Speculation J.J. Abrams Says There Will Be a Central Love Story

Why does any movie need a love subplot?

Because in the end it's Hollywood and that's almost a "must have."

 

I don't think he would confirm a "central love story" about man-love between 2 guys that are good buddies like Luke and Han- of course he means a love story between a man and a woman. I can't picture them having the new SW with the total absence of a love story/romance. I don't think he is talking Han and Leia or Luke, but the new characters.

 

Maybe they'll all just love their jobs?

 

Not so sure. Did you see the new Star Trek movies? Bromance at its finest. Spock/Uhura felt cold and sterile compared to all the Spock/Kirk-hints and emotional scenes.

 

Star Trek has always been about the bromance. The Kirk/Spock relationship is kinda what drives Trek. The two bantering back and forth alsways a tinge of sarcasm.

Star Wars is about a boy, a girl and a galaxy...at least that's what it used to say before the movie started on my VHS

 

True, but fact is, Abrams didn't shy away from it and delivered plenty fodder for the slash community. Right now this really seems to draw audiences.

 

Agreed

 

Exactly. Star Trek always had Kirk's flings, but nothing serious in terms of a "central love story," Kirk was like James Bond in space. Like the green girl he is with under the bed in the first Trek movie in '09, that is similar to what Trek has been all about. SW is different

JJ would not have put it like that about Kirk and Spock anyway, "Yes, the new Trek has a central love story, Kirk and Spock." That is clearly not what he meant.

Comparing every aspect as if JJ is out to make Star Trek out of Star Wars is doomed for failure, that is apples and oranges.

SW will have a romance in the ST, that is as sure as the sky is blue.

 

I think we all knew there'd be a love story. I'm just hoping it's not a tweenie, Hunger Games or Twilight "love triangle".
BUT Give me a LOST love quadrangle!!!!!!!

 

Well, then please go watch some of Kubrick's and Coen brothers' films. They are among the best american film makers ever and they obviously don't feel the need (or studio pressure) to satisfy demographics by inserting a love story.

Movies don't "need" romance. The fact that it's common place in Hollywood doesn't mean anything other than lack of originality and/or economic and demographic models of movie making. It may be archetypical in certain cases but never a necessity, that's absurd.

 

Imo in recent years hollywood has become more aware of the fact that simply put many people like romance, even fans of action movies. While 80ties action movies didn't include many love stories nowadays this is completely different and I personally don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Why are romances "yucky" when explosions and big guns aren't?

 

I'm guessing that's because pulling off a believable emotional dialogue, performance, chemistry and overall feel is somewhat more challenging than making big guns and explosions work.

But then again, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000881/?ref_=sr_1][/url]some people even manage big guns and explosions not to work.

 

No? Chuck Norris and Van Damme almost always got the girl.

I wonder how they are going tio handle it. The heroine hitting on a guy would be awkward, giving the look in the club and grinding woukld also be awkward. Hiunger Games got it right with the 2 of them isolated and geting close.

 

I knew exactly who your link would lead to.

 

No , I do think romance is one of the key elements , the whole thing is a romance (I know it was meant in other ways but still ) , it has to have swashbuckling , it has to have comedy sidekicks , it has to have OTT villains and it has to have romance .

unfortunately romance is very hard to do , I do hope the main character this time is a female , and that the romance has some comedy and wit to it . You know who'd be good at that - Joss Whedon!!
sorry , ok , must accept Whedon's out of the frame , but dammitt ....!!!

 

"Amelia" Solo might work. Female, Force-sensitive, descended from Leia, with some scoundrelly skills, royal, close to the right age already. Push the timeline up a bit from Fate of the Jedi and you've got a pretty good protagonist.

 

Yeah - thats because Luke is a Jedi and isnt really supposed to mess around with such things. Id be pissed if they did that!

 

Clearly a failure, his films have only generated north of four billion dollars in revenue from theaterical releases alone.

 

They can generate all they want, they are still crap.
Money is hardly the most important factor in judging artistic achievement.

 

In that case, fifty shades of grey is obviously also a glorious shining star of literature.

 

So now we are talking about artistic achievement as opposed to guns and explosions?

Michael Bay's films have been nominated for at least 15 Academy Awards and he was inspired to become a film maker by George Lucas himself.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it doesn't "work". How many film critics panned A New Hope when it came out in 1977? Nearly all of them. Yet here we are today.

If you guys want to talk about art house films and fine literature, that is completely different than trying to sell us that some of the most successful film makers of all time are not successful, or "don't work", based upon you not liking them.

If their films didn't "work", no one would be watching them. They work just fine - Twilight(shudder) works just fine - and yes, 50 Shades of Grey works just fine as well. Doesn't mean I like them but it is silly to try and alter reality to try and paint them as failures.