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

Gbear

faceman wrote: »

Lucas did that with the prequels despite how bad they are. God knows how much cash he pulled in from the ancillary sales on the back of the prequels.

People are just desperate for a decent Star Wars film. I'm worried that it will be just like the Star Trek reboot. At first everyone was like "Ooh it's not crap" but when the dust settled it was a soulless affair.

I hope I'm wrong though. But unlike Star Trek, Star Wars is a children's movie and my expectations are low.

As long as talentless oxygen-thieves like Robert Orci aren't involved there's plenty of hope.

I don't think it's fair to blame Abrams for the soullessness.

Wedwood

Thought Abrams has the Star Trek reboot spot on, including Into Darkness. The last decent bit of Star Trek (on TV or cinema) was The Undiscovered Country in 1991, the rest of it was brutal other than First Contact.

He'll hopefully do the same for Star Wars. Certainly, getting rid of the 'expanded universe' is encouraging, as most of it is utter crap, similar to the later Star Trek stuff on TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's little or no reference to the Star Wars prequels either.

thegreengoblin

Wedwood wrote: »

Thought Abrams has the Star Trek reboot spot on, including Into Darkness. The last decent bit of Star Trek (on TV or cinema) was The Undiscovered Country in 1991, the rest of it was brutal other than First Contact.

He'll hopefully do the same for Star Wars. Certainly, getting rid of the 'expanded universe' is encouraging, as most of it is utter crap, similar to the later Star Trek stuff on TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's little or no reference to the Star Wars prequels either.

Very harsh. A lot of people got plenty of enjoyment from the EU. It kept things ticking over nicely before the prequels and then in between films. Yes there was some rubbish but there was also a lot of high quality novels and comics from some seriously talented writers.

faceman

Wedwood wrote: »

Thought Abrams has the Star Trek reboot spot on, including Into Darkness. The last decent bit of Star Trek (on TV or cinema) was The Undiscovered Country in 1991, the rest of it was brutal other than First Contact.

He'll hopefully do the same for Star Wars. Certainly, getting rid of the 'expanded universe' is encouraging, as most of it is utter crap, similar to the later Star Trek stuff on TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's little or no reference to the Star Wars prequels either.

Wouldn't be fair to hijack the thread as to the merits or demerits of Star Trek so we'll agree to disagree.

I'd sooner they rid of the prequels from canon than the EU tbh. Am I being too demanding?

DrumSteve

Wedwood wrote: »

Thought Abrams has the Star Trek reboot spot on, including Into Darkness. The last decent bit of Star Trek (on TV or cinema) was The Undiscovered Country in 1991, the rest of it was brutal other than First Contact.

He'll hopefully do the same for Star Wars. Certainly, getting rid of the 'expanded universe' is encouraging, as most of it is utter crap, similar to the later Star Trek stuff on TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's little or no reference to the Star Wars prequels either.

That's doing a major disservice to both TNG/DS9, both excellent shows.

I'd imagine there will be little referrence to the EU; there is no reason for it. They are trying to pull everyone into this and set up there own storyline; as soon as the EU is mentioned in any little way, they are tied into it.

And if any part of the EU is messed with, the internet may just explode under the weight of fanboy rage.

_Kaiser_

Without derailing too much, as mentioned above DS9 and later TNG were both excellent. VOY not so much (but it did have its moments) and ENT should never have happened.
The Abrams Trek reboots though are just noisy generic sci-fi action flicks with the Trek name tagged on. FFS the engine room looks like a factory, Scotty is a joke, and they have a bloody Ewok in it (which if rumours are to be believed will be given more screen time as they try and turn the franchise into a GotG rip-off)

I think Abrams is better suited to the more sci-fi action fantasy genre which is what Star Wars has always been, and for that reason I think the new film will be far more successful with the fans than his Trek efforts.

Iranoutofideas

I enjoyed Abrams reboot more than any of the other movies. Apart from one or two of them they are for the most part terrible.

pixelburp

The standard of Star Trek cinema has always been extremely patchy, in fact you'd be hard-pressed to find a series that occupies both the best of cinema (Star Trek II) and the worst (Star Trek V), but even at its lowest point, number 5 included, the Star Trek films made a deliberate attempt to explore themes of friendship, death and change, or the perennial ideas of old men being left-behind in an ever-evolving world. Ok, it's a hard sell in these days of the rabid 18-25 market, but it's not impossible.

That's not to say I like Star Trek, frankly I find the franchise was often stilted and overly pious, but none of the enduring themes and world-building of Trek survived the 'reboot' transition. It swapped character and utopian ideals for hollow thrills and clumsily-defined 'war on terror' motifs. The two films had no business calling themselves 'Star Trek' movies when they pulled across almost none of the concepts that defined the franchise in the first place.

Oh wait, this is a Star Wars thread. Whoops.
Well tbh I don't think any of the above problems can really be laid at the feet of Abrams mind you, he did well with what the script gave him, but both the Star Trek reboot scripts were god-awful, the kind of rubbish that'd get laughed at in a Michael Bay production, but the bangs and whistles were executed well enough that people paid the deeper problems no heed. I do maintain high hopes for the standard of VII's script, all that said... we shall see...

Beefy78

Trek 2009 is a good blockbuster and a poor Star Trek film. Into Darkness is a mediocre blockbuster and an insultingly bad Star Trek film.

For better or worse and I do agree that the shiny lens flair of Abrams direction is a secondary issue to the script of both. He was always a better fit for Wars than Trek.

.ak

Always surprised to read the negative comments about JJ's Star Treks. They're the best of the lot bar Kahn imo.

karaokeman

Can we leave the Star Trek discussion? There's a current thread for it.

.ak

karaokeman wrote: »

Can we leave the Star Trek discussion? There's a current thread for it.

Yeah fair enough, but it'll be hard to separate it completely seeing as we're discussing what JJ will bring to the franchise. ST is pretty comparable. For example my point would be that if JJ can do such a good job on the ST series he'll hopefully do an equally good job on the SW series.

Although for me a more comparable film to the look and feel of what he could bring to SW would actually be Super-8. That's straight out of the Spielberg-nostalgia section and he did such a good job of modernizing it without losing that feel of an oldschool sci-fi flick that he'll probably bring a lot of those elements into the SW series rather than having a modern jazzed up version like we saw in Star Trek.

Wedwood

Didnt mean to get into ST, just pointing out JJ Abrams got rid of all the fanboy stuff and gave general audiences a movie they could watch without needing all the baggage. Hopefully he does the same for SW.

From what (little) I've read of the expanded universe, it comes across as fairly poor stuff, similar level to those fan made movies on youtube etc that are unwatchable to the general public.

pixelburp

It's hard not to bring up Star Trek given Abrams is now involved with the two biggest sci-fi franchises in the world.

JJ Abrams didn't get rid of anything though in Star Trek 2009: the script, and by extension the studio, did. Abrams shot what was given to him by the (toe-curlingly bad) script, Abrams instead supplying the marriage of the old 60s vision of the future with a modernday, Apple inspired appearance.

Star Trek didn't need its mythology or core concepts jettisoned in favour of the themepark ride, they could've lived beside each other perfectly well, but ultimately that's all the fault of Orci & Kurtzman - the writers of the Transformers movies remember. Abrams should probably stay blameless in all this.

It's the same with the Star Wars Expanded Universe: the decision to pare down the garbage is the work of Disney, and one that I think makes a lot of sense given it's pretty poor stuff in places. Abrams will shoot what he's given, but even that appears to be far more in keeping with the existing Star Wars universe than, say, the Star Trek reboot was to its mythology.

DoYouEvenLift

What's the big deal about talking about star trek? Star wars is over a year away, there'll be a new thread by the time it's released anyway so might as well chat about whatever's interesting to fans ITT, and since JJ Abrams is attached to both it's actually relevant

Iranoutofideas

I loved the scenes with old Spock. If JJ can bring the same with Han Luke and Leia I'll be very happy.

david75

Rumor: 2016 Stand Alone Film Will be About Han Solo

Our friends over at MakingStarWars.net are reporting on some intriguing information about the first Star Wars stand alone film coming in 2016, directed by Gareth Edwards and written by Gary Whitta. According to MSW source, the film is a Han Solo film, the production code name is Luminac Industrial Goods, and that production on the film will overlap somewhat with Rian Johnson's work on Episode VIII.

Now, the Han Solo report isn't a huge surprise, going as far back as February 2013 Han has been rumored to be getting his own stand alone film. What is surprising is that this is contrary to a Hasbro leak from May 2014 which stated that a Han Solo was coming in 2018 and a Boba Fett film (which has also been rumored since February 2013) would be coming in 2016. Now, these scripts were likely worked on concurrently and there could have been a change in recent months as tow which would come first.

As for the production code name "Luminac Industrial Goods," not much can be gleaned from this. It gives away as much as the film's working title which, we reported in November, Los Alamos. And, in case you are wondering, yes they are both for the same film, much in the same way that The Force Awakens had several code names, such as Foodles and AVCO.

As always this is just a rumor until confirmed or denied by Lucasfilm or Disney.

Source: MakingStarWars.net


Folks...my nominee for the the young Han Solo

Anthony Ingruber

thegreengoblin

I sincerely hope that film doesn't happen. There was and can only ever be one Han Solo...

Iranoutofideas

I'd actually be more surprised if they didn't.

david75

God no...
Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens spin-off: Han Solo film starring Breaking Bad actor Aaron Paul reportedly in the works
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-vii-the-force-awakens-spinoff-han-solo-film-starring-breaking-bad-actor-aaron-paul-reportedly-in-the-works-9946965.html

pixelburp

I dunno, he's a good actor to be fair, just one that has failed to completely shake off his most iconic role so it's hard to separate the actor from Jesse (b*tch)

Soft Falling Rain

Aaron Paul as Solo I can't see. Chap was brilliant in BB but if he was starring in such a spin off I'd hope it wouldn't be in the role of Solo.

He's destined for a plum franchise role though.

Iranoutofideas

He doesn't fit the character at all. Anyway he's only said to be attached to the movie so he could be playing anyone really.

Soft Falling Rain

They always tip Bradley Cooper for an Indian Jones reboot so it'd be rude not to mention his name. Probably too old for their apparent plans though.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

God no...
Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens spin-off: Han Solo film starring Breaking Bad actor Aaron Paul reportedly in the works
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-vii-the-force-awakens-spinoff-han-solo-film-starring-breaking-bad-actor-aaron-paul-reportedly-in-the-works-9946965.html

Oh jesus christ.

You see, this is the crap I'm afraid of with Disney.

We're going to have multiple, by the numbers, mediocre entries into a series populated with people that have no business being in Star Wars films. Eventually, the series will become as meaningless as the Star Trek film series, littered with also rans outnumbering the truly decent efforts.

I really don't want to see a whinny little, wigger talking, bitch like Aaron Paul pretending to be my favorite Star Wars character.

:mad:

Bacchus

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh jesus christ.

You see, this is the crap I'm afraid of with Disney.

We're going to have multiple, by the numbers, mediocre entries into a series populated with people that have no business being in Star Wars films. Eventually, the series will become as meaningless as the Star Trek film series, littered with also rans outnumbering the truly decent efforts.

I really don't want to see a whinny little, wigger talking, bitch like Aaron Paul pretending to be my favorite Star Wars character.

:mad:

Jumping the gun there a bit. It's not even confirmed and the article even says it's not clear what role he'd be playing.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, he's a good actor to be fair, just one that has failed to completely shake off his most iconic role so it's hard to separate the actor from Jesse (b*tch)

Tony EH wrote: »

[...]

I really don't want to see a whinny little, wigger talking, bitch like Aaron Paul pretending to be my favorite Star Wars character.

Ahem. To the court I present Exhibit A.
You know Aaron Paul isn't Jesse in real life, yeah?

Seems to me like a bad idea whatever way you spin it, treading on hallowed ground like the backstory of Han Solo, but there's more than enough personal history to think it could work than to think it'd be a complete disaster.

faceman

Aaron Paul is a great actor but I suspect he might be too young for Solo?

Sad Professor

He’s 35. About the same age Ford was when he made the first Star Wars.

thegreengoblin

On the subject of Han Solo's backstory, anyone read the Rebel Dawn trilogy by A C Crispin? To me these books are one of the high points of the EU, I thought they were brilliant. Clearly any new film or trilogy would be a completely new story but I would highly recommend them to anyone who hasn't read them.

The other trilogy by the late, great Brian Daley was a very interesting idea as it was set outside Imperial-run space. It's a long time since I read the books but I do remember liking them.