ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

What about Abramsfication?

 

That's something I think would be a refreshing thing actually.

 

lets just wait because i dont think jj can do anyworse than what lucas did with episode 1 and 2. i liked sith so

 

Damn shame then, HH. The first six are shot through this prism of gee-whiz, cornball naivete. And it wasn't something nostalgic, put upon, or affected. Each script, all of the acting.

It's the major component and I'm not convinced it will be captured. Partly because, as you said, "it would be refreshing" to see it become sophisticated, moderne, hip, edgy. I added to your words a bit, maybe you could clarify.

At any rate, this mystical innocence the Saga possesses, I would see as a great loss if it were not continued.

 

The answer about SW being more like a fairy tale puts my mind at ease. It really does seem as though Episode 7 won’t look like his third ST film. That was my biggest fear.

 

Yes, I agree, but new times call for new takes on the way mystical sagas are told. We can be overprotective of our OT or PT, but we forget that they came at a specific point in time when such an approach worked perfectly.
I am not saying that it cannot work in the early 21st century, just that we should keep in mind that whatever we think of ST - whole generations of fans will probably grow up watching them and being as protective of it as we are of OT.
I'm not saying it should be hip and edgy by today's Hollywood standards, because those are mostly bland movies.
ST can find it's own new, refreshing style, without either copy-pasting the old ones, nor conforming strictly to current Hollywood templates.

 

i will leave this here

 

Has anybody saw that interview of him? : http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/j-j-abrams/

 

Yeah,a transcript of it was posted a day ago. That just the live interview of what comic therapy posted.

 

But he's already made one of the worst Star Trek films, so he's got previous...

 

i said it before i never got into star trek as a kid but the 2 films jj did got me into the franchise now at 28. i have watched every episode of the original series and a number of tng. i guess its safe to say im a new found trekie since i understand it better.

 

I definitely don't want Star Wars to follow the "dark" trend of movies these days.

 

Good one.

 

I hope it's better than The Avengers though...But for what it was, that movie was pretty good.

 

I thought Avengers was poor (not in terms if technical application) largely because of the story, the premise, the overly long duration, the total and utter requirement to suspend disbelief. I did like that it was more tongue in cheek than more recent comic book capers... but I'm still left scratching my head as to why it did so well.

 

You mean THE two best?
I remain concerned about the direction he's taking with Star Wars. But at the same time, he was the best thing to EVER happen to Star Trek!

 

Yep, I share the same concerns.
I have to make some references to his Star Trek entries because he's in the same position here. Star Trek had to be revived after the unfortunate Enterprise episode. So he directed two movies which returned to it's roots (TOS) and are essentially good, but they have no substance that made franchise what it is, a metaphor of human nature... In space. In TNG's style as ST's finest example. Now, for all the infos we got so far, they want to bring Star Wars to it's roots, to the OT. Yes, we got great screenwriter, but I also fear of losing SW feeling, as well as some cosmetic changes that won't fit Episodes 1-6. For example, look new warp travel scenes in his ST movies. Or, do I dare to dream of seeing the original Falcon in Ep 7 or some new, updated version from example of TOS Enterprise to J. J. Enterprise?

 

I don't share those fears, because the true SW feeling was already lost in 99 and I think JJ is the guy who redeems it. You also have to keep in mind that Trek was a reboot instead of a continuation of a series. And if you talk about "lacking substance". The OT lacks substance as well, it hints at a lot, but explains little. There are no big conspiracies or prolongued deep discussions. But... there is fun and adventure and relateable heroes, which is sorely missed in the PT as well as in the old Treks. And as the new Treks have showed, JJ is able to bring fun and adventure into Trek as well. (In fact a featurette on the ST2009 is called: "How to make Star Trek a little more like Star Wars"). To quote Luke: "I am not afraid..."

 

In terms of rebooting it for a new generation - yes he's probably the best at making it appeal to that demographic. But this then goes to the heart of the other topic re. Joss Whedon. Namely that whatever kernel of originality, meaning and purpose that was contained in the original Star Trek is now so diluted that it's lost everything that made the originals stand apart. All that's left is homogonized product... characters and situations that are merely reproductions of what went earlier. This is personified to perfection in Star Trek: Into Darkness where, after establishing a rebooted universe, they lazily revert to bringing in a villain from the originals (in such an inferior way too). It's the movie equivalent of copying The Mona Lisa, giving her sun glasses, and passing it off as original entertainment. It's actually the antithesis of 'culture' in my humble opinion. Recreating/reproducing what went before but devoid of the originals purpose and meaning... be it music, film or literature, this process actually helps regress culture not evolve it.

The Star Trek franchise was milking itself for too long (IMHO). However, I think even at their worst the Star Trek movies had ambition and intelligence. Yes - JJ's Star Trek is broader... it's more 'fun'... but at what cost? For me JJ's Star Trek has zero originality, little intelligence and zero ambition... and now it's made it even more legitimate to simply re-invent/re-boot classic material with younger, taller, and more good looking actors. Why not just give us new stories with new characters?

 

Except Marvel already had a plan when they got bought. Star Wars scrapped and replaced everything it had in production.

 

Which movie plans where those exactly?

Or are you just referring to Lucasarts finally kicking the bucket (bye childhood memories, but with no good games in ten years that some how makes EA the lesser of two evils, maybe...), EU books refocusing on the ST (which Im fine with, and I'm a big old EU fan), and The Clone Wars getting cancled (about 2 seasons too early imho especially after it was getting really good in season 5, but the show did have a time limit to fit into its time frame so not really a surprise)?

 

Who is to say what is true SW feeling? Lucas made the OT, Lucas made the PT. Each trilogy is different, and yet the same. They have their own, unique SW feeling, and neither is the right one... That's how I see it anyway. J. J. has nothing to redeem but to make a SW movie that fits those parameters.

One could say that, but in the movie it's explained that they're in an alternative timeline. And by using the old, Nimoy's Spock, they made sure the audience knows it's new, but it's the same.

It's about personal taste in movies. We all expect for the ST to be in style of the trilogy we prefer. Although I prefer Ep 1-3, I do want for the sequels to be a mix of both, big, complex story and character developments of the prequels and relateable heroes and sense for the adventure of the originals. The thing is, now I'm getting that feeling that they're not trying to make something new that'll be as fresh as the PT was compared to the OT, but that they're trying to copy the OT. It's just my feeling, nothing more.

 

The Avengers was planned before Disney bought Marvel while the ST wasn't planned before Disney bough LFL.

 

While he certainly attempted a copy, Abrams made neither Wrath of Khan or First Contact, so no, he didn't make the two best.