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

Marty McFly

krudler wrote: »

Abram's Trek is one of the best blockbusters in years.

Agreed, I was never a big Star Trek fan fromthe fils to the tv shows all of which I watcheed from time to time, Abrams Star Trek made me sit up and pay attention and now I'm really looking forward to seeing the sequel and what he can do with Star Wars.

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Given that it has 95% approval on rotten tomatoes, a box office gross of $400,000,000 (impressive for a franchise that was in many respects box office poison), and a predominantly positive reception from viewers and fans, I think its safe to say the film's quality level was sufficiently high. Sure there were issues - script, mostly - but I think time travel was an elegant way of making Star Trek's labyrinthine lore accessible again, and I think it was a huge success.

You know what's coming here
I'd take it or leave it but to illustrate the point The Avengers grossed 4 times what Star Trek '09 did, has a 92% rating on RT, an 8.3 on IMDB, close to universal acclaim among fans and general audience, and all this helmed by a director making only his 2nd movie. Preching to the choir here but success isn't always a great indicator of quality.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Sure there were issues - script, mostly

But the script encompasses everything that happens or was spoken in the movie. You can't brush that elephant under the carpet as a minor detail. Make a balls of that (Not talking about Abrams here but he still put his name to it) and the rest is inconsequential.

---

The good thing now however is that he has a much easier and fun job to do and one he seems made for - A Disney Star Wars by-the-numbers action blockbuster extravaganza. One that will be infinitely better than the prequels even in the worst case scenario. Even if Lindelof was to write it it couldn't be any worse so everything's a plus.

Just to take one area for comparison - casting is one of Abrams' greatest strengths (Pegg aside). Compare the inevitable globular cluster he'll assemble for this to the Star Wars prequels which had: Anakin that absolutely everyone on the planet hated and not for antagonistic reasons; Ewan McGregor as monosylabic-wan; cgi Dumbo; even Samuel L. Jackson was boring to listen to. Everyone is going to be on his side after Lucas' efforts and it should bring a feel good factor back to Star Wars canon hopefully.

Imagine the teasing, misdirection and trolling that's gonna come our way before this one. He should leak scenes of a long pod race for a laugh.

roanoke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GMNm0-0-Ko

Antar Bolaeisk

Not sure I like the idea of JJ Abrams having complete control of my childhood.

Edit: Does this also mean we can now get the Star Trek/Wars crossover we've always wanted (please say no).

don ramo

id much rather put in Abrams hands than Lucas or Speilbergs,

Antar Bolaeisk

don ramo wrote: »

id much rather put in Abrams hands than Lucas or Speilbergs,

Oh indeed, he'll probably make a fine film, especially since he's already prepped for Star Wars with the last film.

It just feels wrong.

It also probably means Giachino will score the films which saddens me though he's a decent enough choice and much better than the alternative.

Sad Professor

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

It also probably means Giachino will score the films which saddens me though he's a decent enough choice and much better than the alternative.

I'd imagine Williams will make that decision for him. He's pretty much retired except for Spielberg's films. Giacchino was probably going to end up composing regardless of who was directing.

krudler

Giacchino is a fantastic composer, he's the one person I wouldn't mind see take the reins from Williams.

doubledown

krudler wrote: »

Giacchino is a fantastic composer, he's the one person I wouldn't mind see take the reins from Williams.

Agreed. He'd be perfect.

My thoughts on Abrams and Giacchino here -

http://starwarsherewegoagain.blogspot.ie/2013/01/the-needs-of-many.html

Gauss

Mitch Connor wrote: »

maybe.

But it also seems like you are projecting your dislike of the time travel aspect to the rest of the audience. It is more likely that others either didn't really think about it, didn't mind it, or liked it.

I, for example, would say that the time travel aspect didn't negatively affect the movie, and in fact the Spock talking to Spock moment was a very nice one.

I don't think the lack of a time travel component would have positively affected the movie (in box office terms as I assume that is what you are talking about) in any way, so I don't see that your dislike of it and rounding on it holds much weight.

So much wrong with that Star Trek movie, a shame since the quality of the general production was high, storyline and logic aside.

It reminded me of homer being made captain of the submarine when kick got promoted to captain, then there was the engine room which resembled a water park.

Scotty being a laughing stock completely losing any credibility as the chief engineer of a 24th century state of the art star ship was particularly annoying.

krudler

doubledown wrote: »

Agreed. He'd be perfect.

My thoughts on Abrams and Giacchino here -

http://starwarsherewegoagain.blogspot.ie/2013/01/the-needs-of-many.html

I'm insanely jealous that you met Spielberg, even briefly

doubledown

krudler wrote: »

I'm insanely jealous that you met Spielberg, even briefly

It was a total fluke. I just went down to The Merrion on the off-chance I might see something and he emerged shortly after I got there. He was great with the fans. Lifelong ambition. He has been my favourite filmmaker for as long as I can remember. Still can't believe it happened.

MiloYossarian

This has probably already been said, but I feel a bit weird about the same guy directing the Star Wars and Star Trek. Really, really weird. Kind of like, "show me on the teddy where they touched you" weird.

old hippy

Gbear wrote: »

Doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

My point was rather that there was no need for the time travel and it wouldn't have negatively impacted on how well the film did.
The need to placate nerds was overestimated in my view.

I thought it was well handled. Trek has been using time travel as a staple ingredient since the original series...

JJ Abrams, eh? Not a bad choice. As long as it doesn't have a disappointing ending, like Lost... actually, we need another Han Solo type character in the new films. Maybe Sawyer from Lost?

don ramo

old hippy wrote: »

JJ Abrams, eh? Not a bad choice. As long as it doesn't have a disappointing ending, like Lost... actually, we need another Han Solo type character in the new films. Maybe Sawyer from Lost?

JJ Abram helped create lost and then left the project, coming back here and there, anything that happened on lost should be credited to carlton cuse and damien lindeloff they were the showrunners, abrams had much more input into Fringe, and he was the showrunner for alias so that was all him,

Mickeroo

Gauss wrote: »

So much wrong with that Star Trek movie, a shame since the quality of the general production was high, storyline and logic aside.

It reminded me of homer being made captain of the submarine when kick got promoted to captain, then there was the engine room which resembled a water park.

Scotty being a laughing stock completely losing any credibility as the chief engineer of a 24th century state of the art star ship was particularly annoying.

I don't get this criticism at all. Abram's Trek was a good deal smarter than a few of the older films and nowhere near as goofy imo.

FlashD

Abrams is a big name for sure but his directorial track record is unproven to say the least. MI3, Star Trek & Super 8 to date really. All watchable, ultra safe and forgettable (Perfect for Disney).

In saying that, I think he is a good choice.

pixelburp

FlashD wrote: »

Abrams is a big name for sure but his directorial track record is unproven to say the least. MI3, Star Trek & Super 8 to date really. All watchable, ultra safe and forgettable (Perfect for Disney).

In saying that, I think he is a good choice.

"Ultra safe", not sure I get what that means as a negative - seems about right thiugh for Star Wars; as opposed to what anyway? The edgy, leftfield arthouse that was Episodes 4 through 6? I mean sure, Empire had some darkness, but it was in the minority; Star Wars is just frivolous, genre bubblegum, let's be honest here

old hippy

don ramo wrote: »

JJ Abram helped create lost and then left the project, coming back here and there, anything that happened on lost should be credited to carlton cuse and damien lindeloff they were the showrunners, abrams had much more input into Fringe, and he was the showrunner for alias so that was all him,

Ah; Fringe. Love it. Now that has just really gone beyond X Files rip off, sorry, hommage to something altogether different and special.

Plus it has one of telly's two best characters named "Walter"

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

"Ultra safe", not sure I get what that means as a negative - seems about right thiugh for Star Wars; as opposed to what anyway? The edgy, leftfield arthouse that was Episodes 4 through 6? I mean sure, Empire had some darkness, but it was in the minority; Star Wars is just frivolous, genre bubblegum, let's be honest here

Lars Von Trier's Star Wars Episode VII :pac:

allanb49

This has had me wondering since it was revealed,

What direction will Disney go with this?

We have the expanded universe that can be quite dark and adult as that's what it's written for, even the tv show the clone wars can be quite dark at times.

Disney themselves can be traumatic in how they handle kids movies.

So what i'm really trying to hammer home is, Star Wars is by and large a kids/teethering into teenage markets. But the fanbase is mainly the 20+ range of people who have grown up with these movies and expanded the said universe.

We have the Rise of the Empire novels, Dark Forces saga/Kyle Kattarns story, Knights of the Old Republic.

So what are Disney going to do I wonder, Will they make a family movie in the vein of The Avengers which wouldn't be the worst thing we could have or would they go in either direction.

Toy Story type story aimed at 8 year olds + or go for the teen adult demograph. There's already a built in huge fanbase there.

Me personally would like the second option a more adult movie but with stuff in there for kids too instead of a kids movie with stuff for adults in it.

If that makes sense?

pixelburp

Phew: Disney earn yet more brownie points by shelving the planned 3D release of the remaining 5 films:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/disney-announces-new-special-edition-of-the-future%2C91698/

I'm sure they based the decision primarily on the poor performance & reception towards Episode1-3D, but it's yet another smart move by them. At this rate I might cross the line into full-blown optimism. My head is spinning at the idea :pac:

Sad Professor

More likely Disney just didn't fancy having to shell out for the 3D conversions only to share the profits with Fox.

pixelburp

Sad Professor wrote: »

More likely Disney just didn't fancy having to shell out for the 3D conversions only to share the profits with Fox.

Like I said, it's more than likely a financial decision, but it does have the serendipitous side-effect of getting more people on-board. Time will tell n' all that of course...

Kinski

Even if Abrams weren't directing, I'd say that the Star Trek reboot is probably what this forthcoming movie will most closely resemble. It's not going to be an out-and-out kids' movie, or a "dark," adult-orientated affair; the archetypal audience member will be a teenager.

I would be a little concerned about Abrams' 'breathless' approach to narrative; like so many directors these days, he produces films that seem afraid to lift their foot from the pedal for even a moment lest the audience gets bored. Compare that to the original Star Wars: the first act proceeds at an almost leisurely pace once the initial action scenes are out of the way. Indeed, compare it to other Trek films; the first one is notoriously boring, but even the fondly-remembered Wrath of Kahn is very slow by today's standards.

I find it hard to imagine that these new films will sit very well alongside the originals in that respect.

don ramo

yeah i really hate that yet again they plan on making 3 more Star Wars films, but again they are targeting it towards getting NEW fans, sure didn't they only do that 10 years ago with a second trilogy, by right we should be getting 18 rated films by now as a pay off for enduring the last 3,

its ridiculous that the hard core element of any franchise never gets a proper pay off, even if the franchise gets a reboot or suddenly gets continued 2 decades later, they always target the damn thing at a new younger audience, even though they have a few million fanatics already built into the franchise,

i mean even if these films are utter crap they are still guaranteed to touch a billion dollars each at the box office,

Abrams done well to help the ailing franchise that is Star Trek and i do believe hes has the capabilities to do that also for Star Wars, but i do think Disney will be doing everything in their power to ensure these films are made to gather in a lot of new younger fans,

old hippy

More space battles. More renegades. More Jedi. More wookies.

Anf of course, more direction as in "Empire".

That's all we need.

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Phew: Disney earn yet more brownie points by shelving the planned 3D release of the remaining 5 films:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/disney-announces-new-special-edition-of-the-future%2C91698/

I'm sure they based the decision primarily on the poor performance & reception towards Episode1-3D, but it's yet another smart move by them. At this rate I might cross the line into full-blown optimism. My head is spinning at the idea :pac:

That's because they released them arseways, shoulda shown a big long trailer with the good bits from I-III then straight into IV, I was curious to see what the trench run would look like in 3D but oh well.

Hematocyte

krudler wrote: »

That's because they released them arseways, shoulda shown a big long trailer with the good bits from I-III then straight into IV, I was curious to see what the trench run would look like in 3D but oh well.

They not only released them in the wrong order, but the time frame of 1 a year was a bad plan. Nobody wants to wait 5-6 years to see the series in 3D.

I think when the Special Editions came out they had them maybe 1 or 2 months apart. It created a real buzz and momentum. You were already anticipating the next one the second you left the theatre.

I reckon if they had released all of Ep 1-6 over a period of maybe six months or a year it would have created huge interest (even in 1 to 6 order) .

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

I was curious to see what the trench run would look like in 3D but oh well.

Well since it would have been retrofit 3D I think it's safe to say it would look like a load of arse.

The very mildly diverting Star Tours ride in Disneyland is probably your best bet for a slightly more immersive trench run