It’s not hyperbole when I say that Star Wars: The Force Awakens broke the internet tonight. Fandango announced pre-sale of tickets early by accident which caused the massive Star Wars fandom to rush on-line to be able to buy tickets before they ran out for the early showing on December 17, 2015. Well, this hasn’t gone down well with many who thought the pre-sale orders were going to go up after the trailer debuts during halftime of Monday Night Football.
I was one such out-of-luck individuals, but I remembered my days of youth when pre-ordering tickets to such event films meant going to the theater itself and buying them in person. This I did and I’m blessed to have gotten all the tickets I need.
Thus, despite Star Wars: The Force Awakens breaking the internet it would seem doing things the old-school way still rewards those who still thinks in analog and not just digital.
Now, let’s watch the latest trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens over and over before it premieres on December 18, 2015.
Nothing more to say than Star Wars: The Force Awakens is just 5 months away. It’s a wait made to seem even longer after witnessing the behind-the-scenes reel shown during this week’s San Diego Comic-Con.
I was at work when this trailer dropped and I can honestly say that I couldn’t wait to go on break so I could watch it and allow myself to react in an honest and proper way. To say that I lost my ever-loving mind once the trailer began playing would be an understatement.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens looks to return to it’s proper space opera roots. Roots as in the first trilogy instead of the much-maligned (deservedly so) prequel trilogy which would end up marking George Lucas’ final work on the franchise he created in 1977. Walt Disney Studios has bought all that is Star Wars and the industry which sprung from it’s creation and are now master of all.
J.J. Abrams now has the tough task of pulling back in the fans that felt disappointed at how the last three films in the franchise turned out. From what this teaser trailer has shown he seems to have come up with a new entry in the franchise that may just delight fans old and new.
Oh yeah, Chewie is back alive and well. No more of that dropping a moon on his head crap.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens set to give the world a fine Christmas 2015.
Greetings, Ladies and Gents. Hope everyone’s faring well after the Thanksgiving Holiday here in the States and a week that’s winding down. Disney, J.J. Abrams and the powers that be have not only made the teaser for Star Wars: The Force Awakens available in select theatre locations, but have also made it available online.
Like the trailer that premiered for The Phantom Menace, we’re seeing a lot of surprises here. New droid types, unconventional lightsaber designs and the Millenium Falcon in all it’s glory. It’s a small taste of what’s to come, but enough to pique the interests of anyone in love with the franchise. If nothing else, it serves as a good conversation starter.
There are those who have argued online — and in print, as well, I’d imagine — that once you cross the invisible threshold from merely “liking” a recurring or serialized entertainment property/artistic venture (I’ll leave you, dear reader, to decide which of those categories the Star Trek franchise falls into) into becoming a full-fledged “fan” of it that you’re basically fucked, because while “liking” something means you appreciate it for what it does, being a “fan” of it means you like it for what it’s already done, and are quite happy to just have the folks behind it serve you up more of the same. Hell, you might even get pretty upset if they don’t!
I’m not sure I’m willing to go so far as to agree with that sentiment in its entirety — many fans of various works of genre entertainment actually appreciate being offered something new and unique on occasion, in my experience — it certainly applies to a very large segment of most of the various fandoms out there. You know the kind of folks I’m talking about — those who get worked into a mouth-foaming frenzy at the slightest changes or tonal shifts in a given installment of the film, TV, novel, or comic book series and feel the need to shout about what a “blasphemy” has taken place at the top of either their lungs or, as is more often the case these days with computer keyboards and such, fingertips. It gets pretty old pretty fast and I’ve learned to tune most of it out, but anyone who denies the existence of fans such as these is flat-out delusional — the more level-headed among us might like to ignore them, sure, but we can’t admit that they don’t exist. At least not with a straight face.
My point here being, you rightly ask? Uber-conservative fans such as this are bound to be happy with Star Trek Into Darkness (there’s no colon in the title, I checked), J.J. Abrams’ second foray into Gene Rodenberry’s venerable sci-fi universe, because, despite all its superficial “differences” to what has come before, this is really just more of the same.
Which isn’t my half-hearted and/or half-assed way of saying it’s a bad flick — all in all it’s reasonably well-executed and keeps the average audience member more or less interested throughout — it’s just that we’ve seen more or less all of this done before, and unlike with his first go-round, this time Abrams doesn’t even really expend any effort into tricking you into believing (at least on first viewing) that you’re witnessing some bold new take on things here.
And that should suit the stick-in-the-mud types just fine, I would think, since these are folks who go beyond simply being able to see the creaks and joins in a given structure and actually and actively like seeing them, pointing them out, and analyzing them ad nauseum. In short, I think these people are gonna absolutely love the fact that this film’s big, supposedly-emotionally-resonant “turning point” is just a mirror-image inversion of the same exact scene in Star Trek II : The Wrath Of Khan. They’ll probably also enjoy the fact that, for all their supposed “added depth,” characters like Simon Pegg’s Scotty and Zoe Saldana’s Uhura are still essentially one-dimensional ciphers who just have a few more lines now, and that Karl Urban’s Dr. “Bones” McCoy still speaks in nothing but utterly predictable one-liners rather than , you know, actual, honest-to-goodness dialogue. And I think they’ll also dig the fact that Abrams has quickly established recurrent patterns of his own here — gotta have a Leonard Nimoy cameo, gotta have at least one hot-chick-in-underwear scene, etc.
No doubt about it — if you’re one of these “don’t rock the boat too much or I’m really gonna bitch about it” types of fans, Star Trek Into Darkness is bound to be right up your alley. In fact, it’s probably likely to make you feel pretty clever, as well, since you’ll be utterly convinced that the poor schmuck in the seat next to you isn’t going to see this movie’s “big revelations” coming.
Guess what, though? He (or she) probably is, since it only takes the most minimal amount of working knowledge of Star Trek lore to have a pretty solid guess as to the real identity of Benedict Cumberbatch’s pseudonymous “John Harrison” villain, the way things are bound to play out once Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk leads leads his crew — uhmmmm — “into darkness” is essentially a foregone conclusion, and shit, your “this guy’s bound to die” radar is guaranteed to be ringing at top volume from the get-go in relation to one of the story’s semi-principal characters (the oldest Trek trick in the book).
Again, none of which is to say this is in any way an actively bad film — the main cast all acquit themselves pretty well, especially Zachary Quinto as Spock, the CGI effects are uniformly just fine (heck, they always are these days), and the principal narrative is by and large plenty entertaining enough. It’s just a thoroughly predictable one. If you’re in the mood to kick back, shut your brain off, and just sit through a fairly standard Star Trek romp, this’ll do the job just fine. Just don’t go in expecting anything more — or at the very least anything other — than that.
I have no idea where the Trek franchise is headed from here. Abrams has, as everyone knows, recently been handed the reigns over on Star Wars, as well, so whether or not he intends to do both I couldn’t say. It sounds to me like it would be an awful lot of work to juggle them both, and maybe now would be a good time to walk away from this one and pass the buck to somebody else. He’s clearly out of ideas here, anyway, so it wouldn’t be too big a loss.
One last time now, in unison — which is not me saying that this sucked ! It’s just an acknowledgement that it only took two films for the “new” Star Trek to become as safe and stagnant as the “old” version and that a genuinely fresh take on things might be for the best going forward.
Less than two months remain before the sequel to J.J. Abrams surprise reboot hit of Star Trek arrives in the theaters this summer. It’s set to be one of this summer’s tentpole event films and this later trailer looks to set to prove that to be true.
While the first two trailers went light on the main narrative of the sequel this international trailer looks to really focus on Benedict Cumberbatch’s character who is either going to be this Star Trek alternate timeline’s Khan or Gary Mitchell or an amalgam of the two. Either way the trailer is all about action and Sherlock-Smaug looking, talking and acting all superior evil towards Kirk and the rest of the Enterprise crew.
Star Trek Into Darkness is set for a May 17, 2013 release date.
The sequel to J.J. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek is just months away. It returns not just Abrams into the director’s chair but also the whole cast of the rebooted franchise back to boldly go where no one’s gone before.
Star Trek Into Darkness (still an awkward title but then we don’t to watch a film in the theaters because we like or don’t like how the title sounds) just released it’s latest trailer (this time a TV spot) during Super Bowl XLVII. The spot has new scenes and images that the previous teasers and trailers didn’t already show. We may have gotten a hint into the villain portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch in the film. While the name Khan has never been mentioned in any ad and marketing spots since the film was announced I’d be very surprised if the villain is not some sort of analogue of that classic Star Trek rogue.
Star Trek Into Darkness is set for a May 17, 2013 release date.
Over ten days ago we saw the release of the teaser trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness. This sequel by J.J. Abrams for the reboot of the storied scifi franchise looks to be one of the most-anticipated films of 2013 (if the world doesn’t end in a couple days of this posting that is). Today we get the release of the official trailer which adds in a couple of new scenes and images not included in the teaser.
Again there’s some debate as to which villain Benedict Cumberbatch is really portraying despite being listed in the cast as the character of John Harrison. The even money bet is that he plays a version of Kirk’s archenemy Khan Noonien Singh which is a strong possibility since the early draft for the Khan character was suppose to be a Nordic superhuman by the name of John Ericssen. Even Abrams himself has never said outright that he would never use the Khan character as the villain in this rebooted franchise. Whether he uses the classic Trek villain in this sequel or the next should get an answer as we get closer to the film’s release date.
Star Trek Into Darkess has a release date of May 17, 2013.
I’m not too overly fond of the title J.J. Abrams came up for the sequel to his 2009 blockbuster hit, Star Trek, but I will still admit that I’m eagerly anticipating this follow-up despite the title.
Star Trek Into Darkess still has months to go before it makes it’s premiere on the big-screen but it’s already one of the most-anticipated film for 2013. One of the things people have been very curious about the film and it’s tightly held storyline is just who exactly the villain is that Benedict Cumberbatch plays. Some have said it’s the classic Trek villain Khan and others say it’s a brand new character with Khan-traits.
If the film builds on the success and quality of the first film then it doesn’t matter who the villain is. Now the next question is whether Abrams has added more or less lensflare in this next film of his.
Star Trek into Darkness has a tentative release date of May 17, 2013.
With the recent announcement that Gary Ross will not be directing Catching Fire, the second film in The Hunger Games trilogy, there’s been a lot of online speculation has started as to who will take his place. Since I was bored at work, I spent an hour or two reading some of that speculation. Needless to say, a lot of names are being tossed around and some are a lot more plausible than others. However, a few names seem to be mentioned more often than others.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think that the loss of Gary Ross is going to really hurt the sequel, financially or artistically.
Financially, people are going to see the sequel regardless of who directs it and, quite frankly, I doubt many people went to the Hunger Games because they just couldn’t wait to see Gary Ross’s follow-up to Seabiscuit.
From an artistic point of view, the main reason that I loved the Hunger Games was because, after years of seeing blockbuster movies where being female was essentially the same as being helpless and insipid, it was so refreshing to see a film about a strong, independent young woman who is concerned about something more than just keeping her boyfriend happy. In short, I loved The Hunger Games because of Jennifer Lawrence’s performance as Katniss Everdeen. In short, Gary Ross was about as important to The Hunger Games franchise as Chris Columbus was to the Harry Potter films.
As for who the new director is going to be, here’s some of the more interesting names that I’ve seen mentioned:
Danny Boyle is one of my favorite directors of all time and he’s certainly showed that he can create entertaining films that both challenge conventional and force you to think. As well, directing the opening ceremonies for the London Olympics and, if that’s not good training for the Hunger Games then what is?
J.J. Abrams is a far more conventional director than Danny Boyle but he’s also proven that he can make blockbuster films that don’t necessarily insult one’s intelligence. Add to that, he created Alias and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
As the only woman to ever win best director, Kathryn Bigelow is an obvious choice for a franchise that is ultimately all about empowerment. Plus, she’s proven she can handle action films and I think it would be a neat if, under her direction, Catching Fire made more money than Avatar.
Sofia Coppola, who should have won an Oscar for Lost in Translation, would bring a definitely lyrical quality to Catching Fire and, if nothing else. her version would be amazing to look at. Add to that, Sofia Coppola deserves to have at least one blockbuster on her resume. (Yes, I know a lot of you people hated Somewhere but you know what? You’re wrong and I’m right.)
Alfonso Cuaron has proven, with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azbakan, that he can step into a franchise without sacrificing his own individual vision. Children of Men shows that he can create a realistic dystopian future.
Debra Granik is best-known for directing Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone. If not for Granik, Katniss Everdeen could have very easily ended up being played by Kristen Stewart.
Catherine Hardwicke is, of course, best known for directing the first Twilight film and a lot of people will never forgive her for that. And you know what? That’s really not fair to Hardwicke. Say what you will about Twilight, the film was actually pretty well-directed and Red Riding Hood is one of the unacknowledged masterpieces of 2011. (No, really…) Finally, Hardwicke directed Thirteen, one of the best films ever made. Hardwicke’s Catching Fire probably wouldn’t be critically acclaimed but it would be a lot of fun.
Patty Jenkins is one of the more surprising names that I saw mentioned on several sites. Jenkins is best known for directing the ultra-depressing Monster as well as the atmospheric pilot for AMC’s The Killing. Apparently she was also, for a while, signed up to direct Thor 2, which would suggest that she can handle blockbuster action. Of course, she was also fired from Thor 2.
Mike Newell directed the best of the Harry Potter films (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) and has shown that he can handle action and spectacle. He’s also directed Mona Lisa Smile, which is one of my favorite films of all time.
Sam Raimi would turn Catching Fire into a thrill ride. While you would lose a lot of the story’s subtext, the film would certainly not be boring. Add to that, Raimi directing would increase the chances of a Bruce Campbell cameo.
To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone mention the name of Mark Romanek so I’m going to mention him because I think he’s great and that Never Let Me Go was one of the best films of 2010. Add to that, he actually played an important role in my life in that I can still remember being 12 years old, seeing his video for Fiona Apple’s Criminal, and going, “That’s what I’m going to do once I get to high school…”
Julie Taymor is best known as a theatrical director but her films have all been distinguished by a strong, individualistic vision. More people need to see her film version of The Tempest.
Susanna White, though not well-known, was a contender to direct The Hunger Games before the job went to Gary Ross. White got her start working with the BBC before coming over to America to direct episodes of Generation Kill and Boardwalk Empire for HBO. She was also a contender to director another film based on YA literature, The Host.
With Hanna, Joe Wright gave us the best film of 2011 (regardless of what the Academy thinks) and he’s proven that he knows how to mix empowerment and action.
There are other names in contention, of course. I’ve seen everyone from Stephen Soderbergh (bleh, to be honest) to Rob Zombie mentioned. Arleigh suggested both James Cameron and David Fincher but I think he was mostly doing that to annoy me. Someone on twitter (may have been me) mentioned Tyler Perry and then laughed and laughed. However, the 14 names above are the ones that I find to be the most interesting and/or plausible.
So, who do you think would be a the best director for Catching Fire?
As for me and who I would like to so direct the film, I think that the director of Catching Fire should be a woman because Catching Fire is, ultimately, a story about empowerment. I also think that characterization is far more important than action so I’m not as concerned about whether or not the director has a history of blowing things up onscreen. Instead, what the franchise needs is a strong, female director with an eye for detail and a strong appreciation for what film is capable of accomplishing as an art form.
Through the Shattered Lens 