The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

valium:
Bob's rant starting at... 5:40~ perfectly described the current state of video games.

Honestly, it can be used to describe just about everything.

Safe, lowest common denominator, and ease of access/use = Low Risk/Highest Chance of profit

ZippyDSMlee:

trty00:

ZippyDSMlee:
Everyone wants safer that's why it sells. What about the Noland Batman films, his vision was a bit off....

Nolan's vision was dark and realistic, that's not too far off for Batman

Albeit for parts of 1 and 2 it might as well been a new IP. >>

for me Nolan's Batman films where great as films but not so much as Batman films with the exception of TDK. And really you can't really use Batman, that's not fair. Batman is Bigger and more profitable than most franchises

aceman67:
Uh... Buena-Vista Entertainment, the publishing Uber-Arm of Disney, has produced many violent, offensive movies. Many of them Rated R.

You're forgetting that Disney currently owns Touchstone Pictures, and Marvel Studios Pictures, and formerly owned Miramax, Dimension, and Hollywood Films, all of whom do not make all family movies.

And if Disney had purchased Lucas Arts under the Buena-Vista label, or Touchstone, or Marvel, or any of the others.. you'd have a point.
They didn't. They specifically purchased it under the mother corp: "In 2015 we're planning to release Star Wars: Episode 7 - the first feature film under the 'Disney-Lucasfilm' brand." The current Lucasfilm co-chair will become the president of this Disney-Lucasfilm brand and will report directly to the Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/30/disney-to-buy-lucasfilm-for-4b-star-wars-episode-7-lands-in-2015/#0qHXQe8SxGMZsTmS.99

Your logic is flawed. Just because Disney owns them, does not mean that Disney will sanitize them into family-friendly-ness.

The logic is not flawed. Disney not only owns them but is putting their name on them in a big way. That means that what comes out of them reflects directly on Disney.

Hell, look at Avengers,

Sure. Let's look at Avengers. It was done by Marvel Studios. Does Disney have their name in there? Let's see.. "Marvel Studios".. hmm.. even if you anagram it you're still missing the 'n' and the 'y'.. Hm. Perhaps not in there. Maybe it's in the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrNdBpGMv8 nope.. Marvel and Paramount. No Disney. It's almost as if Disney is keeping it's distance from those properties because it knows they're not family friendly enough for it's corporate image.

Now what do you think that says about Disney-Lucasfilm?

Red X:

ZippyDSMlee:

trty00:

Nolan's vision was dark and realistic, that's not too far off for Batman

Albeit for parts of 1 and 2 it might as well been a new IP. >>

for me Nolan's Batman films where great as films but not so much as Batman films with the exception of TDK. And really you can't really use Batman, that's not fair. Batman is Bigger and more profitable than most franchises

Its a simple action trope that is easy to do its just not cloned to ad nasuam like everything else.

A shame the third one is unwatchable tho. I really did like 2 but gaaaa 1 and 3 put me to sleep.

I am with you on this Bob. I have not seen anything from JJ Abrams that brought out any emotion (good or bad) or amazement. All of his stuff is "eh, it's not bad." I have no idea how he got to where he is. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the guy. In fact, if I diskiled him it would be better. I am not a fan at all of Joss Whedon stuff, but I at least understood there was some vision people would like. With Abrams, the best thing you can say is he isn't bad. Yet is that really something we want for Star Wars and Star Trek? I personally didn't like his Star Trek movie because it wasn't Star Trek in my eyes. As a generic sci fi action film, it wasn't bad. Yet it wasn't Star Trek. I have a feeling he will do the same thing with Star Wars. We will recognize the characters and the overall feel of the universe. Yet beyond that I fully expect a paint by number action flick with good effects (and lots of lens flares of course) that no one will ever look back on with nostalgia. I hope I am wrong, but nothing in Abrams past points to anything different.

I was a little confused by him giving a bunch of examples of successful films (including the brilliantly successful Avengers) as examples that people want movies like the newest spiderman >.>...

Kwil:

Hell, look at Avengers,

Sure. Let's look at Avengers. It was done by Marvel Studios. Does Disney have their name in there? Let's see.. "Marvel Studios".. hmm.. even if you anagram it you're still missing the 'n' and the 'y'.. Hm. Perhaps not in there. Maybe it's in the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrNdBpGMv8 nope.. Marvel and Paramount. No Disney. It's almost as if Disney is keeping it's distance from those properties because it knows they're not family friendly enough for it's corporate image.

Now what do you think that says about Disney-Lucasfilm?

http://www.disneystore.com/figure-sets-play-sets-more-toys-the-avengers-figure-play-set/mp/1298773/1000262/

<.<...

Someone should report that Disney has Avengers stuff on their website, advertised on their channel, and in their brick and mortar stores. :x

Ya know, Bob raises an interesting point pertaining to just how bad the prequel trilogy is and the fact that we're still talking about it. They're so spectacularly bad that they have spawned video reviews that are actually more enjoyable than the films themselves. Maybe it's because it was so wildly anticipated and so incredibly disappointing, but we Star Wars fans keep talking about them.

Perhaps it's because of the prequel debacle that Disney is going with a 'safe' director like Abrams. We'll always be able to go "well ya know, I don't like him that much, but at least the new trilogy is better than the prequel trilogy." Of course, that's if they don't turn out to be worse, which can happen. I don't really dislike him, but he doesn't really 'wow' me either. Maybe he'll change my mind, but I doubt it.

So basically Bob is going to hate the movie regardless of what happens now. Well I know what review I'm going to stay away from when the movie comes out. Thanks for the warning of having bias, bob.

Red X:

Frybird:

Because...seriously, i like "The Avengers", very much so, but what risk has Whedon taken on that Abrams didn't.

many more.

Both have made a movie based on a risk THE STUDIOS have taken and managed to not piss off the Fanboys (admittedly, Whedon moreso) by delivering a decent Action Flick with some cool scenes, a by-the-books forgettable premise, a fun new look at a well established character (Hulk/Spock) and a seemingly crazy decision that may or may not be fully explored in the sequel.

Star Trek wasn't much of a risk considering how many there are and how bad the last ones where. The Avegers is a type of movie no one has done before (properly), it took other IPs and fused them in one congealed universe. Star Trek is reboot, bigger risk? Not really. And really the Hulk in the Avengers isn't new, it's about the same as it's always been a troubled scientist and a green monster with a big heart. (simplified, i know)

By that logic, we would have had a new Batman Movie by 1999, and yet we did not.
Star Trek was something that was slowly but surely turning into box office poison considering that the movies used to be somewhat excluding to the general audience as is, but also becoming something it's actual fans started to hate. And with the decision to make it a prequel with young versions of beloved characters (wich worked sooo well for the Star Wars Prequels) as well as literally destroying the established continuity still succeding as a well liked movie (i know people who don't like the Reboot, sure, but as i see it most people like it) is a feat not to be taken lightly.

And while the Avengers is technically a movie no one has done before, as an archivement it's nowhere near...let's say Peter Jackson adapting something deemed unfilmable within one long production.
"Avengers" undoubtely had a lot of luggage to carry with many many years of comic book mythology, but at it's heart it's a movie about a bunch of sort-of-misfits having to and succeding in a common goal even though they could not be more different from each other...something that, in the end, has been done before.

A deserved success: Yes. A groundbreaking archievement in moviemaking? No, and neither is Star Trek, but as it stands i have a hard time truly considering one of them to be far better or more impressive than the other.

It just happened to be that Bob liked one more than the other for reasons i reeeeeeeeeeaally couldn't possibly fathom.

you mean other than it being the first movie Avengers ever that was more than decent, clever dialogue, awesome visual, great set pieces, and more memorable scenes.
The only Major criticisms of the Avengers i can say is that the plot was too simple, the idea of those people in the dark controlling shield and nuking New York is silly and the overall solution was a rip-off of Independence day which was a rip-off of war of the worlds. A rip-off of a rip-off i'll admit is just sad ;)

Star Trek's writing was more complex but I honestly could tell you what the story was about (excluding the Top Gun thing)

See above. What i wanted to say with that statement is that Moviebob tends to say a lot how an Avengers Movie is what he has always dreamed about but didn't dare to imagine. Of course that makes it kind of a bigger deal for him...while at the also making it hard to imagine that he's completely objective about it.

Even as for "deserved better", you have to look at how massively skeptical everyone was before Star Trek based on it being a while that the movie series that has always been shaky at best brought up something that actually entertained more people than just the fanboys. It may not have been all the Geeks have hoped for, but it worked out pretty well.

i think it goes both ways, in one sense it's a bunch of kids not wanting to share their toys but going deeper it's the fact the small fanbase that support the franchise in begin are being left behind so everyone can enjoy. I'm all for sharing but if people aren't going to enjoy what you get out of it give them something else don't just change it.
Don't get me wrong they can and they will regardless for their money but it's going to suck the life out of our little neck of the woods.

I don't understand how the small (ha!) fanbase of Star Trek was "left behind" by the filmmakers. You make it sound a bit like that one Onion News Parody in wich "Trekkies" complained about the movie being fun and watchable.

Including one group does not always have to exclude another. And since i have a hard time believing that any Star Trek Fan truely LOVED "Nemesis" or "Insurrection", i don't see what has been taken away here. As i see it, Star Trek as a movie franchise was failing on EVERY Front.

EDIT: And yes i actually like every one of Abrams' MOVIES beyond just finding it "okay and forgettable" and go so far as to say that MI3 is the best of the series, even if it is less clever than the first one.

that explains a lot...

Does it?
Yes, i like Abrams' output as a filmmaker, and therefore wrote something in defense of him....wich is not to say that i don't find faults in each of his movies, but still crying foul over him being chosen as Star Wars Director feels to me like a premature overreaction.

but i kinda agree with you with the MI franchise, i'm struggling with MI1 and 3 because both have equal pros and cons IMO.

As do i, but in the end i find MI3 to be the most well-rounded in terms of plot and pacing, and it does have undeniably the bonus of having an amazing Badguy.

I know I've been ragging on you a lot Bob and some of that is undue, so I apologize.

But it's bugging me when you say that we as an audience are just accepting the bland movies or whatever you called them.

Avengers killed at the box office and so did the dark knight. Yeah so did the new spider man but it's not all bleak. The critics parred it, and the creative ones with big names got more money than the not so creative ones with big names.

Yeah true I guess the fact that the not creative ones are raking in cash means we kind of accept it, but we don't deserve this stuff just because people got suckered in by hype or gave a reboot a chance.

But anyway thanks for not jumping on the 'he's going to ruin Star Wars' train, I'm tired of people acting like an abundance of lens flares makes it impossible for him to make a decent movie.

Also I have a small contention about how much power Abrams has. Yeah he made Star Trek, but people like me who've never seen another Star Trek don't really look to that movie for inspiration or whatever because it's just OK, even though it bears the name Star Trek. I'd also imagine Trekkies don't look to the new movie either because they liked the old ones a lot more.

He has the power to get his ideas seen by a lot of people because he's directing Star Wars and Star Trek, but if the movies aren't great I don't think that will translate to a lot of influence outside of Hollywood perhaps.

Nice episode though.

We as a people don't prefer rote mediocrity over vision, because it's safer...

You know who does though?

The Multinational Corporations who helm these undertakings. They prefer $1b in the bank, over a fresh new, and possibly less profitable, approach to the material. I like to think that this isn't always the case, The Avengers is the most recent example of this I can think of with Peter Jackson's LoTRs as another obvious example. But, I mean is it really surprising that Disney went with a director who will make a decent safe movie? I don't think so, I think that's basically the tag-line for Disney as a whole. It's also a function of what the source material is now.

See, it's part of nerd-culture going mainstream. Even if we, as in those of us who frequent the Escapist and other such forums, weren't to see the movie -- the once core-constituency of such films -- it would still make a killing at the box-office...so where's the risk in making the safe decent movie that will entertain the vast populous?

I'd argue that the original Star Wars, I wasn't alive for the original screenings, had to have that passion and feeling in it, just as Peter Jackson's LoTRs, or else the project would have never gotten off the ground. It was too expansive, to new, and too different to do so otherwise. Fast-forward 30-years, and the name "Star Wars" tm, will basically sell, and sell well, whatever they slap it on. Not to mention if it's a safe, decent (read better than episode 1-3) it will be hearkened as new day for the series by all other than those of us sitting on such forums as these.

I guess it's what happens when something gets too-large-to-fail. We, as consumers, and fans, lose sway over the medium. It happens with mediums we hold dear such as Video Games and Titles such as Halo, CoD, etc, but I digress. Not to mention the fact that the director really feels no need to prove themselves, such as I'm sure Mr. Lucas felt over 30-years ago.

Meh, my main disagreement here is to say that I don't think his movies even qualify as "decent". I remember almost nothing about MI:3 except thinking it was better than 2. Star Trek was beyond inispid, imo, and virtually everything you would give full credit to a director for was bad (sets, editing, framing, performances, etc.) except for the pacing. And Super 8 was a coming of age story that horrendously fumbled the 3rd act. A coming of age story w/o a point isn't worth much of anything.

And dues paid, visionary or not, talented or not, I don't care, no one person should be at the helm of both franchises. Their differences, their unique takes on a sci-fi universe, are what gave them their lasting appeal. Homogenizing that is just, well, wrong.

Azuaron:
Bob complains that Abrams doesn't have any vision, but I assert that Abrams' vision is obscured by his constraints. If you watch Abrams' TED talk, you'll find that Abrams loves mysteries, and that's why he got into film making, and is also why the first season of Lost was so great.

Abrams loves mysteries but doesn't get it. Look at X-files. Each time you get a mystery and it gets resolved. That is fun because it makes your mind wander. Lost just had mysteries upon mysteries without any resolution. Like listening to the story of a mad man that just tells stuff that pops in his head. Fringe has the same problem. There are no rules in Fringe anything can happen it is all magic. So I don't care about what happens because there is no story. Anything can happen and it means nothing.

Holy crap. I sense a shitstorm approaching.

When it comes to who should direct i was really hoping for Matthew Vaughn to get he job, J.J will most likely do a fine job but I'm kinda hoping he will bring his A game here he lists Star Wars as the reason he went into film-making and i consider this a positive sign, but i was disappointed he might even have to turn down the job again if hes got too much on his plate, we shall have to see in 2015, but there's a good chance the date might get moved now one thing J.J rails against is a release date being set before the script is even written.

You know what is cool? I wrote an article for my school news magazine where I listed my top directors for the new Star Wars. I listed the same people movie bob did. I just found that interesting.

My problem with this is that I find the original Star Wars trilogy to be just as shallow and lacking in vision as Bob is predicting the JJ Abrams film(s) will be. Superficially entertaining but ultimately predictable and lacking in substance is exactly how I would describe those movies.

Ok two points;

Who is this guy? That is a great question and is what excites me the most about this project. Often when that question comes up we get some very interesting results "The guy from A Knight's Tale is the Joker?!" "Evil Dead guy is doing Spider-Man?!" It can easily be argued back and forth but if you look back over movie history, sometimes when someone rolls a hard six it pays off.

What is Star Wars/ George Luca's driving theme? The one common thread his movies share. I would say references to the old popular culture mixed in with some Japanese romanticism and Hero with a thousand faces stuff. But what is his EMOTIONAL core. Bob listed some great examples there and think along those lines and you see that Star Wars doesn't need a connected emotional core. It's something different to everyone. For teens it's getting away and making something of yourself, for parents it's not letting your sins be passed to your kids. For girls it seems to be mostly about looking up to a strong female role model by dressing the way she did in like, 2 scenes and objectifying yourself for guys at conventions (half joke) The point is Star Wars needs a ring master, someone to build up the crowd and showcase the acts. The money is made on the popcorn and Star Wars is all about popcorn. I have my doubts about Abrams but I am not ready to call this one just yet.

Oh and Blomkamp needs to STAY AWAY from big name franchises and keep making thoughtful satirical hyper violent sci-fi for my immense amusement and mine alone.

Well this is based on the idea that whatever Director who got the job would have any kind of large influence on the new trilogy. There's no chance in hell of that when you've got both Disney and Lucasfilm at the reins. Kathleen Kennedy would kill anyone who'd try and widely change the Star Wars formula at this point.

Hell they're the ones picking the writer and it's likely that they're taking bits from Georges scripts on top of that. And to get back to the formula, all Star Wars was, at the heart, was an action adventure in space. A kid with a boring life who suddenly gets to train as a warrior, join a rebellion against the evil empire, blow up their doomsday weapon and get a medal and kiss (which is pretty creepy now) from the lead lady.

It's hardly a work of art, it's just a lot of fun and hit the right spot for a lot of people. The special effects is what really sold it though. The next two weren't far off from that either. Empire was just a darker take with some better writing, a plot twist and a bigger budget. And Return was more of the same but lighter with an ending on top.

It was when they tried to make it "deeper" by adding this big romance between Anakin and what's-her-face, make everything connect, make a bigger, wider plot and some other crap other than the action adventure core of the original 3 that it all started to fall apart.

And that's what the new Star Trek film was. An action adventure at heart that was a lot of fun and did very well for itself. As long as Abrams is given a good script by Disney and Lucasfilms, he'll have no problem pulling that off and getting the Star Wars series back on track after over a decade of dilapidation.

Farther than stars:

Actually, it's not true that those directors didn't add their own vision to those pre-existing works. Making a film is about more than just the plot. You have to factor in so many more elements: pacing, editing, composition, colour pallet, etc. And that's where directors really get to show their creativity. That's what I think Bob meant by the prequels being better than anything Abrams will (probably) make, because "The Phantom Menace" actually excels in all of those areas; it's just that the plot doesn't develop beyond being a backstory for Darth Vader.

P.S. And the acting was bad. There was that too.

P.P.S. With the notable exceptions of Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson.

You are correct, but you're also right in saying that a film is rarely one person's "singular" vision. A great film is backed up by the vision of many people, from the actors to the editors to the director and screenwriter and musician. The original cut of "The Godfather" was deemed unwatchable until a talented editor salvaged the film through amazing editing. The original 2001: A Space Odyssey tossed out its entire soundtrack in favor of the one audiences now recall as forever linked to the visuals on screen. Little details all collaboratively shape a film's "vision", so no director has "one unique" vision.

But on that same subject, I would argue that the prequel trilogy (let's say The Phantom Menace in particular) is filled with areas where it FAILS to excel in nearly every area. The pacing is incredibly bad, plodding, and meandering. Entire subplots are brought up and dropped. Minor scenes take up massive chunks of screentime. The finale itself alternates between the epic and tragic battle of Darth Maul and the Jedis and the wacky shenanigans of Jar Jar and the giddy cheese of 8-year-old Anakin accidentally blowing up a star ship. The composition of shots is largely lacking due to an over-reliance of CG that prevents proper staging to take place and forces actors to, by and large, just stand around or sit down, or they'll throw in copious amounts of CG that your eye struggles to follow. The CG, itself, is very bad, not in terms of technology, but in terms of violating a very important rule CG artists (like myself) are taught, which is to make a world look "lived in". That means make it dirty. Make it scratched and rusted and grimy and worn and lived in. The original Star Wars is a world that looks lived in and worn in, while the new one has everything pristine and clean and flawless, fresh off the factory floor no matter where they go. It looks fake because the artists didn't take the time to add in the little details that make it look real and believable.

Couple that with bad writing, several bouts of bad acting, a bad story, a lack of any central protagonist whatsoever, and it's a mess of a film that had more wrong than just its director (though he was certainly the one most responsible).

The only thing I can safely say that is "good" about the film without fail is John William's musical score.

Having never watched an episode of Star Trek ever but listening to people talk about all my life, I was disappointed with how safe the movie was. People really hyped up this franchise for me and the movie was supposed to get me interested in it.

I really hope Mr. Abrams makes something deserving of the title EPIC with this Star Wars movie.

Eh, I think there's a fundamental difference in the franchises, that makes Abrams a much better fit for Star Wars than he was for Star Trek. Because the two franchises are important and enduring for completely different reasons.

Here's a little trivia about Star Wars... and I don't say this to bash Star Wars. I love Star Wars too (heck, I even kind of liked the prequels in their own way), but there are a couple things you need to keep in mind:

The original Star Wars began as a pitch for a Flash Gordon adaptation that Lucas wanted to make. When that got turned down, George Lucas instead decided to slap on new character names and make it an original property. And all the time he was writing, by his own admission, he was going by the Joseph Campbell checklist for the story and character points. Star Wars was awesome, it thrived on its world-building and the stock characters were played in endearing ways... but it wasn't sophisticated. It wasn't about ideas. It was "Lord of the Rings IN SPACE," only with less running time to explore the various interesting places that might have gone.

And yes, Star Trek wasn't exactly intellectual fare in its first couple iterations, but it grew into something more interesting, something almost approaching sophistication, later on (though it certainly took it a while). Star Wars was content to remain a space fairy tale throughout its entire history.

No, Abrams wasn't my first choice either. I would have picked Joe Johnston, if only because Johnston is the best at taking a giant pile of clichés and turning them into a watchable film (which he's been doing his entire career). But if you're worried about Abrams ripping off Top Gun, well, the Star Wars franchise lends itself much better to that kind of story.

Besides, they've got Arendt writing instead of the Bayformers guys.

Something mediocre would still be better then the Catastrophe that where the Prequel movies. And yes, they really where that bad. It even taints the older Movies because now you know what absolute nonsense happened to make all this possible. Bleh.
The Prequel movies do however contain a sweet bit of delicious irony.
George Lucas tried to write his little Citizen Kane story with Anakin. Poor little good natured boy gets corrupted by "evil".
Funny thing th<at he failed so spectacularly at that while he was living that very Story he tried to write. He fought the System of the lazy Filmindustry that had its sights set on making the most money with as little risk as possible.
His greatest blow struck against the Industry was "Star Wars".

You could see early signs of his Transformation in "Return of the Jedi", where he made the Ewoks to be sold as toys. Do they fit into the style of the Movie? Who cares, we'll make loads of money!"...

He finished his own little way to the "Dark Side" with the Prequels. He sits in his Chair, drinks his Coffee and fires People who disagree with him. He became the System.

His own Story is better then anything he could ever write.

I was hesitant at the beginning of the video, but you make a great argument this time, and I have to say I agree with you now.
From a corporate standpoint, though, being safe so you can rake in tons of money seems like a good idea.

This may be one of the dumbest things that Moviebob has actually put up as a video. The last couple of lines where he named Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy, Joss Wheden's Avengers, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and talked about these movies as if they were products of a bygone age that no longer exists honestly made me mad. Moviebob is wistfully musing about movies in a tone of "well they don't make them like they used to" about movies that came out LAST SUMMER, less than 6 months ago!

Really? REALLY?!

The Avengers is one of the most successful movies to ever be created, Peter Jackson just made The Hobbit, which made millions, and Guillermo del Toro TURNED DOWN directing the Star Wars movies. But no, no you're right, obviously movie goers haven't been supporting these kinds of stylized movies and we much more prefer mediocre tripe.

Hey Moviebob, good job coming off like a butt-hurt jackass.

I would like to agree with you but I just don't want you to be right in this case. Let this one be his breakthrough

So...does this mean that the plot of Abrams' Trek was about Kirk struggling with being gay?

Why do I get the feeling when Bob was talking about "fresh out of films school visionaries", he was making a not so subtle nod to himself?

Safaia:
Yeah you did overreact but I agree with the whole 'in control of Star Wars and Star Trek' thing. It was the first thing that popped into my head when I heard this news. Those are so heavy burdens to carry and I don't think he has the stamina to do it. Maybe one but not both.

This is my thought as well, and it totally sidesteps anything to do with Abrams in my mind. You could have the most visionary and capable mind out there, and it would still be a bad idea to have that mind be in charge of both Star Trek and Star Wars. The two universes are too fundamentally different from concept all the way to visual design.

First step of a Star Wars vs Star Trek movie? ;)

I honestly can't bring my self to care who's directing Star Wars VII, though the rant at the end is pretty spot on :/

Hey, Bob. Big fan, love your work, watch all of your videos. One suggestion as a form of constructive criticism, I know you used to change your accent for a more "ear-friendly" way but you're constantly switching back and forth recently. Personally, I don't care if you go one or the other but I find when you switch, I find myself distracted in indentifying which voice I'm hearing. Hey, maybe I'm wrong but just thought I'd mention.

My question is "Why do you pretend that episodes 4-6 were great movies?". Really! I mean, they are unbelievably important in the history of the film making and they set new standards in filmography. Lots of them. But as films they are mediocre and boring. The effects still hold up for me, sound is still awesome, world is still OK although obviously with many holes as later novels demonstrated, and design is top notch. But story is not a tribute to a '60 SF ultracheap movies. It is '60 ultracheap movie and a boring one. It's not Forbidden planet or Village of the Damned that's for sure, because those movies are still interesting to watch.

I watched Return of the Jedi when I was a kid, on its original theatrical run. Soon after I managed to watch first two movies too, only this time at someones home (original movie reel but on home projector). I was blown away. But at that time I was blow away even more bu original run of Battlestar Galactica and equally impressed by Blake's Seven. But I watched movies when I was 18 with friends and they were good. Then, around the time the remasters were about to come up I got the bug to see them again. But this time I said to myself that I will sit and watch them alone to really appreciate them. And I didn't appreciate them, except for the Episode 4 which is a nice self contained space hero story with a dab of magic. That's the thing, they are important milestones but they are not great movies. I would watch 12 Angry Men 12 times in a row without food or water rather then the original trilogy. Lucas is not Hitchcock or even Spielberg.

If new movies have a bit of world building material I will be pleased, but I will never be disappointed if the turn out bland with great world and visuals. Because, for the most part I see the Star Wars movies up to this time as such (Again A new hope standing somewhat out of the pack).

I completely disagree with MB, I personally am pretty content with JJ Abrams. Star Wars is a (amazingly done, and I will sell my soul to the original 3 and many of the expanded universe stories) Science Fiction adventure movie nothing more nothing less. I personally loved the Star Trek movie, I believe it was really well done, and I get a feeling that JJ Abrams will do his best not to disappoint fans (which no matter what will be better than the prequels).

I definitely think JJ Abrams will do a great job with Star Wars, and I cannot wait to see what he does with the new trilogy.

I want Quentin Tarantino to direct it. It be bloody and brilliant.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here