|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The problem here is that there is a need for Disney to un-ruin something, if they are too hands off and Lucas decides he wants to be hands on there will be a problem. I don't think Lucas could "decide to be hands on" even if he wanted to. He sold LucasFilm to them, he can't do much unless they let him.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Besides JJ Abrams isn't some kid just out of filmschool who can easily be pushed around. Even if he isn't at the level of Lucas or Spielberg, he's got some clout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The problem here is that there is a need for Disney to un-ruin something, if they are too hands off and Lucas decides he wants to be hands on there will be a problem. I can't imagine having a hands off attitude after a $4 billion investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The key will be how much power he has now Disney owns the property. If you watch any of the official behinds the scenes stuff for the prequels the sense of his total dominance and his employee's fear is palpable. As long as there are people in position to call him on his poo poo the damage he could do will be much reduced. This is absolute bullshit made up by people influenced by Plinkett's satirical commentary on footage from behind-the-scenes meetings. No one in those videos looks to be in fear of Lucas, they're listening to him and showing respect because he is their boss and it is their job. Isn't it possible to dislike Lucas's work while recognizing that he probably isn't literally Jabba the Hutt incarnated into the Earthly sphere? He donated billions of dollars to charity, people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yeah, my go-to response to the fears that "Disney will ruin Star Wars" is "Disney owns Marvel, who made Avengers. Defense rests" Usually when you're the defense, you try to disprove your opponent's claims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Usually when you're the defense, you try to disprove your opponent's claims. I don't think you can have this opinion when the movie was pretty much a critical and financial success. It was the culmination of five years worth of buildup spanning multiple movies. It could have been an awful bomb and the biggest case of blue balls since the Phantom Menace. What we got was actually pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
It was an impressive marketing campaign for a overlong commercial for more commercials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Supernorn posted:I don't think you can have this opinion when the movie was pretty much a critical and financial success. No, actually, you can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Supernorn posted:I don't think you can have this opinion when the movie was pretty much a critical and financial success. critical and financial success /= a person's opinion on a movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Usually when you're the defense, you try to disprove your opponent's claims. If nothing else, Avengers made approximately one metric gently caress ton of money. Regardless of your personal feelings about the cinematic merit of the film, that counts for something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If nothing else, Avengers made approximately one metric gently caress ton of money. Regardless of your personal feelings about the cinematic merit of the film, that counts for something. Yeah, but so did the prequels. It's not really relevant to "will this unfuck the franchise?" because the fuckedness has never been about profit margins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Yeah, but so did the prequels. It's not really relevant to "will this unfuck the franchise?" because the fuckedness has never been about profit margins. True, but I found that between the prequel trilogy and the Avengers, there's about 2.4 good movies there. My misgivings about the EU fallout non withstanding, I'm excited as hell to see what Abrams and Disney will give us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:This is absolute bullshit made up by people influenced by Plinkett's satirical commentary on footage from behind-the-scenes meetings. People goofed on the behind the scenes prequel stuff long before Plinkett came around. Plinkett just did a nice job aggregating all the various observations and complaints in an entertaining fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:The deal kind of precludes Lucas from having any real power ever again the way I understand it. I wouldn't worry. I'm curious if the deal actually says anything about it because he became a pretty major shareholder with the deal. I believe second to whoever owns Jobs stock now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If nothing else, Avengers made approximately one metric gently caress ton of money. Regardless of your personal feelings about the cinematic merit of the film, that counts for something. Candle in the Wind is the best selling single of all time. Making a metric gently caress ton of money only means that it made a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Candle in the Wind is the best selling single of all time. Making a metric gently caress ton of money only means that it made a lot of money. Yeah, but it means something was done right. Even if it was "appeal to the greatest number of idiots at one time", that's still something that was accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yeah, but it means something was done right. Even if it was "appeal to the greatest number of idiots at one time", that's still something that was accomplished. Uh, cool, I guess? Thanks for telling us. EDIT: Fires are wicked hot by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
sethsez posted:Are you implying this is going to be a step down in directing quality from anything else in the series for the past three decades? The last 3 movies were poo poo so with that at the helm plus jj Abram (one of my hated directors) smells like trash to me. I don't like or appreciate Michael bay style "cinematics for the sake of having an explosion" what star wars needs is something more intellectual, not more explosions and over dramatics obviously done because too many people have the attention of a fish. That's why I have no faith in this setup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:I don't like or appreciate Michael bay style "cinematics for the sake of having an explosion" what star wars needs is something more intellectual, Have you ever seen a loving Star Wars movie? They're all about emotion over intellect. I love this beautiful dissonance fans of science fiction have where in retrospect everything they ever liked turns into The Wire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
I think "a more intellectual Star Wars" is the path that leads us back towards trade route disputes and senatorial debates. Not that the movie should be brainless, but "intellectual" is hardly one of the bullet points on the list of What Star Wars Is. Let's have a fun action-adventure movie instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Didn't we try to do 'fun action-adventure' movie with Indy Jones 4? That didn't go well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
It was mentioned last page that Disney should make a trilogy ala LOTR but I think that's easier said than done. In fact I don't know if anyone has had the success Jackson has with that model, ever. Having one long shoot with multiple crews, all sorts of contracts involved, rewrites, reshoots, it all sounds so incredibly messy I'm half convinced Jackson is a wizard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Didn't we try to do 'fun action-adventure' movie with Indy Jones 4? That didn't go well. "Fun action-adventure" describes all four of the Indy movies, good and bad. It's kind of the tone of the series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Didn't we try to do 'fun action-adventure' movie with Indy Jones 4? That didn't go well. As opposed to the philosophical character study of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
The dichotomy between intellectualism and action is a false one. Abrams' Star Trek combines extravagant visuals and effectively tense setpieces with a consistent thematic through-line. Conversely, Whedon's The Avengers combines flippant characterization and disconcerting ideological implications with sloppy, poorly-emphasized action. "Fun Action" and "Intelligent Concepts" are not an either-or thing. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Uh, cool, I guess? Thanks for telling us. I'm not sure if I'm not presenting myself clearly or if you're making a jab at my point. Let me try to clarify; Enough people liked avengers to catapult it to the position of one of the highest grossing movies ever. The key point in there is that people liked it. I know that a lot of goons around CD and other people on the Internet felt it was too much mindless action and not enough substance, but the general viewing audience loved the film. Ultimately I feel that the primary goal of a movie is to entertain. Be it the "standard" definition of entertain (I.e. had fun) or a more cerebral definition (such as saying that a movie like Schindler's List or Passion of the Christ engaged you on some other level that wouldn't readily be described as "fun"), that's a good goal to shoot for. I'm ready and willing to be entertained by Star Wars: Episode VII
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Didio's point was that you were stating the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The dichotomy between intellectualism and action is a false one. I don't think they are exclusive, or even at odds, particularly. I also don't think that vague notions of 'intellectual' credibility were ever a prerequisite to Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The dichotomy between intellectualism and action is a false one. Also, I seem to remember hearing a lot of Star Trek fans complain that the Arbrams movie was too much like Star Wars. GreenBuckanneer posted:The last 3 movies were poo poo so with that at the helm plus jj Abram (one of my hated directors) smells like trash to me. This just sounds like you want Star Wars to be Star Trek. Two out of three of the original trilogy end with the Death Star exploding. I'll take anything in Abrams filmography over the prequels. I really don't understand people who don't like Star Trek '09, it wasn't flawless but it's probably in the top 3 or 4 Star Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Kelp Plankton posted:I think "a more intellectual Star Wars" is the path that leads us back towards trade route disputes and senatorial debates. Not that the movie should be brainless, but "intellectual" is hardly one of the bullet points on the list of What Star Wars Is. When I say intellectual I mean like KOTOR 2. Like, breaking down the boring loving lucas version of dichotomy and explanation of why the force works instead of keeping the nebulous concepts and evolving from there. Skwirl posted:This just sounds like you want Star Wars to be Star Trek. Two out of three of the original trilogy end with the Death Star exploding. I don't like Star Trek '09 because it wasn't star trek. All the characters except McCoy (who was played by Karl Urban  ) did a horrible, insulting job of portraying a modern version of their counterparts.As for the rest, you're right. My favorite Star Wars is one where Lucas had the least involvement, Empire Strikes Back. Also no goddamn stupid superweapon. GreenBuckanneer fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Are Han Solo and Leia going to have a lavish wedding in part 7? I wonder when they're going to jump back into the series.feedmyleg posted:I don't mean self-contained stories with separate characters and situations in each, I just meant the rejection of the BTTF2/3, Matrix 2/3, Pirates 2/3, etc. style where the films are just one story stretched out too long without proper arcs and endings. Or maybe I'm just being overly optimistic; ESB and ROTJ were essentially the pioneers of the cliffhanger sequel, after all. Though ESB still had good emotional arcs and still felt like its own individual film. Yea, when I think about it I like sequels to have a certain uniqueness about them compared to ones that feel like they're being produced off an assembly line. Kelp Plankton posted:I think "a more intellectual Star Wars" is the path that leads us back towards trade route disputes and senatorial debates. Not that the movie should be brainless, but "intellectual" is hardly one of the bullet points on the list of What Star Wars Is. I could use more of that holographic chess from Episode V. Skwirl posted:I really don't understand people who don't like Star Trek '09, it wasn't flawless but it's probably in the top 3 or 4 Star Trek movies. I haven't been a big fan of any of the Star Trek films I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I could use more of that holographic chess from Episode V. Just to  a little bit, the Dejarik table was featured in Episode IV, during the flight from Tatooine to Alderaan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Just to  I got my Millenium Falcon scenes confused. I don't remember but I don't believe there were many interior scenes of the Falcon in episode VI (besides the cockpit ones).They used clay to animate those figurines right? I'm surprised they weren't updated for the rerelease into CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:I don't like Star Trek '09 because it wasn't star trek. It was actually, it said it right in the title.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:Like, breaking down the boring loving lucas version of dichotomy and explanation of why the force works instead of keeping the nebulous concepts and evolving from there. Star Wars is space opera/space fantasy/whatever you want to call it. You don't explain things like the Force/magic/hyperdrive in detail because it shouldn't be the focus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Star Wars is space opera/space fantasy/whatever you want to call it. You don't explain things like the Force/magic/hyperdrive in detail because it shouldn't be the focus. Yea, if Episode VII had a focus on lightsaber schematics and the tedious construction of them it wouldn't be that entertaining. There seems to be a little of that sci-fi jargon thrown into the original film and it feels out of place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Star Wars is space opera/space fantasy/whatever you want to call it. You don't explain things like the Force/magic/hyperdrive in detail because it shouldn't be the focus. I think he meant why it works in a philosophical sense, hopefully as something a little more complex or thoughtful than Lucas' "the light side is good, the dark side is evil, the light side wins because good defeats evil" bedtime storybook ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:I think he meant why it works in a philosophical sense, hopefully as something a little more complex or thoughtful than Lucas' "the light side is good, the dark side is evil, the light side wins because good defeats evil" bedtime storybook ideas. Yes this. The mechanics should not be explained, and Light shouldn't be portrayed as "good". It's much more interesting when people explain it like "the force is neither bad or good, good intentions still can have horrible consequences"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Star Wars is space opera/space fantasy/whatever you want to call it. You don't explain things like the Force/magic/hyperdrive in detail because it shouldn't be the focus. While that's true, one of the reasons why people loved Empire so much is because it took everything a little bit further than the original. The force was explained in greater detail, and we were given a chance to see that it was more than the ability to sense things with your eyes closed / move things of your mind. It was a transcendent thing that helped to make the Star Wars movies a little something extra. More than just a simple space adventure where you blow up a weapon literally called a Death Star and a space rabbit steps in icky icky poo, at least. It would be a bold move that probably not many people would like because it wouldn't be like the old movies, but I seriously hope they cover the possibility that one of the greatest justifications for doing evil things is the belief that you are the good guy, and you're just fighting evil. I'd like to see how the force would play into that. Does it work for anyone who believes something hard enough or is it really somehow aligned with people who are actually right versus people who just think they are? This was toyed with in the Expanded Universe I believe, where the Emperor was just trying to make the Universe ready for a greater threat, only it wasn't done with any finesse because that doesn't make any goddamned sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:It would be a bold move that probably not many people would like because it wouldn't be like the old movies, but I seriously hope they cover the possibility that one of the greatest justifications for doing evil things is the belief that you are the good guy, and you're just fighting evil. I'd like to see how the force would play into that. Does it work for anyone who believes something hard enough or is it really somehow aligned with people who are actually right versus people who just think they are? This was toyed with in the Expanded Universe I believe, where the Emperor was just trying to make the Universe ready for a greater threat, only it wasn't done with any finesse because that doesn't make any goddamned sense. That was spoken about in KOTOR, both games actually. Everyone thought the bad guys were the Yuuzhan Vong or whatever because of their immunity to the force, but SWTOR took it to mean something else. Maybe the emperor was planning for that but who knows because EU while interesting is a pot of a billion different ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:59
|
|