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

[EnsignRicky]

I guess I'm just asking you to unpack your opinion. How is liking what you consider a good movie a BAD thing? How is that a dig?

And I don't see how JJ's Trek is like Galaxy Quest...

The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.

Forget the Galaxy Quest reference, it just seems to be adding unforeseen confusion, (though I'll stand by my off topic remark that Trek '09 was more than a little inspired by it) He could like Ghostbusters for all it matters, it doesn't make him any more qualified to direct Star Wars films.

Well. You didn't LIST any qualifications. You sorta purposefully left out Abrams's body of work.

It's fine to have an opinion, but don't pretend you're laying out a well thought case.

And let's be blunt, personal experience with Star Wars doesn't guarantee success. Case in point, George Lucas and the prequels.

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.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

 

[Professor Zoom]

The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.

Forget the Galaxy Quest reference, it just seems to be adding unforeseen confusion, (though I'll stand by my off topic remark that Trek '09 was more than a little inspired by it) He could like Ghostbusters for all it matters, it doesn't make him any more qualified to direct Star Wars films.

Well. You didn't LIST any qualifications. You sorta purposefully left out Abrams's body of work.

It's fine to have an opinion, but don't pretend you're laying out a well thought case.

And let's be blunt, personal experience with Star Wars doesn't guarantee success. Case in point, George Lucas and the prequels.

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

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?

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 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.

 

[Greg Cox]

The point of my original post I thought clearly illustrated my opinion that Joe Johnston would have been a much better choice. I supported it with his personal experience with Star Wars. Abrams has none.

But you don't need to have "personal experience" with a franchise to do a good job with it. I'm not sure where people get the idea that you have to be a lifelong fan to "get" a series, be it STAR WARS or STAR TREK or THE GILMORE GIRLS for pete's sake.

Again, look at Nicholas Meyer, who had absolutely no "personal experience" with TREK before doing THE WRATH OF KHAN, which is still the best TREK movie to date.

The point is this isn't Gilmore Girls or even Star Trek, this is Star Wars. Something that has been guided frame by frame, for better or for worse by one man. Even when directed by the likes of Kershner and Marquand, you know Lucas still held and exercised total creative control.

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.

 

[EnsignRicky]

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

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

 

[Professor Zoom]

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

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.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

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

 

[Nerys Myk]

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

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

 

[Set Harth]

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.

 

[Hound of UIster]

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.

 

[Set Harth]

ESTB was indeed a production level disaster

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

 

[EnsignRicky]

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.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

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

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

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

 

[Neroon]

Galaxy Quest is a great movie.

Best Trek movie ever!

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

Problem is... Lucas evidently was ready to be done with it all or else he'd never have agreed to the sale. Consequently, without him there would be no other SW material would there? Considering the potential for new stories in that rich universe, to me that'd be too steep a price to pay, especially if the alternative would be an apparently burned-out Lucas.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

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

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

 

[SalvorHardin]

Galaxy Quest is a great movie.

Best Trek movie ever!

I thought that was Master and Commander

 

[EnsignRicky]

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.

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

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.

 

[Gaith]

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!

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

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

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.

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?