Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/31 17:09:13
Subject: Re:Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
its the storyline execution.
George couldn't write lines for his actors worth schiz.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 17:49:23
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
Thinking about it a few things they could do for a 7th movie.
Dark Empire Luke teams up with a cloned Palpatine to find out why his father went to the dark side. This is where Luke learns to master the dark side of the force while everyone else runs from the Hutts.
Not a bad idea and supposedly one they thought to do before for a movie. Although it has been many years since any of the original actors played their parts and this particular story is based 6yrs after RotJ.
Thrawn trilogy. A really good story to introduce new characters in to the mix...but once again, takes place only a few years after RotJ and still has some of the original characters.
Legacy Era. Set over 30yrs after the 6th movie and focused a lot on the other characters, some of them being children of the original characters. This has the most potential for a 7th movie and possible new launch pad for more to come.
I'm back!
2012/10/31 19:35:15
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
...all that proves is that the internet is full of vitriolic bs. The prequels are fine, maybe not as good as the originals for the reasons pointed out above, but nothing worth all this nerd-rage.
Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
2012/10/31 20:01:13
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
...all that proves is that the internet is full of vitriolic bs. The prequels are fine, maybe not as good as the originals for the reasons pointed out above, but nothing worth all this nerd-rage.
Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all. In this scene you can tell Luke doesn't want to hurt his father by how defensive he is with his light sabre and by jumping and
away and hiding from him, but as Darth Vader taunts him, Luke succumbs to his anger and starts wailing his weapon at him causing him to loose accuracy and control at the same time and eventuality cutting Vader's arm off you can see the power of Dark Side how succumbing to anger
hate can be a powerful thing. Where in this Star Wars 2 battle the screen is clutterwith gak making it too busy and cluttered for your brain to get a sense of what's going on, Jedi flawlessly cut though all the droids destroying any tension in the scene therefore making it boring to watch.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 20:04:16
2012/10/31 20:01:23
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Am I the only one that think there is ZERO chance the storyline is going to be something we already know? Like the Thrawn series or anything really.
I can only see a whole new story made up for this. Most kids haven't read a lot of Star Wars books from 90's and I'm sure they're well aware of potential nerd-rage boycotts if they alter a known story too much.
Just my thoughts.
2012/10/31 21:29:00
Subject: Re:Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
The most powerful comparison is between the opening of Star Wars and The Phantom Menace, as pointed out by Red Letter Media.
We have a totally flat opening where boring emotionless characters talk about trade, blockades, and taxes.
Versus
Which tells us without any boring, flat dialogue - without any dialogue at all, exactly how desperate and outgunned the rebels are. It shows us the overwhelming might of the Empire, and once again to borrow from red letter media, is such a brilliantly filmed scene that George Lucas had nothing to do with it, and probably fought to keep it out of the movie. And that's the real problem, you don't let your idea man control the entire process. His nonsense needs to be winnowed down into good ideas.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/10/31 21:31:52
2012/10/31 22:08:25
Subject: Re:Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
I think they'd be foolish to completely ignore the EU. There's some good stuff there after all. They can take some things from the EU that longtime fans like and enjoy, but that the general public is completely unaware of and reinvent it at their leisure. I think the Thawn Trilogy or Legacy of Force could easily be crafted into a very good series of films.
Nevertheless, today E! and The Wrap both have the first of what will be untold millions of tiny clues to be pored over, if Lucas has his way, for the next 100 years, beginning with the assertion that Star Wars: Episodes 7 through 9 will all be based on "an original story"—not Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, as many have suggested or even demanded, and likely not anything else that's been deemed official canon in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Ergo, your extensive knowledge of all things Joruus C'Baoth and ysalamiri is useless, except for the purposes of getting people to have sex with you.
Instead, it will be based on "nothing you've ever seen or read before"—that is, unless you're Dale Pollock, author of the unauthorized Lucas biography Skywalking, who claims he already read Lucas' plans for 12 overall Star Wars films, back when George Lucas was still talking to him. If you believe Pollock—and you assume that nothing has changed since the 1980s—Episodes 7 through 9 are the "three most exciting stories" of the entire saga, containing "propulsive action, really interesting new worlds, [and] new characters," which is just vague enough to be accurate. However, he also claims that they concern a Luke Skywalker "in his 30s and 40s," meaning the series would have to recast the role if they went in this direction, and everyone would then probably start freaking out about that.
But again, that's presuming that these treatments are still in play, even as new Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy recently said they were just now sitting down with writers to really hammer things out, while other sources have also told The Hollywood Reporter that one of Disney's plans could involve turning Star Wars into "an Avengers-style movie universe," one that would go beyond the next trilogy into spinoff movies focusing on individual characters. These assertions definitely suggest that there's obviously still a lot of new, very fresh decisions being made, well beyond what Pollock may or may not have read 30 years ago, and possibly beyond what Lucas (who, we remind, is no longer in charge) may have had in mind
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 22:31:18
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/10/31 22:28:24
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
I don't see why they couldn't have the best of both worlds. - A bit like what the Marvel films are compared to the comics. Make a new story with the best / most memorable parts from the comics and sticking to their spirit.
Like, have Thrawn there as a big bad, the noghri events (mostly because of Thrawns final scene), but not the same story line as the trilogy.
2012/10/31 22:40:58
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 23:11:30
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Testify wrote: Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
This part shows why you're wrong. The most important thing at ~7:45.
Star Wars are not what they are because of lightsaber fights. It never was an action move, why try to change it into one?
Just like Star Trek is not about fight scenes
Good things are good,.. so it's good
Keep our city clean.
Report your death to the Department of Expiration
2012/10/31 23:36:23
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
I can't for the life of me imagine anyone who has eyes can think the prequels are better movies, and I think the original is a bit overrated, RotJ borders on ridiculous, with only Empire being an great bit of cinema. Everything about them is sub par. The special effects don't even hold up all that well. The dialogue is atrocious, the acting wooden (barring moments from Obi Wan), and the light saber battles are over-choreographed; they are sound and fury signifying nothing; they lack emotion or catharsis. To top of this turd Sunday the only remotely interesting characters are killed off in the first prequel: Qui-Gon and Darth Maul.
Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/10/31 23:45:17
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Ahtman wrote: Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
When you're talking about personal opinion, for most people I would think that liking something better would make it better. If I like RotS better than RotJ, then from my point of view RotS is the better movie.
A great many things depend on your point of view, or so I've heard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 23:45:31
2012/10/31 23:51:28
Subject: Re:Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
An old Jedi in a swamp once said almost that very thing...
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ahtman wrote: Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
When you're talking about personal opinion, for most people I would think that liking something better would make it better. If I like RotS better than RotJ, then from my point of view RotS is the better movie.
And yet, it doesn't actually work that way. I can appreciate the Mona Lisa for a myriad of reasons and think it is an important work, and yet not really like it that much personally. I guess it is a more sophisticated understanding between the viewer and the viewed, but I see no reason to pretend that staying at a surface level appreciation should be held as equally worthwhile as serious consideration and understanding of a work in a given medium.
And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/01 00:19:55
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/11/01 00:49:54
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Ahtman wrote: And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
Which is relevant if you're a movie critic. Much less so for everyone else.
I watch movies for entertainment. As such, my criteria for determining whether or not a movie is better than another is whether or not it entertained me more than the other.
'Saving Private Ryan' might have been a cinematic masterpiece so far as movie critics are concerned... but the Princess Bride is still a better movie in my opinion, because I actually enjoyed watching it and don't consider it a huge, wasted chunk of an afternoon that I will just never get back...
The technical brilliance of a movie is not always directly proportional to its value as entertainment. So 'better' comes down to just what you are rating it for.
2012/11/01 01:03:34
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all.
They're Jedi. They're the professional swordsmen of the era, and completely emotionally controlled. The fact that they're emotionaless, perfectly clean fights is, well, how it should be.
Cheesecat wrote: In this scene you can tell Luke doesn't want to hurt his father by how defensive he is with his light sabre and by jumping and away and hiding from him, but as Darth Vader taunts him, Luke succumbs to his anger and starts wailing his weapon at him causing him to loose accuracy and control at the same time and eventuality cutting Vader's arm off you can see the power of Dark Side how succumbing to anger
He's a naive apprentice, still unable to control his emotions, pretty much still untrained as a swordsman in a fight with his father who he doesn't want to kill.
So basically you hate the prequel fights for being exactly what they should be and love the OT fights because they're exactly what they should be?
2012/11/01 01:14:12
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all.
They're Jedi. They're the professional swordsmen of the era, and completely emotionally controlled. The fact that they're emotionaless, perfectly clean fights is, well, how it should be.
Except there is three appeals for an audience when you're trying to keep them involved with the scene emotion, imagination and morality, If there's nothing that get's at your emotions in a movie then the audience will get bored, the audience's relationship should always be considered if
you're trying to create well made film.
2012/11/01 01:17:20
Subject: Re:Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I lost all respect for George after RotS. Anakins silly turning scene was so utterly stupid. He goes from crying "what have I done" to "I'll do whatever you ask me to" in the span of, what, three seconds?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ahtman wrote: And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
Which is relevant if you're a movie critic. Much less so for everyone else.
I watch movies for entertainment. As such, my criteria for determining whether or not a movie is better than another is whether or not it entertained me more than the other.
'Saving Private Ryan' might have been a cinematic masterpiece so far as movie critics are concerned... but the Princess Bride is still a better movie in my opinion, because I actually enjoyed watching it and don't consider it a huge, wasted chunk of an afternoon that I will just never get back...
The technical brilliance of a movie is not always directly proportional to its value as entertainment. So 'better' comes down to just what you are rating it for.
But don't you ever question why you found a movie entertaining?
2012/11/01 01:56:10
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
2012/11/01 02:05:09
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
insaniak wrote: Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
Yup... that's how I see it.
John Carter was universally panned as a bad movie...but I enjoyed it!
Oh... you're spot on The Princess Bride
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/11/01 02:08:24
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
insaniak wrote: Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
I think it's possible to separate enjoyment and quality (maybe not completely though) but I do think enjoyment will give a certain bias towards the thing you're qualifying.
2012/11/01 02:13:32
Subject: Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4.05 Billion.
