|
|
Post by petrolino on Mar 4, 2017 3:53:37 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 4, 2017 4:23:28 GMT
Not to get off topic, but Star Trek '09 may be a film that comes close to appealing to new fans, appealing to old fans, and avoiding going over old territory. Of course that was all shot to hell with "Into Darkness" which blatantly appealed to old fans and definitely went over old territory with some small appeal to new fans. "Beyond" clearly focuses on appealing to new fans, somewhat appeals to old fans, and does go over old territory to an extent.
At least that's how I see it for the latest Star Trek films.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 4, 2017 4:30:43 GMT
I agree in that business comes first for Star Wars these days and creativity comes second. But let's be honest, this can apply to any franchise these days. With so many millions at stake, the highest and safest way to return on investment is to be as commercially and fan appealing as possible and to be as safe as possible when it comes to risk-taking or being creative/artistic. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule, but the last time I can think of where it felt like a director had a pretty good sense of control and risk-taking and not so much commercial/fan appealing pressure was with Chris Nolan for the Dark Night trilogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 4, 2017 4:35:55 GMT
Do you think that Disney should be banned from making any future Star Wars content? Judging from how horrible last two movies were, I'd say yes. It's clear Disney doesn't understand anything about what made Star Wars great and considers it just an afterthought to all that billions of cash they are making now. No. They are doing just fine, especially with Rogue One which I enjoyed a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 4, 2017 4:43:42 GMT
I really didn't like TFA so I skipped Rogue One and will skip the rest. TFA felt like it just betrayed everything the OT stood for: recycling conflicts poorly, removing all sense of accomplishment the good guys earned after all their sacrifices, and hinging on walking deus ex machinae to make both happen. They should have left the "Skywalker movie saga" alone since as of the prequels, it began and ended with Anakin. It wasn't like that as of ROTJ but that's the way it went. Instead they should have started a new story in the same galaxy centuries later. The Skywalker bloodline can still exist but they're not the main players. The gap of time could justify the existence of Vader cultists, unlike TFA's unbelievable mewling quim. But hell, if the world had common sense, any Vader cultist would simply be stopped by Anakin('s ghost) himself telling them off. So forget the Vader cultists and have the villains be their own characters. Hell, I'm just hoping something like the new Dune movie comes along to blow the new Star Wars out. May their knives chip and shatter. I didn't like TFA either but I like Rogue One quite a bit. The fact that Darth Vader is still the villain makes a big difference. I also think the action scenes, cinematography and new characters are far more memorable in Rogue One. It also makes a difference that it is basically a bridge between the prequels and the OT. My main problem with TFA (besides the villain being a lame rip-off of Darth Vader)is that the story is over and now it's more or less just rehashing the same story again. Rogue One can get away with this becasue it is still part of the OT. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 5:26:03 GMT
I really didn't like TFA so I skipped Rogue One and will skip the rest. TFA felt like it just betrayed everything the OT stood for: recycling conflicts poorly, removing all sense of accomplishment the good guys earned after all their sacrifices, and hinging on walking deus ex machinae to make both happen. They should have left the "Skywalker movie saga" alone since as of the prequels, it began and ended with Anakin. It wasn't like that as of ROTJ but that's the way it went. Instead they should have started a new story in the same galaxy centuries later. The Skywalker bloodline can still exist but they're not the main players. The gap of time could justify the existence of Vader cultists, unlike TFA's unbelievable mewling quim. But hell, if the world had common sense, any Vader cultist would simply be stopped by Anakin('s ghost) himself telling them off. So forget the Vader cultists and have the villains be their own characters. Hell, I'm just hoping something like the new Dune movie comes along to blow the new Star Wars out. May their knives chip and shatter. I didn't like TFA either but I like Rogue One quite a bit. The fact that Darth Vader is still the villain makes a big difference. I also think the action scenes, cinematography and new characters are far more memorable in Rogue One. It also makes a difference that it is basically a bridge between the prequels and the OT. My main problem with TFA (besides the villain being a lame rip-off of Darth Vader)is that the story is over and now it's more or less just rehashing the same story again. Rogue One can get away with this becasue it is still part of the OT. I think that while they're both ultimately unnecessary films, the distinction can be drawn that at least Rogue One ATTEMPTS to broaden and deepen the preexisting story without altering or undermining it completely. Like, TFA utterly and entirely ruins the entire six movies that precede it; and, really, no subsequent "Episodes" can undo the damage done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 7:46:41 GMT
At least that's how I see it for the latest Star Trek films. I see ALL the Star Trek movies from 2009 onwards as... CRAP. End of. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 8:11:18 GMT
I didn't like TFA either but I like Rogue One quite a bit. The fact that Darth Vader is still the villain makes a big difference. I also think the action scenes, cinematography and new characters are far more memorable in Rogue One. It also makes a difference that it is basically a bridge between the prequels and the OT. My main problem with TFA (besides the villain being a lame rip-off of Darth Vader)is that the story is over and now it's more or less just rehashing the same story again. Rogue One can get away with this becasue it is still part of the OT. I think that while they're both ultimately unnecessary films, the distinction can be drawn that at least Rogue One ATTEMPTS to broaden and deepen the preexisting story without altering or undermining it completely. Like, TFA utterly and entirely ruins the entire six movies that precede it; and, really, no subsequent "Episodes" can undo the damage done. : upon a bit of reflection RO does recast the Rebel Alliance as murderous, amoral terrorists. So. Yeah, maybe they're both just equally awful movies that each do a disservice to the original trilogy in equally awful ways?  |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 4, 2017 8:26:40 GMT
Don't you think you guys are being a little unfair to Episode 8 and 9? They could surprise us for all we know and not be what we are fearing them to be. I understand your reasons for being doubtful and I admit to having such doubts to an extent, but still, we've been surprised before when it comes to certain films and I don't see why we can't be surprised again. It's not out of the realm of possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 8:31:53 GMT
Don't you think you guys are being a little unfair to Episode 8 and 9? They could surprise us for all we know and not be what we are fearing them to be. Fairness?! Open-mindedness? ... Tolerance and acceptance rather than fear and isolation?! "KILL THE WISE ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11"  |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Mar 4, 2017 8:47:00 GMT
You might say that, but I'm sure a lot of people would say there's significant problems when he failed to make lynchpin character of the prequels anything but a 2d character that no one really cared for except as an irritating one petulant brat. Man, I wish prequel haters were held to anything resembling intellectual honesty rather than primal, infantile, and strictly subjective lunges in any one particular direction. Sorry the movies didn't slake your primal lust to recapture your childhood/20s/whenever you saw the original trilogy. In the immortal words of the Dude:  Just because you didn't like the "lynchpin character" of the prequels doesn't make him one- or even two-dimensional. I assume you're referring to Anakin, even though I'd argue (a) he's not the "lynchpin" of the three films or even the latter two, and (b) he's a more multidimensional character than anyone in the original trilogy. (Obviously, being an even somewhat serious and rational person, I don't even acknowledge the Disney Wars movies as having anything even approaching legitimacy. Actually, they're the least legitimate Star Wars endeavors undertaken. But that's neither here nor there.) [insert Kermit sipping lemonade meme] How the hell does one measure legitimacy in this regard? Because Lucas wasn't the primary creative controller? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 8:55:51 GMT
Man, I wish prequel haters were held to anything resembling intellectual honesty rather than primal, infantile, and strictly subjective lunges in any one particular direction. Sorry the movies didn't slake your primal lust to recapture your childhood/20s/whenever you saw the original trilogy. In the immortal words of the Dude: Just because you didn't like the "lynchpin character" of the prequels doesn't make him one- or even two-dimensional. I assume you're referring to Anakin, even though I'd argue (a) he's not the "lynchpin" of the three films or even the latter two, and (b) he's a more multidimensional character than anyone in the original trilogy. (Obviously, being an even somewhat serious and rational person, I don't even acknowledge the Disney Wars movies as having anything even approaching legitimacy. Actually, they're the least legitimate Star Wars endeavors undertaken. But that's neither here nor there.) [insert Kermit sipping lemonade meme] How the hell does one measure legitimacy in this regard? Because Lucas wasn't the primary creative controller?  |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Mar 4, 2017 9:02:22 GMT
How the hell does one measure legitimacy in this regard? Because Lucas wasn't the primary creative controller? Well that's just nonsense. A) he voluntarily ceded control of it and must have known they weren't just going to sit back on a cash cow and just re-release Lucas era product ad infinitum. B) This kind of argument supposes that only a creator has the right to the characters, under that argument Empire and Jedi wouldn't be valid because it was a collaboration, especially in terms of scripting. Your argument is specious. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 9:12:39 GMT
Well that's just nonsense. A) he voluntarily ceded control of it and must have known they weren't just going to sit back on a cash cow and just re-release Lucas era product ad infinitum. B) This kind of argument supposes that only a creator has the right to the characters, under that argument Empire and Jedi wouldn't be valid because it was a collaboration, especially in terms of scripting. Your argument is specious. It's not. A) He did so with the expectation that they would use his preexisting concepts, notes, etc.; they duped him, of course, and truly I can't tell you what the guy was smoking even letting whatever silver-tongued, smooth talking scumbags Disney sent out to Lucas Ranch to basically swindle him within a thousand feet of his property let alone selling them the most successful film franchise of all time. I'll never understand, much less defend, that. B) "This kind of argument" doesn't "suppose" anything of the kind; your argument is disingenuous and in bad faith. You know full well that, irrespective of the degree to which Lucas was involved in writing the scripts, he had final say on everything up until The Force Awakens (well, Rebels, but whatever), whereby Kasdan immediately ruined the entire sequel trilogy and probably every movie thereafter for the exact opposite of the reason you stated -- because he was finally free from underneath Lucas's veto pen and could write a dogwhistle script designed in part to spite and troll him. Which he, in collaboration with Ford, did to great acclaim from people the world over eager to lap it up. That's where you come in. "This will begin to make things right," indeed. I'm not trying to ruin your enjoyment of your little fast food, McDisney Wars movies. But they're quite literally fan fiction and inherently apart from the Lucas-helmed stuff. How is it "tossing a pipe bomb" or making a "specious" argument to point out the distinction? It's a matter of fact. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 9:29:04 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 9:51:34 GMT
I think its a problem that people think a movie is horrible simply because its a bit different from the originals.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 10:00:16 GMT
I think its a problem that people think a movie is horrible simply because its a bit different from the originals. It can be, but the central criticism of this movie was its abject, shamless, cynical similarity to the original 1977 film:  |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Mar 4, 2017 13:17:29 GMT
Well that's just nonsense. A) he voluntarily ceded control of it and must have known they weren't just going to sit back on a cash cow and just re-release Lucas era product ad infinitum. B) This kind of argument supposes that only a creator has the right to the characters, under that argument Empire and Jedi wouldn't be valid because it was a collaboration, especially in terms of scripting. Your argument is specious. It's not. A) He did so with the expectation that they would use his preexisting concepts, notes, etc.; they duped him, of course, and truly I can't tell you what the guy was smoking even letting whatever silver-tongued, smooth talking scumbags Disney sent out to Lucas Ranch to basically swindle him within a thousand feet of his property let alone selling them the most successful film franchise of all time. I'll never understand, much less defend, that. B) "This kind of argument" doesn't "suppose" anything of the kind; your argument is disingenuous and in bad faith. You know full well that, irrespective of the degree to which Lucas was involved in writing the scripts, he had final say on everything up until The Force Awakens (well, Rebels, but whatever), whereby Kasdan immediately ruined the entire sequel trilogy and probably every movie thereafter for the exact opposite of the reason you stated -- because he was finally free from underneath Lucas's veto pen and could write a dogwhistle script designed in part to spite and troll him. Which he, in collaboration with Ford, did to great acclaim from people the world over eager to lap it up. That's where you come in. "This will begin to make things right," indeed. I'm not trying to ruin your enjoyment of your little fast food, McDisney Wars movies. But they're quite literally fan fiction and inherently apart from the Lucas-helmed stuff. How is it "tossing a pipe bomb" or making a "specious" argument to point out the distinction? It's a matter of fact. A) then he's a naive fool. B) Yes Kasdan is a hack at this point trying to recreate the OT trilogy but just in essence bastardizing the original by doing so (so far) C) I don't know where you're getting this 'I love Force Awakens and Rogue One argument. I found them decidedly meh and too beholden to the OT. |
|
|
|
Post by ebuzzmiller on Mar 4, 2017 13:20:21 GMT
I think its a problem that people think a movie is horrible simply because its a bit different from the originals. Well let's be honest older SW fans have a nostalgia blinders thing to them, and at least part of the reason they thought the prequels were bad was because they weren't wowed and didn't feel the same way they did when they were say kids experiencing them for the first time. That's not to say they were good, but there was a lot of nostalgia creep to the hate. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
 
|
Post by Lee on Mar 4, 2017 14:16:45 GMT
Looking at the Box Office numbers of Force Awakens and Rogue One, i would say, Disney will continue and making more Star Wars films.
|
|
