Sign In

Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 12

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Batman has been at both ends of the spectrum in his long history. There were doubts in some corners the public would even accept a dark and gritty version in 1989, because most people thought of the 60's tv show more than the comic at the time. (Non comic fans were mostly oblivious to then recent gritty Miller version.) There's room for a "serious" dark knight and a lighthearted one.

Old school Mission Impossible fans were dismayed by the Tom Cruise film, but were not as visible to the media as Trek fans. There was a clueless MTV reporter at the premiere who incurred the wrath of Martin Landau.

If you're unhappy with the current iteration of a old tv show or character, the old versions are still around to be enjoyed.

Exactly. For me, the single best balance of the extremes is BATMAN: THE ANIMATED series, which kept the tone just right, and, more importantly, got the character himself right--world's greatest detective, not crazy, mysterious, grim-but-not-brooding, a sense of humor, etc.

The 60s TV show got the details right, but the tone wrong.

For me, just about every incarnation from 1939 up through the late 80s-early 90s or so kept the basic core of Batman intact, despite wild variations in tone. Ever since the 90s, however, it seems like we've been force-fed a "psycho-ninja" Batman.

BATMAN BEGINS got a lot right, but it's been retroactively ruined for me by the sequels and their excesses. All of the little things I didn't like about BB made up the entirety of the sequels.

 

I'm content with what I have, though. The thing that hurts is that my beloved properties are being misrepresented to the public, and that future generations may not know any better.

After all, people I know have told me that the Fantastic Four are "stupid", solely on the basis of those lousy film adaptations. These people will never know how awesome and important the first 100 issues of that series was. Because of the movies.

 

Now, a generation will grow up thinking that Batman is a violent maniac who has throat cancer, and couldn't solve a mystery to save his life, and James Kirk is an arrogant fratboy with numbtongue. 

 

The prequels have already detracted from the uniqueness of the OT, for many people, by showing us Vader as a child, and Yoda with a lightsaber. An entire generation only knows STAR WARS from THE CLONE WARS. 

I've read of one fan whose children loved Anakin in the first two films and TCW, and refuse to even try to watch the original films at all, since they know that their hero is now the evil Vader.

 

So, now, it's possible to be a STAR WARS fan without ever having seen STAR WARS! And a STAR TREK fan without ever having seen STAR TREK!

Author
Time

Bingowings said:

The 60's show captured the spirit of the comic at the time like no other adaptation.

Pick up a book of around the same time and you will see the telly show looking right back at you.

 

Yep. Aside from the fact that it was, well, a campy parody, the show very much reflected the comics of the time.

 

Now, if only Hollywood would be brave enough to do something like that without the campy, mocking tone, or making "realistic" changes (like Movie Captain America's straps, pouches, and guns, or TV's "Arrow" instead of, y'know, "GREEN Arrow"...

 

Author
Time

Gregatron said:

Yep. Aside from the fact that it was, well, a campy parody, the show very much reflected the comics of the time.

Parody...?

I don't think so and camp as it is it's pretty sober compared to some of the strips back then.

It was a straight adaptation of the books of the day.

None of the other adaptations have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gregatron said:


Exactly. For me, the single best balance of the extremes is BATMAN: THE ANIMATED series, which kept the tone just right, and, more importantly, got the character himself right--world's greatest detective, not crazy, mysterious, grim-but-not-brooding, a sense of humor, etc.


Agree. The Bronze Age Batman struck many of those same cords as well (God, that just reminds me of how I need to read more of the stories from that era).

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

Gregatron said:

Yep. Aside from the fact that it was, well, a campy parody, the show very much reflected the comics of the time.

Parody...?

I don't think so and camp as it is it's pretty sober compared to some of the strips back then.

It was a straight adaptation of the books of the day.

None of the other adaptations have been.

 

Producer (and narrator!) William Dozier was openly dismissive of the character.

So, the show was a campy parody, yes. From the sight gags to the double-entendres, it was deliberately over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek. So much so that it did incalculable damage to the public perception of Batman and comics in general.

The show captured the details of the comics perfectly, but it was still a mocking, campy parody, and its ability to work on two levels is what made it popular with kids AND adults.

 

Compare that to THE GREEN HORNET, a show which was played straight (because Dozier actually liked and respected the character), but bombed after only one season.

 

When has a comic-themed article not began with "BIFF! BAM! POW!"since that series?

 

The comics of the era may have been outlandish, yes, but they were played straight for their intended audience, despite the presence of those outlandish elements. The creative teams of the era were doing their jobs like professionals, and were adhering to the conceits of the genre.

Unlike many of today's comic "professionals".

 

Nolan's Batman--sorry--"Dark Knight"-- is a swing in the opposite direction when compared to the TV series. It's uber-serious, but gets many of the core ideas wrong, mostly in the latter two films. As with Abrams and TREK, it feels very much like the cult of personality surrounding the director, and the fans' eagerness to embrace a version that distances itself from previous, campy (allegedly campy, in TREK's case) iterations, are large factors in the films' success.

 

BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM is still the best Batman movie ever made, for me.

Author
Time

This is so exciting,....Is J.J. really making the next Batman movie?

J

Author
Time

Wow! First there was J.J. Trek, next came J.J. Wars, and now J.J.Man (Bat J.J.?)!

It can't get much better than this!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It can with an Abrams or Michael Bay helmed American reboot of Doctor Who!

Just imagine the explosions, shaky-cam, and lens flares we could get out of a Dalek invasion. And that Call Box needs updating. The only thing of similar size and shape in widespread use in the US I can think of at the moment is a porta-potty. I'm crossing my fingers!

Author
Time

If Shatner doesn't approve, do you think they'll still let J.J. Abrams direct Star Wars VII: The Creeping Fear?

PM me for links to my edits; apparently, some feel shy about this.

Author
Time

Not real, but I like it!

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Love it but too minimalist. Nobody else would like it today.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)

JJ Abrams is a fine choice.

 

There are certain scenes in the Star Trek reboot which had Star Wars written all over it.

Kirk looks forlornly at the construction of the Enterprise at dusk = Luke Skywalker on Tatooine looking forlornly at the twin suns.  In both their minds they imagine what could be out their for themselves.

 

The scene where Spock is being chased by the bad guys (sorry, I dont know the Star Trek universe well) and another vessel is detected.  Out of nowhere, the Enterprise comes out of warp speed guns blazing.  Tell me that doesnt have Millenium Falcon to the rescue of Luke's X-wing written all over it.

 

Abrams' main weakness to Trekkies, and it is significant, is that he doesnt know a thing about the Star Trek Universe.  He knows Star Wars.  He also pulls of a heck of a convincing attempt at a Spielberg movie.  He understands the tone of the films and that is what was missing the most in the Prequel Trilogy.  Frankly, Lucas overdid it in the prequels.  I hate that he made the Galaxy so heavily populated to the point that there was a log jam of human and vehicle traffic in every corner.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

luckydube56 said:


Abrams' main weakness to Trekkies, and it is significant, is that he doesnt know a thing about the Star Trek Universe.


Now this is something I'll never understand. Why has Abrams been handed the reins of Star Trek when he doesn't even understand the universe? Forgive my ignorance - I haven't seen the film myself - but that just sounds completely stupid to me.

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, it's not unlike what happened with Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan didn't know Batman all that well, but it didn't matter since he had David Goyer helping him come up with the story and write the screenplay.

The Goyer to Abrams' Nolan on Star Trek (and the sequel) is Roberto Orci.

All Hollywood ultimately cares about is that the director is competant and can handle a big-budget movie, especially when we're talking $150 million or more. Occasionally, the director also happens to be a huge fan of the property in question. Zack Snyder made Warner Brothers a lot of money with 300 and used it as his chance to finally get their long-in-development-hell Watchmen movie greenlit. Even then, Warner chose to co-finance the movie with Paramount, knowing it would be twice the budget of 300 and once again R-rated.

Scott Pilgrim is a good example of a low-budget adaptation with a geeky director that Hollywood was willing to make since it wasn't a huge financial risk. Compare that to something like Land of the Lost, from the previous summer (and also from Universal), also with a geeky director but with a bigger budget because of the box office potential Will Ferrell's name carries.

This is why I think Joss Whedon never would've gotten the job for Avengers if it'd been a Hollywood studio calling the shots and not Marvel. Handing a $220 million summer tentpole to a guy whose only movie cost nowhere near as much and couldn't even make that back at the box office??? Well, I think the studios will be a little more willing to take a chance like that after seeing how it worked out for Disney.

Author
Time
Anyone here like Wrath of Kahn? Meyer didn't know anything about Star Trek either.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sure I liked Wrath of Kahn.  And I even liked the Star Trek reboot.  

 

My comment was only in regard to whether Abrams could do a credible Star Wars film that doesnt wreak of something completely different than what we've come to love about the original trilogy.

Like I say, I do like his ST reboot but I know many Trek fans did not appreciate the direction he took it and most importantly that it did not have Star Trek themes if that makes any sense.  Besides, he promised nothing other than a Star Wars movie in Star Trek clothing.  He delivered.

I dont necessarily think this would be a concern with Star Wars...not that the unthinkable is impossible of course.

 

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Anyone here like Wrath of Kahn? Meyer didn't know anything about Star Trek either.

IIRC, he and producer Harve Bennett sat down and watched all 78 episodes of the original series. That was how they decided Khan might be a good villain to revisit.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Fang Zei said:


Well, it's not unlike what happened with Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan didn't know Batman all that well, but it didn't matter since he had David Goyer helping him come up with the story and write the screenplay.


I guess this is the cue for me to bring up my intense disatisfaction with Nolan's take on Batman ...

“Happy Halloween, ladies!”

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Anyone here like Wrath of Kahn? Meyer didn't know anything about Star Trek either.

Apparently, neither do you. :P but this is a valid point.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time

anyone know what book or story they might do for star wars VII?i hope they don't do timothy zahn's thrawn trilogy.i hated his books.jj abrams is a good choice.i liked what he did with star trek,except for the spock kissing ohura stuff.i didn't like his show lost.maybe in the future they can get peter jackson or ridley scott to direct a star wars film.

"you make a living by what you get,but you make a life by what you give"           winston churchill

Author
Time

Gregatron said:

So much so that it did incalculable damage to the public perception of Batman and comics in general.

However it was perceived by adults at the time, it certainly didn't damage Batman for me. Very much the opposite.  I was 5 years old at the time and never missed an episode.  At the same Bat Time every week, on the same Bat Channel, I was sitting in front of the TV with my cape on (towel held on with a big safety pin) waiting to see my masked hero fight crime.

The camp and double entendre were lost on me, but the idea of a crime fighter with a secret identity struck a cord.  That show made me the Batman nerd I still am to this day.  I can watch the original TV show these days and take it for what it is (was); a product of its time. For me personally (now), Nolan gave me the Batman I wanted.  Burton did too on his first film only.  The Schumacher stuff is shit.

Star Trek is the same way. I loved the original series, I can stomach the first film series, I like the first two Next Generation films, and I'm very happy with Abrams' work so far.

If anything;  Nolan and Abrams brought me back to franchises that I'd abandoned many years earlier, out of dislike for the directions they'd taken.  Zahn did the same for me with Star Wars, as did Barbara Broccoli with the James Bond franchise.

All four franchises had become sealed capsules of what I wanted from them.  Distilled down to select entries, never to be expanded on. I was happy with what I had as a fan, but I was finished with them expanding.  Or so I thought.  New isn't always bad and in my case it's been a wonderful surprise.

 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time

bkev said:

 

TV's Frink said:

Anyone here like Wrath of Kahn? Meyer didn't know anything about Star Trek either.

Apparently, neither do you. :P but this is a valid point.

 

Darn.

Author
Time

lastjedi said:

anyone know what book or story they might do for star wars VII?

I doubt it will be one of the existing stories

i hope they don't do timothy zahn's thrawn trilogy.i hated his books.

I think we'd be very curious to hear about this.