SW EP7 story supposedly to focus on Han, Luke, & Leia

[Ottoattack]

TBH, I would have rather had a movie that is set in a different era either around or before the first Galatia War or a couple of hundred years after episode 6. The reason is much about what we will see in episode 7 is already known considering the 28493284 SW stories about that era out there. And honestly, looking at SW history, this is by no means an interesting era. But it is easier and less risky to copy and paste rather than be creative.

[Kain_Turinbar]

Don't jump to the conclusion I am. I'm merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in his arguments i.e. that because the previous films produced by George Lucas were in his opinion bad the next films not produced by George Lucas will also be bad. In reality I whole heartedly respect George Lucas as an amazing storyteller and gifted director, I think the Prequels could have been done better but ultimately I enjoyed them, ROTS being probably my favourite Star Wars film. Drawing with Empire perhaps. And for the record, I have nothing against Ewoks, in fact I like them.

 

Agreed, and I wasn't necessarily saying you were but since you mentioned him by name it brought forward all the recent "now that he's out of the picture maybe we'll get some REAL Star Wars movies" sentiment that doesn't make sense since he is the guy that created it, after all.

 

There are solid criticisms of the 3 prequels which I touched on but they don't "ruin" those movies for me (and I don't know if 100% of these problems can be put on him) like others claim. Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Windu, and Palpatine alone are worth the price of admission to me.

[Beniboybling]

Agreed, and I wasn't necessarily saying you were but since you mentioned him by name it brought forward all the recent "now that he's out of the picture maybe we'll get some REAL Star Wars movies" sentiment that doesn't make sense since he is the guy that created it, after all.

 

There are solid criticisms of the 3 prequels which I touched on but they don't "ruin" those movies for me (and I don't know if 100% of these problems can be put on him) like others claim. Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Windu, and Palpatine alone are worth the price of admission to me.

I concur completely. People need to have more respect for the creator of the Star Wars universe.

 

He should really be a national treasure amongst fans.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Naked-Snake]

I wasn't aware that the Star Wars films represented the entirety of cinematic canon.

.

No it doesn't. What was your point again? This is a discussion about the new Star Wars films and their potential for success or failure and by extension the examination of previous films in the genre and how the were received. I don't think you even understood what you wrote there. No one but you compared Star Wars to the entirety of filmmaking (Waves Hand: this is the term you are looking for).

I mean films, all films not just Star Wars which does not represent the entirety of cinema. Does it? ???

 

And yes, I do mean Abrams among others. And no, why the hell would I research "good storytelling" - I'll know it when I see because I've enjoyed the story. And in so far of the Abram's films I've watched I've thoroughly enjoyed all of them and if they new movies are of the same standard I will be happy.

So your saying that if a movie was not enjoyable to you, it was poorly written/acted/produced/directed or any combination there of? You must be one hell of an experienced movie expert then?

The new Star Wars films are not being produced by George Lucas, they are being produced by the new generation of film makers who have brought us excellent films over the past few years.

Dont get me wrong I think JJ Abrams is pretty good at what he does. He will make a decent movie with lots of action a little suspense and a touch of drama however this is the problem. His movies always follow a similar format and have now become very predictable. What makes things worse is that in the next few year he has been thrown a lot of the major sci-fi/action projects like Portal and Halflife. Add the next Star Trek and another Star Wars trilogy into the mix and we have a lot of the same style throughout the genre for an important period of time in filmmaking.

 

Don't jump to the conclusion I am. I'm merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in his arguments i.e. that because the previous films produced by George Lucas were in his opinion bad the next films not produced by George Lucas will also be bad. In reality I whole heartedly respect George Lucas as an amazing storyteller and gifted director, I think the Prequels could have been done better but ultimately I enjoyed them, ROTS being probably my favourite Star Wars film. Drawing with Empire perhaps. And for the record, I have nothing against Ewoks, in fact I like them.

Your the one jumping to conclusions.

if you had actually read what I wrote Instead of making up nonsensical terms just to sound knowledgeable you would have realized that my opinion on the success of the new films has nothing to do with GL and everything to do with the state of movies(and entertainment in general) in this day and age. Excellent acting and filmmaking has been replaced by large explosions and CG effects. Visually stunning locales have been replaced by backdrops and blue screens. Why not cast Chris Pine or Ryan Gosling as Luke Skywalker because they are hot right now.

Did we really need another Spiderman reboot, do we really need another Star Wars? No.

The fact is that money is the deciding factor now instead of quality entertainment and the new films will be no exception. As long as it makes money at the box office who cares how many awards in wins. Right?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Naked-Snake

[Naked-Snake]

Hmm maybe that's your opinion but the fact is Avengers was extremely well received by critics and is one of the highest grossing films of all time.

 

Acting isn't a factor in movies? Not in high action high special effects movie like avengers. How many academy awards did it win? oh right! Interesting opinion, pretty sure you are in alone in that one.

 

Those are all good films, what's your idea of an amazing film? Gone with the wind? Get with the times seriously.

You are the one who claims Avengers is a "fantastic!" film. Those are your words not mine.

Gone With The Wind is considered one of the greatest movies ever made and won numerous Academy Awards, so Yes Id say that constitutes an amazing film.

[Kain_Turinbar]

The fact is that money is the deciding factor now instead of quality entertainment and the new films will be no exception. As long as it makes money at the box office who cares how many awards in wins. Right? [/Quote]

 

 

Money was always the real factor it just used to be that to get said money you had to put out quality entertainment.

 

Now even pure garbage can gross 500 mil.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Kain_Turinbar

[Beniboybling]

No it doesn't. What was your point again? This is a discussion about the new Star Wars films and their potential for success or failure and by extension the examination of previous films in the genre and how the were received. I don't think you even understood what you wrote there. No one but you compared Star Wars to the entirety of filmmaking (Waves Hand: this is the term you are looking for).

 

So your saying that if a movie was not enjoyable to you, it was poorly written/acted/produced/directed or any combination there of? You must be one hell of an experienced movie expert then?

 

Dont get me wrong I think JJ Abrams is pretty good at what he does. He will make a decent movie with lots of action a little suspense and a touch of drama however this is the problem. His movies always follow a similar format and have now become very predictable. What makes things worse is that in the next few year he has been thrown a lot of the major sci-fi/action projects like Portal and Halflife. Add the next Star Trek and another Star Wars trilogy into the mix and we have a lot of the same style throughout the genre for an important period of time in filmmaking.

 

Your the one jumping to conclusions.

if you had actually read what I wrote Instead of making up nonsensical terms just to sound knowledgeable you would have realized that my opinion on the success of the new films has nothing to do with GL and everything to do with the state of movies(and entertainment in general) in this day and age. Excellent acting and filmmaking has been replaced by large explosions and CG effects. Visually stunning locales have been replaced by backdrops and blue screens. Why not cast Chris Pine or Ryan Gosling as Luke Skywalker because they are hot right now.

Did we really need another Spiderman reboot, do we really need another Star Wars? No.

The fact is that money is the deciding factor now instead of quality entertainment and the new films will be no exception. As long as it makes money at the box office who cares how many awards in wins. Right?

1. You said, and I quote:

 

I really don't understand why people are so excited for more Star Wars movies. Given the state of movies these days and entertainment in general, any future Star Wars project can only end in disappointment.

 

You then tried to back that up by pointing out how past Star Wars films post-OT were bad. As if that has any bearing on cinema as a whole and more specifically the current movies who are being produced by different people. Moot point.

 

2. If I enjoyed the story I'll call it good storytelling - because that's what good storytelling is designed to do. If I didn't enjoy the story I won't necessarily call it bad storytelling, because I realise it may simply not appeal to my tastes. I cannot on the other hand enjoy bad storytelling, because bad storytelling is bad. And yeah, I'm enjoyed many stories told by modern filmmakers, those are therefore in my opinion good stories. And there's nothing you can do about it.

 

3. You need to consider more than just J.J in this equation, there are many more people such as Michael Arndt

Lawrence Kasdan, Kathleen Kennedy, Simon Kinberg, and George Lucas himself are involved on the project, many (if not most) are veterans from the original trilogy. This is not simply another Abrams film and he does not have a great deal of control over all the aspects, such as the story and the production etc.

 

4. Yeah, I get where your coming from and I disagree. I grew up in this era and I've seen quite a lot of films, quite a lot of them have been good and quite of lot of them have involved stunning CGI, stunning acting and stunning story. X-Men, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, Inception, Life of Pi, Gravity and Avatar to name a few.

 

And I also think that Super 8, Star Trek and Mission Impossible were great films as well. I'm expecting the new Star Wars films to be just as stellar as these productions, and those creating them are more than capable of achieving that.

[Beniboybling]

You are the one who claims Avengers is a "fantastic!" film. Those are your words not mine.

Gone With The Wind is considered one of the greatest movies ever made and won numerous Academy Awards, so Yes Id say that constitutes an amazing film.

Yeah, the acting in Gone with the Wind is pretty bad. Just one example of how far the industry as come since then.

 

P.S. The acting was the only thing that saved Avengers from being mediocre. I'm afraid you are talking out of your behind here. Point me to a slew of films with bad acting and you might just start making sense.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Naked-Snake]

1. You said, and I quote:

 

I really don't understand why people are so excited for more Star Wars movies. Given the state of movies these days and entertainment in general, any future Star Wars project can only end in disappointment.

 

You then tried to back that up by pointing out how past Star Wars films post-OT were bad. As if that has any bearing on cinema as a whole and more specifically the current movies who are being produced by different people. Moot point.

Doesn't it? Since those movies are a part of cinema and what's known as entertainment changes generationally as does music, fashion writing and television. There is no denying the decline of quality entertainment, most notably seen in the big budget action flick. Movies are no longer an art form but a business.

 

2. If I enjoyed the story I'll call it good storytelling - because that's what good storytelling is designed to do. If I didn't enjoy the story I won't necessarily call it bad storytelling, because I realise it may simply not appeal to my tastes. I cannot on the other hand enjoy bad storytelling, because bad storytelling is bad. And yeah, I'm enjoyed many stories told by modern filmmakers, those are therefore in my opinion good stories. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Im sure you are one of those people who enjoys hours of cat videos on youtube. That does not mean that those are considered quality filmmaking just because you enjoyed them. I would be interested to know what the oldest movie you enjoyed was?

 

3. You need to consider more than just J.J in this equation, there are many more people such as Michael Arndt

Lawrence Kasdan, Kathleen Kennedy, Simon Kinberg, and George Lucas himself are involved on the project, many (if not most) are veterans from the original trilogy. This is not simply another Abrams film and he does not have a great deal of control over all the aspects, such as the story and the production etc.

Your right for once, and this is the only ray of hope for these movies but make no mistake, this will be an Abrams movie.

4. Yeah, I get where your coming from and I disagree. I grew up in this era and I've seen quite a lot of films, quite a lot of them have been good and quite of lot of them have involved stunning CGI, stunning acting and stunning story. X-Men, Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight, Inception, Life of Pi, Gravity and Avatar to name a few.

You just lost your last shred of credibility here. You must be a troll. At least you said Inception.

And I also think that Super 8, Star Trek and Mission Impossible were great films as well. I'm expecting the new Star Wars films to be just as stellar as these productions, and those creating them are more than capable of achieving that.

From all that you have said it is apparent that you are easily amused by the shiny effects on screen and have no idea what constitutes a great film.

 

Yeah, the acting in Gone with the Wind is pretty bad. Just one example of how far the industry as come since then.

 

P.S. The acting was the only thing that saved Avengers from being mediocre. I'm afraid you are talking out of your behind here. Point me to a slew of films with bad acting and you might just start making sense.

 

So you admit Avengers would have been a mediocre film if not for the acting. Yet you claim that it was "fantastic"...get real.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Naked-Snake

[Naked-Snake]

I'm going to help you guys out by linking you to some truth.here I suggest listening to the address as well. Edited January 17, 2014 by Naked-Snake

[Aurbere]

Entertainment is subjective. Someone having a differing opinion to yours is not being a troll.

[Naked-Snake]

That is true. We all like what we like but the fact is that the standard of quality is not subjective. It is the standard and must be maintained.

I may like the taste of sh*t but that does not mean sh*t is good to eat.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Naked-Snake

[Projawa]

I heard rumors last year that David Fincher could direct one of the new films. I'd love to see what he could do with ep. 8 or 9 provided the powers that be don't hamstring him too much.

 

I'd also love to see an R rated SW flick even though that's never gonna happen.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Projawa

[Jandi]

Since lightsabers aren't real speculating on how they should be used is like speculation on how the force works. The less similar the sequences are to real life sword use the better IMO.

 

I pointed out what irks *me* about the new movies and their fighting scenes, if you don't care then why the need to start an argument?

 

The short fight between Obi and Vader in EP4 was the most realistic saber fight. If you flail around like a muppet all the opponent has to do is stick his saber out and let you skewer yourself into it. A fencing style would most likely be the most effective one with a weapon such as a lightsaber truth be told, as killing with it requires literally no momentum or strenght at all. It will go through a person like they were water.

 

Of course, that would be considered gay as hell, and the movie would be terrible.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Jandi

[Osetto]

That is true. We all like what we like but the fact is that the standard of quality is not subjective. It is the standard and must be maintained.

 

The standard of quality is totally subjective and can't be maintained due to the inconsistent/evolving nature of art. There is never a total consensus to whether a creative work is good or bad. No matter the thing being judged, there are numerous metrics to judge it, all of which are subject to an individual or group's predetermined notions and tastes. Certain traits and trends are seen as more valuable in an artistic work, but there is no universal measure. If someone values an engaging story and likable characters and a movie delivers that, they are allowed to consider something a quality work. It doesn't matter if it was a financial success or failure, it doesn't matter how short or long it was, it doesn't matter if it used puppets or CGI. Singular elements do not intrinsically add or subtract to a work's quality or artistic worth, it is how they are assembled and interact with one another. And the result is judged by the standards of the time, which are malleable and ever-changing.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Osetto

[Osetto]

I pointed out what irks *me* about the new movies and their fighting scenes, if you don't care then why the need to start an argument?

 

The short fight between Obi and Vader in EP4 was the most realistic saber fight. If you flail around like a muppet all the opponent has to do is stick his saber out and let you skewer yourself into it. A fencing style would most likely be the most effective one with a weapon such as a lightsaber truth be told, as killing with it requires literally no momentum or strenght at all. It will go through a person like they were water.

 

The most realistic saber fight would be the one that never occurs, if you think about it. I mean, you'd think powerhouses of the Force could think of ways to dispatch their enemies without engaging in melee combat. But I suppose that's why the concept of 'passive defenses' and 'Force shields' were introduced to make the Force ineffective when the plot demands it.

 

But really, considering the feats of strength Force-users are shown to be capable of and the wildly varied nature of the Force, there isn't really a way to equate saber duels with real swordsmanship. Weightless blades, intense momentum, lack of armor, boundless endurance, supreme acrobatics, telekinetics. At that point, even if a grounded, plain duel is called for, people start to wonder 'why aren't they doing more?' People want the flash and dazzle because they start to expect it after being told about all the things the great and powerful Jedi are capable of. There is no 'realism' to shoot for anymore, and really, there never was. It's about conforming to expectations. As as time goes on, the expectation shift toward the outlandish.

 

Of course, that would be considered gay as hell, and the movie would be terrible.

 

...

 

charming.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Osetto

[Callaron]

Hah, Agent Smith as an Imperial! I can see it happening!

[Naked-Snake]

The standard of quality is totally subjective and can't be maintained due to the inconsistent/evolving nature of art. There is never a total consensus to whether a creative work is good or bad. No matter the thing being judged, there are numerous metrics to judge it, all of which are subject to an individual or group's predetermined notions and tastes. Certain traits and trends are seen as more valuable in an artistic work, but there is no universal measure. If someone values an engaging story and likable characters and a movie delivers that, they are allowed to consider something a quality work. It doesn't matter if it was a financial success or failure, it doesn't matter how short or long it was, it doesn't matter if it used puppets or CGI. Singular elements do not intrinsically add or subtract to a work's quality or artistic worth, it is how they are assembled and interact with one another. And the result is judged by the standards of the time, which are malleable and ever-changing.

Your wrong. There has always been a standard, a minimum level of quality that is considered the line between good and bad. No matter how much something entertains you if enough aspects of it were poorly produced then it is of low quality. This is true in all things and is the reason why we go to school to learn and try to gain more experience in life. It is the reason why we have Food tasters, safety inspectors and of course movie critics. The standard does exist even if you don't realise it.

 

This is exactly what Ive been saying. Sure movies these days have awesome CGI, its 2014. We can do thing these days that were incredibly difficult to do back in the 80s, 60s, 40s, sound is better, film quality is better. Are movies considered better now even if all these fancy new toys are poorly implemented? People these days are blinded by the technology and the spectacle and don't realize that the dialogue and even the cinematography is terrible.

 

Enjoying a movie is one thing but we need to look past the eyecandy and pay more attention to what really matters.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Naked-Snake

[sell-dog]

From all that you have said it is apparent that you are easily amused by the shiny effects on screen and have no idea what constitutes a great film.

 

So you admit Avengers would have been a mediocre film if not for the acting. Yet you claim that it was "fantastic"...get real.

 

First off I was born in the late 80's and like the movies I'm about to list. These movies all have parts that are considered "corny" or "over the top" nowadays or "unrealistic fight scenes in what is supposed to be a real world movie" both then and now. Let's not be silly and act like one generation's films were so awesome and another generation's are terrible as this is the same tune that is played every 25 years. In fact, I can hear my grandfather's voice criticizing Steve McQueen movies (my father's hero) as I speak. Please remember again I like all these movies so these are all swept under the rug for me but just giving some insight of a different perspective. And if this will add any credibility my favorite movies are: Braveheart, Gladiator, Untouchables, and Last of the Mohicans. Favorite movie of the past 2 years is Jack Reacher. I'm not guessing whether or not you like these movies below but these are movies idealized from "back in the day":

 

-James Bond villians from the late 60s-early 80s (Jaws, Blofeld, Oddjob). In fact these characters so much fall into these categories that the entire Austin Powers franchise is somewhat based on this perception

-Highlander-watch when Connor is underwater and is surprised he is still alive, not the best acting/corny, even the memorable quote "There can be only one" applies here as well

-Khan from "Wrath of Khan" looks more suited for a fashion runway somewhere than as a feared supervillian

-True Grit 1969 (which btw is my favorite of this list), John Wayne has his horse's reins in his mouth, a rifle in both hands, riding his horse, shooting at moving targets outnumbered, and even turns around to shoot behind him at these targets and wins the day. I love the scene, but let's be honest that is over the top and unrealistic.

 

Everyone is subjective and biased to one's preferences which in part will be due to the era in which they were born and have some nostalgia to. I truly hope I portray that I'm just giving a different perspective and not being ridiculous/rude.

[ScarletBlaze]

Your wrong. There has always been a standard, a minimum level of quality that is considered the line between good and bad. No matter how much something entertains you if enough aspects of it were poorly produced then it is of low quality. This is true in all things and is the reason why we go to school to learn and try to gain more experience in life. It is the reason why we have Food tasters, safety inspectors and of course movie critics. The standard does exist even if you don't realise it.

 

This is exactly what Ive been saying. Sure movies these days have awesome CGI, its 2014. We can do thing these days that were incredibly difficult to do back in the 80s, 60s, 40s, sound is better, film quality is better. Are movies considered better now even if all these fancy new toys are poorly implemented? People these days are blinded by the technology and the spectacle and don't realize that the dialogue and even the cinematography is terrible.

 

Enjoying a movie is one thing but we need to look past the eyecandy and pay more attention to what really matters.

 

When people enjoy a movie that is really the only thing that matters. Whether or not someone else agrees doesn't really matter. If I don't like something there isn't a way to convince me otherwise and I think that is the same with most people same as if I like something you are not going to convince me otherwise. Whether it has all the "shiny new toys or not" doesn't matter to me. What matters is if I like it or not. I also enjoyed all the Star Wars movies no matter if I liked Jar Jar Binks or not.

Edited January 17, 2014 by ScarletBlaze

[Osetto]

Your wrong. There has always been a standard, a minimum level of quality that is considered the line between good and bad. No matter how much something entertains you if enough aspects of it were poorly produced then it is of low quality. This is true in all things and is the reason why we go to school to learn and try to gain more experience in life. It is the reason why we have Food tasters, safety inspectors and of course movie critics. The standard does exist even if you don't realize it.

 

This is exactly what Ive been saying. Sure movies these days have awesome CGI, its 2014. We can do thing these days that were incredibly difficult to do back in the 80s, 60s, 40s, sound is better, film quality is better. Are movies considered better now even if all these fancy new toys are poorly implemented? People these days are blinded by the technology and the spectacle and don't realize that the dialogue and even the cinematography is terrible.

 

Enjoying a movie is one thing but we need to look past the eyecandy and pay more attention to what really matters.

 

Who defines poorly produced? If there were a uniform standard of judgement, why do critics disagree on movies? Assuming they are all qualified, shouldn't every competent reviewer possess the same, exact opinion? And yet they don't. Different people have different values, and make different judgements regarding the same presentations.

 

The standards for food dictate what is safe and edible, not how good something tastes. Safety inspectors determine whether a building is fit for use, they don't critique its artistic design. The only standard you can apply to a movie, is whether or not it is or isn't a movie, instead of a book or painting. Only the simplest tests of competence and craft can be said to possess any objectivity. Artistic standards only tell us what to judge, not how to judge them. We judge characters, plots, cohesion, and the various elements that make up a movie. How we judge them changes. It's art. Not mathematics. Nothing is absolute, and everything can be challenged.

 

Do we view movies the same way we do now as we did decades ago? Are depictions of violence and sexuality judged the same way now as fifty years ago? Heroes and anti-heroes? Drama and comedy? Do we possess the same standards and ideals with which to judge a movie's content? If there are universal standards, then what value is there in being experimental? Or playing with tropes? Or subverting expectations?

[RTCBrad]

You are the one who claims Avengers is a "fantastic!" film. Those are your words not mine.

Gone With The Wind is considered one of the greatest movies ever made and won numerous Academy Awards, so Yes Id say that constitutes an amazing film.

 

Yeah maybe it did win awards in 1939, but by today's standard it would be straight-to-DVD and barely classed as B-movie.

 

Which is exactly my point, movies now are far superior to what they were, and hollywood has come a long way. Avengers is a great example of that, if you can't/don't want to move on from 1939 that's fine, but accept that other people can and do.

[Telaan]

This thread has gone from a discussion about the focus of ep 7 to a bunch of people trying to change the others opinion on a subjective issue that is, ultimately, completely pointless.

 

No wonder art critics are laughed at for being delusional introverts.

[Phrase]

Your wrong. There has always been a standard, a minimum level of quality that is considered the line between good and bad. No matter how much something entertains you if enough aspects of it were poorly produced then it is of low quality. This is true in all things and is the reason why we go to school to learn and try to gain more experience in life. It is the reason why we have Food tasters, safety inspectors and of course movie critics. The standard does exist even if you don't realise it.

 

This is exactly what Ive been saying. Sure movies these days have awesome CGI, its 2014. We can do thing these days that were incredibly difficult to do back in the 80s, 60s, 40s, sound is better, film quality is better. Are movies considered better now even if all these fancy new toys are poorly implemented? People these days are blinded by the technology and the spectacle and don't realize that the dialogue and even the cinematography is terrible.

 

Enjoying a movie is one thing but we need to look past the eyecandy and pay more attention to what really matters.

 

Actually both Van Gogh and Emily Dickinson were considered hacks in their day. In fact, the idea of standard objective measures of worth don't even hold up in science. Copernicus' discoveries were derided as the ravings of a lunatic in his day, as were many of DaVinci's inventions.

 

To say that art has any objective standards is to demonstrate a poor understanding of art.

 

As for the new Ep. 7 movies we can't really use the pre-quels as accurate predictors of success since no one involved with those films are involved with the new trilogy.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Phrase

[Jandi]

 

No wonder art critics are laughed at for being delusional introverts.

 

Bunch of hipsters in khaki pants, fake glasses and vest shirts arguing whether or not a bloch of paint is neo-post-modernism is hardly the same as what you see here.