Star Wars

Generations was okay and First Contact I thought was really good. Insurrection and Nemesis were a bit poo.

I like the look of Generations, especially the lighting- but the plot's a piling steam of poo sadly.
I loved the first half of First Contact but felt it got weaker and weaker the longer it went on.
Insurrection is a weird one- its not bad, but it feels just like a very long episode, and it also pretty much steals th epremis eof its plot form an episode of ST:TNG (the one with Worf's human brother and his colony being relocated without their knowledge, which is weird).

Less said about Insurrection the better really, spent the whole film shouting "How can everyone have forgotten Lor?!!"

So a short behind the scenes film was shown at comic-con:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/star-wars-fans-just-got-025437818.html

Got to say, even with all my apprehension about Abrahms ability to tell a coherent story I am loving all the practical effects and real locations involved.

The marketing for this is definitely on-point. I find myself getting more and more excited with each new glimpse, despite most of my reasons for being pessimistic at the beginning still lingering in the background. Will try to go into the theatre with expectations in check, but ... I can't help that I fucking love Star Wars.

richevansreactionvideo.gif

Looking very promising, the production design looks impressive and the actors seem very enthusiastic (probably because they are spending the shoot staring at tennis ball cgi stand ins) but I can't escape the feeling the marketing (and possibly) film is over reliant on nostalgia, I want a sequel that expands the universe, rather than a rehash of the first film pandering to fans.

The prequels may have been poor films, but at least Lucas had the courage to do something different.

Not getting excited. Reserving judgment for the finished product. Not getting excited.

Fair point, Malick. I haven't followed the plot spoilers enough to say if the story is going to be a rehash as well. I have mixed feelings about keeping the Empire vs Rebels theme going. It does run into the "been there, done that" problem, but on the other hand, dedicated SW fans have recognized for a long time that the Battle of Endor wouldn't have made the Empire collapse overnight (even if that's kinda what the Special Edition ending from 1997 implies ).

Palpatine takes over Curooscant and the galactic republic: no one notices.

Rebels overthrow empire: party time.

''The Empire Survived after Endor''-a fan

''Nah that's non-canon now, we'll invent new storylines''-Disney

''Oh bugger, that's ruined my week and $1000 down the drain'' a fan

''Here's the New Trailer for Star Wars 7 Yeah The Empire survives...but it has a different name''-Disney

'' ''-a fan

''You'll watch and moan about it dozens of times anyway, it's more of the same so you'll like it anyway''-Disney

'' ''-a fan.

Eldorion wrote: (even if that's kinda what the Special Edition ending from 1997 implies ).

The special edition also implied Jar Jar was at the celebrations 'Weesa Free!' of all the people Anakin could kill, why wouldn't he be at the top of the list...

"And you'll buy every Double Dip Edition, so just shut up." - Disney

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/michael-jackson/36304/michael-jackson-wanted-to-play-jar-jar-binks-in-the-phantom-menace



Would that have been better or worse?

Well if they'd done Jar Jar with prosthetics, MJ or no, then we might never have seen Gollum. Everyone always forgets that the stuff Gollum is praised for (fully integrated CGI performance in an otherwise live-action film) was done by Jar Jar first, two and a half years earlier.

Colin Trevorrow the director of Jurassic World is attached to direct Episode 9.



He certainly seemed to hold the pressure/scale of JW world quite well and turn in a successful film in terms of box office, but personally I thought JW world was very forgettable, and Trevorrow didn't seem to have any real directorial flair (not to say it was badly directed...just very...formulaic?, anyone could have been behind the lense) say what you like about Abrams but at least people not enough to get annoyed with his stylistic choices, it's obviously unfair to judge the guy four or five years away from release, but seems a very 'safe' choice.

Hmm...

My biggest fear for the new Star Wars movie since they were announced was that they would be extremely safe and rely on pandering and familiarity over any real storytelling prowess. I actually think Abrams was a very safe choice as well, but he does at least have a reputation of his own outside of major projects. I haven't seen either of Trevorrow's films though so I can't really judge his work, though Safety Not Guaranteed has been on my list since it was in theatres.

Eldorion wrote:My biggest fear for the new Star Wars movie since they were announced was that they would be extremely safe and rely on pandering and familiarity over any real storytelling prowess

I still kinda feel that way, the trailers were all about Nostalgia.

I'm a bigger fan of Abrams than some, but I'd agree he was the 'safe' choice, though after watching Tommrowland I'm glad Brad Bird didn't get the gig...

Every time I hear about Tomorrowland I'm more glad I didn't go see it.

I liked Abrams' first Star Trek movie a lot, and being largely indifferent to the source material I don't give a shit how different it was. I think the biggest criticism you can lob at it is that it's clearly trying way too hard to be the Star Wars movie Abrams didn't think he'd get to make and so wasn't as inventive as it maybe could have been. On the other hand, Into Darkness was just a mess, though I hope that it's just because Abrams had already checked out from the ST franchise since he'd gotten the 'Wars gig. Fortunately he didn't bring Lindelof, Kurtzman, or Orci with him, so that's another reason to be hopeful.

Every time I hear about Tomorrowland I'm more glad I didn't go see it

It wasn't 'bad' per se (to be fair to Bird the visuals were probably the strongest thing about it) but the script was a complete mess (both in terms of tone and pace), the third act felt totally out of place and certain things in the movie had creepy undertones they probably weren't aiming for

I liked Abrams' first Star Trek movie a lot, and being largely indifferent to the source material I don't give a shit how different it was

That's the argument I use with Petty, I A) couldn't give a toss how close to the TV series it was or B) how silly the plot was, as long as the film was entertaining and aware of its own shortcomings, Abrams suceeded on both counts i.m.o, it's clearly not a Star Trek film for trekkies but suceeds rather well at what it was trying to be.

Into Darkness was pretty stupid though

''Nah, he's not playing Khan...''

''...ok, yeah he is''

Into Darkness was the worst sort of pandering.  I think they must have had a checklist of stuff they figured fans would like (references to older stuff, things blowing up, the villain-is-deliberately-captured plot from The Dark Knight, Benedict Cumberbatch, and for some reason 9/11 Truther BS) and just threw it all in a blender with no regard for intelligibility or character.

it's clearly not a Star Trek film for trekkies but suceeds rather well at what it was trying to be.- Malick

But thats rather point. Its not a ST film. So why try to be? Given the characters and plot only minor tweaking would be needed to make it a separate new franchise, unconstrained by paying homage to an original it has no intention of being anything like.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:it's clearly not a Star Trek film for trekkies but suceeds rather well at what it was trying to be.- Malick

But thats rather point. Its not a ST film. So why try to be? Given the characters and plot only minor tweaking would be needed to make it a separate new franchise, unconstrained by paying homage to an original it has no intention of being anything like.

You and I both know the answer, big existing fan base and typical re-boot hype= guaranteed box office, it's lazy to be sure and understandably annoying for Trekkies, but few studios these days are willing to gamble $150 million on new standalone blockbuster properties.

Jackson pulled some of the same Tricks with The Thorin trilogy

But its also a terrible film with plot holes bigger than the plot, an insipid lethargic villain, some truly awful performances, a cheap crowd pleasing cameo, Simon Pegg managing to do a Scottish accent worse than the original, and no overall point save to ring those registers.

Knowing what ST stood for and meant to Gene Rodenberry that's worse than spitting on his grave, its spitting on his memory too. Even Hollywood should not stoop so low.

The only upside is the plethora of quality fan material now appearing like ST Continues which uphold the original vision.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But its also a terrible film with plot holes bigger than the plot, an insipid lethargic villain, some truly awful performances, a cheap crowd pleasing cameo, Simon Pegg managing to do a Scottish accent worse than the original, and no overall point save to ring those registers.

It was big, loud, and very very stupid (so Kirk just happens to be marooned on the same Planet as the older spock? ) but as I said in my other post I didn't really give a damn, it was fun and seemed self aware of its own stupidity, I personally found it a shallow, but very entertaining action flick.

Into Darkness was kinda crap though.