The new Star Wars film has reportedly found a director. JJ Abrams is here to rescue the series by taking charge of Star Wars: Episode VII, but can the same man captain both Star Wars and Star Trek?
TheWrap reports that after successfully rehabilitating Star Trek, JJ Abrams appears to have beaten other contenders to the Star Wars gig, including Ben Affleck, Matthew Vaughn and Guillermo Del Toro.
Disney bought production company Lucasfilm, the home of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, last year -- and immediately announced it would milk the cash cow begin a new chapter in the beloved series. That prompted me to ask whether we're overwhelmed by franchises, but I'm still excited about the prospect of new Star Wars adventures.
I'm not sold on Abrams though. Fans of Lost, Alias and Fringe may find my lack of faith... disturbing. But for my money he's yet to prove himself on the big screen -- Mission: Impossible III is just another Mission: Impossible film, and Star Trek is loud and fun, but flimsier than an Orion slave girl's nightie.
He's the brains, sweetheart
Abrams strikes me as being similar to George Lucas: an ideas man rather than a great director. He's not writing the script for the new trilogy -- that job falls to Michael Arndt, who wrote Little Miss Sunshine; Lawrence Kasdan, who penned The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark; and Simon Kinberg, who was responsible for, er, xXx 2. So he must have been hired for his visual stylings. Which consists of bunging in a load of lens flare like someone who's just discovered the FX tab in iMovie.
But it doesn't matter what I think: let's assume the guy knows what he's doing. There's a much bigger concern.
The sleek futuregazing of Star Trek is -- literally -- a galaxy far, far away from the rough-round-the-edges retro thrills 'n' spills of Star Wars. To borrow a metaphor from another classic sci-fi series, having the same guy in charge of Star Trek and Star Wars feels like crossing the streams.
Still, he can't be worse than George Lucas, can he?
Let's blow this thing and go home
The new Star Wars movie is set for 2015. Star Trek Into Darkness hits UK cinemas on 17 May this year. In the meantime, get your extra-terrestrial kicks with the coolest spacecraft that actually exist, our favourite evil computers, and the best gadgets from Red Dwarf.
Is Abrams the man for the job, or is it a case of Jar Jar Abrams? Tell me if you've got a bad feeling about this in the comments, or on the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is our Facebook page.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 19
Add your comment
anonymous 25 January, 2013 18:36
Wouldn't it be funny if he also directs the new Mass Effect movie? LOL
anonymous 25 January, 2013 19:14
Well, he already broke the star trek universe by destroying Vulcan... I dare not think what he'll do to star wars...
Damien2501 25 January, 2013 19:24
The 2009 Star Trek film was crap. Why dafuq is JJ still at the helm for another film? F-ing beam him over to the Klingons, SNM. Also, Star Wars is a pathetic light show in my opinion, though its much better than Star Trek 09.
Ben Adamson 26 January, 2013 00:08
Star Trek was a reboot and it was a fairly credible one. That said, I must admit that as something of a Trek traditionalist I cringed when I first heard "Dilithium chambers at maximum!" - What the hell does that even mean?!
Star Wars, however, is a different matter. To my mind it doesn't need a gritty reboot - it needs continuing with the same style that we've already seen in the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy. Fingers crossed that Star Wars stays faithful to the original formula!
Jason Dimopoulos 26 January, 2013 12:29
So you obviously missed super 8! Which was a brilliant blockbuster. JJ is great at making big films, which he showed with star track... Star wars is not a small indie film any more and so disney want it to be a huge blockbuster. Which is what JJ can deliver with aplomb. Although if it was up to me I would have gone down the route of less CGI and more props and costumes for that classic star wars look, I'm thinking Michael Gondry.
Late8 26 January, 2013 17:28
JJ is the man Star Wars - ..... that's because he ruined Trek. He tried to make it Star Wars.
It isn't.
Wars is gun-ho action for Kids.
Trek is a Sci Fi
CaptainPicard 26 January, 2013 19:40
Well done JJ on the new job! Multiple posters above have mentioned JJ made a Star Trek film in 2009, WHAT?? I can't find any Star Trek film made by JJ in 2009. I'm sure people have got it mixed up with some other film.
anonymous 27 January, 2013 10:17
JJ is an amazing director and I think personally he would do a good job with a star wars movie but where is it going to go, the original trilogy was out of this world but the prequel trilogy completely ruined it except revenge of the sith was OK, star wars was mainly about Darth Vader but he died in return of the Jedi so it will be exciting to see where the story will go from there, well we will have to see what happens...
el_perro_con_gas 28 January, 2013 12:15
@ anonymous 27/01 10:17 - there were loads and loads of follow up novels/graphic novels released and set post (and pre) ROTJ that followed not just Luke et al but created new characters that became popular in their own right. I read them up to The New Jedi Order and then lost the will because there were just too many and my reading tastes changed.
Where they go with the new movies, TV shows, etc may upset many of the fans that stayed in the star wars universe long before the prequels came out.
I'd love to see Grand Admiral Thrawn appear in the new movies.
anonymous 28 January, 2013 15:32
Star Wars is not science fiction, it is simply action/fantasy set in the future, the science of the universe it is set in is not elaborated on in any extensive fashion. The films are ok to watch, not something that I personally would watch a second time. Jedi are merely Space Wizards with light sabers instead of wands.
The misconception amongst the masses that any movie/show/literature that is set in the future is 'sci-fi' is remarkably common however.
billfred 28 January, 2013 17:31
heeerrrppp de deeerrrppp
billfred 28 January, 2013 17:33
@anonymous 28 January, 2013 15:32
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."
Ergo, you're entire argument is invalid.
anonymous 29 January, 2013 01:20
@el_Perro_con_gas......
Thanks for the up,I had no idea there were that many novels, I will most definitely look into it, I really excited now can't wait...........
anonymous 29 January, 2013 09:43
@el_perro_con_gas - I thought those books (read a couple when I was younger) were all unofficial i.e. they essentially amounted to fan fiction. Afaik they were not OK'd by George Lucas and were just used the name.
Admiral Thrawn was good though and if they decided to introduce him it could turn out very well.
el_perro_con_gas 29 January, 2013 12:04
@anonymous 29 January, 2013 09:43
I think you're right. From memory GL (always one for a quick buck) said something like 'you can mess around in my universe but I'll always have the final say'.
The authors of the follow up novels/GNs were always under strict guidance with what they could include, allude to, invent, explain etc. There was also a dedicated team that made sure that continuity was always in check as the fiction jumped back and forth in the SW timeline. This also applied to the computer games released which inspired books (and vice versa). Bantam books and Balatine (I think) were the publishers and their continuity checks were quite on the mark even including really early fiction released in the early 80s about Lando and Han.
After years of these books GL would then drop bombs such as midichlorians in The Phantom Menace meaning that future novels suddenly had to explain why they'd never been mentioned before. Not to mention the GNs about R2D2 and C3PO and their adventures many years before E1-TPM.
GL did however take some things from the fiction side, such as the name of Coruscant which I think Timothy Zahn came up with.
anonymous 30 January, 2013 10:53
@Billfred 28 January, 2013 17:33
Still isn't Science Fiction
Any fan claiming it is = deluded, and not really informed on what sci-fi actually is.
el_perro_con_gas 30 January, 2013 12:40
@anonymous 30 January, 2013 10:53
Apologies to keep harping on about the novels in the Star Wars universe, but there was plenty of science fiction/fact in those. But if basing purely on the movies then you're right, it's much more fantasy.
mcerskine 31 January, 2013 15:17
Pray enlighten us Billfred. What is the one true definition of Science Fiction? Please explain how space travel, swords made from light, aliens, clone wars, and a million other science fiction elements make Star Wars not Sci-fi. Granted there are a ton of fantasy elements in the films and books. That's no reason to call everyone who's ever seen Star Wars, and realized it was science fiction immediately, deluded.
anonymous 6 February, 2013 18:39
What are all you talking about. First off Star Trek was a new reboot in ways it was not a continuation. As a trekky I found it really good. It captured the essence of the original series but added modern movie telling and character development. I am starting to think no one can like anything any more as if the Internet has made everyone constant bitchers that have to hate every thing they see.