Comments | silverjedi: Star Wars and J.J. Abrams

silverjedi

Star Wars and J.J. Abrams

Jan 24, 2013 23:40

Reports are saying J.J. Abrams will direct Episode 7. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I was hoping for Brad Bird (despite the fact that he wasn't going to do it... *sobs*), but really, I was unsure about who could direct this. At this point, outside of Lucas, Kershner and Marquand (which I have just found out that the last two are dead... ( Read more... )

movies, disney, depressed, character death, characters, star wars

Comments 4

shantari February 15 2013, 00:03:55 UTC

I've seen the Star Trek 2009 movie. It has its good points and bad points, most people tend to focus more on some points than others. Apparently, according to someone who's seen his other work, Abrams have a thing for "red stuff" as McGuffins, and time travel. Time travel works with Star Trek, in fact it's been there since the original series, but I would hope he has the sense not to use it for Star Wars. Star Wars and time travel just can't mix in my head. I'm curious about script writing, who's in charge of that ( ... )

silverjedi February 15 2013, 01:15:45 UTC

McGuffins aren't too bad. SW has them and Lucas even says they're needed to make a plot work. I believe the Death Star plans was the McGuffin in ANH. And goodness, Indiana Jones has three that I know of (the Ark, Grail, Crystal Skulls, never saw Temple of Doom, so I don't know if he went after one in that film, likely, through), so McGuffins aren't bad. It just depends on how they're used. Time Travel...I like it, but not in SW. Unless it's fanfiction! SW just doesn't mix with time travel (which is why I hate flow-walking so much ( ... )

shantari February 15 2013, 08:59:42 UTC

never saw Temple of Doom, so I don't know if he went after one in that film, likely, through

Yep, glowing rocks that did pretty much what you expect glowing rocks to do. That is, glow and some times not glow. That's pretty much all they did! But they were very important for the plot, maybe. It's quite possible that the plot could have gone on without them, but they glowed!

(which is why I hate flow-walking so much...).

lolwhut? Wait, don't answer. It sounds vaguely familiar in a very ominous way.

I saw Toy Story 3. That bodes well. :)

Apparently the lens flare thing was because "Star Trek is in the future! And the future is shiny!!", so should not be a problem for Star Wars. The OT was very "used future", and it makes sense to follow that, rather than go with the prequels' "Things are still new and shiny!".

silverjedi February 19 2013, 01:21:23 UTC

Yep, glowing rocks that did pretty much what you expect glowing rocks to do

I figured as much. XD

lolwhut? Wait, don't answer. It sounds vaguely familiar in a very ominous way.Well, you know what to google for if you're interested! XD Honestly, Del Rey has done more damage to the Star Wars universe than anyone! Every time the prequels would prove something from the EU wrong, Del Rey would retcon it back into truth. They seemed more concerned with having a single continuity than making sure that continuity made sense! Gah ( ... )