The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
eh thank god its not lucas and not bay..... abrahms has at lest shown an ability to make an ok movie when he gets a good script. like super 8. and it still boggles my mind that rlm likes the trek reboot i cant stand it. still he could be handed a good script as long as he does not start shooting all the action scenes inside breweries it could lest look ok. | |
I find that I end up in a lot of geek debates people will say a movie wasn't too bad, the movie was okay, or the movie had the same quality as an old poorly made TV show. We aren't living in an age when good enough is good enough any more. In an age that can give us epic films and studios willing to put huge budgets on films it's a shame to deal with mediocrity. | |
I know about the expanded universe and I have played a lot of the games, but those are all just made to fit what's there. There is no capacity to reimagine the world and put your own spin on it. Even the new Star Trek movie played it really safe, despite a ton of visual upgrades and minor character tweaks. | |
its been like that for weeks, he should stick to one or the other, it annoys me alot that it slips and slides | |
Unresolved mysteries aren't necessarily bad, it's just how they're handled. First season Lost (when Abrams was involved)? Great. Fourth season Lost (when Abrams was not involved)? Terrible. Look at Cloverfield. We didn't get half an hour of expository dialog about where the creature came from, it's mating habits, what it's motivations were, and the biology of the small runner things that dropped off of it. It was just: here is this monstrous thing. Survive. And it worked better without all that extraneous detail than it would have with it, and the fans get to make up interesting stories about what had happened and what it was. | |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_Star_Wars This explains it in more detail than people would probably want me to write here. Take a gander.
Well, it all kind of depends on which grand ideas you're looking for. Darth Vader went from an irredeemable monster in the first movie to a horrifying portent to Luke's future should he choose the "easy path", and finally moved to sort of a tragic victim in the third movie. I would say another unique idea of the movie went from the hero's journey to a redemption tale for both Han Solo and Darth Vader. There are also your standard good vs. evil, religion and intolerance, weapons of mass destruction, the use of government and control, and the way that neither the good guys or the bad guys were necessarily perfect. There are whole papers that have been written on this stuff, I would suggest you look them up.
Star Trek was less about solving things with science and more about have a philosophical discussion about many of the issues we face in society framed within a science/space framework. Abrams ignored the history of the franchise and remade it into a samey action flick with a boring villain, bad plot, and fundamentally remade the Star Trek Universe. I'm not saying that Abrams is going to ignore the heavy science side of Star Wars, nor has anyone else that I've seen. I'm afraid we're going to get more of the "Force is a mystical force" to "It's bacteria in your blood" nonsense of the prequels. Fundamentally changing the story and universe to for no reason other than to change it.
Many people didn't see Star Wars until they were adults, and still love the original trilogy. I watch it all the time, and not for nostalgia reasons. It's still a fantastic group of movies that, while not overly complicated, are incredibly enjoyable and not simply for children. The new trilogy includes a funny speaking cartoon that steps in poop. You see why there is a difference here?
The new trilogy saddles the cartoon character with long boring meetings on trade disputes, senatorial processes, and a sixteen year old beginning a love story with an eight year old. Not a kids movie.
Right, that's what you take in on the surface. Below that, the brain is working on the concepts of right and wrong, making the bad choices and coming back from them, and making out with your sister. All good stuff. | |
I know I'm jumping in pretty late here, but I saw MI3, Super 8, and Star Trek. Even though I saw them pretty recently, I had to look them up on the internet because I can't for the life of me remember a single thing about them. They were just pretty and explodey, without a whole lot of content to go along with it. I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this, but I feel that Abrams is just a more decent and grown-up version of Michael Bay. Bay specializes in explody terribleness, and Abrams specializes in explodey decentness. His movies aren't bad by any means; There's just no real heart or soul or vision that I could see, just "HEY! Look at this! Cool right?! Give me your money!" I'd rather chance a horrible clusterfuck/amazingly brilliant movie rather than flat-out average. As MovieBob said, He's safe. That's it. Star Wars deserves better. | |
But how would anybody know that Abrams' Star Wars wont have the same level of uniqueness? Maybe he'll capture the same spirit, or perhaps create a new one. It can be done well. Lucas had a limited hand in a lot of the EU, but some of that has been incredible. But there will always be some fanboys that say it sucks purely because it's not the original trilogy, and that's not something that we can simply say "oh, they're just loyal" to. It's thinking like that, that there's no point in making anything because it can't beat the original, that causes a franchise to go stagnant. If that's what too many people thought, then we'd never had KoTOR/TOR, or the Thrawn stories, or the Jedi Academy series. There would be a plethora of amazing characters that would never see the light of day because people were too scared of expanding the mythos. But unfortunately, most of the people that are like that use the internet to vent their problems, with the idea that "I love Star Wars, so it should be catered to my tastes". I don't know if regular internet users are harder to please or if the hard to please fans are just using the internet to vent, but regardless, I'd bet my paycheque that, even if Abrams delivers a masterpiece, the net will be engulfed in fanboy rage. Or maybe it'll actually just really, really suck. | |
You can't really talk about the last new Star Trek movie and discuss quality, at least not about good quality. That last movie showed me that we most likely won't get proper Star Trek movies or television again. It definitely didn't feel like Abrams was shooting for quality with that last movie. It felt like a name grab cash in. Star Trek fans would come for the name, and they decided to go with young and inexperienced actors to draw in more of the young crowd. For the vast most part, the new Star Trek was one big action scene with barely any story development. Heck, I was horrified when I left the theater and shocked to the point that I couldn't tell at first what I had watched. I will hand it to them that they pulled a big somewhat ass-saving maneuver, by making it a reboot in an alternate reality/dimension. There would have been more of a shit-storm if they had made a canon reality story in the style of that movie. I haven't watched much of any of Abrams shows, but when I heard he had control of that new Star Trek movie, and that everybody was saying how good he was, I thought maybe it would be good. But now after that mockery he made, I really can't trust him with anything sci-fi or anything that is established for that matter. And now I feel sorry for Star Wars, because with Abrams at the helm, it's going to end up sucking harder than Jar-Jar, if that is even possible.
Totally agree. Of course it felt empty. The new Star Trek movie was just a cash in action flick; the type of movie where the story and the integrity of the subject matter take a back seat to the action scenes and things that the makers think will make their movie hip and cool to the youth. The sickening thing...the last I heard about the supposed new Star Trek television series, is that they want to make it more like the new movie than the established old series/canon. Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave. | |
All this complaining about Star Wars all the time >_> | |
Examples? Because, for instance, when we have TV shows like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, it's hard to argue that TV has gotten mediocre. | |
Bland corporate mediocrity... You realize that pretty much describes comic books to a T now? | |
Right, because they made three of the same crappy movie in a row. Make a good movie, or don't make one at all | |
That's the most sensible thing I've read on this whole comment thread. It's just Too Soon To tell. captcha: Keep More Money | |
I want to maintain cautious optimism, but you argue it well, Bob. I tip my hat to you, sir. | |
most of the bigg 2 yeah, i say most because every now and then you get gems like Journey into Mystery Hawkeye and the soon to be cancelled I, Vampire. a part of me suspects not enough general consumers want to try something new or different. | |
Mr. Moviebobs feelings are clear. Star Wars is walking the tightrope, it can't go back, and its chances of crossing to the other side are slim and slender. He cries out in fear, helpless and powerless. Anybody with attachment with Star wars should feel the same. Then they should just stop tolerating it; the massive rolling snowball of crap that has flattened all peoples, which they're about to bring to bear on Star Wars. | |
There's a bit more than that, the story is at least compelling, the character's are strong and well acted, the dialogue is rather well written and there are some powerful moments in it. That's what vision means, telling a good story. Pulp Fiction certainly didn't have a grand message or unifying idea, but it's a story told well and that's really what matters. I feel as Bob does about this. Maybe I shouldn't, but I feel that Star Trek and Star Wars should strive to be as separate in aim as possible. What I think this will do is homogenize both franchises until it's difficult to tell which is which. Director's styles are unique, they are like fingerprints, they can change, but only over long periods of time and most never do. | |
I saw New Hope when I was about 12 or 13. After Revenge of the Sith came out. And you know what? I was so damn bored. Every time I watch it, I ask myself "what the fuck do people like about this movie?" It's an incredibly standard "hero's journey," it's a predictable story, it's got bad acting and bad dialogue, bad editing (one shot is used multiple times), and I never felt like the Empire was a threat. When the stormtroopers can't hit jackshit and the little farm boy is dropping dudes left and right, I feel no suspense. It felt empty to me. As did Abrams' Star Trek, so they're a perfect match! Empire is excellent, though. | |
Is it me or did his actual accent come through there more than usual? must really be upset with this... :P | |
For bob bouncing in and out is pretty much just lazyness and bad editing. He has just had this problem a lot more lately, for the longest time he was purely speaking in a standardized accent so we know for a fact that he can choose one or the other to speak in. But now he is just bouncing back and forth, so yeah, lazy. And for the record, I dont really care where you live, as it means less than nothing to me. | |
I share these fears. | |
Ah yes, the part in Top Gun where that one guy I can't remember goes back in time because he accidentally nuked Vietnam... and the last Vietnamese miner swears revenge and blows up New Jersey. Like it or not, the Star Trek reboot had a lot more subtlety and strength than pretty much anyone gives credit for. I could give a play-by-play of nods to original continuity, the oddly well-played Shatnerness of the lead actor, the way the movie plays with putting the cast of TOS in a TNG (or DS9)-type scenario, the way Kirk gets fleshed out in the alternate timeline where he doesn't have a father to look up to, the shit Spock went through on Vulcan, etc. But Abrams was above all making a TOS Trek movie. An above-average Trek movie at that. 1, 3, and 5 were nowhere near as good as this, and 2 pulled together almost entirely on the charisma of Ricardo Montalban. The rest were okay. It's because as a cinematic piece of entertainment, Star Trek can never be more than okay. It's part of what makes Trek Trek. There's always too much baggage from the series itself, too much focus on garbage technobabble that even infuriates fans. Star Trek is good, it just can't make a good movie. And yet, there were inexplicably 3 good movies! Why? Because the bad movies weren't bad, they just played too much like an episode of the show! And here's where Abrams delivers: he doesn't have or need the show as background, but if you pay attention, the movie is subtly steeped in lore and personality, undiluted Trek with the 60's-ness stripped away. Also, let's talk about Avengers. And Disney by connection, and Lucas by connection. The Avengers was not given the Whedon treatment, if you will; it didn't become a campy mess that forgot what it was about halfway through. Why? Because Disney and Marvel HAD HIM BY THE BALLS and WOULD NOT LET HIM SCREW UP THEIR FRANCHISE. Disney will do exactly the same here, and Lucas has been included as a consultant, need we forget. He gave away his baby, but he still has visitation rights and isn't going to let its new parents turn it into a monster (prequel rant flame shield up). I repeat: J. J. Abrams isn't the only hand in this! Lucas is still on as a consultant, and Disney has too much stake in this to let anyone screw this up. They hired one of the best to write this thing, Michael Arndt. You said in the beginning that you hoped you would be proven wrong. I say now it is very likely. | |
Well, just because you thought the new film was great doesn't mean that Bob's whole argument has been debunked, and that his fears aren't even well founded. Secondly, the less Lucas involvement the better as we all know the biggest screw up to happen to Star Wars was George Lucas. And my main hope is the fact that Lawrence Kasdan is on the writing team, he wrote Empire Strikes Back and managed to stave off a lot of Lucas' ideas for it and it became the best Star Wars for it, so hopefully he can make Abrams do things we didn't expect of him, and at least make him hold back on the awful, awful lens flare. | |
I most certainly agree with the sentiment that fanbases just don't really want to see anything new or "interesting." I'm not going to say that the average person is dumb or has bad taste, but I will say, and this is a fact, that the average person going into a movie does not want a unique or engaging experience. Most people don't want to think when they go to the movies, they just want to be entertained in the most basic way for about an hour and a half/two hours. You can also apply this to nerd culture as well; most times, fans don't want to see their beloved properties played with, they'd rather have a baseline experience because that's just easier to stomach. Case in point, Ang Lee's "Hulk." While not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, can you name me a reason that makes it terrible, other than the fact that is wasn't like the comics? "Hulk" maybe the most downright "different" comic book movie ever made, and it was shit on by the fans. | |
One also has to consider that Abrams was teamed up with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the writers responsible for the first of the Michael Bay Transformers movies. Even if he wanted to shoot for quality (or even attempt to remain true to Rodenberry's vision), he was hobbled from the get-go by having hack writers who seem to have no fucking clue what Star Trek is about. It pains me to say this, but I'm almost willing to forgive Rick Berman for the damage he did to the Trek franchise if it means we can get it out of the hands of such philistines. At least Episode VII has a writer who has cranked out at least one damn good script (Toy Story 3). While I'm not sure that's enough to create a new hope for Star Wars, it's all we've got at the moment. | |
Actually, it's because The Avengers is a movie where you actually give a shit about the characters, and you can tell them apart - not because Joss Whedon is a fellow nerd. Just to clarify things. | |
Actually, it's because The Avengers is a movie where you actually give a shit about the characters, and you can tell them apart - not because Joss Whedon is a fellow nerd. Just to clarify things. | |
It's a point of reference and no, I still don't buy it. Most people here speak with a standard american accent and some of the time the regional one breaks out. It has nothing to do with laziness. The fact of the matter is, you will just find any reason to shit on anything he does. Over some imagined slight that you feel he has against you. Honestly just shut up about it, we know you can hear his accent, no, it doesn't make you smarter or mentally superior for pointing it out. | |
I agree, you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to pull that comparison off. It's both incredibly generous to Bay and disingenuous to Whedon to even compare the two. It's almost like we didn't even watch the same movie. | |
I am sure that excuse would fly some times, but this is, you know, a product turned out by money, not a speech delivered on the fly, an editor or the person himself can listen to it, realize he fucked up, then fix it. Yahtzee does it, others do it, why is movie bob lazy enough to just toss this out there without any editing? | |
I suppose its because George Lucas says so, its his judgement. Can't you put your trust in him? | |
But in that regards the ending of ME3 was nonsensical, and full of broken promises of how "your actions effect the ending providing hundreds of endings & finding out what happened to all the characters you have shared so much time with". Its a example of people banding together for the coming good & adding to something that felt unfinished. So its kind of very different to whats happening here, to compare the movie industry with the gaming industry with this safe kind of no-risk taking, we should use a better example, the king of mediocrity: Call of Duty. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
People realise Abrams only kicked off Lost and Fringe and pretty much left both of these series after 1-2 seasons right?
I just have to point it out, because I'm seeing huge posts written by people judging Abrams based on these shows while being totally ignorant of this fact.