Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

FreezeUp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Interesting choice, certainly the second finest blockbuster director of the moment. Curious to see what level of control he's granted.

Who do you consider #1?

This is excellent news. As others have said, he's a great choice to helm this. The man is extremely creative and is something that is definitely needed to bring life to this franchise. Funny that he could be bringing both the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises back to life.

Sad Professor

FreezeUp wrote: »

Who do you consider #1?

Allow me to answer on johnny_ultimate's behalf: Nolan, obviously.

pixelburp

Goldstein wrote: »

What are people on about? This will be Abrams' 3rd Star Wars film.

Whatever else can be said about Abrahms' Trek (primarily I hated it as a script), it had more in common with the space-opera of Star Wars than the brainchild of Roddenberry, for better or worse. Star Wars seems like a much better fit for his talents.

He certainly knows how to direct blockbuster cinema (and human drama, even if he often over-eggs that particular pudding), Arndt looks like he know how to mix blockbuster with character; this could yet be something special.

FreezeUp wrote:

Who do you consider #1?

Chris Nolan I presume, seems the obvious choice

Sad Professor

FreezeUp wrote: »

Does Lucas have a say anymore?

No, but he doesn't need any. He's George flippin Lucas. It's like in The Godfather when Vito retired and made Michael the head of the family. Vito was still guiding all of Michael's decisions. I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but if Lucas wants to influence these films he will.

Bullseye1

I would prefer he had stayed on board Star Trek. I like where he was taking that franchise although he could tone down the light flairs.

roanoke

His Star Trek made me want to watch some real Star Trek, his Super8 made me want to watch Close Enounters.

I imagine his Star Wars will likewise make me want to watch something else.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, but he doesn't need any. He's George flippin Lucas. It's like in The Godfather when Vito retired and made Michael the head of the family. Vito was still guiding all of Michael's decisions. I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but if Lucas wants to influence these films he will.

I dunno: after the relative disaster of John Carter, I'd be surprised if Disney give Lucas any time at all. His role sounds fairly nominal at best, and I'd not be surprised if he's completely frozen out of the creative process (bar a look-in on some of the finished products)

johnny_ultimate

FreezeUp wrote: »

Who do you consider #1?

Zack Snyder.

I was looking forward to the lightsaber duel at 5% speed, with a young Skywalker posing epically for no immediatedly apparent reason other than its inherent awesomeness.

Goldstein

pixelburp wrote: »

Whatever else can be said about Abrahms' Trek (primarily I hated it as a script), it had more in common with the space-opera of Star Wars than the brainchild of Roddenberry, for better or worse. Star Wars seems like a much better fit for his talents.

Absolutely. Science fantasy was always a much better fit for him. The shame is we know exactly what movie we're going to get now and there'll be no surprises on the creative front - another entertaining but predictable Abrams blockbuster but with Disney at the reigns we were never going to get anything more adventurous so Abrams is a decent choice within that context. Still would have much preferred to see what someone like Whedon did with the franchise but it can hardly be worse than the crap that Lucas spawned.

Just imagine how annoying the lens flare is going to be whenever someone pulls out a light sabre.

Liamario

I doubt Lucas will have any say in anything. JJ will consult him and then go home and throw all of Lucas's ideas in the bin. He has no control over the series anymore.

Sad Professor

Unless Abrams adds it in post-production, there's not going to be any lens flare if he shoots it digitally, as I suspect is likely.

And as much as I like Whedon, I don't think he has the visual chops for Star Wars, solid as he is. Look at The Avengers: a massive blockbuster shot in 1.85:1 with the blandest cinematography imaginable, despite being shot by an extremely talented DP. While Abrams is no Spielberg when it comes to the camera, he's still a lot more capable than Whedon.

johnny_ultimate

While I count myself as somewhat of a Whedon fanboy - OMG can't wait for his Dublin visit next month !!111!! - I don't think he'd do any better than Abrams will given his solid but at the same time utterly bland and indistinctive work on The Avengers. When you're in this budget range, adventurous impulses are pretty much forbidden, especially when you're working with Disney or Marvel - the two most risk-averse film studios there are. Auteurs are not particularly welcome. As said above, Abrams is an all round better technical / visual / action director when it comes to this sort of safe yet entertaining fare, so he is IMO pretty much the best high-profile choice there is. Yes a fresh talent or more curveball choice would have been interesting, but at the same time its Disney presents Star Wars - there's very limited potential for subversion or grand artistic ambition in that concept, and I can't think of anyone who fits the bill better than J.J. Abrams.

Bullseye1

Hold the press. Whedon , Dublin, next month. How did I miss this? Details.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Hold the press. Whedon , Dublin, next month. How did I miss this? Details.

He's at JDIFF for Much Ado About Nothing on February 23rd. It sold out pretty much instantly.

Bullseye1

Ah. I'll be at the London Comic Con that day anyway. That's a pity.

Cock. I should really start reading those threads more.

Goldstein

Someone finally listened to Plinkett!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e7Upf6i7dE

indough

Sad Professor wrote: »

Unless Abrams adds it in post-production, there's not going to be any lens flare if he shoots it digitally, as I suspect is likely.

lens flare is caused by the lens rather than the camera itself, if he shoots with anamorphic glass (which he will) there is bound to be some degree of it. i dont mind it myself, he does over use it but there is also tons of it in some of our best loved sci-fi movies. it is a nice effect when used sparingly and i get the impression he will be reining it in a bit in future

i think this is just about the best choice of director they could have made for this film, although i thought super 8 was pretty much a pile of crap. i give him a pass for that though as it probably had a fair bit to do with spielberg's influence

fitz

Abrams for movie 1, Whedon for the second, Nolan for the big finish.
That might just be enough to wipe the prequels from memory...

GhostInTheRuins

This is bad news lads, everyone knows that JJ stands for JarJar...

yogi beer

Speaking from somebody in the Visual Effects industry, I really don't think it's going to be as bad as people think
When Disney bought Lucasfilm, they also bought with it ILM (Industrial Light and Magic), The VFX division of lucasfilm.
ILM did the origional Star Wars and they will be doing the new Star Wars too.
Also JJ Abrams is not a terrible pick. The new Star Trek I thought was pretty damn good!
Not to mention, George Lucas butchered the last 3 Star Wars. They were an insult to the origionals.
Now George Lucas has proven he'll do anything for a bit of cash, so It was only a matter of time before he himself reignited the star wars films.
Personally, I'm happy it's out of his hands. He lost the plot the moment he invented Jar Jar Binks.

Sad Professor

indough wrote: »

lens flare is caused by the lens rather than the camera itself, if he shoots with anamorphic glass (which he will) there is bound to be some degree of it.

I didn't realise anamorphic lenses could now be used with digital cameras. Interesting... Can they be used on a 3D film as well? I assume not since the lens distortion would cause problems.

bruce wayne

It will be interesting to watch how JJ works time travel into the script to save his ass when he runs out of ideas half way through the story

pixelburp

bruce wayne wrote: »

It will be interesting to watch how JJ works time travel into the script to save his ass when he runs out of ideas half way through the story

uhm, JJ Abrahms didn't write the script for Trek

Otacon

bruce wayne wrote: »

It will be interesting to watch how JJ works time travel into the script to save his ass when he runs out of ideas half way through the story

pixelburp wrote: »

uhm, JJ Abrahms didn't write the script for Trek

Or for this new movie. Thankfully, that goes to Michael Arndt, the guy behind Little Miss Sunshine and the screenplay for Toy Story 3.

bruce wayne

Otacon wrote: »

Or for this new movie. Thankfully, that goes to Michael Arndt, the guy behind Little Miss Sunshine and the screenplay for Toy Story 3.

that I did not know....that could be a good thing ;0)

I'm aware he didn't write Star Trek, but as director I'm sure he had some creative input......the time travel aspect of that movie just pissed me off

krudler

bruce wayne wrote: »

that I did not know....that could be a good thing ;0)

I'm aware he didn't write Star Trek, but as director I'm sure he had some creative input......the time travel aspect of that movie just pissed me off

isnt time travel the go to plot device for Star Trek movies? there's four or five of them that use it

Sad Professor

The time travel was also necessary to create a new continuity without being encumbered by the previous 600 hours of Trek.

Kinski

Time travel could excise the prequels from the canon. I live in hope (if not expectation).

Gbear

Sad Professor wrote: »

The time travel was also necessary to create a new continuity without being encumbered by the previous 600 hours of Trek.

Not really. They could've just done a standard reboot.

Sad Professor

Gbear wrote: »

Not really. They could've just done a standard reboot.

Yeah and there would have murder over it. Many of the die hards would have considered a reboot an erasure of the existing continuity. So it wasn't a serious option.

Penn

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah and there would have murder over it. Many of the die hards would have considered a reboot an erasure of the existing continuity. So it wasn't a serious option.

Exactly. The time-travel story they came up with means they can reboot everything but it's a good reason why events and personalities of the characters are going to be different to the originals

Reebrock

Otacon wrote: »

Or for this new movie. Thankfully, that goes to Michael Arndt, the guy behind Little Miss Sunshine and the screenplay for Toy Story 3.

If he handled Toy Story 3, he used to living up to high pressure.

Time Travel should be used in the new Star Wars. Just so they can go back in time and kill JarJar Binks.

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Time Travel should be used in the new Star Wars. Just so they can go back in time and kill JarJar Binks.

Maybe he could Boba's first hit in the Boba Fett origin movie.

don ramo

with Abrams now turning his back on Star Trek i wonder who will take over, this has the X-Men 3/Superman Returns scenario written all over it,

i think its a bad move on Abrams behalf, hes walking into a world where he has rules to follow, the story is a continuation of the previous 6 films, and he will have all the Disney execs watching his every move for the next 2 and half years, and probably longer if he stick around for the trilogy they have planned,

i thought they would get Zack Snyder in for this, give him the script and he can shoot from that, im not his biggest fan but the man undoubtedly has talents behind the camera, and the fact that he didn't write it im more inclined to watch it,

it would be great if they got Guillermo del Toro (another director that would have been great for Star Wars, but i would want him to have a lot more say in it) or Chris Nolan in for Trek 3, there has to be a part 3 at least to it, after all the hard work put into making it so good again,

Gbear

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah and there would have murder over it. Many of the die hards would have considered a reboot an erasure of the existing continuity. So it wasn't a serious option.

A pretty ham-fisted way to go about doing it.

I think the die-hards would've had a moan and then went to see it anyway.
If anything, the controversy would've helped the movie at the box office.

Ultimately the film was going to live and die by it's quality and the time travel element took away from that.

Gbear

Given how little of a back catalogue there is in Star Wars, particularly in terms of how short a space of time it takes place over, rebooting was never really going to be necessary anyway.

I do wonder what sort of story they will go for. Given the size of the universe they needn't even directly connect with the other films - they could be set a thousand years in the past or future.

If they're doing a sequel, as they appear to be doing, the unofficial fan fictiony stories made, mostly involving, as far as I can tell, building badly named uber-Death Stars and cloning the Emperor, will not be up to scratch.

I guess it'll involve some new baddy appearing from the ether. For the sake of lots of lightsaber battles he'll probably have to be a Sith.

johnny_ultimate

Gbear wrote: »

Ultimately the film was going to live and die by it's quality and the time travel element took away from that.

Given that it has 95% approval on rotten tomatoes, a box office gross of $400,000,000 (impressive for a franchise that was in many respects box office poison), and a predominantly positive reception from viewers and fans, I think its safe to say the film's quality level was sufficiently high. Sure there were issues - script, mostly - but I think time travel was an elegant way of making Star Trek's labyrinthine lore accessible again, and I think it was a huge success.

Its probably safe to presume the likes of Midichlorians and Jar Jar Binks will be struck from the record in Episode VII, even if there may not be as literal a plot justification for it as Star Trek offered.

Mickeroo

Imagine if they used the time travel as a means to make a broad fish out of water comedy about saving the whales. Thankfully Star Trek is much too sophisticated for that sort of thing. :pac:

Mr Freeze

Mickeroo wrote: »

Imagine if they used the time travel as a means to make a broad fish out of water comedy about saving the whales. Thankfully Star Trek is much too sophisticated for that sort of thing. :pac:

Was that received well at the time?

Mickeroo

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Was that received well at the time?

Don't know about critically, but it had the second highest US gross behind the Abrams one.

roanoke

Mickeroo wrote: »

Imagine if they used the time travel as a means to make a broad fish out of water comedy about saving the whales.

In fairness, the Star Wars have long been happy to include broad comedy and farce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi5jjXTPtyY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQAq28lPjhk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pV3Z8-q3gU

Mickeroo

roanoke wrote: »

In fairness, the Star Wars have never been afraid to include broad comedy and farce.

Yep, was talking about Star Trek.

krudler

Gbear wrote: »

A pretty ham-fisted way to go about doing it.

I think the die-hards would've had a moan and then went to see it anyway.
If anything, the controversy would've helped the movie at the box office.

Ultimately the film was going to live and die by it's quality and the time travel element took away from that.

Abram's Trek is one of the best blockbusters in years.

Gbear

krudler wrote: »

Abram's Trek is one of the best blockbusters in years.

Doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

My point was rather that there was no need for the time travel and it wouldn't have negatively impacted on how well the film did.
The need to placate nerds was overestimated in my view.

Mitch Connor

Gbear wrote: »

Doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

My point was rather that there was no need for the time travel and it wouldn't have negatively impacted on how well the film did.
The need to placate nerds was overestimated in my view.

maybe.

But it also seems like you are projecting your dislike of the time travel aspect to the rest of the audience. It is more likely that others either didn't really think about it, didn't mind it, or liked it.

I, for example, would say that the time travel aspect didn't negatively affect the movie, and in fact the Spock talking to Spock moment was a very nice one.

I don't think the lack of a time travel component would have positively affected the movie (in box office terms as I assume that is what you are talking about) in any way, so I don't see that your dislike of it and rounding on it holds much weight.

Technocentral

Too predictable and boring a choice, would be much more interesting to see what someone like Ken Loach or Tomas Alfredson could do with material like that.

roanoke

Technocentral wrote: »

would be much more interesting to see what someone like Ken Loach

Finally we could find out what happened to those builders on the second death star.