Saw Neighbors over the weekend.  It was the usual Seth Rogan vehicle.  ie. a few decent laughs but relies mainly on his reactions and delivery to make it funny.  I'd suggest seeing it on Blu Ray as opposed to in the theatre.  Im surprised by how much money its made but it shows Rogan still has a lot of juice.

 

Zac Effron was good too though he had very little to do.  I like him (he was good in Parkland) and I think he's going to be the next big male lead.  Rumour has him up for a major on-going Marvel Universe role.

 

Saw X-Men last weekend.  Very good though my brain hurt after as I tried to figure out all the pradoxes and whatnot.  I felt like tweeting Orci & Kurtzmen (the writers of the two modern Star Trek films) to suggest they view it to learn how to write an inter-generational time travel epic (I felt they nearly killed Trek with Into Darkness).

As you well know, I'm a comic book geek and know, probably as much as there is out there regarding almost any comic book movie.  If you have any questions regarding what happened in the X-Men I can probably field it for you, or a best guess anyway.

 

X-Men was surprisingly good considering it came from Fox and not Marvel Studio's.

 

Captain America: TWS (which is now out of the theaters, maybe in the cheap ones) was awesome.

 

Looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy.

Im a longtime fan of Captain America.  He was like Marvel's Batman to me when I collected comics in the early 90's.  I still remember my first Captain America comic actually.  I was at Styxx Comic Service buying my weekly haul and it was a slow week for my specific collection.  I wanted something new and the cover of Captain America intrigued me.  It was the beginning of a major storyline which I cant remember...something like Captain on Ice or something.  Turns out Cap broke up a meth lab (or something) and in the explosion, he was bombarded with microscopic drug crystals that interacted with the Super Solider Syrum and drove him nutty.  At the same time, the former bad girl DiamondBack was turning good and becoming a love interest.  I was hooked on Cap after that.

 

The only "issue" I have with X-men (possible Spoiler alert) is that it implies that nothing that we know from the original trilogy (after the first one) happened.  And I wasnt sure at what point in time Wolverine returned.  Was it the same time he left (ie. the future), but now a "good" future or was it prior to X-Men 2? 

 

Is the next X-Men film supposed to involve the "original" characters or be a First Class film?  I assume they would never do a film without Wolverine...

I'm assuming that when he returns, it's the point where he left when Kitty zapped him to the past because Kitty's power doesn't allow her to send the people back permanently.  So when she stops phasing him back into time, he pops back to where he was.  Which is where they started from in the beginning of the movie.

 

The next movie, X-Men Apocalypse, will be set in the 80's, so it will be the continuation with the new cast.  Because now the slate is clean so they will now be writing a new future for themselves.  It's been speculated that Beast will be part of the team, and that we'll now see a young Cyclops, Jean and Storm join the X-Men.  I believe Wolverine will be back for this one as well. 

 

The only "issue" I have with X-men (possible Spoiler alert) is that it implies that nothing that we know from the original trilogy (after the first one) happened. 

I think that was the point. They were not so happy with how X3 turned out so they figured they could just wipe away all the garbage they turned out. It's not a bad idea. I didn't mind the latest movie, I might have expected it to be better but as far as a summer popcorn flick goes it was OK. I think in future movies they have to stick with the new folks. I am just a big fan of MIchael Fassbenders Magneto. 

 

 

Captain America 2: Electric Boogaloo might have actually been my favourite comic book movie I thought it was that good, and it's not even a character I think is all that fantastic, but damned if they didn't do that movie really well IMO.

 

I have no idea if it'll be good or not but I am looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy just because based on the trailers it seems to know that it's a ridiculous premise and just intends to have fun with the movie which I think is something that doesn't happen enough in movies today. 

I'm assuming that when he returns, it's the point where he left when Kitty zapped him to the past because Kitty's power doesn't allow her to send the people back permanently.  So when she stops phasing him back into time, he pops back to where he was.  Which is where they started from in the beginning of the movie.

 

The next movie, X-Men Apocalypse, will be set in the 80's, so it will be the continuation with the new cast.  Because now the slate is clean so they will now be writing a new future for themselves.  It's been speculated that Beast will be part of the team, and that we'll now see a young Cyclops, Jean and Storm join the X-Men.  I believe Wolverine will be back for this one as well. 

 

So then Days of Future Past *did* wipe out X-men 2 & 3?  I think it was implied through some dialogue (or I read it online) that the future might not be "changed" as much as it's "re-routed".  So the Dark Phoenix storyline might not have happened as we know it but could still happen.  Sort of weird.  but a very, very smart way of connecting the two generations and re-booting the originals in an in-universe way. 

 

Like I said, those two Abrams' hacks almost ruined Star Trek with their stupid ideas.  X-men respected the film canon and treated the fans with respect and intelligence.

 

Im very excited for an 80's film as I love that sort of period stuff, especially when handled seriously.

 

 

The only "issue" I have with X-men (possible Spoiler alert) is that it implies that nothing that we know from the original trilogy (after the first one) happened. 

I think that was the point. They were not so happy with how X3 turned out so they figured they could just wipe away all the garbage they turned out. It's not a bad idea. I didn't mind the latest movie, I might have expected it to be better but as far as a summer popcorn flick goes it was OK. I think in future movies they have to stick with the new folks. I am just a big fan of MIchael Fassbenders Magneto. 

 

 

Captain America 2: Electric Boogaloo might have actually been my favourite comic book movie I thought it was that good, and it's not even a character I think is all that fantastic, but damned if they didn't do that movie really well IMO.

 

I have no idea if it'll be good or not but I am looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy just because based on the trailers it seems to know that it's a ridiculous premise and just intends to have fun with the movie which I think is something that doesn't happen enough in movies today. 

 

I thought the Winter Soldier aspect of Cap 2 wasn't as interesting as I had hoped.  Bringing Bucky into the future sort of made the fact Cap was brought to the future (or present as the case may be) less special.  They've done a good job of taking a character that is even more 'boy scout' than Superman and made him relevent where he could very easily end up a joke in a modern world.

 

Guardians does look good.  My buddy, who's a fan of the comic movies, saw the trailer and just rolled his eyes.  I explained to him that it's supposed to be really good.  And from what I hear, it has a major impact on Avengers 2 so it's going to be a real part of the Marvel C.U.

Correct.  I'm sure a part of it happened, but what part...we will have to wait and see.

 

Yeah, I didn't like either of the Treks as well.  2 was a bit better then 1, but those 2 guys can't write with ****.

 

Guardians is going to tie in Thanos into the Marvel universe better, and show just how big it really is as well as have a really fun time with this movie because of how it doesn't take itself so seriously.  That's the one thing I like about Marvel, it can have it's more serious characters like Cap or Dr. Strange, and then it pulls something like this out of left field and you're just thinking...what were these guys smoking?  But it's still ends up really good.  It will also tie in some things that are happening in Agents of Shield.  I won't spoil anything that I think might happen as I know the characters in the movie fairly well.  But we're going to start seeing some aliens in this movie that will start showing up on Earth.

 

 

 

The only "issue" I have with X-men (possible Spoiler alert) is that it implies that nothing that we know from the original trilogy (after the first one) happened. 

I think that was the point. They were not so happy with how X3 turned out so they figured they could just wipe away all the garbage they turned out. It's not a bad idea. I didn't mind the latest movie, I might have expected it to be better but as far as a summer popcorn flick goes it was OK. I think in future movies they have to stick with the new folks. I am just a big fan of MIchael Fassbenders Magneto. 

 

 

Captain America 2: Electric Boogaloo might have actually been my favourite comic book movie I thought it was that good, and it's not even a character I think is all that fantastic, but damned if they didn't do that movie really well IMO.

 

I have no idea if it'll be good or not but I am looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy just because based on the trailers it seems to know that it's a ridiculous premise and just intends to have fun with the movie which I think is something that doesn't happen enough in movies today. 

 

I thought the Winter Soldier aspect of Cap 2 wasn't as interesting as I had hoped.  Bringing Bucky into the future sort of made the fact Cap was brought to the future (or present as the case may be) less special.  They've done a good job of taking a character that is even more 'boy scout' than Superman and made him relevent where he could very easily end up a joke in a modern world.

 

Guardians does look good.  My buddy, who's a fan of the comic movies, saw the trailer and just rolled his eyes.  I explained to him that it's supposed to be really good.  And from what I hear, it has a major impact on Avengers 2 so it's going to be a real part of the Marvel C.U.

 

I think it's more going to affect Avengers 3 as I believe that is when they will battle Thanos.

Yes yes, Avengers 3 makes more sense.  Its also smart to use something as seemingly "ridiculous" as Guardians to really expand the MCU rather than take serious films like Cap, iron Man etc and have them battling aliens on some other world.  While Avengers might get there, Marvel is smart to dip its toe into that end of the pool in a smart way.

 

As for Star Trek, I am a HUGE Trekkie.  I liked Star Trek (the first modern one) but Into Darkness was so bad it actually made the first one worse on subsequent viewings because every little thing that sort of bothered me about the first one, I was willing to give it a pass because of the effort they had to undertake to make it all make sense.  But man, these guys just dont get it.

 

The idea of not doing a traditional re-boot was good.  using Nimoy to bridge the gap was ingenious (you could only use Nimoy or Shatner but Nimoy worked a lot better in this sense).  But the story was so convoluted that you had to read a comic book series to actually understand it and it relied on a one-note bad guy (played very, very well as far as one note bad guys go) obsessed with revenge to move the plot along.  It injected comedy in all the wrong places and it showed a complete lack of true understanding of the characters.  It was like the writers watched the original movies (and not the TV show) and grew up (as Im am sure they did) on the parodies and jokes of the aging cast and thought that was the real characters.  They took the "womanizing" Kirk and exaggerated it.  That wasn't Kirk.

 

The Kobiashi Maru is a perfect example of this.  Star Trek II establlishes that Kirk took the test three times.  He failed the first two as every cadet does since it's designed as a no-win scenario.  He hated losing so much and didnt believe in a no-win scenario, that he reprogramed the simulator to allow for the possibility of "passing" the test.  Now, when you watch the movies (and the TV show) you imagine Kirk taking this test and using his advabnced tactical abilities to rescue the survivors of the Maru and escape the Neutral Zone.  In the film, we get a goofball Kirk who re-programmed the test so that he didnt even have to do anything to win.  All it showed was he was a good cheater, not a smart tactician.  In Trek II, it was revealed he got a commendation for original thinking.  I can imagine Star Fleet rewarding him if he actually did something that demonsrated leadership and skill.  And ofcourse in the new film he didnt get a commendation - he almost got booted out of Starfleet.  Just didnt make sense.  It wasnt the Kirk we know.

 

The ranks were all wrong.  They promoted Kirk from cadet to Captain.  The Enterprise was all wrong.  The technology was too advanced.  Chekov was totally ret-conned.  The only character they got completely right was Bones.  And they managed to screw him up in the second movie.  Ugh.  Dont even get me started on Khan, the pasty-faced Brit...

X men was fantastic and definitely cleaned up the mess that Ratner left.

I did enjoy the first star trek movie they did even with all it's flaws, and when I watched the 2nd one in theatres I did enjoy it but mostly from a standpoint of all the callbacks they did... but then I watched it again afterwards and the writing just made me cringe. So nonsensical. Those two clowns who wrote it are terrible writers yet somehow keep getting to write every big budget movie out there. 

I did enjoy the first star trek movie they did even with all it's flaws, and when I watched the 2nd one in theatres I did enjoy it but mostly from a standpoint of all the callbacks they did... but then I watched it again afterwards and the writing just made me cringe. So nonsensical. Those two clowns who wrote it are terrible writers yet somehow keep getting to write every big budget movie out there. 

There has been conjecture that Damon Lindelof is the one who's influence on STID ruined it.  He was only a producer on the first one.  Orci writing the third with new writing partners and will direct it.  Has the potential to be a train wreck or the best of the three.  Orci is a self-professed Trekkie so we shall if his influence was what was making terrible movies passable or if he was the anchor all along.

 

The issue I have with these guys is they ruined their own concept.  I think the idea of a sequel/prequel was absolutely genius.  But they openly said they were freeing themselves from canon because now they have a "new" future to explore.  But they get so cute about the fan-servicing that it belies their intent.  Does canon exist or not?  Cant have it both ways.  They had Spock say that the universe will try to unfold as it should, to explain away the coincedences and similarities between the two universes.  But then they ignore that when it suits them.

 

They changed how messing with the past works in the Trek universe.  Star Trek has always shown that if you go backwards in time, you can change your own future.  And then you can go forward in that same timeline and return to your time.  Trek has shown that multiple universes exist but you move forward and backward in your own time.  Bad Robot changed that to the infinite universes theory.  All that did was take away some of the stakes of the movies.  If this Kirk and Spock et al die, it doesnt matter because OUR Kirk, Spock et al are still alive and still did everything we saw.

 

The actors are reportedly inked through a third movie.  It's the 50th anniversary of Trek coming up.  So if its me, Im writing a movie that resolves the issues that these new films created.  I'd "right" the wrongs of the timeline in an epic movie that brings back Nimoy and bring in Shatner.

I absolutely loved the idea of just doing away with all the established canon, I think it was so convoluted by the time that all the series had run their course it really limited what they could do with the franchise going forward. Re-booting it all to me was a great idea for that franchise, but then they decided to re-make wrath of khan except it wasn't really wrath of Khan because they'd never encountered Kahn before and it didn't have the same impact. 

I absolutely loved the idea of just doing away with all the established canon, I think it was so convoluted by the time that all the series had run their course it really limited what they could do with the franchise going forward. Re-booting it all to me was a great idea for that franchise, but then they decided to re-make wrath of khan except it wasn't really wrath of Khan because they'd never encountered Kahn before and it didn't have the same impact. 

 

I took the opposite view.  Well not entirely.  I assumed they'd re-boot and tell new stories where established canon wouldnt be as important.  but once they chose to use Nimoy, they opened themselves to the idea of the universe we know having existed.  I think they should just tell new stories and let the fan servicing (which i love) be organic things.  Like reference Nurse Chapel.  Doesnt matter either way whether its Chapel or Smith but call her Chapel and you've serviced the fans.

 

Using Captain Pike was also really smart and that actor is fantastic.  They had him in a wheel chair at the end of the first movie to invoke Pike from the original TV show but then he's back on his feet in STID.

 

The way Star Trek should have ended was most of the crew going their separate ways.  Within the established timeline, the events of that movie pre-dated the first year of the TV series.  Have Kirk promoted to Lieutenant and assigned to the Farragut (within canon).  Have Spock stay on as Science & Second officer of the Enterprise under Pike.  You could have McCoy stay on Enterprise under Chief Medical Officer Boyles (I think his name was) or be reassigned, it really doesnt matter.  Chekov shouldnt even have existed yet.

 

The opening to STID should have been the Farragut and it should have portrayed the Captain being killed and Kirk assuming command.  Not only does this pay homage to established canon, but it mirrors Kirk's father's story from the first movie.  It also establishes Kirk's leadership and heorics, especially if you actually portray him as doing something tactical to "save the day".

 

With the farragut virtually destroyed, Kirk is promoted to Commander and reassigned to Enterprise (as part of the the film's central story).  I liked the radiation death scene at the end, but it should have been Pike, not Kirk and the death should have stayed permanent.  Pike going into the chamber and saving everyone mirrors canon, would have been just as emotional (if not moreso because trekkies would know what it meant to the Pike character and due to the portrayal by that actor, Pike was the most beloved of the new films anyway).  it would have done more to teach Kirk about the true sacrifice of leadership than his wussy death at the hands of Khan and it would have organically elevated Kirk to Captain of the Enterprise.

 

Voila.  Instantly a better film.  As for Khan, take him or leave him.  Personally, I wanted to see "Space Seed" Khan.  Seeing Kirk and Khan interacting before they originally did so in the original canon, with new influences on the characters and watching that while knowing what was to come in the future, would have been cool.  But once Del Toro dropped out, they should have re-written the movie.  Cumberbatch is amazing but that role was all wrong.

 

Here's how I would have changed it when Del Toro dropped out (assuming you make no other changes to the script).  You still have the character claim to be Khan.  That way Abrams still gets his big reveal and his insane war on spoilers is somehow justified.  But when Nimoy shows up, rather than essentially do nothing, he reveals to young Spock that the guys claiming to be Khan isn't Khan.  it's Jochin (Khan's right hand man).  If Jochin was awakened first, he would claim to be Khan to protect his leader.  With that knowledge, Spock defeats him.  The movie ends the same way, with the camera panning over the cryotubes, but instead of lingering on Cumberbatch's face, it lingers on the unmistakable face of Ricardo Montalban.  Tell me that wouldn't get the Trekkie's all hot & bothered...

I think Star Treks biggest enemy right now is the canon and the fans who scream bloody murder when it's not adhered to. I think they had a great opportunity to take an existing franchise and modernize it for a new generation because let's face it all of the star trek series are incredibly dated. Hell even going back to watch the first seasons of TNG is a painful experience. In my mind they had the chance to re-invent the franchise for today and dropped the ball trying to plug as many fan service moments or "hey remember that scene in Wrath of Kahn?" moments that it took away from the movie. The way I envisioned them handling it there was still plenty of opportunity for those little fan service moments but you were free to change the entire universe around which in my mind is what the franchise needed very badly. 

I think Star Treks biggest enemy right now is the canon and the fans who scream bloody murder when it's not adhered to. I think they had a great opportunity to take an existing franchise and modernize it for a new generation because let's face it all of the star trek series are incredibly dated. Hell even going back to watch the first seasons of TNG is a painful experience. In my mind they had the chance to re-invent the franchise for today and dropped the ball trying to plug as many fan service moments or "hey remember that scene in Wrath of Kahn?" moments that it took away from the movie. The way I envisioned them handling it there was still plenty of opportunity for those little fan service moments but you were free to change the entire universe around which in my mind is what the franchise needed very badly. 

I disagree and agree.  I agree with you that it hurts the movie to be a slave to canon.  But these writers dont know Star Trek well enough to use canon to their benefit.  They have no choice but to be a slave.

 

Im convinced that starting over completely alienates long time fans.  And Im also convinced that Nimoy and the idea of going back to the adventures of Kirk et al were what pulled in lapsed fans.  The big budget will always get the casuals.  Paramount was disappointed with how Into Darkness did, thinking it would really blow Star Trek away.  But I think it was the lack of inclusion of Nimoy or Shatner (Nimoy was a surprise cameo).

 

I think the best Star Trek at this points would be showing us the Trek we loved from the 60's with modern sensebilities and budget.  Dont re-do the movies we've seen.  There are far too many great stories to be re-making The Wrath of Khan (though I admit I loved seeing that scene unfold, but they ruined it with the magic blood).  Use canon to enhance the stories.  Write it so that canonical references would not even register to a non-fan but would resonate with a Trekkie.  Its not hard.  Not hard at all.

 

But I do feel they've gone down a path they have to complete now.  They must have William Shatner in the next movie and make it an epic.  "Fix" the timeline.  Make these modern films a trilogy. 

Yes yes, Avengers 3 makes more sense.  Its also smart to use something as seemingly "ridiculous" as Guardians to really expand the MCU rather than take serious films like Cap, iron Man etc and have them battling aliens on some other world.  While Avengers might get there, Marvel is smart to dip its toe into that end of the pool in a smart way.

 

As for Star Trek, I am a HUGE Trekkie.  I liked Star Trek (the first modern one) but Into Darkness was so bad it actually made the first one worse on subsequent viewings because every little thing that sort of bothered me about the first one, I was willing to give it a pass because of the effort they had to undertake to make it all make sense.  But man, these guys just dont get it.

 

The idea of not doing a traditional re-boot was good.  using Nimoy to bridge the gap was ingenious (you could only use Nimoy or Shatner but Nimoy worked a lot better in this sense).  But the story was so convoluted that you had to read a comic book series to actually understand it and it relied on a one-note bad guy (played very, very well as far as one note bad guys go) obsessed with revenge to move the plot along.  It injected comedy in all the wrong places and it showed a complete lack of true understanding of the characters.  It was like the writers watched the original movies (and not the TV show) and grew up (as Im am sure they did) on the parodies and jokes of the aging cast and thought that was the real characters.  They took the "womanizing" Kirk and exaggerated it.  That wasn't Kirk.

 

The Kobiashi Maru is a perfect example of this.  Star Trek II establlishes that Kirk took the test three times.  He failed the first two as every cadet does since it's designed as a no-win scenario.  He hated losing so much and didnt believe in a no-win scenario, that he reprogramed the simulator to allow for the possibility of "passing" the test.  Now, when you watch the movies (and the TV show) you imagine Kirk taking this test and using his advabnced tactical abilities to rescue the survivors of the Maru and escape the Neutral Zone.  In the film, we get a goofball Kirk who re-programmed the test so that he didnt even have to do anything to win.  All it showed was he was a good cheater, not a smart tactician.  In Trek II, it was revealed he got a commendation for original thinking.  I can imagine Star Fleet rewarding him if he actually did something that demonsrated leadership and skill.  And ofcourse in the new film he didnt get a commendation - he almost got booted out of Starfleet.  Just didnt make sense.  It wasnt the Kirk we know.

 

The ranks were all wrong.  They promoted Kirk from cadet to Captain.  The Enterprise was all wrong.  The technology was too advanced.  Chekov was totally ret-conned.  The only character they got completely right was Bones.  And they managed to screw him up in the second movie.  Ugh.  Dont even get me started on Khan, the pasty-faced Brit...

No idea why they thought they had to do a reboot & have an alternate Star Trek. Then we hear Abrams is pissed off because the movie studio is still promoting memorabilia, etc from the old films which he didn't like. Then there are the ST books featuring the Old Trek universe & reruns of the old series everywhere. Abrams expects that to all stop because of his (lack of) vision for the franchise??? Get real.

As for Abrams Kirk, yeah... he's a jack off Kirk. A guy who takes shortcuts & doesn't care about who he hurts. A guy who'll break the rules to suit himself. He definetly isn't the James Kirk fans know & respect. Besides, whoever heard of a cadet promoted to Captain on his first voyage??? No experience, no leadership skills, doesn't play well with others... Spock hates him so naturally Pike promotes him over Spock to Captain. I guess it makes PERFECT SENSE in Abrams alternate universe. I liked the two new films but there's just so much I have to ignore completely to get through them

Yeah, I wish they'd just create a new TV show and be done with it.  These movies stink.

They played the stereotypes. For example kirks dad died when he was born so he must grow up to be a slacker who hates authority. All it takes is one speech from pike and Kirk is the best cadet ever. Stupid.

They don't understand the Kirk character.

Now Abrams is pulling the same crap with Star Wars making some grand proclamation about how the books aren't canon. What ourpose does that serve other than to upset fans? Films will always take precedence over books. No need to run fans' noses in it. I hate Abrams' war on spoilers too. No one is forced to read a spoiler. They have said it's to preserve their story but isn't that selfish? It's like we are are somehow blessed to be allowed to view their story.

I only hope Disney and Lucas keep an eye on Abrams so he doesn't screw with Star Wars. I don't recall too many lens flares in the first six movies.

Yeah, leave it to Abrams to do what he wants with both Star Wars & Star trek. In the first alternate universe Star Trek, when the boy James Kirk was driving that classic muscle car he stole from his stepdad, I kind of hoped he'd have gone over the cliff. There are no heroic or redeeming qualities about Abrams Kirk whatsoever. Scotty is, well....

Well, to be fair, even Lucas has stated in the past that the books are not cannon.  So that part I'm not really worried about.  But I am worried about JJ being the director a bit.  I'm not really impressed with his directing from the few movies he's done.  I like some of his TV shows but that's about it.  I'm just hoping it can't be any worse then the prequels.

 

I mean, the guy is using more puppets and real life background shots rather then CGI, so that's one good thing to say about the new SW movie.  And he brought in Mark, Harrison, Carrie and a few other oldies.  So that's also good.  Let's just hope and pray this will be a good SW movie and this is what he was destined to make.

The first SW movie will end with the death of Han Solo or Luke Skywalker.  No spoilers, just speculation.

The first SW movie will end with the death of Han Solo or Luke Skywalker.  No spoilers, just speculation.

First, we don't know the plot so pretty early to speculate on who croaks & who doesn't. Second, with his penchant to change storylines, James Kirk, the one that supposedly will occupy our universe's future may show up. Or Jar Jar Binks becomes a leading character. 

the one thing to keep in mind is that Abrams is apparently a Star Wars fan where he was never a Star Trek fan, which could certainly explain why he missed the mark on some of the characters there. 

Abrams had Star Trek fans on his writing team and they still screwed it up.  Trek 3 will be the big test because it's completely in the hands of Bob Orci now and he's the so-called Trekkie of the team.  Some accounts have Lindeloff's influence hurting STID (magic blood and whatnot).  We shall see.  if Abrams influence on Star Wars is what resulted in more focus on the original leads, then thats a step in the right direction.  Rumour has it, the original screenplay was more focused on the kids and was loaded with EU references.  Abrams toned those down and focused on the originals (alledgedly).

 

There had been rumours of Palpatine appearing (Sith Ghost anyone?) as well as Ewen Macgregor made up to be an old Kenobi force ghost (which would be fantastic if you ask me).  We shall see.