Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek

[Dream]

Bob Karo wrote:

---

Is it too early to give a totally meaningless nomination to Brad Bird to direct Trek XIII?

Bird will direct SW VIII.

[Harvey]

Dream wrote:

---

It's quite funny that TUC cost $27 million, LESS than TFF, but TUC still looks so much better!

I think $27 million is a little low; the production budget in the Nick Meyer papers lists the cost of the film at $29.16 million.

I think it looks better for two main reasons: (1) ILM did the visual effects and (2) the darker color palette was more forgiving than Shatner's brighter tones. Shatner's picture actually had a lot more location photography than Meyer's.

Meyer's film also exerted a little more effort than Shatner's in redressing the Enterprise-D interiors, which helps.

Still, it has a lot of flimsy office chairs at the end.

[The Wormhole]

You realize what this means: Star Wars Episode 7 won't have an opening crawl since Abrams will fear it gives away too much about the film. Yep, the same draconian anti-spoiler tactics currently plaguing Trek will be applied to SW. In fact, you can give up finding out anything about Episode 7.

We'll learn the actors who'll be in the movie, but we won't be told the characters they'll be playing.

Oh, and we can stop calling Episode 7. It's now Episode 07.

[Greg Cox]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

You realize what this means: Star Wars Episode 7 won't have an opening crawl since Abrams will fear it gives away too much about the film. Yep, the same draconian anti-spoiler tactics currently plaguing Trek will be applied to SW. In fact, you can give up finding out anything about Episode 7.

So? Since when is squashing spoilers a bad thing? Especially where STAR WARS is concerned.

I still wish I hadn't been spoiled about the twists in EMPIRE . . . .

[CorporalClegg]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

So? Since when is squashing spoilers a bad thing?

It's not. It's a good thing.

And the crawl isn't going anywhere.

[The Wormhole]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

So? Since when is squashing spoilers a bad thing? Especially where STAR WARS is concerned.

I still wish I hadn't been spoiled about the twists in EMPIRE . . . .

I have always had prior knowledge of Star Wars movies. I saw the original trilogy for the first time when I was 10 years old in 1995 so thanks to hearing about them (primarily from Simpsons episodes, interestingly enough) I knew all the basics. In fact, I remember the first time I saw ANH being confused when Obi-Wan told Luke "A young pupil of mine, Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father." I sat there thinking "But I thought Darth Vader was his father?"

Let's face facts, the prequels didn't include anything particularly surprising, and fishing for spoilers online was an obvious necessity. And even if one didn't read spoilers, well, it was pretty obvious what had to happen. To quote a conversation about Episode 3 before its release "Is Mace Windu going to die?" "He kind of has to, doesn't he?"

Spoilers and Star Wars go hand in hand. The very idea of seeing a Star Wars movie where I have no idea of what is going to happen is not only frightening, it's obscene.

[Hunter X]

You could always wait until 2033 to watch Episode VII. That would be the same amount of time between Star Wars originally coming out and you seeing it in 1995. I imagine by that time the J. J. Abrams shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and you will be able to spoil yourself to your heart's content before watching the film.

[The Wormhole]

Hunter X wrote:

---

You could always wait until 2033 to watch Episode VII. That would be the same amount of time between Star Wars originally coming out and you seeing it in 1995. I imagine by that time the J. J. Abrams shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and you will be able to spoil yourself to your heart's content before watching the film.

You're missing the point: I would still have to wait to find out something about the movie.

[RoJoHen]

That sounds like your problem, not Abrams'.

[Kegg]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

So what's the problem with Abrams doing both Wars and Trek, as long as the scheduling works?

Is that's what happening, though?

I'd assumed if Abrams is directing Star Wars he's doing what Bryan Singer did with the X-Men franchise. That's really my concern at this point - how it impacts the Trek franchise.

[The Wormhole]

Kegg wrote:

---

I'd assumed if Abrams is directing Star Wars he's doing what Bryan Singer did with the X-Men franchise. That's really my concern at this point - how it impacts the Trek franchise.

Brett Ratner will direct Trek XIII. Hey, it can't be any worse than XI.

[sidious618]

This is fantastic news. He'll do a great job. The runner-up was apparently Ben Affleck who would have also done a great, great job.

[Tom Servo]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Brett Ratner will direct Trek XIII. Hey, it can't be any worse than XI.

And with that line, you've lost me completely.

[lennier1]

Abrams? Couldn't they have handed it to someone who'll do less damage, like Uwe Boll?

[Greg Cox]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Spoilers and Star Wars go hand in hand. The very idea of seeing a Star Wars movie where I have no idea of what is going to happen is not only frightening, it's obscene.

Whereas I literally camped out on the sidewalks outside the UA 150 theater in Seattle to see both EMPIRE and JEDI on their opening nights. So, to me, going in blind is not obscene; it's the way things always used to be.

And, yes, I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't an internet posting spoilers on-line everyday. All we had was STARLOG magazine . . . .