J.J. Abrams chosen to direct next Star Wars film

This new film couldn't possibly be worse than the prequels that Lucas did.

Addy wrote:

Being a Star Wars fanboy I am very skeptical about this, With Disney owning Lucasfilm theres also been new talks about doing the live action tv series too. Which I feel would take the novelty of it away.

With 7 ,8,9 I am not expecting much will I go see them? Hell yeah cuz I am a Star Wars nut but I am not expecting to be Wow'd or blown away

Same here. Low expectations can pay off with these kind of things (which is probably why I didn't dislike the prequels as much as everybody else-though many parts of Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones made me cringe).

S.D. wrote:

This new film couldn't possibly be worse than the prequels that Lucas did.

I thought 1 and 2 were lousy but I enjoyed 3. I like Abrams and his work but I just dont know how much of a story is left to tell after the death of Darth Vader. If you put all the existing stories together the arc is really the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker and without that I have huge doubts about 7, 8 and 9.

One of my main issues with the prequels was the incredibly hackneyed and lame dialogue Lucas wrote...compare it with the crackling work done by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan from Empire to see how far the material sunk.

His direction of the actors was no better, coaxing cringe-inducing performances from even some of the more talented members of the cast. He wisely stepped down and let Irvin Kirshner direct the best entry in the series (Empire, again).

S.D. wrote:

This new film couldn't possibly be worse than the prequels that Lucas did.

I enjoyed the prequels myself. My brother hate them but, no matter. Lucas definitely needs to choose leading ladies that can actually act tho, that would be a bonus. I enjoy both Star Trek and Star Wars movies as a whole but I don't consider myself a fanboy by any stretch. I will let others have that title. I have no problems picking and choosing among the lots which movies were better than others. As far as Star Wars goes, I like II, III, IV, and VI with II being my favorite.

S.D. wrote:

One of my main issues with the prequels was the incredibly hackneyed and lame dialogue Lucas wrote...compare it with the crackling work done by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan from Empire to see how far the material sunk.

His direction of the actors was no better, coaxing cringe-inducing performances from even some of the more talented members of the cast. He wisely stepped down and let Irvin Kirshner direct the best entry in the series (Empire, again).

Agree - the plot wasn't terrible, just the execution was lacking. The dialogue was bad and the performances weren't up to capability of the actors. There was zero chemistry between Portman and Christansen. Compare that to the chemistry between Fisher and Ford. The dialogue during the courtship scenes where extremely bad - the lines seemed forced and painful for the actors to say.

My son has been watching Star Wars now and he wanted to start with Episode 1 (up to 3 now, about 1/2 way though that one) - still somewhat enjoyable, but they could of have and should have been so much better.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Abrams is a good choice. He's a fan boy of the original series, which could be a good thing or a bad thing. In this case, I imagine it is a good thing. I read another article about the choice. He initially turned it down, he didn't want to mess it up but Spielberg talked him into it (after Spielberg himself turned down the offer to direct)

Sounds like they are taking Lucas' ideas and crafting the screenplay, Kasdan is a consultant on the project, sound like the really want to get the film right. I'll be there opening night with my kids.....

Now, hopefully Abrams realizes that lens flair has no business in the Star Wars universe.... and the traditional "Star Wars" transitions are required.

One thing about the prequels that really didn't make sense, was how sleek and streamlined the vehicles were. Someone explained that in the origional, the Empire made it impossible for the rebels to get state of the art stuff. So why weren't the Empire's ships in greater condition? In those films, they went too much for the visiual stuff and the want to make up for the weaker technology of the origionals. Dialogue suffered because they focused too much on the flashy stuff. They succeeded with the latter but failed miserably on the former.

jettafiend wrote:

Lucas definitely needs to choose leading ladies that can actually act tho, that would be a bonus.

He has much worse luck with actors. Mark Hammill & Hayden Christenson anyone? Natalie Portman is a fine actress, Lucas just doesn't seem to be able to coax a convincing performance out of his actors any longer.

Joker brought up a good point about the painfully awful dialogue during the courtship segments in Episode II, the best actors in the world couldn't make that drek convincing.

S.D. wrote:

jettafiend wrote:

Lucas definitely needs to choose leading ladies that can actually act tho, that would be a bonus.

He has much worse luck with actors. Mark Hammill & Hayden Christenson anyone? Natalie Portman is a fine actress, Lucas just doesn't seem to be able to coax a convincing performance out of his actors any longer.

Joker brought up a good point about the painfully awful dialogue during the courtship segments in Episode II, the best actors in the world couldn't make that drek convincing.

Hammill put in an Oscar worthy performance compared to Hayden's "stand there and read the lines" wooden performance.

thejokeriv wrote:

Hammill put in an Oscar worthy performance compared to Hayden's "stand there and read the lines" wooden performance.

I've seen him in a couple other films and he wasn't anywhere near as bad as he was in the Star Wars prequels. Don't get me wrong, he's far from being a "good" actor, but other directors were able to get much more convincing performances from him.

Back to the overall quality of the writing here is a quote from Roger Ebert that I believe nails the core issue exactly:

Quote :

"I can take any of the first couple of Star Wars films and give you a dozen great, memorable lines of dialogue from them. I don't think anybody can do this from Episodes 1, 2, or 3."

As I said, the focus was more on the visual orgy than the script. If they put as much effort in the effects as they did in the script then it would be more bearable (but of course that wouldn't have helped the wooden acting).

DallasBlack wrote:

As I said, the focus was more on the visual orgy than the script. If they put as much effort in the effects as they did in the script then it would be more bearable (but of course that wouldn't have helped the wooden acting).

Allot of that comes from budgeting too. Back in the 70's when he was limited with the money & technology, he had to make the most of the actors and dialog to move the story.

Now that they have more money than God, the emphasis is on flashy & bang. Because they can.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Allot of that comes from budgeting too. Back in the 70's when he was limited with the money & technology, he had to make the most of the actors and dialog to move the story.

Now that they have more money than God, the emphasis is on flashy & bang. Because they can.

The end result of that TOTALLY FLAWED approach are films that aren't even remotely close to being as memorable as the earlier ones.

As much as it pains certain Hollywood types to admit, the main ingredient that makes a movie memorable are CHARACTERS. To have convincing characters you need actors that are believable in the particular role, a script that logically puts those characters into situations that further the story, intelligent dialogue for them to speak and a director that knows how to work with actors to make it all come together.

You can spend $150 million dollars on CGI, but without the characters it's just a video game. Pretty to look at once, but vanishes instantly from your mind once it's over.

Quote :

You can spend $150 million dollars on CGI, but without the characters it's just a video game. Pretty to look at once, but vanishes instantly from your mind once it's over.

Eh, that's what the general public wants I guess. Fast-food entertainment. Here today, gone later today, what's next, gimme something else.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Eh, that's what the general public wants I guess. Fast-food entertainment. Here today, gone later today, what's next, gimme something else.

The other issue is Hollywood is focusing on foreign markets now for their big budget spectaculars, simplistic dialogue is easier to translate into other languages (humor is especially hard to convey), long effects sequences require no translation at all. Unfortunately the english-speaking countries end up suffering through the sophomoric drivel that is left over once all invention is removed from the dialogue.

Thank goodness for independent films and smaller Hollywood productions, at least there is some art remaining out there amidst all the shallow commerce.

DallasBlack wrote:

One thing about the prequels that really didn't make sense, was how sleek and streamlined the vehicles were. Someone explained that in the origional, the Empire made it impossible for the rebels to get state of the art stuff. So why weren't the Empire's ships in greater condition? In those films, they went too much for the visiual stuff and the want to make up for the weaker technology of the origionals. Dialogue suffered because they focused too much on the flashy stuff. They succeeded with the latter but failed miserably on the former.

I thought it was pretty easily explained by how far backwards the society had fallen under the Empire.

exact33 wrote:

DallasBlack wrote:

One thing about the prequels that really didn't make sense, was how sleek and streamlined the vehicles were. Someone explained that in the origional, the Empire made it impossible for the rebels to get state of the art stuff. So why weren't the Empire's ships in greater condition? In those films, they went too much for the visiual stuff and the want to make up for the weaker technology of the origionals. Dialogue suffered because they focused too much on the flashy stuff. They succeeded with the latter but failed miserably on the former.

I thought it was pretty easily explained by how far backwards the society had fallen under the Empire.

Yeah, but that doesn't explain the Empire's rough looking vehicles. However, it's pretty much debatable. I just think they put too much emphasis on visuals while not enough into everything else.

Anytime you make a prequel more than a decade after the original film you are going to end up with noticeable differences in technology, it is unavoidable unless you purposely try to match the look of the prior film.

Take "Prometheus" for example, look at the holographic image projector on the spaceship, then compare it with the CRT monitors on the Nostromo in Alien.

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

jettafiend wrote:

Lucas definitely needs to choose leading ladies that can actually act tho, that would be a bonus.

He has much worse luck with actors. Mark Hammill & Hayden Christenson anyone? Natalie Portman is a fine actress, Lucas just doesn't seem to be able to coax a convincing performance out of his actors any longer.

Joker brought up a good point about the painfully awful dialogue during the courtship segments in Episode II, the best actors in the world couldn't make that drek convincing.

Hammill put in an Oscar worthy performance compared to Hayden's "stand there and read the lines" wooden performance.

In terms of acting ability, I find Hayden Christensen to be absolutely revolting. I had seen "Life As A House" prior to seeing "Attack of the Clones" & "Revenge of the Sith". Sadly, I knew with George Lucas shoddy writing and average directing, that Hayden would be a lousy Anakin Skywalker, and he was. After those three movies, I said that I would never delve into another movie he was in; I lied. Since buying a Blu-Ray player last summer, I've been on sort of a movie rental spree. I've most been concentrating on newer movies, but have dipped back into ones I had missed over the last four years. One of those movies I picked up was "Awake", w/Jessica Alba. I thought the movie to be okay, but I literally sit their and cringe when not only watching Christensen act, but listen to him. The guy is just plain rigid! He is one of the most awful actors out there with a somewhat big name. This time I swear, I will never watch him in anything again!

You probably won't have to ever watch him again, he hasn't had a theatrical release since 2010.

His career actually kind of reminds me of Mark Hammill as well.

S.D. wrote:

You probably won't have to ever watch him again, he hasn't had a theatrical release since 2010.

His career actually kind of reminds me of Mark Hammill as well.

Maybe Christensen can do voice work for cartoons too. But then again he probably doesn't even have that skill set.

S.D. wrote:

You probably won't have to ever watch him again, he hasn't had a theatrical release since 2010.

His career actually kind of reminds me of Mark Hammill as well.

I've always found it weird/funny how noone from the original trilogy other than Harrison Ford had any real movie success after that. Carrie Fisher came close I guess, but she was no box office sensation either.

S.D. wrote:

One of my main issues with the prequels was the incredibly hackneyed and lame dialogue Lucas wrote...compare it with the crackling work done by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan from Empire to see how far the material sunk.

His direction of the actors was no better, coaxing cringe-inducing performances from even some of the more talented members of the cast. He wisely stepped down and let Irvin Kirshner direct the best entry in the series (Empire, again).

You're reading my mind again (or maybe I just don't have an original thought!). Harrison Ford was famously critical of Lucas' dialogue. A huge part of the original trilogy's charm was the banter between characters. I'm actually surprised Lucas didn't involve other writers and directors after the criticism of Episode I. In the prequels, I think George was more concerned by the technology and CGI than by his actors' performances, so what could have been great was instead fairly bland.

Sutekh wrote:

In the prequels, I think George was more concerned by the technology and CGI than by his actors' performances, so what could have been great was instead fairly bland.