Dia on 25/1/2013 at 16:17
M'k. This disturbed me on several levels. I've enjoyed the Star Wars saga so far (aside from the lousy people-directing skills of Lucas and all the other obvious flaws already pointed out and hashed to death), and I've also enjoyed the Star Trek series/movies. But for some odd reason, hiring Abrams to direct SW: VII bothers me immensely. What bothers me even more is the fact that he didn't want to do it in the first place. I have a nasty feeling this won't end well.
(
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/star-trek-director-j-j-abrams-talks-call-221511526.html)
Vivian on 25/1/2013 at 16:31
Things cannot get any shittier. And the last star trek was more star wars than star trek anyway. Makes sense to me.
Ulukai on 25/1/2013 at 17:01
Things could get shittier, some descendent of Jar-Jar Binks could be in it.
DDL on 25/1/2013 at 17:29
MEESA BLINDED BY LENSFLARE?
Pyrian on 25/1/2013 at 17:38
Quote Posted by Vivian
And the last star trek was more star wars than star trek anyway.
Yeah, this is my impression, too.
Briareos H on 25/1/2013 at 18:35
Abrams is quite competent in the enjoyable film department. I think he could be adequate if he had veterans working on the script rather than only new wave screenplay writers and if he had a good director of photography that can create tasteful lighting and contrast without relying on post-production. He would also have to get through his skull that action can be filmed or even (heresy!) suggested without a million slanted camera angles moving all over the place really fast. Filming dynamically is only the most obvious and easy way to make a scene dynamic, and rarely the most interesting.
henke on 25/1/2013 at 18:40
Abrams wouldn't be my last pick for director. Star Trek was good. But, yeah, having the same guy direct both Star Trek and Star Wars just doesn't seem right.
Dia on 25/1/2013 at 23:07
Quote Posted by Briareos H
He would also have to get through his skull that action can be filmed or even (heresy!) suggested without a million slanted camera angles moving all over the place really fast. Filming dynamically is only the most obvious and easy way to make a scene dynamic, and rarely the most interesting.
I agree. I watched the special features for the last ST movie and saw how even during action scenes Abrams was
literally drumming on the camera to add even MORE action (it also reminded me of Paul Greengrass whom I felt
totally ruined the 2nd & 3rd Bourne movies with his camera work :p). It worked with some scenes, but imo failed epically in others. Don't know if it was the script, cast ensemble, the directing or a combination of all three, but I admit I really, really liked the last ST. Just am not sure I want the hyperactive Mr. Abrams directing a Star Wars film. I was, btw, epically disappointed in the special features 'The Making of' on the last ST movie: it was basically all about J.J. and how he felt and what he thought and how he did things and how talented he was with a microphone. Seriously
b.o.r.i.n.g.june gloom on 25/1/2013 at 23:59
Man, I can just taste the butthurt over this. Belated Christmas gift to me!
Mr.Duck on 26/1/2013 at 04:06
[video=youtube;DSscaLdO4l4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSscaLdO4l4[/video]
All kidding aside, I'm curious at this decision. Guess we'll have to wait and see, in the meantime: BUTTHURT FOR ALL! :D
