In a 1977 interview with Rolling Stones, George Lucas was posed a question regarding other directors helming future Star Wars episodes and weather it would bother him having other people do them and in response, said, and I quote:
No, it would be interesting. I would want to try and get some good directors, and see what their interpretation of the theme is. I think it will be interesting, it is like taking a theme in film school, say, okay, everybody do their interpretation of this theme. It's an interesting idea to see how people interpret the genre. It is a fun genre to play with.
Maybe that's what Spielberg was referring to when he said he wouldn't direct Episode VII because it wasn't his “genre”.
All the prototype stuff is done now. Nobody has to worry about what a Wookie is and what it does and how it reacts. Wookies are there, the people are there, the environment is there, the empire is there... everything is there. And now people will start building on it. I've put up the concrete slab of the walls and now everybody can have fun drawing the pictures and putting on the little gargoyles and doing all the really fun stuff. And it's a competition. I'm hoping if I get friends of mine they will want to do a much better film, like, ‘I'll show George that I can do a film twice that good,’ and I think they can, but then I want to do the last one, so I can do one twice as good as everybody else. [lauphs]
Now George stuck to his word for the the remaining films in the original trilogy. And it was fun while it was lasted. Episode V being the most collaborative and best Episode to date, Lucas wrote the story, Leigh Brackett wrote the first draft, she sadly passed away, then Lucas wrote the second one before hiring Lawrence Kasdan to rewrite it while he chose Irvin Kershner to direct. And Gary Kurtz returned to produce. By the looks of it, Episode VII seems to be turning out to be the most collaborative one since Empire. George Lucas will be staying on as a consultant along with Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg. Kathleen Kennedy will be producing. And my personal favorite addition to the crew, Michael Arndt, is currently writing the screenplay.
But the big question is who's directing? JJ, no, not Binks, Abrams. Yes, the director of Star Trek and the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness is directing a Star Wars movie. Is that legal? Is that addressed in the constitution. Tell me that isn't an amendment. You have the right to direct either a Star Trek or Star Wars movie, not both. I guess not.
When he was questioned on the matter back in November along with everyone else, I believe he was sincere when he said,
The opportunity for whomever it is to direct that movie, it comes with the burden of being that kind of iconic movie and series. I was never a big Star Trek fan growing up, so for me, working on Star Trek didn’t have any of that, you know, almost fatal sacrilege, and so, I am looking forward more then anyone to the next iterations of Star Wars, but I believe I will be going as a paying moviegoer!
But Emperor Kennedy seduced young Abrams to the other side. She’s calling for Disney now and when someone with a room in the Mouse House wants something, they'll get it. If only I had that power. And I’m not worried. They certainly could have done far worse.
I'm just disappointed that Kathleen Kennedy selected someone so known and someone who's made films already so close to Star Wars that this couldn't have been a more safe, risk-free choice. Big risks equal big rewards. And I can’t think of a more prude, buttoned up choice than the one she went with. Look, I'm sure whatever direction JJ takes it in will be different from his two Star Trek entries. But this news alone has really descended my expectations. One of the reasons I was so ecstatic following the press release of new films is I was prepared for some bold outgoing filmmakers to enter this galaxy and blow everyone away. Which happens more often than people think. Star Wars is like no other franchise, so let’s remain relevant. The first Star Wars sequel, even when there was only one film, there was still pressure of who on Earth could dare step up to make a sequel to Lucas’s mega-blockbuster. Empire Strikes Back, this is one of my top three films of all time. Now remember. Irvin Kershner was a very surprising choice at the time he was picked. He had directed plenty of movies but they were all very weird little pictures, A Fine Madness, Eyes of Laura Mars. Same goes for George Lucas, all he directed up to the point of Star Wars was THX 1138 and American Graffiti. I realize if someone in their league at the time was announced today, the internet would go Jar Jar. But the fans don’t really know what they want. They think they do, but it happens all the time where they don’t get what they want, they throw a hissy fit, but then they see . I’m calling it, it And that also goes into creativity. The best possible films are always smarter than the audience. There’s a reason producers are in that position and we aren’t. In my Top 10 Best Movies of 2012, I advocated Jake Schreier as a suitable contender to direct. I don’t know if he’d want to or if he’s even a Star Wars fan. I would love to know if there’s a quote from him about Star Wars. But if he is and and I still think, if he was up for it, that would be an awesome choice. I agree with getting a fanboy. Sam Mendes was great for Skyfall because he was a lifelong Bond fan but none of his films prior were Bond replicas and Skyfall is, in my opinion, his best film to date. Joss Whedon was ideal for the Avengers because he had a background in comics, he's a huge fan of superheroes, has made shows handling ensemble casts and strong female characters. Two things that the Avengers really benefited from. Although, he only directed one movie prior to the Avengers and it wasn't even a success. So on the forefront, neither of guys had done anything that were alone, close models of those films, they just had experience with elements that were strong in them. Hiring Shane Black to co-write and then direct Iron Man 3, that was a stroke of genius. He hasn't made a superhero movie before, but he is very skilled at writing buddy cop movies and political thrillers and I think Iron Man 3 is really gonna benefit from that. That ensures that we'd get something totally fresh. Someone who's made at least one film and who's had experience with types of actors and their kinds of characters, types of themes and archetypes that'll be in the movie, but not someone who's name is immediately brought up. I mean did they even think deeply or like search outside of the mystery box for someone and narrow it down and study the range of possibilities. I mean everyone knows J.J. Abrams. When I heard of Episode VII, I was like, they're not gonna choose J.J. That's too obvious. He's already had his Star Wars filling. They're smarter than that. Obviously, I was giving them too much credit. When Sam Raimi was announced as the choice for Spider-Man, people were like, "Oh, I didn't think of that, but yeah, he can do drama as A Simple Plan makes clear, and he's the master at traveling shots and dutch angles as he showed us in the Evil Dead trilogy." And because they got him, we saw something we'd never seen before in Spider-Man. There's similar arguments for Peter Jackson before Lord of the Rings or Christopher Nolan before Batman. They were interesting choices because while they'd made great films, they were not that well-known at the time. And studios and producers are supposed to be smarter than the average narrow-minded moviegoers who only feel comfortable with an actor or director if they have done something exactly like the movie they want them to direct. J.J. Abrams is what a lot of fans wanted. But the problem is, most fan casts are very uninspired and lack any out-of-the-box thinking. No one wanted Daniel Craig to play James Bond, then they saw Casino Royale and they were proven wrong. Everyone hated the idea of Heath "Ten Things I Hate About You/Brokeback Mountain" Ledger playing the most iconic and psychotic villain in DC history. One critically acclaimed performance and Oscar later, yeah, you don't hear those same complaints anymore. And you know what the fans demanded out of the third movie, Phillip-Seymore Hoffman as the Penguin and Johnny Depp as the Riddler. Thankfully, Nolan doesn't play it too safe. And he got Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, people still didn't learn their lesson and thought that was an awful choice, well, she was great and all the Nolan doubters shut all their mouths up.
That’s why Pixar remains so outstanding because they recruit people on the street, right out of film school, struggling to find a job. That’s when Michael Arndt was being hired for Toy Story 3. They hired him before he won an oscar, before Little Miss Sunshine came out. They read the script and saw the progress and brought him in. Spielberg does this a lot when searching for actors. Before Good Will Hunting was released, no body knew Matt Damon, yet Spielberg picked him for Good Will Hunting. Off the top of your head, can you name of the directors of Up, Toy Story 3, or Monsters University?
I know people suggested Neil Blankcamp. Even though I thought District 9 was very overrated, Elysium looks pretty cool. But they need someone who's done a project that rings tropes of Star Wars, doing something dark and gritty isn't what Star Wars needs right now, it's gotten too far away from that original formula and moving out of the prequel era and continuing the saga after the original trilogy is what's best for it. I know I mentioned Robot and Frank director Jake Schreier. Let me elaborate on that. It has charm, it has the warm comfortableness that Star Wars had and it blended humor and drama very nicely. It’s a dramadie. I mean it's hilarious at times, but also very deep, emotional, and reflective. He also did an excellent job at making old people so appealing. Frank Langella plays an aged smuggler, I mean cat burglar who's trying to restart his career. There's a robot that has this touching relationship with Langella's character. Susan Sarandon plays another great elderly character and there's a sweet romance between she and Lengella. Whoever directs Episode VII needs to be able to make characters way past their prime winsome. Not somebody who has made a big sci-fi space movie. Marvel, they are the epitome of stupendous director and actor choices. Shane Black for Iron Man 3, Alan Taylor for Thor: The Dark World, Joe and Anthony Russo for Captain America: The Winter Soldier. James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy. What the f*#k? Exactly!
The safest movie choice for a big follow-up that comes to mind was hiring Robert Wise to direct the first Star Trek motion picture fittingly subtitled the Motion Picture. Now Paramount was so confident in this first outing that they invested $46 million. That's not adjusted for inflation. And to give you an idea of how much that was at the time, that's a bigger budget of the budget of both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back combined. Alan Dean Foster wrote the story, they got all the original cast back. And Robert Wise was brought on as director. And no one could have had a more certified impressive resume at the time. He won Best Director and Best Picture for West Side Story and the Sound of Music. He also won Best Film Editing on Citizen Kane and the Sand Pebbles. He also directed The Body Snatcher, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Run Silent, Run Deep, I Want to Live! The Haunting, Star!, and The Andromeda Strain just to name a few. Yet Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of the worst Star Trek films ever. Thankfully, miraculously, Paramount tried again three years later but this time they cut down the budget to less than one/fourth of the budget of the Motion Picture. They were able to get all the original cast back once again, appointed no-names Harve Bennet to produce and Nicholas Meyer to direct, and told the franchise's creator, Gene Roddenberry to f*#k himself and the Star Trek franchise was invigorated with new life and it'd never been better and then they made a sh*tload more sequels and TV shows. Now Disney has already took a step in the right direction by telling the creator of Star Wars to f*#k himself but their director choice is beyond disappointing.
When I imagine franchises, I am a fan of that principal of exchanging directors. Each film having it's own aesthetic. It's neat. This is the part where I strain to remain optimistic. J.J. definitely has a style that I like seeing imprinted on a franchise at some point, because I like J.J. Abrams. I think he's a great director. I never said he wasn't. I just don't think he's a good fit for Episode VII at all. They should get someone with a style, but someone who's style is a little more unique, hard to detect, you know, packed in a sub-genre or something to do with angles and designs. Like Irvin Kershner described his cinematic style as, "I like to fill up the frame with the characters' faces. There's nothing more interesting than the landscape of the human face." Okay, that's a little interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that without reading that quote, but yeah, I guess he did make shots very complimentary to the faces of the actors. Unlike Quentin Tarantino who has to put the actor to all to the side of the frame to f*#k with your mind and make it all irritating to watch. J.J.'s style is just so blatant, it's not hard to figure out, it has pretty much everything to do with the lighting and lens flares, set pieces. It's all look basically, it's colorful, compacted visuals. The lens flare is strong with this one. But when you take his lense flares out of the picture, his movies are the most average fundamentally coordinated two hours of solid decentness. Nothing more. Not great, not bad, not memorable, just good. Is that really who we want directing Star Wars? Here's a great quote from Christopher Nolan.
“If you're trying to challenge an audience and make them look at elements in a different way, you've got to give them a familiar context to hang onto... But you have to be very aware that the audience is extremely ruthless in its demand for newness, novelty and freshness.”
I heard a very errant answer from J.J. in a TIME interview where he was questioned on his style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO9R6c7lO8M
I don't think Abrams is being insidious, I'm giving him another benefit of the doubt. But c'mon, you have to be more aware of your style than that. This was after Star Trek may I add. Story is second, characters are most important at least right now in Star Wars. I know everyone shouts hypocrisy at George Lucas when they see this video clip in 1983.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykmZp5cgbkU
But in his defense, the prequels had stories. They didn't just have stories, they had brilliant stories. Read the plot summaries, especially Episode III, with his deep understanding of mythology, foreshadowing, Kurosawa, and Shakespearian tragedies, the man knows his stories. He's always been a masterful storyteller. He just can't write a screenplay or dialogue to save his life, at least not without a lot of help. The characters were what ultimately killed the prequels. We're used to Star Wars always revolving around the characters, their ongoing relationships and memorable dialogue.
When Empire Strikes Back first came out in 1980, the plot was criticized the most and from a structural point of view, it sucks. There's no beginning, the grand climactic special effect-heavy battle is in the first act and there's no ending. It's the characters. The only way to truly appreciate Empire Strikes Back is to watch the original trilogy. Take some time away from it, watch Empire as a stand alone film but with the knowledge of knowing what happens before and after and just going on that little adventure with the heroes. It's those characters. It's Yoda training Luke. Han flirting with Leia; their intimacy. Maybe that's what made it the best is that it’s the only Star Wars movie not bogged down by having to adhere to some structure. It's just the characters we love going through obstacles. It was written much like modern serialized television. To reach out to a few more examples of characters over story working successfully.
Little Miss Sunshine was a very basic story, but each and every character had aspects and they said things that were specific to they are and Michael Arndt really crafted on the page these amazing characters which gives me some reassurance with him writing Episode VII. Ordinary People, which Abrams is clearly a fan of, it has situations and structure but it's more about these people. It's not making clinging to some calculated story.
I know it seems like I'm just pressing on that one throwaway on the spot comment he made and I do think he cares about characters. But after seeing those unbelievably bland action figure designs that they expect us to categorize as characters in the last trilogy, we need some lovable characters in Episode VII more than anything right now.
Out of all the directors, why choose Abrams, there's so many options, so many diverse choices, why the man who also directed Star Trek. Is it because he directed Star Trek? I actually would bet on saying that's not the prime reason. His first screenplay, Regarding Henry, starred Harrison Ford. He also produced Morning Glory which starred Harrison Ford. He was on a "Dinner for Five" episode with Mark Hamill among other legends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYwQIERib4
J.J. Abrams wrote, directed, and partnered with Steven Spielberg, George Lucas's best friend, to produce Super 8. I admired Super 8, Iv'e seen many directors try to pay homage to Spielberg, but Super 8 really brought me to that late 70's/early 80's era where Steven Spielberg and George Lucas cleaned box office house year by year, they're best friends, they have been there for each other for through thick and thin, Spielberg has influenced Lucas and vice versa. In fact, they both made a bet in 1976. Lucas was sure Close Encounters would outperform Star Wars at the box office. And Spielberg felt Star Wars would be the bigger hit. With each Lucas and Spielberg confident that the other's film would be the bigger hit, Lucas proposed they trade 2.5% of the profit on each other's films. Spielberg took the trade, and still receives 2.5% of the profits from Star Wars to this day. Fun fact there. And when E.T. beat the record of Star Wars, George Lucas sent Spielberg a congrats card. And they have collaborated a bunch. So getting someone who successfully paid tribute to Spielberg would be a compatible choice to pay tribute to Lucas.
Spielberg is a great director and for the most part is a good producer, but when it comes to picking out directors specifically. He’s never been that smart. After all, we are talking about the man that chose, out of all the possible directors, Michael Bay to direct Transformers! WTF?! He’s the man who let the dog out of the cage and raped an entire generation’s childhood. Michael Bay may be the criminal, but Spielberg is still an accomplice.
So Lucas and a many more from the Star Wars gang have obviously known and hung out with Abrams. So they can skip past the introductions and get right into it, right? You know, because in Hollywood, crew members working together for the first time is unheard of.
Also, Abrams is a big fan of Star Wars and George Lucas is a big fan of Lost. And in terms of twists, there's a lot of parallels. When Lost show ended, Lucas had this to say,
"Congratulations on pulling off an amazing show. Don't tell anyone ... but when 'Star Wars' first came out, I didn't know where it was going either. The trick is to pretend you've planned the whole thing out in advance. Throw in some father issues and references to other stories -- let's call them homages -- and you've got a series.
In six seasons, you've managed to span both time and space, and I don't think I'm alone in saying that I never saw what was around the corner. Now that it's all coming to an end, it's impressive to see how much was planned out in advance and how neatly you've wrapped up everything. You've created something really special. I'm sad that the series is ending, but I look forward to seeing what you two are going to do next."
With the prequels having a set future and the revelations of the original trilogy being so ingrained in pop culture, people have kind of forgotten that the six-year period release of the original trilogy was just as known for the constant discussions of possibilities and predictions as Lost.
JJ likes to set up ambiguous pendants and make the experience of what it is and usually when it's revealed if it even is, it's not as luring as the arcane hints that left it up to our imaginations. We often say to ourselves, "Oh, that's all it was." So because of that, his conclusions tend to be weak and unsatisfying, put together at the last minute to make it seem like they knew what they were going to do all along. Because sometimes, it's as if they don't know even know what they're leading to, they're just trying to get the viewer hyped up.
But I couldn't be less worried about an ending because Michael Arndt is writing the screenplay. And endings are his speciality. Little Miss Sunshine was a great movie, but the ending was the best part. Same can be said for Toy Story 3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-iCzWhOgXY
Michael Arndt keeps me reassured about anything. Oblivion is directed by the director of Tron: Legacy, well, Michael Arndt wrote the final draft. Saved! The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is from the director of Constantine. Who gives a possessed f*#k? Michael Arndt wrote the final draft. Saved by the hands of Michael Arndt once again! Amen!
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9
Toy Story 3 was basically a remake of The Great Escape and Escape From Alcatraz. But it was new to the Toy Story franchise. The question no longer is “What’s new to tell?” but rather, “Which stories have been explored the least and what hasn’t been told for the longest time?” It’s marrying those stories to established franchises. I watched Unforgiven on AMC recently and I could totally see them putting that film on Star Wars.
And this also creates friction, this is why Abrams is not a good fit. A script by Michael Arndt, directed by J.J. Abrams. Abrams is not in the same league as Arndt. His films aren't on the level of Arndt!
I predicted Michael Arndt, I was really hoping they got him, he was my dream writer before their were even rumors of him leaking, I made Facebook posts about it. I was excited the direction they were going because Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are both special in that for them being in the sci-fi/fantasy/action/adventure/fairytale genres, they have films that are art. I mean like Oscar-calliber masterpieces. The kinds of films that are cited by film critics and industry professionals as some of the greatest movies of all time. Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. and the three Lord of the Rings movies on top of dominating the technical categories, they were all nominated for Best Picture. Star Wars was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, Alec Guiness for Best Supporting Actor. All those films are studied in film schools as art. As good as J.J.‘s Star Trek was, it wasn't Star Wars or anything Oscar-worthy, at least outside of the technical categories. Super 8 was no E.T. J.J. Abrams is not the Spielberg of this generation. That’s an insult. Maybe the next Chris Columbus.
They put on their press release that J.J.'s films include heartfelt drama, oh please! Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed all his films, but the dialogue and the emotion is as basic as you get. It's all very average, it's not one-dimensional, but it's not three-dimensional either. It’s in the middle. Uhura was pretty cliche and so was Kirk. There’s only one movie Abrams has made that wasn’t a sequel, reboot or sequel to a reboot. That was Super 8 and all that was was a mimicry of other better movies like Close Encounters and E.T. I mean as I said, it was a great movie. I loved it, but it was just a tribute, a love letter, which is fine every now and then; a tip of the hat disguised as an entire film to one of your favorite directors. That’s what A.I. Artificial Intelligence was. Just Spielberg’s attempt at honoring Stanley Kubrick and all of his works. But that’s all J.J.’s career is built on. Nothing but very good clones of movies he loves. Nothing his own. Star Trek was good, but no Star Wars. Super 8 was good, but no Close Encounters. See the trend?
Over a director who has had experience with spaceships, monsters and aliens (And don't tell me by hiring an unknown, they’re gonna loose money). They are not gonna loose any money. 99% of people going to see this movie are going to see it because it's Star Wars regardless of who's directing it. They're not gonna be like, “Oh, I haven't heard of that director so I'm not gonna see it.” Joss Whedon directed one movie prior to the Avengers, Serenity. Didn't even make it's budget back, missed it by a couple hundred thousand. And Avengers squared the profit from Serenity. Serenity made 39 million, times that by 39. That's how much more it made. Star Wars, much like the Avengers is gonna make a wopping bagillion dollars on the brand name alone. Abrams’s don't qualify him if they're trying to make the greatest movie of all time which I was hoping that's what they were aiming for. Credentials my a*s. H-Wood isn't a f*#king democracy. His resume means balls. Movies are like nothing else. It's not politics, it's not college. Rules of having to make this many movies or credits or “paying your dues” for them being selected shouldn't apply. And again, don't give me any sh*t about "Oh, they gotta get somebody with experience of big action and special effects". Get out of here! We’re living in 2013. Industrial Light and Magic will be doing the special effects, the greatest special effects company in the world. I love Marvel and they’re doing everything right so I’m gonna continue using them as an example. Joss Whedon did sh*t for Avengers and the 3D and action was phenomenal. They should get someone to handle characters. I don't care about someone who’s super experienced. The prequels had way too much effects anyway because Lucas was “experienced.” So maybe someone forced to focus on what they know best; story and characters will help.
The movie is gonna be anchored by the script, Disney and Kathleen Kennedy will have final say, ultimately, it will be their movie. Michael Arndt's scripts always work under direction where it completely embraces the script and if they do have a style, it remains subtle. Lee Ukrich may have been influenced by The Shining in Toy Story 3. So if Abrams can just hold back his style and obsession with lens flares, just restrain that part of himself. We'll be okay. But again, just that. Any hope of anything completely fresh or on the level of the original Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back can be kissed goodbye. Jake Schreier's style from what I saw in Robot and Frank was reserved and sterile. It has to be something like that.
I used to prefer Star Trek over Star Wars. I was into Star Wars up until 2006, then I started watching Star Trek so when the reboot came out, I was already a Trekkie and that just made it more cool. And up until this past summer, I don't know, it was before the news of Disney acquiring Lucasfilm, but I just became fascinated with the success of the original Star Wars and what a phenomenon that was and how they took so many risks. Watch the documentary, "When Star Wars Ruled the World." It's very inspiring how no one believed in it and it became the highest grossing movie of that year. I think, in anticipation of the Dark Knight Rises, I was looking back at some of the biggest movie events in history and I couldn't miss Star Wars.
And when I realized that the prequels which I was pretty into ten years ago when I was younger, more naive, and less caring about characters and things making sense. And they didn't hold up with the exception of Episode III, (I don't care what anyone says. That movie will always be bada*s. Haters gonna hate.) Star Trek was my therapist. I believed Star Wars was dead and Star Trek was there for me. When I realized there was nothing left in Star Wars, Star Trek became my foster space opera. And I'm thankful for that period where Star Trek was there, but the real daddy of space operas is home in Disneyville now.
Here’s a parable. And this is why you can't fall for a girl because she resembles your ex because if your ex comes back, do you tell the replacement to leave? I mean you can't have both. You can't have them both in your life. Nor can J.J. now just think that he can have an affair with Star Wars after doing Star Trek. He couldn't just have one, he had two. It's unethical. No morality here. How dare you cheat on Star Trek!
This is worse than Ben Affleck dating Jennifer Lopez and then Jennifer Garner. This is wrong. What’s next? Jennifer Anniston? Oh no he just did in “He’s Just Not That Into You”! What now JJ? Stargate? Starman? Go for it. I dare you! I triple dare you mother f*#ker!
What else is next? The company behind Battlefield doing Battlefront?
Abrams's Star Trek didn't rip off Star Wars per say, but it was like this secret remake of Star Wars as almost a hidden gift for the Star Wars fans disappointed by the prequels. At the time, we never thought we would see another great Star Wars movie, it was the best we could get, so while it didn't remove the lamenting over the prequels, it gave us a stand-in. It made the suffering a little more bearable.
My problem isn't so much that it's the same director, it's the fact he made a movie in another franchise where he had his inner Star Wars geekdom on. I hope that Episode VII isn't a secret remake of Episode IV because it's in the same franchise and so then it would just be another carbon-copy of the original, rehashed sequel. A Star Trek movie in the vain of Star Wars was fresh and new to the Star Trek canon, but it's going to be repetitive for the Star Wars canon. Like If Nicholes Meyer directed one of the Star Wars prequels, even though he directed two Star Trek films, that was many years ago and those weren't done in tribute to Star Wars, so that wouldn't have bothered me. To be fair, it's not like J.J. had any idea there'd be more Star Wars. He loved Star Wars and perhaps he figured that directing Star Trek be the closest he would ever get to directing Star Wars. Little did he know that there would in fact come an opportunity years later. And I can imagine that frustration. When you loose something and give up, you buy another one to take it’s place and once you're settled with it, you find the original and have two. I just can't get that out of my head that he directed Star Trek. His name is already wired to Star Trek. Gosh. Anything but Star Wars!
Sam Raimi directed Darkman, but he didn't direct Spider-Man until 12 years later. In that twelve years, he changed, he grew, he made other kinds of films, his crew changed.
The one last thing I need to address is the possible composer. Star Wars would not be what it is if it wasn't for John Williams. He's a superhuman. I could just sit here trying to express what he means to Star Wars, but it’s a given. From 1983 to 1999, John Williams was one of few survivors from the original trilogy working today who hasn't been diagnosed with prequelitis. So he has to come back. That would be such a shame if for the first time in over thirty years, we had a Star Wars without a great score. That's one thing that needs to stay.
If you'd rather take the easy way out and be as guaranteed as possible that the film will at least be good, then fine. If you're holding it to such a low standard of as long as it's better than the prequels. If that's all you want out of it, then yes, be satisfied with Abrams. I mean you can never be 100% certain that a movie will be great when it's this far away, but simply based on the talent so far attached and what they're saying about it and how they're approaching it. I think it will be very good. When the movie makes over two, screw it, three billion dollars worldwide which has never happened before. Yes, I think it will be the highest grossing movie of all time. When I give it a positive review. When it gets a 90 something percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. You don't have to tell me I'm wrong because it's probably going to be a very good episode, because still, I believe it’ll have a great screenplay.
People think I hate Return of the Jedi. I don’t. It’s a good movie, it’s just no where near as good as the first two and therefor, I don’t think it’s the epitome of Star Wars at it’s best level. I’m not trying to say that once a director reaches well-known commercial status that they’re exempt from ever making films. But the array of directors is so expansive. I was excited just to see who’d they choose. Episode VII is going to happen regardless. The original cast will be back. ILM will be doing the effects. It’s coming out in 2015. But Abrams isn’t some director dying for a gig like Shane Black was before Iron Man 3. His plate is full. He kind of already has carte-blanche to do what he wants. If Star Wars is happening regardless, why not give it to someone smarter and more desperate than Abrams to make the best possible movie? “Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.” - William S. Burroughs
He has nothing to say in his movies. They’re solid two hours of slick pass-time. He’s had more than enough opportunities to show his imagination; his originality. Marvel was bought by Disney for the same amount of money, yet they still continued their streak of hiring directors who hadn’t directed great big blockbusters before. Have we became so scared that we’d sacrifice risks for safe easy choices that can at least guarantee a decent product. Look at what happened when MGM thought they can just copy Lucas’ choice by getting Irvin Kershner for Never Say Never Again or when Kershner directed the abominable Robocop 2. You can’t capture genius by replication. To quote David Fincher on his favorite Star Wars movie and the risks taken, “Empire. It’s the only answer. I appreciate Star Wars; it’s an amazing accomplishment, it is an A+. I think Empire’s an A++ because it’s one of those movies where it was, remember, it was my senior year of high school in the summer. When I saw that George Lucas was going to do the AT-ATs on baking soda with stop-motion and he was going to turn a pivotal character over to Frank Oz and he was going to play it as a Muppet, I thought, “This [frick]ing guy has balls, man.” It’s unreal the risks that he will take in order to tell us his story. And the fact that it comes off so well, that it’s so deftly done, is just the ultimate to me, the cobbling together of all of these magical disciplines to make this thing that is so much greater than the sum of its parts. That’s spectacular. The cast is spectacular, everybody works well, it’s fun, it’s crazy good. Crazy good entertainment, amazing cinema.”
And that’s when it hit me, unlike George Lucas or Kevin Feige, Kathleen Kennedy has no balls!
Finally, here are a bunch of quotes that have to do with the value of risks and what it means to excellence.
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go."
— T.S. Eliot
"To win without risk is to triumph without glory."
Pierre Corneille
"Do you want to be safe and good, or do you want to take a chance and be great?"
— Jimmy Johnson Dallas Cowboys Coach
“If you are not willing to risk the unusual, you will have to settle for the ordinary.” – Jim Rohn