The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

That was my first thought too, is the new Star Wars going to be good? Yeah, sure it will. They put down 4billion dollars on this franchise though and with that I thought they would show some courage and make it Great. Even Memorable.

I don't blame them for playing it safe with the amount of cash at stake and I certainly don't agree that some relatively unknown director should get to helm this film, by all means get someone tried and true but Abrams? That's just playing it safe and nothing more. I was really excited about the Disney acquisition of the franchise but now I'm just meh about it all.

Can you keep your stupid accent consistent? If you want to keep it in your videos, keep it. If you want to downplay the accent, downplay the accent.

Just keep it friggin' consistent!

I don't mean to call it stupid, it is just grating to not be able to anticipate what I will hear. It grating on the ears for me.

Orks da best:
Since when did fanboy become another word for hater.

I've often thought this true: you're not a real gamer until you hate all videogames.

There was a point raised in the recent Escapist Podcast about how these two essentially different franchises being brought together under the same artistic vision.

And although I don't mind "Jabrams" (as I've started calling him), this does scare me. They have two very contrasting aesthetics; Star Trek is clean, and Star Wars... isn't. If Jabrams decides to go the same way as he has in Star Trek, the distinction between them will be blurred to the point of extinction.

I don't want Star Wars to become Star Trek.

Rogue 09:
You're also looking at a series that is 30 years old and has been responsible for a fundamental shift in the stories and ways current movies are made.

What shift was that?

There are a ton of "Grand Messages" within the series and important lessons / morals, if that's what you're looking for.

I'm not looking for grand lessons, but grand ideas. Perhaps you could name some for me? The only one I can think of is the first one being a fairly close adaptation of the hero's journey- but then so is nearly every other story with a hero.

If you're trying to compare it to "philosophical difficulties" that's more Star Trek, and a bit of the reason for all the "Abrams hate".

Okay, now we're getting to something I don't disagree with. I can totally understand Star Trek fans being annoyed with Abrams's interpretation, because Star Trek is real science fiction. Granted, it has always been a somewhat low-brow, cheesey, techno-babble filled science fiction, but often they use science or scientific thinking to solve problems.

So that explains why some people are annoyed with the Star Trek reboot, but it doesn't explain the anger over Abrams directing the Star Wars movies. Because Star Wars has never been science fiction. Sure, there are robots and space ships and freaking laser beams in it, but those are all superficial window-dressing for a run-of-the-mill fantasy story. Luke doesn't solve his problems by using science or his brain- he solves his problems by being a magical child with a destiny he only earned by having the right family lineage.

Also, I'm getting kind of sick of the dismissive "Fanboys will hate everything". What we want is for the soul of the product to remain the same.

I'm not convinced that Star Wars ever had a soul. Or rather, if it did, it's soul wasn't anything more than the soul fans brought to it in their youth. So it's not that Star Wars changed- its that the fans grew up.

And I'm clad that kids like the Phantom Menace, but should we really be judging things based on what children like?

Absolutely- at least things that are meant for children. I'm not convinced that Star Wars was ever meant for anyone else. At the very least, it's meant for the young-at-heart.

Instead of trying to make the adults and children of the world less intelligent, should we not be trying to encourage constructive thought?

I'm not convinced Star Wars ever encouraged constructive thought. The only thing I ever remember it encouraging was making a bunch of lightsaber noises while I jumped off of furniture while trying to hum the theme song.

I'm a lot more optimistic than Bob is here. I think this will probably end up being better than a lot of people think it's going to be. There are a couple of reasons for that.

One is that 2009's Star Trek is already the perfect Star Wars movie.

Another is that Bob didn't mention the heavy involvement of the writer and executives at Disney and Pixar, who have a pretty big role in making the film.

The problem with every single one of Abrams films is script. The dude knows what he's doing, he knows how to set up great sequences and he knows how to pull off an ensemble really well.

And lastly, I really can't believe anyone would pins their hopes on some experimental director for Episode VII. Star Wars has always been safe, and I don't know why anyone would expect anything different for Episode VII.

and as an added bit: I don't think late-era George Lucas would have been a better choice. He clearly has no idea what he's even doing with this franchise anymore and any attempt to do another film would only end in frustration for both him and fans.

Everyone keeps talking about Star Trek and Star Wars but people are missing the part where Abrams doesn't have as much control over Star Wars. See, Abrams isn't getting his team of writers or Star Wars, for instance. Abrams didn't go, "I want this." (Actually it was the opposite, he DIDN'T want it at first) Disney simply came to a deal with him. Star Wars will still be Star Wars because Abrams isn't going to be in charge of the aesthetic design or anything like that. A group of people that Lucasfilm hires will be. The story won't be done by J.J. a group of people who Lucasfilm hires will do that. It won't be written by his pack of writers because Lucasfilm and Disney will do that part (they've hired Michael Ardnt for the screenplay and Lawrence Kasdan for the story). Lucas will still be an idea guy as well, and he will still have the power to veto things Abrams wants to do.

While I agree that Abrams doesn't have as much ambition (and is a "safe bet") I disagree that he hasn't tried to show people what he's about. Granted he doesn't focus on major themes like say... Steven Spielberg or Christopher Nolan or Stanley Kubrick or even the likes of Quentin Tarantino, but I'm not sure how much I actually care about that. Not because not everyone has to reach, but because Abrams is the typical "Super Blockbuster," guy that people expect him to be. See, I totally disagree about The Avengers. It's a great movie but it has no real ambition. It's a CGI filled fest of what you'd get if Michael Bay actually made a good movie. And while I understand that it's Joss Wheddon doing what Joss Wheddon does best (although I think when he tackles Much Ado About Nothing it'll be a better movie overall), The Avengers is one of those movies that fanboys get up in arms about any time someone criticizes it. The Dark Knight Rises may have been disappointing for some, but at least it's actually reaching for something on a Thematic and Intellectual level.

The Avengers sort of felt like J.J. Abrams Star Trek in comparison. A fairly paperthin story that relied a lot on narrative coincidences that mostly banked on you loving Iron Man... not necessarily the other three movies (because Thor, Captain America and The Hulk just aren't as fun of characters--especially Captain America who might as well have just been labeled "The First Extra"). For as much as people talk about the "risk" with The Avengers, everyone forgets that you had a marketing campaign that lasted four years. There was no way that movie wasn't going to make it's money back. The surprise was the 600+ million dollar gross. But I'm sure they were certain it would make at least 400 million at the box office and that it was going to do really well globally. The only reason I actually remember The Avengers is because it made so much money that people won't let it slip out of the pop-culture subconsciousness. Not necessarily because it was a great movie, but because it made so much money it's "noteworthy" for that achievement. And while it was funny and a joyful good time... it pretty much came across like most every other summer movie popcorn flick. If you want to talk about movies with Ambition or getting to know a director, then The Avengers isn't really it either, and yet every nerd on the planet praises the hell out of that movie despite that the last half does exactly what a Michael Bay transformers movie does... just a really long battle where tons of stuff blows up and where tons of giant robots and other things destroy and nearly level a city. The only reason that Joss Wheddon escape criticism for that seems to be "Because he's a fellow nerd," where as if it were Michael Bay (and believe me I really hate Michael Bay) he'd be ripped to shreds.

But like I said, The Avengers is a better shot and better put together film at least. The way the characters grow to like one another is pretty cool. On the other hand it doesn't save it from having plot holes big enough to fly a 747 through or that it has that huge Deus Ex Machina... or that the final battle sequence is way too damn long. Or that Captain America isn't an interesting character on any level... or that Iron Man is the only guy worth liking among the heroes... or that the story is really boring... or that the last half of the last battle is too long and you just want it to end.

Don't get me wrong, I still love The Avengers, I'm just not sure why that gets a pass when we're talking about these things while movies that are reaching for something a little greater get beaten into the ground for NOT being The Avengers. Like I said, The Avengers felt almost exactly why Moviebob is getting all over J.J. Abrams and Moviebob loved the hell out of that movie... but I guess what I'm wondering is why, exactly. I suppose Moviebob could answer but I doubt I'll get one.

Katatori-kun:

Rogue 09:
You're also looking at a series that is 30 years old and has been responsible for a fundamental shift in the stories and ways current movies are made.

What shift was that?

The Blockbuster. Star Wars is one of the reasons we have blockbuster film-making. It also popularized Science Fiction and inspired thousands of directors, writers and artists.

Bob just said what I've been saying for a while. At least the prequels failed in interesting ways.

I'd disagree with one thing, though, Amazing Spider-Man did something different from the older movies, so why is that a bad thing?

Lieju:
Bob just said what I've been saying for a while. At least the prequels failed in interesting ways.

I'd disagree with one thing, though, Amazing Spider-Man did something different from the older movies, so why is that a bad thing?

Because it did it terribly. The actors were mishandled, the script a mess.

daibakuha:

Lieju:
Bob just said what I've been saying for a while. At least the prequels failed in interesting ways.

I'd disagree with one thing, though, Amazing Spider-Man did something different from the older movies, so why is that a bad thing?

Because it did it terribly. The actors were mishandled, the script a mess.

Even if that's the case, it seems weird thing to single out to complain about not doing things differently.

Smokescreen:
Who were those writers?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers

And who were the writers on the Star Trek movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers

Oh.....

Now that is fucking depressing.,
As to the above post,while I generally agree with Bob, I LIKED the latest Spiderman movie.

It was way better than Raimi's third one.

Which sucked donkey balls

daibakuha:

Katatori-kun:

Rogue 09:
You're also looking at a series that is 30 years old and has been responsible for a fundamental shift in the stories and ways current movies are made.

What shift was that?

The Blockbuster. Star Wars is one of the reasons we have blockbuster film-making. It also popularized Science Fiction and inspired thousands of directors, writers and artists.

Star Wars came out in 1977.

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia:
In film, a number of terms were used to describe a hit. In the 1970s these included: spectacular (The Wall Street Journal), super-grosser (New York Times), and super-blockbuster (Variety). In 1975 the usage of 'blockbuster' for films coalesced around Steven Spielberg's Jaws, and became perceived as something new: a cultural phenomenon, a fast-paced exciting entertainment, almost a genre. Audiences interacted with such films, talked about them afterwards, and went back to see them again just for the thrill.[4]

So the term pre-dates Star Wars by 2 years, the phenomenon by a good few years.

As I said before, Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's space opera. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out almost a decade earlier and was true science fiction. Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers probably had just as much influence on the Space Opera genre (in fact I recall hearing Lucas claim those as his inspiration). Hell, the original Star Trek pre-dates Star Wars as well.

I'm not saying Star Wars was bad, I just think any contributions it made to the genre were not due to some "soul" in the work, but rather to it being a fun flick that was in the right place in the culture at the right time.

I'm not sure it matters who makes this reanimated corpse of a Star Wars movie. I mean you didn't even mention Attack of the Clones. The forgotten star wars CG adventure that was universally panned. Star Wars has been dead for a while, it was condemned to a future of Legos, and kids TV shows. Most kids liked the TV show and the legos more then the movies. So Disney paid a freaking massive crap ton of money to put a pulse back in it, and picked a safe person to direct it. So that it might keep its brand alive for a long time, and make good on its 4 billion dollar investment. Seems like sound business to me. Now I would rather the District 9 director go and make original movies instead of keep this corpse going. It seems perfect for Abrams, because lord knows we aren't losing some amazing films with his absence from his own means.

Done.

Katatori-kun:

daibakuha:

Katatori-kun:

What shift was that?

The Blockbuster. Star Wars is one of the reasons we have blockbuster film-making. It also popularized Science Fiction and inspired thousands of directors, writers and artists.

Star Wars came out in 1977.

According to Wikipedia

Wikipedia:
In film, a number of terms were used to describe a hit. In the 1970s these included: spectacular (The Wall Street Journal), super-grosser (New York Times), and super-blockbuster (Variety). In 1975 the usage of 'blockbuster' for films coalesced around Steven Spielberg's Jaws, and became perceived as something new: a cultural phenomenon, a fast-paced exciting entertainment, almost a genre. Audiences interacted with such films, talked about them afterwards, and went back to see them again just for the thrill.[4]

So the term pre-dates Star Wars by 2 years, the phenomenon by a good few years.

As I said before, Star Wars isn't science fiction. It's space opera. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out almost a decade earlier and was true science fiction. Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers probably had just as much influence on the Space Opera genre (in fact I recall hearing Lucas claim those as his inspiration). Hell, the original Star Trek pre-dates Star Wars as well.

I'm not saying Star Wars was bad, I just think any contributions it made to the genre were not due to some "soul" in the work, but rather to it being a fun flick that was in the right place in the culture at the right time.

From the same article

"After the success of Jaws, many Hollywood producers attempted to create similar "event films" with wide commercial appeal. Film companies began green lighting increasingly high budgeted films and relying extensively on massive advertising blitzes leading up to their theatrical release. Spielberg and his fellow filmmaker George Lucas (whose 1977 film Star Wars was the most successful film of that decade) are the film-makers most closely associated with the beginning of the blockbuster era."

I also didn't say it purely invented the Blockbuster, but is one of the reasons why it's still around today.

Star Wars IS Science Fiction. Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-fi. Just because the focus is on the action and plot, doesn't make it any less Sci-fi

Also, I didn't say it invented Sci-fi, I said it popularized it. Remember how Star Trek was cancelled? Or how Star Wars is one of the most successful film franchises of all time? I'm not saying those works are inferior to Star Wars, I'm saying Star Wars is more influential.

Star Wars does have soul. Say what you will about the acting or writing of any of the movies, but they are all spectacularly well directed and scored. It's a simple story told incredibly well.

daibakuha:
"After the success of Jaws, many Hollywood producers attempted to create similar "event films" with wide commercial appeal. Film companies began green lighting increasingly high budgeted films and relying extensively on massive advertising blitzes leading up to their theatrical release. Spielberg and his fellow filmmaker George Lucas (whose 1977 film Star Wars was the most successful film of that decade) are the film-makers most closely associated with the beginning of the blockbuster era."

Yup. So Star Wars didn't give us the blockbuster, it's merely an early example of one.

I also didn't say it purely invented the Blockbuster, but is one of the reasons why it's still around today.

Nah, I'm not buying it. Sorry. There were blockbusters before Star Wars, and I see no reason to believe that had Star Wars never existed that any other popcorn-flick wouldn't have taken its place.

Star Wars IS Science Fiction. Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-fi.

What thematic difference is there between Star Wars and say, Lord of the Rings? There isn't. Star Wars is fantasy with set-dressing.

Also, I didn't say it invented Sci-fi, I said it popularized it.

I'm not sure I believe that without seeing some pretty substantial evidence that I doubt any of us have access to.

I'm saying Star Wars is more influential.

I know what you're saying. I'm just looking for something to back up your claim, and I'm not seeing anything.

but they are all spectacularly well directed and scored.

Wait, "spectacularly well-directed"? Seriously?

Bob fears "rote mediocrity?" This coming from the man who worships at the altar of Nintendo? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off for a few hours.

I have always thought all of the Star Wars movies were average at best. The new Star Trek was better than all of the Star Wars movies so it can only do better with this director.

Katatori-kun:
Yup. So Star Wars didn't give us the blockbuster, it's merely an early example of one.

Did you read the last bit? Where they specifically mention Star Wars and George Lucas?

Nah, I'm not buying it. Sorry. There were blockbusters before Star Wars, and I see no reason to believe that had Star Wars never existed that any other popcorn-flick wouldn't have taken its place.

You keep asking me for evidence, but this is a huge assumption. The term also existed before 1975 but Star Wars and Jaws redefined it to mean what it does now.

What thematic difference is there between Star Wars and say, Lord of the Rings? There isn't. Star Wars is fantasy with set-dressing.

What's the difference between a noir film and Blade Runner? Blade Runner is a noir film with set-dressing. You can see how this argument literally holds no weight. It makes no difference if Lord of the Rings and Star Wars hold some similarities. literally the only thing that defines sci-fi is the setting. So this debate over semantics is pointless and irritating.

I'm not sure I believe that without seeing some pretty substantial evidence that I doubt any of us have access to.

Look at the box office of Star Wars compared to Star Trek or 2001. Tell me which one more people were watching.

I know what you're saying. I'm just looking for something to back up your claim, and I'm not seeing anything.

I'm making an observation on popular culture, and from some of the more popular directors doing movies today. James Cameron, Rian Johnson, Duncan Jones, JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon, etc. All inspired by Star Wars. Go ahead and look up how many people were inspired by it.

Wait, "spectacularly well-directed"? Seriously?

What are everyone's favorite scenes from the PT? The Podrace scene, the Duel of Fates, the battle on Geonosis (as well as the scene preceding it in the arena) and the battle on Mustafar. Scenes with little dialog. Lucas is actually a pretty talented director who gets bogged down by his own terrible writing. Literally everything that's bad about the prequels can be attributed to the writing (and acting, but with such wooden dialog it's hard to put in a good performance).

I never really liked anything Abrams has done. He has the flashy (literally) bells and whistles but nothing that gets me hooked on what is there.

This video reminds me why I don't give two shits about Movie Bob's opinion.

4 minutes wasted. Turned it off when he said Lucas should do another movie.

daibakuha:

Katatori-kun:
Yup. So Star Wars didn't give us the blockbuster, it's merely an early example of one.

Did you read the last bit? Where they specifically mention Star Wars and George Lucas?

I did. It says Star Wars was a big film. It doesn't say Star Wars gave us the Blockbuster.

You keep asking me for evidence, but this is a huge assumption. The term also existed before 1975 but Star Wars and Jaws redefined it to mean what it does now.

You mean Jaws redefined it. Star Wars was just one early blockbuster among many.

What thematic difference is there between Star Wars and say, Lord of the Rings? There isn't. Star Wars is fantasy with set-dressing.

What's the difference between a noir film and Blade Runner? Blade Runner is a noir film with set-dressing.

Exactly! And Harry Potter isn't fantasy, it's teen detective stories with set-dressing. Now you're getting it. People who shallowly evaluate movies often confuse the movie's setting with the movie's genre, at least in the case of sci-fi and fantasy. Why? No other genre is bound by such convention. A movie isn't automatically a mystery just because it's set on the moors on a moonlit night, is it? A movie isn't automatically a war movie just because it's set in 1942. To call everything with a space ship or a laser gun sci-fi is to superficially evaluate the genre.

I'm not sure I believe that without seeing some pretty substantial evidence that I doubt any of us have access to.

Look at the box office of Star Wars compared to Star Trek or 2001. Tell me which one more people were watching.

butts in seats != impact.

What are everyone's favorite scenes from the PT? The Podrace scene, the Duel of Fates, the battle on Genosha (as well as the scene preceding it in the arena) and the battle on Mustafar. Scenes with little dialog.

Care to give an example from the original trilogy?

Lucas is actually a pretty talented director who gets bogged down by his own terrible writing. Literally everything that's bad about the prequels can be attributed to the writing (and acting, but with such wooden dialog it's hard to put in a good performance).

Lucas is notorious for giving actors and actresses vary little direction in how they should read their lines, which is part of a director's job, and almost certainly part of the reason that the acting was so wooden in the prequels.

As a casual at best Star Wars fan, I have nothing to offer to this debate. However what I want to set one thing straight, Fringe was not mediocre in any way. It was easily my favourite show of the last five yers and if we see a sci-fi show that bold and original in the next few years, I'd be very surprised... But I don't think that was anything to do with Abrams. Sure he got the ball rolling on that show but he took a back seat pretty quick and I think the show being as good as it was (and not turning into LOST) is down to his lack of tight control.

So I think the new SW will at least have an interesting premise but unless someone else takes the project off him before he finishes, it'll probably end in a pretty unsatisfying way. But as Bob says (and it was my first thought when I heard he had the job), it'll be fine.

Okay, here is a point: WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Could it not be Joss Whedon!?

Katatori-kun:

I did. It says Star Wars was a big film. It doesn't say Star Wars gave us the Blockbuster.

The part where it says that Speilberg and Lucas were the ones who caused the redefinition?

You mean Jaws redefined it. Star Wars was just one early blockbuster among many.

No I mean exactly what I said, you being obtuse and sarcastic isn't helping anyone see your argument.

Exactly! And Harry Potter isn't fantasy, it's teen detective stories with set-dressing. Now you're getting it. People who shallowly evaluate movies often confuse the movie's setting with the movie's genre, at least in the case of sci-fi and fantasy. Why? No other genre is bound by such convention. A movie isn't automatically a mystery just because it's set on the moors on a moonlit night, is it? A movie isn't automatically a war movie just because it's set in 1942. To call everything with a space ship or a laser gun sci-fi is to superficially evaluate the genre.

Science Fiction and Fantasy aren't like other genres and shouldn't be classified the same way. Look at the wikipedia article on science fiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction. This is why there are so many subgenres for Science fiction and fantasy. You don't see as many for other genres.

butts in seats != impact.

You are right, but you honestly can't say it's the amount of people who saw it didn't make an impact on it's apparent popularity and the number of director's who cite it as influences.

Care to give an example from the original trilogy?

The scene where Luke looks at the sunset in IV, The Cantina scene (the beginning), The opening of VI (especially the action sequence at the end, Luke's fight with the Rancor and when Luke enters the palace). The whole end of VI was stellar (except the for the Ewoks, imagine if they were Wookiees instead? Like they were supposed to be). Especially the part where Luke is beating the crap out of Vader.

I specifically didn't mention V which was not by Lucas.

Lucas is notorious for giving actors and actresses vary little direction in how they should read their lines, which is part of a director's job, and almost certainly part of the reason that the acting was so wooden in the prequels.

With dialog this bad it's hard to say really. It wouldn't have mattered either way for most of them.

EDIT: To add more to my argument, look at the wikipedia definition of Space Opera:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Opera

Wikipedia:
Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, usually involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

And under a list of popular Space Opera:

The Foundation series (1942-1999) by Isaac Asimov
The Ender's Game series (1985-present) by Orson Scott Card
Guardians of the Galaxy (1969-present) by Marvel Comics
Star Trek (1966-present) created by Gene Roddenberry
Star Wars (1977-present) created by George Lucas
Battlestar Galactica (1978-1979 and 2004-2009) created by Glen A. Larson & Ronald D. Moore
Babylon 5 (1993-1998) created by J. Michael Straczynski
The Chronicles of Riddick, characters by Ken Wheat and direction and universe by David Twohy.
Stargate (1994-2011[29]) created by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin
Titan A.E. (1999) created by Ben Edlund, John August, and Joss Whedon
Firefly (2002) created by Joss Whedon
Warhammer 40,000 (1987-present) Games Workshop
Star Ocean (1996-2010) created by tri-Ace
StarCraft (1998-present) created by Blizzard Entertainment
Homeworld (1999-2003) created by Relic Entertainment
Starlancer (2000) and Freelancer (2003) created by Digital Anvil
Halo (2001-present) created by Bungie and 343 Industries
Ratchet & Clank (2002-present) created by Insomniac Games
EVE Online (2003-present) created by CCP Games
Xenosaga (2003-2006) created by Monolith Soft
Mass Effect (2007-present) created by BioWare

Are you going to honestly sit there and say none of those are science fiction?

On Fanboys and what is deserved:

As I grow older, I am more and more reluctant to identify with "geek culture" or being a "fanboy." And this is entirely why: there is an inherent danger in basing one's cultural identity around the consumption of a product, especially a product that in this case is owned by a company that has had aesthetic intentions that are questionable at best. I do not even really think that "geek" can be identified as a culture, because real cultures have philosophical, religious, historical, or ideological bases to them, whereas "geek" is mostly concerned with their own interpolation from marketed products, and rarely if ever attempts to turn these interpolations into anything more.

So, this is not what fanboys deserve so much as what fanboys and geek "culture" have unintentionally created. A product that truly does reflect them, and I feel that so much nerd rage and backlash have their roots at the horrifying image that they see when a film or game truly does reflect them.

We haven't decided that we want safer
The businesses steered by old out of touch men have
If you think it's bad in the movies you should know that's it's many times worse in games
Games also appear to be no one persons vision and appear to be too heavily influenced by what marketing thinks is hip and in at the moment

I suppose that makes Bobs one point I could agree with about Other M all the more true, that it tried something new if only it hadn't fallen flat on it's face

Honestly, I liked Abram's Star Trek more than every Star Wars movie except for Episode V...

Who knows, since he's not rebooting Star Wars but actually being forced to continue the series, he might find that creative spark you're talking about.

Also, maybe he'll do a better job with motivating the actors to actually be good. IMO, the only two actors who were good in ANY of the Star Wars movies were Ewan Mcgregor and Harrison Ford. Everyone else was mediocre, bad or awful (Hayden-angsty bitch-Christensen).

At this point, I can't see a breath of fresh air being anything but good for this franchise, even if that breath is a little shallow.

Edit: Also, Bob, how can you honestly say that you need something "deeper" in Star Wars when you named The Avengers as your movie of the year? Don't get me wrong, I liked Avengers (more than the Star Trek reboot) but IMO, the plot was paper thin and was only there to allow the super heroes to fight and stand around having awesome dialogue. I mean at least Star Trek had decent character progression. All The Avengers had was Hulk suddenly being able to control his anger.

Damn, now I really want to see a Star Wars movie directed by Neill Blomkamp. I mean, there's no way you couldn't make that sound awesome.

ZippyDSMlee:

Red X:

ZippyDSMlee:

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.

I know this is going to sound condescending but you really should take some time to play this game. Heck, even Bob prefaced his video by explaining that it was just his opinion.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

In the interest of honesty. I had tons of problems with Abram's Star Trek, and I'm not really much of a Star Trek fan, though I do have an interest in the universe. Everything wrong with it from my perspective mainly had to do with the narrative.

My main issue with the idea of Abrams being director for the movie is that it's just sucked all the excitement of getting to see what a new Star Wars movie is going to be like. I already know what kind of stuff Abrams makes, and it just doesn't make for something to get me very intrigued.

I'm still interested to see what kind of story they have for a post-original trilogy movie, but mainly for its own sake rather than the interest of getting to see something compelling being done with the universe.

Sylveria:
Disclaimer: I hate JJ Abrams and I'm going to bitch about it and will unconditionally hate the new Star Trek AND Star Wars movies based purely on this notion regardless of their quality.

I wasn't going to say anything...but that's what I got...

I've enjoyed everything that J.J. has put out onto the big screen, even Cloverfield. To me, he is my generations Spielberg. I look forward to Into Darkness, maybe even Star Wars.

Lost is my favorite television show of all time and Star Trek took a series I didn't care about and made me enjoy it immensely. So yeah I'm excited about this. In fact, aside from getting Fincher on this thing, this is about the only choice that would have excited me about the project as I really don't care about Star Wars.

RedDeadFred:

ZippyDSMlee:

Red X:
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.

I know this is going to sound condescending but you really should take some time to play this game. Heck, even Bob prefaced his video by explaining that it was just his opinion.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

LOL

I dunno everything in media these days is about the safe route and screwing over the fiction(or mechanics/depth for games) to make it more pliable to the public. It dose not always result in something being very bad but it tends to degrade the content harshly.

For me Batman 3 was as bad as Batman and Robin only it was more boring....which is a shame since I had to sit through the Gorilla suit scene wondering WTF. Bane didn't hurt brains as much since I snoozed through it.... LOL

But seriously boil batman down, what are its main plot points? Gadgets, Quasi detective/mystery work, Costumes, Big explosions, Action scenes I mean its 1 point away from Mission Imposable. Mind you Batman has a larger more devise mythos to pull from as dose most comic series but when they toss it out to do "something new" I get ticked off because they missed the point of the fiction they are trying to make a film from.

/rant
/ramble
/rage
/wonders off to cry in corner...

Hexley:
In the interest of honesty. I had tons of problems with Abram's Star Trek, and I'm not really much of a Star Trek fan, though I do have an interest in the universe. Everything wrong with it from my perspective mainly had to do with the narrative.

My main issue with the idea of Abrams being director for the movie is that it's just sucked all the excitement of getting to see what a new Star Wars movie is going to be like. I already know what kind of stuff Abrams makes, and it just doesn't make for something to get me very intrigued.

I'm still interested to see what kind of story they have for a post-original trilogy movie, but mainly for its own sake rather than the interest of getting to see something compelling being done with the universe.

My main problems with it where the crappy plot just to needlessly bridge the gap with die hard fans. It was not needed, they did not need to do every other plot point in it much less bring out Learned Nimoy. It would have been a much better film and foundation for a new take on it...but no they had to screw up what could have been a great film to tie it into the older TV/Films...... it kinda goes against the fiction IMO...

/rant
/ramble

 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