Bold prediction IT MAY BE, I know its not that bold to predict that, but I still think it.

I have a feeling that his respect for the trilogy and his lack of pretention will give us the humor the second trilogy lacked and an edge the first trilogy didn't have (And probably didn't really need).

Contrary to the naysayers, his Star Trek movies were great fun and if the script is there, The Force Awakens will be the most exciting, most intelligent Star Wars epic yet.

I doubt anything can really eclipse the magic of the first one now that we've seen it all, but in terms of pure entertainment, I have complete confidence in Abrams ability to deliver the goods.

his respect for the trilogy and his lack of pretention

You couldn't be more wrong.

>>2
If you haven't seen the movie, you can't be right, yet.

>>3
We're talking about Abrams here. This guy has one of the biggest egos ever, he respects only himself.

>>4
So, I guess the fact that he made two terrific Star Trek movies and easily the best Mission Impossible film doesn't earn him the right to be confident in himself?

>>5
That's a very subjective statement.

>>6
Until he directs a few movies that lose money or score less than 70% on Rotten Tomatoes (Which he has not yet done) I think its safe to say he's directing good movies.

I've enjoyed all of his films (Though the second half of Super 8 was a big let down).

It'll be nothing more than an expensive looking fan-film.

>>8
Like the Brilliant Star Trek and the very, very good Star Trek Into Darkness?

>>9
Imo, ST:09 is average. ST:ID is garbage.

>>10
That explains their huge critical and box office success and Abrams landing the coveted Star Wars directing job.

>>11
Transformers has grossed nearly $4 billion worldwide to date.

There's no rule that states only good films or good directors shall be successful at the box office.

>>12
None of the Transformers movies were critically acclaimed.

Star Trek 09 got 95% on RT, Into Darkness 87%.

Transformers got 57% and Revenge of the Fallen got 19%.

Nice try, though.

>>13
Critically acclaimed is just a matter of opinion. Besides, I'd take Roger Ebert's opinion over 'rotten tomatoes' anyway. He gave both of them just 2.5/4.

Star Wars 7 : Coming soon. Another 2.5 from JJ.

>>14
When the critics and the box office agree, it's kind of hard to say a film is garbage.

And Roger Ebert gave Speed 2:Cruise Control 3 stars and Die Hard 2 stars.

Again, nice try.

>>15
It's quite easy to say a film is garbage if that's what you think. Hiding behind 'I must be right in thinking this film is good because that's what the critics say' is the worst kind of rebuttal.

>>16
Whose hiding? I love both films and apparently waaaaaaaay more people agree with me than you.

What a dumb comment.

>>17
Which gets back to the Transformers point.

No, actually it doesn't. JJ Abrams films appeal to critics and audiences alike because they are well above average films made by a seriously talented director.

That simply cannot be said for Michael Bay.

As has been said most of his work is sequels or reboots to popular franchises and his only non franchise movie has been forgotten.

I thought Star Trek: Into Darkness was very well made, so if I enjoyed that, I'm trusting Abrams to come up with something competent for the Star Wars series. Who would have thought a few years ago that one director would have been working on both the Star Trek and Star Wars series? If he did Star Trek well, then I think he'll handle Star Wars at least better than the prequels trilogy that was finished a decade ago.

I'd be surprised if better than Empire, but I can't see any reason why it couldn't be better than the rest.

If it has and ending and better actors than Mark Hamill and Carrie Fischer (Which is not that hard to accomplish) it can be better than The Empire Strikes Back.

After royally taking a dump on Star Trek, I'd say no.

Both Star Treks were huge hits and critical successes. Every filmmaker in the business hopes to take that very same dump on every film they make.

Agreed. It definetly has the potential to be the best Star Wars film.

The new Star Wars will be entertaining, I'm quite certain. But I wonder if it will have any class?

You say JJ Abrams lacks pretention, and that makes some sense to me. For you it's a lack of pretention, for me it's a lack of class.

Abrams lacks restraint. He has no ideals. He's willing to do anything to entertain. If he was filming a documentary about wild animals he'd first splash brightly colored pastel paints across the lions and zebras in order attract the viewer's eye. He's got talent, but he detracts from his subject matter whenever he reverts to his compulsive concern about never allowing his audience's attention to wander. Who really wants a bag of M&M's sprinkled across their T-bone steak?

I found his Star Trek and MI movies rather boring. While you can see he tries to entertain audiences non stop, he doesn't really succeed. So he is pretty much useless as a director.

He's directed four feature films, all hits, ranking at 70%, 82%, 85% and 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.

How does a useless director helm four hit for movies with those rankings? Could it be that he's just a good director?

I doubt it.

>>30
You following me, brah?

Abrams is nearing 50 and has yet to make anything resembling an interesting film. I don't see that changing, let alone is it likely he'll manage anything even half as cinema incarnate as the original 1977 Star Wars.

If The Force Awakens isn't an outright embarrassment (which even I don't think it will be), even if it's competently entertaining, it'll still be nothing more than what is already apparent with its marketing: a fan made super-commercial.

>>32
This pretty much sums it up. Of the two franchises he has taken on so far, he has only avoided making the worst instalments by default i.e. the bar was so low to begin with. This will probably be true of Star Wars too: it will be very difficult to make films as poor as the first two prequels.

>>33
/\
This.

Abrams greatest ability outside of marketing (which is where his real talent lies) is as a safe pasticheur who can approximate another filmmaker's style on the surface without really delivering the substance (or, as Into Darkness' reinvention of the franchise's optimistic view of a future that works into a militaristic one that doesn't, without even really understanding the dominant tone and worldview). On one level that makes him a desirable commodity for studios who want a safe, unthreatening pair of hands for a franchise who won't shake things up too much, but it does result in films that are just okay rather than particularly good. It's hard to see him having the vision or imagination to create a film franchise from scratch that would capture a huge audience, but he can keep an existing one treading water.

>>34

(or, as Into Darkness' reinvention of the franchise's optimistic view of a future that works into a militaristic one that doesn't, without even really understanding the dominant tone and worldview)

Not sure where you're getting this from considering that the film is built around Kirk trying to prevent a war, as he and other Captains have done plenty of times before.

>>35
While working for an inherently corrupt and warmongering Federation that uses a mass murderer to do its dirty work. The TV series offered a more optimistic vision of a future where mankind had solved most of its own problems and went off into space trying to sort out those of other planets (whether those other planets wanted them to or not) in favour of a more militaristic vision and turns a crew that worked together into one that spends most of the movie tearing itself apart in clumsy and contrived ways as they turn on each other for no better reason than someone deciding it would make for more drama.

What I hated about the last Star Trek film was it's thinly covered 9/11 Truth Movement propaganda. It was obviosuly meant to imply that 9/11 was an inside job. That Orci, one of the main writers, is a big supporter of the "Truth" movement is obiviousl

That explains the substantial box office and way above average critical response to his four films (MI III was the lowest at 70%, the rest were 82%, 85% and 96%)

Kind of stupid to say his films don't resemble anything even remotely interesting when critics and audiences are mostly in agreement that his movies are worth seeing.

You do understand the concept of argumentum ad verecundiam, do you not?

Yes, and I still think its stupid to say a man hasn't made a film that resembles anything interesting when all of his films were BOTH critical and box offices successes.

I can understand box office success not guaranteeing quality (Adam Sandler) or critical success not guaranteeing box office (Too many examples to list) but when a director makes only four films and gets good box office and good to great reviews on all of them, saying he's made nothing interesting is like saying the last issue of Playboy magazine didn't have a single girl in it who had a nice ass.

You're obviously being way too picky and/or judgmental.

Yeah but brah most of his work has been on popular franchises his non franchise work Super 8 isn't really remembered and one could argue Spielberg being producer was responsible for it's success if you look at Spielberg's name on the posters it is bigger.

Yeah but his franchise work has been the best of the bunch. Both Star Treks were terrific films and MI III was easily the best in the series. It's not easy at all to come into an established series and outdo your predecessors.

You make it sound like directing a good Star Trek or MI movie is a foregone conclusion because it has a built in audience. George Lucas proved with the new trilogy that's not always the case.

his franchise work has been the best of the bunch. Both Star Treks were terrific films

Would that be the Star Trek Into Darkness that Star Trek fans voted the worst movie in the series? Admittedly that's showing a very short memory or throws up the meaning of e possibility that they've blocked Star Trek Nemesis from their collective consciousness.

MI III was easily the best in the series.

Not even close, though it's certainly better than MI2 while remaining curiously average despite having all the right ingredients.

It's not easy at all to come into an established series and outdo your predecessors.

And who knows, one day he might even manage it.

George Lucas proved with the new trilogy that's not always the case.

Would that be the hugely commercially successful prequel trilogy which grossed $2.65b before inflation (an average of $883m each, more than both of Abrams Star Trek movies combined)? Since you're the one claiming that Abrams' commercial success invalidates the possibility of any criticism of his work you might want to reconsider that claim while you're looking up the meaning of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Yes, and I still think its stupid to say a man hasn't made a film that resembles anything interesting when all of his films were BOTH critical and box offices successes.

So, in other words, you don't understand it. At all.

Abrams' kinetic style is more suited for Star Wars, his Star Trek efforts were lackluster and totally missed the mark.

I doubt it will be better than The Empire Strikes Back, but who knows. Everything is possible.

>>46
Unsurprising prediction coming from a tasteless, talentless moron like you.

Abrams will do what he always does; make glossy, logic-free, perfectly entertaining but completely disposable fan fiction.

As long as it's better than the prequels and doesn't have the cutesy elements of Jedi.

I can't imagine it being better than Star Wars or Empire though.

My own predictions..based on Abram's previous work (both Television and Movies): The new Star Wars film will have plotholes and leaving many threads hanging at the end...and not as a set up for a sequel but through sheer clumsy plotting.

It might still be entertaining ,of course,but Abrams just cannot seems to get away from those faults.

Doubtful, but I'm certain his Star Wars film will be way better then the prequels, which isn't saying much, I know.

Written by the same guys who wrote Transformers, right?

I hope you're right, and the trailers are promising. I also thought the Star Trek movies he did were great fun (particularly Into Darkness IMO, but I know Star Trek "fans" hate it), so I have high expectations for Star Wars. It could easily go wrong though, just like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I'm a fan of the old Star Trek movies and I thought Into Darkness was great fun, too, but I prefer the 09 reboot.

I don't think the new one can go Crystal Skull though because Abrams is on a roll and he's not trying to out do his own previous Star Wars films. What Star Wars desperately needed was a new man at the helm and JJ is the right man for the job.

I highly doubt it. Abrams doesn't seem like the kind of director who can really bring something fresh, bold and innovative to a franchise. He didn't really do so with Star Trek. He's too safe of a filmmaker to really do something fresh, bold and innovative for this new Star Wars film.

I hope it's good, but I have my doubts. I only like one film of his, Super 8, which I haven't seen in awhile. His M:I film is decent, but nothing more, Star Trek 09 is good, nothing more, and even calling it good is a bit generous, and Star Trek Into Darkness nearly put me to sleep on my first viewing.

I seriously, seriously doubt it, I could see it being better than the last trilogy with Jar Jar Binks, though. Using models and less reliance on CGI is awesome news I just have serious doubts concerning the story/script/characters. Plus, Abrams, even if his style is a decent fit for Star Wars I still haven't seen a decent film that he's directed.

It's going to be at least one we deserve.