Author Topic: Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rogue One (Read 461381 times)

El Barto · « **Reply #1365 on:** January 24, 2013, 07:51:33 PM »

This actually makes perfect sense. In Hollywood, if it works once, it has to be done over and over again. Abrams rebooted ST and plenty of people liked it (and it made tons of dough). From their reasoning, the masses love when Abrams does reboots sci-fi series, so he's the obvious choice here. Whether or not it's a good fit doesn't make any difference.

orcus116 · « **Reply #1366 on:** January 24, 2013, 07:59:00 PM »

I think everyone will take a "well it's better than Lucas" approach. We might get some actually fun and playfulness back into Star Wars.

j · « **Reply #1367 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:22:35 PM »

I'm so emotionally confused about the Star Wars franchise's past and future. I love the original movies in spite of their myriad flaws, and thought the prequels were mostly god-awful although entertaining at times. It's unprecedented how Lucas came up with such a cool universe and characters that resonated with so many people, and yet also was responsible for "ruining" it in a lot of ways, or at least leaving a hell of a lot of wasted potential.

And yet now that he's no longer directing, I honestly can't envision a scenario in which these new movies are good. Has nothing to do with Abrams; I think I'd feel this way about anybody.

-J

PowerSlave · « **Reply #1368 on:** January 25, 2013, 01:10:37 AM »

Quote from: El Barto on January 24, 2013, 07:51:33 PM

Abrams rebooted ST and plenty of people liked it

I'm a life-long trekkie and I hate what he did to the reboot, but I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or not. I actually fell asleep in the theater the first time I seen it. The only other time that has ever happened to me was at the last terminator film which was complete crap as well.

If I see any lense-flare, I'm going to leave the theater immidiately lol...

Implode · « **Reply #1369 on:** January 25, 2013, 02:06:52 AM »

You are in the minority. Most people from what I've seen like the new Star Trek. True, it is very different from what the show was trying to accomplish. But that was the point. Abrams turn ST into an action movie, and he actually did it competently. The movie was compelling, you cared about the characters, the actions scenes were exciting, and it was emotional where it needed to be. It's not a strictly deliberate and purely intelligent sci fi like the show, but at least it wasn't an emotionless incoherent mess like the SW prequels.

PowerSlave · « **Reply #1370 on:** January 25, 2013, 05:52:56 AM »

Quote from: Implode on January 25, 2013, 02:06:52 AM

You are in the minority. Most people from what I've seen like the new Star Trek. True, it is very different from what the show was trying to accomplish. But that was the point. Abrams turn ST into an action movie, and he actually did it competently. The movie was compelling, you cared about the characters, the actions scenes were exciting, and it was emotional where it needed to be. It's not a strictly deliberate and purely intelligent sci fi like the show, but at least it wasn't an emotionless incoherent mess like the SW prequels.

My problem with the movie wasn't really the character development. My problem was that it appeared to be made for people with adhd and brought to mind something that would be made by Michael Bay. Let me give you an example between something that contrasts between it and one of the classic trek movies.

There's a scene in The Search for Spock where the klingons have killed Kirk's son. The vulcan officer that was down on the planet's surface with Spock and Kirk's son tells him what has happened. It's a moment in the film that is intended to build tension and despite the fact that William Shatner gets dumped on by everyone for being a terrible actor, the next 30 seconds or so of the movie is one of the best in all of the trek movies. You see Captain Kirk going through misery and he says "Klingon bastards killed my son...". The camera primarily stays on him for quite some time. They flash to the klingon ship briefly or even the planet's surface (I'm doing this from memory, so forgive me if I'm a bit inaccurate...), but the tension that is built and projected to the audience feels authentic.

By way of contrast, there's a scene in the newest trek movie where the crew is about to go into the final battle with the romulan mining ship and JJ Abrams attempts to have the same kind of "tension building" moment. Except, he chooses to flash about 50 images/different camera angles per second at the audience of the crew frozen in anticipation. It fails horribly and looks like it was shot to keep people with short attention spans interested in what's going on.

Earlier in this thread people were debating the different merits of the light saber battles in the original trilogy and their counter parts in the prequels. I'm of the opinion that the battles in the original trilogy (even as limited by the technology of the times that they were...) were far superior to any of the battles in the prequels. There was always a dialogue and something contributed to the story in the original battles that was completely lacking in the newer ones. It's the same sort of comparison that I made between the trek movies. If we're going to get another movie made for people with short attention spans then it may as well still be Lucas at the helm of the movies.

I'm going to go outside and yell at a cloud now lol...

BlobVanDam · « **Reply #1371 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:07:36 AM »

The biggest problem that Trekkies have with the new Trek movie is that JJ turned it into Star Wars, so I don't see the issue.

He is not right for Trek, but I think he would fit well to the style of Star Wars.

King Postwhore · « **Reply #1372 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:51:24 AM »

Let's be honest here. The Trek series was failing at the box office money wise. They had to do a reboot with a different style to attract new viewers and JJ did it right. It's not the Star Trek I grew up with but I am ok with it. I realy liked the movie and the new trailer and the 9 minute clip looked amazing.

eric42434224 · « **Reply #1373 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:51:56 AM »

Quote from: PowerSlave on January 25, 2013, 05:52:56 AM

Quote from: Implode on January 25, 2013, 02:06:52 AM
You are in the minority. Most people from what I've seen like the new Star Trek. True, it is very different from what the show was trying to accomplish. But that was the point. Abrams turn ST into an action movie, and he actually did it competently. The movie was compelling, you cared about the characters, the actions scenes were exciting, and it was emotional where it needed to be. It's not a strictly deliberate and purely intelligent sci fi like the show, but at least it wasn't an emotionless incoherent mess like the SW prequels.

My problem with the movie wasn't really the character development. My problem was that it appeared to be made for people with adhd and brought to mind something that would be made by Michael Bay. Let me give you an example between something that contrasts between it and one of the classic trek movies.

There's a scene in The Search for Spock where the klingons have killed Kirk's son. The vulcan officer that was down on the planet's surface with Spock and Kirk's son tells him what has happened. It's a moment in the film that is intended to build tension and despite the fact that William Shatner gets dumped on by everyone for being a terrible actor, the next 30 seconds or so of the movie is one of the best in all of the trek movies. You see Captain Kirk going through misery and he says "Klingon bastards killed my son...". The camera primarily stays on him for quite some time. They flash to the klingon ship briefly or even the planet's surface (I'm doing this from memory, so forgive me if I'm a bit inaccurate...), but the tension that is built and projected to the audience feels authentic.

By way of contrast, there's a scene in the newest trek movie where the crew is about to go into the final battle with the romulan mining ship and JJ Abrams attempts to have the same kind of "tension building" moment. Except, he chooses to flash about 50 images/different camera angles per second at the audience of the crew frozen in anticipation. It fails horribly and looks like it was shot to keep people with short attention spans interested in what's going on.

Earlier in this thread people were debating the different merits of the light saber battles in the original trilogy and their counter parts in the prequels. I'm of the opinion that the battles in the original trilogy (even as limited by the technology of the times that they were...) were far superior to any of the battles in the prequels. There was always a dialogue and something contributed to the story in the original battles that was completely lacking in the newer ones. It's the same sort of comparison that I made between the trek movies. If we're going to get another movie made for people with short attention spans then it may as well still be Lucas at the helm of the movies.

I'm going to go outside and yell at a cloud now lol...

If you want to contrast emotional/tension scenes, at least use similar examples....not comparing an emotional scene about the death of a son to a big battle scene.
The scene in the beginning when Kirk's father sacrifices himself for the crew, his wife, and unborn child gave me chills and a lump in my throat, and as an emotional scene is as good or better anything in any ST movie or show. Some may not like the style, but to say that the new ST is weaker in authentic emotion and tension is simply not accurate IMO.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #1374 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:07:27 AM »

with the above two posts. Hemsworth did a great job as Kirk's dad... sacrificing himself for his crew, and his family. The opening sequence was very emotive.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1375 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:17:31 AM »

I enjoyed the Star Trek movie very much but i will stay away from any trekkie discussion for the simple fact that i've never been into the Star Trek universe nor have i ever watched a whole season so my opinions are not worthy and i say that with all honesty and truth.

PowerSlave · « **Reply #1376 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:40:39 AM »

Quote from: eric42434224 on January 25, 2013, 06:51:56 AM

Quote from: PowerSlave on January 25, 2013, 05:52:56 AM
Quote from: Implode on January 25, 2013, 02:06:52 AM
You are in the minority. Most people from what I've seen like the new Star Trek. True, it is very different from what the show was trying to accomplish. But that was the point. Abrams turn ST into an action movie, and he actually did it competently. The movie was compelling, you cared about the characters, the actions scenes were exciting, and it was emotional where it needed to be. It's not a strictly deliberate and purely intelligent sci fi like the show, but at least it wasn't an emotionless incoherent mess like the SW prequels.

My problem with the movie wasn't really the character development. My problem was that it appeared to be made for people with adhd and brought to mind something that would be made by Michael Bay. Let me give you an example between something that contrasts between it and one of the classic trek movies.

There's a scene in The Search for Spock where the klingons have killed Kirk's son. The vulcan officer that was down on the planet's surface with Spock and Kirk's son tells him what has happened. It's a moment in the film that is intended to build tension and despite the fact that William Shatner gets dumped on by everyone for being a terrible actor, the next 30 seconds or so of the movie is one of the best in all of the trek movies. You see Captain Kirk going through misery and he says "Klingon bastards killed my son...". The camera primarily stays on him for quite some time. They flash to the klingon ship briefly or even the planet's surface (I'm doing this from memory, so forgive me if I'm a bit inaccurate...), but the tension that is built and projected to the audience feels authentic.

By way of contrast, there's a scene in the newest trek movie where the crew is about to go into the final battle with the romulan mining ship and JJ Abrams attempts to have the same kind of "tension building" moment. Except, he chooses to flash about 50 images/different camera angles per second at the audience of the crew frozen in anticipation. It fails horribly and looks like it was shot to keep people with short attention spans interested in what's going on.

Earlier in this thread people were debating the different merits of the light saber battles in the original trilogy and their counter parts in the prequels. I'm of the opinion that the battles in the original trilogy (even as limited by the technology of the times that they were...) were far superior to any of the battles in the prequels. There was always a dialogue and something contributed to the story in the original battles that was completely lacking in the newer ones. It's the same sort of comparison that I made between the trek movies. If we're going to get another movie made for people with short attention spans then it may as well still be Lucas at the helm of the movies.

I'm going to go outside and yell at a cloud now lol...

If you want to contrast emotional/tension scenes, at least use similar examples....not comparing an emotional scene about the death of a son to a big battle scene.
The scene in the beginning when Kirk's father sacrifices himself for the crew, his wife, and unborn child gave me chills and a lump in my throat, and as an emotional scene is as good or better anything in any ST movie or show. Some may not like the style, but to say that the new ST is weaker in authentic emotion and tension is simply not accurate IMO.

We will have to agree to disagree. For me, the most intense scene in any of the trek movies was in First Contact when Picard freaked out and smashed the glass case with all of the prior enterprise models in it. Once again, it was dialogue and emotion leading up to a sequence of action scenes and set the stage for the conclusion of the movie. Another great example was when Spock died after going in to fix the reactor in the 2nd movie. There was no need for a bunch of split second camera shots. The situation and good acting provided for all of the tension/emotion that the scene needed.

It's a problem that I have with many modern action films. It seems like everyone believes that the best way to do things is to have the foot to the floor for the entire film or atleast a great majority of the time. Often times it feels like a good excuse for them to blow a bunch of shit up. I like to get a little more substance and hope for a good balance of things.

tapsmiled · « **Reply #1377 on:** January 25, 2013, 08:12:23 AM »

Bringing this back to Star Wars....
The entire foundation for the prequels came from a single scene in SW, in Obi-Wan's hut. Nearly all of the necessary backstory stems from that conversation, with the most sincere delivery given to the line, "...and he was a good friend." That was missing in the prequels, and the mistake came from starting the story when Anakin was a child. Hell, one of the chief complaints of TPM was the idea of Midichlorians, a plot device to explain why Anakin HAD to become a Jedi. I have yet to find anyone who liked that idea, and if anything, most felt that it detracted from the mysticism. To me, that is the key to the whole thing, and if Abrams is confirmed, I hope he and the writer return to this notion. I don't want scientific descriptions or justifications for everything. I don't want be told that someone is a great pilot or a great friend; I want to see it.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1378 on:** January 25, 2013, 11:46:03 AM »

Implode · « **Reply #1379 on:** January 25, 2013, 12:14:40 PM »

PowerSlave, the points you bring up, while valid, lean more on the side of just your personal tastes. You are right everything that was changed in style of Star Trek for the movies. Is it better than the first Star Trek movie? That's up for debate. Is it better than the Star Wars prequels? Hell yes. And that's really the major concern here. Frankly Star Wars has always been more about action, adventure, and fun, than Star Trek was. That's just the difference in styles.

Snow_Dog · « **Reply #1380 on:** January 25, 2013, 03:43:44 PM »

Lens flare aside, I really enjoyed the new Star Trek, and don't get how this is already a horrible idea. I'm much more looking forward to the next Abrams Trek film, than another Nemesis or Insurrection. Person of Interest is lame for me, Fringe barely survived to see a finale, although I did like that show, and Lost is one of my favourite shows ever.

In the end we're going to be able to see something that wasn't going to happen at least for who knows how long, and with how the PT went, thankfully Lucas isn't doing it. I'm sure that regardless of how "horrible" this decision is, it can't get much worse than episode I & II. I'm also sure that millions of pairs of pants will need changing once we see "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." anew on the big screen again

Super Dude · « **Reply #1381 on:** January 25, 2013, 04:53:46 PM »

I'm not worried about J.J. Abrams. I'm worried about Lucas writing the film treatment.

Kotowboy · « **Reply #1382 on:** January 25, 2013, 05:22:34 PM »

I just think that Trek & Wars should never be connected.

PowerSlave · « **Reply #1383 on:** January 25, 2013, 08:23:47 PM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on January 25, 2013, 05:22:34 PM

I just think that Trek & Wars should never be connected.

It's inevitable that they always will be to some extent. They are the two most succesfull sci-fi franchises of all time and parallels will always be drawn between them.

King Postwhore · « **Reply #1384 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:00:32 AM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on January 25, 2013, 05:22:34 PM

I just think that Trek & Wars should never be connected.

Sounds like a kids TV show issue.

tapsmiled · « **Reply #1385 on:** January 26, 2013, 07:49:41 AM »

In case anyone missed it, NOW it is official that JJ is directing. Lucasfilm made the announcement last night.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1386 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:09:49 AM »

Jaq · « **Reply #1387 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:32:18 AM »

I'm not displeased with Abrams getting the job. Anyone who saw Super 8 can tell you how well he can bring the Spielberg, and a director with that particular 70s direction style is perfect for Star Wars. My primary concern remains the story and the casting, but the fact that Star Trek had tons of lens flare isn't a worry for me regarding the direction. Plus, you gotta admire a guy who is willing to earn the ire of the two largest, most vocal groups of nerds in the world AT ONCE.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1388 on:** February 03, 2013, 10:06:25 AM »

As long as he doesn't bring butt buddy Damon Lindelof along, I'm totally ok with this.

orcus116 · « **Reply #1389 on:** February 03, 2013, 01:44:57 PM »

Yeah, his writing and ideas are not very good.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1390 on:** February 04, 2013, 03:30:16 AM »

If i had the money this would be pretty awesome:

Star Wars: The Blueprints

and if you wanna go to the ultimate level you of course buy the signed one limited to 125 copy's with a nifty price of 1000$.

Here's a video:

https://youtu.be/IsXk4wsBaiY?t=1m46s

Kotowboy · « **Reply #1391 on:** February 04, 2013, 04:51:10 AM »

Quote from: orcus116 on February 03, 2013, 01:44:57 PM

Yeah, his writing and ideas are not very good.

As flawed as it was - i thought Prometheus turned out a lot better than the original Alien 5 script by John Spaihts.

I may go see Star Wars 7 but I just hope that JJ only directs the one & then goes on to finish his Star Trek trilogy and doesn't just go fuck it - i'm doing Star Wars

from now on.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1392 on:** February 04, 2013, 05:02:22 AM »

I'm kinda hoping to see a revolving door in terms of crew for this trilogy. Could be fun.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1393 on:** February 04, 2013, 05:39:07 AM »

Quote from: Kotowboy on February 04, 2013, 04:51:10 AM

Quote from: orcus116 on February 03, 2013, 01:44:57 PM
Yeah, his writing and ideas are not very good.

As flawed as it was - i thought Prometheus turned out a lot better than the original Alien 5 script by John Spaihts.

I may go see Star Wars 7 but I just hope that JJ only directs the one & then goes on to finish his Star Trek trilogy and doesn't just go fuck it - i'm doing Star Wars

from now on.

I can see it now:

Trek Wars: The Enterprise Strikes Back

*Sigh: the final Jar Jar. These are the tales of the spacecraft Millenium Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new forces, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to stupididly* go where no one wants to go.

*Yes that's the word and feel free to add....

zepp-head · « **Reply #1394 on:** February 04, 2013, 09:57:38 PM »

Quote from: tapsmiled on January 25, 2013, 08:12:23 AM

Bringing this back to Star Wars....
The entire foundation for the prequels came from a single scene in SW, in Obi-Wan's hut. Nearly all of the necessary backstory stems from that conversation, with the most sincere delivery given to the line, "...and he was a good friend." That was missing in the prequels, and the mistake came from starting the story when Anakin was a child. Hell, one of the chief complaints of TPM was the idea of Midichlorians, a plot device to explain why Anakin HAD to become a Jedi. I have yet to find anyone who liked that idea, and if anything, most felt that it detracted from the mysticism. To me, that is the key to the whole thing, and if Abrams is confirmed, I hope he and the writer return to this notion. I don't want scientific descriptions or justifications for everything. I don't want be told that someone is a great pilot or a great friend; I want to see it.

I would suggest digging a little deeper. There are many that support the midis. Most of those who don't really don't seem to understand the concept. Perhaps the explanation of them wasn't clear enough, and if that is the case, I would say that is the failure, not the midis themselves.

“He said that we all have thousands of bacteria in our systems – suppose a particular strain had a life force that was connected to the universe? And what if some people had a stronger strain of these bacteria than others did?” Neeson recounted, adding, “I thought the idea was both fascinating and believable."

Just by watching 4-6, we already know that the ability to use the Force is passed down genetically, there is really no way around this. Therefore I don't see the problem with having some people more biologically inclined to interact with it. The midis aren't the Force, they just let Force users communicate with it. In my eyes the midi-chlorians don't demystify the Force; the same way that water doesn't stop being an essential life element just because it happens to be just water and hydrogen.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #1395 on:** February 05, 2013, 09:43:00 AM »

They are an unnecessary middle man. If they can channel the Force, what's the problem with the individual Jedis channeling the Force, a la the original trilogy? It's just stupid.

MrBoom_shack-a-lack · « **Reply #1396 on:** February 05, 2013, 09:54:59 AM »

Pretty cool poster from E1:

BlobVanDam · « **Reply #1397 on:** February 05, 2013, 09:56:30 AM »

I have never known of another living soul to like the idea of midichlorians.
I think that relating the force to science opens up too many questions and possibilities that go against what I think the force is all about.

Just my opinion, of course. Each to their own.

Orbert · « **Reply #1398 on:** February 05, 2013, 10:01:43 AM »

Quote from: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on February 05, 2013, 09:54:59 AM

Pretty cool poster from E1:

I always liked that one. It was one of the first promotional things I remember seeing from Episode 1.

BlobVanDam · « **Reply #1399 on:** February 05, 2013, 10:02:53 AM »

I remember that poster well. I'd say it's pretty iconic, regardless of how awful Ep 1 was.

News: Welcome back, Mike Portnoy!

Author Topic: Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rogue One (Read 461381 times)