Slashdot Mirror
J.J. Abrams To Direct Star Wars VII
azzkicker writes "It looks like J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars VII. From the article: 'Sources have confirmed the Star Trek Into Darkness filmmaker will helm the next Star Wars movie, the highly anticipated installment in the landmark franchise scheduled to reach theaters in 2015."
Time travel is the weakest of all SciFi plot devices, reserved for authors who are completely out of ideas.
Please, Mr. Abrams, don't do that again.
Luke, Leia and Han are supercool heroes from a galaxy far, far away. And boy are they full of angst.
... is going to be killer.
"KAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNN!"
(and this text goes in here because slashdot hates 1 word answers, even when they're totally awesome.)
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It makes sense, as he already did a Star Wars movie in 2009. The descent of both franchises to the dark side will be complete.
So the same person is now in charge of both the Star Wars movies and the Star Trek movies?
I think i just felt a disturbance in the force, as if millions of fans involved in the never ending "which is better, Star Wars or Star Trek?" debates suddenly cried out in bewilderment and then their heads asploded.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
This is not going to help explaining the differences to the Girlfriend when she says "Star Wars, Star Trek same thing..."
"The Star Wars franchise had a series of movies starting a bit over 30 years ago. They are about to make some new ones. The guy who did Lost is going to direct them. . Where as Star Trek had a series of movies starting circa 30 years ago. They are now making new ones. The guy who did Lost directs them...""
. .
Next he needs to do a reboot of Stargate, then he would have worked on all of the Star+* franchises.
And turn Star Wars 7 into Star Wars 7, 8, and 9?
Star Wars is lost
i have to say that something has been 'lost' in the new age.
the best original trek were about the human condition... I'm sure you can name some of your favorite episodes that leap to mind... but for me it is TOS like the Menagerie, or TNG like "The Inner Light" (where he plays the flute on) or the one about Enkidu and Gilgamesh.
When Spock dies in Wrath of Khan, tell me you didn't cry ... now tell me even one memorably emotional scene from anything after Generations
The new stuff is fine.. but its ... where is the heart? Maybe I'm just old but...
Lost was a piece of shit. Fuck everyone who liked it. I'm going drinking.
Abrams is going to take Star Wars, remove all of the substance, and turn it into a bright-colored, flashy, plotless action movie devoid of all substance.
So basically Lucas' legacy is alive and well.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
this. So much this...
Abrams has really shown great ability to come up with a good story context and set up a world and characters we get pulled into and care about.. and then CONSISTENTLY fails to take them to a satisfying conclusion...
He's the biggest SF-tease evar.
Maybe Abrams could start it up and get the story rolling for VII and VIII but then they could let someone with a history of doing it right (Joss where for art thou?) bring it on home in IX
The Digital Sorceress
... it couldn't get any fucking worse than Jar Jar Binks.
We could always.... not watch it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sure you arent mixing up Seven Samurai and The Hidden Fortress?
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
As an actor (and so distantly connected to the entertainment industry), what makes me cranky about this is Hollywood's affinity for known quantities. I like Abrams' work; I'm sure it'll be a fine movie.
But there are hundreds of lesser-known directors who might have done something. What would Kevin Smith have done? Or Alfonso Cuaron, who made the third Harry Potter movie so much more interesting than any of the others? Or somebody I've never heard of?
They're going with a known quantity, and maybe it's the right business decision. It means it probably won't be terrible, and will probably be pretty good. But no matter how good it is, it's still going to be more of Abrams, who we've already got plenty of.
They're going with a known quantity to eliminate the risks. And all you get from safe choices is safe movies. And "safe" is exactly what Star Wars wasn't, at least not the first time, the thing that made it great.
I don't really care who directs it. I'm more interested in finding out if Ford, Hamill and Fisher are going to be in it. I know they're old fogies now, but frankly after the horrors that were the prequels, I'd like nothing more than Han Solo with a blaster.
They have all expressed interest, and the story idea that's been floated so far has Luke being the head of a new academy. It's possible.
Not sure if Carrie would still fit into the bikini, though.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I always though that Star Wars did not have enough lens flares...
Why cant they have Michael Bay do it? We would have Ewoks exploding all over the place, and everyone's wish comes true... Exploding Jar Jar...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
the new Trek movie wasn't made for us Trek fans.
Indeed, it seems to have been made against us Trek fans.
Here's a though experiment: imagine how Episodes 6, 1, 2, and 3 would have been if they had been done by the same writer and director who did Empire Strikes Back.
From the writing side, that would have been kind of difficult since Leigh Brackett died in 1978.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Let us not discount the Damon Lindelof phenomenon -- he wrote Prometheus and Cowboys vs. Aliens, and bears most of the responsibility for the Lost storyline. (He's also writing Into Darkness).
Then again, if yo've ever seen J. J. Abrams tell his "Mystery Box" Story it's pretty hard to not come to the conclusion that he's motivated by at least a little contempt for the audience's intelligence.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Nooooooooooo! That's impossible!
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Scrolling upwards and out into space away from the bottom of the screen:
In A.D. 2101
War was beginning.
Captain: What happen ? ....
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get lens flare.
Captain: What !
Operator: We get lens flare.
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You !!
Cats: How are you gentlemen !!
Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Operator: We get lens flare.
Captain: What you say !!
Operator: We get lens flare.
Captain: No. I say to Cats. What you say !!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: HA HA HA HA
Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'zig'.
Captain: For great justice.
Operator: We get lens flare.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Obviously Patrick Stewart would be good, and Vader voiced by James Earl Jones would be evil. The question is whose reflective head would cause the most lens flare.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Red 5 standing by... Red Matter standing by.
I'm basically the Trekkie the Onion lampoons: "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as 'Fun, Watchable.'"
It was a really fun film to watch, with action and adventure and cute one-liners. A fun, summer action movie. But it was not Star Trek.
Star Trek is not about good versus evil. Star Trek is about Better versus Base. There is no 'evil' in the Star Trek universe, there's just other intelligent life who are different or frightened or struggling and the easy response is "blow 'em up!" but Star Trek asks its characters to be better than that and find another option. Yes, defend yourself, but always look for the other, peaceful solution to a problem. And the best part about Star Trek is that the heroes are...us. Us as we could be through science and reason and strength of character.
The 2009 JJ Abrams movie threw all that out the window and gave us a spectacle about a genocidal bad guy with a scary looking ship who must be stopped by punching. Fun movie, but it's not Star Trek, as it doesn't ask its characters or the audience to rise above being a base reactionary.
Star Wars, which I also very much enjoy, is a mystical fantasy of good "Chosen One" characters versus Evil so evil they call themselves "The Dark Side." And the moral choice presented is about the stupidest philosophy imaginable, that if you care about people, you will come to hate the people who want to hurt the people you care about, which will make you "fall" and then join up with the people you hate to kill the people you cared about. I get the idea that blind hatred can make you "no better than" your enemies, but it doesn't turn you into your enemies. Just to godwin's law this, yes, it's possible to hate Hitler SO MUCH for killing all those Jews that you start a genocidal campaign against Germans, putting them in concentration camps and gas chambers, and wind up no better than Hitler. You become what you hated. But in the Star Wars universe, if you love the Jews and hate Hitler, you wind up joining Hitler to kill more Jews, thereby become THE SAME AS Hitler. This is stupid and makes no sense.
So, JJ Abrams abandoned the fundamental premise of Star Trek (that we can rise above our base instincts to find peaceful solutions to our problems) and ruined Star Trek in a bad way. Maybe, in charge of the next Star Wars movie, he'll abandon the fundamental premise of Star Wars (that you have to be a dispassionate mystical robot to avoid killing your friends) and make the franchise much better and more interesting.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's "Redd Foxx." Assuming you mean the comedian. "Stay in attack formation, dummy!"
It's time to retire both frachises. I'm sick of both of them. Let's have something new.
Red October Shtanding by
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Is it true that J.J. Abrams real name is Jar Jar?
Yeah, I'd pick Timothy Zahn's Thrawn books if Episode VII was to be an adaptation of existing Expanded Universe material.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Make all the ewoks talk like Seth McFarland's "Ted" and you've got something.