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 …
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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?
... 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?
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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...
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.
..."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.
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.
"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.
@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
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.
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
"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!
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.
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.
"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:
"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".
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.) 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!!!!
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
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.
"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.
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."
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.
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...
"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?
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.
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...
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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?
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!
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!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
