HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Entertainment
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Entertainment Discuss movies, tv shows, music, arts, literature, fashion, and upcoming events, concerts, etc.

Disney purchases Lucasfilm - Star Wars Episode VII to be released in 2015

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2013, 02:16 PM
  #351
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,509
vCash: 500
JJ Abrams is terrible. It's as if they made it their explicit objective to find the worst possible filmmaker. It's not just that his movies are flashy and lacking in substance, it's that they're utterly stupid and boring in their flashiness and lack of substance. The recent Star Trek movie is a case study in awful filmmaking. I feel sorry for Star Wars fans.

Hugh Mann* is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 02:50 PM
  #352
Eternal Sunshine
 
Eternal Sunshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Somalia
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
My gut feeling is that with Abrams at the helm, I won't care for it. I hope he proves me wrong, though.

Eternal Sunshine is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 03:01 PM
  #353
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 48,016
vCash: 500
They should've had David Lynch direct it.

Warm Cookies is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 04:45 PM
  #354
invictus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
They should've had David Lynch direct it.
Or David Fincher.

Since I always confuse the two

invictus is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 06:06 PM
  #355
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,615
vCash: 50
Yeah I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I was really hoping they'd find someone very talented but still unknown that would have a stake in making this his breakout movie. Like Peter Jackson with the Lord of the Rings trilogy or Joss Whedon with The Avengers.

That seems to be the best way to get things done these days.

RandV is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 06:11 PM
  #356
Cloned
Dial M for Michelle
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,335
vCash: 500
Wow, you know what this means.

Star Trek-Star Wars crossover.

__________________

Sig AND X-mas avatar courtesy of The Nemesis

"Pull yourself together!" - Solid Snake to Otacon, multiple times in the series
Cloned is offline  
Old
01-26-2013, 10:32 PM
  #357
snowden
Man is matter
 
snowden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,881
vCash: 1742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned View Post
Wow, you know what this means.
Lens flares. And lots of them.

snowden is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 03:47 AM
  #358
Cloned
Dial M for Michelle
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,335
vCash: 500
Chris Pine as Anakin Solo is a given.

Cloned is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 05:34 AM
  #359
La Cosa Nostra
Caporegime
 
La Cosa Nostra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
Or David Fincher.

Since I always confuse the two
David Fincher ruined the other great Sci-Fi Franchise (Alien series) with his "directing" of Alien 3.He should never be allowed to come near Star Wars.

La Cosa Nostra is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 07:32 AM
  #360
Jussi
No strings on me
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The lunatic fridge
Country: Finland
Posts: 50,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloned View Post
Chris Pine as Anakin Solo is a given.
And some nerdy, angsty character played by some guy who no one knows.

Jussi is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 07:47 AM
  #361
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 12,342
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi View Post
And some nerdy, angsty character played by some guy who no one knows.
Michael Cera

Graveland is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 08:04 AM
  #362
MadDevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bismarck, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 10,180
vCash: 500
I'm still on the fence with Abrams. I liked the Trek reboot, but Super 8 was a bit of a dud to me. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

At least Lucas isn't directing them (he's great with ideas but terrible at directing).

MadDevil is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:21 AM
  #363
Fire Lindy
Trust the System
 
Fire Lindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,842
vCash: 500
I thought Super 8 was okay, I'd like to hear what kids thought of it. Maybe they loved it like I loved "The Goonies" when I was a kid.

Fire Lindy is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 09:46 AM
  #364
Use the Schwartz*
****in' eh
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,512
vCash: 500
Abrams did a good job with Star Trek, I think itll be fine.

Use the Schwartz* is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 12:24 PM
  #365
Central PA Hawk Fan
Registered User
 
Central PA Hawk Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: York, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,547
vCash: 500
IMO, this is a solid choice and probably the right one, atleast for the first new star wars flick. this is about forgetting the tripe of the prequels and getting back to the spirit of the originals, I think Abrams will understand this. Then if they want, disney can go a little more "risque" for the later films.

Central PA Hawk Fan is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 01:50 PM
  #366
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
 
RobBrown4PM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
I don't have a lot of hope for the new SW directed by Abrams.

He ruined Star Trek with his awful reboot. Star Trek was never about dramatic over the top action scenes. ST is more like chess is space, with intriguing characters and a ton of science revolving around it all.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of action in ST. Take DS9 for example, it had tons of action. But the action had a purpose, that purpose being to further the plot and to expand and add detail to the characters. It was quite masterfully done.

Abrams action scenes served 0 purpose. They were input into the film to make the audience go 'ohhhh' 'ahhhhh' 'ooooooo'.

RobBrown4PM is online now  
Old
01-27-2013, 01:59 PM
  #367
shello
@WShello9
 
shello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ile-Perrot, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobBrown4PM View Post
I don't have a lot of hope for the new SW directed by Abrams.

He ruined Star Trek with his awful reboot. Star Trek was never about dramatic over the top action scenes. ST is more like chess is space, with intriguing characters and a ton of science revolving around it all.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of action in ST. Take DS9 for example, it had tons of action. But the action had a purpose, that purpose being to further the plot and to expand and add detail to the characters. It was quite masterfully done.

Abrams action scenes served 0 purpose. They were input into the film to make the audience go 'ohhhh' 'ahhhhh' 'ooooooo'.
I wasn't a fan of Star Trek until this reboot, I found it boring (I didn't give it much of a chance however), but this reboot has made me a fan because of its higher pace and more action. Chess in space won't sell in today's world, people will just get bored and leave. So the no purpose action parts will make them stay and make the studio money.

This version is probably a lot different than the older ones, but Abarams brought a dead franchise back to life and made new a lot of people new fans of the franchise with his changes, so the franchise lasts another 40 years.

shello is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 06:03 PM
  #368
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shello View Post
I wasn't a fan of Star Trek until this reboot, I found it boring (I didn't give it much of a chance however), but this reboot has made me a fan because of its higher pace and more action.
I get what you're saying, but I'd like to gently suggest that you're not really a fan of Star Trek, but more a fan of that film or, broadly, that style of film. The recent reboot is hardly Trek at all. I think that, and I hate to sound like a fan nerd, in order to really be a fan of Star Trek, you have to have an appreciation for the universe, themes and pacing that Gene Roddenberry created half a century ago. He didn't create it all merely to serve as entertainment, as a vehicle for lots of action. He created it all to explore themes relating to humanity and get people thinking. Yes, it was also meant to be entertaining, but not at the expense of nobler goals. When you take away the themes and the brain stimulation and you're left with pretty much only entertainment, as the reboot was, you don't really have Star Trek anymore, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shello
Chess in space won't sell in today's world, people will just get bored and leave. So the no purpose action parts will make them stay and make the studio money.
I think that "chess in space" will sell if it's done well. The problem is that that's a lot harder to do well than wall-to-wall action. You can have 120 minutes of one space battle or car chase after another and you'll keep a lot of people interested, but taking away all of that and having a dialogue-driven 120-minute movie, for example, is significantly harder. Anybody can write one action scene after another, but a really good screenwriter is needed to pull off a movie which doesn't rely on that. Non-action parts that are boring are the fault of mediocre-to-average screenwriters (and, maybe, the directors).

"Chess in space" doesn't mean boring or no action. Cold War movies aren't boring. Suspense can be highly entertaining. I think that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is a perfect example of "chess in space." Each "move" was an action piece, but each was short, sweet and had a purpose, and the time between each was filled with suspense. ST6 did very well in theaters and with non-Trek fans.

Yes, there will be some people who get bored if there isn't wall-to-wall action. On the other hand, though, there are people who will stay home if that's not their cup of tea. I had seen every Star Trek movie except the very first one (too young) in the theater until the reboot came out, so that's $10 that the studio lost. I also own every movie until the reboot on DVD, so that's another $10-20 lost. There are new "fans" to make up for me, yes, but the point is that going all-action isn't a win-win; there are lost customers, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shello
This version is probably a lot different than the older ones, but Abarams brought a dead franchise back to life and made new a lot of people new fans of the franchise with his changes, so the franchise lasts another 40 years.
Abrams didn't really bring a dead franchise back to life, IMO. It's more like he ran electricity through the corpse to make it appear to be alive. There's animation, but no real substance. Maybe if it had been based around new characters and settings, there'd be something to build around, to sculpt a new generation of Trek, but we're just rehashing the old generation with a new style, so there's really nowhere to go but more rehashing. You might get away with that if you're adding substance where it was lacking before (ex. Battlestar Galactica), but we're talking about taking substance away and replacing it with style, which are empty calories.

At least with Star Wars, it'll have to be about new characters in new settings, so it won't be a rehash. I don't know how good it'll be, but it should be something different to build a new generation of Star Wars on.

Osprey is offline  
Old
01-27-2013, 11:42 PM
  #369
awesomo
HARD!
 
awesomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,747
vCash: 500
how do the hardcore nerds react to having the same producer make both movies

awesomo is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 12:42 AM
  #370
kingsholygrail
You Face Jaraxxus!
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 51,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I get what you're saying, but I'd like to gently suggest that you're not really a fan of Star Trek, but more a fan of that film or, broadly, that style of film. The recent reboot is hardly Trek at all. I think that, and I hate to sound like a fan nerd, in order to really be a fan of Star Trek, you have to have an appreciation for the universe, themes and pacing that Gene Roddenberry created half a century ago. He didn't create it all merely to serve as entertainment, as a vehicle for lots of action. He created it all to explore themes relating to humanity and get people thinking. Yes, it was also meant to be entertaining, but not at the expense of nobler goals. When you take away the themes and the brain stimulation and you're left with pretty much only entertainment, as the reboot was, you don't really have Star Trek anymore, IMO.



I think that "chess in space" will sell if it's done well. The problem is that that's a lot harder to do well than wall-to-wall action. You can have 120 minutes of one space battle or car chase after another and you'll keep a lot of people interested, but taking away all of that and having a dialogue-driven 120-minute movie, for example, is significantly harder. Anybody can write one action scene after another, but a really good screenwriter is needed to pull off a movie which doesn't rely on that. Non-action parts that are boring are the fault of mediocre-to-average screenwriters (and, maybe, the directors).

"Chess in space" doesn't mean boring or no action. Cold War movies aren't boring. Suspense can be highly entertaining. I think that Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is a perfect example of "chess in space." Each "move" was an action piece, but each was short, sweet and had a purpose, and the time between each was filled with suspense. ST6 did very well in theaters and with non-Trek fans.

Yes, there will be some people who get bored if there isn't wall-to-wall action. On the other hand, though, there are people who will stay home if that's not their cup of tea. I had seen every Star Trek movie except the very first one (too young) in the theater until the reboot came out, so that's $10 that the studio lost. I also own every movie until the reboot on DVD, so that's another $10-20 lost. There are new "fans" to make up for me, yes, but the point is that going all-action isn't a win-win; there are lost customers, too.



Abrams didn't really bring a dead franchise back to life, IMO. It's more like he ran electricity through the corpse to make it appear to be alive. There's animation, but no real substance. Maybe if it had been based around new characters and settings, there'd be something to build around, to sculpt a new generation of Trek, but we're just rehashing the old generation with a new style, so there's really nowhere to go but more rehashing. You might get away with that if you're adding substance where it was lacking before (ex. Battlestar Galactica), but we're talking about taking substance away and replacing it with style, which are empty calories.

At least with Star Wars, it'll have to be about new characters in new settings, so it won't be a rehash. I don't know how good it'll be, but it should be something different to build a new generation of Star Wars on.
That depends entirely on how far into the expanded universe JJ is going to go with Episode VII. If he picks it up relatively soon after Jedi, he can't avoid recasting Luke Skywalker, Leia, and Han Solo.

kingsholygrail is online now  
Old
01-28-2013, 01:51 AM
  #371
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,615
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by shello View Post
I wasn't a fan of Star Trek until this reboot, I found it boring (I didn't give it much of a chance however), but this reboot has made me a fan because of its higher pace and more action. Chess in space won't sell in today's world, people will just get bored and leave. So the no purpose action parts will make them stay and make the studio money.

This version is probably a lot different than the older ones, but Abarams brought a dead franchise back to life and made new a lot of people new fans of the franchise with his changes, so the franchise lasts another 40 years.
In addition to what Osprey said you're really overstating things here. Gene Roddenberry launched a 40 year franchise that created it's own culture, 5 TV (I think?) series over 4 decades with hundreds of episodes, and numerous movies. You can toss in a number of books and movies as well.

Not to discredit Abrams but all he did was take an existing cherished IP with a lot of history behind it and created a big budget movie for the summer blockbuster crowd. This isn't the type of audience that will create a lasting culture around the series though, as the group attention span will last only as long as till the next flashy blockbuster hits the screens. The movie was good but easily forgettable.

RandV is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 02:27 AM
  #372
kingsholygrail
You Face Jaraxxus!
 
kingsholygrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Derpifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 51,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
In addition to what Osprey said you're really overstating things here. Gene Roddenberry launched a 40 year franchise that created it's own culture, 5 TV (I think?) series over 4 decades with hundreds of episodes, and numerous movies. You can toss in a number of books and movies as well.

Not to discredit Abrams but all he did was take an existing cherished IP with a lot of history behind it and created a big budget movie for the summer blockbuster crowd. This isn't the type of audience that will create a lasting culture around the series though, as the group attention span will last only as long as till the next flashy blockbuster hits the screens. The movie was good but easily forgettable.
I find these points always so funny because the most popular of the Star Trek films were all the most action oriented.

kingsholygrail is online now  
Old
01-28-2013, 07:09 AM
  #373
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsholygrail View Post
I find these points always so funny because the most popular of the Star Trek films were all the most action oriented.
And that much of the best Star Trek happened without Gene's direct involvement, such as Star Trek II, the middle seasons of Star Trek: TNG, and all of DS9.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
01-28-2013, 09:27 AM
  #374
Habsfunk
Registered User
 
Habsfunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: BC
Posts: 3,236
vCash: 500
I would have preferred Brad Bird to direct. He's proven able to direct family-friendly action movies enjoyable to everyone (The Incredibles) and he can do big action movies too (MI4). I think he would have done a good job creating a kid-friendly Star Wars without dumbing it down for the older crowds and uber-geeks.

Habsfunk is online now  
Old
01-28-2013, 10:04 AM
  #375
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: La Plata, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 22,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfunk View Post
I would have preferred Brad Bird to direct. He's proven able to direct family-friendly action movies enjoyable to everyone (The Incredibles) and he can do big action movies too (MI4). I think he would have done a good job creating a kid-friendly Star Wars without dumbing it down for the older crowds and uber-geeks.
That's part of the problem. Kid friendly was the core of Episode I, and in a lot of ways some of the prequels.

If you want to keep it alive, it needs to get beyond campy, and get a bit more gritty and action packed.

Sure, there was a bit of camp in the originals, but there was also a bit of suspense (at least the first time or two) in whether or not they were going to make it. You knew they would, but it wasn't a forgone conclusion. The Vader Cloud City fight sequence is one that comes to mind. You can have a bit of grit and it doesn't have to be campy all the time.

Chimaera is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.