j.j. abrams Tagged Articles at Cinematical

At the press day for the DVD and Blu-ray release of the 2009 Star Trek, director J.J. Abrams talked briefly about the possibility of putting the series' original Kirk, William Shatner, in the forthcoming sequel. "The Shatner thing comes up quite a bit," Abrams said in a news conference Thursday morning. "Would it have been fun to have him in the movie? Of course. Would it be great to work with him? No doubt."

Abrams spoke to reporters about the DVD and Blu-ray release of Star Trek, which is due on November 17, 2009, but fielded a few questions about the next Trek film, including how and why Shatner didn't fit into the design of the previous one.

J.J Abrams seems like the busiest man in Hollywood. Thursday morning during a promotional appearance for the release of his franchise relaunch for Star Trek, he updated reporters on what's next for him. "Jeff Pinkner and Joel Wyman are running Fringe very well. We're still very involved in that, but they're running that," he said of the popular sci-fi series. "We have a new series that we just sold to NBC that we're going to be producing. It's a pilot. And, there's a movie that I'm writing that I would love to direct, early next year, so we'll see if that comes to fruition."

In addition to his television work, Abrams highlighted a few of the projects he's working on in the next several months both as a producer and director.

J.J Abrams, director of this summer's blockbuster relaunch of the Star Trek film series, told reporters that the forthcoming follow-up will, like its predecessor, both appeal to nonfans and reward those familiar with the long-running franchise. "Whatever the story is and whatever the final movie ends up being, I know it will be something that will work on its own terms and be something that you don't need to know and study Star Trek to get," Abrams said in a press conference Thursday afternoon. "But if you are a fan, there will hopefully be gift after gift of connections, references, characters that you hold near and dear. At least, that's the intent."

Cinematical spoke to Abrams at a press day for the DVD and Blu-ray release of Star Trek, which is due November 17, 2009. The following is an edited version of Abrams' comments to the press about the sequel, which is currently being developed by the director and his original screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

Since you were able to wipe the slate clean with your prequel, do you plan to come up with something completely original, or is there a possibility you will reference some of the existing creatures or races in the next installment?

In the late summer of 1993, all serious movie geeks had their eyes on two movies. The first one was Hard Target, which marked the American debut of the great Hong Kong action director John Woo (whose great Hard-Boiled had recently been in theaters), and the second was True Romance, which was the second screenplay by Quentin Tarantino, whose Reservoir Dogs had been out the year before. I enjoyed both of the new movies just fine, but I kept thinking: what if these two productions had simply switched directors? Tony Scott could have directed the latest Jean-Claude Van Damme snoozer (and hence I wouldn't have bothered to pay money to see it) and then John Woo could have taken over the Tarantino screenplay! How cool would that have been? True Romance would have been the greatest movie, ever!

Something vaguely similar happened this summer, but to a much lesser degree. I'm talking J.J. Abrams directing Star Trek (218 screens), and McG directing Terminator Salvation (81 screens). What if they had switched places? Neither one of them is any great shakes as a director, but I'd put my money on McG as the more interesting of the two. OK. Hear me out. Star Trek had a terrific script, with a really unique idea; it's perhaps the smartest series reboot I've yet seen, but Abrams' clunky direction drove the action to a dead halt at least half a dozen times. On the other hand, the screenplay for Terminator Salvation was pretty much unsalvageable, but McG put together some truly dazzling set pieces, using clean, fast gliding cameras to catch the movement and space of the action scenes.

Stephen King's The Dark Tower series of novels are probably his most underrated, and that can mostly be attributed to the fact that it took him 22 years to finish the series. It's a sprawling epic story, starring The Gunslinger, Roland, and his companions as they are inexorably drawn towards the titular Dark Tower. Like The Lord of the Rings, it's a travel story, with all of the action happening during the journey itself.

If you haven't read the series, I can't recommend it highly enough. It's got gunslinging, swords and sorcery, time travel, interdimensional doorways, artificially intelligent monorails, and so much more. It also ties most of King's major novels together in bizarre ways, without getting boring. Either pick up the first book in the series and check it out, or listen to the audiobook during your commute. You won't be sorry.

Just do it before J.J. Abrams and his Lost crew begin making the movies. Wait, what's that? Abrams? Lost? The Dark Tower? Read on to see how all of these pieces will soon fit together to produce what some claim is destined to become the next Lord of the Rings.

Man, does it feel like ages since this summer season got off to a proper start. The blockbuster season was surprisingly front-loaded (and May was pretty great for it), so while I don't mind all the solid indies that have come around the bend recently -- Away We Go, Humpday, The Hurt Locker, In the Loop, Moon, (500) Days of Summer, etc. -- I'm still waiting for something big and blockbuster-y to surprise me quite like J.J. Abrams' exciting Star Trek reboot did.

Unfortunately, Paramount's putting off the DVD release for the prime holiday season (November 17th -- hey, whatever happened to that ever-shrinking theatrical video window?!), but the two-disc DVD and three-disc Blu-ray releases will both be packed with extras, not the least of which are a feature commentary by Abrams and company and several deleted scenes that keen eyes spotted in the trailers, but never made it to the screen.

Read the full press release -- including all the special features -- over at SciFi Squad

It's not like my love of British comedian Ricky Gervais is a secret around these parts. No worries, though I'll be keeping my inner fangirl at bay, and you don't need to worry about this turning into a 'gush-fest'. The first trailer for The Invention of Lying has debuted over at Yahoo! Movies UK and we have our first glimpse at the story of an alternate universe where human beings have never learned the art of deception. Gervais plays a man working in the film industry who becomes the inventor of lying, and quickly uses his newfound skill for romantic and financial gain.

Gervais seems to have no trouble inspiring praise from his peers, and the cast list for Lying is proof of that comedy clout. Just some the names in the Lying cast are; Jonah Hill, Louis C.K., John Hodgman, Tina Fey, Christopher Guest, Jeffrey Tambor, and Jason Bateman. Gervais has even gotten his first advance review for Lying from J.J. Abrams, who said, "The Invention of Lying' is as funny as it is biting, wholly original, and surprisingly moving. Is there such thing as an important comedy? Turns out there is, and this is it." It's an unlikely source of praise, but after watching the trailer, I guess the big question is: could Abrams be right? The Invention of Lying arrives in theaters on September 25th, 2009.

After the jump: Gervais' working class 'dramedy', Cemetery Junction, goes into preproduction and Gervais stalks the paparazzi...

Warning: This is going to get a little 'spoilery', so if you haven't seen Terminator Salvation you might want to bookmark this baby for later.

It was the moment we were all waiting for this summer season: the resurrection of Terminator. The trailers were looking good, there was a Nolan in charge of rewrites, and for god's sake we even had Batman as John Connor -- how could this go wrong? Well, if you happened to catch the movie over the weekend you know just how wrong it was. It's time to play Monday-morning quarterback in the aftermath of one of this summer's biggest letdowns, and so let's try to answer one question: whose fault was it?

McG
There might be plenty of votes for McG as the culprit. He doesn't have the greatest track record for quality films, but I thought he pulled off a much better movie than expected. The cut-happy editing of Charlie's Angels was long gone and he had some great action set pieces, but that doesn't mean he made a good film. All of his trademark flaws were on display: uneven pacing, character motivations are glossed over or not even addressed; not to mention some stunning gaps in logic -- mainly: can someone explain to me why a techno-overlord like Skynet would build a machine that they can't control?

After the jump; find out who else earned the last three nominations...

Is there really much enthusiasm for a religious thriller this weekend? I realize that The Da Vinci Code made eleventy billion dollars worldwide despite widespread critical negativity, and that legions of fans support Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, and Ron Howard, but I'm not feeling the love for Angels & Demons, which opens on Friday.

I admit I'm biased. I managed to finish The Da Vinci Code, which was one of the most turgid, tortured, self-important works of fiction I've ever read, and don't have much regard for the movie version. I can understand why so many people went to see it, with the unbeatable combination of sensational subject matter, the promise of a thriller, and Tom Hanks' mullet. Yet how many came away satisfied, and demanding a sequel?

Early critical reaction to Angels & Demons has been tepid (54% at Rotten Tomatoes), but that didn't dissuade people before, so that probably won't be a factor. Our ace prognosticator Matt Bradshaw predicted that Angels & Demons would top the box office this weekend with $60 million, with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek dropping to the #2 spot after last weekend's $79.2 million haul. But could Star Trek retain its #1 position? The Movie Blog agrees with me on two points -- disappointment with The Da Vinci Code and lack of buzz for the sequel -- and also suggests that Star Trek's quality, excellent word of mouth, and expected repeat business could make the difference.

What do you think?

Cartoonist/writer Alison Bechdel is credited with coming up with something called "Bechdel's Law" as a gauge for whether she'd be interested in seeing a movie. (See our Cinematical Seven on Bechdel Law) It first appeared in a 1985 installment of her long-running strip, Dykes to Watch Out For, and it goes like this:

1. The movie has to have at least two women in it.
2. Who talk to each other.
3. About something other than a man.

Sadly, if you were to restrict your film-going to films that comply with Bechdel's Law, you'd find yourself avoiding about 99 percent of Hollywood movies, including those that are ostensibly produced for the female audience.

And the new Star Trek? Oh, that's right out.

Like most of America, I love J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot. It's exciting, funny, smart, and the special effects are awesome. But it's a serious sausage fest. If Star Trek were a treehouse, it might not actually have a sign on the door that says "He-Man Woman Haters Club," but there would definitely be free cootie shots available in the sick bay.

How nice it would have been if this brand-new Trek for a brand-new generation reflected some of the strides that women have made in society (if not motion pictures) since the series began in 1966. But the Enterprise's lone named female crew member, Lt. Uhura, is nothing more than The Girl, to be ogled in her miniskirt -- and, at one point, in her underwear -- and lusted after by both Kirk and Spock, if only to make it clear that these new Starfleet men aren't nearly as slash-ficcy as their predecessors.