J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII :(

Which director would you have preferred, then - David Fincher? James Cameron? Guillermo del Toro? And possibly Jerry Bruckheimer and Ben Stiller as producers…

Seriously, I don't care about who's directing the movie(s) as long as

*it's Star Wars and
*they feature decent-looking troops of sorts.

The latter point was where Ep. I failed to deliver as I found it inherently difficult to root for the B2s. Though they still did more for me than the Naboo troops in their weird frocks.

Who I would want to direct it?

Lots of good choices.

How about Darren Aronofsky or Ben Affleck?

All you want from Star Wars is decent looking troops? Ehm, ok.

I guess I'm being very demanding for wanting a bit more than that

To be fair, though - I AM very demanding, and I can't stand Abrams and his hollow mass-market-above-all approach to everything he does.

Well there'll always be some person X who doesn't like director Y. For me it's good news.

We have come to know you as a very demanding person, Dart .

Nah, I'm a sucker for all things military (science) fiction. While I've been hooked to SW from the start, I never actually cared much about the Jedi stuff, and I'm not afraid to admit that my favorite part of the SW franchise so far is the TCW animated series.
Star Trek lost me rather early. While I liked the animated series there, too, I just couldn't stand that 85% of all people were running around in form-fitting pajamas.

I want to see Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher getting it on as old people.

Luke Skywalker in a floating wheelchair.

First Contact was not excellent?

If you ask me they should have the next Star Trek series where the Borg take over the galaxy (and assimilate earth). The Trekkies have to flee to the Beta Quadrant with help from the Wormhole Aliens. It would get back to its roots as Wagon Train in Space and the Borg make a good excuse to regress in their technology advances (dilithium crystals become rare and a desperately vital commodity), etc. But I'm not JJ Abrams.

Speaking of Abrams, How about Jorge Garcia reprise his role as Jabba the Hut?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The Undiscovered Country was one of the best Treks. I liked Insurrection - but Nemesis was awful.



I disagree quite severely, but that's the way of subjective opinions.

So… Let me get this strait. Undiscovered Country was good but Lost and Star Trek (2009) sucked? You live on backwards planet or is it heavy drug use?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Ehm ok.

Thanks for crushing all my hopes for a good SW entirely

Star Trek was a piece of shit - and the less said about LOST and JJ Abrams the better.

The man represents everything that's bad about modern Hollywood.

OMG! I'm agreeing with DArt over something. The JJ Abrams being everything that is bad about modern Hollywood part mind you. I did find Star Trek entertaining despite the sub-average script. It just not memorable.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
If you ask me they should have the next Star Trek series where the Borg take over the galaxy (and assimilate earth). The Trekkies have to flee to the Beta Quadrant with help from the Wormhole Aliens. It would get back to its roots as Wagon Train in Space and the Borg make a good excuse to regress in their technology advances (dilithium crystals become rare and a desperately vital commodity), etc. But I'm not JJ Abrams.

If they do a future Prime Trek series I personally hope that they follow up on the relaunch books. They are mostly following on the TV series and pre-2009 movies. One of those novel trilogy was dealing with the Borg (I'm currently reading it). They were not too happy after the Voyager final…

The recent Star Trek movie was a major deviation from what Roddenberry had always pushed in ST: a philosophical and hopeful outlook on the future, layered in sci-fi. What Abrams gave us instead was some hackneyed coming-of-age story with a petulant villain and lots of explosions. Fun summer flick but not Star Trek.

Nevertheless, I'd argue that the foundations upon which Star Wars is based have been in flux ever since Lucas started pushing that schlock of episodes 1-3. The franchise is ready to be remolded yet again, for better or worse.

Originally Posted by ToddMcF2002
So… Let me get this strait. Undiscovered Country was good but Lost and Star Trek (2009) sucked? You live on backwards planet or is it heavy drug use?

It's called Planet of Understanding Quality

Originally Posted by Drithius
The recent Star Trek movie was a major deviation from what Roddenberry had always pushed in ST: a philosophical and hopeful outlook on the future, layered in sci-fi.

That I would agree with. (Mind you, I still liked the movie as such.)

What Abrams gave us instead was some hackneyed coming-of-age story with a petulant villain and lots of explosions. Fun summer flick but not Star Trek.

Yeah … you could even say it was more like Star Wars than Star Trek. … Wait, what?

You guys are crazy. Star Trek was DOA for ages. The movies were marginal to decent except for the first two. Wrath of Khan in terms of pacing, tone and action content screamed JJ Abrams. For Meyers it was the best film of his career.

Except that Wrath of Khan made perfect sense, had a fantastic villain and stayed absolutely true to the characters and Trek as a whole.

The new Star Trek had a pathetic villain with all the personality of a soft rock, a completely non-sensical plot involving "Red Matter", obnoxious main characters, a Kirk that drove a "stick vehicle" almost to his death over a cliff for no reason except as a typical Hollywood introductionary scene, a Spock that has an affair with Uhura, a Spock that meets Kirk by "accident" on the very planet Kirk is left on (by a super emotional Spock, if you can believe it), and it has the most ridiculous and crappy version of Scotty known to man. Oh, and that Scotty is on the EXACT same planet where Kirk accidentally meets Spock. Talk about your Abrams coincidences.

Stuff like that.

But, yeah, it was really just like Wrath of Khan beyond those little details and a dozen others.

Next time you watch it, try not turning off your brain - if you dare

Originally Posted by Drithius
The recent Star Trek movie was a major deviation from what Roddenberry had always pushed in ST: a philosophical and hopeful outlook on the future, layered in sci-fi. What Abrams gave us instead was some hackneyed coming-of-age story with a petulant villain and lots of explosions. Fun summer flick but not Star Trek.

yeah he kinda killed the concept with that movie, replaced it with an average action movie with stereotype hollywood characters (witty brit, crazy russian etc), and filled the movie with samurai swords and some star wars rip off scenes (monster in ice cave, ..wow)

Isn't J.J. Abrams a tank ?

He has the same level of respect for the audience as an Abrams tank would have

Well then we agree to disagree! Moving on…

Agreed

We should try to focus on the positives here. At least we won't have overly high expectations.

Originally Posted by Jaz
Which director would you have preferred, then - David Fincher? James Cameron? Guillermo del Toro? And possibly Jerry Bruckheimer and Ben Stiller as producers… .

Guillermo del Toro just look at his newest scfi movie.

Link-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ZcqwvQbas