Not sure how I feel about it. Wasn’t a huge fan of the new Trek movie, which I owe more to me just not caring much about Star Trek, but I have a feeling a lot of people will be excited by this. I do think I feel a glimmer of hope for the franchise though; certainly could be in far less capable hands. I just hope it doesn’t end up feeling like Star Trek.
We’re doomed. Might as well let Michael Bay do it. Or Lucas.
Star Trek trades J.J. Abrams to Star Wars for nothing? Pretty good move for both franchises, I think.
Seems like a decent choice. My main complaint about the latest Trek was that if felt more like a Star Wars movie then a Star Trek movie, so this seems about right.
I wasn’t thrilled with the star trek remake, but thought it was ok. Personally I think star wars has a special (for lack of a better word) feel to it that lends itself less prone to tinkering. Hope Abrams leaves that alone.
A lack of Technobabble. Or, if you like, Treknobabble. This is pretty important. Nobody asks “how does something work”, and they never say, “oh, we can use our advenced supertechnology to do x”. This kind of thought appears in virtually all sci-fi, but not Star Wars, because the technology is completely secondary. People use it more or less like they use technology now, or technology a thousand years ago: a few people might tinker with it, but it’s a tool and people don’t question it. The technology may do things we find incredible, but it’s not mysterious to the characters, or even of much interest. The Death Star is basically a giant engineering project - one really big gun. Han Solo sees it and is shocked not by the concept, but simply by the scale. It never occurred to anyone that you could afford or would want to build a mobile planet-killing warbase on that scale.*
However, what characters may have amazing tools, their characterization is larger than life. We could accept relatively young warriors (kid Anakin was way pushing it, but certainly young adults) becoming great heroes saving the galaxy. It’s not that the characters are flat, but they always conform to broad archetypes when we first meet them. Luke is the Naive Hero-in-Training. Old Ben is the Wise Mentor. Han is the Cunning Scoundrel - and so on. They do become more over time as we get to know them and their roles change. Luke, by the end, is a lot more serious and has faced his own dark side. Han stepped up and became a leader. We also saw more of their character and personality.
That’s emphatically not how Star Trek normally works, and one reason Abrams’ changes bothered some fans. Star Trek kept the characters fairly mundane - even prosaic - and the technology and concepts were often the real stars fo the show. Gene Roddenberry famously worked ferverishly (and inadvertently) to kneecap the really interesting part of the show, the human drama, because he wanted his characters to fit his bland vision of (extremely vague) human perfection. Hence the first couple of seasons of TNG were awful. Then he died and Maurice Hurley was thrown out on his arse, and the show finally found its feet, because people did like watching smart, capable, and oh-so-fallible people make difficult choices. DS9 took that ball and ran with it. Voyager by accident went back more towards the Roddenberry ideal and failed miserably, because it’s boring.
But a lot of odities really bothered people in the newer Star Trek movie because of the changes. Kirk is just a cadetm but gets promoted directly to Captain at the end. Kirk in the show has years of experience and personal growth which this kid doesn’t get. Star trek simply wasn’t the show in which a child took charge and saved the day. Except Wesley Crusher and God help you if Wesley is your backup argument, because that was hated for being so out of character for TNG, and also for generally sucking.
Star Wars has a feel - and while Lucas messed up a lot of plot, characterization, and drama in the prequel trilogy, he nailed the style of it dead-center. This is important, because arguably the style would be the easiest area to completely fail. But it does have a strong sense that it seeks to inpire. It’s everyday wonder - the ordinary which is itself extraordinary to us. It’s the same old sagas and tales of heroes, but set in a style which gets us to look at it in a new way.
A super-nerd* named Curtis Saxton did some back of the hand estimates and ifgured the first Death Star was larger than the entire reported Imperial war machine across the entire galaxy together.
**Term of endearment, because I think it was pretty awesome that someone did that.
To be fair, Abrams won’t be tasked with rebooting the franchise. At least I hope that he’s not. Check that: I pray that he’s not. And I’m an atheist.
I know it’s not popular to say around here but I like J.J. Abrams. I think he’ll do fine with it and understands the source material.
Will he get Jorge Garcia to play a Jedi?
Will I be able to watch the movie for all the lens flare?
That’s what I came in to say. I’ve read that a lot of it is not real lens flair, but phony lens flair he adds to shots to make them look more ‘lens flairy’. I find it very distracting and annoying.
I wanted to be first to snark moar lens flares.
I don’t know if your misspelling was intentional or not, but it’s brilliantly appropriate.
Brilliant, eh? Then it was intentional.
“Take a look at JJ. He has far more than just the minimum amount of flair!” 
You mean you never heard of the lens flairy? She visits children in the night and leaves diffractions under their pillows.
I’m not sure about this. I think JJ Abrams is a very good director and in most circumstances I’d be very much okay with this. But he’s already doing a big franchise, he should concentrate on that and then do smaller films in between. Juggling two just seems too much, and could potentially dilute both.
This just seems like Lucasfilm/Disney panicked as everyone turned it down (in much the same way every Director George asked to make his prequels kept insisting George should do it himself) and ended up desperately grabbing someone for the wrong reasons.
I wanted Joe Johnston to do it. I love his work.
Meh.
Honestly, Star Wars should just die; Lucas knee capped and left it in a coma with those God awful Prequels.
Having said that, I think Abrams is a good director. I really didn’t like the new Star Trek (due to the story), but did find that the craftsmanship of the film was quite good.
I think he may well create a great Star Wars film, though I honestly have no interest in revisiting Star Wars ever, ever again, unless they treat it as though the prequels and all the extended universe garbage never happened.
So who knows, maybe we’ll be in luck.
I think it’s a good choice. I enjoyed the Star Trek movie and I am by no means a Star Trek fan.
Think of it this way: it can’t get any worse.
Cool, a Jedi Hutt!
Really? Captain America was serviceable at best, and that’s coming from a fan. Marvel passed on him for a Cap sequel; that’s not an endorsement.
Abrams is a 1:1 fit for the job, as by his own admission Star Trek was heavily Star Wars inspired (for the better) and it shows. He literally asked his creative team, “What would Star Wars do?” I really think J.J. is such an obvious/safe pick for Star Wars.