director driven films, of films which are alive, which have significance beyond the broad beats of their plots and/or action sequences. Indeed, films like Avatar, The Avengers, the Lord Of The Rings films, Nolan's Batman films and so on all demonstrate that brilliantly, not only by having raked in so much cash, but having done it at rates or times of year that convention wisdom would pronounce impossible.

The problem is that those audiences don't own Hollywood. They might ultimately pay for it to exist, but they don't own it. The money-men do. And that's fine and dandy, and hey, I don't see any other way to work it that wouldn't be open to horrific abuse.

However, ever since the financial fuck-ups of 2008, those self-same money-men have been terrified of their own shadows, trusting only in the results of their risk-return analyses and modelling programs. In industry that's fine, production rates, profit margins, even product consumption rates are reasonably easy to predict accurately and easily reducable to numbers that those programs can crunch nice and easy.

But film? Hell, more broadly speaking, the entire entertainment industry?

Not so easily quantifiable. Smash hits can come out of nowhere, some films expected to do well become mega-hits, while others bomb spectacularly, and precisely none of it has the slightest bearing on how much money was spent on it, or on when it came out or anything. Yeah ok, there are broad rules (like how summer films are expected to rake in the cash while late year films are expected to rake in oscar nominations for example), but even those don't always hold up.

The response that Hollywood seems to have settled on as a result is to force the artistic content into nice safe boxes in the hope that, even if the return on it isn't fantastic, atleast it's DEPENDABLE. It's safe. Even they know that the chances of them hitting monetary home runs like The Avengers in such cases are limited at best, but hey atleast they're also likely to make something, and due to the parlous state of the world economy, the people in charge rarely have the testicular fortitiude to greenlight anything that's particularly risky, atleast not on that sort of AAA level.

Note that I'm talking about money here solely. Yeah, that's because these aren't ascended directors/writers/actors/composers/animators we're talking about. We're talking about financiers and producers who only got into the business for the money (the other sort being too busy actually producing films to run these sorts of massive corporations). As a result, if the art suffers for their bottom line, all to the good.

 

[shiajun]

Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars is that important to me. I don't really care for either, and that may make an atypical nerd somehow. it doesn't matter. However, I do see the qualities in both and, if anything, the problem here isn't Abrams directing Star Wars, it's Abrams directing Star Trek. His vision of Star Trek is rather different than the universe before it, yet its tone fits rather well with Star Wars, as a whole. From the directors Bob mentioned, Neill Blomkamp is much more of a fit with the themes behind Star Trek and away from the tone in Star Wars. Let Abrams have Star Wars, he might just make it watchable again.

I don't really trust Abrams as a writer. Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe all start fairly strong then loose their way. Lost is even more notable because when he was actually truly involved was phenomenal (first season) and then Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindeloff went to crazy town. I attribute Damon Lindeloff's terrible influence to the non-sensical Prometheus script. Alias was much more Abrams and it also went to crazy town by the third season. It was all too jumbled up. Felicity only went strange in the last episodes but its setting prevented it from going odd, except for the ocassional oddball episode (like Megan's box Twilight Zone tribute). Fringe...haven't seen that much, but they can't seem to capitalize on its promise. As a director, however, his not that bad. I agree with Bob, they reek of commitee safeness, but he can put a well looking, exciting, readable movie. It's the script you have to worry about, and that one seems to be in good hands, for now.

 

[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.