On January 25 2013 23:07 MilesTeg wrote: Abrahams is.. OK. Not great, not the best name being thrown around but definitely not the worst. I can't help but to be a bit disappointed that it's not Del Toro or Bird but it could've been worse.
He did a great job with Star Trek, I think he is a really good, if not extremely obvious choice, to take on Star Wars.
On January 26 2013 01:20 HeatEXTEND wrote:
On January 26 2013 01:04 paralleluniverse wrote: This should be awesome. I love Abrams' works, especially Alias, Lost, and Cloverfield.
Cloverfield was horrible :[, you have a giant monster running around, but decide to focus on the human drama involved in such a situation.........so creative and original.........*loud farting noise".
Eh, I was little disappointed with Cloverfield as well but it definitely wasn't "horrible". Not the best creature feature around nor the worst.
I agree with you. I loved the new Trek and though I didn't watch lost I think Abrams is great choice for the movie (would have loved to see Joss Whedon direct it though) I am excited for the new ones and anyone who isn't is just saying that to be a part of the **I only like the original three cause I am a hipster nerd** club.
Saying I can't not look forward to the new ones is to be a little bit of an asshole. I'll take the title of hipster over asshole, really.
I didn't say you can't look forward to the new ones. I said if you are not looking forward to them its only to be a hipster
I think you need to re-read what I wrote.
Says the guy who used double negatives? I was saying that if we have movie X directed by JJ Abrams people would be excited about it (most of them) but since it is star wars people are saying it will be bad just because of this hipster I only liked the first three movies persona.
I am not saying it'll be bad. I am saying I am not looking forward to it. You said that people who don't look forward to the new movies are hipsters, I said that you're an asshole because that's what you think.
I don't care who directs what, really. Mostly because I don't know of any, especially not who did what.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
Masterpiece is quite an exageration seriously. And episode 6 is a straight up bad movie.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
The only one i would consider a masterpiece is "Empire strikes back". Everyone is entlited to their opinion though.
On January 26 2013 04:42 Gako wrote: Anyone who doesn't despise star wars episodes 1 - 3 with their entire body and soul needs to be enlightened here: http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/
I entrust you to the caring hands of Mr. Plinkett.
That's the best part of episode 7. A new review by Plinkett. :D
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
I haven't watched the star trek movies, but I had watched some episodes of the original series a few weeks ago (and half a dozen TNG episodes) and it felt really dated to me. I think there's a reason it wasn't a success when it first aired, but that it did happen to find a 'geek' audience when there was relatively little competition for such things and that's why it lasted. And besides that, the general concepts are evocative.
I think Star Wars is more interesting, although smaller in scope. This is a good explanation for why.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
I haven't watched the star trek movies, but I had watched some episodes of the original series a few weeks ago (and half a dozen TNG episodes) and it felt really dated to me. I think there's a reason it wasn't a success when it first aired, but that it did happen to find a 'geek' audience when there was relatively little competition for such things and that's why it lasted. And besides that, the general concepts are evocative.
I think Star Wars is more interesting, although smaller in scope. This is a good explanation for why.
It IS dated. The originals feel like you're watching a play, and TNG can be gloriously cheesy at times. But still each episode always has an incredibly interesting plot and it's hard to stop watching them, especially TNG. Plus, Spock.
On January 26 2013 04:11 AnomalySC2 wrote: Also, Episode 3 was the 2nd best Star Wars film :D
Everything you said and ever will say was invalidated by that statement.
Seriously though it was actually really good. Watch it again, it's infinitely better than episodes 1 and 2 and it holds it own with the original trilogy. The action was some of the best, plenty of genuine humor, and watching Anakan transform into Vader while knowing full well it had to happen was riveting.
I can't get over how hamfisted the opening of episode 3 were. Even ignoring the obvious pre-requisite of watching the clone wars to know what's going on. Palpatine during that entire part made me feel like someone from MST3k snuck in.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
The only one i would consider a masterpiece is "Empire strikes back". Everyone is entlited to their opinion though.
George Lucas' opinion is Empire was the worst movie of the bunch... explains a lot about how the prequels turned out huh?
Anyways, I can't get too upset about them catering the movies towards kids... after all - Ewoks. I'm just glad I watched the original trilogy when I was a kid and thought that stuff was cool =p.
The original trilogy was pretty ground breaking in terms of special effects, so it wasn't for lack of trying that it's not as action oriented as movies today. So it's almost a coincidence that the blend of action / drama 'works'. Since given the technology we might have ended up with drawn out fight scenes like the prequels, like how phantom menace basically spends the last hour cutting back and forth between different fights (redlettermedia.com has a really good critique of the prequels if anyone's interested in beating that dead horse).
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
The only one i would consider a masterpiece is "Empire strikes back". Everyone is entlited to their opinion though.
I love watching A New Hope to this day. It really is a timeless masterpiece in my opinion. Empire Strikes back is the same way, but is IV's gritty and darker counterpart, for me.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
Masterpiece is quite an exageration seriously. And episode 6 is a straight up bad movie.
As adventure movies, I do think they are masterpieces.
On January 26 2013 04:46 Grumbels wrote: The JJ Abrams Star Trek movie wasn't particularly interesting - as far as I know Star Trek fans didn't like it, but it did have genuinely fun moments and good pacing. But to be honest, Star Trek is mostly technobabble with slow pacing, boring world building and bad dialogue. I think people like it just because they find space travel concepts fascinating.
Star Wars is a lot different, it's more like a fantasy or comic book movie set in a space with a slightly more mature tone, so presumably JJ Abrams would do well since that's the kind of things he's good at.
I always thought of Star Trek as the more mature of the two, not really sure where you're coming from with that. It doesn't draw people in with flashy light saber battles or anything like that, just good old fashioned story telling and plots.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece in terms of character development, story telling and plot in an adventure movie.
The only one i would consider a masterpiece is "Empire strikes back". Everyone is entlited to their opinion though.
I love watching A New Hope to this day. It really is a timeless masterpiece in my opinion. Empire Strikes back is the same way, but is IV's gritty and darker counterpart, for me.
What's wrong with Ewoks?
I love TESB as well, as well as ANH. The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this", then after the second half it gives this amazing sensation and thinking "oh yeah that's why".
Anyone else try watching the machete order? You start with IV and V, then after those two you watch II and III and round out with VI. It's actually pretty interesting and gives the five episodes a whole new connection with each other.
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
Right after the lovable robots jettison, the pace of the movie slows drastically. Sand people and lightsaber and burnt bodies make a few seconds of appearance (although Adywan managed to edit some clips from Episode I of the sand snipers into IV to give them more screen time and generally more awesomeness).
Compared to say V and VI, where the opening acts are much shorter than Tatooine in IV. In Empire you have all those things you mentioned, minus the sandmen, plus the abominable snowman, and culminating in a huge battle, in half the time. In VI you have jabba, vader + palps (he shows up before the Tatooine scene ends right?), and a pretty cool setup to the huge fight above a sand vagina.
On January 25 2013 08:24 Thrill wrote: It can't be fucking Abrams. I'll literally do something fucked up if it is... everything was looking so good. i HOPE this is just a malicious rumor because it would be the absolute worst idea on earth except for Joss Whedon. Only that could be worse.
Wow, shots fired, lol. I always thought JJ Abrams was generally regarded as a solid, if overhyped, director. Wasn't expecting to see so much rage. Out of curiosity, who are some directors people were hoping to see?
Edit: my vote would be for Kevin Smith
Why Kevin Smith of all people? Maybe he's a fellow nerd, but having seen Jay and Silent Bob, I can't even imagine why his style of film-making would at all gell with any of the Star Wars films.
Hehe, that mostly was a joke based on this talk by Kevin Smith (discussing writing a script for Superman). But, he's a big Star Wars fan and would certainly make sure that the movie didn't disappoint the hard core fans.
Edit: if you don't want to watch the 20 min talk, Kevin Smith rants about dumb stuff in the movie industry like adding characters to sell toys or producers having no idea about the franchise.
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
Right after the lovable robots jettison, the pace of the movie slows drastically. Sand people and lightsaber and burnt bodies make a few seconds of appearance (although Adywan managed to edit some clips from Episode I of the sand snipers into IV to give them more screen time and generally more awesomeness).
Compared to say V and VI, where the opening acts are much shorter than Tatooine in IV. In Empire you have all those things you mentioned, minus the sandmen, plus the abominable snowman, and culminating in a huge battle, in half the time. In VI you have jabba, vader + palps (he shows up before the Tatooine scene ends right?), and a pretty cool setup to the huge fight above a sand vagina.
It's just the way a movie has to be made. They gotta introduce everyone and immerse you in the setting before really getting you going. Otherwise it's all a pointless blur. Makes for a great build up for the 2nd half of the A New Hope, but isn't the most interesting thing to watch again when you've already been set into the Star Wars universe.
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
Right after the lovable robots jettison, the pace of the movie slows drastically. Sand people and lightsaber and burnt bodies make a few seconds of appearance (although Adywan managed to edit some clips from Episode I of the sand snipers into IV to give them more screen time and generally more awesomeness).
Compared to say V and VI, where the opening acts are much shorter than Tatooine in IV. In Empire you have all those things you mentioned, minus the sandmen, plus the abominable snowman, and culminating in a huge battle, in half the time. In VI you have jabba, vader + palps (he shows up before the Tatooine scene ends right?), and a pretty cool setup to the huge fight above a sand vagina.
I have heard that at the time, the pace of A New Hope was actually really fast compared to most films out there (well certainly compared to Lawrence of Arabia.) The pace of a lot of modern films rocket through like an adhd kid on red bull. But if you watch A New Hope as the first film, I think it is reasonable for it to take its time setting the stage. Whereas the rest of the films can rely on the grunt work of A New Hope and move the pace a long quicker.
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
Right after the lovable robots jettison, the pace of the movie slows drastically. Sand people and lightsaber and burnt bodies make a few seconds of appearance (although Adywan managed to edit some clips from Episode I of the sand snipers into IV to give them more screen time and generally more awesomeness).
Compared to say V and VI, where the opening acts are much shorter than Tatooine in IV. In Empire you have all those things you mentioned, minus the sandmen, plus the abominable snowman, and culminating in a huge battle, in half the time. In VI you have jabba, vader + palps (he shows up before the Tatooine scene ends right?), and a pretty cool setup to the huge fight above a sand vagina.
I found Empire to be slower than ANH. If you actually pay attention constantly to the story in ANH, it is way way better than if you just passively watch waiting to enjoy. It's an incredibly fast and well-paced film. It goes in big sweeps from big galactic moments in the stars to personal interactions on a planet. It manages to fit in so many different angles...jedi mysticism, the cruel hand of the empire, the intensity of vader's search, leia's defiance, the AMAZING introduction to Han Solo, with one fire from his blaster pistol telling us more about the character than pages worth of writing could.
It also has the full journey...it's the most 'complete' Star Wars because it can easily stand on its own as a film (as it was supposed to originally). We see Luke's journey and the progression to Alec Guinness' death with all the climactic events that surround it, and it ends with Luke blowing up the death star. It pretty much has every single element that makes Star Wars great. The tiny details are immaculately obsessed upon by the designers, all of the settings on Tattooine have a familiar yet foreign feel.
You seem to be into action which I guess is why you don't like it as much. But for me, someone who enjoys characters, atmosphere, being transported to a foreign world, the bit after the droids are jettisoned is where the film really takes off. There isn't a minute where something important doesn't happen. To be honest Empire goes on too long with the Yoda training. Although it is awesome, I love many of the things he says and he is just a wonderful character, it does last like 5 minutes too long. Still though, both films are 10/10s and benchmarks by which all other epic stories must be measured.
On January 26 2013 10:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: The weird thing about A New Hope is that everytime I watch it, I feel like the first half of the movie is dragging on and wondering "why am I watching this"
Great opener, vader, a guy gets choked, lovable robots, sand dwarves, sand people, obi-wan, lightsaber, burnt bodies, mos eisley, dismemberment gore etc., what's not to like ?
Right after the lovable robots jettison, the pace of the movie slows drastically. Sand people and lightsaber and burnt bodies make a few seconds of appearance (although Adywan managed to edit some clips from Episode I of the sand snipers into IV to give them more screen time and generally more awesomeness).
Compared to say V and VI, where the opening acts are much shorter than Tatooine in IV. In Empire you have all those things you mentioned, minus the sandmen, plus the abominable snowman, and culminating in a huge battle, in half the time. In VI you have jabba, vader + palps (he shows up before the Tatooine scene ends right?), and a pretty cool setup to the huge fight above a sand vagina.
I found Empire to be slower than ANH. If you actually pay attention constantly to the story in ANH, it is way way better than if you just passively watch waiting to enjoy. It's an incredibly fast and well-paced film. It goes in big sweeps from big galactic moments in the stars to personal interactions on a planet. It manages to fit in so many different angles...jedi mysticism, the cruel hand of the empire, the intensity of vader's search, leia's defiance, the AMAZING introduction to Han Solo, with one fire from his blaster pistol telling us more about the character than pages worth of writing could.
It also has the full journey...it's the most 'complete' Star Wars because it can easily stand on its own as a film (as it was supposed to originally). We see Luke's journey and the progression to Alec Guinness' death with all the climactic events that surround it, and it ends with Luke blowing up the death star. It pretty much has every single element that makes Star Wars great. The tiny details are immaculately obsessed upon by the designers, all of the settings on Tattooine have a familiar yet foreign feel.
You seem to be into action which I guess is why you don't like it as much. But for me, someone who enjoys characters, atmosphere, being transported to a foreign world, the bit after the droids are jettisoned is where the film really takes off. There isn't a minute where something important doesn't happen. To be honest Empire goes on too long with the Yoda training. Although it is awesome, I love many of the things he says and he is just a wonderful character, it does last like 5 minutes too long. Still though, both films are 10/10s and benchmarks by which all other epic stories must be measured.
I'm not actually into action that much. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but I love the intrigues and buildups of SW a lot better. What rocked V for me the most was the whole prelude to the Battle of Hoth on both the Rebel and Imperial side, as well as the Bespin scene (not the actual battle or Vader vs. Luke although those were iconic moments in their own right), and knowing that all of the characters were disguised agents in Jabba's palace, leading up to this huge trap, was the biggest ass-clincher for me in VI. A New Hope didn't have moments like that. I think my biggest complaint with IV now that I think about it was that it was too straightforward. Maybe that's what dragged the movie on for me.
On that note, it's why I've fallen in love with Revenge of the Sith. The movie is pretty much bipolar with action scenes and dry dialogue, although the dry dialogue does paint this sort of foggy atmosphere where all of the Jedi are confused and war is slowly taking its toll. Moreso in the novel but definitely present in the movie. And then there's the second half of the movie which is pretty much nonstop dramatic irony from the time Obi-Wan gets shot, to the point where he finds out who's responsible.
I could agree with you on atmosphere and character development. I think ANH does a better job with both than Jedi and Sith, and it's a tossup with Empire on where the characters are more intimately revealed. And I definitely agree with the Yoda bits, that could have been condensed and when I think about the scenes in my head I have the tendency to skip all the training bits and go right to the part with the cave.
On January 26 2013 12:11 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: A New Hope didn't have moments like that.
C'mon, that's just not true. IV Has a ton of moments like that. Most have been named already so I'm not gonna bother, and like someone already posted, V has IV to ride on obv..
EPT
