ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Lucas writes a lot more dialogue in the scripts than he ever uses in the movies and cuts, pares and deletes that down as much as he possibly can as he sees it as support for the storytelling in his space opera style of visuals and music. Consequently the stylized dialogue that he does have in his movies is actually very important but to take it simply as straight dialogue is not the way it was ever intended. I think that goes even more so for the prequels. Not that you can't take the actual points being made but that they are part of a visual and music whole which as I said they support.

The use of choral in the prequels in an operatic style is no co-incidence.

I suspect that TFA is going to be a far more conventional movie with a lot more ephasis on pure dialogue to deliver character story points to the audience rather than the usual Lucas way. So the shift will be to more conventional movie dialogue with visuals and music in support.

"I come out of abstract filmmaking. I like the idea of cutting together contrasting images and ideas so they flow one after the other. If you watch a silent movie, you can see how a story is told; if you watch abstract films, you can see that by juxtaposing images, you also tell stories, and, in doing so, the issue of cutting on one frame rather than on another becomes very important.

"On the editorial level, which is the cinematic level, movies are a mass of objects moving across a large surface. You're watching these little details, which are the ones that make the cut work, as they move through the back of the frame. You're orchestrating how these things flow, by deciding how you cut from one shot to another. The subtlety of the medium demands that a star break the frame at the right moment, because what reaction you get has a lot to do with spatial relationships: where things are in the frame, what color things are, where the bright objects are--and where you eye is going to be.

"When the movie cuts to a different shot, if your eye has to move a great distance to follow an object, it becomes a rough cut; if your eye stays in the same place, then it's a smooth cut. If your eye has to move too much, you're usually lost for two frames on a cut. You don't understand what you're seeing because you can't register it that fast. If you're just cutting dialogue, it doesn't matter; it's just talking heads and the emphasis is all on the dialogue. But in my films, the dialogue is not where the movie is. My films are basically in the graphics. The emotional impact comes from the music and from juxtaposing one image with the next.

"Cinema is about moving images. But it's moving from one image to the next that creates emotional impact."

Of course some people actually think that ANH and TESB's script in particular are some absolute dialogue masterpieces of all time and that is what dazzled people coming out of the theaters not the visual and audio storytelling (the music and sound effects).

 

since she doesn't have her own thread
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/kathleen-kennedy-star-wars-interview?mbid=social_twitter

 

Another great interview. Her thoughts regarding the sense of communal bonding around the blockbuster experience back in the day are spot on, IMHO. I saw ANH at a re-release in '82, and even then it felt like you were being initiated into this special club. Saw E.T. the same year, and again, it felt pretty amazing to see this film that had been on everyone's radar in the lead-up.

My favourite quotes:

 

so does this mean they'll hire a director that's also a writer for IX, as both JJ and Johnson are those things to make it more personal ?? I do wonder if personal for Johnson goes in sync with JJ or is completely different/opposite.

 

I think it explains why they hire SW fans as directors. Let's say you hire someone with no deep emotional connection with the franchise--their idea of making it personal could potentially be at odds with what makes SW special. If you hire a fan, however, you get that authentic SW feel for free.

 

This. Would people really want someone who isn't invested in the franchise running things? I wouldn't.

 

there is a difference between being a fan and fanboy, not a fan of them hiring fanboys.

 

Definition of fanboy by Urban Dictionary:


A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.

There is also a movie called Fanboys, that was about crazy Star Wars fans. Let me put it this way: I hope none of those characters in that film are within reach to direct a Star Wars film.

Must read the KK interview now...

 

Yeah, it seems like it would have been a better plan to just use the blueprint for the saga and let directors go to town with their personal films on the spinoffs. I don't want a saga with 3 different personal visions. Kathleen Kennedy had no problem with it when Spielberg wanted to fulfill Kubrick's vision on AI. And here's the really unrealistic part. Disney is definitely in charge of the content, not the directors. They sign off on it. If Disney didn't want to film Lucas' story and Lucasfilm, KK or JJ did, who wins? Disney wins. These sequels are not auteur films by the directors. Farthest thing from it.

Since all the ones they loved were Lucas stories, I wanted someone who was invested in continuing George Lucas' story that they loved, not their own story. There are plenty of passionate fans who would not want to rewrite the story, but execute it the best way possible. Someone who wanted to be like Kershner and complete the Lucas saga. I still want to know who made the call to scrap the story. I think it had to be the Disney boardroom. They probably had certain marketing requirements. I think they gave JJ certain content requirements for marketing purposes and then let him do his thing with it.

At least Kathleen Kennedy confirmed it. The Star Wars saga is not one vision.

 

You are more than welcome - we aren't exclusive.

I agree absolutely that it isn't just the actors - writers, actors, products and directors all have a hand in the changes. I just named Moore (and Rathbone) because the posts were already so long and I felt that, in the context of the previous posts, that we were actually talking about all those involved in the process anyway. Plus, Moore wanted 007 to be less violent - I could be way off here but isn't there something about the Moore Bond films like like he never, with his own two hands, actually kills/shoots anyone ? Or something like that?

And I agree with everything else you said - audience appeal, etc. - but when it come down to it, Moore's Bond is the furthest from Fleming's, which was my point.

I grew up watching Rathbone's Holmes too. He plays it like a robot and there is no personality to the character. There is no connection to the source at all. I'm not even going to get started on Bruce's Watson ...




... because these posts are already too long.


No way he holds a candle to Jeremy Brett.





It isn't about being a purist - I love the RDJ and Cumberbatch versions too. I've only seen the first episode of Elementary (just haven' had the opportunity for more), so I can't say anything on that but changing genders is fine by me.

Wel, it was bound to happen eventually ... law of averages and all that!!!

 

You asked me a question about the "fundamentals" and I answered it. We weren't discussing, in this point, whether or not characters could or should be "interpreted" differently to the source material - that was below. You have a habit, it seems, of not staying on the point and changing the subject to avoid certain points, so it is ironic that you now say "I’m not even sure what you are trying to argue now".

On the point, there is a point at which an "interpretation" of a character is so radically different to he original source, that he/she no longer that character at all. When that happens, there is no point in making a story about that character at all.

In regards to Kirk, giving Pine's a different personality to the Shat's would mean he isn't Kirk at all, so why bother with a Kirk movie. They wanted to make a Kirk movie, therefore the personality has to be Kirk.

No, lets. Am I wrong about the Moore films? I am of the belief that they are the most heavily criticised. If I am wrong, by all means, point me in the direction of the information that I shows me that I'm wrong. I have no problem with someone correcting me and setting me straight - I welcome it.

Agreed, and I never said any different. What I'm saying is that the core characteristics/personality have to be intact - as above. there is a point at the character can be so afferent to the source that it isn't the same personality at all.

What do you mean "at all costs"? I'm stating my point of view the same as you. I don't see this means "at all costs", like some kind of zealot. If I am then so are you. and I'm not "defending" the movie - it needs no defence - I'm simply stating my opinion.

Yes, the time travel is a "gimmick" - just like the Death Star, and the countless other "gimmicks" in stories. Most stories have a "gimmick". As I said earlier, the story it itself could just as easily have played out as without the time travel element as a "clean reboot", but the writers (and studio I believe) wanted to connect the movie to the original series. However, you are too caught up the time travel element from an in-universe point of view. That is too restrictive and and narrow minded a way to tell stories. The purpose was to reinvigorate the franchise and tell a story of how these characters came together. Getting bogged down in the way the Trek franchise was run in the past is no way to breathe new life into something and clearly just another spinoff was going to cut it.

Whether you actually type out the actual letters or not, you're intent is still profanity. Is that really necessary? I don't agree that it is so please don't swear at me. Let's keep it civil.

I never said Star Wars was "just a film". I said Abrams' Treks and Mission Impossible are not "deep and philosophical or complex character studies" and that neither is Star Wars - okay, the Wars is a bit more philosophical with the hero's fall, redemption, spirituality, etc. but what I meant was isn't piled on thick. Never said it was "just a film"

Meaning?

[The bold text] Again, something I never said. I said Nero's reasons for blaming Spock are no different to Ahab's for blaming the whale. I was very clear on that so I find it difficult to believe that you misunderstood.

Also, I never made any claims that Abrams' Star Trek was any kind of "classic" (however that is defined) so getting melodramatic isn't really getting you anywhere.

No, Pike tries to makes Kirk and Spock a team because of Nero's action. McCoy gets Kirk onto the Enterprise after Nero attacks Vulcan. Pike becomes a father figure to Kirk because Nero kills George.

Nero is the "catalyst", not Pike.

No, that is not what I'm doing. I'm comparing the villain's actions, not the movies so your dramatic Batman and Robin remark is is quite unrelated. Two-Face blames those who failed to prevent Rachel's death and his disfigurement, Nero blames those who failed to prevent his family and world being destroyed. It is the same thing, but one one movie spends more time explaining it. It is that simple.

 

No. You didn’t ask the question the first time and you’ve failed to answer it now. The stage and screen has a long history of actors interpreting established characters in very different ways... everything from Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot to Batman. That you think it’s not possible for actors, writers, directors to do this (or that you think they’ve not done this) perhaps shows that your own sample size is small... That you think this couldn’t be done in Star Trek only shows the restrictions of your own limitations you place on both the form and the genre.

What about Rathbone?... But anyway, you are incorrect. With a couple of exceptions, most of Moore’s Bond films were hugely successful (circa 3 of his films still sitting within the top 10 of the biggest Bond films of all time). It’s worth noting that when Moore and Connery went head to head in 1983 (Octopussy and Never Say Never Again), it was the former that won the day. Of course, it’s always easy in hindsight to look at the established canon and dismiss the lighter weight entries... but films reflect the times in which they were made, and most of Moore’s came in the 1970’s. It doesn’t negate the fact that his interpretation was immensely popular.

Agreed, and I never said any different. What I'm saying is that the core characteristics/personality have to be intact - as above. there is a point at the character can be so afferent to the source that it isn't the same personality at all. [/quote]

That is semantics... Gary Oldman’s Dracula played as a handsome romantic lead. Max Shrek’s Dracula (or Orlok) played as a loathsome monster. Yes they are still vampires. Yes they still have the same title i.e. Count... but they are fundamentally different interpretations of the same character. No one is arguing for a James T Kirk to be played as a 3ft, one legged character who has a habit of killing, dismembering and eating his sexual conquests... (perhaps he should?) We’re talking about exploring a character... adding something... making it worth re-exploring..

In this context I believe there’s a difference between a plot device and a gimmick (although they can all be broadly labelled as a ‘device’), but what separates the two for me is something that is well conceived and written. The Death Star is (and it’s hardly Shakespeare), the time travel element of ST09 isn’t IMO.

That’s what I’d compare them to yes. That’s why I made that connection.

I’m not sure I stated that you said that, I was explaining the difference between the two in my opinion...

Then don’t make the association. I made the association because one does it better than the other. One makes sense... the other is poorly manufactured.

I meant in the broader sense obviously. Pike brings Kirk into Starfleet... Pike brings them together aboard the Enterprise, in the broader sense because Spock, Bones et al are serving under Pike....

You are not comparing... that’s the point. You are not looking at the characterisation in a detailed, nuanced way (which I am happy to do)... you are simply holding up films that contain ‘revenge’ type themes and saying ‘see... it works the same’. You may as well cite Jaws: the Revenge and say ‘see... it works the same’...

 

Has any of you read that really good piece on Making Star Wars website about why Brad Bird turned down Star Wars? It Is a really good read and I would totally recommend it, ....

 

I bet Brad Bird is kicking himself for turning down the opportunity to direct this movie, seeing that 'Tomorrowland is getting less-than-stellar reviews. Poor career choice.

 

Having seen Tomorrowland, I have to say that I'm glad Bird didn't direct Episode 7.

 

So it's more than just the Lindelof Effect?

 

Hard to tell, but yeah, I think it's Bird too. Don't get me wrong. I think he's made great animated films, and did a pretty good job with his MI installment. But I wasn't a huge fan of the heavy-handed direction in this one...

 

Darth PJ

Is this actually getting longer?

 

I never said I asked a "question" - I said you asked a question. And the answer is is in the previous posts.

I also never anything was "impossible" or that characters couldn't be interpreted in different ways - I said, quite clearly, there is a point at which a character is can be so different that he or she no longer ressembles the original, in which case they are no longer an interpretation but a different character completely.

Attempting to alter my words into something else is futile,

Box office success is irrelevant to the argument of whether a character different to the original concept or to whether or not the Moore versions are heavily criticised. For example, Michael Bay's Transformers movies are box office monsters and with the exception of one, none of the characters bare a remote resemblance to the originals and the films are loathed by many.

If a character isn't the same at it's core as the original, it isn't exploring new aspects, it is completely new. Hamlet as a super confident ladies man who gets straight down to exacting revenge isn't the Shakespeare Hamlet. Making Pine's Kirk completely different to the Shat is not the intention of the new movies. It was take those well loved characters and reinvigorate the franchise. Using different characters is just creating another spinoff.

Whether they are "well conceived and written" or not, it is irrelevant, they are both gimmicks.

And you keep ignoring my comments that you are too caught up in what you perceive as the in-universe aspect of time travel - how Kirk should be different because his earlier life is so radically different, despite the fact that nothing in in Trek lore backs the notion that characters have to be different when history is altered or the fact that that is irrelevant to the point of using the original characters.

I'm not certain what that remark means, but it seems to be that you are saying your purpose is to be uncivil wight web use of profanity.

Why? Other than being rude, it serves no purpose in a written form like this.

You in these - ' ' - which often means a quote. I don't always use them that way myself but most people do. I was just saying I never said that, or anything remotely like that.

I'll make any association I like and the two characters share elements.

It was you who went down the completely irrelevant path of declarations of "classics" - I was simply pointing out that this had nothing to do with anything I said or with the point at hand.

I've commented on the similarities in the revenge motivation of Nero and Ahab, if you disagree, you are supposed to counter with a statement of how they are not. Saying that the whale bit off Ahab's leg and that Moby Dick is a "classic", simply isn't an answer.

Pike doesn't bring any of them together. There is no evidence that Pike assigned McCoy to the Enterprise and Sulu & Uhura aren't even supposed to be abroad. Pike inspires Kirk to join Starfleet but but it is McCoy who sneaks Kirk onto the ship.

It is Nero attack on the Kelvin and Vulcan that set events in motion - he is the "catalyst" and Pike's decisions and actions are in response to what Nero does.

No because Jaws The Revenge is not the same. And it was you who first mentioned and compared Star Trek with the The Dark Knight. You were neither "detailed or nuanced" in using Two Face as an example. I used that same example to point out the glaring obvious - Two Face is attacking those who tried to help and failed, as is Nero - it isn't a new concept and the only difference is that Nolan spells it out and Abrams doesn't.

 

The point she's making is that you have to bring more to the table than being a die-hard fan. The chances of them finding a director who isn't a big fan of the originals are pretty slim. What KK is saying is that each director needs to bring something personal to the project that make sure their film is a personal passion project as well, not just "OMG this is SW!". What she's talking about is exactly the correct approach.

 

Slim? I'd imagine there are plenty of filmmakers who are not "fans" - from it not being their kind of thing to being familiar with it but not that into it.

 

I think from the generation of film-makers they seem to be trying to attract, I don't think there will be many that were not influenced at a formative stage of their careers.

 

They don't seem to be after any particular generation - Josh Trank is 30, born after RotJ was released, I believe.

I'm not saying the original films weren't influential or that there isn't many, many filmmakers who were inspired by them, I just don't think that that means that odds are "slim" - I'm sure there must be many who had no interest in it growing up.

Not everyone we meet in life shares our level of enthusiasm, or is familiar with the movies, therefore it follows that the filmmakers' owl (owl?? ) world is the same.

 

Well, can you think of a single director that's been linked with talks/ approaches etc who hasn't talked of the inspiration/ being a fan of the originals?

Of course such directors will exist, my point is - they are in a minority.