894 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Strange, isn't it? How all of a sudden a director becomes so en vogue seemingly everything runs in his direction. I've observed this with Cameron, then Nolan, now Abrams seems to become the guy to go to when sf franchises are concerned. And I suspect Bigelow could become a similar figure for 'realistic' action.  

[SecretAgentFan]

True, but who else is better at sci-fi today than Abrams?

 

Steven Spielberg, Joe Cornish, Paul W.S. Anderson, Zack Snyder, Alex Proyas, Werner Herzog, Michel Gondry etc.

 

Steven Spielberg, yes. A legend.

 

Joe Cornish... after one film?

 

Paul W.S. Anderson? Um... oh, no, please.

 

Zack Snyder. Good one. Not better but on the same level.

 

Alex Proyas... DARK CITY, okay. But apart from that?

 

Werner Herzog... sci-fi?

 

Michel Gondry... IMO totally overrated.

 

 

But that´s just my opinion, of course. For me, Abrams excels because he takes pulp fiction and makes it interesting and emotionally satisfying, never losing the fun aspect of it all. He knows it´s all about entertainment, and in that way he truly is a modern Spielberg. He´s got something that some people might call "old school"-elegance, light-hearted enough but still taking the characters seriously. That´s why I think he is perfect for STAR WARS.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 18 April 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

It seems from CinemaCon that there will be a 'Star Wars' film EVERY year from 2015, with a spin-off film in between each portion of the trilogy.

 

http://www.comingsoo...s.php?id=103129

 

 

Is this good, or not? I can't decide if we're going to peak with too MUCH Star Wars goodness....can they really do this every year to the standard critics and fans expect?!

[Dustin]

It all comes down to the story. The first three original films had a kind of fairy tale magic, something that inspired the fantasy of kids and grownups alike. The prequels for me were missing this quality, which is why I didn't bother with the third any more. Getting back to the original timeline will primarily have to capture that spirit of the originals, that particular magic that made us care for the characters for years and years. I'm not sure that aim can be accomplished with so tight a schedule and such a tall agenda, spin offs included. Which reminds me that the SW comics recently introduced an agent of the empire from just before the events of the first film. Obviously a kind of 007 in the Star Wars universe and I wonder if some of the spin-offs will try to pick up this element.

[Vauxhall]

I'm no major STAR WARS fan, but this certainly doesn't sound like a prescribed method to assure consistently quality films.

[S K Y F A L L]

Lets not forget there has already been a spin off type of film with The Clone Wars, I would expect that the 'Episode's will be quality films and the spin off films will be more of a trail and error process and probably geared towards children.  

[SecretAgentFan]

Boy, every year one STAR WARS film? Disney really desperately needs cash - and not just to justify the money they paid George Lucas.

 

The danger, of course, is burning out the franchise. But they obviously are pulling a Marvel here. I would prefer "less is more" for decades instead of too much in too little time. By that rate they will have to re-boot and remake everything in the 2020s.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 18 April 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

But unlike Marvel the films will not be based on comics, there is more room for creativity and they may never have the need to reboot the franchise. Once every year does seem like a lot but they did just spend 4 bill, perhaps they are just nervous their investment will burnout.

[jrcjohnny99]

Did everyone see Harrison Ford on Kimmel? very witty

[S K Y F A L L]

Did everyone see Harrison Ford on Kimmel? very witty

 

Just think I found it on youtube, LOL. THX for the tip.

 

[The Shark]

But that´s just my opinion, of course. For me, Abrams excels because he takes pulp fiction and makes it interesting and emotionally satisfying, never losing the fun aspect of it all. He knows it´s all about entertainment, and in that way he truly is a modern Spielberg.

 

That's truly underselling Spielberg - the man who gave us SUGARLAND EXPRESS, CE3K, THE COLOR PURPLE, A.I. and MUNICH.

 

Abrams never for once gives me the impression that like Spielberg, he's studied or watched the films of Lean, Dreyer, Bresson, Welles, Ozu, Kubrick, Lang, Chabrol, Zimmerman, Godard, Truffaut etc. He's a child of the STAR WARS generation, fed on junk cinema and TV He's one of the least cinematic and most televisual of all working directors in Hollywood today. Bland, cookie cutter characters, tropes and plot devices stolen from his favourite films - without any understanding of why they worked in the first place, mandatory "character arcs", leaden drama, no clue about directing action, and a boring visual palette.

[SecretAgentFan]

A bit harsh, don´t you think? Consider also that Abrams has only done four movies so far and is working in a totally different atmosphere than Spielberg (70´s - 10´s). Let´s give the man some room to develop. When Spielberg started out people were saying the same thing about him as you did about Abrams.

[thecasinoroyale]

Basically, it comes down to the critic/fan proof director we have today.

 

No matter what people say or think, if they deliver entertainment on a huge scale and understand the wants of todays cinema audience, which you have to admit is pretty high with with demand for pushing CGI and the hot talent of actors out there and the surge in big name brands and titles, they will rake in the money.

 

I think JJ has proved he can do that, cater to so many different tastes in a certian genre of film. There are so many competiting directors today, it's hard to pinpoint your modern Spielberg etc, but I think he's done a great job so far with what he had and feel he's not going to let us down on the 'Star Wars front.

[Dustin]

But that´s just my opinion, of course. For me, Abrams excels because he takes pulp fiction and makes it interesting and emotionally satisfying, never losing the fun aspect of it all. He knows it´s all about entertainment, and in that way he truly is a modern Spielberg.

 

That's truly underselling Spielberg - the man who gave us SUGARLAND EXPRESS, CE3K, THE COLOR PURPLE, A.I. and MUNICH.

 

Abrams never for once gives me the impression that like Spielberg, he's studied or watched the films of Lean, Dreyer, Bresson, Welles, Ozu, Kubrick, Lang, Chabrol, Zimmerman, Godard, Truffaut etc. He's a child of the STAR WARS generation, fed on junk cinema and TV He's one of the least cinematic and most televisual of all working directors in Hollywood today. Bland, cookie cutter characters, tropes and plot devices stolen from his favourite films - without any understanding of why they worked in the first place, mandatory "character arcs", leaden drama, no clue about directing action, and a boring visual palette.

 

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Technically I don't think Abrams can be considered lacking in basic ability or understanding of his tools. He comes from TV work and those waters boil with talent. Someone without it would not have survived at the tip of several heavy budget TV shows for many years consistently. He may not be a genius as the likes of Welles and Truffaut, granted. But he's solid enough in his own right and certainly above average. Will he develop in the future? No doubt, provided he's not running one of these big productions into the ground. Privately I suspect Abrams may perhaps be a better producer and creator than he is in his director role.

[The Shark]

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Since where did Spielberg ever devote his films to "contrived allusions" or a greatest hits collection of his favourite moments in cinema?

 

What I'm talking about is cinematic literacy, not self-concious in-jokes.

 

Technically I don't think Abrams can be considered lacking in basic ability or understanding of his tools. He comes from TV work and those waters boil with talent.

 

TV usually contains more talent in the writing departments than in direction, which is often cookie-cutter and generic. As is the case with Abrams.

 

That's not to deny that he's reasonably competent at what he does. He just lacks imagination, flair and wit.

 

Privately I suspect Abrams may perhaps be a better producer and creator than he is in his director role.

 

Defintely agreed.

[Dustin]

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Since where did Spielberg ever devote his films to "contrived allusions" or a greatest hits collection of his favourite moments in cinema?

 

What I'm talking about is cinematic literacy, not self-concious in-jokes.

 

I didn't exactly mean Spielberg with that kind of thing. But others are definitely guilty of this particular sin. And didn't a certain Quentin Tarantino build his whole reputation on the very concept? Though reasonably entertaining he went about it, I must admit.

 

 

 

 

Technically I don't think Abrams can be considered lacking in basic ability or understanding of his tools. He comes from TV work and those waters boil with talent.

 

TV usually contains more talent in the writing departments than in direction, which is often cookie-cutter and generic. As is the case with Abrams.

 

That's not to deny that he's reasonably competent at what he does. He just lacks imagination, flair and wit.

 

I look at it like this: working to a tight schedule and 'inside a (franchise-)box' is probably exactly what the industry is looking for with their big productions. And I wonder how much leeway even the industry darling Abrams is allowed with crucial moneymakers? I doubt big popcorn cinema is a particularly good display window of a director's imagination or potential in general. So much is due to conventions and expectations nowadays that especially franchise fodder has turned into a bigger version of television.        

 

 

 

 

Privately I suspect Abrams may perhaps be a better producer and creator than he is in his director role.

 

Defintely agreed.

 

My main complaint with Abrams in his TV work is that he succeeds in developing interesting situations and characters, but ultimately fails to deliver in the end. I was disappointed with flat solutions that in my view didn't fit the original concept. Could be Abrams is best with twelve pages of blank sheet and should perhaps mostly concern himself with the broad strokes instead of the detail.    

Edited by Dustin, 19 April 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[The Shark]

 

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Since where did Spielberg ever devote his films to "contrived allusions" or a greatest hits collection of his favourite moments in cinema?

 

What I'm talking about is cinematic literacy, not self-concious in-jokes.

 

I didn't exactly mean Spielberg with that kind of thing. But others are definitely guilty of this particular sin. And didn't a certain Quentin Tarantino build his whole reputation on the very concept? Though reasonably entertaining he went about it, I must admit.

 

That's the sort of magpie approach I was referring to when I wrote "tropes and plot devices stolen from his favourite films - without any understanding of why they worked in the first place."

[Dustin]

 

 

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Since where did Spielberg ever devote his films to "contrived allusions" or a greatest hits collection of his favourite moments in cinema?

 

What I'm talking about is cinematic literacy, not self-concious in-jokes.

 

I didn't exactly mean Spielberg with that kind of thing. But others are definitely guilty of this particular sin. And didn't a certain Quentin Tarantino build his whole reputation on the very concept? Though reasonably entertaining he went about it, I must admit.

 

That's the sort of magpie approach I was referring to when I wrote "tropes and plot devices stolen from his favourite films - without any understanding of why they worked in the first place."

 

Isn't that beside the point in Tarantino's case? Tarantino built himself his very own sampler genre, everybody knows what they get when they buy a ticket for one of his films.      

 

Anyway, back on topic. For STAR WARS I would have thought somebody like Guillermo del Toro would have been a better choice, particularly for the mix of old-school cliffhanger serial charm and large scale FX/CGI show those films are likely going to be.   

Edited by Dustin, 19 April 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

Speaking as someone who liked neither MI: III nor his new STAR TREK I have to say I actually don't miss contrived allusions and showing off in the vein of 'See how I did a Kubrick here? How did you like my FITZCARRALDO Easter egg?' That kind of thing can pretty fast become awfully tedious and in the end it's often just 'Look what a clever cineaste I am!'

 

Since where did Spielberg ever devote his films to "contrived allusions" or a greatest hits collection of his favourite moments in cinema?

 

What I'm talking about is cinematic literacy, not self-concious in-jokes.

 

I didn't exactly mean Spielberg with that kind of thing. But others are definitely guilty of this particular sin. And didn't a certain Quentin Tarantino build his whole reputation on the very concept? Though reasonably entertaining he went about it, I must admit.

 

That's the sort of magpie approach I was referring to when I wrote "tropes and plot devices stolen from his favourite films - without any understanding of why they worked in the first place."

 

I see what you mean. But you are aware that Spielberg has been accused of exactly this time and again?

[Shaun Forever]

A film every year?

 

 

I am still utterly puzzled that people have such high expectations for these new films, it seems nobody learned a thing from the

prequel trilogy.

 

 

Although having said that, at least this time there is no George Lucas, and his band of arse licking yes men, so it could work out.

 

 

I'm still a little bit worried here folks.

[Dustin]

I think the initial charm of STAR WARS (the original 1977 film) was that the whole affair was - amongst others - a mostly improvised mix of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics and serials, Frank Herbert's Dune and E. E. Smith's Lensmen novels and the films of Akira Kurosawa. The first three films made clever use of this stock and were a pleasure to watch, unadulterated fun without taking itself too seriously. The trouble began when the prequel trilogy had to fit into what by then had become Lucas' very own Star-Wars-Universe, with him developing, writing and directing the entire gig. That much responsibility was definitely too much for Lucas' abilities. But apparently Lucas has no definite role in either the sequels or the stand-alone films. In fact by buying the franchise Disney can probably choose any direction they want for it, without regard for Lucas or his input.

[S K Y F A L L]

[Shaun Forever]

Ugh! just looked at these fan made posters, and I'm starting to get a bit.............excited, OK, very excited

 

 

http://www.comicbook...E/news/?a=78520

[S K Y F A L L]

This was news to me ; John Williams is open to returning and JJ Abrams wants JW back and expects him to return. 

 

Now, according to Trek Movie, Abrams recently said that he expects Williams to return for the film. The report comes from a press conference for Star Trek Into Darkness, which will be scored by longtime Abrams collaborator Michael Giacchino.http://screenrant.co...-john-williams/

[thecasinoroyale]

If John Williams returns, that's one step closer to getting something brilliant....!

[007jamesbond]

so john William would return even if Steve Steriburg is not involved? They are usually together for every movie he directed 

[Royal Dalton]

May the 4th be with you...

[Iceskater101]

Dang you beat me to it but May the fourth be with you as well!

[S K Y F A L L]

Oh cool, first I've heard of it. Happy Star Wars day everyone!

 

[tdalton]

EPISODE VII to focus on story and character over special effects. Also, John Williams will score the film.

http://m.ign.com/art...actical-effects



I'll believe it when I see it.