Estar Gwars

Once again I am back because I feel I have something to say and it's about one of the things that EVERYONE seems to have an opinion about: Star Wars Episode VII. Like I normally say, this isn't an argument to defend the movie, just to make you think more about it. I'm gonna bring up a few things that people are skeptical about with it and see if maybe I could shed some light on those issues.

Let's begin.

"It can't be good that Disney is behind it."

I know it is kinda fashionable to pick on Disney, but why is that? Yes they are a big conglomerate that has loads of money and continues to pick up properties left and right (and geek properties at that), but what exactly have they gotten wrong lately? Marvel has gotten better with the Avengers continuity being great so far (including their animated outings) and their cartoons are way better than they've been in years. Part of the reason for the latter is a bit of a detriment to the one thing that has gone down under their "parentage": Pixar. The reason for that, though, is that most of the original team from Pixar has moved on. Brad Bird is doing live action ("Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" was directed by him under J.J. Abrams as producer), so is Peter Docter, Steve Jobs has passed, and John Lasseter and Edwin Catmull have gone on to be in charge of all Disney animation.Only Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich are really still doing the hands-on and that's a harder job when you aren't surrounded by the others anymore.

But, honestly, we aren't talking animation anyway. Now, Star Wars movies are not R-rated and are pretty family friendly to begin with, so what exactly is the problem? Even if you want to go down that road, Disney owns Touchstone pictures who have done "Con Air", "Sister Act", "The Prestige", "Dead Poet's Society", and "The Insider". They also owned Miramax and therefore Dimension films during their heyday, producing "Scream", "The Faculty", and the Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez films. So they have a very diverse pedigree that doesn't have a huge track record of stifling creativity (except maybe when Michael Eisner was in charge). So really, nothing to fear there.

"George Lucas isn't involved, oh no."

And what is exactly wrong with that? He almost killed the franchise himself! Episodes I and II were awful and he was in charge of them from start to finish. Plus, he allowed the lore to get muddled and the canon to get contradictory. Soooooo, can they really screw it up more? Nope. Canon is being streamlined and made into a more cohesive narrative which is a good thing (although don't get me started on Korriban being made into Moraban) and they hired Lawrence Kasdan of "Empire" and "Raiders" fame to write, so I think the story is in good hands.

"J.J. Abrams? What the hell?"

This seems to be a main sticking point and one I really don't get. What exactly has he done wrong? Sure he started with "Felicity" (which I never watched, but I'm told was actually pretty good), but he's also created some of the biggest Sci-Fi shows in the last decade and a half: "Alias", "Lost", and my personal favorite "Fringe". He also is a huge fan of the era that spawned the original Trilogy. "Super 8" was a love letter to the works of Spielberg and he has said himself that he's afraid to screw up "Star Wars" because he loves it so much. He didn't feel the same way about "Star Trek" and I think he did a bang up job with those.

Speaking of reboots, he has a history of rebooting franchises that have strayed considerably in a successful way. As I said, I liked the "Star Trek" reboot and felt it had a reverence for the originals that had not been seen in a while. Most forget he also rebooted the "Mission: Impossible" movies after John Woo completely disregarded what made the franchise so good in the first place and made a flashy action packed movie that had more to do with Bourne than M:I (for the record, I like the Bourne movies, they just aren't what a M:I movie should be). Abrams made a movie that really felt like an extension of the first movie and took the series to a whole new level. In fact, I'd kinda like to see him get a crack at the Bond franchise. Sure he's not the most talented director ever and he certainly loves those lens flares that I'm not fond of, but he isn't Uwe Boll. He respects the source material and is afraid of failure. Sounds good to me.


So give him a chance. Give the movie a chance. I doubt highly it could ever be as bad as "The Phantom Menace".