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

[darth_vedder]

JJ's pretty much the only reason I have any interest at all in seeing this new Star Wars movie.

Yeah, adequacy's a pretty high mark these days, eh?

While I don't believe that there's any chance of actual talent ending up in charge of any of this, there's a pretty big jump between "eh, this fuck up will do," and getting JJ-jazzed.

I guess what I meant by the "thumb-up" is that I'm more excited to have JJ do this than Lucas. Those prequels were so bad, that I was glad there wasn't going to be any more SW. Once it got out that JJ is doing them, and considering his work on Lost, Super 8, and Star Trek, I thought it was a good call, and got me excited. I think he'll do the films justice. More so than Lucas.

[harmless]

JJ's pretty much the only reason I have any interest at all in seeing this new Star Wars movie.

Yeah, adequacy's a pretty high mark these days, eh?

While I don't believe that there's any chance of actual talent ending up in charge of any of this, there's a pretty big jump between "eh, this fuck up will do," and getting JJ-jazzed.

I guess what I meant by the "thumb-up" is that I'm more excited to have JJ do this than Lucas. Those prequels were so bad, that I was glad there wasn't going to be any more SW. Once it got out that JJ is doing them, and considering his work on Lost, Super 8, and Star Trek, I thought it was a good call, and got me excited. I think he'll do the films justice. More so than Lucas.

Lucas can clearly make Star Wars movies, he did episodes 4-6, but man... I really don't like anything about 1-3, conceptually or otherwise. If he'd been allowed to carry on that vision, sheesh.

[McParadigm]

The original Star Wars was birthed in such a different era... a time when the idea of blockbuster movies was just taking hold and works like the original Rocky (barely a boxing movie), Taxi Driver, Marathon Man, and Dog Day Afternoon could be among the biggest movies of their year. Whether you consider it a better era or not, it was one in which nuanced storytelling had a far larger role in box office success.

Star Wars has always been a product of its context. The prequel trilogy started production in a post-Jurassic Park world, and helped spearhead the "look at all the pretty colors" CGI heavy summer style. Not that this discounts the degree to which George Lucas had lost his ability to tell a damn story…

The new movies are arriving at a time when Hollywood is responding to it's diminishing returns by trying to make summer movies more "spectacle," and is helmed by seizure-speed director and "the story mostly exists to bridge the gap between effects shots" middle manager JJ Abrams. What you put in is what you will get out.

New Star Wars is almost exactly like new Pearl Jam, these days. You can either be happy to have the familiarity and hope that a new release will generate a few new keeper-tracks...or you can pass on the chance to get invested in a continuing evaporation of otherworldly quality and wonder what might have been.

[harmless]

The new movies are arriving at a time when Hollywood is responding to it's diminishing returns by trying to make summer movies more "spectacle," and is helmed by seizure-speed director and "the story mostly exists to bridge the gap between effects shots" middle manager JJ Abrams. What you put in is what you will get out.

Is that really what JJ Abrams is though? Star Trek didn't seem like that to me. There's a difference between having thin / minimal / bare bones plot, and having a plot with no substance that merely serves to underpin the action. The former is solid but not distracting, the latter detracts from the enjoyment of a movie. But I don't even know what JJ Abrams movies I've seen except for ST.

[McParadigm]

The new movies are arriving at a time when Hollywood is responding to it's diminishing returns by trying to make summer movies more "spectacle," and is helmed by seizure-speed director and "the story mostly exists to bridge the gap between effects shots" middle manager JJ Abrams. What you put in is what you will get out.

Is that really what JJ Abrams is though? Star Trek didn't seem like that to me. There's a difference between having thin / minimal / bare bones plot, and having a plot with no substance that merely serves to underpin the action. The former is solid but not distracting, the latter detracts from the enjoyment of a movie. But I don't even know what JJ Abrams movies I've seen except for ST.

I think JJ has the ability to storytell, but that it's not his primary interest. The Star Trek movies are great examples of this. He's very interested in getting you to the next big effects moment in the most direct way possible, but the choices he makes in trying to accomplish this goal are informed by an understanding of good storytelling. It kind of leaves you with these movies that have a lot of little character-centric vignettes slipped in between space jumps and fight sequences. And they do help, so long as you don't ask too many questions...but the final product is still a hell of a lot closer to a very enjoyable rollercoaster ride than it is to a movie that you'll still want to watch and talk about ten years from now.

[harmless]

The new movies are arriving at a time when Hollywood is responding to it's diminishing returns by trying to make summer movies more "spectacle," and is helmed by seizure-speed director and "the story mostly exists to bridge the gap between effects shots" middle manager JJ Abrams. What you put in is what you will get out.

Is that really what JJ Abrams is though? Star Trek didn't seem like that to me. There's a difference between having thin / minimal / bare bones plot, and having a plot with no substance that merely serves to underpin the action. The former is solid but not distracting, the latter detracts from the enjoyment of a movie. But I don't even know what JJ Abrams movies I've seen except for ST.

I think JJ has the ability to storytell, but that it's not his primary interest. The Star Trek movies are great examples of this. He's very interested in getting you to the next big effects moment in the most direct way possible, but the choices he makes in trying to accomplish this goal are informed by an understanding of good storytelling. It kind of leaves you with these movies that have a lot of little character-centric vignettes slipped in between space jumps and fight sequences. And they do help, so long as you don't ask too many questions...but the final product is still a hell of a lot closer to a very enjoyable rollercoaster ride than it is to a movie that you'll still want to watch and talk about ten years from now.

While I was watching it, I likened it to the kind of storytelling The X-Files did (much to do with why I enjoyed it): short, sharp scenes that gave you just enough to carry you forward into the set-pieces, but not too much that you got confused. I loved that and it's still my style, because I get pretty confused trying to follow a convoluted plot. My brain just wasn't made for it. So unless there are glaring plot-holes (I'm looking at you, Prometheus!), this suits me. ST seemed to be a well constructed film with a light touch.

[McParadigm]

So basically, everything you consider enjoyable is everything I consider mediocre. I guess we should be happy that we're observing other people's works and not trying to coauthor something instead.

[harmless]

I would love to be able to follow complex plots, honestly. I just... can't. I don't want it to be cheap and 'blockbuster-ish', but streamlined and minimal I'm fine with. For all that Star Trek had that breakneck speed, I wouldn't have described it as an overly commercial film either.

[epilogue]

I watch Star Trek about once every three months. And it stays fresh. I'll most certainly be talking about it and enjoying it ten years from now. Because, while I do agree with both harmless and McP insofar as I can agree with both sides at the same time, what makes ST so great is that it is enjoyable while still being a "summer blockbuster." It's so well balanced. The action is there, obviously, but the characters are as well.

[Harry Lime]

The original Star Wars was birthed in such a different era... a time when the idea of blockbuster movies was just taking hold and works like the original Rocky (barely a boxing movie), Taxi Driver, Marathon Man, and Dog Day Afternoon could be among the biggest movies of their year. Whether you consider it a better era or not, it was one in which nuanced storytelling had a far larger role in box office success.

And as someone else has already mentioned, this is why I'd see Duncan Jones as an ideal choice, but of course Disney would never go for it.

The new movies are arriving at a time when Hollywood is responding to it's diminishing returns by trying to make summer movies more "spectacle," and is helmed by seizure-speed director and "the story mostly exists to bridge the gap between effects shots" middle manager JJ Abrams. What you put in is what you will get out.

Is that really what JJ Abrams is though? Star Trek didn't seem like that to me. There's a difference between having thin / minimal / bare bones plot, and having a plot with no substance that merely serves to underpin the action. The former is solid but not distracting, the latter detracts from the enjoyment of a movie. But I don't even know what JJ Abrams movies I've seen except for ST.

I think JJ has the ability to storytell, but that it's not his primary interest.

Super 8. He has the ability to tell character stories with suspense, but of course I don't think that's the direction they want to take with Star Wars. When I watch the new Star Trek movies attempt an emotional scene between Spock & Kirk, I almost roll my eyes because I don't buy it. But I don't because I think the actors are good.

Another potential director who is learning more every day is Jeff Nichols (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, Mud). His next writing & directing feature is going to be a government-science fiction story straight out of the 70s/80s (ala "Star Man"), starring Michael Shannon, called Midnight Special. Very high on my radar. And Warner Bros. is backing it. A big budget sci fi movie written and directed by Jeff Nichols? This is what Hollywood needs. I hope it's great.

[McParadigm]

I would love to be able to follow complex plots, honestly. I just... can't. I don't want it to be cheap and 'blockbuster-ish', but streamlined and minimal I'm fine with. For all that Star Trek had that breakneck speed, I wouldn't have described it as an overly commercial film either.

It definitely tried to straddle a line...and whether that was a good or a bad thing it certainly reinvigorated a creatively dead franchise.

For what it's worth, I don't really mean 'complex' plots, either. I would have stated that before, but I was writing from a bench at the zoo. Complexity isn't essential. Just not..."so then I guess they dumped Kirk on a planet I don't know why and he ran a hundred and fifty yards and there was Spock just there in a cave with a magic plot fix device I know right?"

Also, probably the best part of all this is that I showed my wife Barry Lyndon last night, and I hadn't seen that movie in like 10 years. I loooove it, but I got up and wandered off on at least three occasions because I just sort of...got distracted by nothing, I guess? So I'm hardly the anti-'ADD movie fan' poster child.

[harmless]

I would love to be able to follow complex plots, honestly. I just... can't. I don't want it to be cheap and 'blockbuster-ish', but streamlined and minimal I'm fine with. For all that Star Trek had that breakneck speed, I wouldn't have described it as an overly commercial film either.

It definitely tried to straddle a line...and whether that was a good or a bad thing it certainly reinvigorated a creatively dead franchise.

For what it's worth, I don't really mean 'complex' plots, either. I would have stated that before, but I was writing from a bench at the zoo. Complexity isn't essential. Just not..."so then I guess they dumped Kirk on a planet I don't know why and he ran a hundred and fifty yards and there was Spock just there in a cave with a magic plot fix device I know right?"

Also, probably the best part of all this is that I showed my wife Barry Lyndon last night, and I hadn't seen that movie in like 10 years. I loooove it, but I got up and wandered off on at least three occasions because I just sort of...got distracted by nothing, I guess? So I'm hardly the anti-'ADD movie fan' poster child.

Yeah, I get it. There was some of that, yes.

[epilogue]

I would love to be able to follow complex plots, honestly. I just... can't. I don't want it to be cheap and 'blockbuster-ish', but streamlined and minimal I'm fine with. For all that Star Trek had that breakneck speed, I wouldn't have described it as an overly commercial film either.

It definitely tried to straddle a line...and whether that was a good or a bad thing it certainly reinvigorated a creatively dead franchise.

For what it's worth, I don't really mean 'complex' plots, either. I would have stated that before, but I was writing from a bench at the zoo. Complexity isn't essential. Just not..."so then I guess they dumped Kirk on a planet I don't know why and he ran a hundred and fifty yards and there was Spock just there in a cave with a magic plot fix device I know right?"

Also, probably the best part of all this is that I showed my wife Barry Lyndon last night, and I hadn't seen that movie in like 10 years. I loooove it, but I got up and wandered off on at least three occasions because I just sort of...got distracted by nothing, I guess? So I'm hardly the anti-'ADD movie fan' poster child.

Yeah, I get it. There was some of that, yes.

People always seem to have a problem with that plot point. I don't get it.

[harmless]

I didn't have a problem with it. I was just saying I get his issue about coincidental plot devices.

[epilogue]

I didn't have a problem with it. I was just saying I get his issue about coincidental plot devices.

Sure, sure. I get it too. But I don't get it in regard to that particular event. I guess I should have just quoted McP's post and not your reply. I was responding to him more than you.

[dimejinky99]

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/cu ... d=20208246

[bada]

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/culture/harrison-ford-grumpy?click=mid&src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=20208246

As people get older they tend to either chill out or get wound more tight. I think McP is on the Harrison Ford trajectory.

[McParadigm]

This is how I wake up every single morning:

[epilogue]

[bada]

New Trek is not Star Trek dad!!!!!