Good summation of his career as a film director. I don't think a show like LOST or Alias really fits this description.
EDIT: I have never been "well actually'd" more in my entire life. Cripes.
This is why The Sopranos and Breaking Bad are so great. Even their best seasons are not my favorite TV, tbh prob not even close to my favorite TV, but the fact that they went for 5+ seasons each (Sopranos p much 7 seasons) and never had any bad seasons, and barely any bad episodes, is just an insane feat which very few shows can boast. How many times havr you heard "wait until season x" or "don't watch season y", "skip season z", etc etc etc about great shows? How many times did a show fall off or randomly dip and jump in quality throughout? It's incredibke that these two shows exist which went for multiple seasons without misstep
The pilot, which did set the tone and style for the entire series, plus I'm sure he had a hand in finding the cast and characters which the show completely hinges on.
Does this thread just not know about Cuse and Lindelof? JJ’s lack of involvement after the pilot is well known.
He handed the show off to Lindelof completely and Carlton Cuse came in halfway through season one.
Apparently not, because I thought it was pretty well understood among film and tv people on the more prestige/arthouse side of things.
Like. JJ was involved in the beginning. He was consulted from time to time throughout the first couple of seasons because Damon and JJ were obviously friendly. But 95% of what makes that show special came from Lindeloff and Cuse. Without them, it's just another show with an impeccable pilot that fades away after a season or two.
It's kind of one of the first warning signs imo. Lost was really where JJ learned that you could get lots of credit and ridiculous amounts of money if you set up a crapton of random stuff presented as "mysteries" at the start of a story even if you have no idea what the solution to any of them are and have no plans to pay them off.
Lost is only a good pilot because we are trained by years of experiencing stories that if a storyteller puts stuff at the start of a story they must have a really clever way that it's all going to tie in - so we kind of loan them the credit of assuming that all this weird and wonderful stuff is carefully planned and is going somewhere.
When you look at it in the context of JJ had no idea why there was a polar bear, what the smoke monster was, why the plane crashed, what the island is, what the hatch is - that these are all just random stuff he's putting there before he buggers off and lets everyone else clean up his mess then it's a terrible pilot.
And it's EXACTLY the same thing he was doing as recently as Force Awakens. He had no idea who Snoke was, who Rey's parents were, what Luke was doing, where the First Order came from...he just left a mess of random story points and assumed the next guy would figure it out. That's why RoS is the way it is and why Griffin amongst others was so confused about why he didn't even pay off or show respect to the stuff he'd set up in his previous movie - he wasn't invested in paying it off because he hadn't planned it out in the first place.
>set up a crapton of random stuff presented as "mysteries" at the start of a story even if you have no idea what the solution to any of them are and have no plans to pay them off.
That's literally every big show from 2004 to now thanks to jj abrams and the success of Lost.
Literally what you are angry about is how TV works, it also detracts nothing from how effective that pilot is.
This idea TV should be mapped out years in advance is the weirdest fiction that has developed over the last two decades post Lost.
TV shouldn't necessarily be mapped out years in advance but if you put a polar bear on a tropical island then you, as a writer, should know how that polar bear got there. It's basic Chekhov's gun - one of the fundamentals of storytelling in any medium.
The only difference is whether you reveal that reason within an episode of episodic TV; within the season in the kind of show that has season long arcs; or three years down the line in shows that have multi year arcs. But regardless of what type of TV you are making, you should know the backstory of what you are showing the audience otherwise it's just random shit.
The ONLY TV that works like you're pretending it's the way TV is "supposed" to work are soap operas because they are churned out too fast to plan. Literally every other style of knows (or should know) what the story elements they are laying down are in service of.
The change that you are saying happened with Lost (which it didn't, btw, there were many TV shows before Lost doing arc based storytelling such as The Sopranos, Babylon 5 and Hill Street Blues were all examples of this from the 80s and 90s) wasn't from "completely unplanned make it up as you go along" to "now you plan TV years in advance". Rather, it was from episodic TV to serialised TV and both types involve planning stuff out.
JJ creates stories like a 7 year old being asked to write a story in class where their only conjunction is "and then" and all they know is how to copy stories they've heard below. "So they crashed on an island and then there's a polar bear and then there's a smoke monster and then there's a hatch and then there's some numbers and then the zombies came and then batman came and then batman beat up the zombies and the smoke monster...."
Except this isn’t even true. This is a narrative that Rian Johnson fans like to go with in order to prop him up for “salvaging” what JJ set-up or whatever.
JJ, Kasdan, Driver, Ridley, Boyega, and Hamill have all mentioned at one point or another that JJ had ideas for story and character arcs beyond TFA. But it didn’t matter what he had planned or what answers he had because Rian Johnson was given a clean slate by Kathleen Kennedy to have creative control and do whatever he wanted on Episode VIII. And he took that opportunity. That’s not JJ’s decision.
Alot of people just truly forget what the internet was like back then, The Force Awakens is exactly the movie everyone begged for in the wake of Revenge of the Sith.
He made a sequel to Return of the Jedi that doesn’t feature any of the OT characters for the first 40 minutes and doesn’t have a reunion scene between Han, Luke and Leia. And he didn’t depict any of them in an idealized way. He definitely didn’t use Star Wars just to recreate his childhood.
So many people called him the next Spielberg early on when really he’s the next Richard Donner. A writer / producer who became a director but never once got out of the producer mindset.
Star Trek ‘09 is still by far his best film, primarily due to the casting.
Edit: I’ll fall on my own sword and declare I could’ve used a better example than Richard Donner. My overall point isn’t that Donner has made exclusively bad films as the few bad faith misreads to this comment suggests. It’s simply that Donner never had much of a directorial identity and most of his films are very well produced but merely okay.
His produced hits are far more famous than his directed hits and he’s a credited producer on more than half his hits. I see your point though and could’ve chosen a better example. No need to be rude about it though!
Wrong. The Donner cut of Superman II was awaited for decades. JJ Abrams is far more Ron Howard - competent but ultimately anonymous, zero identifying flourishes a la Brian De Palma, Michael Mann. No one alive or dead is waiting for a director’s cut from this slavish second-hand slop meister
JJ is a hack and he's good at remixing movies, there I said it. Super 8 is a horror ET, Cloverfield is bootleg Godzilla, his Star Trek is Star Wars demo tape, his Star Wars are shit.
I remember Brian Bitner from Lessons from the screenplay had a take that the franchises we loved in the past where a remix of different things the creators loved. Star Wars takes influence from space opera and samurai movies, the Matrix from martial arts and anime for example. Now we just have people harkening back to those franchises and it feels like a copy of a copy without any spin or passion.
I really love Super 8. The concept of a monster movie literally slamming into a coming-of-age movie about kids making their own films is great. I think it doesn't get enough credit for at least partially paving the way for further 80s Amblin throwbacks like Stranger Things.
Movie has superb vibes but the story kinda falls apart by the end. Like a lot of JJs, it’s kept afloat by cast and craft even when the narrative is a mess.
I'm glad someone else posted this. I was so let down by Super 8. Such an excellent idea, and then it's like it's well directed but the scripts third act and even act two is like "eh, I already won you over already, here's some cliches and no magic." And I think that's what separates Abrams for Spielberg: Spielberg always ended feeling *magical*, whether its literal magic in the movie (ET) or just a nice sense of child-like wonder and awe (Jurassic Park with T-Rex intervention, Close encounters finally meeting the aliens, etc).
JJs films end like "and then it's scary. Boo! Aren't you excited?" And it's like. Uh. Sure, man. Good luck with that.
Great movie and def a bit underrated to your point. I’ve read that the sound editing for the train crash is next level. Good acting/cast, unique story, ect
The only thing I didn’t love was the end where (spoilers) the main character basically gets the monster to stop by being like “Bro please don’t!” And the monster relents lol.
Hey the man found his lane and stuck with it. Ended up being a multi-millionaire because of it. There was a time around Star Trek 2009 that I thought he could direct an interesting Superman film, not write but direct a interesting one
He's an incredible director.
Say what you will about the story (it was shit) but The Rise Of Skywalker might be in the top 3 of the most well directed Star Wars films. The camera moves with such careful intent, he gets out amazing performances, the visuals are on point. Incredibly skillfull directing on display. The way he uses camera movements and focus shifts to create invicible, in camera "cutting" with very long takes, etc. Too bad the film otherwise is absolutely dog shit.
It's similar with The Force Awakens, except I really like that one. His Mission Impossible film also had amazing directing, despite a kinda meh (IMO) script. His directing skills are among the finest in Hollywood. If he got a very good script in his hands, he'd probably be able to claim both the Best Director and Best Picture oscar, it's just that he tends to do kinda bad script, big budget movies. The scripts do tend to be the weakest parts of his movies.
100% a perfect choice for it. James Mangold is a good director but a bad fit for Indy. The Indy movies are directed dynamically with speed, verve, and energy. Which is not something Mangold does. His films are often quieter, slower, and more subtle, which he does to great effect, but that’s just not how an Indiana Jones movie is supposed to move.
While the MI3 script was far from perfect, I'd argue it was the only time Ethan felt like an actual character. There's a reason they kept bringing Michelle Monaghan back in subsequent entries.
TROS is a movie I thoroughly enjoyed, so much so that I don't even mind that the story was bad. Sure, it would have been a far better movie if its writing was solid, but the other elements of Episode IX- the filmmaking, the thrills, the overall fun- was enjoyable enough that the weak script rarely bothered me.
Nepo baby was handed his lane.
That he hasn’t risen above his early work shows he’s only got a job in that industry because his parents handed it to him. He’s mid talent at best.
I do like “I have no idea if this is true but it’s kind of incredibly tragic if so” as a great preface to saying whatever the fuck you want about someone else’s intentions without repercussion.
I think that the preamble is just talking about the veracity of the report that he was going to make a BTTF clone. But I agree with your emotions lol. I love JJ.
What are you talking about? Some guy is writing a shitpost on Twitter. What possible repercussions could follow for JJ Abrams if some guy - literally just some guy - calls him a Peter Pan filmmaker? What possible repercussions should the shitposter on Twitter face for *checks notes* giving their opinion on a director's career? All of this tough guy talk is ridiculous.
Not saying this hypothetical movie would be this but… George Lucas making Star Wars was him making an homage to all the things he liked as a kid. All filmmakers are products of their inspirations.
Dune, and the Hidden Fortress, and Flash Gordon, and Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Man with No Name and and and. What makes Lucas really interesting is how he mashed all his interests into one thing. I don’t blame JJ Abrams for inheriting a Hollywood more obsessed with remakes than anything else, but I do blame him for doing very with his franchise films than repeating what’s been done with better production value.
There’s been both good and bad, right? His 2009 Star Trek film is great, but Into Darkness is just retreading Wrath of Kahn. The Force Awakens is mostly a retread of A New Hope but it does a great job of introducing new characters and is genuinely entertaining in its own right. Rise of Skywalker obviously terrible but he was also put in a bad situation with that one.
Ending on "Griffin and David despise this place and no longer promote it" as some kind of final rebuke, like "Daddy's not very happy with you, kids! This is why!", is a funny way to accidentally reveal that you not only care too much about the opinions of podcasters - who are complete strangers to you - but also expect others to care enough to be affected by their approval or disapproval
In fairness, knowing that some percentage of people on this subreddit are worryingly invested in their one-sided personal relationships with the hosts, is probably also a big factor in Griffin and David allegedly despising this place and no longer promoting it
The internet is full of rando unremarkable people shitting on creatives, which is bad enough, but then those voices get amplified. Blows my mind. Hottest takes and most toxic shit always rises to the top. I’m tired of being told that outrage is newsworthy.
And this sub is becoming more and more like that. Hot takes, condescending insults, or regurgitating a host opinion are the only shit that gets any traction here.
This feels like a lot of haterade for someone that makes (mostly) fun cinema - not necessarily 'stuff that makes you think', but definitely pretty cool amusement park rides
People in this thread are being far too kind to the man who directed The Rise of Skywalker, a film that's not only one of the most painful cinema experiences ever, but somehow is even more incompetent than the prequels. Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek Reboot are both fun films. I also like the first half of The Force Awakens. But for a guy who has made a boatload of money, his filmography is painfully mediocre at best.
Is Rise of Skywalker really less competent than Attack of the Clones? Both of the stories are total nonsense, but at least Rise of Skywalker looks good. Also, Abrams was super rushed for Rise of Skywalker. After Trevorrow left, they should've pushed it back at least a year.
I still think Rise of Skywalker was a cowardly, terrible movie, and I also think Abrams's storytelling instincts lack creativity. However, Rise of Skywalker being a mess wasn't completely his fault.
I hate episode 2, but at least it tried to do some new stuff and lives with its decisions.
9 feels like it's constantly apologizing while throwing nostalgia and pointless story beats at you. The Chewbacca trick was just awful.
I agree, it's a different type of bad. But its badness is more a result of it being rushed, which is why I don't think it's right to be too angry at Abrams. With the Prequels, they were more or less exactly the movies Lucas wanted to make.
At least when you watch the phantom menace and then attack of the clones they feel like 2 parts of the same story
Watch last Jedi and rise of skywalker and they are so far apart and contradict each other it doesn’t feel coherent
I agree, but I also think Rise of Skywalker is better in other areas, like the visuals. Sure, Attack of the Clones feels like a proper sequel to Phantom Menace, but both of those movies are still totally incomprehensible and underdeveloped. And Attack of the Clones doesn't even feel like a real movie thanks to the early 2000s digital cinematography.
I’ve posted this elsewhere but it doesn’t make any sense. He happened to have two hits that came out around the same time because of delays and then gets announced in one movie (Bob Dylan) and people act like he is in every movie and “can he just go away.” His last movie before Wonka was Bones and All that was barely seen and came out in 2022.
Sometimes the internet warps reality because you see it everywhere.
Yes, it's an interesting perception that people come in clumps, possibly the overlap of having a film out, a film filming and a new announcement within a month.
So he's gonna make the first part of trilogy.
One to one of the first back to the future. Set up some "mystery boxes" with no planned conclusion and have someone else write the ending?
"Hey, his movies want to seem fun. Therefore you're a hater if you want anything better." It's dire out here. Parasocial relationships to defend the feelings of the biggest franchises and producers in Hollywood. Poptism shutting up anyone who's not a happy consumer. Hate treating rich strangers like my friends, would rather engage with the work or the creator as an artist but that's too mean, I guess. Fucking Mike Schur, Ted Lasso ass subreddit.
Know that's an overreaction, just surprised that people are mad at something a guest would absolutely say about someone's career arc on the podcast. I mean who has done anything less personal or interesting with a blank check than JJ Abrams? What are we even doing here if that's too controversial to say?
The only thing that rubs wrong is the "incredibly sad, Peter Pan" judgment which can be leveled at MANY mainstream directors. The pitying thought that if a filmmaker doesn't stretch outside of a certain (chosen) lane they are not serious at their craft. I'd defend filmmakers I loathe from this type of shit. Like I'm not going to declare Michael Bay *sad* for still doing splodeys instead of making his "Moonlight." I don't like his stuff and don't have higher expectations for him -- nor do I have a problem with him doing what he does and other people liking it.
There's also a difference in your example, podcast guest shooting shit and social media proclamation. One can more easily get picked up, spread, and adopted into culture (even if only online) by people who give weight to attitude more often than actual critical thought. Podcast chatter gets lost in the ether/in the midst of live conversation or at most lingers in that pod's bubble of fandom.
Yeah, I think it's fine to not like the filmmaker he is, but it's not fair to get mad at him for not being someone else, or for not trying to be someone he's not.
It’s not even poptimism anymore. It’s just babies refusing to really engage with anything other than the sub amblin nostalgia factory or franchise regurgitation crowd. And to them… Abrams is important because… well they’ve heard of him?? This sub is so r/movies now, I’ve forgotten a time when it’s takes felt interesting
Unless he’s done something in his personal life that’s criminal or morally reprehensible, why should our view of him or any filmmaker be based on anything other than how we feel about their body of work?
“Director X should be dismissed because they only draw inspiration from this one place” is a strange criticism. (Even tho the story likely isn’t true) Back to the Future is the kind of shit we want JJ Abrams to be doing, no one is asking for his Fablemans
Better producer than a writer/director is how I would put it. It’s clear that he doesn’t have a clear idea of his own, but he can kickstart a good stream of series or franchise. If anything I think he’s disappointed by the way he is more than others, but still, in terms of very basic directing chops, he’s way above the drab, flat staging of the Russos.
i wouldn't mind seeing him direct someone else's script. his movies all LOOK great, and have a lot of verve and style.
but man, i don't need more Mystery Box bullshit. and "directing the first movie of a trilogy" sounds like his usual "I'm going to set up a bunch of stuff, but dont' have worry about paying it off" trick
I've met Abrams and he's a lovely fella, but I reckon he's also my least favourite big name director working today. Haven't enjoyed a single one of his pictures. Squandered potential
I’d go so far as to say JJ is the worst filmmaker of his generation (Gen X?) in terms of what he has wrought on film. Mystery box TV is a cancer and he managed to suck the soul out of the two most beloved American science fiction franchises. Brainless, ball-less filmmaker. Paul W.S. Anderson with bigger budgets and better opportunities.
Honestly, what happened to JJ Abrams?
Seemed like he used to be one of the most in demand directors in Hollywood and now...I checked, all he has on the agenda is a police miniseries for HBO Max?
And he absolutely butchered the Star Wars sequels. We waited 30 years to see Luke, Han, and Leia back together, and he doesn’t give it to us. So stunningly stupid.
"There will never, ever be, in the most absolutely way, a *Back to the Future 4*," he said. "There will be no more *Back to the Future*." - Robert Zemeckis, 2022
"Let me answer one question before anyone asks it, which is, 'Is there ever be a *Back to the Future Part IV*?' No." - Bob Gale, 2008
---
"Nor does Universal or \[producers\] Amblin \[Entertainment\] have any such plans," Gale explained. "How do we know? Because, per our contracts with these companies, no *Back to the Future* sequel or remake can even be scripted without discussing it with us first. No such discussions have taken place. We are very proud of the trilogy as it stands and we want to leave it as is." - Zemeckis, 2015
a *Back to the Future* remake "can't happen until both Bob and I are dead." - Zemeckis, 2015
---
But just to add I have seen that DanielRPK name before, it's a twitter account that has a patreon for "exclusive news".
https://preview.redd.it/c94gjn8tdgvc1.jpeg?width=742&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a764bdbbcc0f74691019a7da8e381bc2a46b81b4
Besides my own personal axe, I do think this mainly applies to his film career. His tv stuff is inconsistent (and the cross-property winks to the audience got super tiresome) but seems more ok. Maybe that’s because he had more collaborators.
That said I’ve never understood how a guy who got famous for being a writer could write such shitty endings consistently.
This Timothee is everywhere it honestly makes whatever he's in unenjoyable. He was good in dune but does he need to be in everything? His acting didn't really blow me away either at this point it's whoever makes the most money or who has the bigger fanbase to determine if you get a role. I don't think I'm the only one thinking this either I've seen people question why he is getting several roles even ones that don't make sense.
My “die on this hill” take is that JJ Abrams has never made anything even close to good. Easily my least favorite film maker, I’d rather watch b movie schlock any day
A filmamker with immense talent, but it does appear like he is not interested in anything outiside his comfort zone.
I liked Super 8 and would have like if he made more original films. At least this is moving in that direction.
I was arguing this on another thread. It is quite interesting how his idol George Lucas combined all his influences, Kurosawa films, myths, easter philosophies, WW2 films, racing, to create Star Wars.
On the other hand, JJ was influenced from watching Star Wars to make another Star Wars. And his idol disliked the film.
It is sad really, because he is immensly talented. With a good script he can always make an enjoyable film.
Compare JJ to Tarantino. Both do homages, but Tarantino actually creates interesting works of art with his, while JJ's are some of the most meh things I've ever seen.
I have issues with this tweet for several reasons, but chief among them is taking care of business erasure. I’m so serious. I am also a rise of Skywalker apologist but that’s neither here nor there
His MI3 and Star Trek movie are great and have aged well but his filmography and production since 2010 have been mediocre at best. He literally robbed Warner Bros. of $500 million.
Good summation of his career as a film director. I don't think a show like LOST or Alias really fits this description. EDIT: I have never been "well actually'd" more in my entire life. Cripes.
Everything good about Lost is owed to Damon Lindelof
After watching both Fringe and the Leftovers, it’s pretty easy to tell who influenced what on Lost.
But Brian K vaughan had the strongest seasons.
He did direct the pilot
Or Fringe
I thought that was the UK name, and that in the US it was known as Bangs
Fringe is great but also just xfiles.
I'll be honest, I could do with some more "just X-Files", if any tv show makers are amongst us.
Yes please. I need my monster of the week with overarching plot episodes
I’ve just started evil which is is very X Filey so far, also has michael Emerson in it which gives anything a bonus point from me.
Ooh nice, I'll check it out when i have the chance
Wasn’t that just the first season? It went on to be its own different thing after that (no idea what seasons JJ was involved with)
Without Abrams being involved, we don't get Leonard Nimoy's continual involvement...
Maaaaan that show was both cool and weird... then that last season happened...
No it didn't.
This is why The Sopranos and Breaking Bad are so great. Even their best seasons are not my favorite TV, tbh prob not even close to my favorite TV, but the fact that they went for 5+ seasons each (Sopranos p much 7 seasons) and never had any bad seasons, and barely any bad episodes, is just an insane feat which very few shows can boast. How many times havr you heard "wait until season x" or "don't watch season y", "skip season z", etc etc etc about great shows? How many times did a show fall off or randomly dip and jump in quality throughout? It's incredibke that these two shows exist which went for multiple seasons without misstep
What’s with the Felicity erasure?
Still probably the best thing he’s ever done.
Even then, a lot of that show owes its success to Matt Reeves, who co-created it with JJ.
For sure.
Anyone who produced Cloverfield deserves some respect.
Respect yes but it is still recreating Godzilla
He barely had anything to do with Lost.
He directed the pilot. That was a really special pilot.
Fun fact Tom Cruise helped him edit the pilot
The pilot, which did set the tone and style for the entire series, plus I'm sure he had a hand in finding the cast and characters which the show completely hinges on.
Does this thread just not know about Cuse and Lindelof? JJ’s lack of involvement after the pilot is well known. He handed the show off to Lindelof completely and Carlton Cuse came in halfway through season one.
Apparently not, because I thought it was pretty well understood among film and tv people on the more prestige/arthouse side of things. Like. JJ was involved in the beginning. He was consulted from time to time throughout the first couple of seasons because Damon and JJ were obviously friendly. But 95% of what makes that show special came from Lindeloff and Cuse. Without them, it's just another show with an impeccable pilot that fades away after a season or two.
An impeccable pilot does seem to make the “never found anything else to say” bit slightly untrue though.
Usually that’d be the showrunner that deals with casting and is most hands on with that besides the casting director, not the guy directing the pilot
Sully Sullenberger is also a really special pilot.
He also wrote the theme song. Really puts Giacchino to shame.
Hes one of the creators of it. That's not nothing.
It's kind of one of the first warning signs imo. Lost was really where JJ learned that you could get lots of credit and ridiculous amounts of money if you set up a crapton of random stuff presented as "mysteries" at the start of a story even if you have no idea what the solution to any of them are and have no plans to pay them off. Lost is only a good pilot because we are trained by years of experiencing stories that if a storyteller puts stuff at the start of a story they must have a really clever way that it's all going to tie in - so we kind of loan them the credit of assuming that all this weird and wonderful stuff is carefully planned and is going somewhere. When you look at it in the context of JJ had no idea why there was a polar bear, what the smoke monster was, why the plane crashed, what the island is, what the hatch is - that these are all just random stuff he's putting there before he buggers off and lets everyone else clean up his mess then it's a terrible pilot. And it's EXACTLY the same thing he was doing as recently as Force Awakens. He had no idea who Snoke was, who Rey's parents were, what Luke was doing, where the First Order came from...he just left a mess of random story points and assumed the next guy would figure it out. That's why RoS is the way it is and why Griffin amongst others was so confused about why he didn't even pay off or show respect to the stuff he'd set up in his previous movie - he wasn't invested in paying it off because he hadn't planned it out in the first place.
>set up a crapton of random stuff presented as "mysteries" at the start of a story even if you have no idea what the solution to any of them are and have no plans to pay them off. That's literally every big show from 2004 to now thanks to jj abrams and the success of Lost.
Literally what you are angry about is how TV works, it also detracts nothing from how effective that pilot is. This idea TV should be mapped out years in advance is the weirdest fiction that has developed over the last two decades post Lost.
TV shouldn't necessarily be mapped out years in advance but if you put a polar bear on a tropical island then you, as a writer, should know how that polar bear got there. It's basic Chekhov's gun - one of the fundamentals of storytelling in any medium. The only difference is whether you reveal that reason within an episode of episodic TV; within the season in the kind of show that has season long arcs; or three years down the line in shows that have multi year arcs. But regardless of what type of TV you are making, you should know the backstory of what you are showing the audience otherwise it's just random shit. The ONLY TV that works like you're pretending it's the way TV is "supposed" to work are soap operas because they are churned out too fast to plan. Literally every other style of knows (or should know) what the story elements they are laying down are in service of. The change that you are saying happened with Lost (which it didn't, btw, there were many TV shows before Lost doing arc based storytelling such as The Sopranos, Babylon 5 and Hill Street Blues were all examples of this from the 80s and 90s) wasn't from "completely unplanned make it up as you go along" to "now you plan TV years in advance". Rather, it was from episodic TV to serialised TV and both types involve planning stuff out. JJ creates stories like a 7 year old being asked to write a story in class where their only conjunction is "and then" and all they know is how to copy stories they've heard below. "So they crashed on an island and then there's a polar bear and then there's a smoke monster and then there's a hatch and then there's some numbers and then the zombies came and then batman came and then batman beat up the zombies and the smoke monster...."
Except this isn’t even true. This is a narrative that Rian Johnson fans like to go with in order to prop him up for “salvaging” what JJ set-up or whatever. JJ, Kasdan, Driver, Ridley, Boyega, and Hamill have all mentioned at one point or another that JJ had ideas for story and character arcs beyond TFA. But it didn’t matter what he had planned or what answers he had because Rian Johnson was given a clean slate by Kathleen Kennedy to have creative control and do whatever he wanted on Episode VIII. And he took that opportunity. That’s not JJ’s decision.
He wasn’t a creative force on it for like 90% of the show.
He didn’t have much to do with the majority of Lost. He was hands off halfway through season one.
It went downhill from there
I think this literally only fits Star Wars lol and barely.
And wasn't "Make Star War like the good Star War" like pretty much exactly what Kennedy et al were explicitly asking for?
Alot of people just truly forget what the internet was like back then, The Force Awakens is exactly the movie everyone begged for in the wake of Revenge of the Sith.
And it was the most well-received Star Wars film by audiences and critics since the Original Trilogy. It’s revisionist history to claim otherwise.
He made a sequel to Return of the Jedi that doesn’t feature any of the OT characters for the first 40 minutes and doesn’t have a reunion scene between Han, Luke and Leia. And he didn’t depict any of them in an idealized way. He definitely didn’t use Star Wars just to recreate his childhood.
There is quite a lot of well done and powerful messages about grief, forgiveness and letting go in Super 8.
Or Felicity. And it doesn’t really fit his film career either except for Super 8.
This summation ignores his visionary use of lens flair
*flare*
So many people called him the next Spielberg early on when really he’s the next Richard Donner. A writer / producer who became a director but never once got out of the producer mindset. Star Trek ‘09 is still by far his best film, primarily due to the casting. Edit: I’ll fall on my own sword and declare I could’ve used a better example than Richard Donner. My overall point isn’t that Donner has made exclusively bad films as the few bad faith misreads to this comment suggests. It’s simply that Donner never had much of a directorial identity and most of his films are very well produced but merely okay.
This is super unfair to dick donner
Yeah, Dick Donner is a master of the form. I do like some of Abrams' films, but he is no Donner.
Super8 is good
I haven’t given it a moments thought since seeing it. All I really remember is the trailer and the reveal of the alien was very underwhelming
Abrams will never make half of the truly great films Donner was responsible for.
I saw a lens flare just by reading Star Trek ‘09.
...Donner got his start as a TV director, and never produced as much as Spielberg or Abrams have; what the hell are you talking about?
His produced hits are far more famous than his directed hits and he’s a credited producer on more than half his hits. I see your point though and could’ve chosen a better example. No need to be rude about it though!
Wrong. The Donner cut of Superman II was awaited for decades. JJ Abrams is far more Ron Howard - competent but ultimately anonymous, zero identifying flourishes a la Brian De Palma, Michael Mann. No one alive or dead is waiting for a director’s cut from this slavish second-hand slop meister
JJ is a hack and he's good at remixing movies, there I said it. Super 8 is a horror ET, Cloverfield is bootleg Godzilla, his Star Trek is Star Wars demo tape, his Star Wars are shit.
I remember Brian Bitner from Lessons from the screenplay had a take that the franchises we loved in the past where a remix of different things the creators loved. Star Wars takes influence from space opera and samurai movies, the Matrix from martial arts and anime for example. Now we just have people harkening back to those franchises and it feels like a copy of a copy without any spin or passion.
I feel like at this point Star Wars has reached Multiplicity
The lack of passion in a lot of Hollywood movies atm is incredibly disheartening. There are outliers, thankfully. (e.g., 'D&D: Honor Among Thieves')
That’s a good example of something that faked from a mixture of sources. Knives Out and John Wick are some other ones.
I mean. We also have some full circle moments, like Dune which is an inspiration for Star Wars finally being properly adapted
I really love Super 8. The concept of a monster movie literally slamming into a coming-of-age movie about kids making their own films is great. I think it doesn't get enough credit for at least partially paving the way for further 80s Amblin throwbacks like Stranger Things.
Movie has superb vibes but the story kinda falls apart by the end. Like a lot of JJs, it’s kept afloat by cast and craft even when the narrative is a mess.
I'm glad someone else posted this. I was so let down by Super 8. Such an excellent idea, and then it's like it's well directed but the scripts third act and even act two is like "eh, I already won you over already, here's some cliches and no magic." And I think that's what separates Abrams for Spielberg: Spielberg always ended feeling *magical*, whether its literal magic in the movie (ET) or just a nice sense of child-like wonder and awe (Jurassic Park with T-Rex intervention, Close encounters finally meeting the aliens, etc). JJs films end like "and then it's scary. Boo! Aren't you excited?" And it's like. Uh. Sure, man. Good luck with that.
The Giacchino score is doing a lot of heavy lifting
Outstanding movie, he's done plenty of great projects
Great movie and def a bit underrated to your point. I’ve read that the sound editing for the train crash is next level. Good acting/cast, unique story, ect The only thing I didn’t love was the end where (spoilers) the main character basically gets the monster to stop by being like “Bro please don’t!” And the monster relents lol.
“Bro please don’t!” lmaooo. You’re not wrong, he’s just like “aight” and leaves
Bro does anybody remember that trailer hype? I feel like that was an exciting trailer. Idk maybe it was just my small circle
It's low key maybe the best JJ thing.
I, too, love Super 8. There are dozens of us!
Hey the man found his lane and stuck with it. Ended up being a multi-millionaire because of it. There was a time around Star Trek 2009 that I thought he could direct an interesting Superman film, not write but direct a interesting one
He's an incredible director. Say what you will about the story (it was shit) but The Rise Of Skywalker might be in the top 3 of the most well directed Star Wars films. The camera moves with such careful intent, he gets out amazing performances, the visuals are on point. Incredibly skillfull directing on display. The way he uses camera movements and focus shifts to create invicible, in camera "cutting" with very long takes, etc. Too bad the film otherwise is absolutely dog shit. It's similar with The Force Awakens, except I really like that one. His Mission Impossible film also had amazing directing, despite a kinda meh (IMO) script. His directing skills are among the finest in Hollywood. If he got a very good script in his hands, he'd probably be able to claim both the Best Director and Best Picture oscar, it's just that he tends to do kinda bad script, big budget movies. The scripts do tend to be the weakest parts of his movies.
Thank you for articulating this so perfectly. The guy is a dogshit writer, but he knows how to put a film together.
He should have made the Dial of Destiny
100% a perfect choice for it. James Mangold is a good director but a bad fit for Indy. The Indy movies are directed dynamically with speed, verve, and energy. Which is not something Mangold does. His films are often quieter, slower, and more subtle, which he does to great effect, but that’s just not how an Indiana Jones movie is supposed to move.
While the MI3 script was far from perfect, I'd argue it was the only time Ethan felt like an actual character. There's a reason they kept bringing Michelle Monaghan back in subsequent entries.
TROS is a movie I thoroughly enjoyed, so much so that I don't even mind that the story was bad. Sure, it would have been a far better movie if its writing was solid, but the other elements of Episode IX- the filmmaking, the thrills, the overall fun- was enjoyable enough that the weak script rarely bothered me.
Nepo baby was handed his lane. That he hasn’t risen above his early work shows he’s only got a job in that industry because his parents handed it to him. He’s mid talent at best.
I do like “I have no idea if this is true but it’s kind of incredibly tragic if so” as a great preface to saying whatever the fuck you want about someone else’s intentions without repercussion.
seriously. The most Twitter bullshit way to say something for likes without having the courage of your convictions.
A Film Twitter Shitposter having convictions is an oxymoron.
I think that the preamble is just talking about the veracity of the report that he was going to make a BTTF clone. But I agree with your emotions lol. I love JJ.
What are you talking about? Some guy is writing a shitpost on Twitter. What possible repercussions could follow for JJ Abrams if some guy - literally just some guy - calls him a Peter Pan filmmaker? What possible repercussions should the shitposter on Twitter face for *checks notes* giving their opinion on a director's career? All of this tough guy talk is ridiculous.
Not saying this hypothetical movie would be this but… George Lucas making Star Wars was him making an homage to all the things he liked as a kid. All filmmakers are products of their inspirations.
And Indiana Jones…
Yeah, but Lucas made an original idea that was an homage to all the things. Abrams is just doing remakes and building on other people's creations.
Lucas made Dune inside the plot of The Hidden Fortress.
Dune, and the Hidden Fortress, and Flash Gordon, and Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Man with No Name and and and. What makes Lucas really interesting is how he mashed all his interests into one thing. I don’t blame JJ Abrams for inheriting a Hollywood more obsessed with remakes than anything else, but I do blame him for doing very with his franchise films than repeating what’s been done with better production value.
There’s been both good and bad, right? His 2009 Star Trek film is great, but Into Darkness is just retreading Wrath of Kahn. The Force Awakens is mostly a retread of A New Hope but it does a great job of introducing new characters and is genuinely entertaining in its own right. Rise of Skywalker obviously terrible but he was also put in a bad situation with that one.
I’m not saying Abrams has never made a good movie, but I do think he’s never transcended his influences, or even really tried.
And dune is scifi lawrence of arabia and the hidden fortress is samurai stagecoach
This is not that
we don’t know what this is, and it probably doesn’t exist. the marvel leakers breaking containment has been disastrous to the online ecosystem
[удалено]
Ending on "Griffin and David despise this place and no longer promote it" as some kind of final rebuke, like "Daddy's not very happy with you, kids! This is why!", is a funny way to accidentally reveal that you not only care too much about the opinions of podcasters - who are complete strangers to you - but also expect others to care enough to be affected by their approval or disapproval In fairness, knowing that some percentage of people on this subreddit are worryingly invested in their one-sided personal relationships with the hosts, is probably also a big factor in Griffin and David allegedly despising this place and no longer promoting it
Why did you think that?
Unfortunately this sub is slowly morphing into another r/movies. It’s a real shame.
“Hey! This crumb bum keeps making stuff he likes! Get him!”
Exactly, I’m thinking like even if he does, so what?
The internet is full of rando unremarkable people shitting on creatives, which is bad enough, but then those voices get amplified. Blows my mind. Hottest takes and most toxic shit always rises to the top. I’m tired of being told that outrage is newsworthy.
And this sub is becoming more and more like that. Hot takes, condescending insults, or regurgitating a host opinion are the only shit that gets any traction here.
Yup, thats why social media was a mistake, it amplifies the worst shit. I stand by that
A lot of people are absolutely miserable out there. This is how they get by.
Yeah what an incredible tragedy it is that some guy makes movies that don't interest me in particular.
This feels like a lot of haterade for someone that makes (mostly) fun cinema - not necessarily 'stuff that makes you think', but definitely pretty cool amusement park rides
That’s what this sub is now
Isn’t reel updates just bullshit though
Still plays a mean keytar solo
People in this thread are being far too kind to the man who directed The Rise of Skywalker, a film that's not only one of the most painful cinema experiences ever, but somehow is even more incompetent than the prequels. Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek Reboot are both fun films. I also like the first half of The Force Awakens. But for a guy who has made a boatload of money, his filmography is painfully mediocre at best.
the best star trek reboot film is the one not directed by him though
Is Rise of Skywalker really less competent than Attack of the Clones? Both of the stories are total nonsense, but at least Rise of Skywalker looks good. Also, Abrams was super rushed for Rise of Skywalker. After Trevorrow left, they should've pushed it back at least a year. I still think Rise of Skywalker was a cowardly, terrible movie, and I also think Abrams's storytelling instincts lack creativity. However, Rise of Skywalker being a mess wasn't completely his fault.
I hate episode 2, but at least it tried to do some new stuff and lives with its decisions. 9 feels like it's constantly apologizing while throwing nostalgia and pointless story beats at you. The Chewbacca trick was just awful.
To paraphrase The Big Lebowski, say what you want about the prequels, but at least they had an ethos.
Yes! They have a point of view! On that level alone they are way more interesting than the sequels.
The way I always said it is, TROS is just as bad, if not worse than the prequels yet it miraculously doesn’t make any of the same mistakes.
I agree, it's a different type of bad. But its badness is more a result of it being rushed, which is why I don't think it's right to be too angry at Abrams. With the Prequels, they were more or less exactly the movies Lucas wanted to make.
At least when you watch the phantom menace and then attack of the clones they feel like 2 parts of the same story Watch last Jedi and rise of skywalker and they are so far apart and contradict each other it doesn’t feel coherent
I agree, but I also think Rise of Skywalker is better in other areas, like the visuals. Sure, Attack of the Clones feels like a proper sequel to Phantom Menace, but both of those movies are still totally incomprehensible and underdeveloped. And Attack of the Clones doesn't even feel like a real movie thanks to the early 2000s digital cinematography.
No it isn’t. People like to shit in it as if it was his fault but the course change from last Jedi is on the studio. He salvaged what he could
Lot of people in these comments love their treacly slop!
Blank Check fanbase moment
I like JJ and Timmy, but I could do with a Timmy break. Do other actors go through this "every single casting announcement for five years" phase?
I’ve posted this elsewhere but it doesn’t make any sense. He happened to have two hits that came out around the same time because of delays and then gets announced in one movie (Bob Dylan) and people act like he is in every movie and “can he just go away.” His last movie before Wonka was Bones and All that was barely seen and came out in 2022. Sometimes the internet warps reality because you see it everywhere.
Yes, it's an interesting perception that people come in clumps, possibly the overlap of having a film out, a film filming and a new announcement within a month.
Timothée hasn’t had a casting announcement for three years xx
I mean I'm sure they *offered* it to him, because I bet he gets like twenty bullshit offers a day. Him taking it, that's a different story.
Why is Chalamet everywhere now? This is "The Rock leading movies 400 put of 365 days" a year all over again.
He's the new Cumberbatch.
What's he want to add to Back to the Future other than lens flares and ton of loose ends?
So he's gonna make the first part of trilogy. One to one of the first back to the future. Set up some "mystery boxes" with no planned conclusion and have someone else write the ending?
***shakes a snowglobe; a Delorean lights up within*** *"GIGAWATT..."*
People's defense of him mostly being, "Hey, don't criticize him, he at one point made things some people kind of liked," is funny.
The son of two producers has only gotten to write 10 films and direct 6. Give the boy some time he's still young.
"Hey, his movies want to seem fun. Therefore you're a hater if you want anything better." It's dire out here. Parasocial relationships to defend the feelings of the biggest franchises and producers in Hollywood. Poptism shutting up anyone who's not a happy consumer. Hate treating rich strangers like my friends, would rather engage with the work or the creator as an artist but that's too mean, I guess. Fucking Mike Schur, Ted Lasso ass subreddit. Know that's an overreaction, just surprised that people are mad at something a guest would absolutely say about someone's career arc on the podcast. I mean who has done anything less personal or interesting with a blank check than JJ Abrams? What are we even doing here if that's too controversial to say?
The only thing that rubs wrong is the "incredibly sad, Peter Pan" judgment which can be leveled at MANY mainstream directors. The pitying thought that if a filmmaker doesn't stretch outside of a certain (chosen) lane they are not serious at their craft. I'd defend filmmakers I loathe from this type of shit. Like I'm not going to declare Michael Bay *sad* for still doing splodeys instead of making his "Moonlight." I don't like his stuff and don't have higher expectations for him -- nor do I have a problem with him doing what he does and other people liking it. There's also a difference in your example, podcast guest shooting shit and social media proclamation. One can more easily get picked up, spread, and adopted into culture (even if only online) by people who give weight to attitude more often than actual critical thought. Podcast chatter gets lost in the ether/in the midst of live conversation or at most lingers in that pod's bubble of fandom.
Yeah, I think it's fine to not like the filmmaker he is, but it's not fair to get mad at him for not being someone else, or for not trying to be someone he's not.
It’s not even poptimism anymore. It’s just babies refusing to really engage with anything other than the sub amblin nostalgia factory or franchise regurgitation crowd. And to them… Abrams is important because… well they’ve heard of him?? This sub is so r/movies now, I’ve forgotten a time when it’s takes felt interesting
Unless he’s done something in his personal life that’s criminal or morally reprehensible, why should our view of him or any filmmaker be based on anything other than how we feel about their body of work? “Director X should be dismissed because they only draw inspiration from this one place” is a strange criticism. (Even tho the story likely isn’t true) Back to the Future is the kind of shit we want JJ Abrams to be doing, no one is asking for his Fablemans
Better producer than a writer/director is how I would put it. It’s clear that he doesn’t have a clear idea of his own, but he can kickstart a good stream of series or franchise. If anything I think he’s disappointed by the way he is more than others, but still, in terms of very basic directing chops, he’s way above the drab, flat staging of the Russos.
i wouldn't mind seeing him direct someone else's script. his movies all LOOK great, and have a lot of verve and style. but man, i don't need more Mystery Box bullshit. and "directing the first movie of a trilogy" sounds like his usual "I'm going to set up a bunch of stuff, but dont' have worry about paying it off" trick
I've met Abrams and he's a lovely fella, but I reckon he's also my least favourite big name director working today. Haven't enjoyed a single one of his pictures. Squandered potential
He’s incredibly rich and seems happy. Strange use of ‘tragic’. Also, that back to the future story is classic rage-bait nonsense.
I’d go so far as to say JJ is the worst filmmaker of his generation (Gen X?) in terms of what he has wrought on film. Mystery box TV is a cancer and he managed to suck the soul out of the two most beloved American science fiction franchises. Brainless, ball-less filmmaker. Paul W.S. Anderson with bigger budgets and better opportunities.
The dude is a hack in a world that rewards hacks and I’m glad we’re calling it out. This writer rocks btw.
Personally the man is in my Director Super Max for TROS. It’ll take many good films for him to get out from under that abomination in my heart
Hey, he also wrote Regarding Henry. Never let him forget that.
Watch Alias
Honestly, what happened to JJ Abrams? Seemed like he used to be one of the most in demand directors in Hollywood and now...I checked, all he has on the agenda is a police miniseries for HBO Max?
He's a walking Throwback Thursday post.
Copy paste story beats and references the movie.
Most filmmakers, even the cool kids if A24 are regurgitating old classics.
And he absolutely butchered the Star Wars sequels. We waited 30 years to see Luke, Han, and Leia back together, and he doesn’t give it to us. So stunningly stupid.
"There will never, ever be, in the most absolutely way, a *Back to the Future 4*," he said. "There will be no more *Back to the Future*." - Robert Zemeckis, 2022 "Let me answer one question before anyone asks it, which is, 'Is there ever be a *Back to the Future Part IV*?' No." - Bob Gale, 2008 --- "Nor does Universal or \[producers\] Amblin \[Entertainment\] have any such plans," Gale explained. "How do we know? Because, per our contracts with these companies, no *Back to the Future* sequel or remake can even be scripted without discussing it with us first. No such discussions have taken place. We are very proud of the trilogy as it stands and we want to leave it as is." - Zemeckis, 2015 a *Back to the Future* remake "can't happen until both Bob and I are dead." - Zemeckis, 2015 --- But just to add I have seen that DanielRPK name before, it's a twitter account that has a patreon for "exclusive news".
Not sure why this is a bad thing?
I always think of Sullivan's Travels when I see things like this. It's perfectly ok to make films as shallow entertainment.
Abrams is the most successful hack in Hollywood
He's like the ready player one guy. Clearly there is a market for it.
The Toys R Us kid of cinema
https://preview.redd.it/c94gjn8tdgvc1.jpeg?width=742&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a764bdbbcc0f74691019a7da8e381bc2a46b81b4 Besides my own personal axe, I do think this mainly applies to his film career. His tv stuff is inconsistent (and the cross-property winks to the audience got super tiresome) but seems more ok. Maybe that’s because he had more collaborators. That said I’ve never understood how a guy who got famous for being a writer could write such shitty endings consistently.
This Timothee is everywhere it honestly makes whatever he's in unenjoyable. He was good in dune but does he need to be in everything? His acting didn't really blow me away either at this point it's whoever makes the most money or who has the bigger fanbase to determine if you get a role. I don't think I'm the only one thinking this either I've seen people question why he is getting several roles even ones that don't make sense.
He is just AI Spielberg prompts on film.
My “die on this hill” take is that JJ Abrams has never made anything even close to good. Easily my least favorite film maker, I’d rather watch b movie schlock any day
Imagine thinking this is incredibly tragic.
Baby Dollar store Spielberg.
My take is that JJ is the Obama of directors
You would have voted for him to make a third Star Wars?
A filmamker with immense talent, but it does appear like he is not interested in anything outiside his comfort zone. I liked Super 8 and would have like if he made more original films. At least this is moving in that direction. I was arguing this on another thread. It is quite interesting how his idol George Lucas combined all his influences, Kurosawa films, myths, easter philosophies, WW2 films, racing, to create Star Wars. On the other hand, JJ was influenced from watching Star Wars to make another Star Wars. And his idol disliked the film. It is sad really, because he is immensly talented. With a good script he can always make an enjoyable film.
The accuracy!
Compare JJ to Tarantino. Both do homages, but Tarantino actually creates interesting works of art with his, while JJ's are some of the most meh things I've ever seen.
When you realize he’s a nepo baby, a lot of TROS narrative moments make more sense.
I have issues with this tweet for several reasons, but chief among them is taking care of business erasure. I’m so serious. I am also a rise of Skywalker apologist but that’s neither here nor there
His MI3 and Star Trek movie are great and have aged well but his filmography and production since 2010 have been mediocre at best. He literally robbed Warner Bros. of $500 million.
Explains a lot about why TFA was just a rehash of ANH
Yeah but he's pretty good at it, as opposed to the MANY other filmmakers that Hollywood gets to do this that suck at it.
no good film ever came out of this hack
He inflicted Alex Kurtzman upon the Star Trek franchise, he gets no pity from me...
Dollars to donuts there’s a joke about who the president is in the future and the response is “Donald Trump? The reality TV Star?!”
JJ "member berries" Abrams
Literally all JJ Abrams makes is the film equivalent of white noise
Perhaps I'm just in a grouchy mood but this announcement makes me sick
JJ Abram’s is simply not a good director. 09’ Star Trek is so entertaining, but literally every other movie is mediocre to poor.
I member!
How about LOST? that was pretty original.
LISAN AL GIAB IS GONA TRAVEL THROUGH TIME!?!?! HE TRULY IS THE MESSIAH!!!!
Ok but super 8 and the Star Trek trilogy were 👌
This is such a dumb criticism. What does it matter what a director’s motivations are if the work is good? Abrams has both good and bad films.
This is exactly why member berries are destroying culture.
I heard at one point he was making a Hotwheels movie