Hello
everyone! How are you doing?
I just found out
today (1/25/2013) that director and producer J.J. Abrams has been chosen
to helm the new "Star Wars" movie, slatted
for 2015. Very old news for the rest of you by now, granted, but I just have to
share my thoughts here regardless.
Because that's what the Internet is all about - complaining about anything
and everything!
Now
before I begin, I must state that I'm not the biggest fan of "Star Wars", even before "The Phantom Menace" arrived in theaters over a
decade ago. The extreme dichotomy between good and evil with no margin in
between, and a sad tradition of mugging actors who look like they really don't
want to be there, are my chief complaints. Oh, and a general lack of respect for
otherwise sentient robot characters, outside well received guest appearances
from David Tennant.
But
it's still Star Wars, and my fondness, or care for the franchise is present
enough to lead me to write the following article (extended rant).
*************
Now
I'm also not a J.J. Abrams hater like most critics and Internet commentators tend
to be, but when I think of the Star Wars Universe (for better or
for worse), I think of massive colorful landscapes and characters (at least in
appearance over personality - again, see mugging), with related good
cinematography and / or imaginative artistry. Even the cold planet of Hoth, and
the emotionless interiors of the mechanized Death Star, are both nicer to look at than similarly
theme locations found elsewhere in fiction.
And
from what I've seen from Mister Abrams past works...those elements are NOT in
his repertory, unfortunately.
He's
one of those science fiction craftsmen who underplays everything he does, as
most Hollywood film makers often tend to do - even in the supposed unlimited age
of computer generated imagery, or 'CGI' for short. And although that might work with most of
the material that these men and women are given to work on, it's an otherwise
bad fit when it comes to something as bombastic as the "Star
Wars" films.
I
know the "Star Trek" franchise, as a whole, was never really about insane
aliens and space monsters, but there was a earnest attempt at colorful alien
variety while Gene Roddenberry was still kicking about, as evident in his own
Star Trek motion pictures, the Filmation cartoon spin-off, and "The
Next Generation". But Abrams' own handling of the Trek mythos, although not bad, was still pretty tame and even visually neutered. And that's even by
the more unimaginative comparisons of previous Trek films and television
series.
'Star
Trek light' if you will.
And
of course, there's his overt use of darkness in his films...And no, not darkness
as in story material or subject matter, but literal darkness, as in poorly lit
and purposely so shots, hampered further by limited cinematography and related
artistry. He never goes as bad as the later-era "Harry
Potter" films, which it comes off to me like grown men blindly
fighting each other with three-or-more glow sticks, in a completely unlit
warehouse during a prolonged Alaskan night.
But
Abrams films like "Super 8" and "Cloverfiled" come dangerously close to the line, or even
over stepping it on occasion. This 'Stage Lighting Blackouts Syndrome' of course
obscures any coherent scenes, and more so, any and all creature designs.
"But
Enshohma (You might say), the overt use of lens flair isn't dark at all!"
No, it
isn't...for that's on the complete opposite end of my 'problem specter', and the
amount J.J. Abrams flaunts it, it breaks the forth wall with as much subtlety
than a plate of pancakes, being shoved into the camera every ten-seconds for a
cheap 3D gimmick.
Getting
right back to underused monster and alien designs - that's also something Abrams
seems to excel at in all of his projects, which comes off like a bad mixture of
being way-to-realistic with your admittedly silly monster movie, or again,
typical of Hollywood, laughably timid (the 2011 "Green
Lantern" movie for example).
I'd
like to give J.J. Abrams the benefit of doubt, and hope that he hasn't done
'creature spectacle' in his past works because the studios were holding him
back...But than I remember to myself that he's very much in the "Jaws" school of cinematic thinking, by never showing any
non-human characters for any significant amount of time...which in my opinion
works only in the suspense style of that aforementioned film, but not in outrageous space fantasies like "Star Wars".
*************
I
know I might be over reacting here (for all the right reasons), but this feels
like yet another bad decision that the 'Hollywood Suits' tend to do, when pairing
a film's manager, to an ill fitting subject matter that's almost the opposite of
what he or she understands, nor even cares about.
Like
placing two otherwise competent film makers on a project, whose fantastical
subject matter doesn't at all appeal to them, even remotely. And thus the two
alter the said material to their own extreme preferences, that we end up with
something that's completely, if not insultingly against the source material.
Akin to the similar situations that plagued the making of "Super Mario
Bros the Movie", and of course the 1998 American Godzilla.
And
I actually liked "Super Mario Bros the Movie"!
Now
with J.J. Abrams, he no doubt will do a better job than the aforementioned
examples, but I still can't shake off the dumb-downing and visual blandness of
his "Star Trek" reinterpretation, which wasn't further helped
by script writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who unlike Abrams, are bigger
offenders in this regard.
And maybe Abrams will tone down his own idiosyncrasies
to deliver an actual Star Wars-like, or at least Star Wars-looking product. This
is after all, a genre I do love, and as such, I give almost every science
fiction and fantasy film a fair chance when they get released, even when I have
MAJOR reservations like I'm sharing here.
Plus,
let's face facts and note that J.J. Abrams is a rather smart filmmaker (lens
flare not withstanding), unlike say someone like Michael Bay. So if Abrams' does
fail at "Star Wars", at least we know he was putting
some effort into the proceedings.
Although
just like Michael Bay, I have the sneaking suspicion that J.J. Abrams'
continuing success in Hollywood has much less to do with the caliber of his
work, and more to do with how well he personally appeals to the studio heads behind
operations.
But
even with that stated, this is all still a less than a promising start to the
new cycle of this already troubled franchise. Especially after a good number of
weeks when the future of Star Wars was looking positive, with George Lucas
stepping down, and giving the reins over to Disney. Despite the obvious jokes
and gags the public loves hurling their way, Disney has done fantastic jobs with
their stewardship and support of the Muppets AND Marvel Studios
properties.
And
unlike most of you, I am mindfully grateful that they halted production on all
those terrible straight-to-video sequels, prequels, and 'midquels' of their own
animated theatrical films...Well, minus the Ticker Bell movies, and all the
freakish "Cars" flukes.
But
YET again, with J.J. Abrams being directly involved, my enthusiasm for a New
Hope (pun intended) has diffidently been diminished.
HOWEVER,
maybe you can make positive arguments, or less harsh opinions on this turn of
events, and as such, I more than encourage you to share them here, beyond the
usual, expected 'this sucks' replies.
-Love Enshohma!
