ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

I guess. It's all just guesswork. I, however, do at least hope Lucas still has a strong voice in all of it.

 

I'm sure he has a voice. I mean he did help create the treatments, from his own ideas with Ardnt doing a lot of the heavy lifting. But it sounds like the rough ideas were all Lucas...and that is important. I agree. But I think he's left the heavy lifting to others this time.

 

I'm fairly certain the general arc / story of the ST will fit into what Lucas (and then Ardnt) came up with so, in the grand scheme, he will be behind the story of the ST. As to actually making the movie itself, that's Abrams. Jett Lucas did say two contradictory things in there ("talking constantly" and "letting go") and that's a long leap to "Lucas is going to be ghost-directing the movie ala Jedi and Red Tails". If anything, Abrams is too much of a Hollywood heavyweight to take that. And Lucas has said he's retired, like, a lot. And he just got married and has a kid so he seems to have shifted his priorities in life away from Star Wars since he sold the company and all for someone else to take care of it.

 

Lucas definitely will have a voice.

"His Thu'um will be powahful!"

 

I think that's basically correct. Lucas probably looked at 'Star Wars' and thought "this is be becoming as big as Disney now... it can probably go on forever and spawn new things ad infinitum... but I just don't have the will to be the business manager of it all."

I'm sure Lucas still has sizeable interest in the next 3 Star Wars films... and I hope he retains some considerable influence and input into them (basically because it's his story), but I think gone are the days where he'll be losing any sleep over Star Wars... and he certainly won't be involved in any peripheral Star Wars activity.

 

From the casting thread chaos.

Dra---:

 

It's all chaos.

 

Says your icon.

 

Probably because Lost is very gimmicky by its nature. It's an interesting idea that's padded out to ridiculous lengths - after series 1 I was done... largely because I got the distinct impression that the writers were just playing with my ****. It was 'different' TV though... but I thought it would have made a better film than a series several seasons too long.

MODified: You have to star out the entire word as you have been warned multiple times - this week alone - to do. See you in 24.

 

Hey, PJ. It's hard for me to defend Lost (I'm not sure I really want to) unless you explain specifically what you mean by gimmick. I'm not sure how involved JJ is throughout all 5 seasons, so that's another issue.

Having said that, I never felt confused about what was going on with Lost, although many were. And the only time I felt slightly disappointed was when they did finally explain things, because to me what mattered wasn't plot explanations, but the internal journeys of the characters. The same sort of demand to know ruined another one of my favorite shows, Lynch's Twin Peaks. I'm not saying all shows shouldn't explain their external plots, but for some, mystery is part of the mythological structure; it's the metaphysics of a world that can't be understood (e.g., Beckett).

The problem with popular entertainment is that most fans have been taught that the whole point of narrative is to understand Truth rather than truths. To always have revelations, epiphanies. Don't get me started...

Anyway, I'm a bigger fan of Fringe and I'm wishing for time to rewatch it, since it resonates to me on many levels. I believe JJ was more involved with the overall storyline on Fringe.

 

Primarily because the mechanism used to keep people watching was the mystery of 'why they were there'? The show teases the audience into thinking there may be an answer, but in reality it's just a carrot on a stick. They, the writers, placed too much emphasis on that element. Take away that conceit and there's little left (IMHO). Compare that to something like Life on Mars (the original British version) where there's a central mystery about why Sam Tyler finds himself in the 70's... however, the fulcrum of the show is the relationships he establishes with the other characters. Take away the time travel device and you are still left with a pretty well written cop drama... take away the mystery from Lost and I think there's little else there to hold attention and warrant merit.

 

I can understand where you're coming from, PJ, but as usual, I have a different perspective. From my training in critical theory, when I read a text (or watch a show/film), I don't pay attention to what the writers or promoters say about it (I don't recall what the writers said Lost was about, or if they overemphasized anything, or whether the network promoted it a certain way -- I find shows are often misrepresented by networks because they don't respect audiences' ability to watch something that works against expectations). The reason for this is that authors/writers don't always control, even if they think they do, the meaning of their texts. Sometimes this means language or images are not within their power to manipulate absolutely, and sometimes it means artists create unconsciously; or both. They may say they're writing about one thing, but something else is happening in the text. Anyway, the point is, I don't pay attention to what authors claim their texts are about, and most well-trained critics don't; instead, we look at the text itself; only the text. The Romantic's notion of the genius author who is a master of their text is a myth; yet many people are still taught to believe it.

So when I watch Lost, I see an allegory about people struggling to survive in a world where the meaning of life is not clear. That, for me as an atheist, is an image of our world. Ultimately, the characters on Lost, usually, need to decide for themselves what meaning is, because there's no easy Truth to discern. So, the show fails for me when it reveals Truth and answers questions, rather than allowing the characters to struggle for their own meanings.

We're probably not going to agree on the merit of Lost, but I hope you'll at least respect my view that it functions as a myth about the possibility of knowledge; as an existential portrait of a sometimes absurd human experience.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry.

 

Lost is one of my favorite shows, and it's a prime example that not everything needs to be spoon-fed to the viewer.

 

I realy REALY liked 50% of Lost. and the other 50% I was like, "meh"
But I didn't like the last bit

<spoiler>they all go to Disney world</spoiler>

 

New JJ Abrams interview..

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/article3906891.ece

 

You need to subscribe, in order to read it

 

Just my opinion, he's a great filmmaker, but I'm guessing we will get casting a month before filming, character names sometime in the spring/summer, and that will be it, till we get the first teasers, and trailers/

 

Another site with JJ Abrams quotes from that article..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...Episode-VII-may-return-to-grittier-roots.html

Abrams said: "I would say that (the website conveys) a feeling that we share very much ...

"I loved how Star Wars had that sense of a world far beyond the borders of what you can see and have been told – it's one of the things it did so brilliantly.

"If you watch the first movie, you don't actually know exactly what the Empire is trying to do. They're going to rule by fear – but you don't know what their end game is.

"The beauty of that movie was that it was an unfamiliar world, and yet you wanted to see it expand and to see where it went."

He said: "A lot of kids who saw all the prequels when they were young really do identify with those movies as much as my generation identified with the originals."

 

He doesn't seem to be bashing the PT in all honesty.

 

I agree - I've not seen any negativity from him in what I've read. I don't think there's any problem with him preferring the style of the OT and wanting to recapture some of that - I'd be more than happy about that. My only concern about this is the criteria/definition of what constitutes that more OT principle... because I think it's easy to get hung up on the cosmetics of it ('used looking', 'less CGI') rather than the actual substance of it.

 

What I am concerned about is his attitude towards empathy with Anakin as being "criminal". It's not a concern if they are starting a whole new saga/storyline. But if this trilogy is supposed to be a part of the existing saga/storyline, then, with the human aspect of Darth Vader being such an essential part of it, I'm a little concerned.

 

I agree too.

JJ is a smart guy, he knows very well it's not a good thing to alienate half of the fan base by making only one part of the style of the saga dominant. I think we're going to see a fine mixture of PT and OT.