Looks like Disney is going to take the same strategy they are taking with Avengers and Episode 7,8&9 won't be the only Star Wars movies we see moving forward.
Could be very profitable if they expand the Universe around just the Episode 1-9 arc and use all the material available to build out the entire universe.
J.J. Abrams, who revived Paramount Pictures’ Star Trek franchise in 2009, turned down an opportunity to direct Star Wars: Episode VII, the first film in Disney’s new trilogy.
“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things,” he tells Empire magazine. “I declined any involvement very early on. I’d rather be in the audience not knowing what was coming, rather than being involved in the minutiae of making them.”
Since Disney announced plans to purchase Lucasfilm in late October (the deal was completed on Friday), about a dozen different directors have been rumored to be under consideration for Episode VII: Abrams, Brad Bird, Steven Spielberg and Neill Blomkamp were among them, but much of the speculation centers on Matthew Vaughn.
When Empire floated the possibility that Abrams’ third Star Trek film could go head to head against one of the episodes in the new Star Wars trilogy, Abrams laughed: “I guess the franchises could go up against each other, but I’m not thinking that far ahead. I’m a huge fan of Star Wars, Empire and Jedi, and the idea of the world continuing is exciting and will be amazing. Kathy Kennedy is a friend and there are no smarter producers. It’s in great hands.”
Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness arrives in theaters May 17. Written by Michael Arndt, Star Wars: Episode VII is set to open in 2015.
The Following User Says Thank You to KTrain For This Useful Post:
honestly what the new Star Wars needs is someone who is versed in fantasy and not sci-fi (because SW has always been a fantasy series dressed up in sci-fi clothing). Peter Jackson comes to mind, but i really don't want a 3 hour Star Wars movie
Nuts, there goes my choice, but what Abrams said makes sense. I think one big reason he hinted at subtly was that he didn't want to be responsible for trying to redeem a franchise that went from legendary to garbage. To an extent he managed that with Star Trek but that's a smaller core audience to cater to, and he was able to reinvent it without upsetting too many people.
Notice that he specifically pointed out being a fan of episodes 4 - 6 by name, with no mention of the others. Another nice subtle swipe.
Brad Bird for me; as good as Vaughn and Blomkamp might be, I just think Bird has the knowledge, creativity, and free time on his hands to take up the task of directing the franchise into the future.
He has already directed (and wrote) 3 of the better animated movies made over the last 20 years (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille), and then was able to direct possibly the best Mission Impossible movie of that franchise. The guy is just a rising star. That and of course he worked on The Simpsons during their best years, so I always will have an affinity for his work.
Then with Blomkamp he really only has District 9 on his resume thus far, and I don't really know if I would trust him quite yet. And as much as I love most of Matthew Vaughn's work, he does have his fair share of forgettable movies (Stardust anyone?).
Out of those three I'd say Brad Bird is the easy choice imo.
Last edited by trackercowe; 12-26-2012 at 10:03 PM.
"Puts flame suit on", real Star Trek sucks. There I said it.
It may have been great for those who watched the series in its heyday, but now it's just horribly cheesy and dated.
It's pretty much like saying the Adam West Batman is the preeminent version of Batman.
If Abrams had made a movie similar to the original series he would have been lambasted, laughed at, and the movie would have tanked. Then there was TNG movies which were pretty bad to begin with, and the Abrams reboot essentially surpassed those movies in one shot. Heck the opening from the Abrams Star Trek was better than any scene from four Next Generation movies.
I know some people are still stuck in the past, but that's the way I see it at least.
Last edited by trackercowe; 12-27-2012 at 12:44 AM.
"Puts flame suit on", real Star Trek sucks. There I said it.
It may have been great for those who watched the series in its heyday, but now it's just horribly cheesy and dated.
It's pretty much like saying the Adam West Batman is the preeminent version of Batman.
If Abrams had made a movie similar to the original series he would have been lambasted, laughed at, and the movie would have tanked. Then there was TNG movies which were pretty bad to begin with, and the Abrams reboot essentially surpassed those movies with just one movie.
I know some people are still stuck in the past, but that's the way I see it at least.
The analogy of comparing Adam West era Batman to modern Nolan Batman with Star Trek TNG OS and the like to JJ's Star Trek is so laughably misguided and wildly incorrect I don't even know how to continue except this must be involved:
The problem the modern Star Trek movies had was they weren't actually TNG movies. They were crappy action movies played with Star Trek characters who were, in fact, wildly out of character. The new Star Trek movies succeeded because they weren't really Star Trek movies. They were obnoxious lens flare explosion fests eaten up by the same dipsticks who loved the transformers movies.
Well I wasn't really comparing TNG with the Adam West Batman, it was more a comparison to the Shatner original series.
What's misguided in your post is comparing the Abrams Star Trek with something like Transformers, as they aren't even in the same realm. I could use reviews and analysis from actual critics to back me up, but do I really have to? Star Trek was one of the top reviewed movies of 2009, and is already in consideration as one of the best Trek movies of the series. I would put Wrath of Khan ahead of it, but only because of what Ricardo Montalban brought to the movie. If Abrams can create a villain near his level in the sequel, then it should surpass II.
People put way too much damn weight in his overuse of lens flares. Whenever I read a negative review about the movie it always brings up the lens flares; maybe it's time to get over that? Even Abrams said he used too many, but it obviously didn't make it a bad movie. 95% on Rottentomatoes is pretty damn exceptional, call it a popularity contest if you want, or put as much weight into reviews as you like; but the Transformers movies received poor reviews, so that's a terrible comparison to make.
I don't want to get into an argument with a Trekkie though, but when I said the real Star Trek sucked I meant the original series for the most part. From what I have seen from TNG it was actually quite good, and had much more going for it that the Shatner Star Trek. But, if you use the movies as a comparison the Stewart movies were pretty mediocre as a whole.
Last edited by trackercowe; 12-27-2012 at 01:36 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to trackercowe For This Useful Post:
I realize I'm in the vast minority when I say this, but it's a hill I'm willing to die on. I think JJ's Star Trek was terrible. It had a stupid plot. It was a ridiculous origins movie. They couldn't explain away everything soon enough on how the crew amazingly got together so quickly and fill in back stories like why McCoy is called Bones. The acting was good and the action is good which is why people liked it, but as a Star Trek movie it failed miserably and as a sci fi movie it was equally ######ed. The antagonist was about as weak as Star Trek Nemesis' ridiculous villain and the plot almost as nonsensical. But it had pretty sweet 'splosions!
I don't like TOS either to be honest and I agree the Stewart movies blew. I just find myself on an island with the new Star Trek movie with how much I dislike it, and I get it. Maybe I'm full of it and you're right along with the general public and critics. I view the movie through a lens though, a lens that asks for a little more from a Star Trek movie than just action and good presentation.
Last edited by Brannigans Law; 12-27-2012 at 07:08 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Brannigans Law For This Useful Post:
Bottom line, they had two choices when making the new Trek movie: appeal to hardcore Trek fans, or make money. Trust me, those two things are mutually exclusive at this point. There's definitely a segment of people that cannot be satisfied with the updated style, because it really isn't Star Trek beyond the names of characters and shape of the vessel. But I'll take that any day over watching another movie based on one of the TV series flop hard.
The good news is that they don't have to do so many drastic changes to Star Wars. They don't have to worry about removing any reference to "inverse tachyon phase pulse etc" in the SW script. Once George's kindergarten level screenwriting and direction are out of the way, it will already be well on its way to a successful relaunch.
I realize I'm in the vast minority when I say this, but it's a hill I'm willing to die on. I think JJ's Star Trek was terrible. It had a stupid plot. It was a ridiculous origins movie. They couldn't explain away everything soon enough on how the crew amazingly got together so quickly and fill in back stories like why McCoy is called Bones. The acting was good and the action is good which is why people liked it, but as a Star Trek movie it failed miserably and as a sci fi movie it was equally ######ed. The antagonist was about as weak as Star Trek Nemesis' ridiculous villain and the plot almost as nonsensical. But it had pretty sweet 'splosions!
I don't like TOS either to be honest and I agree the Stewart movies blew. I just find myself on an island with the new Star Trek movie with how much I dislike it, and I get it. Maybe I'm full of it and you're right along with the general public and critics. I view the movie through a lens though, a lens that asks for a little more from a Star Trek movie than just action and good presentation.
I agree completely with this...
Is it too much to ask to have awsome large scale space battles and good character developement without the ridiculous plot?
I like sci-fi and action movies, and love the quality of the effects in recent movies, but the plots are getting so stupid that its taking away from my overall enjoyment of the experience.
I'm also looking at you TDKR!
The Following User Says Thank You to rayne008 For This Useful Post:
Bottom line, they had two choices when making the new Trek movie: appeal to hardcore Trek fans, or make money. Trust me, those two things are mutually exclusive at this point. There's definitely a segment of people that cannot be satisfied with the updated style, because it really isn't Star Trek beyond the names of characters and shape of the vessel. But I'll take that any day over watching another movie based on one of the TV series flop hard.
The good news is that they don't have to do so many drastic changes to Star Wars. They don't have to worry about removing any reference to "inverse tachyon phase pulse etc" in the SW script. Once George's kindergarten level screenwriting and direction are out of the way, it will already be well on its way to a successful relaunch.
Making money and having a good script/story are not mutually exclusive.
Is it too much to ask to have awsome large scale space battles and good character developement without the ridiculous plot?
I like sci-fi and action movies, and love the quality of the effects in recent movies, but the plots are getting so stupid that its taking away from my overall enjoyment of the experience.
I'm also looking at you TDKR!
I'll stand here and say that I even to an extent liked the flawed prequel Star Wars movies.
But to me the best part was the opening few minutes of the Revenge of the Sith's chaotic space battle opening.
and a very nice montage of space battles, some that I had never seen before
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Making money and having a good script/story are not mutually exclusive.
Yes and it did have a great script and made money.
I agree that the villain was weak, but that's pretty much the case in all Star Trek movies (except Khan). Also since this was an origin story of course the villain wasn't going to be that great. Just look at the first Iron Man movie, great origin story, and one of the better action movies of the last decade; but the villain isn't memorable in the slightest (even if he was played by Jeff Bridges).
Also to say that people only liked Star Trek because of the "splosions" is terribly misinformed. It's more a case of you not liking the movie since you are a fan of TNG and any changes or re-imagining of the universe was going to be seen negatively on your behalf. It's the same with me and the Indiana Jones series, so it's obviously a common occurrence. Any change usually pisses fanboys like us off.
