UPDATE: Disney Confirms J.J. Abrams To Direct New ‘Star Wars’ Movie For Disney

UPDATE, 8:56PM TODAY: Disney has just confirmed J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars: Episode VII. Screenplay is written by Michael Arndt. Abrams, his longtime producing partner Bryan Burk, and Bad Robot are producing along with Kathleen Kennedy under the Disney/Lucasfilm banner. Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are consulting. Kasdan was screenwriter on The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Return of the Jedi. Kinberg was writer on Sherlock Holmes and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

From the release:

“It’s very exciting to have J.J. aboard leading the charge as we set off to make a new Star Wars movie,” said Kennedy. “J.J. is the perfect director to helm this. Beyond having such great instincts as a filmmaker, he has an intuitive understanding of this franchise. He understands the essence of the Star Wars experience, and will bring that talent to create an unforgettable motion picture.”

George Lucas went on to say “I’ve consistently been impressed with J.J. as a filmmaker and storyteller. He’s an ideal choice to direct the new Star Wars film and the legacy couldn’t be in better hands.”

“To be a part of the next chapter of the Star Wars saga, to collaborate with Kathy Kennedy and this remarkable group of people, is an absolute honor,” J.J. Abrams said. “I may be even more grateful to George Lucas now than I was as a kid.”

PREVIOUS, THURSDAY PM: Star Trek director J.J. Abrams will be helming the next Star Wars movie. “It’s done deal with J.J.,” a source with knowledge of the situation told Deadline today. Argo director Ben Affleck was also up for the gig, the source says. Despite saying publicly that he didn’t want to direct a new Star Wars, Abrams was courted heavily by producer Kathleen Kennedy to take the job. Expected in 2015, Episode VII will be the first new Star Wars movie since 2005′s Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith. Michael Arndt is writing the script for the first installment of the relaunch of George Lucas’ franchise by Disney. The company bought Lucasfilm in October for $4 billion, with the Star Wars franchise the jewel in the crown. At the time, CEO Bob Iger said three more Star Wars films were in the pipeline. (For more information visit the Star Wars site.) Abrams’ other space-based franchise sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, comes out May 17. This weekend, the PGA will honor the Lost creator and Revolution producer with its 2013 Norman Lear Award For Television. Abrams is repped by CAA and Oasis Media Group.

Comments (407)

  • Cool. Suck it, haters.

    Comment by Bob — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:47pm PST  
    • Agreed. This is amazing!!!!!

      Comment by Levi — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:10pm PST  
      • This will be classic! It’s nice to know JJ didn’t stop at Good Times and has decided to further his career. DYN-O-MITE!!!!

        Comment by EJJ — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 7:09am PST  
        • LOL

          Comment by LL2 — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 10:13pm PST  
    • Thank you, God. I love George Lucas but man, those last three Star Wars movies sucked.

      Comment by Bob Whiteballs — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:33pm PST  
      • So did the last Star Trek…

        Comment by cas127 — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 10:47pm PST  
        • I for one LOVED the last ST Watched it about 13 times.

          Comment by Steve — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:07am PST  
        • Agreed.. The last Star Trek did suck. Hopefully JJ will realize that shaking the camera does not make a good movie…

          Comment by JD — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:24am PST  
        • The last Star Trek movie was the best Star Trek movie of them all. Maybe you are thinking of the first Star Trek movie or the one directed by Shatner? The difference: a great script to start with.

          Comment by Brad — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:17am PST  
        • The last ST was fantastic. Been watching it since the old days. JJ did a wonderful job of it.

          Comment by Joe Doakes — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 6:44am PST  
        • Agreed. Doing Star Wars is a much better fit for JJ than Star Trek. His first Star Trek film in 2009 (and presumably the new one this year) was really a Star Wars film dressed up with ships and characters from Star Trek. I am *not* complaining about the changes that he made to the timeline (destruction of Vulcan, etc.); those things are to be expected in a re-boot of a franchise. I *am* complaining that he never captured the *feel* of Star Trek, the optimism and hope of humanity being better in the future, the plots that made you think, rather than being slugfests and car chases.

          I sincerely hope JJ will do well with the Star Wars film, and that he’ll be at the helm of the two that follow. Hopefully, that will keep him so occupied that he will drop Star Trek altogether.

          Comment by Silver Fox — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 9:49am PST  
          • That’s excactly what is missing, thankyou, I still watch the old Star Treks (shows)for that very reason…substance not just action.

            Comment by Carl — Sunday January 27, 2013 @ 9:19am PST  
        • You’re crazy… Star Trek rocked.

          Comment by fred — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 11:05am PST  
        • Indeed.

          Comment by Harry Mudd — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:34pm PST  
        • He did a great job directing, but the writing on it was horrible, in my opinion. No connection to the work of Roddenberry. It didn’t have a philosophical spin, or lessons about humanity that Roddenberry made apparent. The villain was the worst Star Trek villain of all time, with literally zero menace (no fault of Eric Bana, but the writing) and the red matter plot made zero sense.

          Comment by JohnDoe — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 2:32pm PST  
      • Wow, you must not be a Star Wars fan at all to say something so crazy.

        Comment by David — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 6:57am PST  
    • This is fine as long as he stays true to the universe and the mythos, unlike what he pulled with Star Trek, or at the very least leaves that lens flare BS at home when he makes the journey to A Galaxy Far Far Away.

      Comment by NervisRex — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 9:22pm PST  
      • So your idea of staying true to Star Trek is … not featuring lens flares?

        Comment by Alan B — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 5:45am PST  
      • I lost all respect for this guy after what he did to startrek 2009. That film was average at best, but the fact that it wasn’t true to the preceding films and 28 seasons of TV shows made it horrible beyond description. The lens flares were bad too, but the dark lighting was very untrek. It was a horrible script, poorly executed and left lifelong trek fans feeling like they had lost a universe that gave them reason to have hope for the future. He did more then kill the trek franchise, he killed the future dreams of millions of trek fans worldwide and I don’t think he had any idea how much the trek universe meant to the fans before he carved it up without a clue what he was doing. I’d love to see some more trek shows/movies based on tos/tng/ds9/voy/ent, but nothing at all to do with st2009, or even nemisis for that matter. First Contact was the last good trek film in my opinion, and I suspect he’s going to do the same thing for starwars, just make another average scifi movie that has nothing to do with the starwars universe except some of the characters. I don’t think I’ll be watching this until it is on cable.

        Comment by TuuS — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 7:11am PST  
        • That’s why it’s called a “reboot”.

          Comment by Rob H. — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 3:43pm PST  
          • That’s why reboots often suck.

            Comment by Saverio Nardella — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:07pm PST  
        • This is exactly right. I’m not a Star Trek fan AT ALL, but I can absolutely appreciate that JJ’s Star Trek doesn’t capture the essence of Star Trek at all. I’m hoping that’s because, as he’s said, he was never a Star Trek fan growing up, so he felt free to make it his own (a pretty lame excuse if you ask me), and that, because he WAS a Star Wars fan growing up, he’ll take great pains to capture the essence of the original trilogy instead of feeling the freedom or the need to do his own thing. I sincerely hope this is the case.

          That said, it’s hard to imagine anyone messing up the essence, continuity, or magic of the original Star Wars trilogy WORSE than George himself did with the prequels. My level of expectation has been set so impossibly low, that I can’t imagine it’s possible for this film to disappoint me. JJ may not be able to deliver just what the fans want, but he’s not going to openly disregard the fans like George insisted on doing.

          Separate note – whatever he does, it CANNOT look like Star Trek 2009 – not because there was any inherent problem with how that movie looked, or that that look would be incompatible with the Star Wars franchise, but because we just CANNOT have those two franchise stylistically intermingled. Fortunately, I do know from what JJ has said that he is 100% aware of this, and it’s the biggest reason he was such a holdout in agreeing to do the movie – he knows that the possibility of making the two franchises the least bit indistinguishable would be unfair to the fans.

          JJ is smart, and while I have my reservations, I can scarcely imagine who would be better for the job, and who could better prevent excessive studio interference (the real reason movies suck these days).

          Comment by Sam — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 6:13pm PST  
    • The only director I might have been more excited to have for the new SW movies would be Joss Whedon. So I’m pretty happy about the whole new SW now.

      Comment by Azeal — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 6:43am PST  
    • I agree. If I could hand pick any director I wanted for any new Star Wars film, it would be J.J. Abrams. I loved his Star Trek reboot. And here’s a tip for the writer: for the love of God please focus more on Jedis and the Force and less on politics and romance drama. You know, kind of like the first three films.

      Comment by BigBadJohn — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 9:04am PST  
      • Or if you have some romance drama… make it real drama. Ever notice how Padme and Anakin’s relationship is supposed to be forbidden and yet… nothing bad EVER happens because of it. And they never have to try hard to conceal it. And it turns Obi-Wan knew all along and didn’t care? WTF kind of forbidden romance is that??

        Comment by Sam — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 6:17pm PST  
    • KILL JAR JAR IN THE FIRST SCENE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Comment by Shredderofmass — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 10:13am PST  
      • lol I think (hope) he’s dead already by then, but if not, throw him out an airlock

        Comment by chuck — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:57pm PST  
      • Sarlaac pit!!

        Comment by Sam — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 6:17pm PST  
    • Also known as “Lost II”.

      Comment by Sally J — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 3:32pm PST  
  • So he lied well it would have spoiled the annoucement. My question is though what about the Star Trek films after Into Darkness?

    Comment by Jamie — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:51pm PST  
    • With any luck, it means Abrams can go and play in his stated preferred playground, the STAR WARS universe & Paramount can get somebody who actually likes STAR TREK to steer that universe away from the black hole it’s flying towards (again).

      Comment by KJB — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 2:40pm PST  
      • And make it smart and boring again?

        Comment by ILDC — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 3:04pm PST  
        • LOL!!

          Comment by NYCS — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:27pm PST  
        • No, to make it intelligent and relevant again. Like the original series that started it all.

          Comment by Anonymous — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:27pm PST  
          • Yes, such intelligent and relevant things like “What have you done with Spock’s… brain?!”

            Hey, I love the Original Series, but as intelligent it could be, it was just as–if not more–campy.

            Comment by tops116 — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 10:34pm PST  
          • Tribbles.

            Comment by Teeph — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:23am PST  
          • It was the 60′s everything on TV was campy on through the 80′s.

            Comment by Bob Haywood — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:06am PST  
          • You are giving the original series way to much credit.

            Comment by matt — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:23am PST  
        • History repeats. We old time trekkers remember that the original series had TWO pilots. The network said that the first one was too cerebral and not enough action. Seems like the trick in Sci-Fi is to find the balance between intelligent and action-packed. Joss Wheden seems to do this better than most.

          Comment by Gary — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:31pm PST  
          • 1 Word… Firefly

            Comment by Jim — Friday February 1, 2013 @ 7:52am PST  
        • Yes! That’s exactly what ST’s supposed to be! =]

          Comment by Kplan — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 7:39pm PST  
      • I agree. JJ Abrams enjoys Star Wars and I think he will do a good job. That last Star Trek movie was not Star Trek. He made added Star Wars touches. The most blatant being an award ceremony at the end. Not to mention blowing up Alderaan I mean Vulcan. Star Trek is about discovery (there can be action too though), though the last movie was more about War and action scenes. Where’s the “Trek”?

        I like both, yet they are different.

        Comment by WingsStef — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 3:21pm PST  
        • you basically nailed it here. JJ has taken star trek where no man has gone before–down the star wars route. which was (is) a bad idea. paramount should do whatever it takes to hold onto these fans. because who else but twilight fans would buy the same sh*t over and over again just because it’s been repakaged.

          JJ was fine for Lost. and while fringe was always DOA, he is really better for the small screen. i wonder what sheldon would say.

          Comment by dudette — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:09pm PST  
          • Yes, because the fact that the J.J. Abrahams Star Trek was the biggest Star Trek opening, the highest grossing one, the best reviewed one means that they made a mistake allowing him to direct it. Right?

            I really don’t understand the vocal minority who try and convince people that the last Star Trek movie was a bad one. The Star Trek franchise was pretty much dead. The last movie completely revitalized it, made Chris Pine a star and Abrahams one of the hottest directors in Hollywood. Both audiences AND critics loved it. Even if YOU didn’t like it, it’s hard to argue with results.

            Comment by Tim W. — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:57pm PST  
          • Everything that Tim W. said in his reply TIMES 1,000.

            Comment by Screenwriter — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:55pm PST  
          • Just because a movie makes a ton of money, doesn’t make it a good movie.

            Comment by max — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:22am PST  
          • I’m a huge TOS and DS9 fan and I’ve seen every episode of every Trek series. I’ve read the novels. The comics. I’ve even seen the ’70s cartoon. Back in ’09, I was skeptical of the reboot. I ended up paying to see it five times. Critics and most Trek fans seemed to love Abrams’ Trek, but since ’09 the “vocal minority” Tim W. mentioned has been trying to rewrite history. Sorry, but you’re not going to convince many people that the filet mignon we ate was actually a Big Mac.

            Comment by DB — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:23am PST  
          • You can’t compare movies based on money unless you adjust it for difference in movie ticket costs and number of screens. When the first Star Trek came out it was could be seen for $2.50 – no theater now has prices that cheap, try $10 or more. So divide the gross by 4 and compare it to the first, but before you do that divide it again by 3 because that original movie was on less than 1/3 as many screens. When you do that you find that the original did better even though it was one of the worst movies ever made.

            And don’t yammer about critics, I’ve seen enough of the movies critics loved that were absolute garbage.

            Comment by Anonymous — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:15am PST  
          • Tim W. has said it all and said it well. I need read no further.
            Engage!

            Comment by Phil — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:58am PST  
          • Fringe was DoA? Five years is a pretty good run for a DoA.

            Comment by Bob Haywood — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:08am PST  
          • Seriously you purists are pains in the warp coils. I enjoyed both the original Star Trek and the reimagining. Hell my favorite series was DS9, but I loved the action and excitement they brought into Trek. You guys are like that cranky old mad yelling, get off my lawn and where’s Matlock???

            Comment by dandeman — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 10:12am PST  
        • I’ve seriously been waiting for a good Star Trek movie with some actual battle scenes in it since probably the original series. They avoided war so much that it became jarring after a while. We needed a good space ship battle, and we got it. And the movie was about 100 times better than any of the movies featuring the NG cast, all of which had the production values of the TV show.

          Comment by Rob H. — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 3:47pm PST  
          • First Contact was really, really good. Right up there with Abams’ Trek, Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home. All the other TNG films sucked ass though.

            Comment by DB — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 10:31am PST  
      • Hardly a black hole. It brought new life in to a franchise that was close to death, with no successful movies or shows anywhere in the future.
        It may not have been the Star Trek that people had come to know but that doesn’t mean Abrams was wrong in the direction he took it. The new movie has more in common with The Original Series than many realize.

        Comment by EJL — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:44pm PST  
        • How so?

          Comment by ILDC — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:24pm PST  
          • How so? Uh let’s a great script, great actors. J.J Abrams has more talent in his left testicle than anyone posting their bullshit opinions. Get over it. He helped bridge the old story with younger people. You Star Wars nerds should come out of your mommy’s basement and grow up.

            Comment by Lt Hudson — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:47pm PST  
        • I just want to add, I’ve never been a big Star Trek fan. Never got into any of the series and never saw any of the movies. That said, I really enjoyed JJs Star Trek. It was accessible to a person like me and I didn’t feel like I missed out on anything even though I have no knowledge of the prior stories. To me it was just a very good sci-fi/action flick. Hopefully, he can do the same for Star Wars and introduce that world to a whole new generation of fans. I think that’s what they’re shooting for at least.

          Comment by seign — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:28pm PST  
        • It also has a lot in common with SW, as has already been stated. Alderaan=Vulcan. Earth=Yavin 4. Nero’s ship=Death Star. Kirk=Han Solo. Spock=Luke. Uhura=Leia. Are they perfect parallels of the characters? No. But the similarities were too glaring to ignore.

          In SW, Luke Skywalker a fresh off the farm Jedi-trainee, destroys the DS and is immediately given command of a fighter squadron. In JJ’s ST, Kirk not even out of the Academy is given command of a highly advanced starship. In SW it works, it doesn’t quite work so neatly in ST.

          I disliked it not because it wasn’t an entertaining movie, but because the characters were unrecognizable from their original incarnations. Spock and Uhura? Please, even within the storyline it didn’t make sense. Spock is too much of a Starfleet officer to start a romantic relationship so soon after meeting someone. On top of that she was a cadet at the time. Did Spock’s morals go out the window for no logical reason? Kirk, while he was hot headed in the original series was never as hot headed as he appeared in that movie. Even at his most delinquent in TOS and the original movies he never acted like he did in that movie, well aside from sleeping around a lot.

          People don’t seem to realize that while there was a camaraderie between the crew in TOS, and subsequent ST shows, that at all times the crew knew who the captain was. This movie ignored that in order to elevate Kirk who came onto the Enterprise as a cadet to the Captain’s chair. Its like putting a fresh out of boot camp private in charge of a battalion. Never going to happen.

          Comment by espy — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:42pm PST  
          • Those ‘similarities’ were all in your head.

            A planet being destroyed? Hans Solo and Kirk were alike?

            Comment by American — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 9:42pm PST  
          • But remember Kirk in the original series was an old guy who had already been at the helm for a while. In this movie he is a young hotshot who hasn’t yet become the older hotshot he would become later. Besides, lest people forget, it is a different actor, different director and different decade.

            Comment by Anonymous — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 10:16pm PST  
          • Those similarities are a stretch. And since I didn’t notice them at all and this is the first I’ve heard of it even after four years (even though I frequent TrekBBS), I’d hardly call them “glaring.”

            The only character that I found unrecognizable was Scotty. The rest, especially the main three, channeled them very well. And if you don’t understand why this Kirk was more of a hot head, you’re ignoring two things: (1) He’s about ten years younger than the TOS Kirk, and (2) THIS Kirk, unlike the TOS version, lost his father and was raised by a man he couldn’t stand.

            And Kirk’s elevation to power made just as much sense as anything we’ve seen in Trek. It made far more sense than the Genesis planet, far more sense than a crew of five or six stealing and operating a starship that normally required 400 to operate it, far more sense than Kirk saving the whales, and far more sense than ANY of the contrivances in ANY of the other films. Because his rise to power was engineered by Pike; AND if you go for the metaphysical, Spock Prime theorized that the timeline itself was trying to hew as close to the original timeline as possible by forcing certain crucial elements – like the composition of the Enterprise bridge crew – to happen.

            Hey, it makes as much sense as the Borg invading 21st Century Montana with only one ship, and then never trying again once that one ship failed.

            Comment by DB — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:43am PST  
          • Actually, Kirk was the youngest or one of the youngest captains to command a starship, if I recall. So I thing he was still a relatively young hotshot although not as young as in the JJ Abrams movie. And according to the old series, Kirk said he was downright grim as a student at the academy. I believe he called himself a stack of books with legs in one episode. And talked about serving on other starships when he was younger. I would have liked to have seen more of that version. I just found it harder than usual to suspend belief when he was suddenly made captain of the Enterprise. It just felt like they were putting too much into the story line.

            Comment by JTK — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 5:43am PST  
          • You’re wrong about Spock and Uhura. According to some of my family, who are avid and devout Trekkies, the story of her and Spock was spot on. There were many glimpses in the shows that portrayed the notion that they were semi-seeing one another. If you were a TRUE fan you’d have noticed this. Supposedly, and even according to Sheldon, Vulcans were supposed to have a once in 7 year night of passion to quench their thirst for lust. If this were the case since Spock is supposed to be half-human, this would be a reason why he’d see someone on the ship and keep it professional.

            Comment by southernmarine — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 6:30am PST  
          • In the new Star Trek…Pike challenged Kirk to become a captain of his own star ship in 5 years. Kirk replied I’ll do it in 3. When Pike went to the romulon ship he left Spock in charge. Spock too was a lowly cadet. So I guess I don’t see the issue with Kirk becoming a captian from a cadet. It was a battlefield promotion so to speak. And, to keep the story moving he had to get Kirk in the command chair.

            I could see Kirk from the original series being young and cocky. Even in the original series Kirk bedded every female he met :) Also in the original series, didn’t Spock and Chapel have a thing going or is my memory bad?

            Comment by Tim — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 7:44am PST  
          • Finally. Someone who gets it.

            Comment by Silver Fox — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 9:52am PST  
          • Tim – he was NOT a lowly cadet… watch the movie again. He was a commander.. and an INSTRUCTOR at the Academy (for the past 4 years if I recall right).

            Don’t post lies.. it makes you look foolish.

            Comment by fred — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 11:09am PST  
          • Seriously, what a bunch of fatuous nonsense. You could compare Star Trek to any movie like that.

            Kirk = Jeffrey Lebowski
            Spock = Walter Sobchak

            Comment by Rob H. — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 3:49pm PST  
          • southernmarine has it right about Spock and Uhura in the original series. There was no full blown relationship, but there were definitely hints that the two connected. It’s most obvious in the “Charlie X” episode where Uhura teases Spock in a song and he actually smiles about.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B4lsvrzfZI
            Nichelle Nichols has mentioned that there was something between them in interviews before.

            Comment by misterpold — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 8:02am PST  
        • I agree. I liked the new Star Trek and I can’t wait for the newest Star Trek to come out this spring. I thought they did a great job with casting. They captured the personalities of the original series characters.

          Comment by Tim — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 7:37am PST  
        • What they need to do is basically what they did between ST OS and STNG, they need to wait a decade and come oout with a new original and stick to a core format.

          Comment by Sid — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:27am PST  
          • That’s crazy. Star Trek (2009) was wildly popular. The purists can suck it.

            Comment by Ron. T — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:03pm PST  
      • As a literate sci-fi fan, both Star Trek and Star Wars went from good action writing to mediocre tales to boring dog food, as their founders ran out of ideas and parodied themselves. J.J. will revive Star Wars, until he confuses us again with time-travel Lost paradoxes.

        Comment by Jim Whitehead — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:34pm PST  
        • Who’s “us?” I wasn’t confused. And judging from the box office, the critical reception, and most of the chatter on boards like TrekBBS and Trekweb at the time, most other Trek fans got it too.

          Comment by DB — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:46am PST  
        • Without a doubt you are correct about the last three Star Wars movies (I don’t call them films because they don’t achieve that status). They were so bad and UTTERLY POINTLESS that I walked out of the theatre thinking how could a franchise that started out so well drop to such horrible depths.

          However, the last Star Trek movie, as I said above in another post, was the best of any of them thus far (o.k. it can be argued the Wrath of Khan was the best). The script, and believable characters make all the difference.

          I can also tell you that I’d rather sit through Shatner’s Undiscovered Country ten times straight then to sit through one single minute of any of the last three Star Wars films.

          Abrams!! Please revive and give status again to Star Wars.

          Comment by Brad — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:35am PST  
    • I wonder what else he’s been lying about?
      Me?

      Comment by Khan — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:07pm PST  
  • I think Affleck would have been a much more interesting choice, but feel he would have been overwhelmed with the scale of this film.

    Comment by Michelle — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:52pm PST  
    • Affleck? Really…hey remember he is the one who ruin the Tom Clancy series of movies with the Sum of All Fears. Horrible horrible acting. Affleck can’t even hold Damon’s jockstrap….oh yea remember Daredevil? another bomb….

      Comment by Lt Hudson — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:55pm PST  
      • Can you read? Affleck to direct not act in it…

        Comment by TRW — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:46pm PST  
      • Yes thank the stars Ben afleck wasn’t picked.

        Comment by Anonymous — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:48pm PST  
  • This is some sort of blaspheme, but, some how acceptable. I’m sure he will do good by it though.

    Comment by Bruce Harrington — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:52pm PST  
  • Hope J.J. will do for Stars Wars what he did for Star Trek.

    Comment by FTCS — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:55pm PST  
    • You mean kill it for the fans so he can sell a new version to the next generation?

      Comment by Bob Singer — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:02pm PST  
      • I am 46, been watching Star Trek and its offspring since 1970. I am a huge fan, though not to extent of playing dress up and going to the freakshow conventions and such.
        I found the latest incarnation of Star Trek very good. I was not disappointed at all, though I did find it disturbing that Spocks mother was killed, and I thought the whole Romulan adversary thing was too soon after Nemesis.
        Abrams did a good job IMO and Im sure he will do fine with the lesser intelligent of the two. Star Wars, being more akin to a fairy tale and somewhat less intellectual than Star Trek, should be easier, not harder.
        The tech involved in the special effects is universally available now, so all things equal, this should be a piece of cake for Abrams.

        Comment by Grizzler — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:59pm PST  
        • I’m very similar. I love Star Trek and am a hugh fan and I loved the last movie. In addition, I heard from many non-Star Trek fans that this was the first Star Trek movie they enjoyed. I think Abrams has breathed life into the franchise. While I’d pretty much watch anything with a Star Trek title, I was glad to see it opening up to a new fan base.

          Comment by Frank Schipani — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 6:44pm PST  
        • It still surprises me that a lot of fans don’t get the “diverging timelines” theme of the most recent ST movie,

          Abrams used that (admittedly old) sci-fi favorite to tell a new Star Trek story, not try to recreate the old one, thus the differing details.

          Actually, I thought Chris Pine did one of the best Shatner imitations I’ve ever seen.

          Comment by Tdooley — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 4:21am PST  
        • I am roughly the same age and agree with everything you said. Some people’s obsession about any changes to a work of creative fiction is quite disturbing.

          The people criticizing Abrams Star Trek as some how less intelligent than the original series are simply delusional. No reasonable person could watch both and come to that conclusion.

          Comment by Matt — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:29am PST  
        • how could spocks mother be killed in pastime and be alive in the origional tv series played by jane wyman of fathers knows best by the way

          Comment by Anonymous — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:45am PST  
          • seperate timeline brah, this new star trek timeline, regardless of being in the past, doesn’t have to follow any of the rules of the original series because when the romulans went back in time everything changed

            Comment by Anonymous — Thursday February 14, 2013 @ 8:32am PST  
      • What do you mean kill it for the fans? Didn’t Lucas already do that with Episodes 1-3?? For God’s sake as long as they have the burned out, pathetically partisan Lucas out of the way I don’t care who they put in there. At least we can be relatively sure there won’t be any loosely veiled references to George Bush in the next movie. “if you’re not with me, your against me…” Ohhhhh, so spooky.

        Comment by Rhadagastt — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:30pm PST  
        • dude that had nothing to do with bush, it was just so they could set up the response “only a sith deals in absolutes” which heralded the completion of his shift to the dark side. it was the best exchange of the movie (in a movie without many of them). get over yourself.

          Comment by the oracle — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:46pm PST  
          • Only an idiot uses a word like “only” when describing the all encompassing evil of absolutes. The comment is manifestly idiotic and would be proof (if it were consistent) that Obi Wan was a Sith.

            BTW, if I was a Jedi/Sith I would spend all my time doing fine telekinesis. Then I would get really good at hitting the other guys lightsaber power button. (lalala)

            Comment by I Art Laughing — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 6:35pm PST  
          • In the movie’s universe, maybe..

            Comment by ILDC — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:01pm PST  
        • If you were upset that the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” line compared the Bush administration to the simplistic belligerence of the Dark Side, that’s because the truth hurts. I thought the politics of the prequels was annoying, but only because it was boring, not because it skewered my sacred cow.

          Comment by DB — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:51am PST  
        • Change may be good, but is hard to swallow for old fans.

          I didn’t care for Episode 1, though it seems better in retrospect than it did at the time. Episode 2 was good. Episode 3 was full of action, except for Anakin’s unconvincing betrayal of the Jedi.

          Yet I felt, and still feel, that Episodes 1-3 are inferior in most every way to Episodes 4-6.

          Notably, however, my son’s opinion is exactly the reverse.

          Abrams is a capable director, with a very un-StarWars-ish style.

          Don’t screw it up JJ. StarWars has a GIGANTIC and DEDICATED fan base. Get it wrong and your name will be mud.

          I would suggest reading all the Star Wars novels…all forty some-odd of them.

          Take notes.

          The human elements and the philosophical elements are the basis of the franchise. To do this successfully, you must master them.

          Comment by El Gordo — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:25am PST  
          • First intelligent comment I have read so far. I get pretty sick of Trekkies going on and on about how Star Wars is inferior in philosophy, and technical jargon. At least it doesn’t get in its own way for story telling, and Jedi are way more interesting to watch than a bunch of pansies in pajamas standing on a rock talking. Just to remind thoes trekkies, they are the ones that ruined STO and made it unplayable for anyone else who wasn’t a star trek psychopath. But I digress, this is a make or break endeavor, but anthing is better than Lucas as far as I am concerned. The best movie in the series was Empire Strikes Back and that was not directed by Lucas. Abrams does well in the character development, but he and the disney writers better keep the bloody lore intact, or we will end our reltionship forever!

            Comment by Jonathan — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 11:06am PST  
          • Lucas screwed up the last three Star Wars, they sucked. I am gald He is out of the picture now. Maybe Disney will release the first Star wars on DVD WITHOUT all the “improvements” Lucas did to it. I think JJ did a good job on Star Trek. I am a hugh fan of TNG and it was much better than the first one.

            Comment by Dr Zoidberg — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 11:25am PST  
          • Don’t read all the SW novels; most of them are unauthorized horse*hit. Episodes I-III are garbage and JJ Abrams is a bit of a knob when it comes to directing. The only SW is the ones that came out in 77,80 and 83.

            ST sucked ever since Shatner decided to direct things. STNG was the best TV series and the latest movie was mediocre at best. Overall, SW trumps ST in a big way including story, lore and characters.

            Suck it.

            Comment by Dengar — Wednesday February 6, 2013 @ 6:21am PST  
        • EXACTLY.

          And don’t forget the oh-so-clever Newt Gunray. Seriously, I’ve never seen a director who was so highly regarded become so terrible at making movies (except maybe M. Night Shyamalan). It leads me to suspect that it was only due to the intervention of others that the original Star Wars was any good at all.

          Comment by Rob H. — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 3:54pm PST  
    • If he does the same thing for Star Wars as he did for Star Trek, Disney will be bankrupt and the parks raised for parking lots before the year is out. Anyone who thinks Star Wars needs hipster douschbags, Steampunk starships, shakey camera work, and lots of lens flares should go back to film school.

      Comment by Steven — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:17pm PST  
      • Because obviously all of that would result from the new Star Wars films making huge amounts money….or are you living a universe where Abrams didn’t direct the most commercially successful Star Trek film to date?

        Comment by SaidTheLiar — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:08pm PST  
      • Seriously, I try not to be a grammar nazi, but at least use the right word…it is ‘razed’, not ‘raised’ ya hipster douchebag…

        Comment by Notgrammarnazi — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 6:27pm PST  
      • Wow, high rise parks at Disney World? What a neat idea. After building the raised parks, would they then raze the old parks for the parking lots?

        Comment by Frank Schipani — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 6:41pm PST  
      • AGREED!

        Comment by StillReigns — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 12:04am PST  
    • “Hope J.J. will do for Stars Wars what he did for Star Trek.” By that statement, do you mean fuck it up?

      Comment by Smiley — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 6:18am PST  
  • Wow. I need a minute to decide what I think.

    Comment by Sean — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:57pm PST  
    • Wow. I didn’t know that think before shouting your opinion was possible on the Internet.

      Comment by JB — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:50pm PST  
      • Anything is possible on the interwebs!

        Comment by Joe — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:00pm PST  
  • May the lens flares be with you.

    Comment by amirite — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:57pm PST  
    • From a friend, “Doesn’t Tatooine have two suns?! That’s a lot of effin’ lens flare”

      Comment by Anonymous — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 3:36pm PST  
      • after reading all the comments i needed a good laugh and yours was it. awesome

        Comment by wookieboy — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 6:42pm PST  
    • LOL love it

      Comment by JOE — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 4:38pm PST  
    • Mush Wisdom, there is, in this one .

      Comment by Lens Falre — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 9:44am PST  
  • All he has to do is change one word on his director’s chair. Smart.

    Comment by Snarko — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:58pm PST  
    • You win the Internet today.

      Comment by NYCS — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:29pm PST  
    • I did actually Laugh Out Loud there, thank you!

      Comment by Lee — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 5:50pm PST  
    • I’m sorry, I don’t understand the joke, can you explain?

      Comment by SutoGet — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:32am PST  
      • OH I get it. Star Wars/Star Trek.

        I was thinking directors chairs had the directors name on it, not the film name. I was thinking “Is JJ Abrams real first name George or something?”

        Comment by SutoGet — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:34am PST  
  • I have nothing against the man, but I weep for the JJ Abramsification of our popular culture icons.

    Comment by Michael — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:58pm PST  
    • No kidding!

      I find JJ Abrams’ material to be vapid, very shallow, and ultimately not filling. He’s a master of the worst aspects of action films today. And a good reason for why 1981 is a good cut-off year for that genre! (PS — Raiders was close to a perfect action film. Nothing since then has been nearly as good including the sequels!)

      Yes, the last Star Trek film has action BUT it lacked the subtleties and characterization of a GOOD Star Trek film. It’s unfortunate these these archetypal characters were reduced to 2-D caricatures. It was overly loud and very much in your face… plus it was possibly one of the worst-designed science fiction movies in a LONG time!

      Sure, these films make money. But in the long run will they stand the test of time??? Will anybody care in 10 years??? I seem to remember this JJ guy had some TV shows which lately I’ve heard very little about. It’s fast food entertainment; garbage, we still eat it, and we pay for it in what comes out the ass.

      There’s a reason why some things are classic and some aren’t.
      Star Wars is very much in danger of falling into the irrelevance that a bunch of other fictional universes have — can anyone say Lone Ranger, Green Hornet, John Carter, Zorro, and many other characters that just have very little relevance today???? Two of these characters (Lone Ranger and Zorro) probably hit their peak in the 1950s. The Green Hornet’s never been more than a middling character; John Carter appeals to a very specific (re: SMALL) crowd that likes retro pulp fiction.

      Comment by Geo C — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 7:55pm PST  
      • I’m sure JJ Abrams is crying over the fact that some guy no one ever heard of is on the Internet saying he’s barely heard of “This Abrams Guy’s” TV shows. But that does explain why you find his “material to be vapid, very shallow, and ultimately not filling” (which, by the way, is saying the same thing three times): You haven’t SEEN much of it.

        Comment by DB — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 1:58am PST  
      • Well Lost did have more viewers than every star trek series combined, but yeah you could be right.

        Comment by Matt — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 8:32am PST  
        • I love most of Abrams’ work, but Star Trek was no flop, not until Enterprise. TNG averaged between 8 and 10 million viewers during its entire run, which was great for a syndicated show that didn’t appear in all parts of the country. It was the #1 syndicated show at the time. And Voyager was the highest rated show on its crap network UPN, which again didn’t reach all parts of the country. DS9 didn’t do all that great, but IMO it was the best of them.

          I liked his take on Trek, and I’m eager to see what Abrams can do with Star Wars.

          Comment by DB — Saturday January 26, 2013 @ 10:46am PST  
    • What next a remake of Back to the Future, Independence Day, the Time Machine? Oh wait, may be we’ve gone too far?!

      Comment by Joe — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 8:03pm PST  
      • Hey, they did do a remake of The Time Machine not all too many years ago. You probably didn’t know this as it was only out at the theatres for about 2 or 3 minutes. The big problem with remakes like this (and I know I always talk about the same thing but when I’m right…) is that they attempt to rely on the advances in technology and special effects and forget about paying someone to write. It is with the writing that all good films begin and end.

        Comment by Brad — Friday January 25, 2013 @ 2:49am PST  
  • I was honestly cheering for Joe Johnson.

    Curses!!!!!

    Comment by Drat — Thursday January 24, 2013 @ 1:59pm PST  
  |  More Comments

Sorry, comments are closed for this article.