Official Info JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII - Spoilers Allowed' started by Kuestmaster, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    I would say it will be a collaborative effort with many people getting to express ideas and opinions. I don't think there will be one person making all the decisions.
  2. rezpen Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2010
    star 4
    Sounds like Abrams to me. I also wonder how much was done before Lucas sold in terms of design and if he's had an artist or three at work for possibly years now. My only hope is that with so many SW veterans on the design team and on the ILM side of things it will come out all right. The only thing I am worried about missing is the super weird touches only Lucas can up with. Things that are outside the lines, maybe some will be too concerned with what is and isn't Star Wars to come up with the really out there ideas.
    FRAGWAGON likes this.
  3. Darth_Pevra Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2008
    star 5
    @ eht13

    To explain: Because posters at the same time praised the PT and criticized the Trek for the same flaws the PT had I thought it was okay to comment on the PT.
    Captain Tom Coughlin and Dra--- like this.
  4. Dra--- Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 4
    Melodrama and sentimentality are not the same thing. And you can have effective sentimental moments depending upon the style you use. For example, the sacrifice of Kirk's father is portrayed fairly realistically, and his emotional state is even sedate, like a Hemingway character, who quietly bare their pain. So the act is a sentimental act, but the style and acting are not, which buffers the sentimentality, and the end result is effective drama. Even with the addition of soaring/loud music to enhance or resonate with the emotion, it doesn't feel like unearned emotion. Sentimentality is best understood as unearned emotion, which I believe a lot of us saw in the PT. Yes, there was soaring music, but the action and dialogue didn't make many viewers feel anything real. The Obi-Wan moment sort of worked for me, but then it sort of didn't. As to the love scenes, Lucas has stated before, I believe, that he intended them to be corny. An odd decision since the love scenes in the OT were not meant to be corny (ESB, ROTJ), and Star Wars is not a straight comedy or satire.

    Trying to keep this on topic, I'll say that I have confidence that JJ will keep any potential melodrama more at the realistic level we find in the OT, wheeras, in the PT, for some reason, the melodrama is meant to be intentionally campy.
    Last edited by Dra---, Jul 25, 2013
  5. Immortiss Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2013
    star 4
    Agreed, but how is that delegated? How do you draw the boundaries? Is there a vote? Democratically? Is Lucas the 'decider'/tie-breaker? Does Abrams ask permission or is he given some creative license?
  6. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    Sentimentality is when I feel the director is trying too hard to blatantly manipulate my emotions as opposed to letting the narrative organically draw them forth. And accordingly, Papa Kirk's plight is more Bruce Willis in Armageddon to me than Robert Jordan's final attempt at an ambush. And shoved down my throat in the first five minutes to boot.

    I have no idea how they'll kick off Episode VII, but I'm hoping for something that feels unexpected yet natural and fairly low key. I'd like to get at least a semi-substantial look at what Our Heroes have been up to before Luke is making us weep and Han is dropping wicked one-liners or shooting first or some such thing. Hopefully Abrams will indeed strive to not simply replicate his Trek formula.
    Darth Chiznuk, FRAGWAGON and Dra--- like this.
  7. Dra--- Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 4
    It might be more Willis, but this is big budget summer adventure movie. Which means it's apt. You raise a couple of good points, but I'm a bit confused by what you mean exactly. 1) What is not organic about the opening of JJ's first Trek? 2) Can no characters die in the first five minutes of a movie?

    Low key? Star Wars movies are meant to start off in the middle of things. But maybe you mean just in terms of emotion? If we're thinking about the saga organically, we already have plenty of time logged with characters like Han, Luke, and Leia. If JJ wanted to open by killing one off, it wouldn't be non-organic. I also think JJ picking Kirk's dad and not a major character creates a certain amount of distance that runs counter to the idea of trying too hard to pull the heartstrings.
    Last edited by Dra---, Jul 25, 2013
    TheStorm and Darth_Pevra like this.
  8. Darth_Pevra Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2008
    star 5
    I thought that dear ol' dads death was a nice setup for Kirk's further development, a young man who both admires his great father but also resents him because he wasn't there for him. That's why he became a rebel. He didn't want to end like father, another death in the line of duty.

    But what am I talking about here? Abrams is "dumb". He doesn't understand depth or subtlety. [face_dunno]
    Last edited by Darth_Pevra, Jul 25, 2013
    TheStorm and Dra--- like this.
  9. Dra--- Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 2012
    star 4
    Well said. And because we experience his father's heroism, we feel a similar sort of loss as Kirk. I thought it worked well. And it served a good plot and character purpose, as you say, with Kirk.
    TheStorm and Darth_Pevra like this.
  10. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    The problem is the scene didn't strike any genuine emotional chords with me despite being framed as a huge emotional moment that should be making me weep. I felt Abrams was hitting the audience over the head with a scene he thought everybody would immediately latch onto (Baby! True love! Goodbye Honey!) rather than approaching the introduction to his version of this already established universe from an, I don't know, more cerebral route maybe. Perhaps the problem was I just wasn't ready for Trek as primarily that brand of summer blockbuster. The series has never been one of "true art", of course (although I'm not the one that introduced Hemingway into the conversation), but my favorite examples of it skew towards a more subdued type of interpersonal relation and conflict rather than the bombastic and abrupt attempts at heartstring emotion I immediately got from the Abrams picture. Maybe that's my fault as a viewer for not coming in with the right mindset, but it is my reaction nonetheless.

    As for the second thing, yeah, I pretty much meant in terms of not forcing this big moody emotion into the fray immediately. But also I suppose the potential for "fanboy" framing intros as well. Many expect to see Luke drop his hood, Han shooting first or blasting by in the Falcon, Leia immediately entering the fray as a regal Jedi/Diplomat, but I think the film could work equally well and perhaps even better if right off the bat we're made to see these characters as people more so than simply icons. Hence the "low key."
    Darth Chiznuk likes this.
  11. FRAGWAGON Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2012
    star 4
    Abrams is an imitator. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Just safe.
    Boba_Fat83 and Darth Chiznuk like this.
  12. Fleab88 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2012
    star 3
    Not sure I would agree with that entirely. I think he does very well at dealing with depth and subtlety in terms of character development, especially in some of his TV work. Super 8 actually has a good deal of depth to it especially when you consider the homage to previous films found in that on singular film.

    I admit that this is all a very subjective opinion though. What some people consider depth others may believe to just be needless attempts to feel to serious and emotion. What other people see as simple by only looking on a surface level others see great depth. This all comes down to the fact that different people live out different experiences and thus will see depth in different places.

    I'm not saying JJ is my favorite. I thoroughly enjoy all of his work, but I do think he has his flaws. I'm not sure I could say he is the best choice, but I would feel comfortable saying that he is a very solid one. I think he knows how to work colaboratively with others very well, and that is a really key quality that many people ignored when giving their hopes of a director for the film. He also has a genuine ability to get some good potential out of his actors. Like I said, he is a solid choice.
  13. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    I have no idea. :p Perhaps they just talk things through until they are in agreement. I just don't see one person making all the decisions but I'm sure tasks will be delegated and thus many people will be making decisions.
    Immortiss likes this.
  14. Immortiss Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 10, 2013
    star 4
    Nor I, but I thought it was an interesting question since Lucas leaves a huge space to be filled. Hopefully will learn about it eventually when the documentaries are produced.
    Darth Chiznuk likes this.
  15. EHT New Films Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 6
    It is OK to be both negative and positive towards the PT or any other part of SW, but the thread was just becoming a litany of "What about this? What about that?" posts that just served to throw PT criticisms out there. I didn't see the same type of incessant one-off points in praise of the PT being thrown out, but if there had been that would also have been getting off-topic.
    See above; constructive on-topic commentary that tied back to JJ Abrams directing E7 would be OK, but this was going beyond that.
  16. TheStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 8, 2002
    star 4
    But it's okay to criticize Star Trek by calling it "bro attitude" and frat boy style film making? That was as much as an insult, and aimed at the director which this thread was about then anything. That served nothing more to say the PT is better then what JJ could accomplish. That is why I'm just a little confused on the subject. I just think a person throwing out lines to serve as criticisms to the Star Trek's by JJ and saying the PT is much more intelligent then his works, as is bad as doing it for the PT. I'm just trying to point out what I saw here. My points were that the PT failed at the things that JJ more then succeeded with STID and ST09. I just feel it a slap in the face to claim that JJ's ST films lack intelligence, and are made for frat boy/bro types. That is insulting. Whereas I pointed out the flaws of the PT, not the individuals that like them.
  17. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
    All of those posts served the discussion, contrasting Lucas with Abrams. The context of this conversation is clear. You guys involve yourselves way too much.
  18. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
    Exactly, it's an inherent aspect of the topic
  19. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    I think @eht13 was talking about when we started discussing if Anakin and Obi-Wan were brotherly and I freely admit that I was off topic. It really had nothing to do with JJ Abrams obviously.
  20. TheStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 8, 2002
    star 4
    It actually did. Because that started when someone said that ST was cheap emotions, and not really "emotional". Kirk's fathers death meant nothing ect, claiming it was melodramatic. Then someone else pointed out that was a lot of the PT was melodramatic drama. Hence saying JJ could not handle the depth of emotion Lucas did.
    Last edited by TheStorm, Jul 25, 2013
    Captain Tom Coughlin likes this.
  21. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
    Of course it did, the conversation was contrasting Lucas with Abrams. It was perfectly reasonable to discuss
  22. Darth Chiznuk PT Trivia Master / Game Host

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2012
    star 5
    It started out that way but was quickly descending into a why I like it/why I hate it debate and so a mod step in and told us to get back on topic. I see no problem with that but whatever.
  23. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
  24. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    You're misrepresenting my criticism. I never said Abrams films are made for frat boys. I initially used the phrase "bro attitude" and then went on to clarify that I was referring to my view of Abrams' Kirk coming across as way too much of a frat boy type for my liking. No offense to individuals in that, just as fans who point out that they think Anakin is little more than a "whiny teenager" aren't saying that Lucas fans are whiny teenagers.
  25. Placeholder Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2013
    star 4
    I don't think it's unfair to point out that Kirk was a bit of a frat boy, especially in '09 Trek. It was a movie about the characters finding their place in the larger world.