PT JJ Abrams opinion of the prequels?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Luukeskywalker, Jan 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. Luukeskywalker Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 4
    Hopefully the mods see this aceptable of having its own thread in here. I didn't want to post this in the Episode VII forum, as it would obviously be or turn into a prequel discussion.

    Now that we officially have our Episode VII director, I am curious as to what what Mr. Abrams thinks of the prequels. I want to know if Abrams is a director who is going to come in not respecting the direction of the saga since 1999 and if he is coming in to put his stamp on it to "save" Star Wars. Or perhaps he likes the prequels just fine, and that is not his intention at all. Or perhaps he isn't big on the prequels personally, but that will have no influence on how he approaches the new movies, and he is going to respect George's legacy no matter what his personal opinion of the direction of the saga since 1999.

    I read in the the "JJ Abrams is the director" thread in the Ep7 forum that one poster said that he knows he has seen where Abrams has defended the prequels before and also a story where JJ got sick of his buddy Damon Lindelof bashing on them, and got him to watch the CW series. I myself have not seen any evidence of either of those stories. Also I just read Lazy Padawan's opinion piece over at SWPAS on the JJ Abrams news. She claimed that she has read where Abrams has stated that he did not like the prequels before, but again I have seen no evidence of that either. So in the last 24 hours, I have seen two conflicting reports of what JJ's opinion of the prequels is.

    I suppose in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter what he thinks of them as his job is to be making Episode 7, not thinking about Episode 1-3. But as a prequel lover, I am definitely curious on this.
  2. mes520 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 3
    I too am very curious to hear what he thinks of the Prequels and also the EU
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  3. Chainmail_Jedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 26, 2013
    star 2
    I wanted Joss Whedon to get the directing part....hopefully Abram's opinion of them is not as high as his opinion of the CT.
    Last edited by Chainmail_Jedi, Jan 26, 2013
    Yanksfan likes this.
  4. Sistros Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2010
    star 6
    I suppose in the grand scheme of things, it does not matter what he thinks of them as his job is to be making Episode 7, not thinking about Episode 1-3
    ----

    you just said it yourself
  5. windu4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2008
    star 4
    Well he did retweet the Plinkett reviews which goes to say that he either disliked the prequels or values Mr. Plinkett's opinion on the prequel. That being said I'm not sure why that would matter. I think he'd take all his visual cues from the Original Trilogy since people tend to identify with that more. Heck, even the Prequel Trilogy takes most of its visual cues from the OT. (Except for the excessive CGI, that is)
    David_Skywalker01 and Darth Dnej like this.
  6. GGrievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2005
    star 5
    No, just no.
  7. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    Regardless of his personal feelings towards Episodes I-III as movies, he'll likely take the story of the whole Saga into account, since he's been hired to continue the Saga, not reboot it. If the story demands that elements from the first trilogy make appearances in the third, he'll definitely respect that.
    No need to worry.





    "It's all right, you can trust him, he's our new master"
    /LM
  8. Vespasian Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2012
    star 1
    I agree completely!

    The film will be called Episode VII, not Episode IV, the last thing he should do is make a sequel to Revenge of the Sith. The OT and PT are their own things, I hope the ST will be the same.
  9. drg4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    I am worried, though, that the creative team may discount the Prequel material, due to personal antipathy and/or a desire to cater to the older fanbase. It's one of the reasons why I would have preferred a director who wasn't such an aficionado.

    If there aren't organic parallels and further weaving of the various thematic threads, I'm going to be very disappointed in Abrams.
  10. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    We don't need his opinion of the prequels.

    We have his opinion of "Star Trek".

    And it's not a particularly good one, in my view.
  11. Samnz Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 3
    That's all I have:

    Abrams: Well, I’m just a fan of "Star Wars.” As a kid, “Star Wars” was much more my thing than “Star Trek” was. If you look at the last three “Star Wars” films and what technology allowed them to do, they covered so much terrain in terms of design, locations, characters, aliens, ships — so much of the spectacle has been done and it seems like every aspect has been covered, whether it’s geography or design of culture or weather system or character or ship type. Everything has been tapped in those movies. The challenge of doing “Star Trek” — despite the fact that it existed before “Star Wars” — is that we are clearly in the shadow of what George Lucas has done.
    See: http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2009/01/31/star-trek-dir-1/#/0

    Abrams: It's funny how in a weird way sometimes by demystifying a character it takes away from some of the fun that you felt about that character. It takes the mystery out of it. Sometimes a character is more interesting when you don't know everything about them. Even someone from my generation -- and I'm ancient compared to so many of the Star Wars fans out there -- for me the character of Darth Vader was always so compelling because you were putting together all these thing in your head and making all these assumptions, that to get to know Anakin as much as we ultimately did changed the way you consider Darth Vader. It's crazy that my kids relate to Anakin; which to me is criminal because I grew up believing Vader was a bad guy. I related to Luke and Leia and Han Solo. You just don't relate to Vader! I still think it's wrong to be on Anakin's side. So I guess there's no one character I can point to and say that I want to know more about him or her, it's just that Star Wars is so vast it would be great to find new characters that have that level of emotional intimacy.
    See: http://star_wars_fans.livejournal.com/354982.html (from an interview with starwars.com a few years ago)

    1.) He talks about the prequels not sounding like they were the plague for me.
    2.) He realizes that he is one of the older fans.
    3.) He has kids who offer him another perspective.
    --> I think it could be worse.
    Last edited by Samnz, Jan 27, 2013
  12. Luukeskywalker Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 4
    Hmmm, interesting. Though I have to say, when the news was announced the other day, I did make it a point to search for his twitter handle so I could follow him, and I failed to find a twitter account of his that was a verified account. There were multiple JJ Abrams twitter accounts, but all appeared to have less than 1,000 followers and none had the "verified account" stamp. I figured the guy is simply not on twitter. How could he have done what you claim if he has no verified twitter account? Perhaps he had one and decided to stop doing it, and had it deleted. But not sure if I believe what you saw was legit.
  13. Luukeskywalker Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 4
    [face_laugh][face_laugh][face_laugh]

    That is actually one of the more witty comments I have seen about Abrams, positive or negative since the news broke.
    Last edited by Luukeskywalker, Jan 27, 2013
  14. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    J.J. does not have a Twitter feed, so anything about posting a Red Letter Media link is pure speculation. I've followed J.J. for years as he is one of my favorite contemporary director/producers out there. I've never heard him disparage the PT at all, and he in fact appeared in "Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed" and spoke highly of the different aspects of mythology George was exploring with the films.

    Now I have heard him say he might do a few things differently as a filmmaker regarding the PT and I read the same piece where he talked about how his kids relate differently to different characters than he did as a kid, but these kinds of things are to be expected. I think J.J. has a deep respect for the Saga as a whole and I have ZERO doubt he will do right by both the PT and OT.

    I suspect where most people get confused with J.J.s opinions on all things Star Wars is Damon Lindelof's (frequent collaborator) Twitter feed and interviews he's given. He's pretty merciless in his disdain for the PT, and I think most people just assume they share the same opinions. But bear in mind, Lidelof was the big Trek fan who dragged Abrams into the Star Trek universe, so I suspect he's not as big a Star Wars honk as J.J. is.

    Yancy
  15. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    ;) :D


    It's fun being mean.

    And Bill Murray, my cinematic god, tells me, in my all-time favourite movie ("Lost In Translation"), that "mean's okay".

    Therefore, I am on a mission from God.

    No, but really... credit to Samnz for digging up those quotes *and* presenting them in a coherent fashion (if people are capable of the former, they're certainly hit-and-miss at the latter).

    I really take issue with something J.J. Abrams says there, however. Snark about his ST reboot aside, I can't let those remarks pass without comment:

    1) He deems it both "crazy" and "criminal" that his own children relate to Anakin (aside from alliteration, I'm not sure that's an enviable opinion).

    2) He falsely equates identification with Anakin to being "on his side".

    I find that disturbing.

    It's like something out of the McCarthy era. Or labeling a person "deranged" or "evil" because they empathize with serial killers or fight for the rights of criminals or what have you. So, let's amend that: disturbing and obnoxious.

    Hilariously, Abrams also seems to have missed the opening crawl of ROTS, which clearly teases out a deeper meaning to the conflict, baiting a viewer to sift through the pieces and come to their own conclusion (about the meanings inherent to the imagery of the film and the crawl as both supporting and counter narrative (inherent to the entire PT)): "There are heroes on both sides."

    I also find it a bit rich, coming from Abrams, a man who chose to direct a "Star Trek" movie full of shouting and violence, sexism, racism, corporate profiteering, a large and undeniable military-industrial complex, complete with predatory recruiters like Captain Pike and a military academy (the support wing of a multi-species government which Pike bizarrely calls "a humanitarian and peace-keeping armada"), and just about the most cloying and unsubtle presentation of drama and suffering imaginable -- crudely evocative of cornball heroism in serial fantasies like Star Wars, but infinitely less amusing (e.g., the fearless father who turns himself into a sacrificial lamb against a scary, unknown enemy moments after his son is born; and the weepy presentation that accompanies it) -- with a flagrant post-9/11 subtext where the good guys, defending their civilization, must do battle with implacable, maniacal foes; then be generously rewarded for their troubles, showered with praise and commendation, suffering no discernible ills. I contend that this is a very dangerous form of entertainment/propaganda to enter into the popular culture of the world in which we live. A movie like "Attack Of The Clones", with its provocative symbolic overtones and mortal dread of war and violence (though savagely lampooning them when they take hold), and its lacerating regard for contemporary society and its decaying, hierarchical structures, is profoundly opposite to everything J.J. Abrams' popular art seems to stand for. What is this man doing anywhere near a Star Wars movie?

    As incredible a team as George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy undoubtedly are -- their resumes are certainly about the best in the entertainment industry, surely -- I struggle to think of what they see in this man. He is an energetic director, yes. He's energetic personally, yes. He can do slick and hip, yes. His style bears some relation to Spielberg, yes. But this is just not enough. Not when countenanced against all the bad that, in my opinion, J.J. Abrams seems to believe in. A director with scruples, in my view, would never have made a film like Abrams' "Star Trek"; at least not without a heavy dose of irony. But Abrams seems to be the master of the false dichotomy, the inept analogy -- and the brutally shot, horrifically-edited action scene (as kinematic extrapolation/surrogate for how he really thinks). Consider these inane pairings in the following comments of his: "Star Trek to me was always about infinite possibility and the incredible imagination that Gene Roddenberry brought to that core of characters. It was a show about purpose, about faith versus logic, about science versus emotion, about us vs. them. It was its own world, and yet it was our world." Anakin is not some two-bit player in a galactic tragedy; he's not Jabba, Greedo, Watto, or Elan Sleazebaggano. He's basically the character around which the drama pivots or spills out from. The "grey" of his being is the entire point of the character. While interpretations vary, if a person isn't even open to this idea, and even thinks it's "criminal" and "wrong" to identify, like, or even wish to side with or support Anakin, to one degree or another, as he walks his rocky road -- a fictional construct who is also a container for real thoughts and feelings; real vicissitudes a person experiences in life -- well, that's kinda inhuman, in my view; or at the least, extremely clumsy and close-minded.

    For all this, I don't hate J.J. Abrams, and he may do a bang-up job, but I certainly haven't warmed to him, thus far, through word or deed; not on matters close to *my* heart, my mind; and not on matters that I think bear some importance in the realms of art and entertainment. He seems obsessed with sound and fury, doesn't know restraint or subtlety, appears to have a hard-on for the military and the solving of problems through violence or confrontation generally (without being open to the setbacks and the pitfalls), and, for my tastes, puts entirely too much stock in characters, in the superficial sense, while doing nothing particularly poignant or memorable with any that are handed to him (and failing to have much regard for the more visual and technical side of cinematic art). He also put so many lens flares in his "Star Trek" reboot that that's all people ever seem to talk about; which may well have been part of his plan all along: a quite literal and instructive example of "blinding people with (bantha poodoo)". GL and KK seem to be going for another "fun" installment here (take note of both the nerve-jangling energy of Abrams and the comedic films which netted screenwriter Michael Arndt both an Oscar win ("Little Miss Sunshine") and an Oscar nom ("Toy Story 3")), mirroring the ebullient sweep of the original film, and the lighter tone of TPM, which itself came out sixteen years after ROTJ, while this film is scheduled to come out sixteen years after TPM. So it may work out in its own way. But I think we can kiss the anachronistic and the arcane aspects of SW goodbye; or I'll probably be doing so, anyway. If, on the other hand, I find I need to eat my words, someone please ensure there are laxatives on stand-by.
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Jan 27, 2013
  16. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    I don't see Abrams comments being an issue at all. J.J.s a year older than me, so he was 10 at the time when he saw ANH. If the films had as much of an impact on him as they did me then I suspect he devoured the old Star Wars comics and the novel "Splinter of the Mind's Eye." All of these stories, coupled with the films, portray Vader as the embodiment of evil, basically the intergalactic equivalent of Hitler. He chokes people, randomly kills subordinates for failure, is complicit in the total destruction of an entire planet, jails and tortures political dissidents, and is generally the most evil being in the universe until we really meet the Emperor in ROTJ.

    Given all that it is not too hard to question why your kids identify with basically teenage Adolph Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot. He even admits that ultimately the audience is forced to confront their preconceived notions of Darth Vader:

    "for me the character of Darth Vader was always so compelling because you were putting together all these thing in your head and making all these assumptions, that to get to know Anakin as much as we ultimately did changed the way you consider Darth Vader."
    kainee likes this.
  17. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    @Samnz
    Good post! I still have a good feeling about this.
    Another thing: I think the less we know about the production team, the better. Let's just look forward to more Star Wars!





    "This is where the fun begins!"
    /LM
  18. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Thanks for reminding me of that; and I'm not being sarcastic. You've condensed yours -- and probably Abrams' -- perspective in a very erudite and impactful way. Yes.

    The issue I have, though, is that the prequel trilogy exists as a deconstruction of society/evil. It's letting us inside the mask of Vader, so to speak, before the mask truly exists: before it literally (and metaphorically) comes down and encases Anakin, freezing him good and proper, like Han (in many ways, his mirror), settling the matter good and proper (or so it seems; but the flashes of humanity in Vader in the OT tell us otherwise).

    In all this, Abrams doesn't seem attuned to subtlety; to shades of grey. Vader is Vader and that's the end of it. Anakin need not exist. By extension, that means his redemption in ROTJ -- an OT movie! -- need not exist, either. But it clearly DOES. Abrams is basically waving his hand to the core of the SW saga as it currently exists (and in many ways, will effectively remain). It's one thing, in my mind, to quibble or outwardly dislike the execution of the PT, and the way certain things were done, but to say it's CRAZY and CRIMINAL to identify in any way, shape, or form with the Anakin character?

    Was Shmi evil for loving Anakin? Qui-Gon for his faith? Padme for her loyalty? Obi-Wan for defending him to his superiors before the bitter end? Maybe, if Anakin was such a bad seed, the Emperor is not in any sense immoral for corrupting/turning Anakin -- because there was nothing to corrupt or turn or sully further! According to Abrams, anyway, this would have to be true. It's a pretty outrageous thing to say, even if it's more a rhetorical expression, perhaps, of his own extreme awe of the Darth Vader character. Abrams has a "phantom menace" of his own. Because Vader is not the whole story of Anakin himself.

    Right. So, in effect, seeing past his rather empty -- if understandable -- "mystery" red herring, Abrams is really saying that he prefers characters that aren't particularly complex, and may even be irredeemably evil? Again, I look to his "Star Trek" movie, and his primary antagonist, Nero, as the exemplar. You could say that Star Wars has the mythical evil of the Emperor, but even THAT character is afforded enough of a right to live (at least, when he's not causing direct, immediate harm; attacking him unnecessarily was what forced Anakin's hand and signed Mace's ultimate fate); but Nero and his crew were joyfully pummeled to death at the end of ST and then Kirk was massively rewarded for his actions (actions which, for the most part, were tactically flawed to the point of suicidal stupidity to begin with -- including the destruction of Nero, which almost cost him his own life and those of every last person serving under him).

    Also, sweeping comparisons with real-world dictators are fatuous. Anakin is not a dictator; nor is Vader, for that matter. And each person -- real or fictional; but real especially so! -- has their own life history, their own personal story and journey. There are echoes in Anakin's journey to some of those individuals, you could argue, and they are not without significance -- but those comparisons don't tell the whole story (if they did, there'd be no story to tell). Further, Abrams does not "question" anything in the above. He flatly says it's "crazy" and "criminal" -- and out-and-out "wrong" -- to find resonance in Anakin's tale; or as he vituperatively puts it, to be "on his side". That's pretty egregious, to me. And again, we were already brought closer to Vader, and made to see him in more pitiable, human terms, in the OT; in this way, the OT was a prelude to the PT.

    Abrams boldly announces, as with "Star Trek", the other franchise he mucked up, that he doesn't really get "Star Wars", beyond surface details, and prefers ignorance to knowledge. This is all the more painfully obvious if you go back and assay his false dichotomies in that "Star Trek" quote of his (presented in my former post). "Faith versus logic", "science versus emotion". That he would cleave the Anakin and Vader personae completely apart and declaim people who like the Anakin character as "crazy", "criminal", and "wrong" suggests, to me, that he is possessed of poor/debased judgement, and even has a "divide and conquer" mentality about him. He has a strangely dissonant approach to Star Wars: fearing/loving Vader (these are two sides of the same coin), yet trashing all that which ultimately gives Vader his humanity, and the prospect of his being saved. Abrams seems to see the world in a very black-and-white way and he has a strong platform from which to pontificate. He's a shaper of popular art, of cultural discourse; one would expect him to have a bit more discretion and worldly-wisdom than he appears to operate with. That's my take, anyway.
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Jan 27, 2013
    Andy Wylde, kainee and darth ladnar like this.
  19. Gallandro Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    I get what you are saying, but I don't think that J.J.'s statement is necessarily invalid. It's like waking up and finding out the neighbor you've known for years who was the nicest guy on the block and has been great to your family is a mass murderer. People who have known him for some time are going to have a hard time accepting that fact, while people new to the story will immediately label him a killer.

    To use a real world example just look at the whole dynamic of the Casey Anthony fiasco. You had some family members who could not accept she may have murdered her daughter and believed her innocent (she was being set up), you had a mother suggesting she may be guilty but maybe her father had sexually abused her, and people who had only read stories in the press or watched the news immediately believed her to be a self obsessed party girl who was more than capable of murder.

    People compartmentalize information based on past experiences, and given how busy Abrams has been for the past decade and a half, I doubt he's had the time to really sit down and go over the PT again and again anmd pick out every nuance. He probably has seen them a couple of times, enjoyed them, but has a hard time getting why his kids so readily identify with Anakin (and bear in mind these kids may also have been exposed to "heroic" Anakin through the Clone Wars series which adds a whole other dimension). Meanwhile his kids have grown up with the PT... Anakin was "the nicest boy in the universe," and through a series of tragic events turns to evil. So when they watch the OT they see this pathetic shell of a man who has lost his wife, his children and his own identity.

    J.J. will do just fine.

    Yancy
  20. Lars_Muul Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 2, 2000
    star 6
    I'll also chime in and say that I take his words as half jokingly talking about his nostalgic feelings towards it. It's his inner child that deems it criminal to relate to Anakin. As an adult and as an artist, he surely sees the value in getting behind the mask of such an evil person.
    He does say that he still thinks it's wrong to be on Anakin's side, but also that it would be great to find new characters with that level of emotional intimacy.
    I think he, as an artist, actually likes the thought of getting close to characters that he would never side with.

    Either way, though, he's not the one writing the story - or the script, for that matter. He may have some input, but ultimately, what he's doing here is just setting the stage for the trilogy. Granted, we don't know if he'll end up directing the other two as well, but let's just take this one step at a time, shall we?





    "Anakin is the father, isn't he?" - "You love him, don't you?"
    /LM
    Last edited by Lars_Muul, Jan 27, 2013
  21. Rowboatcop Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2011
    star 1
    He's saying "crazy" and "wrong" in an extremely lighthearted valley girl way, I wouldn't sweat it. (Ps it was Damon Lindelof who tweeted the redletter videos)
    darthwannobi likes this.
  22. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    I respect that analogy, but it kind of runs in reverse:

    Darth Vader began as an icon of evil and was shrewdly reconfigured over the course of three movies, gaining an ounce more humanity in each (or about half a pound in ROTJ, I suppose). He was not some nice guy that went bad; or, indeed, was super nice in everything he said and did, only to be chopping people up with axes on the side.

    Lucas, in this sense, eased people into the Anakin-Vader storyline. Vader got tweaked enough so that Anakin could finally enter the saga good and proper in Episode I. Obviously, it was a bit jolting to start over, in effect, with Anakin as a mop-headed kid, but Vader never really lacked humanity or was bad beyond belief (for one thing, he speaks quite reasonably to some of his underlings in SW/ANH; even though his fanaticism somewhat eclipses Tarkin's: e.g., "This will be a day long remembered...").

    You're right, though: it's about acceptance. And J.J. Abrams doesn't sound very accepting of the core SW character. Not on first blush, anyway.

    If he has a "hard time", I'd say he has one or two serious mental blocks. Even if you can't share their perspective, I don't think it's hard to see why younger people might find Anakin a favourable protagonist. But then people of Abrams' generation likely have a starker sense of where the story ends up: with Anakin spiritually dead and the cybernetic ubermensch of Darth Vader firmly in his place. THAT I can understand. However, he has expressed it in pretty strident terms, implying he has some issue with having any level of identification or esteem for a person who does some unsavoury stuff and has a grizzly fate ahead of them.

    In other words, what I'm saying there is that Abrams could just realize there's a bit of complexity to the matter, even if he's uneasy with children, or anyone, being drawn to Anakin for whatever reason. Instead, he seems to have boiled the matter down to crude absolutions, like "taking sides", injecting inflammatory rhetoric into what is, beyond SW itself, even, a serious, on-going cultural dialogue about what constitutes right and wrong, and how much individuals are responsible for their actions; and how society should be structured to raise standards, and to foster better communication and understanding, between communities and individuals.

    Beyond his emotional attachment to the originals -- which, as you seem to argue, seems to be blinding him, a bit: a natural consequence of, in your good wording, compartmentalizing based on past experiences -- he truly seems to have some simplistic thinking on some pretty deep and challenging subjects. The language he uses, at the least, isn't all that inspiring; I'm not flooded with optimism. But that's just my take, of course.

    I don't know about that, I really don't know. I wish I had your confidence.

    I'd like to think he's kidding. The simplest way to take his comments is in the spirit of humour.

    And I do even think there's a lot of humour there. Like you say, it's his inner child revolting, and there's some adult knowingness there.

    But the problem, for me, is I've actually seen him express similar sentiments, in his chosen medium: film. Abrams' "Star Trek", in my estimation, is riddled with these exact issues.

    He does just seem to think -- again, in my opinion -- along relatively simple "us versus them" lines. I mean, he even said that, in the quote on "Star Trek" I will again refer to.

    That's a little disheartening, at the very least. But I suppose the comments on the prequels I'm balking at are ultimately his form of paying tribute to the diversity of opinions out there. He can't relate to them all, but he knows they're out there.

    That's a good point. Reading again, he does appear to be saying that much, yeah.

    Well, I've yet to see much evidence of that, personally; but I suppose that that is an important part of being a storyteller.

    Ya. That's the best way to go. We're all peering through a veil of ignorance right now.

    And generally, it's probably best to give these things a latitude; time to settle/sink in.

    I will reiterate, though, that Abrams completely trashed "Star Trek" and made it dead -- to me.

    His comments about the Anakin character, on the back of what he served up for his ST reboot, are harder for me to swallow than perhaps is normal.

    I *do* get some of what he means, though. You and Gallandro have also done a nice job helping to crack it open. It's just... I dunno. He's on thin ice for this lil fan.

    [face_hypnotized] [face_laugh]

    You have so many classics, LM!
    Last edited by Cryogenic, Jan 27, 2013
    kainee and darth ladnar like this.
  23. CloneTrooperFox Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2013
    star 1
    My guess is that he has respect for episodes 1...2...3. I would think he may have gotten it.
  24. KilroyMcFadden Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 3
  25. Luukeskywalker Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 23, 1999
    star 4
    Just found this article:

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/will-...bronze-or-avengers-gold-to-star-wars-cm211122

    It gives this bit at the beginning:

    Few men are as big of a Star Wars fanboy as JJ Abrams. His love of both trilogies -- particularly the first one -- has been apparent in his work for years. In November, he told Entertainment Weekly how much he loved Star Wars and how much the franchise meant to him.

    Hmmmm, interesting. I wonder where they got this bit of info? They provide no quote or source, yet say it like they are sure. It is a reputable source, NASDAQ. If true, that is like music to my ears.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.