Can someone do both "Star Trek" and "Star Wars"? Apparently so.
It looks like J.J. Abrams will be the director of "Star Wars: Episode VII," the first "Star Wars" film under the Disney banner and the first installment of a planned new trilogy, according to reports published Thursday. Neither Lucasfilm nor Abrams has officially confirmed yet, but an official announcement is said to be forthcoming.
This is surprising news, as not only is Abrams the captain of a certain other sci-fi action adventure tentpole series, he also said back in November that he didn't want the "Star Wars" job.
"I have some original stuff I am working on next," said Abrams in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, though he made it clear that his declining the offer isn't because he's not a fan.
"As a kid I was always a fan of special effects," he said. "Watching movies I was constantly trying to figure out how they did it, whatever the effect was. 'Star Wars' was the first movie that blew my mind in that way; it didn’t matter how they did any of it because it was all so overwhelmingly and entirely great."
Well, Abrams may now be the one who's overseeing all that great stuff after all. The Force is apparently strong with Lucasfilm chief Kathleen Kennedy, who may have performed a Jedi mind trick on Abrams in getting him to commit to a trip to a galaxy far, far away.
Abrams apparently wasn't the only A-list filmmaker recently targeted by Kennedy, as "Argo" director Ben Affleck was also approached for the gig, according to The Wrap. Affleck seems to be shying away from the franchises, as he apparently also turned down an offer to direct "Justice League" at Warner Bros.
You've taken your first step into a larger universe. Where no man has gone before.
Wild, conspiracy theory prediction- this is Disney's first tentative, insidious step to locking down every major Science Fiction franchise, as sure as the Mickey/Star Wars crossovers were the first flirtations of Star Wars acquisition.
Why would they want this you ask?
Disney has always looked to the future- and once space tourism becomes safe and routine in 20 or 30 years, they will be the first to build Disneymoon- a science fiction theme-park in a space station shaped like the classical mouse head.
The final sign will be when they master space elevator technology, and co-opt Dr. Who for the rights to make the pods look like Tardises (Tardi? I'm not up on Whoisms).
I am overwhelmed with new hope of what I will be doing with my grandkids after I retire.
Mixed feelings on this to honest. Abrams is certainly a decent director and I loved MI:III and Super 8. Star Trek on the hand was a well shot and decently paced action film, but an utter failure as a Star Trek film. It completely missed the point of what the Star Trek was supposed to be about. Not to mention having an appallingly bad script and plot holes so big you could fly the Enterprise through them.
LuciusAR wrote: It completely missed the point of what the Star Trek was supposed to be about.
This sort of attitude is why the series strongly needed a reboot. It needed to get back to it's adventures roots and away from all the 'tut-tut'ing' on the bridge. The series was bogged down in it's, and it's fans, overinflated sense of self-righteousness, which includes people thinking there is only one way to approach it, as if it were some religious canon.
This sort of attitude is why the series strongly needed a reboot. It needed to get back to it's adventures roots and away from all the 'tut-tut'ing' on the bridge. The series was bogged down in it's, and it's fans, overinflated sense of self-righteousness, which includes people thinking there is only one way to approach it, as if it were some religious canon.
Star Trek was never just an adventure show though. I think people forget just how revolutionary Star Trek was at the time, even if it seems dated today. It was an show that tackled many real contemporary issues. It was never just about zapping stuff in space, which is all the 2009 film offered.
Star Wars needs a fresh, authentic approach. As far as I can tell, Abrams makes product; glossy, expensive-looking product but just product all the same. I should have figured, after John Carter, that Disney wouldn't take any risks with Star Wars and Abrams is the right choice for generic commercial movie making. His Star Trek movie was super fun and superficial.
How is that different from the prequels? It's not. That's the problem.
Manchu wrote: His Star Trek movie was super fun and superficial.
That’s an excellent summing up of the 2009 Star Trek film. It was basically cinematic junk food, tasty but unfulfilling. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, but I expect more from Star Trek. I would rather watch a Star Trek film that tried to do something deep and failed than one that simply decided not to bother.
I’d rather watch The 1977 Motion Picture that JJ Abrams’ effort and that’s not something I say lightly.
Ahtman wrote: The prequels were painful, not fun. That would be an important difference.
Oh don't be that way. They had their fun moments, just as Abrams's Star Trek had its painful ones.
I got almost no fun moments out of the prequels. The only two characters I liked were killed in the first movie, and all the bad ones (i.e. everyone else) seemed to live on forever. If I had to say nice things about them I would say that I thought that Ewan McGregor did a decent Alec Guinness, and the Rifftrax of the prequels were fairly funny. Outside of that, I found them just terrible from almost start to finish. I don't begrudge others for trying to find a silver lining in them, but I sure didn't.
For my money the best Star Trek anything in the last 20 years was Galaxy Quest.
I loved the new Star Trek. Did it have plot holes? Yep. Did every single Star Trek series have massive plot holes? Yep. Did they generally have them on a per episode basis? Yep. Not really seeing the issue. I enjoyed the casting for the relaunch and in general the way it was handled. And I got started on Star Trek in The Next Generation.
I like Joss but Serenity was horrible for consistancy and non-plot holes. I only really enjoy it now because I watched Firefly and then rewatched it. And even then it was pretty crappy some of the jumps it made. I just happened to like the characters now. While Avengers was excellent for a brawler film (also with massive plot holes).
I would have been ok with Joss but am happy with Abrams.
@Ahtman: Nothing good to say about Ian McDiarmid's performance? The battles of Geonosis and Courscant did nothing for you visually or aurally? How about the sight of Kamino or the design contrasts showing "historical" development? The idea that the clones were not the enemies during the Clone Wars, as many had guessed in the interim, but rather the Jedi's own troops who would eventually and catastrophically turn on them doesn't motivate you to give Lucas some credit as a clever writer? And, most of all, the theme of how even enlightened stoicism implies myopia rather than moral clarity did not in your opinion inform and ground Luke's experiences in the Original Trilogy?
I mean, I know it's possible for someone to dismiss everything about the prequels. It just seems a bit of a shame.
Ahtman wrote: The prequels were painful, not fun. That would be an important difference.
Oh don't be that way. They had their fun moments, just as Abrams's Star Trek had its painful ones.
I got almost no fun moments out of the prequels. The only two characters I liked were killed in the first movie, and all the bad ones (i.e. everyone else) seemed to live on forever. If I had to say nice things about them I would say that I thought that Ewan McGregor did a decent Alec Guinness, and the Rifftrax of the prequels were fairly funny. Outside of that, I found them just terrible from almost start to finish. I don't begrudge others for trying to find a silver lining in them, but I sure didn't.
For my money the best Star Trek anything in the last 20 years was Galaxy Quest.
What guys did you like? I guessing Darth Maul but who was the second one - Liam Neeson's dude?
Everything you listed has zero to do with 'fun', which is what you originally asked about.
I also think you are giving much of that way more credit then it deserves. There was nothing about it that was clever, and seemed that much of it was every bad decision was given a yes, and anything that might actually have been clever a 'no'. I thought the Battle over Courscant was a kitchen sink of CGI and flashing lights, hoping we wouldn't notice it was devoid of anything interesting.
I know it is possible for a person to want to like something so badly that they imagine quality, weight, and subtext that doesn't exist in the work, but it happens sometimes.
This is one area I don't think we will find much common ground. THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: What guys did you like? I guessing Darth Maul but who was the second one - Liam Neeson's dude?
Ahtman wrote: Everything you listed has zero to do with 'fun', which is what you originally asked about.
Good acting, special effects, thematic content, and plot twists ... don't make for fun movies? Again, not saying the prequels were perfect or even good, just that you seem to be going out of your way to miss what is good about them. Such is the way of the internet.
Ahtman wrote: Everything you listed has zero to do with 'fun', which is what you originally asked about.
Good acting, special effects, thematic content, and plot twists
And here I thought we were talking about the Star Wars prequels.
Admittedly I wasn't as adverse when I first saw them, but each subsequent viewing the films get worse and worse. Some movies get better with repeated viewings, I found it to be the opposite in this case, to the point where I really don't see much good in them, and I honestly don't see how you get good acting, (good) thematic content, and plot twists out of it, unless we view them as some sort of Rorschach test where the viewer sees in them what they want to see, whether it is actually there or not.
Manchu wrote: Don't pretend I'm saying they're good movies. I'm saying there's good in them. Cf. Luke on his dad.
I suppose I can relent on that point, I just think you have to mine a little to deep to make it worth the trouble. Now the new FFG Star Wars game, that is good stuff, assuming you can get past the proprietary dice, which some I guess don't like.
I agree with you that there are a ton of obstacles between the audience and the precious few worthwhile insights in those films. But they are definitely there.
The whole series is clearly about the decay of moral clarity because of emotional suppression.
Episode I: Qui-Gonn tells us to be mindful of the Living Force and to keep in touch with what's going on in the here and now. Meanwhile, Yoda and Mace Windu are standing right next to Darth Sidious without knowing it.
Episode II: Anakin and Padme fall in love but instead of this being a happy and open issue, the structure of Jedi morals means their relationship is intense, guilt-ridden, and generally dark. Similarly, the Confederacy -- which could be a proto-Rebellion in a sense -- is actually a shell for Palpatine's totalitarian machinations.
Episode III: Anakin, now scarred by war and death, becomes intensely afraid of losing Padme. Yoda's advice: get over it, nothing lasts forever. At this point, Anakin can't tell the difference between good and bad anymore. Friends and enemies are indistinguishable, ultimately including Padme herself.
Manchu wrote: intense, guilt-ridden, and generally dark.
You just described my entire dating life, and I'm not even a Jedi. Or am I?
Hell thats me the last time I went to a barbeque joint.
EDIT: I'm down with Abrams doing it. Its an established genre. At its best its a roaring high tech version of a serial / B movie. He seems to do that rather well.
I enjoyed the original Star wars (had my dad record them on video for me when I was like 6 because I had to go to bed)
I enjoyed the Prequels
I've enjoyed the Star trek movies I've seen (not seen all of them)
I enjoyed JJ's reboot
They're all good for different reasons, The original star wars were pretty epic, different to anything I'd ever seen (which was mainly cartoons ) and were definatly a product of their time, same as The star trek movies.
JJ's Reboot and the Star wars Prequels are also a product of their time, CGI heavy, flashy, Obvious, and simple. Whenever they try to balance flashyness with deep plot, flashyness wins, beacuse it makes the money.
also
Spoiler:
Maby JJ could reboot starwars, starting from The phantom menace, like he's done with Star Trek.
Maby JJ could reboot starwars, starting from The phantom menace, like he's done with Star Trek.
Or is that too much to ask
That's not happening. At least, not in the next 3 movies.
Count on it being centered around Luke rebuilding the Jedi order and Leia rebuilding the republic. Han and Chewie will stir up trouble, and C3PO and R2D2 will get into some hilarious hi-jinx!
Maby JJ could reboot starwars, starting from The phantom menace, like he's done with Star Trek.
Or is that too much to ask
That's not happening. At least, not in the next 3 movies.
Count on it being centered around Luke rebuilding the Jedi order and Leia rebuilding the republic. Han and Chewie will stir up trouble, and C3PO and R2D2 will get into some hilarious hi-jinx!
With different actors... right? 'cuz Ford, Hammil and Fisher are getting a bit "geriatric".
Ahtman wrote: Everything you listed has zero to do with 'fun', which is what you originally asked about.
Good acting, special effects, thematic content, and plot twists ... don't make for fun movies? Again, not saying the prequels were perfect or even good, just that you seem to be going out of your way to miss what is good about them. Such is the way of the internet.
I think it'd be interesting if they brought back Mark Hamill as old Luke Skywalker in a sort of Yoda role. They could even make it 100 years or more after RotJ and use Hamill as a hologram training program or ghost or something. That could be a cool nod to the original trilogy without making it completely idiotic.
Normally Id say this is a good thing, but the fact he said he originally turned it down makes me think he wont be that into it and it wont turn out that well.
djones520 wrote: It had robots that coughed... robots that coughed.
General Grievious (or whatever) wasn't a robot, but a creature inside a powered suit. Didn't you notice he had eyes? Apparently in the cartoon he was much more interesting and dangerous, and at some point Samuel Jackson used the force to crush his armor and damage most of his organs, including lungs and such. At least that is how it was explained to me.
This was a problem that the new Star Trek had to some extent as well. A lot of the story is told through another medium, in Star Trek's case a comic book, and then just tossed into the movie as if everyone should have watched/read the outside material. I'm a firm believer that a work should be able to tell it's story without having to get you to buy other parts to really understand what is going on. There is nothing wrong with side stories and the like, but when huge swaths of exposition that play out on screen are left out on the assumption you will go out and by a comic, well, that is just bad storytelling.
djones520 wrote: It had robots that coughed... robots that coughed.
General Grievious (or whatever) wasn't a robot, but a creature inside a powered suit. Didn't you notice he had eyes? Apparently in the cartoon he was much more interesting and dangerous, and at some point Samuel Jackson used the force to crush his armor and damage most of his organs, including lungs and such. At least that is how it was explained to me.
Long story short, Grievous was originally an alien warlord. Count Dooku used the force to down his ship, nearly killing him. Dooku gave him the droid prosthetics and Grievous never learned why his ship had crashed. During the early part of the clone wars Mace Windu was able to use the force to crush Grievous's internal organs as he narrowly escaped capture.
The problem with making a new movie is that so much of the canon, hundreds of years past the end of the 6th film) is already written and the novel s have done an amazing job with being detailed and keeping the canon. Any changes to the existing canon will throw the Star Wars universe out of whack and those hundreds of book will have been retconned out of canon. I would love to see a series about the Yuuzhan Vong war, but it would be hard to find replacements to Hamill and Ford...
djones520 wrote: It had robots that coughed... robots that coughed.
General Grievious (or whatever) wasn't a robot, but a creature inside a powered suit. Didn't you notice he had eyes? Apparently in the cartoon he was much more interesting and dangerous, and at some point Samuel Jackson used the force to crush his armor and damage most of his organs, including lungs and such. At least that is how it was explained to me.
Long story short, Grievous was originally an alien warlord. Count Dooku used the force to down his ship, nearly killing him. Dooku gave him the droid prosthetics and Grievous never learned why his ship had crashed. During the early part of the clone wars Mace Windu was able to use the force to crush Grievous's internal organs as he narrowly escaped capture.
Ok, makes a bit of sense.
But I could literally spend hours explaining how horrible the prequel was, I've done it before. I don't wish to get into it again. I just want to be happy that Lucas can no longer abuse his child like he has been doing. Star Wars has been removed from the abusive home and hopefully its now in the caring hands of adoptive parents who will love and nurture it back to what it was meant to be.
Hordini wrote: use Hamill as a hologram training program or ghost or something.
I like that idea a lot. You're thinking of a holocron, btw.
Yeah, a holocron! That'd be just the thing. The nice thing is they could do a Star Wars film waaaay after most of the EU stuff, so they wouldn't have to retcon all those stories, but with a Master Skywalker holocron they'd still be able to maintain some continuity to the original trilogy.
But I mean, it's a big universe too. They could tell a story during the EU timeline that's completely separate from any of the other stories as well.
Yeah, the Borg are way more intimidating and a lot cooler than that stupid droid army.
dunno, the droids in 1&2 did a good job of being an intimidating faceless mob, especially this bit wwhen all the droids deploy then star decimating the gunguns and the Arena Scene in 2.
Yeah, the Borg are way more intimidating and a lot cooler than that stupid droid army.
dunno, the droids in 1&2 did a good job of being an intimidating faceless mob, especially this bit wwhen all the droids deploy then star decimating the gunguns and the Arena Scene in 2.
I don't see what's so intimidating about droids when Jedi's can go through hundreds of them in a few minutes with little to no effort at all or a 5 year old with no military experience can destroy there main base by himself.
The Borg... Were not. I would like to see some assimilated Jedi though.
That was exactly the problem. The entire army and space navy of the Trade Federation was one big piece of comic relief. How are you supposed to take the bad guys seriously as bad guys when they're all bumbling morons?
The Borg... Were not. I would like to see some assimilated Jedi though.
That was exactly the problem. The entire army and space navy of the Trade Federation was one big piece of comic relief. How are you supposed to take the bad guys seriously as bad guys when they're all bumbling morons?
Yeah... especially since droids/robots can be really SCARY.
The Borg... Were not. I would like to see some assimilated Jedi though.
That was exactly the problem. The entire army and space navy of the Trade Federation was one big piece of comic relief. How are you supposed to take the bad guys seriously as bad guys when they're all bumbling morons?
Yeah... especially since droids/robots can be really SCARY.
I think the exoskeletons from Terminator are a good example of a robot army that was pretty cool as opposed to completely ridiculous.
It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
I wasn't arguing that it was a good decision, in fact I thought it was a bad one. It removed any real moral question about the application of violence.
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
I wasn't arguing that it was a good decision, in fact I thought it was a bad one. It removed any real moral question about the application of violence.
Also having completely useless enemies ruins the sense of danger and dramatic tension in the film.
Any bets on how that would go? Can a lightsaber deflect gauss flayer rounds? It's not like Jedi wear armor of any kind... bet a lightsaber would do a number on a 'Cron once they got into stabbing range. I wonder if it would have a similar cauterizing effect on living metal as it does on flesh?
Any bets on how that would go? Can a lightsaber deflect gauss flayer rounds? It's not like Jedi wear armor of any kind... bet a lightsaber would do a number on a 'Cron once they got into stabbing range. I wonder if it would have a similar cauterizing effect on living metal as it does on flesh?
No no... we'd need some sithlords bro-fisting some 'crons.
Any bets on how that would go? Can a lightsaber deflect gauss flayer rounds? It's not like Jedi wear armor of any kind... bet a lightsaber would do a number on a 'Cron once they got into stabbing range. I wonder if it would have a similar cauterizing effect on living metal as it does on flesh?
Gonna show my nerdery here, but...
Just because the Jedi that we saw during the trilogy did not wear armor does not mean that is the case.
Look at the Old Republic era. Those armor designs did not come out of nowhere.
Squigsquasher wrote: Still, George Lucas is still the best director when it comes to Star Wars. Although I reckon Michael Bay could do a good job.
Sorry, I can't let that pass without comment.
At the end of the day, George Lucas gave us Star Wars and directed one of the best two of the series (the other being Empire). Unfortunately, he also directed the worst three and I can't see any future efforts on his part being much better.
As for Michael Bay... well I'd rank his output at about the same quality as episodes I-III (except The Rock. The Rock wasn't bad).
Squigsquasher wrote: Still, George Lucas is still the best director when it comes to Star Wars. Although I reckon Michael Bay could do a good job.
Sorry, I can't let that pass without comment.
At the end of the day, George Lucas gave us Star Wars and directed one of the best two of the series (the other being Empire). Unfortunately, he also directed the worst three and I can't see any future efforts on his part being much better.
As for Michael Bay... well I'd rank his output at about the same quality as episodes I-III (except The Rock. The Rock wasn't bad).
I was trolling about Michael Bay. He can stay away from Star Wars.
Squigsquasher wrote: Still, George Lucas is still the best director when it comes to Star Wars. Although I reckon Michael Bay could do a good job.
Sorry, I can't let that pass without comment.
At the end of the day, George Lucas gave us Star Wars and directed one of the best two of the series (the other being Empire). Unfortunately, he also directed the worst three and I can't see any future efforts on his part being much better.
As for Michael Bay... well I'd rank his output at about the same quality as episodes I-III (except The Rock. The Rock wasn't bad).
I was trolling about Michael Bay. He can stay away from Star Wars.
whembly wrote: The "unsaid" news is what is great for me... and that is...
GEORGE LUCAS AIN'T DOING IT!
w00t!
Yea I jumped for joy when I heard this, for that very same frigging reason. Weather its good or bad, at the very least, you know the new StarWars movie wont be a snooze fest like that last couple ones where.
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
Unless the other armies had shotguns, then the jedi are toast. Yea block a load of 00 buckshot mofo!
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
Unless the other armies had shotguns, then the jedi are toast. Yea block a load of 00 buckshot mofo!
Totally getting the image of a shotgun wielding Jedi Hunter with a deep Texan drawl.
Ahtman wrote: It seemed like they went more of the route of droids because you can feth droids up all day and not get hit with an R. Imagine all the scenes where Jedi are slicing up droids and replace the droids with humans (or humanoid aliens). It would be a blood bath.
But.. c'mon! Who wouldn't want to see any army of Jedi's feth up another army and watch the limbs fly! At least there wouldn't be a whole lot of blood!
Unless the other armies had shotguns, then the jedi are toast. Yea block a load of 00 buckshot mofo!
Totally getting the image of a shotgun wielding Jedi Hunter with a deep Texan drawl.
Easy E wrote: I want him to remake A New Hope. I'd be interested to see how another crew (Actors, Directors, Screen Writers, etc.)handle the material.
However, that probably won't happen; unless it is in another alternate timeline!
Its not often that I recommend someone be crucified for their heresy, but you sir, have gained that honor. HERETIC!!!
Touch the original Star Wars with your foul "reimagining" and I won't be held responsible when the wiener legions lick the skin off your bones.
whembly wrote: The "unsaid" news is what is great for me... and that is...
GEORGE LUCAS AIN'T DOING IT!
w00t!
Yea I jumped for joy when I heard this, for that very same frigging reason. Weather its good or bad, at the very least, you know the new StarWars movie wont be a snooze fest like that last couple ones where.
George sold Lucasfilm to Disney, not just the Star Wars IP. This means that while Disney is ultimately the owner, Lucasfilm is still driving the franchise and Lucas is thus still going to be involved.
I learned photography when lens-flare was considered bad discipline (learn to use a hood or angles that don't generate it).
Yes, it has its uses - but it's like tobacco grad (sunset) filters - overused.
I did like the lens-flare in DragonSlayer (from the flames). As the flames were all animated, and the lens flare is also animated - as this at least showed some skill at the time.
It served a purpose in Babylon5 and gave 'depth' to the space scenes.
The modern fixation on it (and its cousin, cinema-verite' shaky-cam) are pushing it to the point where it will be the velvet painting of vfx (tacky and tasteless and a relic of a forgotten age).
I would have preferred Joss, but whatevs. I think ol' JJ will be better for this than he is for Trek. Not that his Trek movie was all that much worse than any of the others, but there is always the off chance that we can get a sci fi movie out of the Trek franchise, where as Wars is pretty solidly science fantasy.
whembly wrote: The "unsaid" news is what is great for me... and that is...
GEORGE LUCAS AIN'T DOING IT!
w00t!
Yea I jumped for joy when I heard this, for that very same frigging reason. Weather its good or bad, at the very least, you know the new StarWars movie wont be a snooze fest like that last couple ones where.
George sold Lucasfilm to Disney, not just the Star Wars IP. This means that while Disney is ultimately the owner, Lucasfilm is still driving the franchise and Lucas is thus still going to be involved.
Involved? Maybe. It was a similar setup when he filmed A new Hope. And that is arguably one of the great films made, ever. He had his original ideas gak all over, and remade into the awesomeness that was A new Hope. Not to mention he isnt directing it. Thats just awesome in my book. feth SAKE is he a boring director.
Over the shoulder shot, over the shoulder shot, walking shot, over the shoulder shot, over the shoulder shot, sitting. OVER the shoulder shot, walking, over the shoulder while sitting (wanted to change it up a bit I guess) upclose of talking maybe while walking, over the shoulder sitting walking shot.
My problem with Abrams, He missed the point if Star Trek.
ITs not about just action, its about diplomacy and temperance. Many episodes had 5 minutes of action, and those where the best. Even the great movies didnt have copious amount of action in them.
He will make Star Wars about action and flashy sets, when in the Original, it was about the adventure, the coming of age and fulfilling your destiny.
I think people may be getting a little carried away by acting like James Tiberius Kirk boxing and edit for inappropriate content - MT11 his way across the galaxy was some sort of deeply spiritual and socially conscious parable for everything noble about humanity.
Hell, I can do it with the machine I have at home.
One-touch dubbing VHS to dvd. Put cassette in one side, blank disk in the other, press one button and away it goes.
Does it all, format, chapter cutting, the works. I have my non-special edition SW movies on dvd.
Monster Rain wrote: I think people may be getting a little carried away by acting like James Tiberius Kirk boxing and edit for inappropriate content - MT11 his way across the galaxy was some sort of deeply spiritual and socially conscious parable for everything noble about humanity.
On this we agree.
Abrams remake would not have worked for a Next Generation film. But it certainly worked just fine for an Original Series film. Kirk was a brawler. A smart brawler but still a brawler. the original series was in no way cerebral.
Monster Rain wrote: I think people may be getting a little carried away by acting like James Tiberius Kirk boxing and edit for inappropriate content - MT11 his way across the galaxy was some sort of deeply spiritual and socially conscious parable for everything noble about humanity.
On this we agree.
Abrams remake would not have worked for a Next Generation film. But it certainly worked just fine for an Original Series film. Kirk was a brawler. A smart brawler but still a brawler. the original series was in no way cerebral.
Recently rewatched Enterprise (I'd never watched the entire series through and now I remember why) and have personally been thinking on this a little bit. While ToS had some cerebral and well thought out episodes, a lot of them really were just low budget action/adventure plots. Fun for the time to be sure, but hardly the introspective look into the future we often associate with Star Trek. That I feel honestly is the creation of TNG, which had far more episodes dealing with strong themes (though it certainly still had its action/adventure episodes).
So yeah. Abrams didn't miss the point of Star Trek, because Star Trek's point is kind of flexible. If anything I enjoyed the 2009 reboot film, while generally, TOS and Enterprise are my least favorite of the TV series'.
It was thought to be case, now Disney Pictures CEO Bob Iger has confirmed talk that the studio is looking into "Star Wars" spin-off films that will be released independently of the new trilogy. Iger tells CNBC:
"There has been speculation about some stand-alone films that are in development. I can confirm to you today that, in fact, we are working on a few stand-alone films.
Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are both working on films derived from great 'Star Wars' characters that are not part of the overall saga.
We still plan to make Episodes 7, 8, and 9, roughly over a six-year period of time, starting in 2015. There are going to be a few other films released in that time, too."
