No.... but I think you might want to hear some to accurately portray if the movie will have substance, which was your quote.
Stereo, that's my quote completely out of context. The very next paragraph reads:
Scenes like this aren't cinematographically good, because it's unnatural to the setting and the environment. Think about how the story, setting, and plot had to be twisted just to make this scene happen...
I don't take his movies seriously. Who does?
So I pegged you correctly, you fit into group #1 of Abrams fans.
"I don't take his movies seriously."
But then the entire point of your post is described in the very next sentence... "Who does?" implying "Why are you taking this so serious?"
Stereo, some of us really enjoy these films. We really enjoy the art of filmmaking. Abrams hasn't demonstrated he particularly cares about maintaining the heart of a particular story - hence the Star Trek references; nor has he demonstrated an ability to direct a memorable film -
not ever in his career, and with virtually unlimited budgets.
So when you imply we're somehow jumping the gun, or that we shouldn't take it seriously, it's kind of weird - it's almost like trolling.
You know there are people who take art, music, movies seriously right? And you know there are people who love Star Wars and Star Trek as their favorite stories growing up, right?
Popcorn blockbusters is exactly what he makes, and I don't see why those don't have their merit as exactly that?
They do.. they are popcorn movies, for people who enjoy popcorn movies.. Not all people enjoy those kinds of films because they are so highly predicable, evoke little emotion, and require very little thought.
Again, by your own admission, he makes "popcorn movies," yet you question me when I say I predict the movie will lack substance?
C'mon..
Shakespeare...
In The Tempest by William Shakespeare, Act II, scene i, the character of Antonio utters the phrase “what’s past is prologue”. In Antonio’s speech, he was trying to convince the character of Sebastian to murder his sleeping father so that Sebastian could become king. All that had happened up until then – their past – was merely a prologue to the great things to come if they went through with the deed. A prologue was a preface to a play or novel that “set the scene” and provided some background information.
In other words, if JJ Abrams' past movies have been without substance, or in essence "popcorn films," what should we expect from his
next film?
...What? I mean, so are you assuming that this film will make that exact same mistake?
I'm predicting, based on all of his previous directorial credits, that he will stylistically remain the same. Why would I assume he would change? What evidence is there to suggest otherwise?
Maybe it will. I don't see evidence in the trailer though.
Because maybe you aren't looking hard enough?
See JJ Abrams' work.