|
|
On April 26 2013 02:57 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 16:40 TOCHMY wrote: Episode I, II and III were good. Why? Because they had Lightsabers and Blasters.
End of discussion. I'm guessing this is exactly what Lucas was thinking while making them lol.
Rofl! I was pretty young still when the prequel movies came out i didn't dislike them but even then i did notice that they traded acting for special effects.
|
On April 26 2013 05:12 zmsFlood wrote: Disney-made Star Wars -movies? IT'S A TRAP!
I think Disney would do a fantastic job. They are good storytellers. Plus they have the budget to afford whats needed. A lot of Hollywood movies suffer because budget of constraints. Disney is a billion dollar company. I don't think they would have to settle for sub-par writers, actors, directors etc because they can afford the best of the best.
|
On April 28 2013 16:35 RomanTechnology wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 05:12 zmsFlood wrote: Disney-made Star Wars -movies? IT'S A TRAP! I think Disney would do a fantastic job. They are good storytellers. Plus they have the budget to afford whats needed. A lot of Hollywood movies suffer because budget of constraints. Disney is a billion dollar company. I don't think they would have to settle for sub-par writers, actors, directors etc because they can afford the best of the best.
I have rarely seen movies that suck primarily because of budget issues. I mean, I suppose you could say that if they'd hired a higher-paid script-writer, director, actors, crews, etc, then the films might have been better. But generally speaking, most movies suck because of who made them, not budget. Lower-cost workers can still produce solid entertainment, and higher-cost workers can still fail epically (see Bayformers and many other big budget crapfests).
Is it possible for Disney to make a great movie here? Yes. Is it likely? Not given the people they've hired thus far.
|
That Star Trek prequel movie was pretty good though, way above expectations. It's the same guy directing 7 right ?
|
On April 28 2013 23:51 HeatEXTEND wrote: That Star Trek prequel movie was pretty good though, way above expectations. It's the same guy directing 7 right ?
Yes.
|
On April 28 2013 23:51 HeatEXTEND wrote: That Star Trek prequel movie was pretty good though, way above expectations. It's the same guy directing 7 right ? Well if you consider a movie that is Star Trek in name only good then I guess he did... Now he is probably going to apply same treatment to Star Wars.
|
On April 28 2013 16:35 RomanTechnology wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 05:12 zmsFlood wrote: Disney-made Star Wars -movies? IT'S A TRAP! I think Disney would do a fantastic job. They are good storytellers. Plus they have the budget to afford whats needed. A lot of Hollywood movies suffer because budget of constraints. Disney is a billion dollar company. I don't think they would have to settle for sub-par writers, actors, directors etc because they can afford the best of the best.
Well compare the budgets of Episodes 4-6 and Episodes 1-3. I dont even know the numbers but I know that episode 4 only cost a few million and despite the prequels surely costing way more, they sucked a lot more.
edit: Ok I looked it up. Episode 4 cost 11 million dollars, episode 1 cost 115 million dollars... yeah I dont think the lack of money was the problem
|
On May 04 2013 10:12 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 16:35 RomanTechnology wrote:On April 26 2013 05:12 zmsFlood wrote: Disney-made Star Wars -movies? IT'S A TRAP! I think Disney would do a fantastic job. They are good storytellers. Plus they have the budget to afford whats needed. A lot of Hollywood movies suffer because budget of constraints. Disney is a billion dollar company. I don't think they would have to settle for sub-par writers, actors, directors etc because they can afford the best of the best. Well compare the budgets of Episodes 4-6 and Episodes 1-3. I dont even know the numbers but I know that episode 4 only cost a few million and despite the prequels surely costing way more, they sucked a lot more. edit: Ok I looked it up. Episode 4 cost 11 million dollars, episode 1 cost 115 million dollars... yeah I dont think the lack of money was the problem
FYI, $11,000,000.00 in 1977 had the same buying power as $43,395,378.01 in 2013 ($30,977,663.23 in 1999.).
|
So in those terms Episode 1 had almost 4 times the budget of Episode 4 for a movie not even half as good
|
On May 04 2013 21:41 7mk wrote: So in those terms Episode 1 had almost 4 times the budget of Episode 4 for a movie not even half as good
That pretty much sums up popularized music/news/TV/movies as of late.
|
On April 24 2013 09:30 OKMarius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Natalie Portman is just a horrible actress in general and was even worse in those movies. What? Have you seen Black Swan? V For Vendetta? Closer? I'm not a fan, but calling her a horrible actress is just dumb. I haven't seen Black Swan, I thought V for Vendetta was stupid and her acting was entirely forgettable. Haven't seen Closer. I saw Garden State and again found her performance to be wanting. Basically, she is entirely forgettable to me when she isn't horrid.
|
I'm suprised to see that they are going to be making a seventh episode. In my opinion it's not that great. I do not think that star wars should have been brought back. They should have just left it like it was.
|
On May 05 2013 01:34 Jan1997 wrote: I'm suprised to see that they are going to be making a seventh episode. In my opinion it's not that great. I do not think that star wars should have been brought back. They should have just left it like it was.
The universe is so fantastic and well flushed out though, it's both a gold mine for revenue and entertainment. They could make a movie per year for the next 40 years and not run out of good stories to tell given how many good books, comics and games there are.
|
On April 24 2013 12:59 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote: Yeah, it is not like there are numerous examples of this all throughout human history or anything, from monks to masons to literally every other profession, except for exactly the thing that I just said. Yeah, and all that shit happened centuries ago. In the modern world we kind of look down on people who let children (infants) join their military cult (Kony anyone?). Star Wars is like... 10,000 years more advanced than us, at least. The fact that the leading moral "yard-stick" of a hyper-modern civilization is still stuck in a 13th century mentality concerning the rights of children should be a tip-off that maybe that plot-line is stupid.
Uh, the fact that he is hundreds of years old is the exact reason you would have be a huge influential player and the fact that he was so hunted is the reason that he lived a hermits life in a swamp on an uninhabited planet. A wise old being who is hundreds of years old, to me, has to be some kind of warped to still be some major player in world galactic politics. I mean, how long has this douche been on the damn Council, sitting up their in his Ivory Tower? And how does that mesh with the eccentric little hermit-Kermit we all know and love?
And no one knows who Yoda is! There is literally no indication that either the Emperor or Darth Vader have even the slightest clue as to who Yoda is. According to prequel logic, they should know that he is alive and still opposing them. But whenever they see Luke they say: "Obi-wan has trained you well". That heavily implies that they don't know of Yoda's existence or they would assume that since Luke has powered up considerably over the years since Obi-Wan's death that he is receiving extra training from the only other Jedi still alive. I would think that one of the first questions they would ask him would be: "Where the f*ck is that asshole Yoda at?"
There is some indication in the original three (V and VI, to be exact) that Yoda might have been vaguely involved with the Fall of the Republic, but only as a minor player who flew beneath the notice of either Anakin or the Emperor.
It also doesn't make sense having Yoda be a huge player in the movies (I, II, III) on a thematic level. His character in the originals is eccentric, jaded, exceedingly wise, and utterly unconcerned with the mundane. Bringing him out of the swamp and slapping him down as the leader of the Jedi Council jars with that impression horribly. Suddenly Yoda can't be too eccentric or jaded or why would anyone put him as a leader? Him being jaded with Luke suddenly isn't the result of his seven hundred years, the "I've seen this all a hundred times before" syndrome, but as a result of Anakin's betrayal. You would think someone who is over seven hundred years old would have seen worse than that in his time, and plenty of it. He is suddenly forced to be concerned with the mundane, even if only in implication because he is the leader of the galaxy's most powerful military force/police force. Instead of having an eccentric old warrior who is mysterious, we're left with a goddamn career politician. It completely destroys the mystery and romance of his character.
That's also why having him show up as a major player is a bad idea: Yoda and the Emperor share something in common in V and VI: they both show a kind of disdain for the light-saber, subtly revealing a part of their philosophy. Those who are high-level Force users tend to be less than concerned with mundane aspects of life. The reason we don't see shelves of paperwork on the Emperor's desk is because the Emperor isn't the type of man to be concerned with the something so crude as that. The reason we don't see Yoda doing some light-saber sparring with Luke is because Yoda isn't the type of person to consider the light-saber to be all that useful. When Luke goes into the cave to face his dark-side, Yoda straight up tells him that his light-saber and blaster won't help him. In Episode VI, Luke only achieves victory when he throws down his light-saber in front of the Emperor and refuses to fight.
But if Yoda is in the prequels as a major player, we the audience demand to know: why didn't he stop the Emperor? So either they have to fight using Dragonball Z powers ("I can see your shwarzt is as big as mine!") or they have to have a lightsaber battle. Either of them gives off the same thematic impressions: these men (Yoda, Palpatine) are not the ethereal, intelligent, unconcerned men that we know and love and hate. It's like when they give every dark user of the Force "Force lightning" abilities. It destroys the intensity of the later climax. Throughout the entire trilogy (IV, V, VI) we see the Force as an invisible power. When suddenly the Emperor busts out with lightning, you get a real sense that it's because he's so powerful that when he uses the Force it causes the air itself to burn. It is a rude awakening to how out-classed Luke is. It is tense because we, the audience, can't see any way for Luke to escape something so powerful and terrifying. When every low level dark-force wielding bastard is throwing around lightning like it's nothing, and when the Light-side guys block it with their lightsaber it destroys the mystery, and thus the weight, of the later scene. It's the same reason you don't have the Emperor let out an old-man fart: we're supposed to think of people like the Emperor and Yoda as a kind of ascended beings. Seeing them fight on any visual level (something necessitated by putting Yoda in as a major players) ruins their mystery. It ruins the idea of the Force not being a quantifiable, material concept. It ruins the idea that the power to destroy planets is insignificant in comparison. It turns them into entirely mundane beings who still haven't moved beyond settling their dispute with a dick-showing contest.
And the prequels are full of that crap. Everything mystical about the Force is quantified and explained until it becomes nothing more than telekinesis. Everything mystical about the Jedi is lost until they become nothing more than sword-wielding SWAT teams combined with the Navy Seals combined. All for the cheap effect of "That was in the originals so it has to be EVEN BIGGER in the prequels!"
And, at the end of the day, that is why these sequels will fail: they will take what little mystery is left to the series and quantify it even more. They will almost certainly cast the original actors, so now we get to see Han Solo and Luke and Leia Skywalker as old farts. Great...
|
On May 04 2013 10:12 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 16:35 RomanTechnology wrote:On April 26 2013 05:12 zmsFlood wrote: Disney-made Star Wars -movies? IT'S A TRAP! I think Disney would do a fantastic job. They are good storytellers. Plus they have the budget to afford whats needed. A lot of Hollywood movies suffer because budget of constraints. Disney is a billion dollar company. I don't think they would have to settle for sub-par writers, actors, directors etc because they can afford the best of the best. Well compare the budgets of Episodes 4-6 and Episodes 1-3. I dont even know the numbers but I know that episode 4 only cost a few million and despite the prequels surely costing way more, they sucked a lot more. edit: Ok I looked it up. Episode 4 cost 11 million dollars, episode 1 cost 115 million dollars... yeah I dont think the lack of money was the problem
Is that other guy trying to say they didn't have a big enough budget to get who they want? My lord. P.S. in our community Lucas is known to be high on detail (similar to Michael Bay) and is a good storyteller himself. The biggest beef other film makers have with him is he isn't very good with giving actor's direction. It's typical in his films.
|
United Kingdom35817 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On May 05 2013 02:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 12:59 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote: Yeah, it is not like there are numerous examples of this all throughout human history or anything, from monks to masons to literally every other profession, except for exactly the thing that I just said. Yeah, and all that shit happened centuries ago. In the modern world we kind of look down on people who let children (infants) join their military cult (Kony anyone?). Star Wars is like... 10,000 years more advanced than us, at least. The fact that the leading moral "yard-stick" of a hyper-modern civilization is still stuck in a 13th century mentality concerning the rights of children should be a tip-off that maybe that plot-line is stupid. Show nested quote +Uh, the fact that he is hundreds of years old is the exact reason you would have be a huge influential player and the fact that he was so hunted is the reason that he lived a hermits life in a swamp on an uninhabited planet. A wise old being who is hundreds of years old, to me, has to be some kind of warped to still be some major player in world galactic politics. I mean, how long has this douche been on the damn Council, sitting up their in his Ivory Tower? And how does that mesh with the eccentric little hermit-Kermit we all know and love? And no one knows who Yoda is! There is literally no indication that either the Emperor or Darth Vader have even the slightest clue as to who Yoda is. According to prequel logic, they should know that he is alive and still opposing them. But whenever they see Luke they say: "Obi-wan has trained you well". That heavily implies that they don't know of Yoda's existence or they would assume that since Luke has powered up considerably over the years since Obi-Wan's death that he is receiving extra training from the only other Jedi still alive. I would think that one of the first questions they would ask him would be: "Where the f*ck is that asshole Yoda at?" There is some indication in the original three (V and VI, to be exact) that Yoda might have been vaguely involved with the Fall of the Republic, but only as a minor player who flew beneath the notice of either Anakin or the Emperor. It also doesn't make sense having Yoda be a huge player in the movies (I, II, III) on a thematic level. His character in the originals is eccentric, jaded, exceedingly wise, and utterly unconcerned with the mundane. Bringing him out of the swamp and slapping him down as the leader of the Jedi Council jars with that impression horribly. Suddenly Yoda can't be too eccentric or jaded or why would anyone put him as a leader? Him being jaded with Luke suddenly isn't the result of his seven hundred years, the "I've seen this all a hundred times before" syndrome, but as a result of Anakin's betrayal. You would think someone who is over seven hundred years old would have seen worse than that in his time, and plenty of it. He is suddenly forced to be concerned with the mundane, even if only in implication because he is the leader of the galaxy's most powerful military force/police force. Instead of having an eccentric old warrior who is mysterious, we're left with a goddamn career politician. It completely destroys the mystery and romance of his character. That's also why having him show up as a major player is a bad idea: Yoda and the Emperor share something in common in V and VI: they both show a kind of disdain for the light-saber, subtly revealing a part of their philosophy. Those who are high-level Force users tend to be less than concerned with mundane aspects of life. The reason we don't see shelves of paperwork on the Emperor's desk is because the Emperor isn't the type of man to be concerned with the something so crude as that. The reason we don't see Yoda doing some light-saber sparring with Luke is because Yoda isn't the type of person to consider the light-saber to be all that useful. When Luke goes into the cave to face his dark-side, Yoda straight up tells him that his light-saber and blaster won't help him. In Episode VI, Luke only achieves victory when he throws down his light-saber in front of the Emperor and refuses to fight. But if Yoda is in the prequels as a major player, we the audience demand to know: why didn't he stop the Emperor? So either they have to fight using Dragonball Z powers ("I can see your shwarzt is as big as mine!") or they have to have a lightsaber battle. Either of them gives off the same thematic impressions: these men (Yoda, Palpatine) are not the ethereal, intelligent, unconcerned men that we know and love and hate. It's like when they give every dark user of the Force "Force lightning" abilities. It destroys the intensity of the later climax. Throughout the entire trilogy (IV, V, VI) we see the Force as an invisible power. When suddenly the Emperor busts out with lightning, you get a real sense that it's because he's so powerful that when he uses the Force it causes the air itself to burn. It is a rude awakening to how out-classed Luke is. It is tense because we, the audience, can't see any way for Luke to escape something so powerful and terrifying. When every low level dark-force wielding bastard is throwing around lightning like it's nothing, and when the Light-side guys block it with their lightsaber it destroys the mystery, and thus the weight, of the later scene. It's the same reason you don't have the Emperor let out an old-man fart: we're supposed to think of people like the Emperor and Yoda as a kind of ascended beings. Seeing them fight on any visual level (something necessitated by putting Yoda in as a major players) ruins their mystery. It ruins the idea of the Force not being a quantifiable, material concept. It ruins the idea that the power to destroy planets is insignificant in comparison. It turns them into entirely mundane beings who still haven't moved beyond settling their dispute with a dick-showing contest. And the prequels are full of that crap. Everything mystical about the Force is quantified and explained until it becomes nothing more than telekinesis. Everything mystical about the Jedi is lost until they become nothing more than sword-wielding SWAT teams combined with the Navy Seals combined. All for the cheap effect of "That was in the originals so it has to be EVEN BIGGER in the prequels!" And, at the end of the day, that is why these sequels will fail: they will take what little mystery is left to the series and quantify it even more. They will almost certainly cast the original actors, so now we get to see Han Solo and Luke and Leia Skywalker as old farts. Great...
I don't actually have anything to say, but I enjoyed reading this tremendously.
|
On April 29 2013 03:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2013 23:51 HeatEXTEND wrote: That Star Trek prequel movie was pretty good though, way above expectations. It's the same guy directing 7 right ? Well if you consider a movie that is Star Trek in name only good then I guess he did... Now he is probably going to apply same treatment to Star Wars.
Don't want to derail so I'll just say this:
If the new SW movies even come close to the "Expectation/Actuality" ratio of the latest ST movie, I'll be beyond satisfied. And for the record, that ST movie could have been A L O T worse, and the "shoved-in" "old" Spock was actually not bad. Again, it could have been utterly horrible, but instead it was a fun ride. That's a lot more then you can say of the SW prequels.
|
New cast announced
The Star Wars team is thrilled to announce the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII.
Actors John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow will join the original stars of the saga, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Kenny Baker in the new film.
Director J.J. Abrams says, "We are so excited to finally share the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII. It is both thrilling and surreal to watch the beloved original cast and these brilliant new performers come together to bring this world to life, once again. We start shooting in a couple of weeks, and everyone is doing their best to make the fans proud."
Star Wars: Episode VII is being directed by J.J. Abrams from a screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Abrams. Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Bryan Burk are producing, and John Williams returns as the composer. The movie opens worldwide on December 18, 2015.
http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-7-cast-announced.html
Site is slow atm
|
Why do they keep trying to bring back Harrison Ford. That dude is old and demented.
|
On April 30 2014 02:33 GettingIt wrote: Why do they keep trying to bring back Harrison Ford. That dude is old and demented.
Why wouldn't they bring him back for a sequel?
|
|
|
|