ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Abrams is flawed of course, but i think he so far has shown much more consistency than Lucas.

 

I don't get that at all.

The point is that he wouldn't do that.

JJ has.

It says everything.

JJ hasn't done it yet and TFA won't show any of that.

He will be trying to make a George Lucas movie not a JJ Abrams one. He will put his spin on it of course but not near as much as he might like to.

To me it's easily one of the greatest movies of all time.

I find it impossible to believe that you really mean that.

I like JJ and he is a fine director but to say that he "gets" what made the movies more than the creator of the movies I find to be utterly absurd.

The originals aren't better anyway. They are all great but just not in the exact same way anymore than ANH and TESB and ROTJ are the same because they aren't.

Lucas already made the OT and so for him that was already done. He didn't want to spend 10 plus years of his life remaking the exact same films. He told people for decades that the prequels were not going to be the exact same kind of films. So why they would be surprised they weren't is something you'd have to ask them as to why they didn't believe him.

Except that "real" Han Solo wasn't in ANH either. So you want something that happened once in one part of a movie in a movie where that kind of thing really isn't going to happen. It's going to be a very different kind of thing.

 

I do believe ROTS is the best directed film of the PT. I think it’s quite intricately constructed, actually. You can really tell Lucas put more effort into it than he did for the other two. Why is that? TBH, I think it may just be down to the fact that ROTS is the only prequel that Lucas really wanted to make. Obviously there’s no way of knowing that without getting into his head, but I genuinely believe it to be the truth.

 

edit: nevermind. Already posted.

 

I think saying Paul McCartney was only ever good when he was in The Beatles is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. And one that I share. Look throughout history of entertainment and we see numerous examples of artists/creatives who just aren't as good as their heyday: Prince, The Stones, Frank Miller, Scorcese etc. it happens. The fire burns out.

ROTS was the best of the prequels but it was the best of a bad bunch. And for me, the 'turn' of Anakin to Vader, the crux of the whole trilogy, if not the saga was laughingly pathetic. Criminal even.

Lucas sold his company. He produced the greatest trilogy ever, and I do 100% think he is a genius. But he just doesn't have the fire anymore.

Will JJ produce a cultural milestone with TFA? Unlikely. But I'm willing to bet the majority of us will walk out of the cinema absolutely thrilled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I can't decide which of these comments is the most bonkers.

 

I wouldn't put Scorcese in there, he still makes great movies now and then, i would put Copola in there instead.

 

I can.

 

I'd like to hear how Han in ESB is a divergence from his real character, given that it established who he is.

 

I will think JJ will give Han some really good quips. Possibly some of Solo's best one-liners since ESB. Not to say Han doesn't have any good lines in ROTJ ("Instead of a big dark blur I see a big light blur" is my favourite of his in that movie) but hopefully Han gets in some awesome zingers in TFA.

 

Kasdan was probably in Han mode when writing TFA, most likely having already written a draft or two of the Han Anthology movie. He seems very protective of the character, if JJ's comments at SDCC are anything to go by.

 

I think one of the biggest difference to me between Lucas and Abrams is how their influences are filtered into their output. Every film is influenced by something that preceded it, be it another film or other works of storytelling or art. I personally think Lucas is among the greats because while his films have influences in abundance, the execution of those films is unique to him. We can see the influences of Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, Joseph Campbell and a multitude of other sources, but we identify them as Lucas films. Abrams has not yet quite arrived at his own signature as an auteur. There are certainly flashes of distinction in Abrams' films, but at the end of the day there's nothing too individualized to me about MI:3 (fairly standard, entertaining but forgettable spy fare), Super 8 (Spielberg lite), or the Star Trek films (Star Wars films in Trek packaging).

 

You miss the point. It's perfectly legitimate to think Paul McCartney was only good in The Beatles, or Lucas only made 3 good SW films, or that John Ford's best films were at the start of his career. The point being is it's a bit unenlightened to reduce someone's contribution to their less substantial efforts and (IMHO) highlights a lack of awareness on the critics part.

In terms of ROTS - I think it's easily the 3rd best SW film, and I'll be extremely surprised if Abrams delivers anything as artistically as good (in or out of Star Wars), but I hope he does.

 

I get where you're coming from and I kind of agree, but how are you assessing artistry?

There are many delights in ROTS, and IMHO TPM was easily the most bizarrely imaginative SW film since ANH. But I also agree with yassir.khan in that Vader's turn in ROTS was botched, and that pretty much undercuts the whole PT from a storytelling POV. IOW, as an example of pure imagination, the PT is right up there with many of the better fantasy movies out there, but in terms of fundamentals, it's really lacking. I can call a film like that artistically bold, but not necessarily artistically great.

Abrams will never be that bold, but his fundamentals will be much better, especially with Kasdan as writing partner, IMHO.

 

JJ didn't make Anakin float a piece of fruit across the table to Padme - for that reason alone he deserves a bit of respect when being compared to Lucas.

Don't get me wrong, Lucas made some great films but he's made some huge mistakes.

 

As mentioned before, I usually assess a film on its artist/creative intent and the technical application of it... but that's just me personally. Some may determine it on whether the narrative/story appeals to them or just simply in terms of visuals. In terms of Anakin's turn in ROTS, I don't see any evidence to suggest it was "botched", either at an artistic level or technical application one. Which doesn't mean you have to like it, and I respect that for you it didn't work... but I think that's a more subjective point. There’s plenty that I would have perhaps done differently e.g. have Anakin turn at the very start, show Anakin’s physical transformation into Darth Vader in a less condensed manner etc. but that’s largely subjective. In the end I think Lucas decided on the same/similar aesthetic for Anakin’s turn as Coppola chose for Michael Corleone’s... and for me that worked in depicting Anakin as a more tragic hero rather than a villain or victim.

 

I agree with this, I think. Lucas for sure had an imagination and brought it to life. If the PT was anything, it was different and unexpected...as you say, bold. I surely think JJ is a "safe" choice in that he'll deliver a "good" product. It'll be safe and maybe not the most unique thing in the world, but it will be competent and well told I think.

 

And in light of our dear mods comments, getting back to Abrams, I find his technical application very mechanical (whilst clearly able). I see little invention in Abrams films, both artistically and technically, which is why he was probably deemed a safe pair of hands for Ep VII.

 

I agree that it should have been at the beginning of the film. I'd even argue that it should have been mid way through the second. But your example of Michael Corleone actually highlights when a good guy 'breaks bad' done right. It was beautifully done. Scarily so.

Lastly, I agree that it's wrong to pick out an artist's weakest stuff as the epitome of their career but I'd argue that it's legitimate if that is the norm rather than an aberration.

For me since Last Crusade Lucas has not excelled. I'm not a PT hater. There's elements I really love and I can't deny that there are millions who love it. Including children who grew up on the PT. but for me it doesn't match up to the OT and the first three Indy films.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I definitely think that Abrams is a safe choice. I don't think any of his films are groundbreaking. But they are entertaining. And I have high hopes that TFA will be too. Add to that the thrill of returning to a galaxy far, far away and I am stoked. I think we shouldn't ignore the story group's input here either. I think they have a big say in the matter. And personally I'm even more excited by Rian Johnson for episode VII. That kind of appointment tells me that KK is thinking out of the box.

TFA won't be groundbreaking but I think we may be surprised that it won't be by the numbers either.

Abrams has a lot riding on this. If he gets it wrong it will be a major blow to his future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So I don't think many would disagree that The Godfather is the better film, almost a 'perfect' film in some ways (IMHO). However, the structure is quite similar (in terms of how Anakin's/Michael's fall is depcited). True, by the end of the first Godfather, it can be argued that Michael is a bad man i.e. he has already fallen, whereas Anakin's fall is more literal as he is baptised Darth Vader near the end of ROTS. But given that the prequels were a set of films specifically designed to show 'what went before', there was an in-built requirement to see more of Anakin than Vader.

In terms of the PT etc. my question would be why does the PT have to be considered 'as good as' or better than the OT for it to have value (rhetorical question)? As you've just said "millions love it" and it was certainly a financial success. I personally don't think, as a set of films, the PT matches up to the OT (although I still believe ROTJ is the weakest SW film overall), but I'm not sure it was ever possible for the PT (or indeed the ST) to be regarded as highly as the OT.

 

Agreed about Godfather. They are superior films (the first two anyway) but irrationally I love the Star Wars films more.

And you know, it's a good question. Why do the prequels need to be as good as or better? My answer is why not? I completely agree that they didn't have to be the same in terms of theme and style but I think that they didn't hit the right note for a lot of people. As many as there are who loved them there are many more who didn't. Including those new to the saga. I guess like you say it's all subjective.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

well it wont be groundbreaking but hopefully a breath of fresh air compared to the latest forgettable cgi summer blockbusters if they deliver with the practical puppets, sets and effects.

 

And story. Don't forget about story. I'm as psyched for the seamless practical effects/CGI marriage they're going for as anyone, but emotional involvement trumps everything else.