J.J. Abrams to Direct STAR WARS: EPISODE VII

The Master of Lens Flare is set to direct the next Star Wars movie.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/jj-abrams-set-direct-next-star-wars-film-exclusive-74596

oh captcha, you so funny...

"pew pew. pew pew."

So... the director of two Star Trek movies will be directing the new Star Wars.

This is going to be amusing.

Huh, I thought he had originally turned that down (can't remember where I read that...)

So, we're gonna have a ton of lens flares, then? Well, I'd prefer him over Michael Bays fetish for explosions.

Berithil:
Huh, I thought he had originally turned that down (can't remember where I read that...)

So, we're gonna have a ton of lens flares, then? Well, I'd prefer him over Michael Bays fetish for explosions.

Yeah I heard that also, so this is suprising for me. I love Abrams, and I think he will do a great job...I just kind of wish he wouldn't do it.

I would much rather him do something original and awesome, like what he did with Super 8 and Cloverfield.

So the movie is gonna be unwatchable then? I mean, I somewhat understand "wanting" lens flare to make things seem realistic, but this:

image

is

image

fucking

image

ridiculous

Lionsfan:
So the movie is gonna be unwatchable then? I mean, I somewhat understand "wanting" lens flare to make things seem realistic, but this:

image

is

image

fucking

image

ridiculous

The effect is not only silly, but the technique of making it is too. They basically shine a light from the side at the camera, and it looks really bad.

I thought the last Star Trek movie was a grate Star Wars film, so I think that's a good choice. I barely noticed the lens flare. But to some people that might be an important thing.

image

At first, I was surprised, but then I realized that no choice was going to fulfill my vision of who should direct this completely.

That said, I hope that ILM holds back when he asks for lens flare shots.

IamQ:

Lionsfan:
So the movie is gonna be unwatchable then? I mean, I somewhat understand "wanting" lens flare to make things seem realistic, but this:

image

is

image

fucking

image

ridiculous

The effect is not only silly, but the technique of making it is too. They basically shine a light from the side at the camera, and it looks really bad.

I heard most of the lense flares in Star Trek '09 were CGI'd in in post production, which makes it even worse.

Here we go with the "Lens Flare" thing. People shouldn't worry a about it.

The griping about Abrams' love for "Lens Flares" is certain to minimize or negate any abundance of them in the Star Wars movies. Heck, except for Revenge of the Sith I can't recall any of the SW movies that had "lens flare" visuals in them.

Moreover Disney is going to be all over this movie and franchise. They're going to consult with Lucas (who IS a good idea man) to keep his general POV but they also will remember and tread carefully in the hopes of avoiding the Fan Hate that exploded because the Prequels weren't handed down from heaven glowing with divine perfection. *sigh*

I did like the new Star Trek. I honestly think that Abrams is a damned good choice for making the next Star Wars.

And let's face it, folks: IS THERE ANY DIRECTOR whom most fans wouldn't instantly condemn as "unworthy" etc of making the New Star Wars? That's what's funny about the complaints. It's like listening to a bunch of teenage boys grumble about any guy "daring" to date their little sisters.

Joss Whedon might get the largest go ahead from the Star Wars fan base...and he just MIGHT make one of the new Star Wars movies. I can see it happening.

Just not this one.

Man, this guy is totally rocking the nerd franchises. He's got my vote, let's see what he does with it.

IamQ:

Lionsfan:
So the movie is gonna be unwatchable then? I mean, I somewhat understand "wanting" lens flare to make things seem realistic, but this:

image

is

image

fucking

image

ridiculous

The effect is not only silly, but the technique of making it is too. They basically shine a light from the side at the camera, and it looks really bad.

Hearing his reason for them is awful too.

"I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame."

So apparently in the future, everyone just bumbles around in awe of how bright things are.

Hey JJ, if you want to "wow" us with the future, how about you think of something cool and stick that in the movie, don't just make it so we can't see what the hell is going on

Copper Zen:
Here we go with the "Lens Flare" thing. People shouldn't worry a about it.

The griping about Abrams' love for "Lens Flares" is certain to minimize or negate any abundance of them in the Star Wars movies. Heck, except for Revenge of the Sith I can't recall any of the SW movies that had "lens flare" visuals in them.

Moreover Disney is going to be all over this movie and franchise. They're going to consult with Lucas (who IS a good idea man) to keep his general POV but they also will remember and tread carefully in the hopes of avoiding the Fan Hate that exploded because the Prequels weren't handed down from heaven glowing with divine perfection. *sigh*

I did like the new Star Trek. I honestly think that Abrams is a damned good choice for making the next Star Wars.

And let's face it, folks: IS THERE ANY DIRECTOR whom most fans wouldn't instantly condemn as "unworthy" etc of making the New Star Wars? That's what's funny about the complaints. It's like listening to a bunch of teenage boys grumble about any guy "daring" to date their little sisters.

Joss Whedon might get the largest go ahead from the Star Wars fan base...and he just MIGHT make one of the new Star Wars movies. I can see it happening.

Just not this one.

The problem is not with just the lens flare, that's oversimplifying the actual problem. And I would accept just about any other director except the following three:

1) George Lucas
2) JJ Abrams
3) Quentin Tarantino

Other than that, I really don't care. I would even have more faith in you, Copper Zen, directing than anyone of the aforementioned list. What is shocking to me is that, after the complete destruction of Star Wars cannon by George Lucas in the prequels, they go with a director who also blatantly violated cannon with Star Trek '09. This is the very worst things to say to your fans.

And one last thing: I love my family... but I would rather have JJ Abrams and George Lucas tag team my younger sister and leave her spent on the side of a deserted freeway in shame and misery than have either one of them touch Star Wars. This isn't whining or moaning, this is trying to protect something sacred that has influenced the very culture of our society.

And Joss Whedon may not be a great choice for the new Star Wars movies either, but I'd take him happily. He can also bang my sister.

Rogue 09:

The problem is not with just the lens flare, that's oversimplifying the actual problem. And I would accept just about any other director except the following three:

1) George Lucas
2) JJ Abrams
3) Quentin Tarantino

I think seeing a Star Wars movie directed by Tarantino would be very interesting. If he got complete freedom from Disney to make it into whatever kind of movie he wanted, it could turn out pretty cool.

Pinkamena:

I think seeing a Star Wars movie directed by Tarantino would be very interesting. If he got complete freedom from Disney to make it into whatever kind of movie he wanted, it could turn out pretty cool.

Nah, you know what would REALLY be interesting? Star Wars as directed by Joss Whedon, if only because I want to see how his experience with the space-western that is Firefly would affect his work on the space-opera that is Star Wars.

Well that's nor exactly promising. Abrams isn't a terrible choice, I could think of a number of other directors who I would consider to be far worse, Bay, Boll, and Lucas himself spring to mind immediately. I wanted Del Torro but he said he wouldn't, so I guess we'll have to make do with what they give us and go from there.

Right, like there's a whole hell of a lot J.J. can do to make Stars Wars worse of a franchise. I can just barely express how violently indifferent this announcement has made me.

Berithil:
Huh, I thought he had originally turned that down (can't remember where I read that...)

So, we're gonna have a ton of lens flares, then? Well, I'd prefer him over Michael Bays fetish for explosions.

I have a vague memory of JJ saying he didn't want to do it because he was quite a big Star Wars fan and would have a lot to live up to just in his own mind.

Although that might have been someone else... there were so many people weighing in on would they direct it I can't keep their 'no thanks' straight.

OT: my thought at the moment is... It could have been worse. I do quite like JJ Abrams work (well Alias & Star Trek) so it's a wait and see. And a lot will hinge on the script

Rogue 09:
I would even have more faith in you, Copper Zen, directing than anyone of the aforementioned list.

image

Yes! The power! The influence! The female GROUPIES! Mine, they shall be ALLLLL MIIIIIINNNNNE!!!!

Rogue 09:
The problem is not with just the lens flare, that's oversimplifying the actual problem. And I would accept just about any other director except the following three:

1) George Lucas
2) JJ Abrams
3) Quentin Tarantino

Other than that, I really don't care. I would even have more faith in you, Copper Zen, directing than anyone of the aforementioned list. What is shocking to me is that, after the complete destruction of Star Wars cannon by George Lucas in the prequels, they go with a director who also blatantly violated cannon with Star Trek '09. This is the very worst things to say to your fans.

And one last thing: I love my family... but I would rather have JJ Abrams and George Lucas tag team my younger sister and leave her spent on the side of a deserted freeway in shame and misery than have either one of them touch Star Wars. This isn't whining or moaning, this is trying to protect something sacred that has influenced the very culture of our society.

And Joss Whedon may not be a great choice for the new Star Wars movies either, but I'd take him happily. He can also bang my sister.

A couple of things spring to mind after reading this.

1. Really? So you'd prefer, say, Uwe Boll? I know people like to shit on Abrams for his (perfectly serviceable) Star Trek reboot, but this is silly. He may not be one of the best directors working in Hollywood today, but he's COMPETENT. The quality of a new Star Wars film will be hugely script dependent. These are not art house films. Neither New Hope nor Empire Strikes Back are particularly bravura pieces of film-making, yet everyone is happy with them. If Abrams can keep the camera pointed in the right direction and doesn't can the first take of every scene he'll be one up on Lucas, whose directional ineptitude was SHOCKING.

2. As much as I loathe the prequels and virtually every single thing Lucas brought to them, they are not violations of canon. Lucas WAS Star Wars. It was entirely his. Whatever he wrote was canon. Loathsome, stupid canon. But canon nonetheless.

The Star Trek movie was utter shit because it didn't fit the Star Trek scheme one bit.

Oddly though a similar movie in the Star Wars universe could be kinda okay.

BloatedGuppy:

Rogue 09:
The problem is not with just the lens flare, that's oversimplifying the actual problem. And I would accept just about any other director except the following three:

1) George Lucas
2) JJ Abrams
3) Quentin Tarantino

Other than that, I really don't care. I would even have more faith in you, Copper Zen, directing than anyone of the aforementioned list. What is shocking to me is that, after the complete destruction of Star Wars cannon by George Lucas in the prequels, they go with a director who also blatantly violated cannon with Star Trek '09. This is the very worst things to say to your fans.

And one last thing: I love my family... but I would rather have JJ Abrams and George Lucas tag team my younger sister and leave her spent on the side of a deserted freeway in shame and misery than have either one of them touch Star Wars. This isn't whining or moaning, this is trying to protect something sacred that has influenced the very culture of our society.

And Joss Whedon may not be a great choice for the new Star Wars movies either, but I'd take him happily. He can also bang my sister.

A couple of things spring to mind after reading this.

1. Really? So you'd prefer, say, Uwe Boll? I know people like to shit on Abrams for his (perfectly serviceable) Star Trek reboot, but this is silly. He may not be one of the best directors working in Hollywood today, but he's COMPETENT. The quality of a new Star Wars film will be hugely script dependent. These are not art house films. Neither New Hope nor Empire Strikes Back are particularly bravura pieces of film-making, yet everyone is happy with them. If Abrams can keep the camera pointed in the right direction and doesn't can the first take of every scene he'll be one up on Lucas, whose directional ineptitude was SHOCKING.

2. As much as I loathe the prequels and virtually every single thing Lucas brought to them, they are not violations of canon. Lucas WAS Star Wars. It was entirely his. Whatever he wrote was canon. Loathsome, stupid canon. But canon nonetheless.

A couple of answers spring to mind after reading this.

1. Yes, really. I would prefer Uwe Boll. Don't dismiss me on this, I'm not lying and will explain why. Uwe boll makes terrible movies (and I have no idea why I watched all 3 BloodRayne movies...) but he keeps it pretty freaking consistent. And maybe we can finally get Carrie Fisher nude. (What?... WHAT?... We've all been waiting for it, and it's about damn time we got it!)

2. Lucas was an inspiration to us all and a genius... a long time ago in a studio far, far away. Whatever spark was there for Lucas in the 70s and 80s... it was long dead. You can point to the prequels, you can point to Indy 4, you can point to the "Special Editions"... but the spark is dead. He needed someone to slap him and tell him he was being an idiot. The fans tried, but his buddies told him it was fine, so he ignored us and got butthurt. I don't consider him the same man that made those movies that I still like watching today.

As for cannon... I mean, c'mon. Obi Wan said that he was trained by Yoda (not as a school child) and Leia said she remembered some things about her mother. It's not like Trek cannon where there is a lot to sift through, the guy just had to spend 6 hours at the end of writing each script to make sure he didn't F up.

Rogue 09:
A couple of answers spring to mind after reading this.

1. Yes, really. I would prefer Uwe Boll. Don't dismiss me on this, I'm not lying and will explain why. Uwe boll makes terrible movies (and I have no idea why I watched all 3 BloodRayne movies...) but he keeps it pretty freaking consistent. And maybe we can finally get Carrie Fisher nude. (What?... WHAT?... We've all been waiting for it, and it's about damn time we got it!)

2. Lucas was an inspiration to us all and a genius... a long time ago in a studio far, far away. Whatever spark was there for Lucas in the 70s and 80s... it was long dead. You can point to the prequels, you can point to Indy 4, you can point to the "Special Editions"... but the spark is dead. He needed someone to slap him and tell him he was being an idiot. The fans tried, but his buddies told him it was fine, so he ignored us and got butthurt. I don't consider him the same man that made those movies that I still like watching today.

As for cannon... I mean, c'mon. Obi Wan said that he was trained by Yoda (not as a school child) and Leia said she remembered some things about her mother. It's not like Trek cannon where there is a lot to sift through, the guy just had to spend 6 hours at the end of writing each script to make sure he didn't F up.

1. Consistently terrible, yes! Really now, Abrams isn't that bad. If he can keep his lens flare in his pants he's perfectly serviceable, and that's all Star Wars really requires. Star Wars is kind of an innately stupid IP, but it's like crack for geeks. There's something about it that's silly and fun, when some old coot with a goiter the size of a minivan isn't draining away its soul with dreadful dialogue and racist aliens.

2. I wonder about this, you know. I wonder if young Lucas wasn't just insecure enough to take advice from people a lot more talented than he was. I find it hard to believe the guy was an auteur who just fell off a cliff due to age and fame. I think the most likely scenario is he never had any talent to begin with, and Star Wars and American Graffiti were the products of talented men and women working around him, and he just fell ass backwards into the credit.

LOL...point taken. Fair enough. I'd forgotten about stuff like a thousand years vs a thousand generations. Lucas, you boob.

Abrams is perfect for this. We know from Star Trek 2009 that he can direct a big-budget, entertaining spectacle of a science fiction movie, and that's what Disney is going to be looking for - a "safe", family-friendly SF action movie that they can leverage into even more money through "back end" and international sales than what Star Wars has already made during its lifetime.

As for the "canon", I figure they'll turf it all out, along with the Expanded Universe. Most of it is crap anyways, a mixture of "Superweapon of the Week" stories and re-treads. Even some of the better writing is usually authors playing in their own sandboxes, like Zahn and his Thrawn obsession.

BloatedGuppy:
Lucas, you boob.

I just went a little gay for you. How about that?

WiseBass:
Abrams is perfect for this. We know from Star Trek 2009 that he can direct a big-budget, entertaining spectacle of a science fiction movie, and that's what Disney is going to be looking for - a "safe", family-friendly SF action movie that they can leverage into even more money through "back end" and international sales than what Star Wars has already made during its lifetime.

To be fair, "The Phantom Menace" was a "safe", family-friendly SF action movie that they leveraged into a ton of money. It was also met with complete disappointment and outrage. I was hoping that Disney did the deal for two reasons:

1) It's a great business deal that already was partly cemented in with the Disney Parks / Star Wars / Indiana Jones mix up.

2) To save the IP and allow it to be produced into more movies of higher quality (which Lucas was completely against for the longest time... more movies, not higher quality... well, I guess higher quality too).

With this news (if it's true) that means that #2 is out the window. Sure, we won't have Jar Jar, very explicit racism, or greenscreen EVERYTHING... but we won't have Star Wars either. More than any other emotion, I feel very deep sadness with this decision.

I care very little for that talentless Hollywood hack Abrams. He has nothing of the auteur the series needs. Then again, neither has George at this point. So this news is all very meh by comparison.

Rogue 09:
To be fair, "The Phantom Menace" was a "safe", family-friendly SF action movie that they leveraged into a ton of money. It was also met with complete disappointment and outrage. I was hoping that Disney did the deal for two reasons:

Not at the time, it wasn't. Phantom Menace was very well received at the time, despite some grumbling over things like Jar-Jar. It wasn't until after years of attacks from the diehard anti-prequel folks that the geek consensus started tos hift.

As for your points:

1. It's definitely a great business deal, on that we agree.

2. We're not going to get movies of higher quality. We'll probably just get more spectacle and show, because that's what sells internationally.

So people hate this director who is actually good at his job?

I don't get this. It must be for those people that can't stand new Star Wars movies.

Besides, I liked Star Trek.

I like his lens flare. THERE! I SAID IT! Well, sometimes he uses too much.

He's one of the only directors who could get me interested in this franchise, a franchise I have always had a great dislike for. So yeah, I'm up for it. I'm also up for not condemning it before work starts on it.

Don't take this personally:

If your only problem with a director is an effect he over uses, you're being a whiney little bitch. If you had legitimate criticisms, your arguments would make sense. I'm not saying you should criticize the lens flare. I love the guy and I criticize it at times.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked