Zazzle Shop

Screen printing
Showing posts with label J.J. Abrahms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label J.J. Abrahms. Show all posts

Friday, August 12, 2011

What to Expect From Fringe Season 4: "The show has a meaning that we haven’t shared yet"

Fringe returns for a miraculous fourth season next month, and we'll finally get to discover just what kind of world(s) our characters are living in now.

When we got a chance to talk to the producers and stars, they promised huge surprises and twists. But the producers also promised that we'll start to discover just what Fringe really means, something that we haven't gotten to see yet.

Spoilers, including some pretty big hints for season four, ahead.

We were lucky enough to sit down with all of the Fringe stars, plus producers J.H. Wyman and Jeff Pinkner, for roundtable interviews at San Diego Comic-Con. And what they told us renewed our excitement and curiosity for the show's upcoming fourth season.

The big question hanging over Fringe, of course, is what happens if season four is the final season? The show already has a full-year commitment, and Fox has made it clear the show just has to hold its audience steady to be considered a success. But there's always the possibility that the producers won't get another few years to finish telling their story. Are we going to get the ending to Fringe that they've always said they had in mind?

Wyman says the studio and the network have been totally transparent with him and Pinkner. When the show moved from Tuesdays to Thursdays, and then from Thursdays to Fridays, the network always shared its goals with the producers. At the same time, "it's an expensive canvas," and if they don't get enough viewers, the network won't let them keep painting on it.

Adds Wyman:

The show itself has a meaning to us that we haven't shared yet. We feel confident that that meaning is going to get across. And that really is all we want, as success. To be able to ask questions but give answers, and have people feel satisfied. Because I would want that... If worst comes to worst, and we couldn't do anything, we always joked that we would do comic books, so people could do the story. We'll come up with something. Or a little hand-puppet show. [Laughs] But we feel confident that we're going to be able to tell enough story to make people satisfied.

Says Pinkner, "We know where the show ends. We're fans and we know what it's like to invest time in something and, all of a sudden it's like, 'Wait, that's it?' And that wasn't the creator's intention." And he stresses that they're telling a story about characters, rather than plot mechanics, and they've always known where they want the characters to end up.

"Science fiction is a really neat way to talk about the human condition," says Wyman. "We're always trying to investigate what it's like to be a human right now, in 2011." These questions are not really the same as, "What's going to happen to the Island" on Lost. It's more like, 'I care about these people. What does this show mean? How is it going to end?' It's scary because we do have a lot of seasons in us, you know. But it's okay. If it doesn't happen, then we'll try and finish, and make people satisfied."

And meanwhile, the producers promised huge reveals and twists this season. "We enjoy consequences, so we'll have many surprises along the way," says Pinkner.

I asked the producers whether the revelation in the season finale about the nature of the First People was going to stick. And they said, basically, yes. Pinkner explained:

We know that the First People were Walter. But we have a rule in that we never say we're done with anything. At one people thought we were "done" with Charlie, and we kept saying, 'No, no, no,' and nobody trusted us. And then Leonard retired, and then here he is back again. And we were getting cancelled — we're not done there either. But as far as the First People being a mystery? Yes. Mystery solved.

And when the show comes back, we'll see a new element introduced — one which will "dimensionalize the show," says Wyman. This new element, which they wouldn't reveal, will make the new status quo clear to the audience, and "You'll go, 'Oh.'" The producers are "always trying to recontextualize" with each new season, so that you're not viewing it the same way as you did before. And they hinted that relations between the two universes will not be without tension, now that they're linked together.

So what's the deal with Peter?

What on Earths is up with Peter Bishop? "We ended the season saying he doesn't exist and the characters don't remember him," says Pinkner. Obviously, Joshua Jackson is still on the show, say the producers. And the questions of what's happened to Peter, "will Peter return and how, and what will be the consequences of that," will dominate. "We like to set mysteries but then answer them quickly, and then play the 'And then what?', as opposed to hinging everything on an answer that we're then pushing down the line."

And when Pinkner was listing the mysteries about Peter, he seemed to be on the verge of including "Who Joshua Jackson is playing," but then he stopped himself.

We asked Jackson himself about this, and he said he wished Pinkner had finished that sentence — because Jackson himself doesn't know what's going on, even though they'd already filmed one episode at that point. "I wish they would have finished that sentence. I wish they would have told you, and then you could have let me in." (Watch the video at left, which was shot at another roundtable in the same room, to see Jackson discussing the possibility that Peter might be an Observer, as was hinted by the video at the show's panel.)

But Jackson does have one major clue to offer us: "Everything we knew at the end of season three is still valid, without Peter."

But without Peter in the picture, "everybody's life is quite different," said Blair Brown (Nina Sharp). "A lot of things in their lives are different, because the timeline is changed." And Brown says that for people who've never seen the show, this could be a great starting point, because it's like a fresh reboot. For people who've been watching all along, there'll be extra layers — but for new viewers, it'll all make sense. "It's really quite clever."

"I'm really excited to see how important Peter was to these people's lives, in all these small, tiny ways," adds Jasika Nicole (Astrid Farnsworth). "We take for granted how important it is to have someone in your life, all these years. And then suddenly they're not there any more, and in fact they were never there."

In particular, the backstory of Walter Bishop becomes very different. In the original timeline, Peter comes and gets Walter out of the mental institution in the show's pilot. But with no Peter, things played out very differently — instead, Olivia got Walter out. And Walter actor John Noble told us that "if Olivia took Walter from the hospital years ago, she would still be under a condition of approval. He needs her."

"[Olivia] and Walter have this arrangement that has been made," says Nicole. "Walter is so very different, because he did not transition out of the institution into real life, and so because of that, he's really, really weird this season — even more so than he has been before, which I thought wasn't possible. But it's really sad. It's funny, but it's really sad... It's like he's institutionalized himself, in a way."

And the fact that this crucial part of Walter's backstory — Peter getting Walter out of the institution — didn't happen means that there's a missing piece in these characters' past. "Particularly for Olivia and Walter, there's a chunk missing," says Brown. "And they don't know what it is."

Noble shared the theory he's been expounding in other places lately about what happened to Peter in this new timeline. It's not that he never existed, it's that he died of his illness as a child, instead of being cured.

Meanwhile, we were wondering if Joshua Jackson felt as though Peter Bishop had already achieved his destiny by stepping into the machine, and he felt like that was true:

Yeah. I feel like the character progression from the Peter we introduced at the beginning of the pilot is finished by the end of season three. So [we're] sketching either an aftermath, like a postscript, to that story, or we're having to draw an entirely new — not an entirely new character, but something new has to come out of it. You can chart this for each one of the characters, but their stories are still going. But for Peter — when we introduced him, the guy who cares about nothing, has no roots anywhere, and keeps no friends close to himself and lives this nihilistic life where it's all about him. To go forward three years, and to have that same guy decide first to get into the machine — which he really didn't want to do — but to decide this is my fate, my destiny, that's a major progress. And [second] to get to the future, and have that experience, and basically decide to conspire with his own father and make himself not exist, so that the people he loves will have a chance to live — that is a very noble sacrifice, and it is not anything that the guy three years ago would even have considered doing. So yeah, to me, that is a period, full-stop on Peter.

What else to expect

The new timeline means that Astrid is no longer Walter's caretaker — she's out in the field instead, with a gun and a briefcase! This is something that actor Jasika Nicole has been wanting for a long time, and "I'm really excited about that." And there's another really cool thing about Astrid, which Nicole didn't want to give away yet. "It's a great big step, and I'm hoping at some point she will be chasing after people in her heels, and pulling out her gun," she laughs. But she says it feels weird not to be in the lab with Walter.

Meanwhile, Seth Gabel says the Lincoln Lee we see first in season four will be the one from "our" universe — the Lincoln with the glasses, who "does not know his own power, and does not know the Fringe team yet."

"When I imagine what this season would be about, I sort of imagine two universes being forced to face one another without fear," says Gabel, and try to make peace. And simultaneously, maybe we'll see Peter struggling to come back from wherever he's gone, in some "in-between" place outside of reality. But Gabel stresses he doesn't know anything, and this is just his imagining.

Says Lance Reddick: "I'd like to see Primary Broyles [and] see more of what's happened in his personal life," now that everybody's past is different. We know that Broyles still loves his ex-wife, but he's been forced to move on, but maybe things are different now. And he'd like to see more of Broyles' past with the government and the military. '

Reddick would also like to learn more about the Observers, and what dimension they live in, and where they come from. It appears that "they're outside the whole multiverse," so it could be fascinating to learn more about that.

"Maybe they have a connection to where Peter is, and our future selves," adds Gabel.

Also, Torv and Noble talked a lot about the challenge of playing alternate versions of their characters throughout season three. Noble felt very strongly that the alternate versions needed to be humanized:

We knew going in that because the audiences had come to like us, they would treat [our] enemies as bad people. That's kind of the nature of humanity…we kept asking the writers to humanize these people so the audience weren't sure who to root for.

Added Torv:

Never judge a character, because as an actor, you're taught to always fight their cause. The alternate Olivia isn't bad at all, and Walternate has a completely justifiable reason for doing what he does.

Torv said it was really interesting to play a different version of her character, after a couple of years, and get a different perspective on Olivia. And she worked extra hard during the whole "Fauxlivia/Olivia" switch — on the one hand, the audience needed to be able to tell that Fauxlivia was pretending to be Olivia, but on the other hand, it couldn't be so obvious that the audience would wonder why nobody saw through the charade.

Noble seemed excited at the idea of playing a whole new version of Walter this season: "Anything that doesn't freeze the characters in time" is a good move, he told reporters. If the show's characters don't keep growing and changing, "I think we would cease to be as enthusiastic about them as we are.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

JJ Abrams: 'I called Spielberg and he said yes'

Lost creator JJ Abrams's new film Super 8 was produced by Steven Spielberg. He explains what it was like to work with the man who inspired him to make movies – and why he's proud to be a geek

  • guardian.co.uk
  • JJ Abrams
    JJ Abrams ? 'Now it's a point of pride to be a geek.' Photograph: Jeff Minton/Corbis Outline

    Much has been made over the connection between JJ Abrams, director of Super 8, and his hero – and Super 8 producer – Steven Spielberg. Both view the world like wide-eyed, overgrown boys, and in their most beloved work (Abrams's Lost, Alias and Star Trek; Spielberg's ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind) blend the wonder of the supernatural with the tender harvest of the human heart. Coincidentally, both also kicked off their film careers at the age of 12 by making 8mm home movies. Spielberg was after a Boy Scout photography merit badge, while Abrams's focus was his lifelong obsession with special effects.

    1. Super 8
    2. Production year: 2011
    3. Country: USA
    4. Cert (UK): 12A
    5. Runtime: 112 mins
    6. Directors: JJ Abrams
    7. Cast: Amanda Michalka, Elle Fanning, Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Noah Emmerich, Riley Griffiths, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills
    8. More on this film

    "What I loved about special effects was the magic of it," Abrams tells me. We're sitting in the soft-focus, mumsy luxury of a beachside hotel suite in Santa Monica, French doors thrown open to the late afternoon Pacific breeze. The 45-year-old director-writer-musician (he has composed the themes for many of his TV shows, including Lost, Felicity and Fringe) is dressed casually in jeans and wearing black intellectual-nerd glasses, his wavy black hair a skybound thicket, as if perpetually charged by the intensity of its owner's convictions.

    "When I was a little kid – and even still – I loved magic tricks. When I saw how movies got made – at least had a glimpse when I went on the Universal Studios tour with my grandfather, I remember feeling like this was another means by which I could do magic. It wasn't the guy with the top hat and the rabbits, it was a way of creating illusions that something was real that wasn't. It could be a time and a place, it could be a weather system, it could be an aeroplane flying through the air, it could be a creature that wasn't really there, a fight scene, blood splattering, window breaking, fire – it could be anything. All these things were little magic tricks, and the idea that they could all add up to create the illusion that something was real, so that people would have an emotional reaction to the relationship, a circumstance, an event – that was very exciting to me.

    "It was almost like creating my own assignments: 'I want to see if I can make that thing look real; like that spaceship's really flying, like that person has a twin and they're in the same frame.' And then I would go about doing it. Frankly, I use some of those ideas far more now than I ever did when I was a kid."

    I can see Abrams getting lost in the question – in every question during our conversation – furrowing his brow and looking down into a middle space as he formulates his response, his answers picking up steam after an initial hesitant launch, until his words spill out in a salvo of emphatic zeal. He's a fast talker.

    "What I love, and what Steven Spielberg has in his work, is a sense of unlimited possibility, the sense that life could bring you anything, that around every corner could be something amazing . . . extraordinary. And that's not to say glorious and good. It could be terrifying, it could be confusing, it could be disturbing, or it could be wonderful and funny and transportive."

    Terrifying, funny and transportive are apt descriptors for Super 8, Abrams's first film as both director and writer. Using his adolescent auteur experiences as the jumping-off point, the story follows a group of children in the summer of 1979 as they set about making an 8mm zombie film. Our hero is Joe, a 13-year-old struggling with his mother's sudden death in a factory accident, while he assists his friends' film by designing monster makeup and exploding model trains.

    Make-believe careens into chilling reality one night during the youngsters' shoot at an old train depot, when they witness a horrifyingly violent crash, followed by what seems to be the escape of a malevolent presence from one of the mutilated carriages. In the aftermath, eerie phenomena occur, the military descend, people start to disappear and Joe fights to save the ones he loves.

    "When I called Steven, it was an instinct to work with someone who was a hero of mine since I was a kid, and I had no idea what the movie was," admits Abrams. "All I had was the title, and knew this could be a movie about a group of kids making movies, and he was the one person I knew who had done this the way I had, who could help a movie like that get made. So I called him, and he said yes."

    But curiously, Super 8 is not the first time Abrams has worked for his hero. When he was a teenager, he was profiled in a newspaper article about his participation in a young film-makers' festival in Los Angeles. In a coincidence straight out of a movie, Spielberg read the article and hired Abrams and a friend to repair some 8mm reels that he had knocking around from his own teenage movie-making days.

    Super 8 Left-right: Ryan Lee as Cary, Joel Courtney as Joe Lamb, Elle Fanning as Alice Dainard and Riley Griffiths as Charles Kasnick in Super 8. Photograph: Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

    Abrams's mother Carol has described her horror at finding the spaghetti pile of Spielberg's unspooled films blanketing the floor of her son's bedroom. "What have you done?!?" she's reported to have screamed. "He's going to sue us! We're going to lose our house! We're going to lose our cars!" Fortunately for both the Spielberg archives and Abrams's future in Hollywood, young JJ finished the job and split the $300 fee with his partner, though he had yet to actually meet the famous director.

    Even the casual cineaste will be able to connect the dots between Super 8 and Spielberg classics ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jurassic Park, even The Goonies. I wondered if Abrams had struggled to avoid quoting Spielberg on the master's turf of emotional, child-oriented sci-fi, or if it was a deliberate homage.

    "The initial conceit was not 'do a Spielbergian movie,'" Abrams says. "I didn't think: 'Oh, let's start ripping off other Spielberg films.' It was just: 'This is a story that could be cool.'

    "I'd called a guy who had a production company called Amblin, who made a bunch of movies that I loved [when I was] growing up and still love now, and when you're working with someone who inspires you in a certain way, that's part of the fun of it.

    "Super 8 is about kids in 1979 who are the age that I was at that time, and I was massively influenced by Steven's films. What made perfect sense was not: 'OK, let's ape his movies and start copying things,' but let's make a movie that feels like it belongs on a shelf with other Amblin movies.

    "It was a spirit, not a scene, that I was trying to emulate. It felt like: 'This is what the movie wants to be.' I would actually say that because I was doing it with Steven, I felt entirely liberated to embrace that kind of stuff. I never would have made this movie this way, I'm certain, had he not been a producer."

    What about the decision to set Super 8 in 1979, before the onset of the internet and instant YouTube stars?

    "The idea of doing a story about a bunch of kids now making a movie on an iPhone has no interest for me whatsoever," Abrams declares. "Part of this was about an era where, if you were that age, making movies, you were an oddball. Not every kid had a camera the way they do now, on their phone. It meant effort, because you had to consider: 'Well, I only have so much film, so what am I gonna film?' You couldn't just record over it. You had to make a choice.

    "I'm obsessed with things that are distinctly analogue. We have a letterpress in our office. There's an absolute wonderful imperfection that you get when you do a letterpress, and that is the beauty of it. The time that is put in setting the type and running the press, inking the rollers, all that stuff – that kind of thing is clearly an extreme example. But it's the beauty of the actual investment of time, and the amount of time that goes by lets you consider things that somehow, in a kind of weird osmosis or spiritual way, is somehow implicit in the final product. And that seems to not exist much any more."

    Was there pressure to come up with a terrifying monster for Super 8, given Abrams's early focus on special effects?

    "It was a challenge," he acknowledges. "I needed the creature to be intimidating, scary, but also be emotive and not just be empathetic, but sympathetic. Which means eyes. Which means a mouth. Well, how many eyes? How many mouths? The idea of the movie being that you have to face the thing that is the most frightening to you, the most devastating to you, to get past it. Ultimately, it wasn't that we see the creature, but it was what happens with the creature."

    The talk shifts to Lost, and Abrams's continued fascination with magic – in this case, the magic that occurs when an audience's engagement with a show turns it into something bigger than originally conceived.

    "[Lost] was very much about faith versus science, and the notion of who has had a profound impact on your life and how these characters form a kind of tapestry," Abrams muses. "When you do a show that has that kind of ongoing conversation, the audience not only invests in the show in ways that you could never anticipate, but also makes connections to things that you may not have even considered. When you work on something that combines both the spectacular and the relatable, the hyperreal and the real, it suddenly can become supernatural. The hypothetical and the theoretical can become literal. And that is part of the genius of science-fiction or fantasy writing, which is that it suddenly lets you go, 'Ooh – what if?' which the straight drama almost never lets you do."

    Do woebegone Losties give Abrams an earful about the finale?

    "Oh my God, yes," he groans. "For years, I had people praising Lost to death, and now they say: 'I'm so pissed at you for the end of Lost.' I think a lot of people who were upset with the ending, were just upset that it ended. And I've not yet heard the pitch of what the ending should have been. I've just heard: 'That sucked.'"

    In addition to the premiere of Super 8, Abrams has a full platter of projects: the Mission: Impossible film he's producing; the upcoming TV shows, Alcatraz and Person of Interest, which he is consulting on; Fringe, the ongoing supernatural thriller series; as well as a comedy series he is developing – a new direction for him. And then there's the next Star Trek film, which he's keen to direct ("The idea of someone else saying 'action' to those actors in those characters on that set makes me jealous," he says), though nothing is decided.

    As man who continues to frolic on his boyhood playing fields of magic and movies, Abrams represents the outsider who lives in his head. Does he feel responsible for perpetrating the new supremacy of the geek?

    "No." Abrams shifts impatiently in his armchair. "First of all, the definition of geek has changed. When I started, a geek was an undeniable loser: long-necked, trips over his own feet, a complete outcast. And now geek means someone who likes science-fiction. When I was a kid, it was a huge insult to be a geek. Now it's a point of pride in a weird way. I feel very lucky to be working in a business and to be part of stories that are embraced by people who fit the current definition of geek. And also maybe the occasional athlete."

    • Super 8 is released on 5 August

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Fully-Functional Super 8 Film Projector Built With LEGO! (VIDEO)

The Spielberg and JJ Abrams' throwback film, Super 8, is on its way to theaters and it looks like we’re not the only people excited about it. Whether or not it has anything to do with the release of the film we’re not sure, but Friedemann Wachsmuth has built a fully-functional Super 8 film projector using nothing but LEGOs!

Ok, so obviously the lens, reel spindles and lamp aren’t made from LEGOs but the rest of this thing is 100% LEGO awesomeness. LEGO Technic pieces were the building material of choice and the projector seems to work pretty well. Wachsmuth has even given it the ability to rewind when he’s done watching grandpa’s old home movies!

The projector uses two engines, features automatic feeding at 24 fps and uses an LED flashlight as the lamp. It’s always great to see people build usable pieces of equipment with nothing but LEGOs, so head past the break to see Wachsmuth’s LEGO Super 8 projector in action!

Lego Technic Super-8 Movie Projector from Friedemann Wachsmuth on Vimeo.

ALCATRAZ - Fox TV - First Look Trailer



Uploaded by on May 16, 2011

ALCATRAZ is coming to FOX midseason 2012!

Follow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ALCATRAZonFOX and "Like" on Facebook www.facebook.com/ALCATRAZonFOX

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Secret URL Discovered in Super 8 Trailer


by reelz
from http://www.reelzchannel.com/

Remember that awesome trailer for J.J. Abrams' upcoming secretive project Super 8? The movie has been so under wraps that we don't even really know what it is about yet. Well, the investigative team at ReelzChannel found a clue hidden within the trailer for the summer flick.
A url is hidden in the camera lens in the trailer, s8editingroom.com, a website apart from the official website for the movie — www.super8-movie.com.

The website reveals some seemingly "lost" footage of scientists talking about an (alien?) experiment.
For fans of Abrams, the secrecy around the movie can be frustrating but in an era where leaked pics, scripts, and video hit the net long before a movie's release, it is kind of refreshing to be completely in the dark about one of the most highly anticipated movies of the summer.

What we do know about the movie is that it takes place in the summer of 1979 in a small Ohio town where a group of kids witness a train crash. Shortly after, unusual disappearances and inexplicable events begin to take place in town. Abrams has called Super 8 his homage to the Steven Spielberg, who is a producer, movies of the 1970s.

We still have a long way to go until the movie's June 10 opening. We can only wait and see what other breadcrumbs Abrams leaves for us.


Next Showing: Super 8 opens June 10

Friday, March 11, 2011

First Full Trailer For Super 8 Finally Lands Online

By: Eric Eisenberg
From: http://www.cinemablend.com/




First Full Trailer For Super 8 Finally Lands Online



Earlier this week we posted a rumor that the first full trailer for J.J. Abrams' Super 8 would be attached to prints of Battle: Los Angeles, being released this weekend. While we didn't know if it would come in the form of a pirated video or official release, we knew that one way or the other the trailer was going to hit online quickly. Lucky for us it was the latter.

Paramount has released the first trailer for the sci-fi film, due out on June 10th. As per the official synopsis released earlier tonight, the film is about a group of kids who, while making a movie with a super 8 camera, witness a train crash. Suddenly, weird occurrences begin to spread around the small town and the answer may rest in what escaped from that cargo train.

Check out the trailer below. For more of the latest on Super 8, keep up to date with the Blend Film Database.


Friday, January 21, 2011

83 crazy differences between Fringe's alternate universe and ours

83 crazy differences between Fringe's alternate universe and ours

Thursday, September 9, 2010

J.J. Abrams teams up with 'Dark Knight' scribe on a new thriller

by Michael Ausiello
from: http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/

abrams-jonah-nolan

Image Credit: David Livingston/Getty Images


If pedigree alone were enough to get a TV show greenlit, this next project would be a slam dunk: J.J. Abrams is currently shopping a crime-thriller series created by Jonah Nolan, brother and frequent collaborator of The Dark Knight/Inception auteur Christopher Nolan.

This would mark the first small-screen foray for Nolan, who not only co-wrote The Dark Knight and The Prestige but penned the short story on which Memento was based.

According to an insider, one network is extremely interested in the untitled project. My hunch is, it won’t be the only one.

All in all, it’s shaping up to be a busy development season for Bad Robot boss Abrams, who is also pitching an Alcatraz-set drama series written by fellow Lost producer Elizabeth Sarnoff.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Top 10 Lost Plot Holes

By David Scarborough
From: http://www.hecklerspray.com/

We absolutely adored Lost here at hecklerspray. Every episode piled on the intrigue with careless restraint; phallic stone plugs, grown men wearing too much eye-liner and a guy who could turn into smoke at his illogical whim – Lost had it all.

After six series, fans waited patiently for a final episode they thought held promise to unravelling the Island secrets in a satisfying way. Most people only found that there was no surprise inside this Island’s Kinder Egg, just left with chocolate on their fingers and a deep sense of urgent bowel movement.

What it did leave us was enough holes in the plot to sink a badly-rendered submarine. Some people say it leaves the series with a sense of ambiguity. We say the writers cocked-up. Here is our Top 10 Lost Plot Holes…


Remember back in Season 4 before Sayid got the tubb-tum, and was going all Jason Bourne around the flashforwards? Well, there was a mysterious ‘Economist’ he was tracking down to kill for Ben. Was it Widmore? Probably. Will we ever know? Unlikely. This is destined to remain as frustratingly inconclusive as Sayid’s English accent in the final season.

9. How does it make sense that Desmond could go into the afterlife and back?


Granted, a lot of these plot holes arose after the final series, mainly because the final episodes dealt with a colossal clusterfuck of ideas when it started spouting religious hokum. When Widmore bought his giant donut to the Island to help harness Desmond’s resistance to electromagnetism, it propelled our Des into this purgatory. It was kinda like the plot to Flatliners, except without Jack Bauer crying every five minutes.

8. What are The Numbers?


The numbers were a prevailing mystery throughout Lost’s run. The first were the cursed equation that linked somehow to the Island, in turn making Hurley’s life hell when he used to Numbers and won the lottery. They were then engraved and used in The Hatch to stop the world ending (and by not typing them bringing our team to the Island). Later they were revealed to be assigned to the last candidates. Did it ever explain why they were so important/cursed? No. Because how could you tangibly explain why numbers are so important? You’re an idiot if you thought it could ever make sense.

7. How can you travel through time using ‘Water and Light?’


This is a plot hole in the form of a rare occurrence on lost: an answer. Seemingly medieval Man in Black decides to harness the Island’s ‘Source’ to get out of that damned place. It’s simple really: he attaches a wheel to a wall and uses water and light to travel. You read that right, he uses water and light; a startling scientific breakthrough that would have Stephen Hawking kicking himself (if he could).

6. Why did some time travel and not others?


Jack struggles to work out when the show stopped making sense.

Back in Season five when the show decided to embrace its sweating nerdling underbelly, it skipped our characters through time all with the help of a frozen donkey wheel – yes, that actually happened. When Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Ben and Sun came back to the Island, Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sayid were swamped by white light and transported back to the 70s to get their hippy on with Sawyer. Meanwhile, Sun, Ben – and to a lesser extent, Frank – remained in the present day. The only slight assumption we can make is that Sun, Ben and Frank were not Candidates, and Jacob transported the others back in time with his magical droopy eyes.

5. How comes Kate didn’t grown any armpit hair?


She doesn’t exactly jump into the banana grove every other day to have a quick trim, does she? Maybe she supplied it all for all the awful wigs Jack wears.

4. What was the Smoke Monster?


Last time we went down the log flume at Thorpe Park, there wasn’t a giant pillar of smoke on the other side. Was MIB killed and the Smoke Monster took his form like Locke, or can MIB just take the form of smoke now? If he was dead then why did Smokey also want to leave the Island? Where did MIB go when he fell down the hole (there was just ground down there when we visited it)? It would’ve made more sense if Jacob had created him by just bending over and letting one rip.

3. Who ordered ‘The Purge’?


Back in Season three, everyone kept banging on about the Dharma Initiative purge. We later found out that Ben gassed the whole village, then dumping all the bodies in a hole. That’s not very Namaste! It also seems totally unlike the laidback Jacob to order a Holocaust on the unsuspecting scientists. Maybe he just got sick of their stupid haircuts.

2. What’s the deal with Christian Sheppard?


Christian Sheppard is one of Lost’s greatest enigmas. It’s a fair assumption that his body was taken by MIB, considering Cocke admitted as much to Jack, proclaiming to have been the visions of Christian Sheppard all along. It all gets confusing, though, as Hurley saw Christian in Jacob’s cabin along with another person – who was that (it certainly didn’t look like Jacob). Also the Man in Black couldn’t leave the Island, yet Christian appeared on the boat located outside of the Islands magnetic radiance and, more bafflingly, appeared to Jack twice at his hospital in LA. Those evil manifestations of smoke, eh? What a bunch of lying bastards.

1. What is Walt?


This picture was taken on Walt’s 8th birthday.

The big question that was on everyone’s lips: What was the deal with Walt? Yes, everyone know that the kid’s balls were dragging in the sand by the end of Season two, assuring he was given a quick exit. Yet, he appeared in frequent freaky visions (covered in water whispering backwards to Shannon; telling Locke he had work to do) and was the much coveted prize of The Others. Did we ever get an answer as to why he was so special and seemingly possessing superpowers? No. It has left fans frustratingly screaming ‘WAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLTTTTTTT!!!!’ in despair.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Super 8 - Official HD trailer goes live on iTunesTrailers watch!

apple.com Apple has posted the official trailer for the JJ Abrams/Spielberg secret film Super 8 in HD.
Click here for the trailer:
Super 8 - Official HD trailer

Friday, May 7, 2010

*** TOP SECRET J.J. Abrams/Spielberg SUPER 8 TRAILER ***


SUPER 8 J.J. Abrahms and Steven Speilberg - Oh God!!!

Friday, April 30, 2010

Lost Finale “Will Generate A Tremendous Amount Of Theorizing”

by Peter Sciretta
from: http://www.slashfilm.com/

Lost Final Flight
If you’re expecting Lost to end with definitive answers think again. The Hollywood Reporter conducted an interview with Lost co-creator-showrunner Damon Lindelof, who revealed that the series finale will “end lost in a way that feels ‘Lost’-ian and fair and will generate a tremendous amount of theorizing.”
“The Sopranos ending only would have worked for The Sopranos. … The great thing about series finales is that they have to fit the show. … We’re going to be as definitive as we can be and say this is our ending, but there’s no way to end the show where the fans aren’t going to say, ‘What did they mean by this?’ Which is why we’re not going to explain it.”
Also, Damon claims “a very large part of” the finale was “part of the original plan.” Lindelof also addresses criticism of the sixth season’s “Flash-sideways” by explaining that “people don’t know what it is, they don’t know how it connects back to the show.”
“So we’re throwing this big mystery into a show that already has a bunch of mysteries in a time frame when they are expecting us to be closing doors, not opening them.”

Lindelof also revealed that some huge sets were created for the series finale, and to help avoid leaks, the final scenes were filmed during the middle of the production schedule instead of the final days. Watch the interview segments embedded below:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Monday, February 1, 2010

First 4 Minutes From Lost Season 6 Online

Source:Dark UFO
January 29, 2010


ABC recently held a sweepstakes in which 815 winners received an exclusive message in a bottle with the opening minutes of the sixth and final season of "Lost." That footage is now online and can be watched using the player below! The premiere is airing on Tuesday, February 2 at 8/7c.

Friday, January 15, 2010

J.J. Abrams finds 'Undercovers' female lead

British actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw to star with Boris Kodjoe

By Nellie Andreeva

J.J. Abrams has cast another ingenue as the female lead of his newest TV project.

After a lengthy search, British actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw has landed the female lead opposite Boris Kodjoe on "Undercovers," Abrams' pilot for NBC.

"Undercovers," which Abrams co-wrote with Josh Reims, revolves around a domesticated husband (Kodjoe) and wife (Mbatha-Raw) who are re-activated as CIA agents after years of retirement.

Abrams also will direct, marking the first pilot he has helmed since "Lost" in 2004.

Mbatha-Raw, a graduate of London's Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, broke through during the summer when she was cast as Ophelia opposite Jude Law in the Donmar Warehouse production of "Hamlet," which had successful runs in London's West End and on Broadway.

The daughter of a South African doctor and an English nurse, Mbatha-Raw hasn't appeared on American TV but has done arcs on several popular British series including "Spooks" and "Doctor Who."

She is the latest discovery for Abrams, who is known for breaking new young female talent on his TV series. He cast Keri Russell on "Felicity," Jennifer Garner on "Alias," Evangeline Lilly on "Lost" and, most recently, Australian Anna Torv on "Fringe."

Although Kodjoe and Mbatha-Raw are biracial, casting on the leads for the pilot was done color-blind, producers said, as they looked for the actors who best fit the characters and had the best chemistry.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Q&A: J.J. Abrams

hr/photos/stylus/117968-abrams_startrek_490.jpg

J.J. Abrams on the set of "Star Trek"

The writer-director's career goes into warp speed with 'Star Trek'

By Jay Fernandez

From: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/

It's easy to forget that J.J. Abrams, who has been knocking around the business for 20 years, has only directed two films. His font of brainy TV series -- from "Felicity" and "Alias" to "Lost" and "Fringe" -- has so saturated pop culture that he's now practically a brand. A screenwriter for years, he finally stepped behind the feature camera in 2006, directing "Mission: Impossible III." This year, he captained a reboot of "Star Trek" to $383 million worldwide and the movie may also break into the best picture race. He recently spoke with The Hollywood Reporter's Jay Fernandez.

The Hollywood Reporter: Was there any part of making "Star Trek" that felt personal?

J.J. Abrams: Quite a bit. It's a story about family and friendship and loyalty and finding your place and your way and being insecure about any number of things. And that is a universal idea that doesn't need to take place in space; it can take place anywhere -- and that idea feels very personal. I found myself surprisingly connected to a character called James T. Kirk. I found myself loving a character whose name was Spock. And as someone who was never really a "Star Trek" fan and who never really connected with any of the characters, it was the last thing in the world I ever expected.

THR: The movie has been embraced by geek culture. How do you feel about the rise of that?

Abrams: If you look back, there's always been a certain level of fantasy, science fiction, horror. The only litmus test that I ever have is: Is the thing that we're working on the thing I want to go see? It's always just about trying to work on the stuff that you feel like you yourself would go out and go see. If you start trying to anticipate what an audience is going to like and not like, you're probably in trouble.

THR: How do you see your relationship with fans?


More awards coverage
Abrams: I am obviously indebted to them. The great thing about getting a consensus because of the Internet is it allows you to really hear what the audience is feeling. It's a wonderful tool to understand what's working and what's not working. Because I do try and work on the kinds of projects that I want to go see, I don't feel like my audience is any different from my friends or myself -- I feel like I am those people.

THR: You like to meet with random people who interest you. What's the impulse there?

Abrams: It's just people who have inspired me over time. Probably the greatest perk of the job is being able to make contact with people who were your heroes in some form or another. There's no agenda other than wanting to hear their story and try to glean from it what you can.

THR: Have you ever pulled anything concrete from those meetings that has made its way into your work?

Abrams: It really is just about trying to personalize the inspiration. When there's someone whose music you love or whose paintings you love or whose writing you love or whose acting you love -- when you meet with them, you discover that you actually know them better than you even thought. I've done this for a long time. I was a kid and I was sending letters to people like Dick Smith, the makeup artist. I have letters from various people, mostly in film, whose work I loved as a kid. Whether it's cartoonists or composers or astronauts or synthesizer builders, I have been able to contact these people and benefit from just hearing them share their experiences. You can always find some analogy in what someone else goes through -- whether it's just the pure insecurity of what they were doing and uncertainty as to what would result that you take to heart and is comforting, or the reminder that these people were up against all sorts of obstacles, political or social or cultural or monetary, and you see that these people simply didn't give up and overcame whatever their challenges were.

THR: How do you feel about the balance of your career right now, between writing, directing and producing? Do you wish you were doing more or less of one or the other?

Abrams: Not necessarily. It's hard to quantify the value of one or the other, but the balance feels good. The litmus test is: Are these things that I would be really annoyed if I saw them and I didn't have anything to do with them? I do wish that there were more hours in the day. The balance between family and work is the more important challenge that you've got to solve.

THR: Do you feel any pressure to direct movies more often?

Abrams: There are so many things that I should not be directing. A lot of times I look at something and I think, "Oh my God, that would be amazing. I would completely f*** that up." I just know that there are things I probably am not capable of, and then there are other things that I'm not sure if I am, and those are the things that excite me the most. The things that I know I could do are the things that I would probably screw up just as much. When you're too in your comfort zone, it's not necessarily the most creative thing. But I hope to direct a movie next year.

THR: And what's that going to be?

Abrams: It's just this thing I'm writing right now. It's taken longer to write the script than I was hoping.

THR: What's the most exciting recent development you've seen in the industry?

Abrams: One of the coolest things is this camera technology and how the tools for creating images and telling stories -- whether it's the camera or even postproduction consumer products like After Effects and Final Cut Pro -- are essentially democratized now. There is no barrier anymore between the person who wants to make a movie and tell a story and the person who's making the movie.

THR: Are there ever drawbacks to keeping your own projects so mysterious?

Abrams: I feel like any kind of project has a shelf-life risk to it, whether it exists as a film or it exists as an idea that's in the ether. You don't want things to be played with or speculated about or discussed, examined or investigated before they even exist. It can destroy the thing. Because I guarantee you it (can) negatively affect my actually writing the thing. I would have felt like it was ruined somehow by having been discussed. I can't tell you how many times I've had an idea and discussed it with simply one too many people. I just have no more interest left in actually creating it.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

JJ ABRAMS PRODUCING MISSION IMPOSSIBLE IV

J.J. Abrams wrote and directed Mission Impossible III, which was supposed to be a big deal at the time, but it only grossed a disappointing $134 mil domestically on a $150 mil budget (though it eventually made almost $400 mil worldwide). I always assumed that was because by the third film (after a second one directed by John Woo featuring a motorcycle joust fight - God that movie sucked), no one cared about the Mission Impossible franchise anymore. Nonetheless, word on the street is that Abrams is back as producer for a fourth movie. From TV Guide (via SpoilerTV):

“I am incredibly honored that Tom (Cruise) has invited me back as a producer on Mission Impossible 4. says Abrams. “Tom and I have come up with a really cool idea we are pursuing.”

That idea? Tom Cruise must travel back in time to find the source of all the lens flares. (Tom’s thinking alien spirits).

Friday, May 22, 2009

J.J. Abrams Responds To 'Star Trek' Fans' Theories

Director says Beastie Boys song isn't a jab at William Shatner.



Are you ready for a sneak peek at tomorrow's blockbusters today? Check out our new series "Behind the Screen" Sunday night at 11 p.m. on MTV for the broadcast premiere of the "BrĂĽno" trailer, an exclusive clip of Brad Pitt in Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds," the very first visit to the set of Russell Brand's "Get Him to the Greek" and much more!

In the weeks since J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot opened to huge numbers, Trekkies all over the world have engaged in a time-honored tradition: Obsessing over minutiae that may or may not have a deeper, off-screen context. Some are brilliant, some are silly, but they're all fun to listen to, aren't they?

With this in mind, we brought four of the more fascinating theories straight to the "Trek" director himself, and he was eager to separate fact, fiction and fantasy:

The "Abrams Sabotaged Shatner" Theory: Some Trekkies have postulated that the new movie's inclusion of the Beastie Boys classic "Sabotage" is a subtle dig at the original Captain Kirk, who has been known to mispronounce the word as "sabotaage."

"Yes, I have heard that theory," laughed Abrams. "It was so funny when I heard it. I wish I could say it was done on purpose, but it was not. I just dig the song."

The "Throw the Old 'Trek' Off a Cliff" Theory: In the same scene as the "Sabotage" song, a young James T. Kirk drives a '60s-era Corvette over a cliff, leaping out at the last minute. Some fans believe that the car is from 1966 — the year "Trek" came on the air — and that it represents a statement about the new film throwing away the trappings of the classic show.

"I'm not sure if it was a '66," Abrams said of the Corvette. "But that was also the year that I was born, so I wouldn't want to do that to the year, for personal reasons. No, the idea was to show the renegade, young Kirk and have a wildly anachronistic scene where you had an earthbound, almost back-looking scene combined with a forward-looking futuristic scene technologically. It had nothing to do with that kind of metaphor."

The "Kelvin Crew Knows Who Romulans Are" Theory: In the classic "Trek" series, humans didn't know what Romulans looked like prior to Captain Kirk's time; in the new film, a Romulan craft kills the humans aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin. According to one fan theory, the attack on the Kelvin leads to a slip-up by Abrams, because the human crew recognize their attackers as Romulans.

"It's not mentioned in the scene on the Kelvin, but they are aware of it," Abrams confirmed, agreeing with the sharp-sighted fans. "Because later in the movie, Kirk mentions that they were Romulan. And we very purposely begin the film with a moment that, for fans of 'Star Trek,' is a left turn from the timeline they are familiar with." For anyone who thinks they "caught" Abrams, however, the director is quick to point out the opposite. "For fans of 'Trek,' yes, the Romulans appearing breaks with what is known to be 'Trek' canon. But that is on purpose."

The "Sleeker, Faster Response" Theory: If the new "Trek" gives us the Enterprise equivalent of a Blu-Ray disk, then the ship on the original "Trek" looks like a Betamax tape. One fan theory is that the attack on the Kelvin forced the Federation to build sleeker, faster spacecraft in the movie's new reality.

"Right," agreed Abrams. "The idea of the story is that at the beginning of the film something happens that changes the course of history. They cross paths with this futuristic ship, and it changes everything that would've been the classic series 'Trek' fans are familiar with. ... One could argue that, based on the readings they got from the [Romulan] ship that showed up, it inspired ideas and technology that wouldn't have advanced otherwise." Hence, the huge difference between the old Enterprise and his version. "On the one hand, you could answer the question by saying that history got a boost, an adjustment, from this moment at the beginning of the film," he grinned. "And if you don't want to answer the question, you could say it's just a movie."

‘Fringe’ star fired!

By Greg David

Canned thespian reveals firing on Facebook


Fringe, Fox
Charlie has fallen off the 'Fringe'


People use social networking website Facebook for different reasons – to post pics of their kids, boast that they’re sunning during a day off, or lamenting that Kris Allen won American Idol.

Actor Kirk Acevedo utilized FB in a different way; he let the online community know that he was fired from Fox drama Fringe, reports Entertainment Weekly.

“Well boys and girls, they done did yer boy wrong! They fired me off of Fringe, and I’ve never been fired in my life!!!” his FB status read.

This is a bummer on a couple of levels, as Acevedo’s character, FBI agent Charlie Francis, was a nice addition to the cast, injecting just the right amount of skepticism in contrast to the rest of Fringe’s characters.

Plus, Charlie only recently survived being injected with monster saliva, which morphed into nasty worms that were going to devour him from the inside.

He made it through that, only to be let go by producers.

The Live Journal website adds that a casting call has gone out, looking for a female FBI agent who is “attractive, brash, outspoken, quick-witted and capable.”

Rest in peace, Charlie.

greg@tvguide.ca