The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

[Blueruler182]

It's hard for me to think that this "one man" has control over kids imagination with these two sci-fi franchises when, nowadays, there are tons of 'em out there. All of the Avengers movies, plus whatever's Marvel's going to do after, the DC movies that are going to follow, the Tolkien/Jackson franchise, and whatever original works are going to pop up by shear virtue of nerd culture becoming pop culture. And that's not even stepping into animation, which is seeing a huge boom these days. Star Trek and Star Wars may be big names that'll make a ton of money, but these days they're not so big a franchise to anyone other than the people old enough to have loved the older movies/tv shows.

As for Abrams and not having a fire driving him, yeah, I'm a little worried about it. But at the end of the day everyone was expecting a decent movie from Star Wars and is prepared for the disappointment. Next to nobody was really expecting them to knock it out of the park.

 

[BrotherRool]

The last bit I disagree with less because the Avengers came out this year, so if we've become afraid of that type of film, thats a rather recent development. But I was on the fence with Abrams and you've persuaded me that you're probably right there.

Also appreciate all the qualifiers, it seemed to be sincere and fair which is always cool

 

[irishda]

Jesus, what's with the hyperbole on this site lately. First Jim says DLC will bring ruin to the gaming industry and now Bob's saying directing Star Wars and Star Trek makes Abrams some sort of demi-god in charge of two aspects of nerd culture. For fuck's sake, just what kind of power do you think these two franchises have? What kind of power does any movie franchise have over anything except pop culture? Oh no, the choices Abrams makes might affect what people are wearing to a sci-fi convention. Or the internet will roundly make fun of another set of Star Wars movie series.

I've got another question for Bob. What the hell do you think these series are? "The Star Trek movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, and it deserves better." Have you watched the movies in Star Trek and Star Wars. At best, at best, they're mediocre hackfests with deus ex machinas that rely heavily on visuals. The original Star Wars had exactly three good actors, and only two of them were in all three movies. The original Star Trek movie runs had no good actors until TNG and Patrick Stewart. These are not some paragons of movie franchises that deserve only the best. If you want more for them, fine. But that's every movie isn't it? Every movie deserves better. There's nothing special about either Star franchises.

 

[magicringgirl]

Although I agree with Bob and many of the comments that fans are too scared to let anyone work on certain projects, such as Star Wars, and Star Trek, with a fear that they will destroy their "baby", I must also point out that we fans really don't have much of a say in who directs what, and which big company controls what nerd franchise. I love creative movies with a soul to them, and I know we nerds keep going back to this but what Joss Whedon did with the Avengers was perfect and this passion is what the film industry should be about! Sure we go out and watch the newest Michael Bay movie, but did we really enjoy it? With what little time we seem to have nowadays is it fair for it to be wasted on mediocre films? I'm not saying that we shouldn't have middle ground films but what I am trying to say is that their are too few amazing works. The kinds of movies you will watch over and over again and still love each time! I think it is so sad that the movie industries are more willing to push out one shot cash grabs then true master pieces which will be talked about for ages!

When I heard JJ Abrams was directing Star Wars I wasn't sure how I felt, but I think Movie Bob said it just right when he referred to Abrams as just mediocre. Remembering his previous works is kind of a challenge, I know I've watched Fringe, Super 8, Star Trek and others, but I really can't remember anything other then that one fact that I had watched it. Which is disappointing especially for a franchise like Star Trek, which I, and I'm sure other fans, would have loved to see reborn and become a whole set of fresh new movies to enjoy, instead we have a one shot cash grab that will be forgotten.

Star Wars has had it rough lately, and I really hope that JJ Abrams directing it will not be the final blow to end one of my favourite stories. It was part of the reason I became the nerd that I am today, and despite set backs like Episode 1 I will always love it!

 

[Phuctifyno]

Bob, you raise some good points that I haven't considered. Though I can't say I fully agree, I don't fully disagree either. ...Tell my wife I said, "Hello".

Anyway, let's keep calm and remember that it isn't Abrams writing the thing, and lot of the negatives that you railed against him also could have been said about Irvin Kershner, whose most notable films were all sequels that he had only professional investment in. And Richard Marquand... I don't even know who that guy is outside of Jedi.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Sheesh, somebody finally explained to me about J.J Abrams's quality of a director without screaming "LENS FLARE RAAUEHSSRGHHH".

Ok, "director who plays it safe" is a good complaint.

 

[i_ramiz]

I really like Abram's Alias. At least first season, never have a chance to see next ones. His Star Trek was... Ok. Never was fan of Star Trek franchise, but introduction to setting was good and I had at the moment desire to try to go deeper in ST story. May be some day...
As for him to be ep.7 director... Don't know. He could make definitely good movie on his own, but I guess he can't make a stand (as I recall, MI3 was weak mostly because it was Tom Cruise movie, not his, but I could be wrong). I guess I would like to see someone like Zack Snyder or Joss Whedon to be director. Love both of them for their creativity. That would be interesting and intriguing. I could say Matthew Vaughn would be ideal choice but... Well... I love his Kick-Ass and Star Dust films but First Class disappoint me a lot (it is not a bad film, just not ideal and some flaws and inconsistencies do not help and this is pains me). Hope Days of Future Past return my faith in him.

Well, mention of Spider-man movies puzzled me. They are weak, besides some really good action moments. Well, may be just not my cup of tea. But new SM movie... It has many flaws (and I guess does not having distinct style is one of the them, never thought about that actually), but at least characters more believable and appealing to me so I prefer new one. At least this was the first time I liked Spider Man as a character. But again, may be just me.

As for the whole point of video... I guess overall quality of film matters, not just how cool director's vision looks. I mean, does Joss Whedon's 6th season of Buffy lacks of his creativity? No! But I still find this season weakest in series.

Oh well. Now with this news I have an urge to rewatch Star Wars movies. Even new trilogy. May be I like them this time more.

 

[azriel2422]

I went in to watching this video (as I do every Tuesday), but this time I just knew I was going to vehemently disagree with your argument. I stand at least partially corrected, in that I can't say I don't agree with the fact that J.J. Abrams is the safe choice. But where I might disagree, is that yes, it might just be okay to have a "safe" director for the first foray back into these Star Wars waters. We had 3 dismal, terribly written prequels that were controlled (entirely) by one man. In this next installment, we have a director that is controlling the story, but we have separate and very talented writers coming up with the original story. I for one am hopeful that Disney will rotate different directors to get a crack at the franchise, and future installments will have the luxury to take chances. I just want a Star Wars Movie that I can watch without cringing at the protagonist whining and forgettable and otherwise cringe worthy dialogue.


Abrams won't have total control over this movie, and having a safe, decent Star Wars movie we want, but the movie we deserve.

 

[MB202]

Okay, sure, nothing he's made sound that spectacular, but come on, are you really going to cry foul just because the new Star Wars movie might turn out to be merely average? Like you said about The Phantom Menace? Oy... Granted, I probably would have liked to see someone else more creative than Abrams direct the movies, hence why Zack Synder intrigues me, but still, the way Bob's been acting about it, it feels like he's reacting the same way if Michael Bay was put in charge. Explained here, it makes a little more sense why he's disappointed, but like I said, it's not THAT BAD of an announcement, and ESPECIALLY not as bad as he's made it sound since the announcement.

 

[MYWA]

Disclaimer: I hate JJ Abrams and I'm going to ***** about it and will unconditionally hate the new Star Trek AND Star Wars movies based purely on this notion regardless of their quality.

Actually, I found MovieBob's rant to be fairly frank and well-reasoned. He even admitted he may have overreacted. At no point did he say he "hated" J.J. Abrams, and he went of his way to explain exactly what his feelings were toward Abrams's output and why he felt that way. Now, you can disagree with his assessment of Abrams - after all, it's a matter of taste. But you don't get to do is try to paint it like MovieBob is being frothing-at-the-mouth irrational here, and paradoxically, it seems as though your cheap attempt to easily write him off as unwilling to properly respond to something he doesn't like in a reasonable and thoughtful manner betrays your own lack of willingness or ability to respond to something in a reasonable or thoughtful manner.

_______

As for MovieBob...Interesting take. I wouldn't have thought much either way about Abrams as director of the new Star Was movie, though I guess that's part of the problem. For one thing, I don't have much of a horse in this race, since I'm not that big into Star Wars. For another thing, this movie is to me a naked cash-grab until proven otherwise. As I see it, Disney could've done much worse than to recruit Abrams to direct. LOL @ Bob's naivete in thinking Disney bought Star Wars to break the mold and do something dangerous, interesting, or even just fun in a new way.

 

[jmarquiso]

MI 3 was the closest to the original TV series, and it took JJ Abrams to stand up to the other powerhouse that is Tom Cruise to make that work. MI4 came a touch more in that direction, but had less of the soul in it. Both are very good movies. I would argue that Abrams and Bird both outdid de Palma by a long shot.

Not that de Palma didn't have a good vision. Because he certainly did. But it was ultimately a forgetable Clancy-esque espionage picture about a guy in a mask, whereas MI 3 and Ghost Protocol were about themes that made the original series great - teamwork, for instance.

Were they "safer". I think that they were.

 

[SlightlyEvil]

I was bracing for yet another angry fanboy rant, but was pleasantly surprised by how much I agreed with you. I've been struggling to put my finger on what was wrong with putting J.J. Abrams behind the camera on Star Wars. I liked his Star Trek, and I'm looking forward to the next one (mainly because, as a Sherlock fan, I would watch Benedict Cumberbatch read the phone book); I even enjoyed Mission Impossible 3, though I can't really tell you anything that happened in it (apart from brain-bombs). Bob hit the nail on the head this time by pointing out Abrams' problem: he is technically proficient, but not exceptional; good, but not great. And Star Wars is the kind of property that needs a visionary. It doesn't even need to be remotely like Lucas' vision - KOTOR 2 showed us that - it just needs to be behind your story.

 

[luvd1]

Yeah, just a little foam mad ranting but the premise is still sound. JJ is a very mediocre director. if they wanted a movie that just doesnt suck they might as well give it to Paul W S Anderson, at lease he has some feeling. JJ Abrams movies all remind me of real Japanese robots, very uncanny valley.

 

[RoonMian]

No. The biggest science-fiction universe is still Perry Rhodan. That one is even still lacking a movie adaptation.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

Well, I never like it when people are brought in to provide sequels for things that would be better if they just drowned in nostalgia (see my love of Halo crushed by 343 Industries), but I can't see too much wrong with JJ Abrams as a writer/director for Star Wars. With something like Star Wars, there's been far too much time for people to imagine how the story begins and ends, filling in those plot points now just seems like a really bad idea. Like when I enjoyed Halo because of the religious undertones about a zealous alien alliance trying to destroy the very thing they held sacred because their leadership was fooling them into fighting a war to increase their political power, much like what happened with the Crusades. When the story of the Forerunners got told, suddenly that all changed as the focus shifted from humans to Forerunners, who had at one point been alluded to as the same thing. Suddenly it wasn't a cautionary tale about blindly following your religious leaders, but instead a generic space opera about aliens that died and then came back again, like Mass Effect, Prometheus, and so many others. It was the ability for new writers to come in and put their own spin on the franchise that watered down its meaning and ruined its original greatness.
Just like with Star Wars. When the prequels introduced midichlorians, it killed the mystical nature of the Force. When they made Anakin an asshole, everyone stopped feeling bad for Darth Vader. I don't like knowing that we won't get something new and exciting from the new Star Wars trilogy, but I would like to come out at the end of it with a shred of love left for the originals, and the only way I can see that happening is if JJ Abrams treads very lightly on the subject matter.
And anyway, why not get the guy who made District 9 to make something new and exciting, like he did for District 9? I wouldn't want to waste that creative talent reiterating an old universe, no matter how much potential that universe had.

 

[walsfeo]

JJ Abrams: the HALO of film directors.
But still, do we know who the producer is?

You know, he would probably churn out a nice Halo movie. I'd see that.

I was initially against Abrams directing Star Wars but after further thought, and once seeing seeing this, I think he's a much better match for Star Wars than Trek. My objection had nothing to do with the fact one man helming two major geek institutions, but more on the fact he did a pretty poor job on Star Trek. Once I recognized that the story forms for the two are so different it's pretty obvious that he's more suited to Star Wars than Trek.

Trek needs something great to propel it into another strong TV series and extend the franchise. On the other hand Star Wars just needs something that is "pretty good", or at least doesn't completely suck. Really, at this point, Star Wars would benefit greatly from a movie where stuff happens and the viewers are just taken along for the ride without being hit in the head by stupid. I hate to say it but a jump to the middle, at least until someone with real passion for the story can be found, might be be just be what Star Wars needs.

 

[Thamian]

I'm not getting into the whole J.J Abrams question since the only thing of his I've even watched and that I lost the will to continue watching before the end of the second episode, so I'm really not qualified to comment.

However, in answer to the closing question, as far as I can see, no, audiences, fans, humanity, etc. are most definitely NOT afraid of director driven films, of films which are alive, which have significance beyond the broad beats of their plots and/or action sequences. Indeed, films like Avatar, The Avengers, the Lord Of The Rings films, Nolan's Batman films and so on all demonstrate that brilliantly, not only by having raked in so much cash, but having done it at rates or times of year that convention wisdom would pronounce impossible.

The problem is that those audiences don't own Hollywood. They might ultimately pay for it to exist, but they don't own it. The money-men do. And that's fine and dandy, and hey, I don't see any other way to work it that wouldn't be open to horrific abuse.

However, ever since the financial fuck-ups of 2008, those self-same money-men have been terrified of their own shadows, trusting only in the results of their risk-return analyses and modelling programs. In industry that's fine, production rates, profit margins, even product consumption rates are reasonably easy to predict accurately and easily reducable to numbers that those programs can crunch nice and easy.

But film? Hell, more broadly speaking, the entire entertainment industry?

Not so easily quantifiable. Smash hits can come out of nowhere, some films expected to do well become mega-hits, while others bomb spectacularly, and precisely none of it has the slightest bearing on how much money was spent on it, or on when it came out or anything. Yeah ok, there are broad rules (like how summer films are expected to rake in the cash while late year films are expected to rake in oscar nominations for example), but even those don't always hold up.

The response that Hollywood seems to have settled on as a result is to force the artistic content into nice safe boxes in the hope that, even if the return on it isn't fantastic, atleast it's DEPENDABLE. It's safe. Even they know that the chances of them hitting monetary home runs like The Avengers in such cases are limited at best, but hey atleast they're also likely to make something, and due to the parlous state of the world economy, the people in charge rarely have the testicular fortitiude to greenlight anything that's particularly risky, atleast not on that sort of AAA level.

Note that I'm talking about money here solely. Yeah, that's because these aren't ascended directors/writers/actors/composers/animators we're talking about. We're talking about financiers and producers who only got into the business for the money (the other sort being too busy actually producing films to run these sorts of massive corporations). As a result, if the art suffers for their bottom line, all to the good.

 

[shiajun]

Neither Star Trek nor Star Wars is that important to me. I don't really care for either, and that may make an atypical nerd somehow. it doesn't matter. However, I do see the qualities in both and, if anything, the problem here isn't Abrams directing Star Wars, it's Abrams directing Star Trek. His vision of Star Trek is rather different than the universe before it, yet its tone fits rather well with Star Wars, as a whole. From the directors Bob mentioned, Neill Blomkamp is much more of a fit with the themes behind Star Trek and away from the tone in Star Wars. Let Abrams have Star Wars, he might just make it watchable again.

I don't really trust Abrams as a writer. Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe all start fairly strong then loose their way. Lost is even more notable because when he was actually truly involved was phenomenal (first season) and then Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindeloff went to crazy town. I attribute Damon Lindeloff's terrible influence to the non-sensical Prometheus script. Alias was much more Abrams and it also went to crazy town by the third season. It was all too jumbled up. Felicity only went strange in the last episodes but its setting prevented it from going odd, except for the ocassional oddball episode (like Megan's box Twilight Zone tribute). Fringe...haven't seen that much, but they can't seem to capitalize on its promise. As a director, however, his not that bad. I agree with Bob, they reek of commitee safeness, but he can put a well looking, exciting, readable movie. It's the script you have to worry about, and that one seems to be in good hands, for now.