[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

About dogma, Lucas' basic worldview is a gnostic or Buddhist one whereas mine is a Christian one. Notice that Anakin is a Christological figure who does evil precisely because he loves his wife too much and how this is contrasted with this "balance to the force" crap and the Jedi notion of detachment. Gee, Yoda even once says that you should let go the people you love when they are about to die. Fu*k it, precisely because I love them I would do everything to prevent them from dieing and dieing is never "natural", it is always a catastrophe.

I couldn't have a more opposing view of the world than Lucas but I also want Wars to be as Lucasian as possible. Artistic expression of an individual, a piece of art not being harmed by too many cooks, not softening its rough edges (aka not making it PC) and so on. Of course movies and TV shows are always collaborative enterprises but there has to be if not one leader at least one key main idea, one guideline, one unique artistic expression in it to make it worthwhile to be watched.

I'm not really sure if anyone's world view can truly be derived by their works of fiction. He based the Jedi on some Buddhist notions, but I don't know that that is Lucas personally.

[horatio]

I was raised Methodist. Now let's say I'm spiritual. It's Marin County. We're all Buddhists up here.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz2Ix7wopaC

The influence of Campbell upon Lucas is also well-known and fairly clearly visible in the first Star Wars movie. His believes are probably more complex and interesting than I acknowledge but I nonetheless think that there is clear a contrast between his Western Buddhist / spiritual / New Age / neopagan type of thinking and the monotheistic one.

The pagan logic is that imbalances have to be eradicated. A simple pagan sacrificed a fruit, a goat or a virgin a few thousands years ago to soothe the fertility goddess and in Buddhism (at least in the way Buddhism is interpreted in the West) you have this idea of a soul that is uninfluenced by the chaos around it, i.e. the notion that there can be an inner space of balance and tranquility. The commonality is clear, balance is the goal. Intuitively this view is very appealing.

Compare this to Job or Jesus. Job doesn't believe that the horrors he had to endure are a divine punishment (and neither did his successors, Jews who lost family members in the Shoa). The monotheistic god isn't one you can bribe to ease your life like a pagan fertility goddess. Jesus sacrifices his life for his cause and despairs at the end ("why have you forsaken me?"). Again no Jedi-esque force ghost stuff or whatever, death is horrible. Same in the other way around, there cannot be too much love or too much attachment like in the case of Anakin. It was precisely Christ's love for us that led to his death.
That balance is not the goal is perhaps as counterintuitive as "turn the other cheek" or "you gotta lose your life (on the cross) to gain it" but these very non-commonsensical ideas are, at least to me, the most precious ones in these texts.

Why do I care so much about all this theological stuff? Because I think that this is one of the greatest traditions in the Judeo-Christian legacy. When Pat Robertson thinks that 9/11 was a punishment for the sinful life of America, when progressives view 9/11 as punishment for Western imperialism or when environmentalists view global warming as a punishment for our raping of Mother Earth they fall into the pagan trap, they try to give catastrophes a meaning when there is none (there can of course be explanations but they are rarely as simple), perhaps in order to gain a feeling of being in control

[martok2112]

Interesting, well studied points.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

That pretty much hits it right on for me as well.

I am intrigued by the possibility of more SW films, even if mostly out of curiosity (doesn't mean it's not a mistake). But what does it mean for ST. I'm always going to be more curious about that.

Yeah, it kind of reminds me of when Singer took X-Men on, made two great films and then got handed Superman and then left. And X3 got made!

My guess is technically it doesn't prevent him from doing a third Trek film (since it would maybe be after 2015 a third would be made anyway) unless this Wars news turns out to be an intention for him to direct all three of these proposed Disney ones.

Disney can probably heftily outbid Paramount for his services.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I think it's probably a good fit.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

And here I am waiting on hearing from the more hard core's who'll say:
"Yeah, now JJ is where he belongs because the last Trek movie might as well have been Star Wars Episode VII"

Gee, I'm glad I don't constrain myself to one take or view or dogma on Trek/Wars/Galactica, etc.

There will be elements of that depending on what internet forums and news sites you check out! There always will be when it comes to Abrams depending on your views of both past Trek and his Trek.

But I'm just not all that excited about these new SW films. I gotta say I just can't muster much up just now about them. And even this news doesn't really sway things more in any particular direction since I'm more interested in the implications for Trek.

Basically, the SW films now appear to be films where I'm not sure really if Abrams has a level of input that he usually seems to enjoy. Like or loathe his way of making Trek he at least came in and made some choices and had input into the creative side of it. And that seems to have been continued with the Trek sequel. And Abrams seems to like being involved quite a bit in what he does. Certainly so far on film.

The SW films look really more like anybody at this point could turn up and say 'action' and everything else is done for the director. The script is being done by someone else, there's already rumoured to be pre-production underway...........basically this juggernaut already seems to be moving along without him. So............what DO they want him to bring to it beyond his name?

Although I can see that maybe it was simply one of those moments in life we all get when an offer or an opportunity is given to you and despite your other commitments you just cannot say 'no' to it. But I'm also sure he will get asked a lot of questions if this becomes definitive and the announcement gets made.

[martok2112]

Could not agree more with a lot of what's been said in the last few posts.
Looking more closely at it, you and Horatio are likely right...JJ will probably just have directorial control alone, and not really much creative input since the writer and other production elements are outside of his usual Bad Robot team.

And yeah, Disney's coffers are probably a bit more impressive than Paramount's.

Here's an interesting little factoid, one that takes a slight tangent from the discussion, but still, hopefully interesting nonetheless.

When Disney Co. decided to make "The Black Hole" for 1979 release, they wanted to rent the motion control from John Dykstra, the equipment was too expensive for loan out. So, Disney Co. had to create its own motion control unit. Known as A.C.E.S. (Automatic Camera Effect Systems), Disney Co. succeeded in not only equaling Dykstra's motion control system, but for a short time, was actually more advanced than Dykstra's.

[horatio]

Abrams is one of the best directors in Hollywood. This is reason enough to hire him. Sure, his creative input is more limited that that of the average movie director but the job is nonetheless important.
Furthermore he is a Wars fan which is, given the abysmal experiences of Trek fans having written the scripts for the last two movies, not a guarantee for good work but if you can choose between two people for one job it is pretty natural to take the one who loves your product more.

[Enterprise Captain]

Wait. I thought he already directed Star Wars?:

[samwiseb]

So that's where that rumored R2 was.

The other shots, I don't get what I'm supposed to see.