Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by Feelicks, Apr 13, 2013.
Is your avatar a woman eating a cat?
I think that Steven would be a great Star Wars director for films with a tone like A New Hope or Phantom. Maybe not as good a choice for an Empire or Sith. However, if he has a bad script like Indy IV (bad script in my opinion) then I don't even think that he can save it. I think his directing fee would rule him out of any future Star Wars gig even if he wanted it which I suspect that he doesn't anymore considering the quotes he has come out with.
There's a big difference between a single bit of bad science to deliever a needed result (red matter) vs willfully ignoring all of physics through out an entire movie just to deliever an Aerosmith song set to a Bruce Willis death scene... That's right you have to kill all of science to get Bruce Willis to die hard.
Next off The Rock and Bad Boys where movies more about awesome line delievery always trying to blow away the last line in awesomeness, both movies where so cliched you could see how every twist would turn out minutes prior... they aimed at low intelligence and delieved, as Obi-wan said "Good Job.". Star Trek aimed at a higher level and delievered, but upsetted a hard core fan base by slightly 'Star Warsizing' it... which just goes to show you how right JJ Abrams could be if they're aiming for something akin to Episode IV. Plus unlike Michael Bay he has experience with TV shows and will likely help produce any tv episodes that lead up to Episode VII.
I'd even take Spielberg over Bay (and I'm very against Spielberg), since even if one considered Bay good at one point he's fallen a far greater ammount from his peak (which was never that high to brgin with) than Spielberg did with even Indy IV vs his best movies. Plus Spielberg too, has experience with TV.
They should get Steven Soderbergh to direct...
Does she eat a cat every time I masturbate? Is she god? Is this conversation proper?
I say Nah......
I sense the dark side has clouded the issue
Quote: How would you feel if Steven Spielberg directed VIII or IX?
I would be happy. Will he ever? Probably not, though.
I'd be happy as long as Kate Capshaw isn't cast.
(Her daughter is fine for casting though; I loved Jessica Capshaw in Grey's Anatomy.)
Arizona is Kate Capshaw's daughter? Holy ****! Did not know that.
She must have green eyes.
And you watch Grey's? One more reason I like you.
She mostly just licks her kitty.
If she did I would sacrifice her to appease my emperor and live out my earthly pleasures with Miao Yin.
Not really, but I've probably seen every episode of the first six or seven seasons, none after that.
Still kinda weird. Is it for shock value? I'm not a huge fan of cats so I don't really care. Just curious.
Nothing shocking about licking a cat.
Id like to see Spielberg direct a Star Wars film. If not an Episode, maybe a spin-off.......
It's come to this. Filmmakers can petition to have their films given the Criterion treatment. It's not all done by being selected.
Just want to point out that JJ Abrams actually wrote the screenplay for Armageddon
Also, no, no, no, I'd say both Star Trek and Super 8 are far better movies than Armageddon. But it's all a matter of opinion of course.
Also the Lost pilot - that's probably the best-directed pilot I've ever seen!
single bit of bad science? I'm not even talking about science. I'm talking about writing. I'm saying they broke THEIR OWN RULES about Red Matter in the same film in which they explained them. (in case you didn't know, Red Matter isn't real ) That is bad writing. And that is just one example. I can go on and on about how little sense the story makes in Star Trek. And that is without bringing old Star Trek into the mix. I'm talking about their own film is inconsistent from a story-telling and character motivation point-of-view. And yes, I can bring up how wrong their real science is as well. Like the way they handled creating an alternate universe through time travel. It is a terrible, terrible movie. The only reason people like it is "wow Karl Urban is awesome as Bones" and "so much action and explosions ooooooooo!" and they forgive all the other stupid crap in it.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind J.J. working on anything TV related for Star Wars. He's a good fit for TV. It's when he has to tell a story on film that he starts sucking. Though Alias went on for too long. He should've had a 3 season arc in mind and stuck with that. Oh well.
And speaking of aiming at low intelligence, that's J.J.'s Star Trek movie for you. Even that idiot at Red Letter Media said that the reason why J.J.'s Star Trek was so much better than the Prequel movies was because you didn't have to think. Yes, he hates the prequels because they make him think. And the reason he likes J.J.'s Star Trek is because it's exciting and he doesn't have to think about what's happening. There's your lowest common denominator at work right there.
And I think you missed the point of both The Rock and Bad Boys.
I just want to point out that I already pointed that out.
Ah, so you did apparently. Sorry about that.
BTW, I loved Star Trek '09 - you don't have think, sure, but it's fantastic entertainment. Kind of like Star Wars
Admitting that you like a movie that doesn't make you think doesn't make you stupid.
Well, the problem is Star Trek is supposed to make you think. It's science fiction. But J.J.'s movie was an action film in space, not science fiction. It's everything that Star Trek isn't supposed to be.
I thought this thread was about Steven Spielberg directing Episode VIII. When did it turn into "J.J. sucks... aargh!"?
He was told to do that though by Paramount so you cant hold that against him, and all the future Spock scenes where designed to make one think. So it didnt totally cop out. All you're really doing is stating why JJ is a good choice since Star Wars is an action film in space, yet your using a fallacy to go an extra step by stating that since Star Trek wasnt 'Star Trek' therefore Star Wars wont be 'Star Wars' under JJ which is a logic leap instead of looking at Star Trek 2009 and Star Wars and seeing if they're alike which is the logical way to view this.
So what if red matter was bad science, so was the death star. However the bad science there was no where near as bad space shuttles making it out of low earth orbit, splitting a comet in half with a nuke barely past its surface relative to size, giant space crystals, guns working in the vaccum of space, Nasa able to prevent this in a few months and not decades, the canyon on the comet, the fuel reserves of the suit the 'blew' the astronaughts back down, etc...
Your argument is akin to saying Abrams killed your childhood and now you dont trust him, fine good for you since that's your choice. However fact remains Star Trek 2009 was Star Wars IV with Star Trek characters and ships swapped in. JJAbrams is a good fit, please stop derailing this thread.