The Force Awakens Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (JJ Abrams 2015)

[Matt C 452]

A completely different writer is writing this that has nothing to do with any of JJs prior work, and its all being overseen by Kathleen Kennedy. JJs just the director here.

Not to mention JJ Abrams won't be able to pull that Mystery Box crap he's done since 2007 (and it didn't work with Cumberbatch's villain being the worst kept secret about STID). While there will be secrecy surrounding the plot, Kathleen Kennedy isn't the kind of producer to be OCD secretive about the casting. She'll announce who's playing who, but that's it. That's more straightforward than if Abrams was solely producing.

[Ollie 1,059]

JJ Abrams is going to have more input than you all realize.

He's not going to be another Richard Marquand.

[Quintus 5,399]

A completely different writer is writing this that has nothing to do with any of JJs prior work, and its all being overseen by Kathleen Kennedy. JJs just the director here.

Sorry what?

[A24 4,331]

Didn't you know?! Richard Zanuck made Jaws ... Spielberg was only the director.

[Quintus 5,399]

Ah, you learn something new every day. Spielberg's entire career is probably a sham!

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

come on, what he says is true, on big franchises, directors usually have tighter reins than in normal isolated films.

[Jay 37,340]

I shouldn't have said that JJ is just the director here, but he's not writing the storyline for the film either. He'll shape the way the story is told but won't come up with it, and his normal team isn't coming up with it either.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I shouldn't have said that JJ is just the director here, but he's not writing the storyline for the film either. He'll shape the way the story is told but won't come up with it, and his normal team isn't coming up with it either.

Thank Christ.

[Wycket 36]

A completely different writer is writing this that has nothing to do with any of JJs prior work, and its all being overseen by Kathleen Kennedy. JJs just the director here.

Not to mention JJ Abrams won't be able to pull that Mystery Box crap he's done since 2007 (and it didn't work with Cumberbatch's villain being the worst kept secret about STID). While there will be secrecy surrounding the plot, Kathleen Kennedy isn't the kind of producer to be OCD secretive about the casting. She'll announce who's playing who, but that's it. That's more straightforward than if Abrams was solely producing.

Is it so bad to have some mystery to a film? I enjoy not knowing every detail about a film before its released. Hell, I got spoiled about Oblivion before I saw it in an article that wasn't even about the movie. I reminisce of the days when I was growing up and only had a few vague details about what a movie is. The movie should be an experience, and if in the movie itself a character's identity is a secret, than it should be for the audience as well. Into Darkness suffered only because everyone wanted you know who to be the villain since the release of the first in '09.

[Matt C 452]

Secrecy and mystery surrounding a film is fine, but it detracts when the director insists on keeping the villain secret (and routinely lying about the character even after the advanced screenings said otherwise). A poor move on JJ's part, and it kept Paramount from giving STID's marketing a clear hook to draw audiences in. Coupled with Cumberbatch's relative obscurity (apart from the Sherlock fans), the marketing made STID look like more of the same... only bigger. Audiences are too savvy to fall for that every time. Plus, Paramount could've easily marketed Cumberbatch's villain without giving away that 'he's a younger version of Khan.'

The secrecy on STID was all for naught... most of it was rehashing portions of 'Wrath of Khan' and "Space Seed" to lesser effect. Abrams and the writers did a great job establishing a new universe to play around in for the rebooted ST franchise... why rehash material? There are dozens of better story ideas that Abrams could've gone with... and the secrecy would've been worth it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Didn't he also lie about Cloverfield being the title?

[Matt C 452]

Didn't he also lie about Cloverfield being the title?

Abrams is a compulsive liar, almost as bad as Michael Bay.

The best thing is to not say anything or just a simple "no comment" would do.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

[Once 605]

For me it's more about getting as many film scores by Williams as possible. And him working with someone else than Spielberg (why not Cuarón again?!).

[Brónach 1,302]

I could do with John Williams scoring freaking Gravity.

[Jay 37,340]

I could do with John Williams scoring freaking Gravity.

I've never even heard of the guy who is scoring Gravity

Of course, that kind of film probably doesn't have much music in it anyway.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Seconded.

[Sandor 797]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Dude great news! CNN just reported that you don't have to watch Star Wars Episode VII in 2015 if you don't want to..!

They say there are over 18000 (!) movies released each year, so that's about 17999 films besides Star Wars in 2015..! You can actually choose to watch any of those instead of Episode VII.

That means I don't have to watch Fast 6 or the next Hangover film (big relief!), but I'm still glad those films get made since they obviously give millions of people a lot of pleasure and I really wouldn't see the point in constantly ventilating my irritation with those franchises since there is such an abundance of alternative films to choose from.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,513]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Dude great news! CNN just reported that you don't have to watch Star Wars Episode VII in 2015 if you don't want to..!

There are over 18000 (!) movies released each year, so that's about 17999 films besides Star Wars in 2015. You can actually choose to watch any of those instead of Episode VII.

That means I don't have to watch Fast 6 or the next James Bond (big relief!), but I'm still glad those films get made since they obviously give millions of people a lot of pleasure and I really wouldn't see the point in constantly ventilating my irritation with those franchises since there is such an abundance of alternative films to choose from.

What a helpful chap.

[Sandor 797]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Dude great news! CNN just reported that you don't have to watch Star Wars Episode VII in 2015 if you don't want to..!

There are over 18000 (!) movies released each year, so that's about 17999 films besides Star Wars in 2015. You can actually choose to watch any of those instead of Episode VII.

That means I don't have to watch Fast 6 or the next James Bond (big relief!), but I'm still glad those films get made since they obviously give millions of people a lot of pleasure and I really wouldn't see the point in constantly ventilating my irritation with those franchises since there is such an abundance of alternative films to choose from.

What a helpful chap.

No trouble at all..!

[A24 4,331]

I dunno, Richard, a Star Wars movie that has nothing to do with George Lucas is an intriguing idea. The creator had become the biggest obstacle ... That obstacle is now removed ... Star Wars is free! (ahem, ahem!)

Alex

[Jay 37,340]

Well, it doesn't have "nothing to do" with George Lucas. He's involved....

[A24 4,331]

He's bringing the coffee?

[Jay 37,340]

I think the term used was "he has creative input into the development process", or something like that.

They are starting from his old outline of where he wanted episodes 7 and beyond to go, I guess

[A24 4,331]

If he's not directing, producing or writing, it's enough for me to see this as a Star Wars movie without George Lucas.

[Matt C 452]

I think the term used was "he has creative input into the development process", or something like that.

They are starting from his old outline of where he wanted episodes 7 and beyond to go, I guess

Aka he only has story input.

IMDB has Darren Gilford (Tron Legacy, Oblivion) on as production designer for Episode VII, but I can't find a credible link source that verified it like the editors and costume designer did.

[Laserschwert 475]

Aka he only has story input.

And the story wasn't the problem of the prequels.

[Matt C 452]

George brought that onto himself... stilted acting and horrible dialogue in the prequels. At least Abrams has the ability to competently direct actors, and Michael Arndt can write good dialogue.

[Datameister 2,041]

Exactly. Ironically, George Lucas's more limited influence may be what puts the Star Wars back in Star Wars. Perhaps it won't be how Lucas perceives Star Wars, and it could be argued that that's the "real" version, but that version happens to suck compared to the more collaborative efforts of the 70s and 80s - the ones that defined what Star Wars is to everyone except Lucas.

[Brónach 1,302]

It'll be curious to see J.J. shift back from his style in his Trek films to aping againg the 70's/80's fantasy through his style like in Super 8.

[Red 75]

Exactly. Ironically, George Lucas's more limited influence may be what puts the Star Wars back in Star Wars. Perhaps it won't be how Lucas perceives Star Wars, and it could be argued that that's the "real" version, but that version happens to suck compared to the more collaborative efforts of the 70s and 80s - the ones that defined what Star Wars is to everyone except Lucas.

Lucas is a fascinating figure and more than a little bit tragic. His success was never fully his own.

[Datameister 2,041]

No one's is. Perhaps his was less so than others', but no one is a truly and completely self-made success. We're all "standing on the shoulders of giants", as it were, and few of us are really standing alone.

Lucas absolutely deserves credit for much of the incredible success of the Star Wars OT - it wouldn't have been possible without his ideas and his drive. Since then, he just seems to have underestimated how crucial it is to collaborate if you want to create a product that does anything more than fulfill your own vision.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It'll be curious to see J.J. shift back from his style in his Trek films to aping againg the 70's/80's fantasy through his style like in Super 8.

There is no difference.

[Brónach 1,302]

Super 8 feels less crazy and copies Spielberg here and there.

[A24 4,331]

That was the point.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Actually I think the train crash sequence is crazier than anything in Star Trek.

[A24 4,331]

More! More! MORE!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Actually I think the train crash sequence is crazier than anything in Star Trek.

have you ever witnessed a train crash?

that's one thing JJ pretty much nailed.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

No, but I highly doubt it would be as extravagant as he made it, regardless of how thrilling that sequence was.

[Matt C 452]

I hope Abrams stays away from the frequent lens flares. They were a constant distraction in Star Trek, Super 8 and Star Trek: Into Darkness. For something as big as Episode VII, he needs to hold his personal style back some.

And at least he'll shoot it on film. The prequels looked far too clean due to the digital cameras... missing much of that film grain that was in the OT.

[KK 3,307]

I feel like the lens flares add to the polished blandness I see in Abrams' latest.

[A24 4,331]

No, but I highly doubt it would be as extravagant as he made it, regardless of how thrilling that sequence was.

Not thrilling at all ... Over-the-top to impress the audience in an obvious way ... Yes!

[Ollie 1,059]

I have to ask this question, but...am I the only person in the whole of God's creation that is just not bothered about the prospect of "Episodes VII-IX"?

I really do not care about another three cash-in, money-making, cynical, empty-headed, moribund pieces of so-called entertainment.

I want to watch original films, not endless sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and tie-ins.

The future of "Star Wars" can go to cinema Hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Seconded.

Thirded, yeah I know spelling police, but now that JJ is on board and a chance for new music from Williams or Giacchino, well I'm intrigued.

If he can bring to Star Wars what he did for Trek then there may be a chance to make Star Wars interesting again.

Of course I'm under the "they defeated the Empire and lived happily ever after" mindset. Really no need for any further adventures.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

No, but I highly doubt it would be as extravagant as he made it, regardless of how thrilling that sequence was.

According to the audio commentary, that scene was meant to show how the children experienced the train crash, not how it really was.

Not entirely sure how much sense that makes, but I suppose it is an excuse for going waaay over the top for fun's sake.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

I hope Abrams stays away from the frequent lens flares. They were a constant distraction in Star Trek, Super 8 and Star Trek: Into Darkness. For something as big as Episode VII, he needs to hold his personal style back some.

yeah maybe he should restrain avlittle, but please, re-watch the star wars saga and count the lens flares, there are lots of them, specially in the prequels.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

[Jay 37,340]

Mara Jade?

[Quintus 5,399]

Starring a cast of freaks.

[Luke Skywalker 1,794]

chewbacca?

[Pieter Boelen 740]

Hayden Christensen? Controversial!