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

I did include Abrams' qualifications for making a Star Wars Film. He has none.

And I can appreciate your right to break out the old and well worn banner of the prequel haters, but to say that the movies weren't a success is more of a subjective opinion rather than a fact, since in reality they have done very well, continue to generate fans over a decade later and have led us to the very impasse that we have reached today.

 

I'm curious. What does one need on their resume to be qualified to direct a Star Wars film?

 

What do you MEAN he has none? He has directed very successful action movies. Mission Impossible, Star Trek. He directed a GREAT fun thriller, Super 8. And has over seen quite a few franchises.

Why don't those things make him more qualified than the guy who was just art director of special effects of the OT and has a spotty record as far as directing?

I would never argue that the prequels weren't successful at the box office. They are tremendously successful there. Like Abrams over Johnston. Or that they continue to generate fans, like Abrams over Johnston. (So, again, from a objective point of view, Abrams has more than a few qualifications to be the next director of Star Wars. What about those qualifications don't you like?)

And as a side note, they haven't led anyone to an impasse. I would argue its fandom taken itself to seriously... (Lucas raped my childhood! I'm so angry at that director I want to spit in his face!) THAT has led us to an impasse.

 

But couldn't people have said the same thing about STAR TREK back in 1982, when Roddenberry had to surrender "total creative" control to Bennett and Meyer, after guiding Star Trek for its entire existence?

And yet we got THE WRATH OF KHAN.

 

Just one thing. Right at the very top, where it says name; George Lucas

 

So, ONLY George Lucas can direct Star Wars? Only something that is touched by Lucas?

Well, then, I expect you not to see Episode 7.

 

There have been seven Star Wars movies so far, four of them have been directed by George Lucas.

 

Ah, so only Lucas can direct a Star Wars film? He couldn't let someone else do it? Because, I think he's done just that.

If you're making the argument that Star Wars can only be made with Lucas in charge, then no one can direct a new Star Wars film, not just Abrams.

 

All we need to do is look back at the utter disaster which took place the first time someone other than Lucas directed a SW film.

We call that disaster THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

 

ESTB was indeed a production level disaster, Lucas had to go back to Fox to beg for money and it was pretty much the reason why he decided to wrap everything up at ROTJ instead of pursuing his original plan of making a SW movie every three years.

 

Yeah, because production was clearly what I was talking about, as opposed to the end result.

 

That's it!! You hit it right on the head. A Star Wars film without Lucas' direct involvement is absolutely unacceptable to me.

These group therapy sessions are worth every penny.

 

Yet many think of it as the best film in the series. Go figure.

 

So it's not Abrams involvement, but Lucas' lack of involvement?

 

In the words of Yoda: The best STAR WARS film it is.

 

I thought that was Master and Commander

 

I don't know if I'd go that far, I still think his take on Star Trek kinda sucks and I'd prefer not to have that for Star Wars, but yeah, I think the lack of Lucas is at the heart of my problem with accepting any of this.

 

There'll of course be a 3D release, so I hope they'll make him shoot it that way. I'll likely break my retrofitting boycott for Trek, as I really want to see the Enterprise fly around in stereo, but come on!

 

So Joe Johnston is out too? After all his name isn't "George Lucas" either.

So you don't think that Abrams made Star Trek too much like Star Wars? Which elements of his take on Star Trek do you think suck and would be bad for Star Wars?