Is JJ a clone of Steven Spielberg?
 

Add a beard and a little makeup to JJ and he could pass for Steven. They even wear similar glasses?

I hope so :D

Interesting.

Abrams might be an easy-going guy to work with and a technically versatile moviemaker but is not interested in good themes. The earliest movies of Spielberg I am familiar with are Duel and Close Encounters, timeless movies, big cinema. Abrams will never play in that league.

I would have more issue if it was Abrams who was suggesting that he was such in the first place, but since it's really others who are doing that I think the comparisons are pretty pointless.

A lot have people have been compared to Spielberg over the years but ultimately he is rather unique and it's always an unwise comparison. At best, he belongs in the company of Lucas, Ford Coppola etc and those directors that emerged in the 1970s and then went in different directions, rather than the directors of today.

Spielberg has his flaws and I'm not in awe of his films as I used to be because his films are starting to vary more widely in worthiness - but he is relatively incomparable as a director of pure cinema.

Abrams is fine at what he does, but I wouldn't call him a successor.

JJ Abrams to me is a genius and brilliant you know why he made Star Trek yes I know worshipping him.

Speaking of Abrams, looks like a Cloverfield prequel is on the way.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2010/05/...verfield.shtml

Sounds interesting - I would have enjoyed Cloverfield more if not for the too heavY shaky cam employed by Matt Reeves.

It was a pretty good low-budget flick.

If Super 8 is a real film (if it is I hope they keep that title!) and is shot the same way though, I doubt I would go to the cinema too see it. The headaches cause by Cloverfield's camera-work made me have to leave before the film was over.

Now, he's saying it has nothing to do with Cloverfield...
http://trekmovie.com/2010/05/05/jj-a...h-cloverfield/

Never say never :001_tongue: