Title Revealed...

That's exactly why I love it lol!! GL always said that if he ever made 7-9 they would be more spiritual. Now I'm more excited than ever.

 

yeah, the problem for me is that I might actually like "esoteric, prolonged sequences of Jedi pontification," and what might be considered BS by some is actually a major part of the "fun" for me

I'm with skygawker here...except I haven't seen more of JJ than his Treks so I don't have the "hope"

I know a lot of people read his Trek that way, and I wish I had had that feeling so that then I would have more confidence in Ep VII...but to me JJ's Trek was not only not "Gene Roddenberry-style" Trek enough for me--it also didn't leave me with a SW-sy feeling either

But I agree--the mystical/mythological aspect is a big part of my enjoyment of SW (I'm a big fan of TCW series-ending Yoda arc for example), so I'm hoping that will remain intact in future SW films.

^Ditto!

 

I can't expect the characters to stay the same, but I can be upset about the specific changes that Abrams decided to make. He took this character:



And made him into a stereotypical womanizing action hero who sleeps with women and then forgets their names, who doesn't have a problem with peeping on a woman getting undressed without her consent. Kirk of TOS had his action-hero moments, sure, but he also liked antiques and chess and classical literature; he was described by another character as "a stack of book with legs" when he was younger. He was a lot more three-dimensional than reboot!Kirk. Now, am I saying that Kirk should have been delivering speeches like this one or this one in the reboot? Well, no - it's not the 1960s, there's not so much a need to be incredibly heavy-handed. But Abrams basically cut that aspect out of his character entirely.

There were five different Trek television series over the decades, between 1967 and 2004, not to mention all the other movies. Each managed to bring something new to the franchise and take a new approach while still still having core themes in common. I'm not sure what you mean by the "typical" approach. Sure, it didn't need to be the same as the Original Series - TOS was written for a different time. In the 1960s, the blatant Vietnam War/civil rights movement/second-wave feminism allegories were topical; having a competent black woman, and an Asian-American, and a proudly Russian character even though we were in the middle of the Cold War, and the first scripted interracial kiss on American television were statements of hope and unity for the future. The Next Generation came twenty years later - it didn't address the same issues (and it did a better job of not being heavy-handed about them), but there was still a philosophical element among the space-battles and character drama. Deep Space Nine didn't have the same blatant optimism, but it still addressed issues of race and class and critiqued the Federation's flaws, etc.

Star Trek has always had an element of social commentary. At various times there was a black captain, a female captain, a blind engineer - and it was never treated, in-universe, as a big deal. Star Trek was progressive, so while Abrams Trek shouldn't have been the same as what came before (what was progressive in the 20th century no longer is), it also shouldn't have been just another summer blockbuster that was in some ways (though certainly not all) more sexist than the original 1960s version.

...okay, this is, uh, a Star Wars forum, so I'll stop ranting about Star Trek. Sorry.

Yeah, Star Wars also had some consistent themes beyond the explosions and lightsaber battles, so I don't think SW and reboot-Trek are similar except on a superficial level.

 

There will still be plenty of action so both sides will happy.

 

Hm, you know, that's why I like Into Darkness. It is basically a lesson about responsibilty for the new Kirk. He learns that following the directives is not always a bad thing and in the end refuses to get revenge on Khan. You can kinda see some of the development towards older Kirk. Seeing young Kirk slowly learn is one of the most rewarding things about the New Trek and the reason I will continue seeing the films. There's no question that he is a flawed man, but you know he is still a decent person inside.

Older Kirk is almost too perfect at times. He is reminiscent of the typical adventure heroes of the early twenthiest century. You know these old adventure stories where a pretty flawless white hero travels into a foreign and exotic land and has all these adventures. Those stories are fine and I read tons of them in my childhood but they don't fit the modern spirit and don't leave much room for character development.

All that is fine and well but I meant failing in a financial sense. Even if the series had the best stories ever, that doesn't help when they don't pull in ratings. My sister liked Enterprise, but did it do so well on the channels it ran?

 

I like the new title.

 

Agreed! I rather enjoyed the two Star Trek movies Abrams directed, and when they announced he was directing Episode VII...I mean, he GETS Star Wars, folks! He's one of us, I'm sure he thinks that Han Shot First.

 

I appreciate the positivity of your comment, but I'm not sure there is a well-unified group of "us" anymore (if there ever was). The problem is that there seem to be so many differences among SW fans in terms of what they enjoy that what will delight some will probably disappoint others.

btw, great username

 

If that's what he thinks, then he may want to consider some new glasses

 

Star Wars is supposed to be fun, isn't it? I'm not one to hop on the 'rampant cynicism' bandwagon anytime soon. But you're right, there are fans that won't be satisfied. C'mon, folks, a new Star Wars movie comes out next year! Hooray!

Oh, and I've used this name in various places on the Internet for about 15 years! Thanks, I think it's a pretty cool name too!

 

I have no idea what you mean...do you think that Greedo shot first?

Anyway, in a video interview with Collider, Abrams thinks there was "only one shot."

 

Yeah, he'll need new glasses AND a hearing aid then

Look closely, it's quite obvious who was the first to shoot, if not by less than half a second

 

I tried to avoid it but as I averted my eyes from the trending news of the other day, my eyes read "title" and I saw it as something okay to read. I have my speculations and I am avoiding those of others but the bottom line is this: Lucas knows the Force, because he invented it. All the authors can play in the STAR WARS Universe with books inspired by what was made before but ultimately he is the one who knows it and is the authority on it. Did anyone ever think of the Force as something that would need to "awaken"? Nope, just like we never really thought of Yoda having a Padawan or Palpatine having another identity or Anakin being immaculately conceived, or stormtroopers evolving from the good guys, or the whole "Force ghost" thing being something that would be new. STAR WARS forever surprises.
I hope there is more to that title than just some kind of nifty double entendre of sorts that's more related to the franchise waking.

 

I completely agree with your above action...I did nearly the same thing, but I realized it was Star Wars itself announcing it. I still have to be careful with other news popping out. Is an actor's statement of a movie's potential greatness counting as "spoilers?" I've been blocking stuff out of my feed, at least a couple fan-type sites keep bringing stuff up.

I like the title, it lends itself to a lot of different interpretations.

 

Just like a Star Wars title should! I like the mystical quality of it as well as the slightly foreboding yet promising tone. There's so much going on with those three words and I really hope that the movie itself will live up to that.
I have little doubt, though, that this trilogy will be as multilayered as the other two and that the episode titles will reflect that.

 

Pretty sure that Abrams as professional filmmaker is more interested in the VHS versions of the movies rather than the modern OT. After all, it is the original Star Wars trilogy that was breaking new ground and not the rereleases.

 

That hardly matters though, does it? Abrams has no influence over any release of ANH anyway. His stance on it might give us an inkling about the tone of TFA, but that's it. Personally, I'm only interested in the fact that he cares about Star Wars because of what it means to him as a fan and filmmaker. That bodes well, IMO.

 

I'm sure the style of the new movies is going to be similar to what we saw in the OT. If there wasn't a bunch of sly references to things in the OT in this movie, I'd be very surprised.

I can barely contain my enthusiasm! I know people complained about lens flares when Abrams was selected to direct...but I have faith that he knows the rest of us (Star Wars fans) really want to see our childhood heroes in action again, in a great movie.

 

I wouldn't be too sure of that. A digital rerelease is being rumored right now and Abrams will be an important figure in the future of SW, if not as director then as producer. He is an important part of the story group that oversees story matters.

A digital rerelease could be a good marketing move for 7.

If it is like his Trek movies, there will be a ton of references, for good or ill I don't know.

 

Those are my thoughts exactly. I find that if I refuse to call Abrams Trek by the name of the source it's imitating, they're quite enjoyable. I really wish he would've just made a new franchise similar to Trek, and they would've been great. They're just not Star Trek though. All of the flash, none of the substance. Star Trek has action, sure, but it also has diplomacy, and intrigue, and more abstract cerebral-type wrestlings. Abrams Trek has pew pew pew.

 

*sigh*

I still don't know about this...it's not a bad title...I mean, at least it isn't some of the other cheesy titles out there. I didn't like the title of ROTS when it first came out either, but it grew on me. Maybe this one will do the same.

 

I don't really like the title. Sounds like a title one of JJ.Abrams' hack writers came up with. I guess I'm old and biased. I did enjoy Star Trek 2009. But was disgusted with StarTrek:IntoDarkness. Their "kirk" was even more of a teenager than ST2009. Someone said ST2009 was basically "good will hunting" and I finally saw that it was. Into Darkness and "Enterprise" reeked of new producers who tried to rewrite and re-imagine. ST TOS i.e. making use of a property they were never really a fan of. and this new title sounds like it too. As much as I am relieved GL isn't directing anymore, I didn't mind his titles.

 

How do you know Lucas didn't come up with the title? I'm not saying he did, but I imagine he would provide them with a bunch of suggestions.

Personally, I think it's a catchy title. Like "The Phantom Menace" and "A New Hope", it rolls off the tongue easily - maybe not quite as much as those two, but more so than the rest of them.
It feels kind of like a cross between TPM and ANH, which is fitting, since they're all trilogy openers.
Also, it has that multi-interpretable vagueness to it. It's more specific in the way that it refers directly to the Force, but we still have no idea what the title means.

I'll also point out that I thought "The Phantom Menace" was a weird Star Wars title at first. In my mind, it just didn't read as a Star Wars title at all, since it was so different from all the others.
I got used to it, though. Now, it's one of my favorite titles!

 

I think I saw a report that said Kathleen Kennedy or someone like that came up with the title.