Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 23

Promus: Your avatar should be "THE STAR WARS SAGA: 1977-1996".

The franchise died in 1997, not 1999.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=103710

The announcement of J.J. Abrams being brought on to helm Star Wars: Episode VII has been a very controversial decision. His previous involvement in Star Trek has caused many to begrudge his hiring on Star Wars, but as he puts it himself, the job is "one of those once in a lifetime opportunities."

Abrams spoke with the BBC about the approach he his bringing to the film and hopefully it will persuade the naysayers.

"It's just about about approaching it from as authentic a place as possible, and not trying to apply what you believe or think, as much as trying to filter everything and get at it from the core of the characters. [It should be] what you deeply want to see, never what you assume the fans might like."

Many have been concerned that Abrams' work on both Star Trek and Star Wars will cause the two sci-fi titans to feel the same, but he doesn't feel that way.

"To me they are such wildly disparate universes - the back story, the tone, the mood, certainly the history [and] the characters - that I'm in no way worried."

Without the terrible writing trio of Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof I think JJ will do a fine job. It really does come down to the script. I know that's banal to say, but it's true.

Thrawn said:

Too bad he didn't consider being authentic with Star Trek. I seriously have my doubts that he will in any way honor or respect the Star Wars universe, but that's my own personal viewpoint based on what I have seen of his movies. I sincerely do hope I'm wrong.

I don't think that's really up to him. Lucas' story treatment and Arndt's screenplay will define things.

Film director (if not also a writer) is basically more or less an operational director. In general, I think writers should get more credit than the director since they are the real creative force.

CP3S said:

imperialscum said:

Film director (if not also a writer) is basically more or less an operational director. In general, I think writers should get more credit than the director since they are the real creative force.

This can be true. I feel like film as an art form really shines when it is conceived, written, and directed by the same person. Not to say you can't have amazing films with different writers and directors (Blade Runner comes to mind, and I think that film's triumph is far more the direction that the script), but it seem the majority of films I feel are truly special are written and directed by a single creative force.

I have to agree with Bladerunner. But I think it is a rare example when the film is so great primarily because of the visual aspects rather than the screenplay/idea.

If you look at Alien, the situation is reversed. It is the screenplay and the idea that is really mind blowing. Well it is visually great too but that is more thanks to H. R. Giger's art design than Scott's directing.

CP3S said:

This can be true, I suppose. But a bad director could turn a great script into a disaster, and a great director could technically take a lousy script and turn it into something enjoyable to watch. There are movies with awful writing that are still visually and stylistically engaging to the point of being a decent films. I feel the director is still the maker or the breaker. 

I kinda disagree with this. If the screenplay/idea is great and the director is bad the film will probably turn out good. If the screenplay is bad then there is no director who can make a good film out of it.

I mean the thing is that there are so many people in involved in the production. If a great script is given to a good art department they will come up with something stimulating. If actors are given a great screenplay they don't really need much direction to make the scenes work.

While on the other hand writer/s is/are alone and have the most crucial task from creative point of view.

The good news is that if JJ Abrams doesn't meet expectations, everyone will call him "Jar Jar Abrams".

georgec said:

The good news is that if JJ Abrams doesn't meet expectations, everyone will call him "Jar Jar Abrams".

Hahaha.

Well I have already seen some people call him that. :)

Some films are saved in the editing and by their musical score.

I kind of think of this film that was released in 1977 that was a disaster up until its release.

That had a Hokey script,  and a studio that thought it was going to lose a lot of money.

The Trek fanbase has no idea what it wants. When DS9 came out, people complained because it was a Babylon 5 clone; When Voyager came out, people complained because it was like a rehash of TNG, but with a captain they didn't like; When Enterprise came out, people complained that it had too much fanservice and also that it was again a rehash of TNG.

Enterprise was a wonderful show, but it was cancelled after 4 seasons for low ratings.

Trek needed change. It needed something new to attract new fans, and JJ Abrams did that with flying colors. No matter what anyone did in making the next Trek movie, a ton of people would bitch and moan, because the Trek fans are too divided on what the heck they think makes Trek good.

Case in point: I've read on many a site how a lot of people are in love with the idea of Khan Noonien-Singh (from Star Trek II) being in a new Trek movie. But you mark my words, if he is, then a crap ton of fans will call the movie an unoriginal  rehash, while others bitch about how Ricardo Montalban was way better.

Star Wars is the polar opposite. Star Wars VII isn't being made for new fans, so much as it's being made for old fans who want a reason to love their favorite franchise again. In fact, JJ Abrams is a fan of the OT, so I don't see that he would be nearly as bad a choice as having George Lucas.

JJ is not keeping Lucas out of the loop.

And he did not have Gene Roddenberry to consult on the 2009 movie as he has pointed out.

Problem is how much time can he devote to star wars, with a third Trek feature and a fifth mission impossible i don't think he is going to be the New Lucas , he is going to be a director for one picture and that is it.

It is obvious however that episode VII is the most important because its a vehicle of revival for the franchise only if it makes a mountain of money.

They are betting big on JJ. That or the  marketing of toys and whatever else.

Seriously. When was the last great Trek movie before (2009)?

Star Trek VI, that's what.

People hated Generations because Picard was too moody and Data was too comical. People hated First Contact because it was too dark. People hated Insurrection because it might as well have been a 2-part TNG episode. People hated Nemesis because Data was killed (despite Data explicitly saying during the episode "Time's Arrow" that he didn't want to outlive his friends) while others hate it because B4 somehow allows Data to not be killed (again, despite "Measure of a Man" stating that the flavor of Data's memories should be lost.)

Aaand... people hate Trek 2009 because it's too much like Star Wars.

Again, Trek fans don't know what the hell they want.

I think the reason Trek fans don't know what they want is because they are a more fluid fandom. There is so much more material available to them that often, each fan has substantial preferential differences. Maybe they liked half of this series and season from this series, and only a few episodes from this series. 

Star Wars fans generally match up in more polarized groups because rather than receive a lot of material, we've mostly just gotten rereleases of the same material with some sort of superficial alteration. I'm sure that if Trekkies were limited to the first 6 Star Trek films, and saw them go through the same things we've dealt with, they would know exactly what they want.

To be honest, if the PT hadn't been such a let down, Star Wars fans would probably be even more united in their opinions.