If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   JJ Abrams says he will "honor, but not revere" the past Star Wars films. Translation: lots of lensflares, the dropping of canon he finds to be too complicated, and terrible casting choices. But hey, it starts production next year   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 269
    More: Fail, J.J. Abrams, Star Wars, Episode VII, Michael Arndt, experimental film, Bad Robot, 2013 and beyond in film, George Lucas  
•       •       •

2058 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 09 Jun 2013 at 1:16 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-09 08:59:12 AM
Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?
 
2013-06-09 08:59:49 AM
Oh, and again, what canon has been violated? Be specific.
 
2013-06-09 09:00:26 AM
Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.
 
2013-06-09 09:06:29 AM
Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.
 
2013-06-09 09:17:54 AM

Confabulat: Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.


Nice try, JJ
 
2013-06-09 09:18:34 AM

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Subby is Lucas.
 
2013-06-09 09:40:25 AM
Butthurt, in this thread I see.
 
2013-06-09 09:47:58 AM
If he means "pretend the prequels never happened, and actually respect the continuity established in the original trilogy", I'm with him all the way.

What would be really interesting, though, would be to pick up Yoda's cryptic "No, there is another!" comment. Yes, I know what it was intended to mean at the time, but it was never really played out in the movies, so it could make for a good story. (And please remember that for 90%+ of the movie-going public, the existing movies are the whole of the story. The neither know nor care what is "established canon" in any other medium.)
 
2013-06-09 10:04:00 AM
To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.
 
2013-06-09 10:08:22 AM

czetie: If he means "pretend the prequels never happened, and actually respect the continuity established in the original trilogy", I'm with him all the way.

What would be really interesting, though, would be to pick up Yoda's cryptic "No, there is another!" comment. Yes, I know what it was intended to mean at the time, but it was never really played out in the movies, so it could make for a good story. (And please remember that for 90%+ of the movie-going public, the existing movies are the whole of the story. The neither know nor care what is "established canon" in any other medium.)


What? It was never played out in terms of Leia becoming a Jedi, but it was central to both Luke's inner conflict with his own anger, and to resolving the love triangle with Han.
 
2013-06-09 10:29:38 AM
I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.
 
2013-06-09 01:06:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


If he could have invented a darkness flare he would have used it.
 
2013-06-09 01:14:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.


I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while
 
2013-06-09 01:19:34 PM
He won't assrape whatever "legacy" Star Wars had any worse than its creator did with that dogshiat "prequel trilogy"

/no, I will not call "Star Wars" "Episode IV: A New Hope"
 
2013-06-09 01:20:32 PM
Say good bye another favorite franchise.

 Thanks a lot douchebag!
 
2013-06-09 01:20:49 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


I wear glasses so I see lens flare all day.

So there.  You.
 
2013-06-09 01:21:00 PM

jake_lex: He won't assrape whatever "legacy" Star Wars had any worse than its creator did with that dogshiat "prequel trilogy"

/no, I will not call "Star Wars" "Episode IV: A New Hope"


Look at it this way: if Abrams does to Star Wars what he did to Star Trek, then the prequels may never have ever happened!  They could be erased from existence, aside from their life in the memory of Old Threepio.
 
2013-06-09 01:23:07 PM
i expect nothing less than the most ridiculously awesome star wars movie ever made.  it will be loud, flashy, exciting, fun, and will revitalize a series that has done nothing but shiat on itself for years.

/the new trek movies are AWESOME.  fark the haters.

//41 year old life long trek and SW fan.

///one request - NO farkING YODA.  he died in Return of the Ewok.  Let him be dead.
 
2013-06-09 01:27:07 PM
The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.

There, I said it.
 
2013-06-09 01:27:32 PM

Shostie: To be completely honest, anything that wasn't in the movies should be excised from the canon.

No need to complicate matters with hundreds of sh*tty novels, comic books and early 80's television specials.


Canon is only what's in the movies according to Lucas
 
2013-06-09 01:28:45 PM

Macinfarker: MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while

I wear glasses so I see lens flare all day.

So there.  You.


Yeah, so do I

/that movie caused lens flare in my lens flare
 
2013-06-09 01:31:13 PM
As I said in another thread, the new Star Trek movies are technically sound.  They're well-made, well-acted, action-packed movies that offer enough throwbacks and easter eggs to keep fans happy while making the franchise accessible to a new generation.  The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.  Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.  So far, the Abrams Trek has failed to achieve that, focusing instead on the action aspects.  It's as if they have a spreadsheet that describes all of the data that defines Trek but they haven't yet figured out how to properly visualize the data.  I suspect the same thing will happen with Star Wars.

And no, I won't be seeing the new Star Wars movies.  After Disney bought the rights and announced their plans, it was pretty obvious that Star Wars as I understood it growing up in the 70's and 80's was gone forever.  I'm content to let it go and let the new generation play with it.
 
2013-06-09 01:31:51 PM
If he brings his lens flare machine to Ep 7, lightsaber fights are going to melt peoples pupils and burn their retinas right out of their skulls.
 
2013-06-09 01:32:32 PM

Confabulat: Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.


I lol'd. Good one
 
2013-06-09 01:32:59 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


Not to mention it means that the lights on that ship's bridge would've been bright enough to cause eye fatigue, if it were a real spaceship.

frepnog: i expect nothing less than the most ridiculously awesome star wars movie ever made.  it will be loud, flashy, exciting, fun, and will revitalize a series that has done nothing but shiat on itself for years.

/the new trek movies are AWESOME.  fark the haters.

//41 year old life long trek and SW fan.

///one request - NO farkING YODA.  he died in Return of the Ewok.  Let him be dead.


The new trek movies are retarded action trash with characters drawn directly from teenage TV like 90210. Especially the latest one. It makes no damn sense(and includes a scene were Spock calls Spock to ask how ST2LWOK ended). By contrast, most of the old Trek movies were slightly higher budget 2 hour episodes and were mostly trash (except 2, 6, and FC), but at least didn't have the same level of senseless bullshiat in them that the new films aspire to.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:22 PM
I like the new Star Trek, so I'm looking forward to his take on Star Wars.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:44 PM

Confabulat: Go on, subby, I'll call you. What's your problem, exactly, with the casting choices?


Confabulat: Oh, and again, what canon has been violated? Be specific.


Confabulat: Oh are you just another butthurt Trekkie talking out their ass.


Confabulat: Translation: Subby will be first in line in 2015.


You could have at least let someone reply before wasting all the arguments.

/No dog in the Star Wars fight. Will laugh when Star Wars fans get a(nother) pile of crap and go ballistic.
 
2013-06-09 01:33:46 PM

James F. Campbell: The only good Star Wars movie was (and will continue to be) The Empire Strikes Back.


Also -- Empire was the least worked over of all the originals by Lucas's reissued "improvements."

Coincidence? I think not.

/JJ Abrams can't do any worse than the prequels. Lucas set a pretty low bar for Star Wars movies.
 
2013-06-09 01:34:04 PM
There's no way he can screw it up as badly as Lucas did.
 
2013-06-09 01:34:19 PM
The parts which will REALLY REALLY REALLY confuse the fans are:
acting
human dialog
no farktard jar jar binks
actual acting abilities
directing by a real director

more attention to the story than getting the pretty pictures

the pretty pictures will follow
 
2013-06-09 01:35:19 PM

Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.


Good point, another thing I've wondered is how long can they keep the current crew together before someone decides they are being typecast or not being paid enough or just want to do other things. Surprising they've kept this crew intact as long as they have.
/the only constant is change
 
2013-06-09 01:35:39 PM
He will simply remake the original trilogy
 
2013-06-09 01:35:45 PM

Tax Boy: Also -- Empire was the least worked over of all the originals by Lucas's reissued "improvements."

Coincidence? I think not.


It's also the one he had the least directorial influence over while it was being filmed.
 
2013-06-09 01:36:07 PM
Nothing, NOTHING JJ could possibly do could be any worse than the abysmal train wreck that the prequels were.

I love the new Trek movies and the new Star Wars film will be a blast I'm sure (as long as they keep George Lucas far far away from it).
 
2013-06-09 01:37:04 PM

JonBuck: I like the new Star Trek, so I'm looking forward to his take on Star Wars.


In a way, you've already seen JJ do Star Wars because his two Star Trek films could be ANY film set in space.  All they have to do is dub in the character names and use a little CGI to turn Bones into Chewbacca.
 
2013-06-09 01:37:16 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: cameroncrazy1984: I don't get why people have so much of a problem with lens flare. But then again I am a person who hated the Chris Nolan Batman movies.

I didn't get it at first, but then I went back and watched Star Trek again

/Every. Freaking. Scene.
//it becomes just clutter after a while


You know, it is a cool callback to the days when it was unavoidable, but only, you know, once or twice in the film.  Not every damn shot.
 
2013-06-09 01:37:44 PM

EnviroDude: Butthurt, in this thread I see.


subby?
 
2013-06-09 01:38:18 PM
I simply fail to understand how, having watched both the Star Wars "prequels" and the rebooted Star Trek movies, anyone, and I mean anyone, could try to get off assuming that this upcoming Star Wars movie could possibly be anything less than the 4th best movie in the franchise to date.  And at this point, are we asking for anything significantly more than that? Seriously.
 
2013-06-09 01:40:05 PM
I like Abrams.  I'm enjoying the new Trek movies, and I've enjoyed his other movies.  The reason I don't want him on Star Wars is because he's already doing Star Trek, and I want the two franchises to feel distinctly different.  Now, Super 8 showed that he can do a slower paced film - I feel like that movie is a perfect balance of action sequences and smaller moments that build character and tension.  But Super 8 is a small scale story.  I feel like the bigger the scope of the world Abrams is working in, the more action packed he feels it needs to be.  I'm afraid that the new Star Wars is going to rush from action sequence to action sequence like the new Trek does, and the franchises are going to feel like clones.

/Looking his IMDB page, I see Abrams has been announced as the producer for both a Half-Life project and a Portal project.  Anyone have more info on those?
 
2013-06-09 01:42:44 PM
To all who are (or will be) butthurt, please suck it.


/Just a movie
//I will be second in line, great hope I have!
///I actually saw episode one 13 times in the theater, pathetic I know. It wasn't very good
////I'd rank the movies like this: 5, 4, 3, 6, 1, 2 ( 6 and 3 can be interchangeable)
//I hated Whiney anakin in ep2
//how many slashies are too many?
 
2013-06-09 01:44:38 PM
Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.
 
2013-06-09 01:46:22 PM

VvonderJesus: Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.


Wasn't he the editor of the Daily Planet in Spider-Man?
 
2013-06-09 01:46:37 PM

VvonderJesus: Was it "A New Hope" or "Wrath of Khan" that had Jar Jar Binks in it? I really liked him, hope JJ incorporates him somehow.


No, no, the tauntaun was in Into Darkness.
 
2013-06-09 01:48:06 PM
Episode 7 will suck. Hard.
You will BEG for the return of Jar Jar Binks.
 
2013-06-09 01:48:46 PM
Welp, looks like its time to burn my EU comic collection.
 
2013-06-09 01:49:24 PM
Nothing Abrams does can be any worse than what Lucas did when he made the prequels.

I'll be cautiously optimistic unless I hear of evidence that he's doing the Thrawn trilogy.  At which point, I may squeal like a school girl.
 
2013-06-09 01:50:04 PM

Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes. Whether you're talking about "The City on the Edge of Forever", "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Visitor" or "The Wrath of Khan", Trek at its best forces you out of your comfort zone and allows you to view humanity's role in the wider universe.


1) Why are you comparing a T.V. series to a movie
2) If only 1 movie out of 5 makes you think, you could say that Old Trek is still in a majority of "Only Treekies like this movie."
3) Either accept it is a new timeline, or stop caring so much.

The majority of...(Farkers/Trekkies/People/people out of my ass) seem to enjoy DS9. That doesn't mean people won't hate it, but they can go hipster themselves with their comparisons of how Call of Duty/Transformers was popular too. They can go eff themselves, because they don't know how Pop-culture works. DS9's theme was war/action/conflict. It also had the benefit of having personal relationships/theological questions because it was a TV SERIES, but the main premise after season 1.5 was ACTION WAR DEATH.

DS9 is my proof that Trek can be successful if it is actiony. The Old Trek movies were a mediocre blend of Sci-fi action and theological questioning that blended terribly, and got lucky, maybe in one movie. Why? Because 2 hours is a really hard time to make people care about someone. Only some directors and writers can do it.
 
2013-06-09 01:52:12 PM
As long as there are no farking little kids in it and no Jar-Jar, I think we're good to go.

At least JJ has the sense to keep his alien sidekick characters quiet. Scotty's oyster faced buddy never says a word, is only in about 2 minutes worth of footage per movie and is good for 1-2 laughs per film. Lucas would have given him an over the top Eye-talian accent and 300 lines of dialogue (wooden and horrible dialogue obviously).
 
2013-06-09 01:52:16 PM

Kurmudgeon: Mentat: The problem is that they have so far failed to elicit the same sense of wonder that the best Trek accomplishes.

Good point, another thing I've wondered is how long can they keep the current crew together before someone decides they are being typecast or not being paid enough or just want to do other things. Surprising they've kept this crew intact as long as they have.
/the only constant is change


since most of the main actors were already established as good to great actors in their own right, I doubt being "typecast" will be a problem.
 
2013-06-09 01:55:01 PM

Soulcatcher: As long as there are no farking little kids in it and no Jar-Jar, I think we're good to go.


I'm in the opposite camp.  I want an all-child cast, ala Bugsy Malone, and JEDI WARRIOR Jar Jar Binks to be the main protagonist.  To each his own.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report