Episode VII gets a director

[X-Wing Fighter Pilot]

Also, I'm ignoring most of the rumours and fan forum disapproval, there's always the so called 'die hards' who wouldn't accept a new film no matter who or what the circumstances were, because everyone of them has their own view on what should and shouldn't be in it. They can stick to the orinal trilogy, nobodies forcing them to accept prequels and sequels. They are/will be out there, enjoy, accept or ignore.
Two penneth rant over.

[x-wing_flyboy]

A mild mannered rant though dave, well done.

Looking forward to it all, really want to be amazed!

[Buzz Bumble]

Also, I'm ignoring most of the rumours and fan forum disapproval

My "disapproval" is based on wanting to keep a cohesive franchise that makes sense as a whole, rather than a mess of separate ill-fitting parts. Just look at the Batman franchise, there's so many different versions making it a complete mess that nobody even knows what "Batman" means any more. Unfortunately there's MANY other examples where the franchise has been destroyed into a confused mess of conflicting sub-franchises.

JJ Abrams has such a massively over-bloated ego that he's almost certainly going to want to do thing "his way" rather than simply making a movie that fits with everything else that has come before it. He's already made a mess of the Star Trek franchise with his silly "reboot" movies.

McDonalds could close down all their branches worldwide, and then re-open then six months later as petrol stations - they might still be called "McDonalds", they might still have a double-arch logo (now coloured blue), a Ronny McDonald mascot (a female motor mechanic clown), and sell "food" (for cars), etc. ... but that wouldn't actually be McDonalds in anything but name.

[old-fool]

JJA didn't make the reboot movies for Star Trek, that was the job he was hired to do. Don't misunderstand, I'm an old ST fan, (in every way these days) but I don't mind new movies being made. Like I said, Enterprise killed the TV series, ST;TNG had already made their last film, and thre was no more milage left in Voyager, and DS9 was never going to have films made. So what next? I would've love Captain Sulu films, but it was judged too late by the producers. It was decided upon a reboot, and it's been a partial success. Even if the plot was contrived, it did at least make some sense. But it was the film company who wanted the reboot, JJA just directed it.

Disney want a continuation, and I've said this before so I know I'm either not being read, am being misunderstood or just disbelieved. It's SW Ep VII, not a reboot, not a new SW Ep I, (though frankly that would be jolly nice) it's a continuation of a still popular story. If you want to say that Batman is a good example, I disagree. The 1960's Batman was a comedy, camp and cartoonish. Was it enjoyable, absolutely. But in your concept, all Batman series, films would need to be the same. The films by Tim Burton et al were superb, then good, then dire. The same chap didn't play Batman in all films, there were changes, but I agree, at least it was a continuation. Like ST Enterprise though, that continuation killed the franchise. So, they started again, and the films have been much better than they ended.

It's rather like any story. When it has been put down by one generation, left for a while, the next want to see what it is and put their finger prints all over it. But SW has never been put down like that, there have never needed to be campaigns to make new films, etc. and I don't believe these new films will be worse than the last three, certainly not worse than the first one. So, I'd simply say to anyone who wants to throw paint at the van, (my own phrase, I thank you) just hold on a mo. Wait until it is made and we'll all see, butyou might find out it's all fun and biscuits, (again, mine, I'm just so full of, well, something).

[X-Wing Fighter Pilot]

If there's biscuits, it's a certain winner.

[old-fool]

Exactly!

[Buzz Bumble]

JJA didn't make the reboot movies for Star Trek, that was the job he was hired to do. Don't misunderstand, I'm an old ST fan, (in every way these days) but I don't mind new movies being made. Like I said, Enterprise killed the TV series, ST;TNG had already made their last film, and thre was no more milage left in Voyager, and DS9 was never going to have films made. So what next? I would've love Captain Sulu films, but it was judged too late by the producers. It was decided upon a reboot, and it's been a partial success. Even if the plot was contrived, it did at least make some sense. But it was the film company who wanted the reboot, JJA just directed it.

If real "Star Trek" was no longer "good enough" for the morons in managment, then why bother re-creating it?? The whole reboot silliness makes no sense from any angle. Making ill-fitting changes is likely to make fans angry (they're called "fans" because they like it how it is) and not bother watching any more of it, while people who don't like "Star Trek" would (if they had any brains) not bother going to see something called "StarTrek" - only a complete idiot would go along to see it expecting something different. Either way, by re-using the same name for a very different show / movie, you're throwing away half your potential audience. Simply by giving it a differnet name would mean everyone would give it a chance just to see what it is.

Disney want a continuation, and I've said this before so I know I'm either not being read, am being misunderstood or just disbelieved. It's SW Ep VII, not a reboot, not a new SW Ep I, (though frankly that would be jolly nice) it's a continuation of a still popular story.

True, the new Star Wars movies are not a "reboot" (thank God!), but it is a different person in charge ... and someone who has a massive ego and over-hyped portfolio. He's almost certainly going to want to do things "his way". There have already been other franchises ruined by someone who claimed to be a fan, and yet still made lots of silly ill-fitting changes.

If you want to say that Batman is a good example, I disagree. The 1960's Batman was a comedy, camp and cartoonish. Was it enjoyable, absolutely.

Yep, the Adma West TV series was THE version of Batman. The only one remotely similar to the actual comic books. All these fools who say the Dark Knight versions are like the original comic books never actually read them - they were not dark and nasty stories at all.

But in your concept, all Batman series, films would need to be the same. The films by Tim Burton et al were superb, then good, then dire. The same chap didn't play Batman in all films, there were changes, but I agree, at least it was a continuation.

The same style, etc. yes. Not necessarily the same actor, although that helps tremendously where possible.

A franchise is defined as a set of compatible, fitting parts ... making changes means it no longer fits and therefore is no longer part of the same franchise. If it's no longer part of the same franchise and in reality a different show / movie, then why bother re-using the same name? It's simply senseless.

If they want to make a different show / movie, if they want to make a new franchise, then make a NEW franchise. Don't go around lazily butchering someone else's hard work.

Like ST Enterprise though, that continuation killed the franchise. So, they started again, and the films have been much better than they ended.

Enterprise was the first attempt by Berman & Braga to reboot the "Star Trek" franchise, and another good example of why you don't do that. It made a mess of the franchise by making lots of silly, ill-fitting changes and ignoring what came before ... that and the fact that "Beavis" & "Butthead" don't have any clue how to make TV shows, let alone a Star Trek show (they're own later shows failed miserably).

It's rather like any story. When it has been put down by one generation, left for a while, the next want to see what it is and put their finger prints all over it.

Why?? It makes no sense. Again, if the original is no longer "good enough", then make something actually new with a new name that is "good enough".

There's a similar silliness where some people want a "grown up" version of Star Wars / Battlestar Galactica /etc. Again, why?? The show was created to be as it was - a kids' show or a family show, it's MEANT to be like that and that's how the fans like it. Trying to make a "grown up" version is ludicrous, and they probably expect a "grown up" version of Barney and Sesame Street as well. If people want a "grown up" sci fi series, then there's already Space: Above & Beyond or Babylon 5, or simply make a new franchise.


Again, sorry about the rant, but I DETEST the idiocy of rebooting / reimaging / remaking old things and re-using the same name ... it makes no sense whatsoever.

[old-fool]

What you are essentially saying is that once things are done they should be set in stone, and never changed. Looking back at some of the remakes in film, TV, etc. I can't see how that would work. I love Shakespeare, but to your concept, none of the films of the plays would exist. The wonderful performances, the recreation of his plays in the modern era, etc. wouldn't happen. Take Ricahrd III, a favourite of mine, (shock eh?) a great play, but seeing Ian Mckellen take on the role, based as it was in the film in the 1930's/40's, was a masterpiece.

I understand the issue with not wrecking a concept, but you picked a poor example with Battlestar Galactica. The reimagined series was incredible and is probably the best sci-fi series ever made. I say that as a big ST and B5 fan. BSG was so much better than the original, which I also love. It was also not a carbon copy. It used the same starting point, (ish) and the same baseline, but everything else was new. I'd say that was also true of the Batman films, all of them. I don't say that they were based on the comics, that's nonsense. Again, they take inspiration from, and run with it.

As far as I can see it, life is about change, and so are films, TV series and so on. Some we won't like, so you leave them. Others we do and take them on board. What is rather objectionable is the idea that all change is, for it's own sake, and before a scene has been shot, wrong. We don't know what the next SW films are to be like. No one has outside Lucasfilm and Disney. It's like saying that all George Lucas's ideas, film, whatever are good. They weren't, some were dogs, and GL is a flawed character. Aren't we all? So, rather than generating lots of heat rather than light, give the new flicks a chance.

I love SW. I have a sci-fi room filled with it. I don't want the new films to be bad, and if they are, like TMP was, I won't watch them again. But, take it from me when I say that Disney won't want this to end at Ep 7. They paid £2.5 billion and don't want a lemon for that money. There will be so many people watching how this goes that it won't come down to one man.

[Buzz Bumble]

...

I understand the issue with not wrecking a concept, but you picked a poor example with Battlestar Galactica. The reimagined series was incredible and is probably the best sci-fi series ever made....

Ahh, the silly old "it was good" meaingless excuse ... which completely misses the point and is the stage where I give up bother to explain the point any further.

[old-fool]

God forbid anyone should have an idea that something can be improved, that's not an excuse for anything. By the way, how is your Model T Ford these days?