Discussion How would you feel if Steven Spielberg directed VIII or IX?

lol

 

I DISLIKE THIS IDEA IMMENSELY.

 

Spielberg gets the sensibility Star Wars requires. He's Lucas' best friend and a contemporary.

He has an affection for the cornball boy's adventure movies that Star Wars imitates....J.J.? I don't see any evidence of it (other than his being a Spielberg devotee himself, which is something altogether different, and derivative).

I'm cautiously optimistic for Abrams' work but he seems too cool for Star Wars. It's radically unhip on multiple levels, all the episodes.

 

Anyone would be better than J.J. Abrams.

 

Anyone? Okay cool. I'll get Joel Schumaker on the phone and book him.
Better yet, Uwe Boll to film them all.

 

Spielberg hit his peak years ago. In my opinion, he's lost his touch.

 

Really??

 

Yes, and the script will call for a return to Dagobah, except this time there will be DINOSAURS! Lots of them. And maybe on Endor, too. I'd like to see velocioraptors chomping on Ewoks.

 

How about if we dump Spielberg on Dagobah and just leave him there till he becomes 'old and weak', as a warning to Kathleen Kennedy and JJ Abrams that if they follow Spielbergs path with Indy IV on Episode VII 'suffer the same fate, they will'.

 

How many years ago? I saw parts of War of the Worlds on TV not too long ago, and that was a terrifying, nightmarish movie. War Horse was very good. Lincoln was superb. Tintin was good fun. Catch Me if You Can was entertaining. Saving Private Ryan was the most emotionally draining movie I've ever seen, and am unable to bring myself to watch it again. I'm not saying I would want to see him direct SW, but if anything, I would say he has made some of the best films of his career in the past ten years.

 

Every good thing he's done of late has been an adapation, not an original story which Episode VII will be. He's far better at realistic dramas (the one area he still truly shines in), his funnier movies are just entertaining but not really that great, however Star Wars is neither and of late the only comparible movie he's done is Indy IV which was a horrid adbomination compaired to all the other Indy movies

 

Yes.
He's the worst choice possible.

 

I said best choice "possible". No one's going to hire them for Star Wars.

 

For Star Wars, any horrible director will drop what they're doing to mess with it. So all directors are 'possible' and for a while no one would touch it, not even JJ would touch it, so he wasnt 'possible'. Ben Affleck was in the running... but the guy has never done a movie like Star Wars before (and dont bring up the Ivin Kershner comperison, since Empire was the dark second act and clearly VII is an act I)

Im sure even this guy would drop his current projects for Star Wars

Can you even fathom what harm he'd do the series? Can You?

 

Michael Bay would still be better for Star Wars than J.J. Abrams. Armageddon is a better film than anything J.J. has done. It even got a Criterion Edition DVD release. Hell, even Pearl Harbor is better than anything J.J. has done and that film is terrible.

 

You must live in an alternate reality.

 

Armageddon was 'good' due to great actors, an ok script (and lets ignore the actual science in it which makes even red matter seem plausable in comperison), and a hit single song... not Michael Bay's directing. Pearl Harbor again was only salvagable due to actors of some calibur.

As to JJ, he got fantastic acting out of bloody kids in Super 8 (you know, half the job of a director). As to Star Trek he was told to make it like Star Wars (but it gets far higher ratings than any Michael Bay film on film review sites) Finally Mission Impossible III was far better than Pearl Harbor or Transformers (any of them), even though it was only ok. Dont even get me started on 'bad boys' or 'the rock'...

 

Michael Bay delivered some nice bewbies as Producer of the Friday the 13th remake. That was about it.
And I still think MI3 is the best of the bunch. A hair better than Ghost protocol.

 

I don't want to see the ST flop between directors for each of the film. In this day and age, a director being fired gives the impression of failure on his part, and it could be used as 'evidence' of the VII being terrible. SW can't afford another 'negative' film (in the GP'S eyes)

 

Okay, first of all, there is nothing that can make Red Matter seem plausible. It makes no sense whatsoever, even in the context of the film. First they need to dig a giant hole in a planet so that the Red Matter has enough mass to create a singularity, but then later in the same film all it needs to do is absorb the mass of a ship to create one? Talk about your terrible scripts.

Secondly, Bad Boys and The Rock were awesome. Anybody who doesn't like those films hates fun.

re:MI3 and Pearl Harbor, both movies weren't very good. Sorry. If you like MI3, I'm happy for you. But it did nothing but annoy me. Felt like the plot was recycled from the first one. *shrug*

Also, funny story, apparently J.J. Abrams co-wrote the script for Armageddon. I did not know that. Not sure if that validates or invalidates my opinion though.

 

I liked Ghost Protocol a lot more than MI3. And even though I had some issues with it, I still like the first one the most. At least it started like an episode of the TV show before it devolved into something that Mission Impossible is not.

 

While I understand you want some sense if the source material, a movie version of a TV show can be its own beast. I'm cool with that.