While that's a fair assessment, I think Abrams has a greater chance of screwing this up than he did with Star Trek (or worse, depending on your point of view with Star Trek).

Abrams is a Star Wars fan boy, so while he may understand the material better and be more invested, he might be too close to this franchise to make proper decisions.

I agree that the mainline needs to be maintained, though I am curious as to the contractual obligations being foisted upon Ford, Fisher and Hamill. I mean, if Disney's plan is to turn movies every couple of years, then does that include the main 3?

For me, the way E7 is handled will determine my future investment in the series. I was not all that in to Clone Wars, though it is slowly interesting me. The prequels continue to decrease in my estimation as time goes on.

I think the film will succeed if it gets me excited and interested again in a film franchise. Star Wars has evolved so far past the films and TV series that the idea of a movie is less enjoyable to me than perhaps it would have been even a couple of years ago.

I think with Abrams there is a level of subtlety that either works well for me, or is something that I just pick up on and wish I could really communicated in a better way. Something about Kirk and Spock really connect with me, and make me hope that whatever new characters hit me in a similar way. Heck, even one act characters like George Kirk, Captain Robeau Noel Clark's character, Harewood (wasn't sure anyone knew his name ) present an interesting moment for the character in crisis.

I think Abrams can do something with the new characters, and bring an "everyman" quality that Luke had in Episode IV. Once he gets those new characters established, it might be more palatable.

Well, that is faint praise, as the saying goes.

I'm honestly a little more hesitant with Abrams directing Star Wars simply because he was is a fan boy of it, which can either bring great success or failure. Or, it might strike somewhere in between, being good at points with some terrible parts somewhere in there.

Star Trek may have been dumbed down by Abrams, but he didn't have far to go. In many ways, given how Lucas drove the franchise, Abrams really  does not have far to go in order to reach up past the failures of the prequels. Also, Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness are smarter than many give it credit for.

But, that is just my point of view

Got it. Just making sure I understand.

I'm just wondering where the line gets drawn with regards to comedy. I guess not all comedy is funny and certainly doesn't excuse jokes in poor taste. But, at the same time, at what point do we not excuse it as a joke? When it becomes a negative influence?

Please note this as a genuine question. not sarcasm.

CM does fit that category though he often relates it to whatever was going on in his life as well, or personal stories. I have listened to many podcasts, especially recently, that fall under a similar perspective, of the knee-jerk, shallow based commentary that takes a little more of the, "This is how I feel about X after viewing it."

Well, that has it's place, but to quote someone "Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom not the end." To have knowledge about why a film is bad, does not always impart the societal impact or commentary the story is trying to have. Movies are bigger targets because they have a bigger audience, but I have seen similar shallow commentary on music albums, books, and other media.

However, and this is just my own personal view, is I like to take in the multiple points of view, from CM, to FIYH to SFDebris and the like, and form my own opinion. I'm not a film critic-honestly, I react to stories with regards to characters and not always to the means of delivery (prose, film making style, etc). So, I generally still fall under the "knee-jerk" category.

I think one example of my research and response view is Star Trek Into Darkness (everyone roll their eyes-here goes fireproof again ). One reason it worked so well for me was the social commentary. Maybe it was done better in other films that year, but the commentary stuck out to me. 

Now, I will not belabor the point, but like others have said, you cannot review a film and remove the societal context. The commentary of Into Darkness could be missed because not everyone recognize the societal context. Likewise, I am trying, desperately, to understand the cultural significance of the Twilight series and why it has mass appeal. It cannot be removed from it's societal context without losing some of its meaning.

I think that is why I enjoy many films that others do not. The "why" does not escape me, even if it is low budget fan film, I seem to get why the film maker made it. I recall one fan film where I wrote the creator and explained to him my comments and criticisms, as well what I thought he was trying to convey in a fan film. To my surprise, he responded and said I was accurate to his intention. It makes me want to be able to sit down with Stephanie Meyer and be able to ask questions.

So, I agree with many others that you cannot remove the context of a film and still review it. Sorry for the meandering post.

Stripes is still one of my favorite Army comedy movies, though watching it as an adult certainly gives it a different flavor.

It is surprising, as has been noted, that it is pro-Army given the era. Also, had to fill out a Selective Service card when I turned 18, which I believe is what the draft is called. But, I have no problems with joining the military so it was, "Meh, need scholarships," type thing for me.

It also gave us one of my favorite drill scenes as well as the term "Urban Assault Vehicle" both of which are used frequently in my vocabulary.

Indeed, it requires a bit of sensitivity, and not of of Le Guin's work can be called pro-feminist. However, there are some that are better than others, like you said, are worth reading.

This is one of the reasons that I like the Mistborn trilogy, and apologize for the apparent harping and promotion of this series. Sanderson likes to subvert tropes, and some of his work is hit and miss. However, Vin, in Mistborn, is a very interesting protagonist, in that she doesn't feel worthy, is built up by the male characters, and finds someone to love. It is not strictly pro-feminist, and I will admit that. However, the characters feel more real, and Vin feels like a woman who is growing and changing in response to the world and demands placed on her. It might be not strictly "pro-female" as she often defers to the male characters, but there is a lot more agency on the part of Vin as the trilogy moves on.

Anyway, shameless plug over

This will be brief, but I wanted to thank you for the article. I will also pass it along to my wife, who writes fan fiction and actively tries to avoid Mary Sue in her original characters. Because of that, I have become far more familiar with the term and definition of a "Mary Sue" than I thought I would ever be.

As a brief aside, perhaps not on topic, I can recall writing short stories in school where the characters were perfect, idealized versions of myself, or playing role-playing games where people's characters where idealized, both male and female. So, as much as criticize stories and films for their characters, part of the reason that I do so is to recognize those traits and to actively avoid them. In this case, I think that Twilight has become a scapegoat in the overall discussion.

Well, I appreciate both Cotterpin Dozer's and Bathilda's perspective regarding this topic. While being male, that certainly does not mean I don't welcome other perspectives, or that somehow mine trumps all. Far from it. I always feel I have something to learn from other people's stories.

That being said, I read Bathilda's recommended article regarding Twilight and while I see the author's point of view, I certainly would not disparage Twilight because of the fact that it is a female fantasy, any more than I would disparage or dismiss a romantic novel. They may not be my genre or preferred book, but that hardly makes it worth diminishing.

However, I do agree that it is a poorly written story, with characters that are hollow, at best, and are difficult for me to connect to, or find any sort of relationship with them. And this is not just me, as CP pointed out. They are poorly written books that are regarded with great acclaim, and held as excellent works of fiction. I find that concerning, so I am cautious.

Now, I do not worry so much about my daughters finding strong female role models, because I am quite grateful to have several strong women, my mother included, to demonstrate to my girls what they can do. Movies and books provide a beginning dialog point, like Bathilda's dad did, and not the end.

From my perspective, it comes down to characters. Are the characters, male or female, people I can relate to or my daughters can relate to and can we learn something meaningful from them? That, for me, is the way to start a dialog in regards to media.

I am willing to attempt to understand the appeal of anything media related to women, from Twilight to Hunger Games. So, this discussion has proven to be very stimulating

Currently playing Fallout 3 for Xbox 360. Pretty fun in terms of RPGs go and I really enjoy the combat system. The world is becoming a little tedious due to the constant threat of being shot and/or eaten by various beasts.

It is a good blend of RPG and FPS game that I really enjoy, similar to Deus Ex, with a more interesting combat system.

Kind of wish I had it on PC to do some modding but I still enjoy it.

What Trey said