back to article Star Trek saviour JJ Abrams joins the dark side: Star Wars VII

Star Wars creator George Lucas has given the thumbs-up to the appointment of JJ Abrams as director of the seventh outing for the sci-fi franchise. Lucas said the Star Trek helmsman is the "ideal choice" to take the reins of the movie, which will be the first Walt Disney Co foray into the Star Wars universe since it swallowed …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jb99

    Ughhh

    I don't know what the film he called star trek was but it wasn't star trek.

    I imagine that in the first two minutes he'll have darth vader go back in time 10,000 years and change history and then feel free to make some random film at best slightly connected to star wars and then try to claim he made a star wars film.

    1. The FunkeyGibbon
      Facepalm

      Re: Ughhh

      I rather like the reboot. To be honest the original material left him nowhere to really go, so a reboot was in order. Your complaint ranks right up there with "Nolan didn't include Robin in any of his Batman films and his Bane was nothing like the one in 'Batman and Robin!".

      1. Steve Crook
        Happy

        Re: Ughhh

        I thought the Abrams Star Trek was brilliant. It managed to simultaneously keep all the original characters and their traits, and at the same time give us a completely different universe for future films. If Abrams can work similar magic on the Star Wars franchise I'll be surprised, will Lucas really be able to let go?

        Still, anything that gives us a decent story and dialogue will be a good start. I thought that generally star wars films were at best mediocre and at worst, something close to Plan 9 with top of the line special effects.

        1. paulll
          Meh

          Re: Ughhh

          "top of the line special effects." ...like Ewan MacGregor talking into a Sensor Excel for Women spray-painted silver?

          The concept of a "reboot" is as annoying as the usage of the term itself; If you don't like how Star Trek's going, don't write a frigging Star Trek movie. If you do like it, then there's no need for a "reboot," is there?

          1. Euripides Pants
            Trollface

            Re: Ughhh

            Any movie in which Winona Ryder's character dies is a lousy movie.

        2. Kiwi_MarkLFC
          FAIL

          Re: Ughhh

          Yes - but you prob. think lost is good and revolution is great (just because a plane loses power does not cause it to fall vertically)

      2. MrXavia
        Megaphone

        Re: Ughhh

        The reboot is done well, it keeps the original timeline safe and lets the films go off in a tangent to entertain a new generation!

        And the cast, well that is an amazing cast they had..

        I am more worried about what he'll do with star wars than what he did with star trek...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        FunkeyGibbon!

        YOU DON'T NEED A REBOOT when you have an ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO PLAY WITH. When it comes to Star Wars and Star Trek, the last thing we need is a "reboot" when any moment in time you can [plot mechanic changes something and it's cool] with anything you like. Or when you can set it as far in the future or past as you need. The only reason to do a reboot is to ride off the success of someone else with the already known names, instead of building the names and story your self.

        Really, if it's an open book (and both story universes have masses of room and scope) there is no need to reuse old characters or stories at all.

      4. Kiwi_MarkLFC
        FAIL

        Re: Ughhh

        Only to those tiny brained morons who lack imagination...

    2. Smallbrainfield
      Alien

      Re: Ughhh

      I didn't mind the first film, though it does not warrant repeat viewings. The plot is a mess, the Enterprise looks slightly crap and transporting to a ship at warp, come on. (Kevin Smith has talked at length about things like this, where a piece of science-nonsense irks the fans). But come on, the ground rules for transporters have been around for years, it's just fucking wrong.

      Come to think of it, Spock has Kirk ejected onto a hostile planet for no other reason than he's pissing him off. That's a much bigger WTF moment for me. Why didn't anyone else on the bridge pull him up about this?

      1. Bobthe2nd
        Facepalm

        Re: Ughhh

        ... transporting to a ship at warp, come on. (Kevin Smith has talked at length about things like this, where a piece of science-nonsense irks the fans). But come on, the ground rules for transporters have been around for years, it's just fucking wrong.

        So Star Trek is fact now, I thought it was science fiction... Where can I find warp drives, replicators and holo decks then?

        1. Law
          Holmes

          Re: Ughhh

          "So Star Trek is fact now, I thought it was science fiction... Where can I find warp drives, replicators and holo decks then?"

          I think he's referring to the fact that in the trek universe at least the rules had been established - there are decades of fictional science to respect. Going back in time and rebooting the franchise is one thing, rewriting the laws of physics in the trek universe is sacrilegious to some folk!

          I personally don't have a problem with the new Trek film, and I'll pop to the cinema to support the next one too.

        2. Smallbrainfield
          Facepalm

          Re: Ughhh

          That's exactly the point I was making, you pultroon.

          It's clearly bollocks, but there are rules to aforementioned bollocks.

        3. Tom 13

          Re: So Star Trek is fact now

          One of the big problems with Trek has always been that the capabilities of the underlying technology changes depending on the needs of the writers. That violates the fundamental rules of both sf AND fantasy writing. You get to break the rules of the normal universe ONCE and work out the plot from there. For really good sf books and shows a fair bit of theoretical thinking goes into exactly how you are circumventing physics. And one of the more basic rules is that while you can play with alien psychologies, humans are pretty much humans no matter how long we've been around. So for example, if a typical human, upon finding a technology 100 years in advance of what he's got, would try to copy/understand/use that technology, then even in the future they'd do the same thing.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Re: Tom 13

            I agree. Being able to break the rules at a whim or any time the character/writer wants to, makes a poor story IMO. If it's just about the characters, drop the plot all together (a road movie or day of the life kind of thing), if it's about the plot keep it logical and consistent. Else it becomes pointless worrying about character X Y or Z when you can just "magic/raygun/timemachine" it all back or fix anything that comes up. Worse culprit is the stories that tell you from the onset that "this certain thing is impossible" then forget they set that rule half way through, and break it.

            The best example in the Star Trek reboot film was Kirk was standing in a shuttle transporter room when they were trying to figure out how to get back on the enterprise. (IIRC) the scene shows them trying to use the transporter when already standing on a warp capable craft. While slower, a "super boost to the shuttle speed" makes more sense than a magic transports pulled out of their behinds. Worse, the "magic plot device" now needs a "magic un-device" to stop it becoming an instant fix to every problem. Such as "Oh, how do we... just transwarp them. But what about...? Just transwarp". Same with the timetravel. If you add it into the plot, every solution becomes "just travel back in time and fix it", and "but what if we fail" becomes "we have a time machine, try agian!". ;)

            /rant

          2. Not That Andrew

            Re: So Star Trek is fact now

            You also get very good SF that totally ignores how things happen and concentrates on plot and characters.

            1. PhilBuk
              Thumb Up

              Re: So Star Trek is fact now

              Like Starship Troopers where asteroids get launched from the far side of the galaxy and arrive just in time for dinner? I don't think they were fitted with the Shooting Star Drive! But then Paul Verhoeven was only interested in the morality play - not in the technical details.

              Phil.

        4. John Savard Silver badge

          Re: Ughhh

          Hey, you can find the things you sign for UPS packages with, you can find automatic doors that slide sideways, and you can find the SONY Mini Disc. Some of Star Trek is fact now. One can't expect everything; there has to be some poetic license.

      2. Matt 5
        Stop

        Re: Ughhh

        Ground rules for transporters have been around for years? Sure, and they change according to plot. Always have.

        Regardless, they've done warp transporters before. In TNG to be sure, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'll claim that 'that's not star trek'.

        Only the most uptight fans try to claim consistency. Star Trek (and Star Wars) have technology that moves at the speed of plot - not according to actual rules. For example... we're on a 5 year deep space mission, but if we want to get back to earth we can manage that without upsetting our schedule.

        Let go of the details and enjoy the story. There's nothing in the Star Trek reboot that's really outside of the norm for Star Trek. It could be worse, they could still have Brannon Bragga and Rick Berman hanging around their necks.

        1. VinceH

          Re: Ughhh

          "Regardless, they've done warp transporters before. In TNG to be sure, and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'll claim that 'that's not star trek'."

          I think it was TNG, yes, in which they transported at warp off the ship. IIRC, a brief conversation ensued in which the doctor said something like "For a moment there, it felt like I was in that wall" with either Riker or Data replying, "For a moment there, you probably were."

          I can't remember which episode, though. Or maybe it was one of the TNG films.

          Or maybe I'm deliberately forgetting enough to try to counter the anorak it might look like I should be wearing.

          1. davidp231

            Re: Ughhh

            I recall one of the early TNG episodes (might even be the pilot) where they do a warp-speed transport, though I think they dropped out of warp for an instant to transport, then jumped back to warp 9. But warp-beaming happened a lot - I vaguely remember the phrase "matching warp speed for transport". Might have been DS9 or Voyager though, but it's definitely in there somewhere. In fact thinking about it... "Best of Both Worlds" springs to mind...

        2. BillG
          Stop

          Re: Ughhh

          Ground rules for transporters have been around for years? Sure, and they change according to plot. Always have.

          No they haven't. You a social media consultant for Paramount?

          The last Star Trek "movie" followed the same tired old unimaginative Paramount plot used in every Tom Cruise movie from the 1980's:

          1. Rugged bad boy has no respect for authority and starts fights, breaks the rules, etc.

          2. Father is dead and memory haunts him, people compare to him, etc

          3. Opportunity for advancement to join Star Fleet / Top Gun / the Big Race / Big Trial / Big Fight / etc

          4. Professional friction with a peer. who compares him to his father

          5. Gets thrust into a crisis where he has to grow up. People compare him to his father

          6. Obligatory "what would your father do" scene spoken by trusted figure starting with "yeah, I knew your father"/"I once saw your father" etc.

          7. Saves the galaxy/Navy or wins trial/race/mission/whatever

          8. Makes friends with peer in (4)

          9. Slaps guys on the back at the end (really).

          Show me a Tom Cruise movie from the 1980's that didn't follow this. Star Trek 2009 followed this exact formula right down to the slap on the back at the end.

          Star Trek - TOS had original plots that were morality plays, where the right thing to do wasn't always evident.

          I'll bet my bottom dollar that in Star Wars VII, it starts out with Luke dies, and his son follows the above formula exactly. An older Han or Leia or somebody keeps comparing the kid to his father. He fights the son of Palpatine, etc.

      3. Tom 13

        Re: a much bigger WTF moment

        picking apart old Trek was a fun pastime for fans.

        Picking apart the reboot isn't. It's more like dynamiting fish in a barrel. It leaves you wet and smelling of dead fish.

      4. sisk

        Re: Ughhh

        ..."and transporting to a ship at warp, come on."

        Actually there were a couple of pre-existing examples of that in canon. Granted they had barely worked out how to do it by the Next Gen era and even then they only attempted it in the most desperate situations. Spock-the-asshole did rank pretty high on my WTF meter, but Spock and Uhura as a couple pinned the meter out.

      5. W.O.Frobozz

        Re: Ughhh

        Ok all plot points taken but....

        ...JJ didn't write the script. He was the director. Put the blame on Orci & Co who actually wrote that crap. JJ has gone on record saying he isn't really a Trekkie...but do you have to be to be a director? So JJ is directing Star Wars...I still want to know who the hell is writing the script.

      6. Madboater

        Re: Ughhh

        "transporting to a ship at warp", I know, I just found it completely unbelievable. I mean traveling faster than the speed of light and also being able to disassemble a person into pure energy and transmit them via a particle beam to rebuild them into matter at a given target is perfectly believable, but doing both at the same time just didn't make any sense.

    3. Christian Berger

      Re: Ughhh

      Well at first I was pissed off by all the product placement in the StarTrek movie, then eventually it turned out decent.

      But product placement? Come on! StarTrek is about an optimistic future not about a mobile phone maker which probably won't survive this decade.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Ughhh

        If you remember it did fall off a precipice...

    4. jai

      Re: Ughhh

      @jb99

      are you complaining about the time travelling aspect of the reboot? because, i seem to recall there was a TOS film where they came back to the 1980s and stole some fish, wasn't there?

      also, you know that Abrams just directed it. he didn't write the script. if you have such a problem with the plot of the film then you should take that up with Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ughhh

        "TOS film where they came back to the 1980s and stole some fish"

        I'm going to make a wild guess that biology isn't your speciality if you think that whales are fish...

      2. dajames Silver badge
        Angel

        Re: Ughhh

        i seem to recall there was a TOS film where they came back to the 1980s and stole some fish, wasn't there?

        Did you know ... the whale is not really a fish ... it's an insect!

        (According to E.L.Wisty)

        1. SMFSubtlety
          Pint

          Re: Ughhh

          anyway, there is no such thing as a fish. doesn't exist.

      3. Don Jefe
        Trollface

        Re: Ughhh

        Whales aren't fish. They actually talk about that in the movie.

      4. Daniel B.

        Re: Ughhh @jai

        TOS managed to do time-travelling in both the actual series and the movies (basically ST4). But a pretty big element in all time-travelling stories was that you were *not* supposed to alter the past! There's the one where they intercept a weird alien agent and try to stop him from sabotaging a US Missile Test ... only to find out that the sabotage was supposed to happen!

        The ST4 one had them retrieving whales that were going to get killed anyway, so the effects of doing that in the past were negligible, while the benefits of bringin 'em to the 23rd century were on a "planet saving" scale.

    5. Keep Refrigerated
      Go

      Re: Ughhh

      I imagine that in the first two minutes he'll have darth vader go back in time 10,000 years and change history...

      Lucas has already done enough changing of Star Wars history without the need for a time travelling Vader plot. In fact, imagine all the things Abrams could fix...

      Han *DID* shoot first!

      Jar Jar Binks wiped from existence

      Jedi Council actually do something other than talk

      Darth Maul as actual main recurring villain of the prequels

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ughhh

      "I imagine that in the first two minutes he'll have darth vader go back in time 10,000 years and change history and then feel free to make some random film at best slightly connected to star wars and then try to claim he made a star wars film."

      After what Lucas did to the franchise in the last three movies, one can only hope!

    7. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Ughhh

      In the case of the Star Wars franchise, since this is a sequel, not a remake, he won't need to resort to anything like that.

      But favoring Star Wars over Star Trek is still of the dark side.

  2. Annihilator Silver badge
    Coat

    Brilliant

    Looking forward to see the opening crawl complete with lens flare

    1. Bobthe2nd

      Re: Brilliant

      I appreciate lens flare is abrams trademark.. but its getting pretty tedious now and there was so much of it in Enterprise to the point where it started to detract from the film for me.

      1. PhilBuk
        Mushroom

        Re: Brilliant

        The bridge of the Enterprise was an ergonomic nightmare. In the first couple of minutes of the reboot we had lights shining directly at the crew. Bright, white, blue purple colours and reflections of those colours from transparent or reflective surfaces - massive sensory overload. That's before we have Abrams with his lens flare and cameramen with severe muscular spasms. Best watched with a pair of sunglasses!

        Phil.

  3. Robert Measday
    FAIL

    Oh God NO!

    Jar Jar Abrams is a HACK of Michael Bay proportions.

    He scrwed up Star Trek, and now he is going to do the same to Star Wars.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Oh God NO!

      Fans pan new Star Trek film as "fun" and "enjoyable"?

      1. Esskay
        Facepalm

        Re: Oh God NO!

        It's a sad reflection of Trekkies' obsession with anal details that for another Star Trek movie to get produced, the director had to turn it into a space-faring version of Primer in order to comply with the sacred, unmodifiable, and now pretty ridiculous "canon" - followed by the inevitable wailing from fans because the new movie failed to take into account the direction in which Captain Kirk farted during a rehearsal for a deleted scene in an episode from the original TV series.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: Oh God NO!

          BECAUSE NERDS!!!

          Plinkett RUINS YOUR WORK SCHEDULE OF THE AFTERNOON ... in SPAAAACE!

  4. Rob

    Too tired

    Clearly didn't get enough sleep last night as I read the last few lines saying he was defecting to the dark side as defecating, only time will tell whether that was the right or wrong misreading.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Star "Coronation Street" Wars

    Just going to be soap in space and flogging the franchise to death.

    I've just given up going to the cinema as there just seems to be one mediocre movie after another. At least in a restaurant you can refuse (or demand a reduction) to pay if the food is rubbish.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Star "Coronation Street" Wars

      Flogging a franchise that was originally planned to have 9 parts before Episode 4 was even written?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Star Wars originally planned to have 9 parts?

        "Flogging a franchise that was originally planned to have 9 parts before Episode 4 was even written?"

        iirc, Star Wars was originally planned to have the one episode, until it became a massive hit, which is why Lucas had to reinvent the back-story with prequels.

        Why in SWE111RotS, when all those vehicles are flying past the window, they don't cast any shadows?

        * Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith:

        1. Marvin the Martian

          Re: Star Wars originally planned to have 9 parts?

          "iirc, Star Wars was originally planned to have the one episode, until it became a massive hit"

          No. The very opening of the first film writes "Episode IV: A new hope" on the screen.

          IIRC, the planned masses of fighting robots etc were far in advance of then-existing budgets and technical capabilities. Don't forget that the one noticeable movie he'd done before is "American Graffiti", a laidback slice of adolescent life (and not a big hit) --- not the kind of thing that makes you say "here's $500M, mr Lucas, go invent some tech and make this movie".

          1. Zog The Undeniable

            Re: Star Wars originally planned to have 9 parts?

            As any fule no, the "IV" was added in the 1981 re-release.

          2. Aqua Marina

            Re: Star Wars originally planned to have 9 parts?

            Episode IV was grafted onto the scrolling credits a year after Empire Strikes Back was released. It wasn't fore-planned as a trilogy.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Re: Star "Coronation Street" Wars

      "I've just given up going to the cinema as there just seems to be one mediocre movie after another"

      You've seen "Life of Pi" too? So ****ing boring that I wanted to scream, and stamp my feet like an angry toddler. A bit of mindless, commercailly exploitative Trek or Star Wars would be a blessed relief.

  6. blcollier

    Can't really do much worse...

    ...than ol' Georgey boy did with The Phantom Menace.

    Given the crushing disappointment of EP1, I have no expectations one way or the other. Let's just see what the film is like, shall we.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can't really do much worse...

      Watch "The Ridiculous Menace" a fan edit, it makes it really entertaining.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Can't really do much worse...

      Agree about EP1.

      Not sure it's even worth a look at the trailers for the new one.

      I heard from a friend that Lucas feels that no matter what he would have done, he would have pissed somebody off so he's washed his hands of it. If true, I'd tell him the one thing that was GUARANTEED to piss people off royally was to make an obviously derivative movie based on the first (episode IV) movie for the launch of the prequel. Yes there were bits of the movie that were fun, but too few and not worked well into the plot. I've been of the opinion he should have farmed out 1 to 3 because the defined story arc is something heroic writers are bad at: heart breaking tragedy. We knew it was supposed to be the fall of a Jedi into the dark side. And at the end of the 3 movies, I still didn't believe the character would have moved to the dark side if he were real. He only wound up there because the script said he had to. Sort of a reverse Deus Ex Machina plot failure.

  7. dz-015

    Sigh. So now all Star Wars and Star Trek films are just going to be shallow, overblown JJ Abrams films with some minor cosmetic differences. What a total fucking disappointment.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Because the old Star Trek films were deep cinematic masterpieces? Come on, I love ST but it's just trashy sci-fi.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Devil

        But up until the trash truck hit the Ewok Community, it was pretty good.

        1. JDX Gold badge

          They had ewoks in ST? I would say SW is far more serious SF than ST.

          1. Ian Yates
            WTF?

            Jar Jar Binks

      2. dz-015

        "Because the old Star Trek films were deep cinematic masterpieces? Come on, I love ST but it's just trashy sci-fi."

        Star Trek and Star Wars (the original trilogy) both had decent characterisation, emotional depth, values; things Abrams does not really seem to recognise, which is why he is not qualified for either, let alone both.

  8. Thomas 4

    Mild optimism

    Hmmm, I can think of a few worse candidates for Star Wars. Michael Bay, M Night "Talentless Hack" Shyalaman, Uwe Boll, George Lucas....

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not combine the two?

    Star Wars Trek XV - Spock Vs Chewwy.

  10. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    CyberIntelAIgent Command and Control is a AIMediaBasedD Live Wire SMARTR Fire Operation*

    Come on, Lester, don't just stop there whenever you've built up a head of steam ....... Fear is the path to Disney. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to internet flamewars. Internet flamewars lead to secrets exposed. Exposed secrets lead to loss of corrupting control. Loss of corrupting control leads to new power orders. New power orders lead to New Orderly Worlds boldly going where no man has gone before

    *This program is brought to you courtesy of the MOD..... and believing otherwise, and in dogged official and semi-official anonymous spokesperson denials is an elementary component in Super IntelAigent Stealth which is guaranteed to deliver Stellar Active Service in Virtual Progress ..... Per Ardua ad Meta Astra and all that crazy jazz.

    CodeXSSXXXX BetaTest 1301281156

  11. Greg J Preece

    Gah, don't mention the name Abrams... And don't you dare call him Star Trek's "saviour".

    Star Trek XI was an atrocity. Even if you can summon the mental gymnastics to overcome the plot holes, the adherence to the "spiky haired young people who inexplicably know kung fu" demographic, the eye-burning abuse of lens flares and the utter stupidity required to write off decades of existing Trek, it looked, sounded and acted nothing like Star Trek. No diplomacy, no intellect, no sense of wonder or exploration, just BLOW SHIT UP!

    Star Trek XII can go fuck itself.

    Fortunately, I've long since given up on Star Wars. It was overrated to begin with, and the prequel trilogy was hilariously bad.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      It wasn't called ST 9. You're idealising ST to a ridiculous level, the original has none of those things you talk about. You're seriously trying to defend a show which had William Shatner as the lead as being serious, well-written TV?

      1. Annihilator Silver badge
        Headmaster

        "It wasn't called ST 9"

        *cough* XI =/= 9. But your post still stands :-)

      2. Greg J Preece

        It wasn't called ST 9. You're idealising ST to a ridiculous level, the original has none of those things you talk about. You're seriously trying to defend a show which had William Shatner as the lead as being serious, well-written TV?

        The original doesn't have any diplomacy? Any idealism at all? You're seriously trying to tell me that Gene Roddenberry conceived of anything even slightly in line with Star Trek XI? Did you watch Star Trek at any point? Do you know what the Federation is supposed to stand for? Don't be a moron.

        And if you're going to have a cry about how it's totally not related to the original Star Trek because it doesn't have the number XI in the title, then

        a) understand what number XI is before whining, so you look less of an idiot, and

        b) explain the part at the beginning of the film where Abrams bends over backwards to connect the film to its predecessors, then writes them off and pisses on their graves

        Christ, I'm not even that big a Star Trek fan, but I've seen the majority of it. More than enough to know just how afwul Star Trek XI is.

        1. JDX Gold badge

          Greg... having watched every episode of ST, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise as well as every single ST film made, and having read the books of all the original ST stories to boot, I still think the new film is good and authentic - clever even.

          Perhaps your brain simply can't understand it is possible for two people to have the same facts at their disposal and come to different conclusions?

          1. IsJustabloke
            Thumb Up

            Agree... It wasn't "Trek" per se but ...

            it was a pretty good and entertaining film. I am the only fan of Star Trek amongst my friends and yet we all enjoyed the Star Trek movie allbeit for different reasons.

            People that get as wound up about it as Greg need to work out what is missing form their lives that makes them so anal about a fukcing TV show / Movie series.

        2. LDS Silver badge

          Don't waste your time trying to explain them - people now are too used to videogames, sci-fi became just "zap around in a strange ship, blaste you laser around and kill the horrible monster - and add some kung-fu here and there, please, and yes, some scantily dressed women so nerds and not so nerds are aroused...".

          Whatever needs a brain connected to undestand the plot and say "hey, it's an interesting point of view challenging mine", and not just a stomach full of popcorn is too much tor the director, the producers, and the target audience. Abrams is the perfect director for such kind of movies.

        3. Tom 13

          Re: ore than enough to know just how afwul Star Trek XI is.

          I am a fan of the original series even with all of its flaws. And you've absolutely nailed the problem.

          Star Trek worked because Roddenberry had a utopian vision of the future, but was tempered by the realities of making the show for execs who were anything but utopians. When Next Gen came out, they gave Roddenberry a blank check to do what he wanted to, and without the tempering of the hovering non-utopian execs who wanted fight scenes and love interests in every episode, it stank. Until they booted Roddenberry high enough into the ranks that he no longer affected actual production and it became a watchable show. Star Trek XI is what happens when the non-utopian execs make the movie without the structure the utopianist envisioned. And it stinks just as much as when the utopianist ran the show.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Try ripping the DVD. That's what the label says - XI.

    2. John Sanders
      Gimp

      @Greg J Preece - It is a movie

      You can not have those things on a movie which tries to appeal to the widest possible audience.

      In a movie you can not have 8 characters and focus on all of them all the time, also the movie has to move at a much faster pace than a TV episode.

      Startrek XI is guilty pleasure, you know it is not terribly good (black hole substance... abuse of time travel...) but it is fun to watch, and doesn't fall into SW-EP1 territory... at least not too much.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Precisely!

    4. Fibbles

      "No diplomacy, no intellect, no sense of wonder or exploration"

      Roddenberry attempted to include those things in the first ST film and it was dire. Which is why every subsequent film followed the tried and tested formula of;

      "just BLOW SHIT UP!"

  12. Robert Grant Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Joss Whedon

    Obv.

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

      Re: Joss Whedon

      wasnt he quoted as saying he wouldn't touch it with a barge pole though?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Point of order:

    Star Wars is not science fiction

    1. Steve the Cynic

      Re: Point of order:

      "Star Wars is not science fiction"

      Are you objecting to the "science" part or the "fiction" part?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Point of order:

      Sod off, Sheldon.

    3. W.O.Frobozz

      Re: Point of order:

      And this is what the new script writers need to remember. Star Wars, like Doctor Who, is Science FANTASY.

      The second Darth Lucas tried to put "science fiction" into Star Wars we were left with Obi Wan waving a tri-corder around to measure "midichlorian" counts.

  14. Shasta McNasty
    Stop

    Reality Check

    The reboot of Star Trek was a reasonable film. It was never going to live up to the fanbois who spent far too much time thinking about the minor technicalities of FICTION.

    Now the same will be said of the Star Wars films, with the usual "not as good as the original" / "annoying new characters" / "Plot hole because the rules of FICTIONAL technology were broken".

    Lighten up. The films need to be enjoyed by everyone, not just those who spent their spare time dressed up as FICTIONAL film characters.

    1. Sir Sham Cad

      Oh boy.

      OK, firstly, I agree that a film must appeal to a wider audience than followers of a genre TV series. That one you can have.

      However, if you are telling the audience that this film takes place in a shared universe with the TV series (which, let's be clear, the first Abrams ST film took great pains to hammer home the idea that it didn't) then you need to have consistency with what the TV audience expects. OK, I've done my time as a die-hard Trekker who knew intricate details of each episode and the background of the technology and basically enjoyed getting proper nerdy about it and if a writer had to take into account all of the shit I know about Star Trek they'd be pretty fucked trying to write an actual story. Shared universes and continuity are a bastard to keep going for long without writing yourself into knots. That said, if you ask the audience to go into your film on the basis of a shared universe with a popular franchise then you invite that criticism if your product doesn't gel with that audience.

      Star Wars is a little strange in that even the books and comics are considered to be on the "canon" scale (SW has about three levels of canon, unofficially, with "it's in the movies" as top level) so SW fans have a hell of a lot of material in that shared universe to base expectations from.

      Yes, it's fiction but if you want yours to be *good* fiction then you do need to pay attention to details.

    2. Alan W. Rateliff, II
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Reality Check

      I only had two issues with the rebooted "Star Trek," the first being its potential to become "Friends in Space." The second deals with Spock's "coming of age." In the original "Star Trek" universe, Spock finds himself after his contact with V-Ger, a very deep and soul-searching interaction with a sentient machine which desired to become human to counterbalance all its logic and immense knowledge. To me, it exemplifies the notion that knowledge and information doesn't produce answers, that a non-logical approach -- leaps of faith, if you will -- are required to adequately describe our own purpose.

      The reboot, while entertaining and in some spots emotionally exciting, is not as deep.

      Paris, deep...

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Could he please reboot Jar Jar Binks??

    ... Reboot him up the hole!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    James Bond

    These debates remind me of how the Internet community was 'up in arms' and 'disgusted' at the choice of Daniel Craig as the new Bond. More than one voice was heard to say this is the end of Bond films, that it would flop, that Daniel was the 'worst choice'.

    hmmm so a few films later what do we think?

    For Star Wars why don't we wait and see?

    1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

      Re: James Bond

      What do we think? I don't know. I haven't watched a Bond since the first Daniel Craig one. The guy was more wooden than a entire forest - strangely his acting as a side-character in one of the Tomb Raider movies was infinitely better, and if you can't do justice to Bond on your first outing (my personal thoughts on "rebooting" Bond back to the darker Fleming original aside), on your first serious "big break", then I have no interest in subjecting myself further.

      Similarly, Red Dwarf I haven't watched since Series 8 except as literal "test" episodes for myself. The whole "Back To Earth" thing was a shambles that I didn't even get through the first full episode of. I gave them another go for Series 10 and - although I watched two episodes of that - I was so disappointed that I'd rather just not watch them. Certainly, I consider my Red Dwarf DVD collection complete without them, as I do my Bond collection without Daniel Craig.

      Personally, I don't "get" Star Wars. And Star Trek is like the equivalent of "ER in space", as far as I'm concerned. Interesting enough to watch, not enough to become a "fan" of. Unfortunately, I find Trek even worse than that and wouldn't bother to buy the DVD, and the movies - dear God, no. Star Wars was great if you were a kid of a certain age for the first 2/3 movies. All the modern ones? I have literally never seen past about 10 minutes of them.

      Bear in mind that I do have a terminal case of nerd. Honestly. I am every male character from The Big Bang Theory all over - they have even "pinched" some of my own lines. I don't get the Star Trek / Wars fandom but if i did, I certainly would enforce any "blacklisting" of a certain movie / actor / director quite happily.

      At one point, I would have been the sort of person who buys a "complete" box set, just because. "Supporting the film I *do* like", I used to think of it as. And then I realised that all I'm doing is paying people to destroy my favourite movies in retrospect.. I gave my Blackadder series 1 disc to my ex last time I moved and never bothered to re-buy it - but I have the others. A "complete" set to me now is whatever I enjoy watching - like having Matrix but not having those other unmentionable sequels. Having Alien and Aliens (best movie ever) and (yes, I admit it) Alien 3 and then nothing else from that franchise. It makes life more fun, it doesn't destroy your impressions of a good movie, and it saves you money.

      I can't be the only one.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: James Bond @Lee Dowling

        Personally, I don't "get" Star Wars. And Star Trek is like the equivalent of "ER in space", as far as I'm concerned. Interesting enough to watch, not enough to become a "fan" of.

        Yet here you are posting an essay on a news story about new Star Wars being directed by the new Star Trek director? A phrase involving doth and protesting comes to mind.

        1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

          Re: James Bond @Lee Dowling

          "Yet here you are posting an essay on a news story about new Star Wars being directed by the new Star Trek director?"

          Apparently it's forbidden to post on a public article, and mainly on a subject which concerns the post you replied to (i.e. whether people will abandon a film franchise "just because" or will plod along buying things from it regardless), without being a "fan" of the particular example the article is about, then?

          Just because I *skimmed* the article, and skimmed the comments, and cherry-picked an interesting (and relevant) side-question to reply to doesn't mean I actually care about Star Trek/Wars at all. Hell, if that was the case, this month I've apparently got to be an expert on / fan of the Oric-1 (never owned one), helium-filled hard disks (don't exist yet), cryptography (I am, but let's not get into the gritty details too much), Twitter (don't use it, except for work, believe it or not), Gangnam Style (can't stand the tune), OfCom, and about four dozen other subjects.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: James Bond @Lee Dowling

            "Apparently it's forbidden to post on a public article, and mainly on a subject which concerns the post you replied to (i.e. whether people will abandon a film franchise "just because" or will plod along buying things from it regardless), without being a "fan" of the particular example the article is about, then?"

            No, not at all. But if you're roaming the sewer like depths of subsequent pages of comments, then it seems a bit odd that you're repeatedly claiming to have no real interest in the main topic. There's some round here might not believe you.

            Personally, I think you simply haven't got enough to do at work, there's a desparate shortage of new and interesting news on the Reg, and you're commenting on dull stuff like this to try and stave off suicidal boredom. Certainly that's the case for me.

            1. It'sa Mea... Mario

              Re: James Bond @Lee Dowling

              I think he's just going for gold..

    2. Simon Ward
      Mushroom

      Re: James Bond

      For Star Wars why don't we wait and see?

      Because George Lucas has comprehensively pissed away whatever good-will was left amongst fans of Star Wars?

      I'm trying to keep an open mind, but after the three piles of shite that were Eps 1-3, not to mention Lucas' interminable meddling with the original trilogy (ie. Yet Another Remastered Version with 3.1592sec of unseen footage) it's proving to be difficult.

      Although, as others have pointed out, meddling notwithstanding 'Empire' stands as a crowning moment of awesome.

    3. Greg J Preece

      Re: James Bond

      hmmm so a few films later what do we think?

      That the whole re-working of Bond was to emulate the superior Bourne movies? And I'd rather watch Bourne any day of the week?

      1. Vic

        Re: James Bond

        > That the whole re-working of Bond was to emulate the superior Bourne movies?

        I'd have agreed with you if I hadn't seen the fourth Bourne.

        Interesting in parts, but not a patch on the first three...

        Vic.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: James Bond

      Stop trying to be rational... it'll never catch on

    5. IsJustabloke
      Stop

      Re: James Bond

      burn the hertic!!!

      We'll have none of your sensible discourse here! I've a pitchfork and I'm not afraid to use it! you've been warned.

      1. PhilBuk
        Headmaster

        Re: James Bond

        Alice! Stop that now. Go back to being the Borg queen.

        Phil.

  17. Eradicate all BB entrants

    With any luck .....

    ..... Abrams will channel the spirit of Irvin Kershner. Despite Lucas' attempts at destroying his own franchise with 1, 2 and 3, Empire still stands out as pure awesome.

    1. graeme leggett

      Re: With any luck .....

      Lawrence Kasdan who wrote (or contributed) Raiders of the Lost Ark, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi is part of the writing team and Lucas is still retained as consultant.

      1. Annihilator Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: With any luck .....

        This is the same Lawrence Kasdan who did Dreamcatcher :-\ Granted the book was terrible too, but it's still worth noting

        1. Eradicate all BB entrants

          Re: Dreamcatcher

          I didn't even bother with the film after being caught out by Stephen King books. 500 pages of build up then 5 pages of deflate ..... ass gremlins indeed.

  18. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    I'm not going to judge what happens until the film are released and I get to see them. The first three films (IV to VI) were genre changing for what they did although by today's standards they don't look it, the next three films (I-III) were kiddified toy marketing and computer game cash in opportunities made into film so while entertaining enough (sans Ja Ja Binks) they just don't deserve quite such the same place in movie history as the first three.

    While I don't particularly like the new Star Trek reboot and it's easy to hate change and difference in something you were brought up with, some of the changes just seemed to be made because it could introduce stupid Earth bound scenes and product placement rather than for any valid plot reason so they just felt very out of place. However, without exception, any time Star Trek goes near the concept of time travel the plots, characters and everything just seem to disappear up themselves in some inane wormhole continuum arsehole implosion and you're left with some special effects and a heavy sense of wtf have I wasted the last X hours watching this?

    It'll be interesting to see what happens as while Disney itself has produced some great films recently it's also produced a lot of real dross. Lucas appears to have lost the plot recently in some ways, although how much of that was down to him and how much to the studios (or more accurately, the financiers behind them) would be interesting to know. The combination of what comes out will be interesting all right.

    So if they can get quality direction and backing from Disney without it being massively turned into one very long product placement merchandising ploy, have worthwhile actors cast in the film rather than "stars", they keep sodding time travel out of it entirely and stick true enough to the spirit and background of the Star Wars "universe" then I don't see why Abrams couldn't do a good job.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "the next three films (I-III) were kiddified toy marketing"

      Don't fool yourself, the first trilogy was the same.

  19. Katie Saucey
    Pint

    Rats!

    I've finally grown up, this sucks. One for the road...but it's Monday...

  20. RainForestGuppy
    Go

    Instructions for enjoying Sci Films

    1.) Go to Cinema (or at home if you have a good surround sound systems and agreable neighbours) preferably with friends.

    2.) Turn off mobiles, blackberries, laptops, ipads, generic other tablets etc.

    3.) Turn off high brain functions

    4.) Suspend your sense of reality

    5.) Ignore minor errors in plot, script, physics.

    6.) Sit back and enjoy a piece of FICTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

    1. Greg J Preece

      Re: Instructions for enjoying Sci Films

      Thank you for your Knuckle-Dragger's Guide to Film, complete with MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!11!!!11!1*

      I don't want to turn off my brain, ever. Present a film with a straight face and I'll view it the same way. Your argument boils down to "it's great, so long as you ignore all its flaws and just watch the pretty lights." That's not good enough for me, and defences like that are the mark of a really shitty film.

      If all you want is lasers and explosions, then good luck to you. I like to have some kind of coherent narrative along with it. Maybe I'm the lunatic here, but to me good sci-fi is mind-expanding, not mind-limiting.

      *CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

      1. JDX Gold badge

        I don't want to turn off my brain, ever

        You seem to be providing a pretty decent impression that it's already switched off.

        1. Greg J Preece

          Re: I don't want to turn off my brain, ever

          You seem to be providing a pretty decent impression that it's already switched off.

          Fancy providing an actual argument, oh intellectual superior? Not sure how you get unintelligent from my post, however sarcastic.

          Then read a flippin' book! "Sci fi" films have rarely if ever been more than lasers, explosions, and special effects, you are never going to get a proper thoughtful sci fi film out of Hollywood. Star Wars is fun for the light sabers, space ships, and engaging characters, it's a swashbuckling adventure and nothing more. Don't expect anything any deeper than that.

          You haven't watched enough sci-fi. Try some 2001, Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly - hell, even Gattaca.

          I can do action and explosions, too, but it needs a coherent narrative or it's just noise.

      2. Rattus Rattus

        @Greg J Preece

        "If all you want is lasers and explosions, then good luck to you. I like to have some kind of coherent narrative along with it. Maybe I'm the lunatic here, but to me good sci-fi is mind-expanding, not mind-limiting."

        Then read a flippin' book! "Sci fi" films have rarely if ever been more than lasers, explosions, and special effects, you are never going to get a proper thoughtful sci fi film out of Hollywood. Star Wars is fun for the light sabers, space ships, and engaging characters, it's a swashbuckling adventure and nothing more. Don't expect anything any deeper than that.

    2. Sir Sham Cad

      Re: Instructions for enjoying Sci Films

      Fiction isn't automatically enjoyable just because it's not a documentary. The Phantom Menace didn't become enjoyable just because it was set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (it was crap and El Reg has proved it with commentard-based science).

      Yes, movies (and especially sci-fi) have basic elements that we ignore because it's a standard of the genre (fiery explosions in the vacuum of space, visible lasers etc...) and we've been trained to accept them without affecting our suspension of disbelief. I'm perfectly happy to just assume everyone lives happily ever after at the end of Return of The Jedi and not worry about the potential damage to Endor from Death Star debris.

      If you want to drop Midichlorians (for example) or most of the scenes in "The Day After Tomorrow" (but especially the bit with the medicine and the cgi wolves that were obviously trained by the velociraptors from Jurassic Park) into your film, however, you're going to create a WTF moment and the audience are going to be pulled out of your story and find themselves back in the cinema or living room going "Oh yeah, I'm watching a film. And it's shit."

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Re: Instructions for enjoying Sci Films

      I take keep delight in never turning off my brain. It's rather difficult to, as it won't let me. Also becomes a problem during the night when I'm suppose to sleep.

      But, no. I cannot turn my brain off for the plot. I'll let small holes of fictional "gimmies" go, but big holes and logical "WTFS?" mean it's the screen that get's turned off, not my brain.

    4. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Instructions for enjoying Sci Films

      Good sci-fi is what makes your brain turns on at high-speed. I'd suggest you to start reading very good sci-fi books - Bradbury, Dick, Asimov and others - and you'll discover sci-fi is not about starships, lasers and monsters.... is a way to look at ourselves from a very different viewpoint, and question... but Star Wars and tons of videogames turned sci-fi into just a show for people who want to turn off their brains...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will it be like his TV programs?

    30 mins of watchable, followed by a bewildering pile of pap, finalized with the axing of the film, just as it was getting slightly better.

  22. Scott Pedigo
    Devil

    "Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise - he understands the essence of the Star Wars experience."

    He has an intuitive understanding of lowering the target demographic of a half-way decent film franchise for teenaged males to a gaggingly sappy one for prepubescent children, marketing of action figures, and Burger King tie-ins?

  23. Imsimil Berati-Lahn
    Meh

    McFilm sandwich with a side order of McSpecialeffects, McPlot and McMerchandise

    Whenever you start to hear story titles alongsie the word "franchise", you can be sure that you're going to get centre-of-the-bell-curve, appeals to all the spending demographics, adequately entertaining, entirely inoffensive, but ultimately unoriginal and superficial cinema fodder.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Strange

    I find it very weird that the moment Star Wars gets take over by Disney and they appoint well, whoever to direct the next film, everybody instantly forgets what an atrocious job Lucas did to the last three films and pretends that the franchise is now suddenly ruined.

    I mean, at this point they could make the next film a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse / Star Wars crossover and it would probably be better than the last few films in the franchise! There's not exactly a high threshold of quality to aim for here anymore...

    1. Eradicate all BB entrants

      Re: Strange

      Lucas did that years ago with the Star Wars Holiday Special, ..... sorry, I really can't find the words to describe it as it set the bar for so many levels of awful.

  25. Ben Holmes
    Thumb Up

    It can't just be me...

    ...who is happy that someone is making a mainstream sci-fi film? There are so precious few of them made these days.

    I thoroughly enjoyed ST when I was younger, and thought that JJA did the right thing by opening up the franchise to a wider audience. Did it appeal to everyone? No. But it brushed the cobwebs off an otherwise dead franchise, revered only in the minds of an ever-dwindling fanbase. It was fun, it was entertaining, it had the requisite amount of explosions, and it had a half decent plot. Which as far as I'm concerned is all I really need from any film, let alone a ST film.

    Let's just hope that JJ can do the same with the piss-poor wreckage of Star Wars that George 'I haven't had a good idea in years' Lucas has left him.

  26. Richard Wharram

    RedLetterMedia

    Looking forward to the review for the new film already!

  27. RISC OS

    If anything fuck5up starwars

    it will be either anal fans complaining that "that's not what happened if the last film", or it will be because disney own it... they fuckup everything and their films seldom do well outside of the USA because of their sickening US family political correctness... I'd be more worried about what disney instist happens in the film than the director having once directed a star trek film... on that was successful and appealed to people who wouldn't know if helmsmann pressed the greenbutton to go to warp in episode #34 or the red one, and whether it was the same red or green button that he pressed in the film.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If anything fuck5up starwars

      Your opinions on Disney are about as out of date as your OS namesake. You are aware of modifiers to your argument such as John Lasseter now being creative head of Disney? Their distribution of non-US stuff (eg Studio Ghibli) to a wider english speaking audience? Their generally well-received-for-the-genre Marvel films? Not to mention the whole Miramax thing and that all the classic Tarantino films were technically Disney films? Nope, Disney are definitely one of the more interesting major studios.

      1. Ben Holmes
        Happy

        @AC Re: If anything fuck5up starwars

        How very dare you, sir! RISC OS is a timeless OS - vintage, I tell you! Vintage!

        OP's opinions on Disney however, leave a lot to be desired...

  28. Stryker007

    he could do a marvel style mashup!

    and call it "Star Wars!" .... ugh no that don't work... how about "Star Wars Trek!" yh.... lets be honest I'm not bothered by the fact he didn't script the last star trek movie.... he just happened to be instrumental in the trashing of the whole franchise

  29. 404

    Fun Fact

    Per JJ Abrams: You only talk about Spock's mother in respectful terms. The 'No, You Didn't' look on his face was vastly amusing before he whipped James T's ass all over the bridge.

    :)

    P.S. Jean-Luc Picard would whip the original James T's butt, not so must the new James T.

    ;D

  30. Steve I
    Go

    Real scirnece:

    When asked the question "How do the Heisenburg compensators work?" on a program about the science in Star Trek, a representative of the show replied "Very nicely, thank you".

  31. Alan W. Rateliff, II
    Paris Hilton

    >implying

    A number of friends and I (okay, that's a lie -- I don't have any friends) have discussed whether Disney will ruin the "Star Wars" franchise. These debates rely upon the assumption that the franchise wasn't decimated on May 19, 1999.

    Paris, ruined a LONG LONG time ago.

  32. NomNomNom

    anyone who wrote on Lost shouldn't be allowed near sci-fi. rule of thumb.

    1. IsJustabloke
      Unhappy

      re Lost

      I'm about 6 episodes from the end of the boxset, every episode makes my eyes feel like that bloke from Utopia's eyes must have felt like after torture blokey had finished.

      sadly, I'm what's known as a completist.. I can't have half of something, its all or nothing. I started watching LOST.. the first couple of season were ok but the rest? so I've got tofinish it.

      Dear oh Dear.

      I've got no problem with "clever" TV . films... I like 'em but Lost is utter, utter drivel, its not even particularly good drivel, its just utter utter shite. Anyone raving about the show needs help.

  33. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Being an American child growing up in the 70s....

    Coming home after school I saw every episode of Star Trek (TOS) at least a half dozen times. I have to say that I really don't care about whether or not it's "canon" be able to transport to a ship moving at warp speed.

    Growing up in the 70s I also saw all the Star Wars movies so much that I once drove my college roomates nuts by saying the dialogue of the last 5-10 minutes of "The Empire Strikes Back" before the characters said it themselves! I also don't care whether someone talked into a woman's shaver in a Star Wars franchise.

    What I care about is whether the movies are good. The Star Trek reboot was fine. I didn't care for Kirk's narcissitic demons driven by the memory of his dead father, or the time travel angle (I was always put off by Star Trek episodes where they traveled through time or recycled sets from westerns/gangster flicks/Roman costume dramas/world war 2 movies to save money. However, while I digress, "The City on the Edge of Forever" was a good episode.) Be that as it may, it was an entertaining movie with some good characterizations.

    As for Abrams directing Star Wars--better him that Lucas, especially if Lucas is no longer writing as well and we don't have to endure romantic dialogue between Han and Leia that was as bad as Anakin and Padme in the second trilogy.

    1. Rattus Rattus

      @ Marketing Hack

      Are you me?

      Though I thought Han and Leia's romantic dialogue was fine in the first two movies at least. Immortal lines like,

      "I am NOT a committee!"

      and

      "Either I'm gonna kill her, or I'm beginning to like her."

      :D

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: @ Marketing Hack

        Yes, the first trilogy actually worked out well. Including the classic "I love you"--"I know" exchange in Empire Strikes Back. But WOW was the romance bad in the second trilogy, where such groaners as "I'm haunted by the kiss you never should have gave me." left me scarred for life.....

  34. Madboater

    To do a good Job on Starwars Ep VII

    They need to remake Eps IV to VI or completely leave the Skywalker years behind and concentrate on another part of the history of the Starwars Galaxy. I know what the safer bet is, but it would be good to see Luke in a proper light-saber fight.

  35. Splatcat

    Does this mean they'll be a cross over film?

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sorry, I can sum up both Star Wars and Star Trek in 3 words

    They're dead, Jim.

  37. graeme leggett

    Next trilogy, will it suffer in trying to top the previous ones

    One problem with Star Wars is how each film gets "bigger" than the last.

    Now part of the problem is the advances in film-making technology. It is far easier to make big sets from cgi than matte paintings and to have casts of thousands when most of them are just pixels. While absolutely needed to recreate Coruscant, it seems to be overused in other places So Phantom Menace can have some huge cavernous energy complex under the palace for no particular reason, Attack of the Clones has a huge droid factory. All three have huge armies fighting.

    Of necessity the original trilogy had to be more focussed on smaller scale events. Eg although given a bigger budget than Ep 4, after the battle of Hoth, the scenes in Empire have only a few characters in each. Revenge saves it up for a massive space battle at the end and a smaller furry one on the ground but the focus is still mostly on Luke/Vader/Emperor, Lando/Millenium Falcon and Solo/Leia/the droids.

    So will this next trilogy try to top the others in scale and over-reach itself in doing so, or are we to have a more intimate style where lapses in character and plot might be more noticeable?

  38. Tank boy
    Trollface

    Irony

    The same people that are eviscerating a movie that has yet to be made are the same folks that will pony up the dough to go see it in the theater, just to tell everyone how hard it sucks.

    1. Esskay
      Trollface

      Re: Irony

      Unfortunately they're also the type of people who refuse to listen to anything other than their own opinion - until someone misquotes (or worse, confuses with similar-but-different franchises) their favourite series. Then the wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues, and you know it's time to get the popcorn.

      Personally I'm looking forward to the adventures of James T. Kirk on the Warship Enterprise, boldly going to infinity and beyond. I just hope they can escape the emperor!

  39. tuxtester
    Trollface

    I thought Star Trek (2009) was terrific.

    Mr JJ, could you accidentally-on-purpose add a reference to the Borg, to a (girly) Jedi's script, that would be awesome.

    P.S. I thought Star Trek (2009) was terrific and have watched it many times.

    Mr JJ does read the reg's coments, right?

    P.P.S. Spok or Sulu would wipe the floor with any (girl) Jedi and Kirk would lay Solo out in the first round!

  40. Tom 11

    @ Marvin

    WTF!!! are you forgetting the quite litteraly mind blowing THX1138???? A masterpiece, I don't know how Lucas can have fallen so low after such an amazing film.

  41. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  42. Will 20

    I hate JJ Abrams for Star Trek 09. I thought Lost and Alias were a waste of time. I'm amused he won a Razzie for his screenplay for Armageddon. I think he lacks talent, and vision, and believes he is better than he is.

    But it could be worse.

    Midichlorians.

    That is all.

  43. Kirstian K
    Coat

    Darth Micky..!

    That is all.

  44. Jonjonz
    Childcatcher

    One More Corporate Monopoly In Place

    Just one more corporate monopoly established. The corporate money counters have consulted their spreadsheet oracles and they all get the same answer, min/max the bottom line, go with what works.

    Abrams is really Michael Beye with more shaggy dog endings.

  45. winrez
    Angel

    Wouldn't Mind

    If Abrams gave up on the Star Trek franchise instead of a 3rd Trek, I would love to see one based on Enterpirise which was underated but now that its over people are taking a second look at.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020