Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

roanoke

I hear this is all phase one of a long term strategy Disney have to buy-up and merge both of the Star Trek and Star Wars brands.

The new merged brand will take the "Wars" from Star Wars and the "Star" from Star Trek and from then on be known as "Star Wars".

RobbingBandit

roanoke wrote: »

I hear this is all phase one of a long term strategy Disney have to buy-up and merge both of the Star Trek and Star Wars brands.

The new merged brand will take the "Wars" from Star Wars and the "Trek" from Star Trek and from then on be known as "Trek Wars".

Fyp.

FreezeUp

roanoke wrote: »

I hear this is all phase one of a long term strategy Disney have to buy-up and merge both of the Star Trek and Star Wars brands.

The new merged brand will take the "Wars" from Star Wars and the "Star" from Star Trek and from then on be known as "Star Wars".

Or just "Star"

Sad Professor

I'm really surprised that Disney went with such a big name director. I think almost everyone expected them to go with someone little smaller and easier to control. Abrams is used to having complete creative control over his films. I assume this will be no different, although I can't help but wonder. Will he be shooting this on 35mm? He has been fairly outspoken in his preference for celluloid over digital. But I imagine Disney will demand that this be shot in 3D. Unless Abrams convinces them to let him do it in 70mm IMAX. Lucas (who I suspect still has some say) wouldn't be too happy about this.

FreezeUp

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm really surprised that Disney went with such a big name director. I think almost everyone expected them to go with someone little smaller and easier to control. Abrams is used to having complete creative control over his films. I assume this will be no different, although I can't help but wonder. Will he be shooting this on 35mm? He has been fairly outspoken in his preference for celluloid over digital. But I imagine Disney will demand that this be shot in 3D. Unless Abrams convinces them to let him do it in 70mm IMAX. Lucas (who I suspect still has some say) wouldn't be too happy about this.

Does Lucas have a say anymore?

Goldstein

What are people on about? This will be Abrams' 3rd Star Wars film.

OctavarIan

(seriously, happy with the choice of director)

FreezeUp

Random image placement lol

JP Liz V1

Wow never expected him to named as director :eek:

johnny_ultimate

Interesting choice, certainly the second finest blockbuster director of the moment. Curious to see what level of control he's granted.

FreezeUp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Interesting choice, certainly the second finest blockbuster director of the moment. Curious to see what level of control he's granted.

Who do you consider #1?

This is excellent news. As others have said, he's a great choice to helm this. The man is extremely creative and is something that is definitely needed to bring life to this franchise. Funny that he could be bringing both the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises back to life.

Sad Professor

FreezeUp wrote: »

Who do you consider #1?

Allow me to answer on johnny_ultimate's behalf: Nolan, obviously.

pixelburp

Goldstein wrote: »

What are people on about? This will be Abrams' 3rd Star Wars film.

Whatever else can be said about Abrahms' Trek (primarily I hated it as a script), it had more in common with the space-opera of Star Wars than the brainchild of Roddenberry, for better or worse. Star Wars seems like a much better fit for his talents.

He certainly knows how to direct blockbuster cinema (and human drama, even if he often over-eggs that particular pudding), Arndt looks like he know how to mix blockbuster with character; this could yet be something special.

FreezeUp wrote:

Who do you consider #1?

Chris Nolan I presume, seems the obvious choice

Sad Professor

FreezeUp wrote: »

Does Lucas have a say anymore?

No, but he doesn't need any. He's George flippin Lucas. It's like in The Godfather when Vito retired and made Michael the head of the family. Vito was still guiding all of Michael's decisions. I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but if Lucas wants to influence these films he will.

Bullseye1

I would prefer he had stayed on board Star Trek. I like where he was taking that franchise although he could tone down the light flairs.

roanoke

His Star Trek made me want to watch some real Star Trek, his Super8 made me want to watch Close Enounters.

I imagine his Star Wars will likewise make me want to watch something else.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, but he doesn't need any. He's George flippin Lucas. It's like in The Godfather when Vito retired and made Michael the head of the family. Vito was still guiding all of Michael's decisions. I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but if Lucas wants to influence these films he will.

I dunno: after the relative disaster of John Carter, I'd be surprised if Disney give Lucas any time at all. His role sounds fairly nominal at best, and I'd not be surprised if he's completely frozen out of the creative process (bar a look-in on some of the finished products)

johnny_ultimate

FreezeUp wrote: »

Who do you consider #1?

Zack Snyder.

I was looking forward to the lightsaber duel at 5% speed, with a young Skywalker posing epically for no immediatedly apparent reason other than its inherent awesomeness.

Goldstein

pixelburp wrote: »

Whatever else can be said about Abrahms' Trek (primarily I hated it as a script), it had more in common with the space-opera of Star Wars than the brainchild of Roddenberry, for better or worse. Star Wars seems like a much better fit for his talents.

Absolutely. Science fantasy was always a much better fit for him. The shame is we know exactly what movie we're going to get now and there'll be no surprises on the creative front - another entertaining but predictable Abrams blockbuster but with Disney at the reigns we were never going to get anything more adventurous so Abrams is a decent choice within that context. Still would have much preferred to see what someone like Whedon did with the franchise but it can hardly be worse than the crap that Lucas spawned.

Just imagine how annoying the lens flare is going to be whenever someone pulls out a light sabre.

Liamario

I doubt Lucas will have any say in anything. JJ will consult him and then go home and throw all of Lucas's ideas in the bin. He has no control over the series anymore.

Sad Professor

Unless Abrams adds it in post-production, there's not going to be any lens flare if he shoots it digitally, as I suspect is likely.

And as much as I like Whedon, I don't think he has the visual chops for Star Wars, solid as he is. Look at The Avengers: a massive blockbuster shot in 1.85:1 with the blandest cinematography imaginable, despite being shot by an extremely talented DP. While Abrams is no Spielberg when it comes to the camera, he's still a lot more capable than Whedon.

johnny_ultimate

While I count myself as somewhat of a Whedon fanboy - OMG can't wait for his Dublin visit next month !!111!! - I don't think he'd do any better than Abrams will given his solid but at the same time utterly bland and indistinctive work on The Avengers. When you're in this budget range, adventurous impulses are pretty much forbidden, especially when you're working with Disney or Marvel - the two most risk-averse film studios there are. Auteurs are not particularly welcome. As said above, Abrams is an all round better technical / visual / action director when it comes to this sort of safe yet entertaining fare, so he is IMO pretty much the best high-profile choice there is. Yes a fresh talent or more curveball choice would have been interesting, but at the same time its Disney presents Star Wars - there's very limited potential for subversion or grand artistic ambition in that concept, and I can't think of anyone who fits the bill better than J.J. Abrams.

Bullseye1

Hold the press. Whedon , Dublin, next month. How did I miss this? Details.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Hold the press. Whedon , Dublin, next month. How did I miss this? Details.

He's at JDIFF for Much Ado About Nothing on February 23rd. It sold out pretty much instantly.

Bullseye1

Ah. I'll be at the London Comic Con that day anyway. That's a pity.

Cock. I should really start reading those threads more.

Goldstein

Someone finally listened to Plinkett!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e7Upf6i7dE

indough

Sad Professor wrote: »

Unless Abrams adds it in post-production, there's not going to be any lens flare if he shoots it digitally, as I suspect is likely.

lens flare is caused by the lens rather than the camera itself, if he shoots with anamorphic glass (which he will) there is bound to be some degree of it. i dont mind it myself, he does over use it but there is also tons of it in some of our best loved sci-fi movies. it is a nice effect when used sparingly and i get the impression he will be reining it in a bit in future

i think this is just about the best choice of director they could have made for this film, although i thought super 8 was pretty much a pile of crap. i give him a pass for that though as it probably had a fair bit to do with spielberg's influence

fitz

Abrams for movie 1, Whedon for the second, Nolan for the big finish.
That might just be enough to wipe the prequels from memory...