or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release - Page 17

post #801 of 12582

I think Star Wars needs to stick to the one film every 3 years route and then a 10 or 15 years hiatus until the next trilogy otherwise we won't have the time needed to discuss/debate/have inter-board civil wars about them to death.

 

Then 10 years later when we're just about done, someone posts "I think I'm just about done with Star Wars", they can announce another trilogy and we can all kiss another 10 years of our life goodbye.

post #802 of 12582

How about a Samuel L Jackson one man show, where he plays every motherfucker on the motherfucking screen!

 

"What" ain't no planet I ever heard of.  I said Huttese, motherfucker, do you speak it?

 

Ok, that was a shamefull display and I am finished with it.

post #803 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

 

For now.  They really haven't been at it that long, and I would argue that this pace is unsustainable.  People will get burnt out quickly.  House of Marvel is a house of CARDS!

 

Ha, ha. Maybe not, don't know.  But it doesn't seem like the experiment has run long enough for anyone to brand it the new proven paradigm.  sure, the Avengers did resoundingly well.  But it was a good movie which deserved to do well of it's own accord.  I think Marvel is only a couple box office flops away from the whole thing shrinking back down to a 1 film/ 2-3 years situation.  How many suits need to get nervous before the plug is pulled?

 

Part of Marvel's paradigm is that the individual movies (outside of Avengers) are done on fairly modest budgets, so profitability is not that much of a stretch to reach. With Avengers, they probably have guaranteed the next 2-3 be pretty successful. I think their big risk is the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. Whereas the Iron Man, Cap, and Thor sequels can be sold on the back of the Avengers, GtoG has to stand on its own, and it certainly could come off looking silly.

 

(One thing I'd like to see done with one these franchises is for them to shoot two movies consecutively with the same characters, but have one be a huge specticle movie while the other one be essentially a relationship drama / stage play. I picture this for the X-men, where you have a bunch of characters having been captured and incarcerated by the villian in such a way to mute/dilute their powers, and have the movie be entirely about the dramatic relationships between the characters while at the same time them solving the dilemma of how to escape. The two movies shot as one would temper the budget of the larger movie, and the second movie while likely not to be as big a hit, would probably earn enough overall to justify itself. Something like this could be done in a Star Wars universe as well, where you could have two stories occuring consectutively. Either one would be written such that they could stand alone, but once taken as a whole would tell a richer story.)

 

But anyways, one tanked superhero movie will not stop anyone. Look at Green Lantern. No one looks at that and goes, oops we better stop making superhero movies. One stinker just means that they will focus on other characters. In addition, at some point they will also start to kill off some of their characters. It's only a matter of time until they decide that paying RDJ $50 million a movie is no longer worth it, and Iron Man will be the first to go.

 

Huh, wait, what were we talking about. Oh yeah, Star Wars. At this stage, they better give us one good one before they start counting on making them forever. To me, there really will be a LOT of pressure on this first one, not just to be profitable, but to be good enough to make a boatload of money.

post #804 of 12582
Quote:

Originally Posted by skierpete View Post

 

GtoG has to stand on its own, and it certainly could come off looking silly.

 

But not as silly as a Black Panther movie according to Marvel!

post #805 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by skierpete View Post

 

Part of Marvel's paradigm is that the individual movies (outside of Avengers) are done on fairly modest budgets, so profitability is not that much of a stretch to reach.

 

It's kinda weird that we're now in a world where 140/150 million is considered a fairly modest budget for a movie...

post #806 of 12582

I think you could do smaller-scale Star Wars films on a smaller budget, though. Remember, Lucasfilm put out three modestly (Lucas) funded prequels which were massive in scale and positively dripping in excessive CGI. Now of course they're under new management and as a result probably working under a more mainstream/wasteful Hollywood system, but surely Disney have retained at least a good chunk of the staff at Lucasfilm. These are people who know how to make reasonably-priced Star Wars and are sitting on a ton of resources from the other films. Sure, for one of the numbered main-saga episodes you need your Jedi running amok, huge space battles etc, but Lando Calrissian's Badasssss Song might only need to be set in one or two places with much smaller action. I'm throwing a lot of generalizations into play I know, but it's still plausible.

 

And speaking of effects, you know something I'm praying to see in these new movies? Actual stormtroopers, in actual stormtrooper armour. No more of this 'all CG clonetroopers' shit, they never looked right.

post #807 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post


And speaking of effects, you know something I'm praying to see in these new movies? Actual stormtroopers, in actual stormtrooper armour. No more of this 'all CG clonetroopers' shit, they never looked right.
[/quote

Yup yup yup.
post #808 of 12582

I just hope they ditch the greenscreen-for-everything approach to environments. I recently rewatched a snippet of Episode III, and with each passing year, the entire movie looks more and more like a video game cutscene (especially FMV games like the latter Wing Commanders that also used a lot of greenscreen to cut budgets). Everything has this weird etheral shine and feel to it, removing any sense of actual physical matter.

post #809 of 12582

I was reading the entertainment weekly article, which added no "new" information. But it made me realize something that I've maybe already said, but now really believe. It is in fact possible to make a GREAT Star Wars movie. It probably won't happen, but maybe, just maybe, it will. And in the end, that's the reason we should be happy its being made.

post #810 of 12582

I think a lot of that will come down to the director. To get all esoteric for a second, we need someone who understands the power of myth, who has a bit of romanticism in them and can turn that into a story of high adventure. Lucas used to have it, but it was long gone by the prequels; sure, the thought he still got it, but it was a very much academic, tick off the Campbellian beats kind of feel. All theory, no heart. He'd lost the taste for telling adventure stories, and was more into the cynical political stuff.

 

That's why I would genuinely love to see Del Toro do one of these movies. Okay, so he has a very set stylistic identity that may have to be toned down a lot, but the guy gets the power of myth and he's full to bursting with the heart true mythical storytelling requires (Case in point: Pan's Labyrinth). You could even argue that the Hellboy films are an example of him putting his mind to sci-fi/fantasy worldbuilding. While those films were disappointments financially, creatively they more than show he has the right head for it.

 

Of course, as with all these prospective name directors we bandy about the next question is inevitably, "But would he do it?", which is debatable. But if you're looking for someone to reinstate what made the OT great while providing a fresh vision, you could certainly do worse. But that's just me playing armchair pundit.

post #811 of 12582
Thing is, there are Lucas quotes about the prequels being less adventure, more politics dating right back to the 70's. I've never seen that as an inherent flaw of the prequels; the handling of it could be muddled, particularly in episode 2 which I seem to remember chopped out of the script half the context that made the story make sense, but there is stuff of interest in there.

Part of me wonders if in 20 years time when there are twice as many Star Wars movies, most of which are likely just generic action adventure fare in Star Wars clothing, people will look back on the prequels and be slightly more appreciative of how many weird, personal ideas Lucas packed in there, that a lot of people were too angry to acknowledge at the time. Not great movies by any stretch of the imagination, but more interesting than most blockbusters just by virtue of not having all their weird ragged edges smoothed off by committee. I can't imagine the new ones taking any chances whatsoever.
post #812 of 12582

Possibly. I've always maintained that the prequels are full of interesting ideas that were failed by the execution. But at the same time, I'd rather keep an open mind about these new ones. Either way, they serve as a valuable lesson in keeping expectations in check, good or bad. 

post #813 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

Now of course they're under new management and as a result probably working under a more mainstream/wasteful Hollywood system, but surely Disney have retained at least a good chunk of the staff at Lucasfilm. These are people who know how to make reasonably-priced Star Wars and are sitting on a ton of resources from the other films.

 

The difference between Lucas at the helm and "some guy" is huge.  Look how Apple lost their touch without Steve Jobs during the 90s.  ILM's edge over other creative companies is from the passion people have for working with Lucas and Star Wars - only Peter Jackson and James Cameron get those types of results, Jackson because he brought home the bacon to an entire small country, and, unlike Lucas, Cameron's always willing to spend huge amounts of money to get things done.

post #814 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Thing is, there are Lucas quotes about the prequels being less adventure, more politics dating right back to the 70's.

But why was that something he wished to explore when the OT was all about Space Opera Adventure?  He robbed the prequels of fun and made them trivial. 

post #815 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

The difference between Lucas at the helm and "some guy" is huge.  Look how Apple lost their touch without Steve Jobs during the 90s.  

I agree with your point about Apple, which makes me think they are on the down-spin soon (but that's another discussion) but to say that Lucasfilm would lose its touch would assume he still had it. OR that Lucas was the only driving force behind Star Wars.  Neither of which is true.

 

Look - there is no way a movie is going to hold up to Star Wars or Empire in many of our minds. Those that had those movies as their youth. There's a huge pinch of nostalgia that affects everyone's judgement. (Almost Universally a person's favorite music is the stuff he/she listened to in their teens/early twenties.) No new movie will be able to capture that feeling.  But the failure of the prequels were more than that. As I've watched them with my daughter I've been able to set aside the dissapointment, and realized there are some good things about them, but they just move from Point A to Point B with no flair, no rythym.

 

A new movie with fresh blood - with filmmakeres that really want to honor what Star Wars is all about, good be really good. (And I have no problem with Del Toro as a director, and he is in bed with Disney, but I can't imagine him taking the time away from all his other stuff. Plus, he had an oppurtunity at a big epic and decided to step away from it.)

post #816 of 12582

The hatred for the prequels has already begun to mellow with age, but they are never going to be regarded as good or interesting movies, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are not good or interesting movies.

post #817 of 12582

Absolutely NO ONE wants to see a "small" Star Wars offshoot movie. NO ONE. Star Wars is supposed to be MASSIVE. That's why it's called STAR WARS.

post #818 of 12582

I don't know, a Herzog documentary about Nerf Herders would be pretty cool.

post #819 of 12582

 A few posts back, Duke suggested ac character who is Han Solo's daughter. I know in the EU books Han and Leia had a daughter.  I suggest Mary Elizabeth Winstead for the role.

post #820 of 12582

Chaz, Mary Elizabeth Winstead would appeal to even the most...Die Hard fans, if she were the daughter of Solo and Leia! 

post #821 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

The hatred for the prequels has already begun to mellow with age, but they are never going to be regarded as good or interesting movies, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are not good or interesting movies.

Compared to Mulholland Drive or what have you, no they are not very interesting. Compared to Iron Man 2 or Captain America or any number of completely vacuous blockbusters given a soft pass by the geek world, I'd go so far as to say they are objectively more interesting.
post #822 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

I don't know, a Herzog documentary about Nerf Herders would be pretty cool.


I can already hear the voice over for that and it would be so amazing. Honestly rather that over Episode VII. Also have an idea of a Errol Morris showing the steamy underbelly of Bounty Hunters and mercenaries of Mos Eisley. Or Micheal Moore looking at the rise and fall of the Empire and if the New Republic's motives are truely noble and whether they are going to give aid to the families of the fallen contractors that attempted to rebuild the Death Star! We need answers! God these need to be happen!
post #823 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post


Compared to Mulholland Drive or what have you, no they are not very interesting. Compared to Iron Man 2 or Captain America or any number of completely vacuous blockbusters given a soft pass by the geek world, I'd go so far as to say they are objectively more interesting.

 

Iron Man 2 took a lot of flack around these parts, and Captain America is a much better movie than any of the prequels.  I don't think there's anything objective about the prequels relative merits in this case, though "interesting" is not the easiest judgment to refute.

post #824 of 12582

I'm hoping they aim for "entertaining". That's the change I'm most looking for. 

post #825 of 12582

Revenge of the Sith is alright. But I feel like you'd have to be stubborn not to feel that Phantom Menace is inert and uninteresting, and Attack of the Clones is, at times, borderline Ed Wood-ian. Let's not get revisionist here -- those movies were so borderline bad that I was genuinely stunned that I sat through Revenge of the Sith without once wanting to leave.

post #826 of 12582

I just feel that a lot of people have already decided in themselves that these movies are going to be rote, corporate and soulless when we know next to nothing about them. And frankly, this upsurge of George Lucas authorship support is kind of hypocritical considering, I don't know, the last thirteen years. Just to remind people, up until a few weeks ago the overwhelming consensus was that Lucas was a burnout hack whoring out SW for every last penny he could squeeze out of it. This:

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJjCZ-iDp-8MzmGX4jVaDxC99i-lm-aX933R6iNTLdqElmRyKNdg

 

Was only a couple of months ago. And it's not like Star Wars Detours was being hailed as some creatively exciting new direction for the franchise either.

 

Look, Disney may fuck it up, and the new movies may turn out to be cynical and played safe. But writing it off at this stage is just as much fanwank as 'Popular actor A needs to be Character B' or speculating about directors.

post #827 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Revenge of the Sith is alright. But I feel like you'd have to be stubborn not to feel that Phantom Menace is inert and uninteresting, and Attack of the Clones is, at times, borderline Ed Wood-ian. Let's not get revisionist here -- those movies were so borderline bad that I was genuinely stunned that I sat through Revenge of the Sith without once wanting to leave.

Yeah if it wasn't for Twilight the Prequels would have been the worst movie series of the last decade so bad and mediocre. The worst offender as you said is Attack of the Clones it utterly crappy and the "rommance" are so forced its painful. And the action scenes either are laughable bad or have a sense of been there done that, seriously doing another "oops we got stuck in an asteroid belt!" Just awful and the Jango Fett Vs Obi Wan scene was so bad! Alone with the lets save Obi Wan but accidently get caught too! scene. Phantom Menace was more disappointing but Attack of the Clones was worse. Revenge of Sith sort of saved the series but still had problems mostly with the pacing, action scenes, while better still felt off and the fact Hayden Christensen was still in it! All in all the prequels still suck and vastly deserved to be mocked by rifftrax.
post #828 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post


Yeah if it wasn't for Twilight the Prequels would have been the worst movie series of the last decade so bad and mediocre. 

 

In terms of expectations maybe but please... there are far, FAR worse movie series's of the last decade.

post #829 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

 

The difference between Lucas at the helm and "some guy" is huge.  Look how Apple lost their touch without Steve Jobs during the 90s.  ILM's edge over other creative companies is from the passion people have for working with Lucas and Star Wars - only Peter Jackson and James Cameron get those types of results, Jackson because he brought home the bacon to an entire small country, and, unlike Lucas, Cameron's always willing to spend huge amounts of money to get things done.

 

What?  I'm sorry, did you just describe Lucas as a creative person with a passionate focus?  Can I have some of what you're smoking?  Or perhaps you were describing the George Lucas of 25 years ago, and completely ignoring the money obsessed Hutt with absolutely fuck all regard for quality he morphed into in the ensuing years?

post #830 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

In terms of expectations maybe but please... there are far, FAR worse movie series's of the last decade.

Like what? Not to be a jerk but I can't think of anything maybe Saw but other that I vote Star Wars, plus in theory SW is suppose to be good but the PT for the most part of utter dreck.
post #831 of 12582

A 'movie franchise' draft! THAT'S a novel idea!

post #832 of 12582
According to his Twitter feed, Brad Bird has confirmed he's not directing.
post #833 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

And frankly, this upsurge of George Lucas authorship support is kind of hypocritical considering, I don't know, the last thirteen years.

 

You mean the same George Lucas who made THX 1138? And Raiders?  And American Graffiti?  And Jurassic Park?  And invented Star Wars?  And founded ILM and Lucas Arts?  Yeah fuck that guy. I'm not convinced that anyone, and I mean ANYONE except Lucas could make a Star Wars movie that looks and sounds as good as the prequels for in the 100 / 120 mil ballpark (I guess that's about 150 adjusted for inflation).  Since we're using IM2 and Cap as examples, both had similar budgets to the prequels and Iron Man 2 had practically no action and Captain America looked pretty stagy and chitzy except for the last ten minutes or so.  Even if Disney throws a quarter billion on the screen to make Episode Seven, it still won't have the visual touch that a Lucas production has .... just like Nolan's Batman films lacked Burton's visual flair, and I seriously doubt that SW will get the type of story-telling upgrade that Batman got.

 

I'd also like to say that Lucas is a fantastic action director, I mean seriously.  His tracking and pacing are amazing.  Better than The Wachowskis, better than Renny Harlin, John McTiernan, Richard Donner, Sam Raimi, better than everybody except John Woo and maybe James Cameron.  If Lucas' career was in the same spot as Copalla's or Oliver Stone's and he was directing Statham movies, we'd all be saying "Holy shit, these Lucas action films kick ass".  Go back and watch Obi Wan fight Jango Fett on Camino - the fight involves a jet pack man, a spaceship, and a laser sword dude in the rain jumping around a landing platform hundreds of feet above ocean and Lucas makes it all look easy - it's that kind of SW we're not going to see anymore.  It's the distinct action that makes SW, even the prequels, special.  That's why kids like the prequels, you dummies - they like action.  Kiss it goodbye though.  What we can expect is to see is a JJ Abrahms' Star Trek movie set in a Galaxy Far Far Away.

post #834 of 12582

Honestly, I hate to sound like I'm damning the rest of this thread to irrelevance, but Star Wars is SUCH a massive anomaly that I really can't understand how ANYONE can imagine a Disney-led Star Wars movie. Could be better than the prequels. Could be worse. We have no script, no director, no cast. All these films have been made in a very unusual bubble so far. Switching bubbles may have an effect on quality, but it's preposterous to know what kind.

 

I sure hope they don't suck shit, though.

post #835 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

You mean the same George Lucas who made THX 1138? And Raiders?  And American Graffiti?  And Jurassic Park?  And invented Star Wars?  And founded ILM and Lucas Arts?  Yeah fuck that guy. I'm not convinced that anyone, and I mean ANYONE except Lucas could make a Star Wars movie that looks and sounds as good as the prequels for in the 100 / 120 mil ballpark (I guess that's about 150 adjusted for inflation).  Since we're using IM2 and Cap as examples, both had similar budgets to the prequels and Iron Man 2 had practically no action and Captain America looked pretty stagy and chitzy except for the last ten minutes or so.  Even if Disney throws a quarter billion on the screen to make Episode Seven, it still won't have the visual touch that a Lucas production has .... just like Nolan's Batman films lacked Burton's visual flair, and I seriously doubt that SW will get the type of story-telling upgrade that Batman got.

I'd also like to say that Lucas is a fantastic action director, I mean seriously.  His tracking and pacing are amazing.  Better than The Wachowskis, better than Renny Harlin, John McTiernan, Richard Donner, Sam Raimi, better than everybody except John Woo and maybe James Cameron.  If Lucas' career was in the same spot as Copalla's or Oliver Stone's and he was directing Statham movies, we'd all be saying "Holy shit, these Lucas action films kick ass".  Go back and watch Obi Wan fight Jango Fett on Camino - the fight involves a jet pack man, a spaceship, and a laser sword dude in the rain jumping around a landing platform hundreds of feet above ocean and Lucas makes it all look easy - it's that kind of SW we're not going to see anymore.  It's the distinct action that makes SW, even the prequels, special.  That's why kids like the prequels, you dummies - they like action.  Kiss it goodbye though.  What we can expect is to see is a JJ Abrahms' Star Trek movie set in a Galaxy Far Far Away.

I agree with your points, but Jurassic Park? Granted he pretty much over saw post production. But that's about it.
post #836 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

You mean the same George Lucas who made THX 1138? And Raiders?  And American Graffiti?  And Jurassic Park?  And invented Star Wars?  And founded ILM and Lucas Arts?  Yeah fuck that guy. I'm not convinced that anyone, and I mean ANYONE except Lucas could make a Star Wars movie that looks and sounds as good as the prequels for in the 100 / 120 mil ballpark (I guess that's about 150 adjusted for inflation).  Since we're using IM2 and Cap as examples, both had similar budgets to the prequels and Iron Man 2 had practically no action and Captain America looked pretty stagy and chitzy except for the last ten minutes or so.  Even if Disney throws a quarter billion on the screen to make Episode Seven, it still won't have the visual touch that a Lucas production has .... just like Nolan's Batman films lacked Burton's visual flair, and I seriously doubt that SW will get the type of story-telling upgrade that Batman got.

I'd also like to say that Lucas is a fantastic action director, I mean seriously.  His tracking and pacing are amazing.  Better than The Wachowskis, better than Renny Harlin, John McTiernan, Richard Donner, Sam Raimi, better than everybody except John Woo and maybe James Cameron.  If Lucas' career was in the same spot as Copalla's or Oliver Stone's and he was directing Statham movies, we'd all be saying "Holy shit, these Lucas action films kick ass".  Go back and watch Obi Wan fight Jango Fett on Camino - the fight involves a jet pack man, a spaceship, and a laser sword dude in the rain jumping around a landing platform hundreds of feet above ocean and Lucas makes it all look easy - it's that kind of SW we're not going to see anymore.  It's the distinct action that makes SW, even the prequels, special.  That's why kids like the prequels, you dummies - they like action.  Kiss it goodbye though.  What we can expect is to see is a JJ Abrahms' Star Trek movie set in a Galaxy Far Far Away.

His pacing in the prequels great? Really? I thought was pretty awful. The action was pretty weak and generic and was painful at times, remember the Yoda light saber battle scene? Also that scene with Jango and Ovi-Wan was terrible and laughably bad. I think new writers and directors will only make this series better and hopefully look less fake as the prequels did. I honestly love the idea of Arndt writing and Guillmero Del Toro directing. And what was wrong with JJ Abrams' Star Trek I thought it was good and reinvigorated life into that series.
post #837 of 12582

George Lucas' achievements as a young artist are undeniable, and his pushing of filmmaking technology has permeated the entire industry--this is without question. But the prequels are proof positive that if you let a particular skillset sit in the shed for twenty years, it's gonna get rusty. 

post #838 of 12582

Ask any of the actors on the prequels if Lucas was a good director. I've seen enough of them interviewed over the years, sometimes you have to read between the lines, sometimes not, but I'm pretty sure you'd get a resounding "no". 

post #839 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post


His pacing in the prequels great? Really? I thought was pretty awful. The action was pretty weak and generic and was painful at times, remember the Yoda light saber battle scene? Also that scene with Jango and Ovi-Wan was terrible and laughably bad. I think new writers and directors will only make this series better and hopefully look less fake as the prequels did. I honestly love the idea of Arndt writing and Guillmero Del Toro directing. And what was wrong with JJ Abrams' Star Trek I thought it was good and reinvigorated life into that series.

I respectfully disagree.  I was referring to the action pacing, which I feel extremely tight and easy to follow.  And as for the weakness of JJ's ST, I'm referring to scope.  The end of Clones has a giant fight with three huge monsters, then a fight with dozens of Jedi, then a land war between thousands of robots and troopers including tanks and air vehicles, followed by a four person fight in which we see Yoda use a light saber for the first time after three movies and 20 years.  JJ's Star Trek ends with, as Joe Bob Briggs often like to point out, "shoot-out in a warehouse", and there's not much action in the movie ... for example, one "money shot" scene has Kirk outrun a monster for 30 seconds before falling off a cliff.  The monster never comes back later.  Wow.

 

Look, there's only about three guys who can handle the scope of Star Wars action - Lucas, James Cameron, Sam Raimi, John Woo - and for all we know Joss Weedon's work on "Avengers" was a fluke.  Peter Jackson's work uses a lot of cheats, usually helicopter shots then close ups, and the camera is way more static than it was in any of the prequels - there's a reason you never feel you get a "good look" at most of the monsters and locations, because the creature design and sets don't stand up to the same scrutiny as Lucas / ILM work.  "Avengers" is guilty of this as well - who were the hero's fighting in the end?  Oh yeah, "aliens" that looked like they were crapped out of my ass.  The snake monster was pretty tight though, too bad we had already seen the exact same monster the year before in TF3.

 

I'm sure Disney will breathe new life into SW and the product will stay relevant.  But SW without Lucas will be like Bond without Sean Connery or the Andy Grifith Show without Don Knotts.  It's never as good as the first time.

post #840 of 12582

I think both...Attack of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith, are far superior to...The Phantom Menace.  I think that Ewan McGregor was excellent as Obi-Wan.  I was as interested in Obi-Wan's story as much as the downfall of Anakin Skywalker. I do enjoy...parts of TPM.  I think George Lucas is a good director, that ended the first...2 trilogies of Star Wars in Spectacular fashion.  Maybe the Sequels will have more action, and people won't hate them as much without George Lucas as a lightening rod.  I do hope that there will be more than...One Jedi, in this new Sequel Series.

post #841 of 12582

I let this reply to my own post slide...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

You might not really "get" what makes SW special.  

 

...but then to follow up with this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

I respectfully disagree.  I was referring to the action pacing, which I feel extremely tight and easy to follow.  And as for the weakness of JJ's ST, I'm referring to scope.  The end of Clones has a giant fight with three huge monsters, then a fight with dozens of Jedi, then a land war between thousands of robots and troopers including tanks and air vehicles, followed by a four person fight in which (and esspecially this ) we see Yoda use a light saber for the first time after three movies and 20 years.  JJ's Star Trek ends with, as Joe Bob Briggs often like to point out, "shoot-out in a warehouse", and there's not much action in the movie ... for example, one "money shot" scene has Kirk outrun a monster for 30 seconds before falling off a cliff.  The monster never comes back later.  Wow.

 

Look, there's only about three guys who can handle the scope of Star Wars action - Lucas, James Cameron, Sam Raimi, John Woo - and for all we know Joss Weedon's work on "Avengers" was a fluke.  Peter Jackson's work uses a lot of cheats, usually helicopter shots then close ups, and the camera is way more static than it was in any of the prequels - there's a reason you never feel you get a "good look" at most of the monsters and locations, because the creature design and sets don't stand up to the same scrutiny as Lucas / ILM work.  "Avengers" is guilty of this as well - who were the hero's fighting in the end?  Oh yeah, "aliens" that looked like they were crapped out of my ass.  The snake monster was pretty tight though, too bad we had already seen the exact same monster the year before in TF3.

 

I'm sure Disney will breathe new life into SW and the product will stay relevant.  But SW without Lucas will be like Bond without Sean Connery or the Andy Grifith Show without Don Knotts.  It's never as good as the first time.

 

...what fucking drugs are you on???

 

There's a reason Lucas was able to get such kinetic action in the prequels - because none of the elements were there. There were litterally no physical restrictions to him or his camera - thats fucking cheating. Jackson grounded his movies in real locations and the best fucking job of directing real compelling action scenes.

post #842 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

But why was that something he wished to explore when the OT was all about Space Opera Adventure?

Because exploring their interests is what filmmakers do? Because he thought it was relevant? I mean he did make a movie about a guy manufacturing a bullshit war for political gain a year before Iraq after all. Authoritarian governments was one of Lucas's main themes since THX, so making the creation of one the backdrop to the prequels isn't unfitting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

Iron Man 2 took a lot of flack around these parts, and Captain America is a much better movie than any of the prequels.  I don't think there's anything objective about the prequels relative merits in this case, though "interesting" is not the easiest judgment to refute.

Captain America has some old fashioned charm and emotional involvement thanks to some endearing performances - something sorely lacking in the prequels. But otherwise it is generic, empty fluff. The story beats are stock, there's no sense of the stakes and like a lot of Marvel movies the objectives are abstracted almost to the point of meaningless (that's two movies now about a fucking cube!). That one's just mediocre, but Iron Man 2 is actively bad and a worse movie than any of the prequels. That one drags on forever, fails even to hit generic story beats and again is essentially a movie about nothing at all.

The reason I say the prequels are objectively more interesting is that they have a lot of themes and ideas in there that are *not* stock and generic, they were unpredictable and the result of a weird guy doing what he personally found interesting. No one, when handed the job of making Star Wars prequels, would've done what he tried to do with them, which makes them more intriguing as a phenomenon than something more solidly made but less 'out there', if not better as entertainment.

Again, I don't think they're great movies, but in the sea of blandness, bloat and ineptitude that is 00’s blockbuster culture I find it a bit silly that they're treated as the lowest of the low. I also think people almost wilfully dismiss the things Lucas did that were genuine attempts to do something original and creative because on some level they'd rather believe Lucas made movies they hate out of some combination of empty headed idiocy and deliberate malice.
post #843 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendellEverett View Post

 

You mean the same George Lucas who made THX 1138? And Raiders?  And American Graffiti?  And Jurassic Park?  And invented Star Wars?  And founded ILM and Lucas Arts?  Yeah fuck that guy.

 

No, I didn't mean that George Lucas. I meant the public perception of Lucas today. I never said anything against Lucas's achievements in the 70s and 80s.  

 

EDIT: Let me just clear something up here: Between 1999-2005, I was one of those staunch prequel defenders who would stick up for Lucas even if I didn't completely like everything about the films. Even today, I can still watch them and enjoy them for what they occasionally pull off, and for what they tried to do (Even if that entails a lot of cringing). I've always considered them as films packed with interesting ideas ill-served by their delivery, and one of the few cases where my geekness overtakes my critical faculties to enough of an extent where, with the miracle of chapter skip, I can roll with the shit stuff and re-immerse myself in the universe. But even in recent years, finally realizing that the prequels were a lot more poorly handled than I was originally prepared to admit, I never reached the point of actively hating them.

 

In short, I've gotten in a lot of arguments on this subject over these last 13 years. Hearing all this positive Lucas/prequel stuff the last few weeks, I honestly wonder where the fuck some of these people were back then.


Edited by Workyticket - 11/18/12 at 6:36am
post #844 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke fleed View Post

I think both...Attack of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith, are far superior to...The Phantom Menace.  I think that Ewan McGregor was excellent as Obi-Wan.  I was as interested in Obi-Wan's story as much as the downfall of Anakin Skywalker. I do enjoy...parts of TPM.  I think George Lucas is a good director, that ended the first...2 trilogies of Star Wars in Spectacular fashion.  Maybe the Sequels will have more action, and people won't hate them as much without George Lucas as a lightening rod.  I do hope that there will be more than...One Jedi, in this new Sequel Series.

 

 

I do agree with McGregor being great as Obi-Wan. He's the only one that seems to get his character right and does a real good job, but you can make a case that him and Palpatine were the easiest characters to get right since we saw them in earlier films, so there was a base to understand what there motivations were, characters like Padme and Anakin took more effort to get right and in the end they didn't even bother and everyone else is either miscast or just a plain out terrible actor. But really in the end the thing that made the prequels so bad was the writing and the pacing, which through most of the movies, even the third one, made no sense. So while I felt alot of the direction was flat out bad and terrible the thing that sunk it in my opinion was the screenplays and how Lucas felt he needed to recon and shoehorn everything to make sense, which did not work.

post #845 of 12582

Empire has a breakdown of potential directors. 

 

http://www.empireonline.com/features/star-wars-director-rumour-control

 

One name they don't mention is Darabont. I wonder if he's in the mix at all.

post #846 of 12582

Out of everyone listed I like Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton, Del Toro, David Yates, and possibly Joseph Kosinski. Really the director just needs to be able to pull off great  visuals because I have alot of faith in Arndt to deliver a great screenplay after Toy Story 3 and Little Miss Sunshine. I think as long as this happens I don't see anyway it could be worse than the prequels. 

post #847 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

 

No, I didn't mean that George Lucas. I meant the public perception of Lucas today. I never said anything against Lucas's achievements in the 70s and 80s.  

 

EDIT: Let me just clear something up here: Between 1999-2005, I was one of those staunch prequel defenders who would stick up for Lucas even if I didn't completely like everything about the films. Even today, I can still watch them and enjoy them for what they occasionally pull off, and for what they tried to do (Even if that entails a lot of cringing). I've always considered them as films packed with interesting ideas ill-served by their delivery, and one of the few cases where my geekness overtakes my critical faculties to enough of an extent where, with the miracle of chapter skip, I can roll with the shit stuff and re-immerse myself in the universe. But even in recent years, finally realizing that the prequels were a lot more poorly handled than I was originally prepared to admit, I never reached the point of actively hating them.

 

In short, I've gotten in a lot of arguments on this subject over these last 13 years. Hearing all this positive Lucas/prequel stuff the last few weeks, I honestly wonder where the fuck some of these people were back then.

Well, I've been a registered user since January.  It's pretty easy to see where any Lucas defenders are - they make a couple post saying something positive about Lucas, then they're told that they're on drugs or that they're assholes or have no taste, and they can either politely disappear or FLAME ON for page after page.  So yeah .... Lucas is the worst, Tron Legacy, John Carter, Captain America, Thor, and Pirates 4 are Fannnnnntastic and I can't wait to see these awesome Harry Potter type Disney SW movies about some obnoxious kids learning to use the force.

 

Seacrest Out.

post #848 of 12582
post #849 of 12582

  Whedon's success with the Avengers was a fluke?! Actually its what he has been doing since Buffy, just on a huge scale. Buffy, Angel, Firefly and even Dollhouse are about groups of people who manage to work together, despite their flaws and break downs within the group. Then there is all the endlessly quotable dialog.

 

  I find the climax of AOTC boring. Its spectacle just for the sake of it. I do like Yoda laying down the law with a lightsaber. The flaw of the prequels is that Lucas seems to be more interested with the effects than the story and the characters.

post #850 of 12582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

For your consideration...

I hope he has a sizable part in this. Behind Han, Lando was my favorite character. So totally cool with this, honestly I'd love a spinoff prequel with buddy up with both and Chewie doing some awesome swashbuckling space pirate action. I know I can't be the only one that dosent want to see that. Maybe after a Boba Fett based movie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release