JJ Abrams to direct Star Wars Episode VII

cinematography.com has posters who know somebody who knows somebody who claims the whole trilogy will be originated on 35mm and 65mm film.

I didn't even know they'd still be making 65mm raw stock past this year.

Sounds like they'll be aiming for IMAX, as Abrams did that for INTO DARKNESS.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/j-j-abrams-hires-star-trek-cinematographer-shoot-235647006.html

Guess that means everytime a lightsaber duel happens the lens flares double.

Rumors has it that Benedict Cumberbatch will be cast in Episode VII.


http://www.filmchronicles.com/benedict-cumberbatch-star-wars-vii/

http://io9.com/could-j-j-abrams-reunite-with-benedict-cumberbatch-for-1242941147

As Khan no doubt. :*e*: 

I'm pretty much having zero expectations with Abrams' involvement. I have never felt so ambivalent about an upcoming STAR WARS film before.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I'm pretty much having zero expectations with Abrams' involvement. I have never felt so ambivalent about an upcoming STAR WARS film before.

You do realise that with the Prequel Trilogy being around that the bar is set very low. 

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

We'll see. I'm hopeful, especially if the original cast returns. Then again, I'm one of those who actually enjoys the Prequel Trilogy.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

He has already proven he is with the MI series and Lost, Star Trek, Felicity, Alias & cloverfield.

One thing I heard is that Hammill has returned to the gym. Still, when I last saw him he could use it.

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

He has already proven he is with the MI series and Lost, Star Trek, Felicity, Alias & cloverfield.

Not a very encouraging resume. The only one I have really liked so far is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL, which was thankfully directed by Brad Bird. Had that guy been the one hired for Star Wars, I'd be much more optimistic.

Makeshift Python wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

He has already proven he is with the MI series and Lost, Star Trek, Felicity, Alias & cloverfield.

Not a very encouraging resume. The only one I have really liked so far is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL, which was thankfully directed by Brad Bird. Had that guy been the one hired for Star Wars, I'd be much more optimistic.

A very encouraging resume, most folks in HW would love to have even half as much succes and quality that Abrams did have.

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

He has already proven he is with the MI series and Lost, Star Trek, Felicity, Alias & cloverfield.

Not a very encouraging resume. The only one I have really liked so far is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL, which was thankfully directed by Brad Bird. Had that guy been the one hired for Star Wars, I'd be much more optimistic.

A very encouraging resume, most folks in HW would love to have even half as much succes and quality that Abrams did have.

Michael Bay makes popular films too, that doesn't mean I think they're any good. The only difference between him and Abrams is that the latter is more gimmicky with his mystery box approach in marketing.

Makeshift Python wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think Abrams is quite above that bar.

He has already proven he is with the MI series and Lost, Star Trek, Felicity, Alias & cloverfield.

Not a very encouraging resume. The only one I have really liked so far is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL, which was thankfully directed by Brad Bird. Had that guy been the one hired for Star Wars, I'd be much more optimistic.

A very encouraging resume, most folks in HW would love to have even half as much succes and quality that Abrams did have.

Michael Bay makes popular films too, that doesn't mean I think they're any good. The only difference between him and Abrams is that the latter is more gimmicky with his mystery box approach in marketing.

Michael Bay started with two decent enough movies (the rock & Bad boys) after that he kind of went a lot out of my sphere of interest with his choices and movies.

JJ Abrams has overal been involved im much more human based movies / tv shows, and I absolutely adore his Super 8 movie as did I enjoy Felicity & Alias, Cloverfield was an interesting take on a monster movie and both MI movies were actually an improvement on the first 2 MI movies imho. Ghost Protocal I actually prefer over the bloathed SF, visually great and a much better story easily.

Comparing these two directors/producers is a bit off, even if you disliked the reboot Star Trek series. One of them does not seem to be able to work small and is mostly over the top, while the other one has shown a keen eye in his characters, even Tom Cruise has improved in the last two MI movies.

I'm betting Abrams wouldn't allow that (not to mention Lucas). He'd take the Expanded Universe into consideration, even if Kasdan doesn't. Hell, Abrams took Star Trek's EU into consideration, when no one else does.

saint mark wrote:

Comparing these two directors/producers is a bit off

I don't think the comparison is that off. Both make movies with badly structured narratives, one dimensional characters and can't seem to stick with a certain tone. SUPER 8 starts off as a monster/slasher flick, and then becomes E.T. where you're supposed to feel sorry for the monster even though it went on a rampage killing innocent people. The way the characters in STAR TREK were handled makes me worry how much he'll butcher the characters in STAR WARS. I think if he were to simply direct and had no say on the writing, I might be optimistic.

Makeshift Python wrote:

saint mark wrote:

Comparing these two directors/producers is a bit off

I don't think the comparison is that off. Both make movies with badly structured narratives, one dimensional characters and can't seem to stick with a certain tone. SUPER 8 starts off as a monster/slasher flick, and then becomes E.T. where you're supposed to feel sorry for the monster even though it went on a rampage killing innocent people. The way the characters in STAR TREK were handled makes me worry how much he'll butcher the characters in STAR WARS. I think if he were to simply direct and had no say on the writing, I might be optimistic.

I think you missed the point of the story of Super 8, it was never meant to be a monster/slasher flick the creature had been locked up and taken prisoner by the US goverment managed to escape and only wanted to go home. And he was not as cuddly as ET though. And the story was more about the kids than the monster. I found it a rather good and enjoyable movie.

As for the Star Trek movies, as a tv series or movies they were dead. You might not like it but Abrams brought live back to the ST franchise even if it is not according to your wishes. I found these 2 ST moveis far superiour to anything ST Next Gen had done in the cinema with the exception of the Borg movie. Good to see that ST does again count, perhaps enough to restart a new tv series.

saint mark wrote:

I think you missed the point of the story of Super 8, it was never meant to be a monster/slasher flick the creature had been locked up and taken prisoner by the US goverment managed to escape and only wanted to go home. And he was not as cuddly as ET though. And the story was more about the kids than the monster. I found it a rather good and enjoyable movie.

The problem is that Abrams intentionally framed it as a slasher film in the first half of the movie because he was intentionally homaging Spielberg's Jaws by not showing the creature, and having it kill innocent people. What the US government did may be bad, but that doesn't mean it had to take it out on some 15 year old convenient store clerk. The alien is also supposed to be sentient, able to read minds of others by touch and because it reads the mind of the lead kid it decides to stop killing? What was it that stopped the creature from empathizing with a harmless civilian? By that point I was rooting for the government to kill the creature. As for the story about the kids, I couldn't really care for them beyond being impressed by a few that are very good for child actors. The father/son issues has become a very cliche under Abrams' that I just no longer find anything worthwhile about it.

Quote :

As for the Star Trek movies, as a tv series or movies they were dead. You might not like it but Abrams brought live back to the ST franchise even if it is not according to your wishes. I found these 2 ST moveis far superiour to anything ST Next Gen had done in the cinema with the exception of the Borg movie. Good to see that ST does again count, perhaps enough to restart a new tv series.

I couldn't care less whether they were popular or not when what we're given is just Star Trek in name only.

@MakeshiftPyhon

I alsways saw super 8 more as an hommage to Close encounters of the third kind but yes indeed these is some Jaws in it as well. So an hommage to Spielberg in a pretty good movie. imho

I know that with the ST movies I will never convince you, I am just pleased that ST is back were it rightfully belongs namely in the center of the publics attention. And overal my preferance lies with the original series and their cinematic excursions. But the new series has made a whole new generation aware of the old shows I even borrowed my ST TOS remastered boxsets to a mate who never was a ST fan and he was blown away by it.

As for Abrams on SW, I prefer him kickstarting the franchise above most people in HW and preferably lightyears before Michael Bay. Who seems to have pushed himself into a cormer with those awefull Transformer movies. I do hope he stays there.

Agent007391 wrote:

I'm betting Abrams wouldn't allow that (not to mention Lucas). He'd take the Expanded Universe into consideration, even if Kasdan doesn't. Hell, Abrams took Star Trek's EU into consideration, when no one else does.

I think I remember reading something from Kennedy or JJ a few weeks back saying they won't take the Star Wars EU into consideration when developing the new trilogy. Speculation is that the Darth Plagueis novel will be the only EU material that could have ties to the new trilogy simply because Lucas had a small role in writing it and because Plagueis is mentioned briefly in Episode 3 (crazy fanboys are clamoring for Plagueis to be the villain in the new trilogy).

And, minor spoilers for those who care...

Rumors from a couple "sources" who claim to be in-the-know are saying that the main shift in the direction of the writing had to do with how the Luke/Leia/Han characters were being handled. Apparently, Arndt's script focused mainly on Han/Leia and their kids and supposedly read like an "apology for the prequels", while Abrams wanted the attention to be more on Luke and his lineage while not alienating fans who liked the prequels. If true, then I guess Abrams won that battle.

What I took that to mean was "We won't be hampered by the EU". Taking it into consideration and being slowed down by it are two different things.

Darth Plagueis as the villain of the Sequel Trilogy? Nah, that doesn't sound like it should happen. That just sounds like it's forcefully tying the Prequel and Original Trilogies by forcing a character who died before one Trilogy happened to combat the heroes of the other.

But it would be pretty stupid to not take the EU into consideration. It's very popular (a great deal of New York Times bestsellers), and very known. Lucas himself has used things from the EU, despite the many contradictions he's thrown into it.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Rumors from a couple "sources" who claim to be in-the-know are saying that the main shift in the direction of the writing had to do with how the Luke/Leia/Han characters were being handled. Apparently, Arndt's script focused mainly on Han/Leia and their kids and supposedly read like an "apology for the prequels", while Abrams wanted the attention to be more on Luke and his lineage while not alienating fans who liked the prequels. If true, then I guess Abrams won that battle.

I've heard that, which I think is too bad because I actually prefer the idea of Luke being more of a supporting character, maybe a distant one now that he's a powerful Jedi master of sorts. Guess we'll see how that turns out. But it seems clear now that Abrams is asserting himself more and more in this project rather than just being a studio director for hire.

saint mark wrote:

As for Abrams on SW, I prefer him kickstarting the franchise above most people in HW and preferably lightyears before Michael Bay. Who seems to have pushed himself into a cormer with those awefull Transformer movies. I do hope he stays there.

Not true. I caught Bay's latest film -- PAIN & GAIN -- earlier this year. Turned out to be an excellent social satire - almost up there with BURN AFTER READING. Not only funny, but with a real edge.

Largo's Shark wrote:

saint mark wrote:

As for Abrams on SW, I prefer him kickstarting the franchise above most people in HW and preferably lightyears before Michael Bay. Who seems to have pushed himself into a cormer with those awefull Transformer movies. I do hope he stays there.

Not true. I caught Bay's latest film -- PAIN & GAIN -- earlier this year. Turned out to be an excellent social satire - almost up there with BURN AFTER READING. Not only funny, but with a real edge.

Never heard of this movie, I will make an effort to see it if it is really good.