|
I know Han doesn't really need much of a reason to indulge in some scoundrelish violence, but why, exactly, is he punching that space otter? That just seems weird. Edit: Oh goddamn what the gently caress. Hell of a way to start a new page.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:18 |
|
Punting posted:I know Han doesn't really need much of a reason to indulge in some scoundrelish violence, but why, exactly, is he punching that space otter? That just seems weird. At various times, the Star Wars expanded universe has featured Luke recruiting potential Jedi from Cloud City hobos, Lando doing some fortunetelling while sliding through an ancient ruin, a Jedi tree, Han Solo accidentally creating a religion by showing movies and going on to threaten to destroy a planet's economy with a copy machine... there's really no hope down that route, man.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
I only have one comment to make, re: casting of any possible antagonist. FASSBENDER. Thanks. Godspeed to all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Let's see some evidence of a blockbuster-budget movie from Disney featuring terrible dialogue and wooden acting. I assume this is sarcasm? Either I didn't dislike the prequels nearly as much as some here, or I didn't like Disney movies nearly as much as some here. John Carter, the Sorcerer's Apprentice, TRON: Legacy, Prince of Persia, Race to Witch Mountain, Chronicles of Narnia, the National Treasure franchise... Maybe they will luck out as they did with Johnny Depp in PoTC, but none of the recent Disney titles in this particular niche make me feel any confidence that they can do something better than Episode 2 or 3. Tons of cool visuals, shoddy character development, big name actors mailing it in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
John Carter is the bomb dot com.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I assume this is sarcasm? And Disney drat near nixed Jack Sparrow because he was too effeminate and they didn't like their star being covered in elaborate make-up and costuming. Eisner was not a fan at the time, no wonder he was effectively canned two years later. So their record with live-action niche fair ain't great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
According to that brief interview with Hamill posted earlier apparently Carrie Fisher doesn't hate George Lucas so much that she'd turn down a lunch meeting with him. That hatchet may be somewhat buried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
The idea of one corporation owning so many different cultural properties makes me physically nauseous and I don't know why. I find it gross and dangerous in ways I can't even fully explain. I am dreading the next decade of even more Star Wars branded garbage that we'll all have to endure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
The Kins posted:Mark Hamill chimes in. Apparently in August Lucas told him and Carrie Fisher about the plans for a new trilogy and that he wouldn't be directing, but he said nothing about details or, you know, selling his entire empire. I can imagine how that lunch went:  I'm making more Star Wars movies for real. Sure you are, George.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Stayne Falls posted:According to that brief interview with Hamill posted earlier apparently Carrie Fisher doesn't hate George Lucas so much that she'd turn down a lunch meeting with him. That hatchet may be somewhat buried. It's been more than 25 year since shes worked with him, at a certain point you let go. Plus she had a hit play where she trashes on him, I imagine that's cathartic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:The idea of one corporation owning so many different cultural properties makes me physically nauseous and I don't know why. I find it gross and dangerous in ways I can't even fully explain. I am dreading the next decade of even more Star Wars branded garbage that we'll all have to endure. Since the special editions in 199X, Lucas has shown nothing but contempt for his fans - in a hilarious way. What are those slipshod 'digital remasters' if not evil clones, directly analogous to the CGI clone troops in (the Blade Runner-homaging) Episode 2? Why does Star Wars SE feature a direct reference to Jurassic park (with its Ronto-saurus) if not to draw on its nightmare vision of cutting-edge SFX technology gone awry? Why is the entire franchise suddenly saturated with evil, digital clones? Lucas knows that the medium is the message, and has positioned Lucasfilm as the Empire, in a battle against the rebel pirates that distribute unaltered bootlegs of the original films. The highest level of Star Wars fans reject the expanded universe wholesale, don't buy merchandise, and in fact must actively attack Lucasfilm - and now Disney. What are commonly held as the main tenets of Star Wars fandom are actually evidence that the point has been lost. This is why Lucas produced the prequels as satirical tales of stupid, ineffectual liberals playing at being the heroes in a videogame-universe before being crushed by the machine they helped create. Legions of dudes with plastic lightsabres play at being Jedi, but treat the force as a vulgar mechanism and show no care for the original films' revolutionary politics. Nerds get angry at midichlorians because they utterly devastate the logic of wookiepedia, by taking it to its natural conclusion. Phantom Menace's midichlorians prefigure Prometheus' essential contrast between positive knowledge and authentic belief. The prequels are anti-fandom, and anti-fandom is the heart of Star Wars. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Nov 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The prequels are anti-fandom, and anti-fandom is the heart of Star Wars. Star Wars was created due to Lucas' love of pulp serials, westerns, and samurai movies. Fandom is the heart of Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
Superstring posted:Star Wars was created due to Lucas' love of pulp serials, westerns, and samurai movies. Fandom is the heart of Star Wars. Liking pulp serials is distinct from the kind of fandom that he's talking about, namely buying loads of merchandise just because it has Yoda on it and laboriously cataloging everything on woookiepedia. I'm guessing Lucas does not have action figures of his favorite pulp heroes on his shelves, nor does he edit a Buck Rogers wiki.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
A human heart posted:I'm guessing Lucas does not have action figures of his favorite pulp heroes on his shelves, nor does he edit a Buck Rogers wiki. I wouldn't take that bet. Why would you take that bet? He even made one of his main working areas a 'ranch', with animals and fields and poo poo. I could absolutely see him being the type of guy to inappropriately wear a cowboy hat places no man should wear a cowboy hat. Possibly while wielding a katana. e: A lot of people are talking up the Star Wars stuff, and a few more are going on to Indiana Jones and maybe the video games, but I don't see the acquisition of Industrial Light and Magic getting a mention. They are *the* big name fairly independent visual effects studio. They've had a hand in quite a number of big name productions over the years, and it'll be interesting to see what's done with them now that Disney owns them. They made a lot of money as an 'freelance' organization, but is Disney as willing to hire them out to competitors [No]? Mulva fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Nov 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Since the special editions in 199X, Lucas has shown nothing but contempt for his fans - in a hilarious way. I think what really got me even back in 97 was the Pepsi cans and Taco Bell wrappers labeled as "Collector's Edition" packaging. Literally selling garbage to people and telling them to keep it because it has Yoda on it. And people did and people will when the next round hits. Help us Obi-wan Kenobi....
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:Actually when they bought Marvel they cancelled production of the Sony-owned Spectacular Spider-Man TV series, so they could produce the (markedly inferior) Ultimate Spider-Man show, which they own 100%. That's not quite what happened. Sony voluntarily ended Spectacular Spider-Man in a trade with Disney, where Sony gave up the rights to make Spider-Man cartoons but got an extension on Spider-Man movie rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:I think what really got me even back in 97 was the Pepsi cans and Taco Bell wrappers labeled as "Collector's Edition" packaging. Literally selling garbage to people and telling them to keep it because it has Yoda on it. If you aren't buying it why does it matter? There was lovely merchandise in 1981 too. Lucas can't strap you down and force you to consume anything, just do what all the angry dorks did for ep 2 and 3 and pretend they don't exist. I'm excited to see a changing of the guard for Star Wars. Lucas won't live forever and I'd rather see the franchise evolve to something new instead of fading away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 13:29
|
|
Superstring posted:Star Wars was created due to Lucas' love of pulp serials, westerns, and samurai movies. Fandom is the heart of Star Wars. The basic form of Star Wars is obviously derived from Lucas's personal tastes in entertainment, but the basic message is one of a frustrated radical. Star Wars was written in 1972-3 originally, when people had just re-elected Nixon in a popular landslide. The USA seemed to be slipping into an abyss of authoritarianism- but while there is plenty of room to talk about how the OT is essentially about political radicalism in opposition to the mainstream of American politics, let's take a look at the prequels. TPM had a massive backlash, but it still sold immensely. AOTC made shitloads of money. When Amidala says "This is how democracy dies- with thunderous applause" in ROTS, not only is she talking about this political message, she is addressing the audience, who are going to pay money for a movie they dislike, buying all sorts of trash because it has the Star Wars logo on it. They- we- are actively applauding the downfall of Star Wars, Lucas says. I mean, for gently caress's sake, the most hated character of TPM is the guy that is the proximate cause for the downfall of the Republic in AOTC. The second-most hated, of course, goes from saccharine sweetness to smoldering anger and Lucas deliberately shatters the notion that Anakin was a "good guy" in AOTC. I disagree with SMG in that I believe that the Jedi were essentially ineffectual liberals as early as TESB. After all, Yoda does effectively tell Luke to abandon all emotional bias and let his friends die, but it is acting on emotion that allows Luke to receive the knowledge that destroys the Emperor and his Empire. And it is the synthesis of Light and Dark, yin and yang, that Luke completes at the end of ROTJ. Of course, this isn't spelled out to us so nobody countenances the theory seriously. After all, the wise old mentor archetype could never be manipulative or outright wrong, right? Of course, this doesn't mean that in some parallel universe where Lucas made the prequels without any malice towards his fanbase that they would have been great movies on par with the OT. The need to depict the downfall of an old order and its modification into a new one means plenty of talkiness, which works at odds with Lucas's strengths and with the basic course of the OT. So they would probably have been inferior unless they were transformed into a way to showcase this downfall in the fast-paced space opera manner.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Electromax posted:If you aren't buying it why does it matter? Because this is a discussion forum and I'm sharing my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:Because this is a discussion forum and I'm sharing my opinion. He didn't ask why your opinion matters, he asked why it matters that other people buy things you don't see any value in? Are you trying to save us all from a dystopian future where Goof Troops run the streets and children are drafted into the Mickey Mouse Club for compulsory weapons training?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with what people like and has a lot more to do with the politics behind it and the potential for a giant global company with a lot of money (Disney) pressuring governments to change laws to be more beneficial to them, copyright extension for example. It's like a monopoly of pop culture and I personally don't like it. If you want to get excited about another set of Star Wars movies and all of the associated things that will spill out from that then be happy, that's your choice. Perhaps I'm just sick of Star Wars in general at this point, you're right there has been a ton of lovely merchandise since the 80s and maybe that should be reason enough to just stop. You want to just write me off as a cry baby or a doomsayer that's fine, I hope I'm wrong and it doesn't reach a point where 100 years from now Discorp controls all the media people consume, that's why my gut reaction to this is negative. Regardless of my feelings this is a best place to voice my concerns to the world at large.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 16:41
|
|
Mazreal posted:He didn't ask why your opinion matters, he asked why it matters that other people buy things you don't see any value in? Are you trying to save us all from a dystopian future where Goof Troops run the streets and children are drafted into the Mickey Mouse Club for compulsory weapons training? Are you really going to make your stand on the notion that making food wrappers and pop cans collectible is perfectly valid, and there is nothing awe-inspiring or frightening about making literal trash valuable and preservable by sticking a brand on it? Because good Lord. In any case, I don't see what any of that has to do with Disney or with your naif's interpretation of the potential negative effects of corporate power over the collective culture.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
So this really is about saving the world from a dystopian future, neat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
As someone who loved Star Wars--until the prequels dampened my enthusiasm markedly--I really could not be happier about this whole thing. Lucas is a creative genius who struck upon some absolutely amazing alchemy to create a classic piece of sci-fi/fantasy. But as time went on, it became apparent that the creator was not necessarily the best caretaker. When the first films gave him almost complete autonomy, he dismissed the need for perspective and third-party auditing, and the magic was gone. He peaked in the '70s. The OT has nurtured an entire generation (several, actually) of filmmakers that recognize what an immense canvas Star Wars offers. We've had eight Harry Potter movies, but only three substantive SW movies, all 30-36 years old. That's hardly over-saturation. The potential for telling stories with capable caregivers is just awesome. I'd argue the Lucas-verse is at least equal in stature and size to Marvel's, and no one is complaining about the endless series we'll be getting from them. poo poo: Bond has gone 50 years and 20-odd films, all featuring a single character doing the exact same thing; Doyle was nearly hung for killing Sherlock Holmes because people were rabid about him. There's nothing wrong with serial entertainment. If you're a fan, I can't believe you'd be at least curious about what a competent studio can do. RoughDraft2.0 fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
I won't speak to the angle of Planet Disney ruling their vast fictional empire from the Mickey Mouse Nebula in 2527, but as to the issue of "Maybe they should have stopped making Star Wars crap in the 80s"? If they stopped in the 80s I wouldn't have gotten the Tie-Fighter game. Or those SNES games for that matter. Lot of good games really. Maybe the prequel trilogy was a bit misguided, and maybe most of the EU is a train wreck, but a lot of people enjoy parts of it and it generated a lot of paychecks. I'm not going to fault them. Money does not in and of itself mean quality, but it does mean there is a market for a product. A lot of people like the Star Wars stuff they produced over the years. It's also not like Lucas and his empire only made Star Wars poo poo either, so it's not like that was holding them back from doing other things. They were involved with Willow, Labyrinth, the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, a bunch of varied stuff. Yeah they've always gone to the wheelhouse that is "Make some more Star Wars crap", but they also dipped their toes into other waters. Their gaming division had a massive impact on the world of adventure games. Maniac Mansion, The Secret of Monkey Island, Loom....man they made a lot of really good games that had nothing to do with Star Wars. And yeah, they've gone to the wheelhouse that is "Make Star Wars crap" there too. That isn't all they did, and it wasn't always bad when they did so. So I'm happy the Lucas empire kept tooling around in the Star Wars setting, and I'm happy they did it for as long as they did. Even with the missteps. I'm happy it grew as large as it did, and I'm even happy that they've been picked up by Disney. For all that they are a giant heartless corporation willing to snuff out anything that threatens their IPs, they've also shown themselves willing to take some risks now and again and shown a willingness to give arms like Lucasfilms/Arts a bit of freedom in expression. With Lucas off the day to day control [Which I consider as good for him as it is for the movies. Dude was not in a healthy creative environment.], I'm cautiously optimistic that they can make a good movie out of what they have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 17:07
|
|
Mazreal posted:So this really is about saving the world from a dystopian future, neat. So, in your opinion, are the effects of ever-increasing concentration of media and entertainment in fewer hands positive, neutral, or negative-but-not-negative-enough-to-mean-anything in effect? gently caress, if you know anything at all about the internal history of Disney- specifically why they bought Miramax, developed the Touchstone label- even why they stopped making Mickey Mouse cartoons well before theatrical cartoons went out of style- and realized that the same factors broadly apply to all of the the mainstream entertainment complexes, you would get why this concentration is viewed by people as a negative thing period.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Caring about what other people do or do not enjoy is something I stopped doing several years ago and I am a much happier person because of it. Its pretty tiring to constantly judge other people's choice of entertainment, not to mention it makes you come off as a complete rear end in a top hat/snob/insufferable douchebag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:A lot of people are talking up the Star Wars stuff, and a few more are going on to Indiana Jones and maybe the video games, but I don't see the acquisition of Industrial Light and Magic getting a mention. They are *the* big name fairly independent visual effects studio. They've had a hand in quite a number of big name productions over the years, and it'll be interesting to see what's done with them now that Disney owns them. They made a lot of money as an 'freelance' organization, but is Disney as willing to hire them out to competitors [No]? Yeah, after Rango I was really looking forward to ILM's next animated feature, but now that's probably never going to happen. Mahoning posted:Caring about what other people do or do not enjoy is something I stopped doing several years ago and I am a much happier person because of it. Its pretty tiring to constantly judge other people's choice of entertainment, not to mention it makes you come off as a complete rear end in a top hat/snob/insufferable douchebag. You can have an opinion on something without being caremad, bro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
RoughDraft2.0 posted:Lucas is a creative genius who struck upon some absolutely amazing alchemy to create a classic piece of sci-fi/fantasy Lucas has a good imagination and that's about it. The original Star Wars was a success *despite* Lucas (things like the Death Star attack were greatly improved by Marcia Lucas, who made it a race against time), and then Empire, which Lucas had minimal input on, gave it a darker, more ambiguous tone. Lucas then took more control on Jedi, which despite more juvenile elements like the Ewoks, had enough goodwill and memorable parts like the Death Star showdown to get by on. Finally, after 16 years where Star Wars and Lucas built up a godlike cult following, despite the giant neon warning sign of the SEs, we got the prequels, where Lucas was able to make Star Wars films exactly the way he wanted, without budgetary, technological, or any other restrictions. And we all know what happened next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, in your opinion, are the effects of ever-increasing concentration of media and entertainment in fewer hands positive, neutral, or negative-but-not-negative-enough-to-mean-anything in effect? I would say neutral... I definitely understand your view and you made me consider for a few, but for me, I just shrug because these things happen. I see it as Disney buying a mature franchise that has already delivered enough value to me that they can take it on where they wish. Media and entertainment will always evolve, you say it's in fewer hands while I see more neat stuff on YouTube from indie sources, original and IP related, than ever before. I see more opportunity than young hungry filmmakers have ever had and know another Star Wars can come along. Just because the logo is on a wrapper, sands of time have passed and Disney can't undo the warm memories of 80s Star Wars. Big outfits like Disney can buy every IP in the world for all I care, there will always be creativity and growth. We'll always have the original movies and Disney can't monopolize ideas. It's not always easy to see a franchise sell out, but once Lucas dies its gonna end up in someone's hands. An enterprising SW fan just needs to do a Kickstarter for 4.5 billion to buy it back or found their own Disney (not really) .
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:
I want this so bad even though it will never happen. Hopefully they can do something with it though because of all the EU plotlines it is by far the most dark (I stopped reading when they turned Jacen into a Darth or whatever so Im disregarding that EU arc) and everybody seems to be doing "dark" and "edgy" spins on old favourites nowdays. Arkane posted:"7, 8, and 9 are the most exciting in the series." Hmmm a different actor to play a 40 year old Luke Skywalker? Toby Macguire?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 12:07
|
|
|
Jedimastafez posted:Arkane posted: I'd go easy on the bonkers. Pollack's biography on Lucas is almost 30 years old, and whatever "treatment" he saw will almost certainly have no connection whatsoever to what Disney produces. I'm sure Lucas handed them some chicken scrawl that they politely accepted out of respect--it ain't gonna hold them down to anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Really, there could be an extremely long thread that is just a contest where people try to find EU tidbits that are more stupid than everyone else's. The EU is really, really dumb, sometimes in a profound way. It is decades of rehashes and inexplicable plot points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Really, there could be an extremely long thread that is just a contest where people try to find EU tidbits that are more stupid than everyone else's. The EU is really, really dumb, sometimes in a profound way. It is decades of rehashes and inexplicable plot points. Wasn't that pretty much what the old "Ask me about obscure Star Wars trivia" thread in GBS was? Between Han Solo punching the space otter, the dude with a zillion light sabers sticking out of his body, and old lightsabers that were attached to a backpack power source that was pretty amusing thread. Shame you can't really do something like that anymore because now those thread just devolve into parroting the same handful of half-truths about how Lucas had nothing to do with the original Trilogy and the talking points from the RLM reviews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
I firmly believe that Kevin Smith will direct a Star Wars film within the next 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Nobody would ever let Kevin Smith direct a Star Wars film. Kevin Smith would never let himself direct a Star Wars film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Nobody would ever let Kevin Smith direct a Star Wars film. Kevin Smith would never let himself direct a Star Wars film. Nobody in Hollywood loves Star Wars more than Smith. He'd push his own kid in front of a moving car for the chance to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
I would enjoy seeing Nicholas Cage in a Star Wars movie. Perhaps as Dash Rendar!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Nobody in Hollywood loves Star Wars more than Smith. He'd push his own kid in front of a moving car for the chance to do it. It may be true to an extent, but I agree that he wouldn't do it. He is pretty upfront about his directing being pretty mediocre at best, and I doubt he'd want to leave a negative mark on his favorite thing unless he was positive he could do it well. Now if they made a live action TV series and he got the chance to direct an episode or just be in an episode, the dude would probably jump on that in an instant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Gatts posted:I would enjoy seeing Nicholas Cage in a Star Wars movie. Perhaps as Dash Rendar! Why on Earth would you want an imitation Han Solo in a Star Wars movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 21:18
|
|
