Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek - Page 21

davejames · January 26 2013, 04:32 AM

My Name Is Legion wrote:

You mean you haven't noticed that he doesn't shoot everything he does exactly the same?

Yeah, I've noticed he makes every movie look really bold and exciting and dynamic. And he populates them with lots of fun and energetic characters.

I certainly agree that his Trek was not the deepest or most complex thing ever, but it still had much more heart and character than the usual summer blockbuster. And he somehow managed to make the 40 year old Trek universe feel incredibly fresh and alive again, which is no small feat either.

I can't wait to see him do the same thing with SW.

Admiral Buzzkill · January 26 2013, 04:34 AM

BTW, according to the L.A. Times and the folks at Paramount today, Abrams is a lock to produce the next Trek movie if they do one. If he doesn't direct it, one of his people will.

If Abrams does not direct, that could leave either Lindelof or Kurtzman and Orci in the director’s chair, or perhaps another Abrams associate such as filmmaker Matt Reeves, who helmed the Abrams-produced monster movie “Cloverfield”...

It seems for now Abrams’ relationship with Paramount remains strong — every film Abrams has directed or produced since 2006′s “Mission: Impossible III” has been for the studio, where Bad Robot enjoys a lucrative first-look deal.

Peach Wookiee · January 26 2013, 04:44 AM

Nerys Myk wrote:

EnsignRicky wrote:

Nerys Myk wrote:

I'm concerned that you found the last three Star Wars films enjoyable.

You need not concern yourself.

Relax cupcake, it's a joke.

*grabs the popcorn and readies herself to watch a fight*

Greg Cox · January 26 2013, 04:52 AM

kirk55555 wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

Is it just me or is there a lot of hyperbole and melodrama being thrown around here?

Again, bottom line: a guy who directed a couple of movies in one series is also going to direct a movie in another, similar series. This may or may not impact his ability to direct yet another movie in the first series.

That's all.

It's an intriguing new development, but probably nothing to get worked up about.

I get what you're saying, although I personally get very worked up about it, and for good reason. I just hate that my two favorite Sci Fi franchises have gone into the gutter (live action wise, I still love the SW Expanded Universe, and most ST books that come out, so atleast thats something). In general, there is just no good shows on tV, atleast compared to the past, and definately no good Sci fi since Eureka ended last year. If a good Star Trek/Sci fi TV series was on, I would still hate Abrams, but I'd have something to watch so that I could just ignore his horrible movies. But, because there isn't an alternative, I have to look at the few things that do come out and seeing that stuff, with nothing good as an alternative, makes the horrible the stuff we do get push me from angry to enraged.

On other hand, it's worth remembering that this stuff is supposed to be fun . . . or what's the point? You don't want to take it so to heart that you're not enjoying yourself anymore.

As somebody reminded me once, babies will not die for this.

theenglish · January 26 2013, 04:58 AM

Mr. Adventure wrote:

As someone who wasn't a big fan of Trek XI, I wouldn't argue its success or viability, I just didn't care for it personally.

The Wormhole wrote:

Icemizer wrote:

I side with kirk55555 in this arguement but wish Abrams well in his attempts to return Star Wars to a higher level. If he is not writing, I think as a director he will be ok. I disagreed with nearly every writing decision in Star Trek. Hated the lensflare no end, but thought his overall direction and shot choices were good enough.

As director, the lens flares were part of his direction and shot choices. And you can be damned well sure he'll use them in SW.

Hard to say, I think the flares were probably to sell us on the future as shiny, bright and new. I don't know that SW warrants such. Do the flares pre-date Trek?

Star Wars is not the future. It was a long time ago.

sidious618 · January 26 2013, 05:04 AM

kirk55555 wrote:

sidious618 wrote:

Anyone who "hates" Abrams needs to take a step back and get some perspective.

Why can't I hate Abrams? He's a hack that keeps getting to destroy things I enjoy. Everything about him makes me wish I could spit in his face.

That's horrible. Wanting to spit in someone's face because their style isn't to your liking is absurd. If Abrams was making borderline propaganda films or something I'd understand, a little, the hate, but this is completely out of proportion.

EnsignRicky · January 26 2013, 05:37 AM

Yeah spitting in the guy's face is a bit of an over-reaction.

Maybe try flicking a booger at the back of his head and go from there.

Kelthaz · January 26 2013, 06:02 AM

Professor Zoom wrote:

I remember when being a fan was fun.... sigh.

Before the dark times. Before the Internet.

Nerys Myk · January 26 2013, 06:03 AM

EnsignRicky wrote:

Yeah spitting in the guy's face is a bit of an over-reaction.

Maybe try flicking a booger at the back of his head and go from there.

Why not just stuck your tongue out or call him a doo doo head?

Skywalker · January 26 2013, 06:09 AM

Nerys Myk wrote:

EnsignRicky wrote:

Yeah spitting in the guy's face is a bit of an over-reaction.

Maybe try flicking a booger at the back of his head and go from there.

Why not just stuck your tongue out or call him a doo doo head?

I already called dibs on those.

Professor Zoom · January 26 2013, 06:20 AM

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

Professor Zoom wrote:

I'm glad he's directing Star Wars. It's already a pleasure watching fandom melting down, and I eagerly await the poll "Which Franchise Did Abrams Ruin MOAR Star Wars or Star Trek?!!?!"

Just wait till we get the reaction if he doesn't slavishly follow the EU, the internet might burn down.

The EU? You mean the EU in the books, that only a tiny percentage of the movie going public purchases?

Yeah... not enough people care about the EU to matter.

Let the internet burn down.

FordSVT · January 26 2013, 06:34 AM

theenglish wrote:

JD wrote:

Damn. I can understand that not everyone likes the same things, but I don't think there is any way someone could actually convince me that Abrams' Star Trek is actually that bad.

Well, watch ST TMP, the ideal of what ST wanted to be, and then watch Khan, the perfect balance, and then watch Abrams Trek. Where are the themes? Where is the human equation? Where are the big questions?

And IMHO, Star Wars had those same things in a different style. If Abrams can bring to Star Wars what he originally brought to Alias then great. If he brings Revolution or the final two years of Lost then CRAP.

ST:TMP was boring as shit. Star Trek: First Contact was awesome. A Piece of the Action was a sweet TOS episode.

I'm really tired of people telling me that "real" Star Trek has to be cerebral and moral and teach me a lesson about the human condition every step of the way. Star Trek is many things, that's the beauty of it and why it has endured.

What did "Where No Man Has Gone Before" teach me, to not cross the galactic barrier? That the day might come where I might have to kill my friend if he becomes a freak Space Mutant God?

indianatrekker26 · January 26 2013, 06:35 AM

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-i...isode-vii.html starwars.com has now confirmed it. JJ is indeed director of episode 7.

bigdaddy · January 26 2013, 06:36 AM

Being that nothing really happened in the prequels that I would even consider a spoiler, I think it would be a step up if it had some mystery. Mystery means there is a plot.

And I'm a Star Wars fan, a friend of mine is a Star Wars fan, my grandma is a huge Star Wars fan. All three of us combined have never read a Star Wars novel, couldn't tell you a single thing about them. So fuck the books, make an entertaining movie. The people who will bitch and moan about every little damn thing will be the same ones camping out for a week to be the first to watch it.

DarthPipes · January 26 2013, 06:39 AM

They also officially confirmed that Lawrence Kasdan will be a consultant on the film. It's a pretty good crew they've assembled with Abrams at the helm.

January 26 2013, 05:37 AM	#307
EnsignRicky Commodore Location: Somewhere Far Beyond	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek Yeah spitting in the guy's face is a bit of an over-reaction. Maybe try flicking a booger at the back of his head and go from there. __________________ Use Only As Directed

January 26 2013, 06:35 AM	#313
indianatrekker26 Captain	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-i...isode-vii.html starwars.com has now confirmed it. JJ is indeed director of episode 7.

January 26 2013, 06:36 AM	#314
bigdaddy Vice Admiral Location: Space Massachusetts	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek Being that nothing really happened in the prequels that I would even consider a spoiler, I think it would be a step up if it had some mystery. Mystery means there is a plot. And I'm a Star Wars fan, a friend of mine is a Star Wars fan, my grandma is a huge Star Wars fan. All three of us combined have never read a Star Wars novel, couldn't tell you a single thing about them. So fuck the books, make an entertaining movie. The people who will bitch and moan about every little damn thing will be the same ones camping out for a week to be the first to watch it. __________________ "Bqhatevwr" - Former Senator Scott Brown

January 26 2013, 06:39 AM	#315
DarthPipes Rear Admiral	Re: Abrams turns Star Wars because of his "loyalty" to Trek They also officially confirmed that Lawrence Kasdan will be a consultant on the film. It's a pretty good crew they've assembled with Abrams at the helm.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US