Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LifeDistortion
Another thing I'm seeing on social media sites when people throw around directors to direct the other movies is they are naming guys like Neil Blomkamp who did "District 9" and Duncan Jones who directed "Moon". Those movies are really good sic-fi, great even , but they are a different sci-fi. Sci-fi that is more mental and "Star Wars" is not that. "Star Wars" is pulpy, Buck Rogers style escapist fun.
|
Yes, which is why Whedon would be perfect, and Abrams is going to find himself struggling, and probably bitter about the limitations that will be placed on the film. Abrams is into identity, motivation, personality, and philosophy. For Star Trek, he was perfect, because the series is so intensely focused on characters and how they got to be the way they are (which Abrams addressed pretty goddamn well in the reboot).
For Abrams to take on the project and apply any of himself and his personal approach to character and plot, Star Wars is going to have to switch gears big time. Which will piss off all those fans, who want camp, loyalty, and fucking Boba Fett.
Though I will say this: I've read a Star Wars book or two in my day, and the "Thrawn" trilogy - can't remember the thing's actual name, but it starts with Heir to the Empire - would give Abrams a lot of good material to work with. A character driven space opera that's a degree or two removed from the original trilogy, but still takes place in a time frame that could work. I think. I don't know; I read it when I was fourteen.
Just make Blade Runner 2 for fuck's sake. Somebody. Or forget the boots and give us a new cinema space opera... Something entirely new and different.