Weakness of JJ Abrams as a director?

[ray245]

But Ray, if you're expecting Star Wars to undergo a huge transformation and not be Flash Gordon villain punching stuff that doesn't seem very realistic. It's a huge brand and they'll play to the brand no matter who the director is. If you want an actual powerful film that engages you in complex drama and asks difficult questions, maybe it'd be safer to go watch those kind of movies instead of waiting for Star Wars to become something it isn't.

If something like Batman can be constantly re-interpreted I don't see why the same cannot happen for Star Wars. With George Lucas leaving I was really hoping to see how a new director can adopt a different approach to making the next Star Wars film.

Ironically Abrams significantly 'grew up' Star Trek in his films (regardless of what you think of the performances) so there is a non-zero chance his Star Wars movies might have a different tone.

I don't think it is that hard to "grew up" Star Trek if the 2009 film is considered one of the best ST movies. However, it's not just his work for Star Trek that make me wary of him as a director. The two other films directed by him, namely Mission Impossible 3 and Super 8 didn't really convince me he has the ability to make his characters compelling to me at the least.

I will be so happy if he can prove him wrong and make the next Star Wars movie to be something more than an action-adventure movie with lots of pew-pew and explosions. Perhaps working with the new head of Lucasfilm and different writers can help him be a much better director. It does remain to be seen.

[Stark]

That's quite a different thing; not only is it comic book nonsense where nobody cares if you reboot every decade, it's just about a guy with a silly hat. I think that's pretty distinct from Star Wars, which is more closely identified with a style or a story - you can't expect the new movies to start off with Luke being in a secret ninja fortress run by an idiot who trains him in the ways of the Jedi so that Luke can betray him and stop his plans later, can you? Or that Aunt Beru survived and is perpetrating a series of politically motivated murders? Maybe Luke can no longer struggle against his incestuous feelings and becomes a dark figure haunting the galactic night? Unless you see reason why anyone would want to change gears like this, I think you expecting it to happen is stupid.

And again, this kind of fundamental shuffling of tone was exactly what the Star Trek reboot was about, which makes this pretty confusing. You can't expect Star Wars to become a challenging art film or quality, moving drama without running a huge chance of being disappointed when it ends up being just more Star Wars.

[ray245]

That's quite a different thing; not only is it comic book nonsense where nobody cares if you reboot every decade, it's just about a guy with a silly hat. I think that's pretty distinct from Star Wars, which is more closely identified with a style or a story - you can't expect the new movies to start off with Luke being in a secret ninja fortress run by an idiot who trains him in the ways of the Jedi so that Luke can betray him and stop his plans later, can you? Or that Aunt Beru survived and is perpetrating a series of politically motivated murders? Maybe Luke can no longer struggle against his incestuous feelings and becomes a dark figure haunting the galactic night? Unless you see reason why anyone would want to change gears like this, I think you expecting it to happen is stupid.

But the thing that makes the new batman films critically successful was not because the new films are more grim and darker in tone, but how well the characters were portrayed on screen. The films never lost track of the human drama while having big action pieces.

And again, this kind of fundamental shuffling of tone was exactly what the Star Trek reboot was about, which makes this pretty confusing. You can't expect Star Wars to become a challenging art film or quality, moving drama without running a huge chance of being disappointed when it ends up being just more Star Wars.

Sure, it is ridiculous to expect Star Wars to become an art film or a moving drama, but that doesn't mean you can't have a better Star Wars movie with much stronger human drama. JJ Abrams' film gave me the impression that he is a director who will allow the dramatic elements of the story (which I agree does exist) to be buried under the big action sequences. The complex relationship and emotions felt by the characters in Abram's film are often hinted at, and never allowed enough breathing space to develop it further. What is the point of shifting the tone of the franchise if human drama is still fairly weak?

Take Spock's grieve over the death of his mother for instance and compare them to the scenes between Bruce Wayne and his father in Batman Begins. Which of the two scenes have a much better dramatic and emotional impact on the audience?

[Flagg]

That's quite a different thing; not only is it comic book nonsense where nobody cares if you reboot every decade, it's just about a guy with a silly hat. I think that's pretty distinct from Star Wars, which is more closely identified with a style or a story - you can't expect the new movies to start off with Luke being in a secret ninja fortress run by an idiot who trains him in the ways of the Jedi so that Luke can betray him and stop his plans later, can you? Or that Aunt Beru survived and is perpetrating a series of politically motivated murders? Maybe Luke can no longer struggle against his incestuous feelings and becomes a dark figure haunting the galactic night? Unless you see reason why anyone would want to change gears like this, I think you expecting it to happen is stupid.

But the thing that makes the new batman films critically successful was not because the new films are more grim and darker in tone, but how well the characters were portrayed on screen. The films never lost track of the human drama while having big action pieces.

And again, this kind of fundamental shuffling of tone was exactly what the Star Trek reboot was about, which makes this pretty confusing. You can't expect Star Wars to become a challenging art film or quality, moving drama without running a huge chance of being disappointed when it ends up being just more Star Wars.

Sure, it is ridiculous to expect Star Wars to become an art film or a moving drama, but that doesn't mean you can't have a better Star Wars movie with much stronger human drama. JJ Abrams' film gave me the impression that he is a director who will allow the dramatic elements of the story (which I agree does exist) to be buried under the big action sequences. The complex relationship and emotions felt by the characters in Abram's film are often hinted at, and never allowed enough breathing space to develop it further. What is the point of shifting the tone of the franchise if human drama is still fairly weak?

Take Spock's grieve over the death of his mother for instance and compare them to the scenes between Bruce Wayne and his father in Batman Begins. Which of the two scenes have a much better dramatic and emotional impact on the audience?

Spock showed grief by expressing his rage at Nero towards Kirk in the scene where he almost murdered him at the meat mention of his mother. And it was very well acted by Quinto.

[Stark]

Ray, i think you're confusing 'the audience' with 'you'. Sure, drama works or it doesn't and a lot of that is up to the viewer. I found all the character work in BB totally unmoving, because I didn't like the film and didn't engage with it (and Bale sucks lol). I think Quinto really followed on the perception that Nimoy created for Spock - that he's a guy who acts logically but still has powerful emotions. I think this fundamentally changed the Spock/Kirk dynamic, which amusingly was even followed through on in the video game. That's good stuff, but people who didn't like the film and didn't engage with it probably wouldn't notice or care.

I mean Kirk following the rules and Spock disagreeing due to his masked hatred = Star Trek joke and character payoff. I liked it. :v

[ray245]

Spock showed grief by expressing his rage at Nero towards Kirk in the scene where he almost murdered him at the meat mention of his mother. And it was very well acted by Quinto.

Yeah, but if me as the audience could not feel the close relationship between Spock and his mother, then Spock's reaction would naturally feel artificially and acted out to me. That is just my point of view.

Ray, i think you're confusing 'the audience' with 'you'. Sure, drama works or it doesn't and a lot of that is up to the viewer. I found all the character work in BB totally unmoving, because I didn't like the film and didn't engage with it (and Bale sucks lol).

I never assumed everyone or even most people agree with me on what drama works for them. I can only speak about it from my perspective and I think the character work in Star Trek 1 & 2 were weak and didn't help me engage with it.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not even sure what this thread is supposed to accomplish. Is ray just not sure what to think about Abrams and him directing Star Wars and throwing out a bunch of ideas and fishing for other people's thoughts/opinions, or is he trying to 'predict' how Abrams will handle the movie based on personal impressions of his Trek stuff (A rather limited data set, IMHO), or what?

We need some more clarity here if this thread is to have any direction.

[ray245]

I am fishing for people's opinion on Abrams. This is less about arguing whether everyone should think JJ Abrams is a bad director, and more about discussing what aspects do you find him to be weak in as a director. After all even some of the best directors have areas they are weak in.

[Stark]

Well, Ray, since nobody else appears to have mentioned anything, maybe you're out of luck. :V However, I don't think you're appreciating that you might have this engagement process the wrong way round; its very difficult for something to overturn a negative preconception (and this includes ones formed early in a work). For instance, the first time I watched Galaxy Quest I really didn't enjoy it, and I thought pretty much all the performances were terrible etc etc. I watched it again some years later, and having forgotten why I didn't enjoy it the first time I really got into it and liked how the cast sold their characters. When I saw Moon, the Basement of Clones struck me as so stupid that it took me more than 10 minutes to get back into a headspace where I was enjoying the film again instead of snorting in derison and being 'outside' it.

PS Was Spock's mum Winona Ryder? I barely remember the performance (probably Chris Hemsworth afterglow) so I doubt it was very good.

[ray245]

Well, Ray, since nobody else appears to have mentioned anything, maybe you're out of luck. :V However, I don't think you're appreciating that you might have this engagement process the wrong way round; its very difficult for something to overturn a negative preconception (and this includes ones formed early in a work). For instance, the first time I watched Galaxy Quest I really didn't enjoy it, and I thought pretty much all the performances were terrible etc etc. I watched it again some years later, and having forgotten why I didn't enjoy it the first time I really got into it and liked how the cast sold their characters. When I saw Moon, the Basement of Clones struck me as so stupid that it took me more than 10 minutes to get back into a headspace where I was enjoying the film again instead of snorting in derison and being 'outside' it.

But if the process of enjoying a film is a bumpy one whereby you have to remind yourself that you are actually liking the movie, doesn't that indicate the film have several major flaws?

PS Was Spock's mum Winona Ryder? I barely remember the performance (probably Chris Hemsworth afterglow) so I doubt it was very good.

Yeah, she was. I could not buy her as a real and caring mother of Spock, so that really weaken the scene when Spock saw her falling to her death for me. If he cannot cast the right actress for that role or direct the actors properly in such an important scene, then Abrams deserved to be criticised for his mishandling of that scene.

[Stark]

But if the process of enjoying a film is a bumpy one whereby you have to remind yourself that you are actually liking the movie, doesn't that indicate the film have several major flaws?

Since I've said 'impressions of art are subjective and take place in the mind of the viewer' and you just quoted me describing a situation where a person can have two distinct impressions of the same work depending on their state of mind, I'm going to assume this is a rhetorical question.

Yeah, she was. I could not buy her as a real and caring mother of Spock, so that really weaken the scene when Spock saw her falling to her death for me. If he cannot cast the right actress for that role or direct the actors properly in such an important scene, then Abrams deserved to be criticised for his mishandling of that scene.

Either you're ignoring me or you are unable to understand what I'm saying, so I'm not going to bother to reply beyond restating yet again that whether you feel a scene was 'mishandled' may not be an objective fact that exists outside your own mind. Winona Ryder isn't a very good actor, but her performance was fine and the only important part of that scene was Spock's reaction, which I thought was great and drove his entire character. You just don't like it, just like you don't like Quinto's performance in general.

Maybe I'm a bad person but every time you say this stuff I just remember all the horrible 'acting' and failed 'drama' that is the standard for modern Star Wars. Its the director's fault you personally didn't like a performance that appears to be widely well-regarded and you thus believe he won't make Star Wars 7 the Dark Jedi Returns with special hoarse voice effects and cockney sidekick.

[Connor MacLeod]

But if the process of enjoying a film is a bumpy one whereby you have to remind yourself that you are actually liking the movie, doesn't that indicate the film have several major flaws?

Why are you even worrying about this before you've watched it? If you are watching it and don't like it you probably will stop watching it unless someone's holding a gun to your head.

Also if you're so dead set on finding reasons to dislike it or Abrams, why are we even having this discussion? You can just decide you won't like it and not watch it (even though its possible you may be wrong), and it doesn't require a lengthy discussion to 'justify' even though you seem to be seeking just that.

And lastly I will just point out its entirely possible to like something even if you dislike the guy who made it, or even if you dislike other stuff he's done. Its not an absolute.

[ray245]

But if the process of enjoying a film is a bumpy one whereby you have to remind yourself that you are actually liking the movie, doesn't that indicate the film have several major flaws?

Why are you even worrying about this before you've watched it? If you are watching it and don't like it you probably will stop watching it unless someone's holding a gun to your head.

Also if you're so dead set on finding reasons to dislike it or Abrams, why are we even having this discussion? You can just decide you won't like it and not watch it (even though its possible you may be wrong), and it doesn't require a lengthy discussion to 'justify' even though you seem to be seeking just that.

Why can't we discuss the merits and flaws of a director on its own? Apparently I am among the minority of people who dislike Abrams' work in Star Trek, so it is interesting for me to find out why many of you rate Abrams highly.

There is still a chance of me watching the next Star Wars film (I've watched the Star Trek sequel despite thinking the first movie is quite mediocre) even if I dislike the current works by Abrams.

And lastly I will just point out its entirely possible to like something even if you dislike the guy who made it, or even if you dislike other stuff he's done. Its not an absolute.

True, which is why I might still end up watching the next Star Wars if the previews for it seems interesting to me. I never said that I disliked Abrams's work to the extend I want to boycott any movie or TV shows by him.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why can't we discuss the merits and flaws of a director on its own? Apparently I am among the minority of people who dislike Abrams' work in Star Trek, so it is interesting for me to find out why many of you rate Abrams highly.

We can but.. we have virtually nothing to discuss. The movie isn't out. we dont even have trailers to make vague subjective guesses over. The less data we have, the more speculation and inference we must make to have a discussion and.. that kinda impacts the discussion. We might as well just make shit up and discuss that, don't you think?

Besides, STark has a point that talking this up negatively too far ahead of time can prejudice a person. Its easy to convince yourself you're going to dislike something that way - look at the way people reacted to Disney buying LFL as a prime example.

And I'll point out there is nothing wrong with discussing Abram's work on Trek, or JJ Abrams as a director. But as he's done no STar Wars stuff yet, analyzing/discussing that in the PSW forum is.. rather inappropriate. This sort of thread owuld have been better put either in Pure Star Trek (to discuss his Trek movies), or to put it in like Off Topic (discussing him as a director.)

There is still a chance of me watching the next Star Wars film (I've watched the Star Trek sequel despite thinking the first movie is quite mediocre) even if I dislike the current works by Abrams.

Then do yourself a favor and don't try to speculate too far ahead about it. Wait til there's more data. That way you won't kill that chance ahead of time.

Here's another thing to consider: Plenty of sci fi authors have written across multiple 'universes' (such as their own, and another sci fi franchise like Star Wars or Star Trek, some may have written in both.) without having the entirety of their work suck. EAch universe is different and the author will probably think/interact with it differently, which will lead to different outcomes and perceptions.

A good example is Greg Bear, who has written for Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo, Niven's Known Space, Asimov's Foundation books, as well as his own stuff. Would you say because you didn't like one of his works, everythign else is probably bad? Or would you think it a better idea to read the stuff (at least in part) and THEN judge its quality?

True, which is why I might still end up watching the next Star Wars if the previews for it seems interesting to me. I never said that I disliked Abrams's work to the extend I want to boycott any movie or TV shows by him.

Again its really hard to grasp what you expect from thsi sort of thread because you really seem to be all over the place. I mean reading Stark's responses to you it seems like the stuff you answer him with changes with every response and you're just all over the place.. something I am quite familiar with because I am prone to that as well (I start on one topic.. get sidetracked off into another.. and another.. sometimes after a lengthy divergence returning to the original topic only to get sidetracked again...) Some people don't mind that, but other people can lose patience with it if it keeps going on and on with no end (or point) in sight. Having a goal and being concise can matter.

[ray245]

And I'll point out there is nothing wrong with discussing Abram's work on Trek, or JJ Abrams as a director. But as he's done no STar Wars stuff yet, analyzing/discussing that in the PSW forum is.. rather inappropriate. This sort of thread owuld have been better put either in Pure Star Trek (to discuss his Trek movies), or to put it in like Off Topic (discussing him as a director.)

I see your point now. Perhaps creating a thread discussing Abram's work on a PSW forum might give people the wrong idea what thread was supposed to be all about.

Here's another thing to consider: Plenty of sci fi authors have written across multiple 'universes' (such as their own, and another sci fi franchise like Star Wars or Star Trek, some may have written in both.) without having the entirety of their work suck. EAch universe is different and the author will probably think/interact with it differently, which will lead to different outcomes and perceptions.

I agree to an extend, but certain attributes of the writer will remain with him even if he wrote a new book set in a different genre. A writer known for writing bad romance is unlikely to suddenly improve in that aspect just because his new book is set in a different universe and genre.

Again its really hard to grasp what you expect from thsi sort of thread because you really seem to be all over the place. I mean reading Stark's responses to you it seems like the stuff you answer him with changes with every response and you're just all over the place.. something I am quite familiar with because I am prone to that as well (I start on one topic.. get sidetracked off into another.. and another.. sometimes after a lengthy divergence returning to the original topic only to get sidetracked again...) Some people don't mind that, but other people can lose patience with it if it keeps going on and on with no end (or point) in sight. Having a goal and being concise can matter.

Sorry for that. I often have problems expressing what I wanted to write/say.

[Elfdart]

If something like Batman can be constantly re-interpreted I don't see why the same cannot happen for Star Wars. With George Lucas leaving I was really hoping to see how a new director can adopt a different approach to making the next Star Wars film.

Piss on that!

Star Wars always was and always should be hokey, campy, Saturday matinee movies. The last thing in the world the series needs is to be "re-imagined". After all, a filmmaker who has imagination of his or her own would do their own science fiction movies, like Ridley Scott or James Cameron.

I don't think it is that hard to "grew up" Star Trek if the 2009 film is considered one of the best ST movies. However, it's not just his work for Star Trek that make me wary of him as a director. The two other films directed by him, namely Mission Impossible 3 and Super 8 didn't really convince me he has the ability to make his characters compelling to me at the least.

Look, Abrams is basically a hack with few if any ideas that are novel, let alone original. He's not the sort to shoot his own wank all over the series. In other words, he's a younger version of Irvin Kershner.

I will be so happy if he can prove him wrong and make the next Star Wars movie to be something more than an action-adventure movie with lots of pew-pew and explosions. Perhaps working with the new head of Lucasfilm and different writers can help him be a much better director. It does remain to be seen.

Aside from The Force and the Emperor's rise to power, Star Wars has always been "an action-adventure movie with lots of pew-pew and explosions" and I doubt Disney would want to screw that up.

[Stark]

Ray, to follow on from something Connor said about creators, the guy who wrote Gundam Unicorn is apparently a Japanese nationalist, right wing atrocity denier person. When he wrote a story for Gundam, he wrote one about owning up to past mistakes and crimes and stopping cycles of hatred and violence through honesty and openness ... Because that's what Gundam is about. He didn't just eject his own prejudices all over an existing work.

Whether or not Abrams is that kind of person is not known to me, of course. But pre-judging stuff is generally bad if you're not willing to change that view.

[Meest]

Is Abrams already categorized like Tarantino or a Scorsese with a constant style or method? Only seen MI:3, Cloverfield and the first Star Trek from him. Outside the obvious lens flare gimmick he seems to have adopted some version of shaky cam or kinetic cam. My only worry is that he is more concerned about getting his style across or his set pieces done, that's mostly from the behind the scene specials they have been showing recently. Also never re-watched any of his work, but that is consistent with all the Star Trek movies compared to Star Wars. So my concern is will the new Star Wars stand up years from now or just be a ok interpretation that will be rebooted sooner than later.

[Marikina]

IMO his direction is just fine, he just needs better writers and script to pair it with. Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindolf didn't really help him in that regard.

[ray245]

Based on recent news, it does seems like Abrams is having less creative control over the new Star Wars film compared to all his previous works. The decision to shoot in the UK against the desire of Abrams and the news that Doug Chiang and Iain McCaig were personally appointed by Kennedy seems to give me the impression that Kennedy have a fair degree of creative control over Abrams.

[malguslover]

I have just seen the new Star Trek movie, and based on what I have seen, I am not sure if Abrams will be a good director for Star Wars.

Some of his weakness as a director I feel is his inability to make a good and thoughtful action movie. A few of his movies often seems to have problems developing any sort of emotional hook for the audience. Characters are often not being given enough developments on the script, and thus making it difficult for me at the least to relate to them. The lack of character progress is another sore point in his movies. Characters rarely change as a person even after they undergo life changing events in the film. Hence, I find it difficult to care for his characters, and whenever someone important were killed on-screen, it often feels over-dramatic and artificial.

This is just some of my thoughts about Abrams as the director for the next Star Wars movie. Perhaps he might prove me wrong as he is working with new writers like Michael Arndt and Geroge Lucas. So what do you think are some of Abrams' flaw as a director and story teller?

this is one of the most bizzare complaints. Star Trek into Darkness was essentially a Star Wars movie.

[ray245]

this is one of the most bizzare complaints. Star Trek into Darkness was essentially a Star Wars movie.

So? I do not want to see those issues popping up in any future films, Star Wars or not.