J.J. Abrams To Direct Star Wars VII

No more time travel! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 12:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:No more time travel! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 12:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually Mr Anonymous, many of the best episodes of classic sci-fi series like Star Trek and Stargate were all based on time-travel. Yesterday's Enterprise, Anyone?
In other words, you are wrong and it is actually the complete opposite. Time Travel scares away novice sci-fi writers because they cannot wrap their heads around the paradoxical nature of such concepts, while the great writers are able to mold the concept into compelling, memorable science fiction.
Re:No more time travel! by AK+Marc · 2013-01-24 13:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's why JJ Abrams shouldn't be trusted with time travel. It results in Lost.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:No more time travel! by yurtinus · 2013-01-24 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

More misses than hits in my opinion. Time travel *should* scare away more novice sci-fi writers than it does because more often than not, it's used as a cheap deus ex machina to introduce or resolve some part of the plot (like in the SG-1 season 8 finale, series finale, or *most* of Enterprise). If you want to explore time travel - explore it! Don't use it as a cheap gimmick to push along (or reboot!!) the story.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:No more time travel! by bigkahunah · 2013-01-24 13:58 · Score: 5, Informative

"Even though Abrams' last known direct contribution to Lost was the script to the season 3 premiere, "A Tale of Two Cities" (which he co-wrote with Damon Lindelof), and he had stopped being the main driving force behind the direction of the show as early as season 1, instead leaving Lindelof and Carlton Cuse as the showrunners, a considerable part of the (casual) audience still considers Abrams to be the man in charge of the show." http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/J.J._Abrams
Re:No more time travel! by loneDreamer · 2013-01-24 15:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, he might have a point. I agree that time travel is a great thing if done right (Babylon 5 IMHO does it splendidly), but most movies/series do not pull it off. It end up being an inconsistent, illogical deux-ex-machina. I mean, I love fiction and fantasy, but that does not mean that I turn my brain off and believe anything.

And I could not even enumerate the number of idiotic scenes in the last Star Trek movie! Just one example: "No, I can't kill you for mutiny, I'll have to abandon you without supplies on a frozen planet, in a star system were a black hole was just created! That's clearly more logical and humane! But hey, look at the bright side, maybe if you walk around for a while you'll meet a future copy of myself, and then find the only guy in the galaxy that can beam us to a moving ship (1 in a trillion odds, pretty easy), so you'll get back, in which case I'm not going to throw you out of an airlock, but make you captain above all my other qualified lieutenants... but just for a while, since to stop a bunch of miners that can suddenly put the galaxy on it's feet we'll beam ourselves to their ship and stop them hand to hand. What do you say? Why not beam a time-bomb or a few dozen armed guys just to be on the safe side? Nah, no fun in that. Also, it seems like overkill to me, it's only the Earth at stake here, remember? Kneel before my superior logic!"

No... this is definitely NOT good news.
Re:No more time travel! by Gogo0 · 2013-01-24 16:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

if it was even longer ago, wouldnt the galaxy be closer?
Re:No more time travel! by matunos · 2013-01-24 21:46 · Score: 5, Funny

As long as he doesn't create an alternate universe where Greedo shot first, Vader made C3P0, the Force-sensitivity is a bacterial infection, and force-ghosts got 20 years younger, we should be just fine.
Re:No more time travel! by matunos · 2013-01-24 21:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except for the causal loop.
Personally, I liked 12 Monkeys.
Re:No more time travel! by dbIII · 2013-01-24 22:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

and he had stopped being the main driving force behind the direction of the show as early as season 1
At which point he was replaced by random dice rolls.
Coming through the forest the groups meets ... rolls four dice, turns to a page number in an encyclopedia ... a polar bear!
Re:No more time travel! by RDW · 2013-01-25 01:28 · Score: 5, Funny

For a more accurate flowchart of Primer (and several other movies) see: http://xkcd.com/657/

MTV Star Wars! by Austerity+Empowers · 2013-01-24 12:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Luke, Leia and Han are supercool heroes from a galaxy far, far away. And boy are they full of angst.

Re:MTV Star Wars! by Wrexs0ul · 2013-01-24 12:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Starring Eugene Levy as Darth Vader, the dad still trying to be cool.
"We'll just tell your mother we used the force"

--
--- Need web hosting?
Re:MTV Star Wars! by Guppy · 2013-01-24 16:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Funny, I thought the '09 reboot was Starfleet Academy: 90210. Gotta get my glasses fixed...
Ah yes, "Melrose Space".

The Lens Flare!!! by TheBilgeRat · 2013-01-24 12:30 · Score: 4, Funny

... is going to be killer.

Re:The Lens Flare!!! by Dyinobal · 2013-01-24 12:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Now replacing the lightsaber the LensFlare Saber, a weapon for a more digitization age.
Re:The Lens Flare!!! by darthservo · 2013-01-24 12:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Especially with not just one, but *two* suns in the Tatooine system.

--
Prove it.
Re:The Lens Flare!!! by Darinbob · 2013-01-24 14:00 · Score: 5, Funny

That's no sun! That's a lens flare!

1 Word by girlintraining · 2013-01-24 12:30 · Score: 4, Funny

"KAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHNNNN!"

(and this text goes in here because slashdot hates 1 word answers, even when they're totally awesome.)

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:1 Word by SoulMaster · 2013-01-24 13:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry... that word should be:
"THRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN!"
7 8 and 9 were already books. And they were awesome!
-SM

Wait a second... by Daetrin · 2013-01-24 12:35 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Wait a second... by hermitdev · 2013-01-24 12:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Meanwhile, those of us that like both Star Wars & Star Trek are thinking, "hrrm, Episode 7 has a chance now of not sucking."
Re:Wait a second... by Jason+Levine · 2013-01-24 13:44 · Score: 4, Funny

If they also announce that J.J. Abrams is going to direct a new Ghostbusters movie and a new Back To The Future movie, the geek universe will implode.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Wait a second... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2013-01-24 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

He basically turned Star Trek into a Michael Bay movie and of course the same moronic people who love the Terminator franchise rant and rave about how good his rebooted trek is.
Hey, what's wrong with the Terminator franchise? The first movie was great, the sequel was pretty good, and the TV series was brilliant. It's not like there were any more movies. I heard they did some kind of Transformers crossover thing a couple of years back, but you shouldn't judge the series by cheap imitations.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Wait a second... by Cytotoxic · 2013-01-24 14:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah! And now that you mention it... they really should make a sequel to "The Matrix" some day. It really is surprising that such a big hit was never followed up on...
Re:Wait a second... by Baloroth · 2013-01-24 15:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Star Trek was an abomination. Being able to beam into warp destroys the Star-Trek universe worse than midichlorians ever did.
Not at all. All Scotty had to do was reverse the polarity of the beam, and boom! Problem solved!
Seriously, if you are worried about the coherency of the Star Trek universe... well, lets just say that ship sailed around, oh, the second episode of the original series? Being generous. Transporters alone "destroyed" the Star Trek universe. Hell, they weren't even supposed to exist (they are vastly more advanced than the Federation should have had, given the rest of their technology), but the show didn't have the budget for a shuttle.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Wait a second... by SuperKendall · 2013-01-24 16:43 · Score: 5, Funny

I never understood why Star Wars fans were so upset with midicholrians, when the existence of such means you could potentially make a yogurt with active cultures to give you force abilities.
"What do you want from the store honey? Dannon Light, or Dannon Dark?"

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Wait a second... by Rhapsody+Scarlet · 2013-01-24 19:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Meanwhile, those of us that like both Star Wars & Star Trek are thinking, "hrrm, Episode 7 has a chance now of not sucking."

Assuming you actually liked Star Trek XI, which I didn't. At all. Not even a bit. In fact, I rated it my second worst Star Trek movie (saved from the bottom only by The Final Frontier). Want some reasons? I've got plenty, but here's just a few (spoilers incoming!):
First, I see a lot of people talking about transwarp beaming, with some even defending it going "Oh, well you know beaming was just to save on money in the first place", which was was, which is irrelevant. Beaming was fine because beaming had rules. You can only beam over certain distances, you can't beam through certain atmospheric conditions, you can't beam at warp unless it's between two ships and they're both going at exactly the same speed and you have an extremely skilled operator. These rules keep it from being too powerful a plot device. So what does Abrams do? Transwarp beaming! Beam to a ship ridiculous distances away that's travelling at warp from a (relatively) stationary planet!
That's bullshit because it's just lazy. Abrams wrote himself into a corner. Kirk needs to be on the planet to meet future Spock but Kirk and Scotty need to be on the Enterprise to fulfil their destinies, but oh shit the Enterprise warped off fucking hours ago. I know! Deus ex machina, and they're in the engineering section. It's just bad writing.
It also brings me too... oh fucking hell, give me a second. It brings me too... the worst set. In all of Star Trek history. Even the Original Series. That engineering section. Just... what? Seriously, what? What is it? What are all these pipes? What do they do? How do they fit on the Enterprise? What was the designer smoking? I really, really don't get this set. Even in a narrative sense, what's it for? One stupid scene where Scotty gets stuck in the pipes? You could've cut that whole scene from the movie and nothing else would have to change. So why? Why not at least make it match the bridge and shuttlebay in style and design rather than feeling like a totally difference franchise in there?
Oh, but then we come to style and design. It's just rule of cool, even when it makes no sense. The Romulan mining ship? A 'simple mining ship' that looks like some fever-dreamed eldrich abomination? I mean, I know it has to look imposing but that's not just some lowly mining ship so why does it look like that? Because it's cool of course! Explanations are for losers! Also 'red matter', surely the midicholorians of Star Trek. An incredibly powerful substance out of nowhere that can make black holes out of nothing and destroy whole stars because that's not overpowered. Also, 'red matter'? Even Spock calls it red matter, is that really what it's called? That's the scentific name? Red matter? They couldn't even care enough to give it a vaguely 'sciency' name like 'trilithium' from Generations? It may be small, but the small things are what make you know they care, and they didn't with this movie.
If this is what Star Wars VII is going to be like then we're going to see something very special. We're going to see the franchise find an even lower place than the prequel trilogy.

No Help by Master+Moose · 2013-01-24 12:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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...""

--
. . .gone when the morning comes

Re:No Help by queequeg1 · 2013-01-24 14:36 · Score: 4, Funny

That's because "Girlfriend" is a defined term here on Slashdot: a mythical creature (see e.g. roc, pegasus, unicorn).
Re:No Help by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-24 16:38 · Score: 5, Funny

That's the way it was written on the box.
Re:No Help by Grayhand · 2013-01-24 17:34 · Score: 4, Funny

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...""
The simplest way to deal with a girlfriend, assuming you have one, is to simply say have you seen the new episode of "Keeping up with the Kardashians". That should keep her busy talking for a half hour while you play Halo in your head. When there's a lull in her talking just say, "I know can you believe what happened". That should keep her going for another half hour while you finish another imaginary Halo level. If she doesn't watch that show there's always the Twilight punt. Just tell her you started reading the Twilight novels. That will buy you an hour of in head gaming before she asks your thoughts on something from the novel. I recommend your response to whatever she asked to be "Isn't it an amazing romance?" That'll buy you two hours if not the rest of the night and you might even get laid.

Star Trek, Star Wars... by Computer_kid · 2013-01-24 12:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Next he needs to do a reboot of Stargate, then he would have worked on all of the Star+* franchises.

Why JJ Abrams when you could get Peter Jackson? by ohnocitizen · 2013-01-24 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny

And turn Star Wars 7 into Star Wars 7, 8, and 9?

Re:Why JJ Abrams when you could get Peter Jackson? by MichaelSmith · 2013-01-24 12:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Star wars 7: There is a knock at Luke's front door. A bunch of people invite themselves in and eat all his food.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Why JJ Abrams when you could get Peter Jackson? by lennier · 2013-01-24 16:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Star wars 7: There is a knock at Luke's front door. A bunch of people invite themselves in and eat all his food.
Far over the Endor forest green
To Yavin IV and Tattooine
We must arrive by hyperdrive
And stick a fork in Palpatine...

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

Now we can finally openly acknowledge it by OhANameWhatName · 2013-01-24 12:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Star Wars is lost

having just watched the Trek marathon on SyFy by decora · 2013-01-24 12:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

Re:having just watched the Trek marathon on SyFy by tarpitcod · 2013-01-24 13:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Please. All of that TNG crap. I wanted them to die. I wanted the scene to go like this:
Picard> Yes, but the question is *should* we kill them?
Data> Killing is not ethical
Blah>
Blah>
Blah>
Enterprise blown from the stars
Enemy captain> If you're going to shoot, shoot, don't talk

This Is the Worst News I've Heard All Day by ALeavitt · 2013-01-24 13:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Omg :( by DigitalSorceress · 2013-01-24 13:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Just when you thought... by EmagGeek · 2013-01-24 13:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

... it couldn't get any fucking worse than Jar Jar Binks.

Re:The mouse better not mess this up by roc97007 · 2013-01-24 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

And the rich get richer by jfengel · 2013-01-24 13:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:And the rich get richer by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-01-24 14:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Alfonso Cuaron really did a great job... another possibility would have been Guillermo del Toro. Both would be much more interesting.

AWESOME! by Lumpy · 2013-01-24 13:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Abrams: Not part of the solution by jabberw0k · 2013-01-24 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

the new Trek movie wasn't made for us Trek fans.

Indeed, it seems to have been made against us Trek fans.

Re:The mouse better not mess this up by Kell+Bengal · 2013-01-24 14:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Nooooooooooo! That's impossible!

--
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.

J.J.Abrams To Direct Next Zero Wing Game by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-01-24 14:29 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

That he butchered Star Trek gives me hope... by meta-monkey · 2013-01-24 14:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Really? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-01-24 15:31 · Score: 4, Funny

It's "Redd Foxx." Assuming you mean the comedian. "Stay in attack formation, dummy!"

Retirement by Sperbels · 2013-01-24 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's time to retire both frachises. I'm sick of both of them. Let's have something new.

Re:Really? by sconeu · 2013-01-24 16:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Red October Shtanding by

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

An amazing coincidence! by bobdevine · 2013-01-24 17:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it true that J.J. Abrams real name is Jar Jar?

Slashdot Mirror

J.J. Abrams To Direct Star Wars VII

54 of 735 comments (clear)