backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by BillyBatson.. on May 14 at 3:13 PM

Episode VII will hit theaters on December 18, 2015

This one’s a little bit off the beaten path, but there’s some big news in the sci-fi world today, as the cast for Star Wars: Episode VII has been officially announced.
 
None other than J.J. Abrams will helm the first installment in the third trilogy of Star Wars. And for better or worse (it depends on how you feel about characters that you grew up adoring reprising their roles decades later), most of the old gang will be back in some fashion for the Episode VII including:
  • Harrison Ford as "Han Solo"
  • Mark Hamill as "Luke Skywalker"
  • Carrie Fisher as "Princess Leia"
  • Peter Mayhew as "Chewbacca"
  • Anthony Daniels as "C-3PO"
  • Kenny Baker as "R2-D2"

Star Wars: Episode VII cast with J.J. Abrams (center)

There are also a number of actors new to the franchise including John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow.
 
"We are so excited to finally share the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII,” said J.J. Abrams. “It is both thrilling and surreal to watch the beloved original cast and these brilliant new performers come together to bring this world to life, once again.”
 
Filming on Star Wars: Episode VII will begin in a few weeks and it will premiere (barring any unforeseen delays, of course) on December 18, 2015.

Source: StarWars.com



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
Did anyone see Ender's Game?

Harrison Ford looked like just delivering lines was putting him on the verge of a narcoleptic episode.

Carrie Fisher has been drinking herself into a bloated stupor over the past however-many decades.

And is Hammil still alive?

I love this cast, in it's ORIGINAL form. I weep at the idea of dragging these once-vibrant heroes back into action for another JJ Abrams sh*t fest money grab.




RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Question: what did you honestly think of Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness?


RE: Ummmm
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2014 2:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed both. I didn't think I'd enjoy the first one but the whole "alternate universe" part made me ok with the reboot.

Into Darkness though I really enjoyed.


RE: Ummmm
By Manch on 4/29/2014 2:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
I liked them both but I was a bit let down by into darkness. really? Kahn? They chose to retread the best of the original movies.I thought the whole point was to move in an entirely new direction. Its not that it was a bad movie but I was hoping for a new story.

In regards to lensflare. I felt like I needed polarized sun glasses to watch those movies. Tone it down JJ


RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 2:48:28 PM , Rating: 4
I was completely into "Star Trek into Darkness" UNTIL the warp core/story line rehash.

Then I just went into swift eye-roll mode.


RE: Ummmm
By icrf on 4/29/2014 3:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. Having Kahn in there with shared history was enough of a nod to fans. The radiation death, hand touch through the glass...I haven't been that pissed at Star Trek since Nemesis killed Data just to have a replacement naive lookalike ready and waiting to run through the same jokes again. The fans hate it. The non-fans don't get it. What's the point?

The first reboot was good, with one exception: I was dying for some technobabble explaining how red matter worked. If they would have done that, I'd call it perfect.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one who found it IMPOSSIBLE to accept that Cumberbitch guy as a young Khan Noonien Singh?

(rhetorical question, I know I'm not)

Whoever cast that role needs to be fed to starving dogs...


RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 3
He creeps me out. He reminds me of an alien trying to fit in among humans.

http://i.imgur.com/uqGZpjT.jpg


RE: Ummmm
By Mitch101 on 4/29/2014 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Im still waiting for a Star Trek spinoff of Wesley with Will Wheaton and his nemesis Sheldon.


RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 3:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Can't forget Sheldon and Wesley's Mee-Maws :-)


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 4:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
His character might as well have been an alien, because he was completely unrelatable to the viewer.

But you know, this isn't entirely his fault. Great directors force great performances out of their stars. Abrams is as much to blame for that lifeless performance as the actor.


RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 5:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
I actually think Cumberbatch gave the best performance in that movie. But that isn't hard to do considering how bad most of the others were. The dude playing Kirk was one of the most wooden actors I have seen in a long time.

It wasn't so much that Cumberbatch was terrible, but that I have a preset notion of Khan. Ricardo Monteban defined the role for me.


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 5:47:38 PM , Rating: 5
"It wasn't so much that Cumberbatch was terrible, but that I have a preset notion of Khan. Ricardo Monteban defined the role for me."

See, that is what I am saying. We are all looking at these movies (both SW and ST) through our own preset notions of how they were when we saw them and it will never be that, not by any other actors or any other directors. The past is gone, enjoy the originals for what they were and enjoy these (or not) for what they are... Don't hate them because they aren't living up to the nostalgia, that is impossible.

I look at it this way - and let me use a 3rd non-related analogy so as not to offend. I LOVE really good pizza and I used to frequent the best of the best I have ever had - Pinocchio's Pizza in Gilroy CA where I used to live. 10 years ago I moved to AZ and I miss the pizza terribly. I spent the first few years hating every pizza I had here, because none of it was as good as Pinocchio's... At some point I realized, if I keep holding all pizza to that same standard I will never enjoy another Pizza as long as I live. F%^K that. Life is too short to hate Pizza because every pizza isn't the best I had when I was younger. You have to move on.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: -1
RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 8:52:20 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with pretty much everything you said about the actual storyline involving Khan. Star Trek was never about the action. The scene where he is shooting mini Bird of Prey out of the air with a glorified arm cannon looked like something from a lame Gears of War wannabe. I just think the actor, given the shit he was given to work with, did not do a terrible job. No actor could have salvaged that mess.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 9:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, the writing was horrible.

You can tell Lindelldick had a hand in it, because there's more plot lines in that movie going on than an episode of Lost.

Seriously, there's like a DOZEN sub-plotlines going on in that movie at the same time. Most go nowhere or don't add anything to the story.

And can we PLEASE stop with that overused "Bad guy somehow secretly builds a more badass bigger ship than everyone elses and nobody knew about it" nonsense?

It didn't make much sense in Nemesis, and it didn't work here either.


RE: Ummmm
By chripuck on 4/30/2014 8:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
As bad as Nemesis was, it at least made sense because it was in another secretive empire lightyears away.

I thought the premise of Nemesis was good, it just had bad execution.


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 11:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
you're getting a little too close to this guy...

https://www.google.com/#q=Comic+Book+Guy+worst+epi...


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 11:41:08 PM , Rating: 1
Okay troll.

Dude get a clue. Wrath of Khan came out in the 1980's, and it's still being referenced for it's greatness, and copied by filmmakers, to this day.

In 20+ years if people are even remembering, much less emulating, Into Darkness then you can say I'm wrong.


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/30/2014 12:07:28 AM , Rating: 3
I am not saying the new one is better than the old, not by any means. What I am saying is you are turning into Comic Book Guy.


RE: Ummmm
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 2:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
Cumberbatch wasn't great. Michael Fassbender would have been better. Fassbender has the build and the acting ability to pull off Khan.


RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/30/2014 8:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, had't thought of that. I think you're absolutely right. I loved him in Inglorious Basterds (although it was a relatively small part) and First Class.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2014 4:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Centurion on Netflix.

He plays the lead role as a Roman soldier, pretty good bit of acting imo.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/2014 9:46:49 AM , Rating: 1
And what about the soundtrack?

Star Trek movies, especially the original cast, have always had epic scores. Peaking with Wrath of Khan, which had a delightful and enthralling score penned by James Horner.

This isn't opinion, but objective fact.

Into Darkness and ST 2009 had utterly forgettable generic action scores you would find in any movie today.

Just another example of how proper homage was not paid to Star Trek, and that the painstaking craft of making great cinema of the past, has been replaced with cheap and fast schlock intended to wring every cent of profit possible.


RE: Ummmm
By therealnickdanger on 5/2/2014 5:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Peaking with WoK? I dunno, Eidelman's work on Undiscovered Country was E-P-I-C.

Dat brass.


RE: Ummmm
By Paj on 5/2/2014 3:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Oh come on. The original movies were great, but you can't seriously say they were better in every way? Final Frontier is ridiculously bad.

I watched all 6 of the original series back to back, and man, there were some stinkers in there. Star Trek 1 is overlong and ponderous. Wrath of Khan is amazing, Search for Spock is pretty cool, Voyage Home is regarded as one of the best because it didnt take itself too seriously. Final Frontier is garbage, and Undiscovered Country is, in my opinion, the best of the lot.

I think Star Trek was at its best when it didnt take itself quite so seriously. There are moments of great tension and drama, sure, but the new movies really capture the sense of fun and grandeur that had been missing from Insurrection and Nemesis, which just felt like TV episodes. As a reboot I think they work very well.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/2/2014 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
As bad as Final Frontier was, it's still better than Into Darkness.

Star Trek isn't about what you see on the screen, as much as it's about the human element behind the story.

If Into Darkness HAD a human element to it, I must have blinked.


RE: Ummmm
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2014 7:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Cumberbatch gave an awesome performance. It was a perfect portrayal of who they wanted to portray Kahn as. A genius and ruthless killer bent on domination. Believing he was superior in every way which led to arrogance.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/1/2014 3:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I've ever so thoroughly agreed with Reclaimer on a post. Good points.


RE: Ummmm
By invidious on 4/30/2014 11:03:25 AM , Rating: 2
Characters don't universally need to relatable. He was supposed to be a genetically engineered maniacal evil genius. Not being relatable was by design and in my opinion worked.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm
By Aloonatic on 5/3/2014 5:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the switch-a-roo story line was a bit silly, and the ending fight scene was pathetic, but that wasn't Cumberbatch's fault.

(For me, the really poor characterisation / f*&kup is in the Spok Uhura story line)

Cumberbatch IMHO (although I accept I'm not the self proclaimed authority of all Start Trek opinion, that position seems to have been taken) was a great Khan, but no-one playing that part, with that script, and plot, would ever have changed the problems that you seem to have, so why you are blaming Cumberbatch for this is, well, weird and nonsensical.


RE: Ummmm
By HardwareDufus on 4/30/2014 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
I know, they didn't put nearly enough silicon in his pecks.


RE: Ummmm
By BillyBatson on 5/14/2014 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am in almost complete agreement with you!!! I actually loved both new star trek movies a whole hell of a lot though even with the changes. I didn't mind Vulcan being blown up it made for an interesting twist even if that 1 bit of writing did completely wipe the star trek universe i grew up with and love off the face of the universe. I did absolutely hate that it wasn't Spoke in the radiation chamber I don't care how similar they made the situation they made it too similar if it is going to be that close just do it like the original!!!
Agreed with the first one too, they needed to explain the red matter! Star Trek is based on a lot of real life science even ifs some of it is exaggerated or only based on theories. Them not explaining red matter made me feel that the writers completely pulled that one out of their asses.
Now for Nemesis, I don't agree with you there. YES them killing off Data was crap and the fact that he was replaced by an inferior model who will never reach datas level was annoying. HOWEVER they did not replace data in that sense, we will not be seeing the same jokes again, because they will not be making another TNG movie. It was the last of the series so the fact that we won't have to sit through watching this impostor Data again makes the fact that data died not a big issue just the end of his story :(


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
The first one was..meh.

Into Darkness? JJ Abrams should be put on trial for war crimes.

Come up with new things. Stop raping franchises we love.


RE: Ummmm
By MrBlastman on 4/29/2014 3:14:07 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't a defense of Abrams but more one of good writing...

With Gene Roddenberry dead, it is prohibitively difficult to do this. Okay, okay, there are tons of people capable of writing "fanfic," but truth be told, writing fanfic and creating your own fiction/IP are dramatically different exercises of thought.

On one hand you are borrowing from already created paradigms. On another, you are delving into uncharted waters, flexing your mental muscle to the limits.

I know, he died in 1991. There were some okay series after his passing. But none of them were "Star Trek" as we remember it, to me at least, at the core filled with the soul we came to love. Enterprise admittedly was good for a while but even it ran out of gas.

Maybe it is time for something new... completely new? I say that with hesitance and regret. I love Star Trek. I know many who do. I show my four year old daughter classic episodes, starting her with Wrath of Khan for crying out loud! But maybe without Gene it just is too hard to hang onto his Universe, even for someone else who is talented to try and pick it up.


RE: Ummmm
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 2:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that good Trek writers are increasingly difficult to find. The Next Generation movies were mostly suck, thanks in no small part to the writers turning Picard into an action hero--rather than the cerebral diplomat that he was for the ENTIRE run of the TV series.

And although I HATED the XMEN movies, Patrick Stewart's role in them is much better than his role in the Trek movies--because of the writing.

I also diagree that the "good stuff" died with Gene. DS9 was--in many ways--the apogee of all Trek. Gene wouldn't have been interested in turning a series into a serial format (ala soap opera in space) but that's precisely what made DS9 so great.

To be honest, I think JJ will be better for Wars than Trek--simply because Wars has always been more about action (although admittedly overdone in the prequels). Trek should--by rights--push for a more intellectual conflict vice a brute force one. That's why TOS--while groundbreaking--is not remotely as good as TNG.

I honestly don't know that we're ever going to get a Trek movie as good as Wrath. The first JJ Trek movie was pretty good, but Into Darkness was just horrible--too much Nemesis and Wrath for anything original.


RE: Ummmm
By jimbojimbo on 4/30/2014 5:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
I really disliked the first one and haven't seen Darkeness yet. There were just WAY too many dumb parts in the first one that it didn't make any sense. Seriously, instead of tossing Kirk in a cell they decide to just toss him on a nearby habitable planet - because there are so many too? Seriously Kirk can out run a monster about 50x his size? Just too many stupid events that very obviously were written in solely to keep the story going and nothing else. Horrible. I heard the second one is better so maybe I'll get to it but after reading that it's rehash of 2 I may just skip it.


RE: Ummmm
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2014 7:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
I must be the only one who loved all Star Trek shows. Yeah there were cliches and basically repeats of old episodes in new shows. But I grew up on TNG, DS9, and Voyager. Loved watching them all. Staying up to watch them was my reward for behaving and doing well in school. Same with Babylon 5.

But DS9 is by far my favorite. The characters were more real. Things didn't always go in the good guys favor at the end of an episode. I still watch it today. In fact maybe its time to fire it up again. Love being married to a woman who will watch it with me too. :)


RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 5/1/2014 9:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
DS9 was my favorite too. Way more variety and depth to the characters. Warf really got fleshed out, same with O'Brien, after they moved to that series. But Voyager? Really? The characters there were so one dimensional it almost felt like a parody.


RE: Ummmm
By karimtemple on 4/29/2014 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Star Trek was always a long shot lol. Very tough material to get right.

Star Wars is likely to be different, though. It's a completely different genre, none of the writers are the same, unlike Star Trek Abrams actually likes Star Wars, the worst part about Star Wars (Lucas) is all but gone, and Disney isn't going to tolerate nearly as much nonsense from Abrams as Paramount.

Long story short, Star Wars actually has some pretty good odds going. It still has a chance.


RE: Ummmm
By Jeffk464 on 4/29/2014 8:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
So why not wait until they make the movie and then critique it?


RE: Ummmm
By GulWestfale on 4/29/2014 9:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Question: what did you honestly think of Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness?

this is what i thought of into darkness. no, i wasn't happy with it.

http://saschavonbornheim.blogspot.ca/2013/05/star-...


RE: Ummmm
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 3:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
100% agree. It's like hollywood didn't even see what was wrong with all the TNG movies, it just kept plodding ahead with the same action-y stuff.

Ridley Scott would have done a better job with Trek, imho. JJ will probably mesh pretty well with Wars--but I don't expect any intellectual stimulation like Luke vs. Vader in episode 6. JJ isn't an intellectual director, yet he can't possibly screw it up much worse than Lucas. It's all but guaranteed that 7 will be better than 1-3 and worse than 4-6.


RE: Ummmm
By BernardP on 4/29/2014 10:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
With J.J. Abrams, it's all about Flash, Bam, Pow, and not leaving any time in the relentless action to allow the viewer time to think and appreciate what is happening. The movie is not story-driven, but effect-driven.

Into Darkness was even worse in that respect. Gene Rodenberry must be sorely disappointed.

It can be anticipated that Star Wars will be submitted to the same treatment.


RE: Ummmm
By StormyKnight on 4/30/2014 12:01:40 AM , Rating: 1
It was hard to watch at first. When it was apparant it wasn't a TOS origination but instead an alternate reality pre-TOS, I turned it off and sold the disc at a discount to a friend 2 days later. I thought it was total shit.

I agree with Reclaimer about J.J. Abrams. How bad will he ruin Star Wars for me now?


RE: Ummmm
By Samus on 4/30/2014 3:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
Star Trek was amazing. Into Darkness, meh.

Back on topic, though, I see a black person in that sit-down and that would NEVER happen in a quality George Lucas production so this series is going to be crap.


RE: Ummmm
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 3:45:30 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure what your comment is intended to mean. First of all "quality George Lucas production" is a paradox at best and an oxymoron at at worst. Lucas wanted Solo to be a lizard--true story, look it up. Lucas with 100% control = utter garbage.

Second, and perhaps more to the point, Lucas' movies feature blatent racist stereotypes. Watch the Red Letter Media reviews of the prequels if you don't believe me. Jar-Jar is a stereotypical black slave. Nute Gunray is an asian stereotype. The list goes on and on. All the "normal" characters are white. If Lucas had helmed 5&6, I'm all but certain that Billy Dee Williams would NEVER have been cast in the movies at all.

Lucas is singularly responsible for turning my indecision about liking Wars or Trek better (in my youth) into a no brainer. It happened the moment Greedo shot first.


RE: Ummmm
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2014 7:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're free to read racial stereotypes into Star Wars if you want, but that's not what it was there for. It there to entertain kids by having a stupid, goofy character that most adults despised. At least those who love Star Wars.

How old are you if Greedo shot first in your youth. In my youth, I grew up on the ORIGINAL movies on VHS. And it was there that my love for Star Wars and scifi in general was born. And why I spent $110 a few years ago to get the ORIGINAL movies on DVD instead of spending $80 to buy them on Bluray when they were released.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/2014 8:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
When I was a kid I was entertained by Luke, Lea, Han and the gang.

We didn't need stupid things like JarJarBinks to excite our imagination and make us want to emulate the heroes.

But that's one of the key problems with Episode 1. Just who in the hell IS the protagonist? Little Anakin? Nope. The Jedi? Nope.

As far as the racism goes, I don't know if I would call it that. But as I got older, I did notice one thing that seemed a bit...off.

C3PO says Jawa's are "disgusting creatures" and he "can't abide" them. So not only is prejudice and racism alive and well in a futuristic society in a galaxy far far away, but Lucas made ROBOTS that were racist too!


RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 5/1/2014 9:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Jawas were junk traders, selling droid salvage. It would make sense that a droid wouldn't like them, especially one as prissy as C3-P0.

Besides, I would expect there to still be racism, no matter how technologically advanced a society is. Tech does not erase our flaws. In fact, with aliens being so, well, alien, those prejudices are going to be even stronger.

The fact that Lucas made the human centric Empire the bad guys and the much more inclusive Rebels the good guys seems to point to Lucas being against racism, not for it.


RE: Ummmm
By inperfectdarkness on 5/7/2014 1:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
I grew up with the ORIGINAL, unmolested versions. Re-read what I said: I was UNDECIDED until Greedo shot first.

No, Wars isn't there to present racial stereotypes...that's just how Lucas ended up doing it. There's a total of FOUR token black guys in the entire 6-movie saga; Jango/Boba, Panaka, Lando and Mace. Nute Gunray is about as bad of an "Engrish" stereotype as you can get. Jar-Jar's racist portrayal of a black person is only disguised by his ridiculous voice. Watto is about as Jewish as a stereotype can be. The list goes on and on.


RE: Ummmm
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2014 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the original cast shouldn't be in the new ones. The last thing I think Hamill was in was Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

He gained a good amount of weight too though. I'm sure they're all being whipped into shape for the movies though.


RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 3
Hamill's been mainly voice acting, which he has been awesome at. Fisher was dragged out of rehab or something.


RE: Ummmm
By tayb on 4/29/2014 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 4
It's been reported that they are not going to play a significant role in the films and certainly are not going to be the lead characters.

It is interesting to note that many of the fiction novels in the Star Wars universe take place ~30 years after the events of Return of the Jedi and deal with Luke training new Jedi in his attempt to rebuild the Order. Most of those stories do not feature Luke or any of the original members but they still exist in the universe.

JJ Abrams brought back Leonard Nimoy in both Star Trek movies and in each movie he had a small role that helped tie the old and new movies together. I expect something similar in Episode VII.

Also, I'm sure they will all be whipped into shape for their new roles. Harrison in Enders Game was playing a character who was old and out of shape in the book. I doubt he will look so sullen in Episode VII.


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 2:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
"It's been reported that they are not going to play a significant role in the films and certainly are not going to be the lead characters."

Exactly. The new film is set 30 years after ROTJ and the heroes are the next gen and the original actors are supposed to be old. It fits perfect.

I am glad the story isnt about hte same crew when they were younger using either new actors or CGI enhanced overlays to make them look young. I am also glad Lucas is off it. He had great vision and storytelling for hte over all universe, but was freegin awful at screenplay and dialog. I think Abrams will do well with it.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: -1
RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno... In the multitude of Star Wars books these people survived. They were alive and part of the story moving forward. You cant write them out. You cant replace them. What would you have done?


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm
By Spuke on 4/29/2014 3:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's possible to make a good Star Wars movie without the Original Trilogy as a backdrop.
So you propose not even following the storyline? What sense does that make? If you're going to have Star Wars in the movie title, I expect the storyline to be followed somehow. Or we might as well go back to the 70's and before where they just stole the title and some characters and created a whole new supremely gay story (when the original was beyond awesome).


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
There you have it... I think you have successfully "nerd raged" yourself into hating everything, no matter what.

Lighten up. No-one is going to make a perfect movie for you unless you go make it.


RE: Ummmm
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: 0
RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... You say that like I am the only abrasive one among the two of us. ;) We can argue and disagree and not get bent. I am not bent, I hope you aren't either. It's all good, we are having a discussion. I think you are being too harsh in pre-hating these movies, that is all.

"I get it, you love Star Wars so you want to like these movies. You want them to be good. Well we all felt the same way when the Prequels came out, how did that work out for us?"

It sucked... But not totally, they were still worth watching. The things that sucked to me weren't the story or characters, it was simply the screenplay and dialog that blew it (OK, that and Jar Jar). Those are without a doubt Lucas' week points.

At least give them a chance. It can't possibly be worse than Ep 1.


RE: Ummmm
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 9:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
What I hated most was not the screenplay, not the dialogue, not the acting (well, aside from Jar Jar). What bugged me was the deviation from the earlier movies in concepts. I hate internal inconsistencies. The reduction of the force from a mystical energy to the workings of a blood parasite that could be measured on some scale almost ruined the Jedi for me.

In the original trilogy, when Obi Wan gave Luke Anakin's lightsaber, it seemed as if passing down sabers from father to son was normal, and the force ran in families. But in the prequels, the Jedi were some kind of celibate Buddhist-like monk order. The whole love leads to evil was stupid.

I hate when stories are contradictory like that. It is the main reason I cannot get into Doctor Who. It just walks all over its own lore constantly. Fortunately, in the Star Wars prequels, there were enough elements I liked to somewhat offset that.


RE: Ummmm
By karimtemple on 4/29/2014 4:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little with Reclaimer on this one. Ford has been absolutely awful in recent years, AND my opinion has been for many years that Star Wars should be rebooted. It's an unpopular opinion by far, but I know I'm right about this.

The six movies could be easily and comfortably redone in three, maybe four, with much better and much tighter storytelling, not to mention done in the right chronological order which 98% of the time is better than stupid time-flopping and prequel narrative gimmicks. Plus you wouldn't be taken out of the experience with a story where they're essentially fencing but in a flashback to the past they're pretty much flying ninja cyborgs. The ladies love some good cohesion!

Anyway, as it is I think Star Wars has a chance, based on the fresh cast and the new writers. I do find Abrams somewhat lacking as a director -- if Michael Bay is Microsoft then JJ Abrams is Apple -- but his style is much better-suited for Star Wars than for some other things he's done.


RE: Ummmm
By Dorkyman on 4/29/2014 9:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Booorrriiinnnggg.

I loved the original three films. Second three had some whizzy digital, otherwise bleah. Don't care at all about this one, though it will be fun to see how much the old farts have aged. And Star Trek? Kiddie movies.

Guess I'm more of a Godfather I & II kind of guy.


RE: Ummmm
By MTEK on 4/30/2014 3:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
JJ Abrams brought back Leonard Nimoy in both Star Trek movies and in each movie he had a small role that helped tie the old and new movies together. I expect something similar in Episode VII.


Honestly, my expectations are so low that I wouldn't be surprised if Spock shows up in Episode VII along with a couple Ghost Busters.


RE: Ummmm
By Strk on 4/29/2014 3:26:06 PM , Rating: 3
Mark Hammil ended up doing a huge amount of voice acting. Anyone who grew up in the 90s probably knows him best as The Joker.


RE: Ummmm
By HardwareDufus on 4/29/2014 4:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
I read two trilogies after Episode VI.

I liked Element's of Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy... The Whole Power Struggle With What Remains of the Empire.

With Jedi Academy Trilogy... I really wanted Kevin J Anderson to kill off Luke Skywalker....

So disappointed with JA Trilogy that I never read another. I hope JJ Abrams uses Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy as a starting point...

Never got into Splinter in the Mind's Eye or any of the Adventures of Han Solo, etc....

So, I'm 44.... In 77 I was 7 or 8. I grew up on StarWars.

However, it will be hard to recreate the whole Good vs Evil that flowed throughout Episodes I - VI, because the very personifications of Evil, Palpaltine and DarthVader, were killed off.


RE: Ummmm
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 7:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
"I liked Element's of Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy... The Whole Power Struggle With What Remains of the Empire."

That Trilogy was awesome. Loved it. I never read any of the others but the Thrawn Trilogy was great.


RE: Ummmm
By w8gaming on 4/30/2014 11:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
You should also read the Hand of Thrawn series which was set almost 20 years after the original series. In a way it concluded the backstory regarding to Thrawn quite nicely.


RE: Ummmm
By StevoLincolnite on 4/29/2014 7:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did anyone see Ender's Game? Harrison Ford looked like just delivering lines was putting him on the verge of a narcoleptic episode.


I was in New Zealand at the time and saw it over there.

When Ben Kingsley came on screen, stated he was a "Kiwi" the entire theater actually laughed.

The movie as a whole was pretty decent thanks to Asa Butterfield, basically carrying the entire film.

The best part about the film was that it wasn't a generic Alien-Invasion film set in New York, again.


RE: Ummmm
By DukeN on 4/30/2014 10:22:18 AM , Rating: 2
What do you think Star Wars has been from the beginning? A charity project or something that should win at Cannes?


RE: Ummmm
By RapidDissent on 5/5/2014 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Mark Hammil is a fairly busy voice over actor lately. He seems to do at least one character for most cartoon shows on TV right now.


who?
By BillyBatson on 4/29/2014 2:47:55 PM , Rating: 1
How come I do not recognize a single of the new cast members? I don't know any of their knows




RE: who?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 2:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
I put some IMDB linkage in there for you on all the new actors.


RE: who?
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 3
"How come I do not recognize a single of the new cast members?"

Did anyone recognize the originals in 1976? Maybe Harrison Ford from American Graffiti, but that is a "barely"the rest were all pretty new faces.


RE: who?
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 6:06:29 PM , Rating: 1
Alec Guinness? Unknown?


RE: who?
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 6:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
??? Ya, so was James Earl Jones. I was talking about the main characters. There are well known people on the list above too... Max von Sydow (the Exorcist) Andy Serkis (Gollum) Adam Driver has been in some things and Daisy Ridley? Well, she is just terribly cute and soon to be a household name come December of next year. ;)


RE: who?
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 8:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not the one that said the cast of the new movies is unknown though. Especially Max. He's been acting since my dad was a kid. And for the youngins, he's even Esbern in Skyrim.


RE: who?
By BillyBatson on 5/14/2014 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't the same movies aren't made that way anymore and even if you put a no-name for the lead or a couple of no-names in a movie you normally have a few actors with known names. People are drawn to the familiar and seeing an advertisement for a movie with faces you know (and like) sells tickets and also gives you a little bit of an idea about the tone of the movie. All no names for a blockbuster hit movie now being made by Disney is well, odd.


RE: who?
By GotThumbs on 4/29/2014 4:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sort of a where's Waldo, but for Star Wars fans.

Harrison Ford needs some anti-perspirant.

Here's the seating breakdown from IMDB.

Writer/Director/Producer J.J Abrams
clockwise from right)
Harrison Ford,
Daisy Ridley,
Carrie Fisher,
Peter Mayhew,
Producer Bryan Burk,
Lucasfilm President and Producer Kathleen Kennedy,
Domhnall Gleeson,
Anthony Daniels,
Mark Hamill,
Andy Serkis,
Oscar Isaac,
John Boyega,
Adam Driver
Writer Lawrence Kasdan.


RE: who?
By iano80 on 4/29/2014 5:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
You don't recognise Max von Sydow? Pitiful earthling!

Hail! Ming! Hail!


RE: who?
By boobo on 4/30/2014 12:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
Not even Max von Sydow? or Andy Serkis?


Why...
By cruisin3style on 4/29/2014 2:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
JJ Abrams shouldn't be "none other than" in my book

He strikes me as a talented person whose work hasn't matured as he has aged. It hasn't gotten any better.

I liked Alias and Joy Ride 10 years ago (or whenever) but I'm that much older now and his projects haven't grown like I have, is sort of what I mean

Hopefully he does a good job. Star Trek was good if flawed (people walking around on a planet that is imploding into a black hole in its center? hmmmm)




RE: Why...
By Bubbacub on 4/29/2014 3:03:13 PM , Rating: 5
There was nothing wrong with the physics of walking on the surface of a planet being consumed by a micro black hole (micro in terms of planetary masses).

The total mass of the planet hasn't changed - it was just in the process of being redistributed into something the size of a beachball. Surface gravity would be constant until the crust collapsed.


RE: Why...
By JediJeb on 5/3/2014 8:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you place a large enough gravitational source at the center of the planet to collapse the surface into the center, then anyone on the surface would also feel that increased gravity as well. The super gravity force that is collapsing the planet would not stop being felt at the boundary of the planet's surface, but would extend as far as or even further than the planet's original gravitational pull was felt. So in reality even the ships in orbit should have been having trouble not falling into the gravity well of the micro black hole.


Screw this
By Helbore on 4/29/2014 3:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
I was all for this project...but no Billy Dee Williams? Can't be bothered with it now.




RE: Screw this
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 3:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Billy Dee was too busy sucking it up on Dancing With the Stars :)

http://youtu.be/dKN-mBuLkTE


RE: Screw this
By iamkyle on 4/30/2014 10:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, he will be in Episode 8!


What's usually missing
By EchoSquared on 4/30/2014 7:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Where so many movies fail in my opinion and where Game of Thrones shines, is that reality that any character can croak and that the bad guys DO win. There is just never any true worry the audience ever has in so many films that the bad guy WILL prevail and that the movie will end on a dark note.

That's why the only SW film I like was ESB. It was dark and gritty and really, you have to let the bad guys win right up until the end because otherwise what is there to root for for the audience?

My 2cents




RE: What's usually missing
By catavalon21 on 4/30/2014 9:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you there...Empire was by far the best of the three, in my opinion.


Writing should be much better
By tarv on 4/29/2014 4:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Kasdan was a writer on Empire and Jedi so this should be better then the prequels.




Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/29/14, Rating: -1
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/29/2014 2:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
"I can't read your post...blinding... lens flare... must look away!"

To be fair, he claims that he won't use it much in the Star Wars movies:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/03/star-t...


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2014 2:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I saw the announcement about the EU and how only the 6 movies, the TV show, and everything after it now as "canon".

Granted they threw out the Expanded Universe when they came out with the prequels. In the Expanded Universe, Luke and Leia had already found their mother. And she wasn't a Senator from Naboo.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By FITCamaro on 4/29/2014 2:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and spoiler. Chewie is dead in the Expanded Universe. But it took a planet crushing him to kill him.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By domboy on 4/29/2014 3:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and spoiler. Chewie is dead in the Expanded Universe. But it took a planet crushing him to kill him.


Hey, if throwing out the expanded universe brings Chewbacca back, I can probably live with that. Unfortunately that also means Mara Jade no longer exists... :(


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By SkullOne on 4/29/2014 3:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
Mara is dead too so it doesn't matter much. ;)


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: -1
RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 3:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed the Star Trek movies more when I mentally changed the names of all the characters and pretended I wasn't watching Star Trek. I'll have a harder time doing that with Star Wars as I was always more into that universe than the Trek one.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 3:49:11 PM , Rating: 5
I think you both are putting the old movies on too high of a pedestal. I think it would be virtually impossible for anyone to make a Star Wars movie that made you happy. It was a "time and place" thing with the original movies... Not that they were any type of perfect...

What it is, is a great story line and a great, deeply, deeply rich universe . The acting and script was never all that even in Ep 4-6.

Just lighten up and enjoy the movies. You don't have to pick apart every little detail and hate everything just because it doesn't make you feel the way ep.'s 4-6 did when you were a kid. Its not possible.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 4:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
But Star Trek wasn't just bad in the little details, and that is what we are afraid he'll do to Star Wars.

Sure, Star Wars wasn't perfect, but it still stands up today as enjoyable.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: -1
RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 4:57:27 PM , Rating: 4
"And I think you're a young wise-ass who wouldn't know quality art if it landed on his fat head."

I am just a few years older than you, literally.

As far as quality, What even makes you say that? I think EP's 1-3 suck as much as the next guy. Like I said, its a great story and a deeply rich universe, but Lucas just sucked with screenplay and dialog. In the 70's and early 80's it didnt stand out so bad, but by the time SP 1-3 came out it was very obvious.

I just don't take it that seriously to get pre-bent out of shape like you already are sight unseen (something that I find perplexing). He cant possibly do a worse job than Lucas in Ep 1.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/14, Rating: 0
RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 6:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
"And did you defend 1-3 to the naysayers before they were released too? Weren't they right? So why are you defending this now?"

No, I didn't wind up on any forum discussing it at all. I wouldn't even say "defending", I am just saying pre-hating something that hasn't started because it wont live up to your expectation is insane. There will never be another Ep 4-6. You can choose to watch what is made, or just stick to the books, alot of good ones.

"True. But Lucas set the bar so low, I think we need to expect a LOT more than "better than Lucas" for such a revered and historic franchise."

Lucas also did Ep 4-6. So he is the creator and driving force of "such a revered and historic franchise" as well as it's bain. I mean I get it 1-2 did suck by comparison, I am just throwing that in there for thought... Even the creator of all this couldn't make people happy.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 7:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
When you hear of some of Lucas's ideas for the original that were shot down by the studios, you begin to realize that he was at his best when he was restrained and forced to work with others.

For example, he wanted Luke Skywalker to be an 80 year old man with a robotic head!

Lucas has made a point to cry and cry about the horrible studio system, the stiffing of his "creativity", etc etc. But the fact is every project he's been given sole and total control over has SUCKED BALLS.

Frankly he's been given TOO much credit for the success of the Original trilogy.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 7:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
"he wanted Luke Skywalker to be an 80 year old man with a robotic head"

Seriously? I hadnt heard that, but I guess it doesnt surprise me. Heesa loss heesa goddamnna mind.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 7:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, 40 years old, whatever just as bad.

Here's more of Lucas's ideas that, thank god, the story editors and directors stopped from being in the final cut.

-Luke Skywalker was originally going to be a 40 year old man
-Luke Skywalker was originally going to have a robot head
-Luke's last name was originally "Starkiller"
-Lucas wanted a Wampa sub-plot in Empire
-C-3PO was originally going to talk like a used-car salesman

The editors and directors are what saved those films. And Lucas hated them for it.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Dorkyman on 4/29/2014 9:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta tell you guys that there was NOTHING like standing in line at night on Day 2 of the release of the original Star Wars. The line to get inside wrapped around the theater on Wilshire Blvd. in Westwood Village (near UCLA). My buddy and I were about a block away, in line, and up ahead there was a flash of light about every minute. When we got up there there were some guys across the alley on a ladder with a camera and some strobes. "Smile for George!" (Lucas) So we did, and the people behind us did, and so on. The movie just blew everyone away; a scifi flick that wasn't stupid and had excellent production values.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 11:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
I can't even imagine what it would have been like to see New Hope in the theaters when it opened. It was such a quantum leap, it like blew peoples minds apart I've heard/been told.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/30/2014 7:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
It was magic if you saw it as a kid. It was my first "real" movie. Before that, all I had seen in theaters was Disney cartoons (which were also much better back then, BTW).


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2014 11:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
I think my earliest Star Wars memory that I can dredge up, was the Rancor scene in Jabbas palace. But for the life of me, I cannot remember if this was in the theater or on VHS (an old tape-base analog video format, kids).

I just remember being blown away.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/30/2014 12:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Me too... I saw SW and Empire, but I was too young to "really get it". Then I saw ROTJ in the theater and was absolutely blown away. Then a bit later the whole trilogy in order and "got it" the depth of the whole story.

I am still looking forward to see how the new ones go... Like I said before, it cant be worse than 1-3.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 4:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Precisely. And he wanted Han to be a lizard. Lucas is an extremely overated, bloated & talentless retard. James Cameron has more talent in his pinky than Lucas would have in 100 lifetimes--and I say this in spite of the lack of original plot to Avatar.

There was a day when Lucas and Spielberg were lauded as the best directors in hollywood. I think South-Park depicted my views on those two best in the episode "The China Probrem".

JJ's not the best director, but he should at least do a mediocre job instead of a pedestrian one (although Into Darkness makes me worry). JJ's better than Michael Bay and far worse than the likes of Christopher Nolan, Guy Ritchie and even Paul Verhoeven.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2014 2:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Red Tails.

That's when I knew Lucas really had no talent. Lucas said he had been wanting to make that movie for 20 years. He even put up his own money toward the project.

And he cranked out a horrible dog turd.

20 years? If you give an artist 20 years to obsess over something, perfect it, if they have ANY talent at all you're going to get a masterpiece.

Mount Rushmore took less time!!


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By catavalon21 on 4/30/2014 10:28:14 PM , Rating: 1
Man, I've gotta say, you've taken some pretty harsh shots over the years for calling things like you see them, but with how you started your post, you're just begging for it.

As for most of your 2nd part, I'm with you there.

Most of us get that most sequels struggle to be what the original was - often, the original was fresh and new, and that's pretty hard to do in a "here are our heroes doing more cool things" movie. It's not impossible, as lots of sequels meet (or even beat) the original, but to me those are the exceptions to the rule.

The original trilogy, yes, even the "are you for real?" Ewoks, was fresh. Yeah, there were SF movies before, but for my generation (16 when SW debuted) we walked out screaming "That was AWESOME". Empire came out in 80 with a much darker story, and at the end, we again said "That was AWESOME!". Then we had the 2nd entire trilogy. I liked some parts, but disliked many others. Not because they weren't more of the first three, just because I thought they had too many very lame parts. Empire was very different from SW, but was as good if not better.

The fear now is, here we go again - a director that for whatever reason with the rebooted SW movies, seemed to alienate most of the folks that they were targeting with the movie. They weren't targeting my kids, they were targeting those folks who LIKED Star Trek - they just boned it (in my opinion). Now, with that same director taking on another franchise which has many of the same fans, it's understandable we're concerned.

Though I'm fine with some original cast (especially if they are appropriately aged for the story), it's not necessary. I just want a good story told well.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By FITCamaro on 5/1/2014 7:34:12 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't grow up watching the originals on the big screen either. But I did grow up watching them on my TV. And the size of the screen I watched them on didn't matter much in making me enjoy and love them. And result in me reading nearly every Star Wars book out there (I've fallen a little behind in recent years) while growing up.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 4:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you both are putting the old movies on too high of a pedestal.


LOL!!!

Yeah you're right. These two franchises have only been the most influential, most inspiring, most groundbreaking creative works in their genre. Maybe of ALL time! Capturing the imagination, hearts and minds of people for almost 50 years and 40 years respectively.

Obviously they're overrated!

Too high a pedestal...just...wtf.

That's like saying, hey, Twilight wasn't THAT bad. You Tolkien fans need to lighten up.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 4:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
"Yeah you're right. These two franchises have only been the most influential, most inspiring, most groundbreaking creative works in their genre"

That is exactly what I am saying. YOu have it up on a pedestal and nothing anyone would make could make you happy. You have already decided to hate it. Open that mind up pisan.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 6:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have already decided to hate it. Open that mind up pisan.


Wrong. I'm just being realistic, and preparing myself for the high probability.

Dude don't you understand? There's NO way I can recover from what Episode 1 did to me, I was SO enthusiastic. Never again lol.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By retrospooty on 4/29/2014 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Dude don't you understand? There's NO way I can recover from what Episode 1 did to me, I was SO enthusiastic. Never again lol."

LOL... Ok, NOW I get it. It was so bad it broke your sense of wonder about Star Wars.

Well, midiclorians. :P


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/29/2014 6:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
In a way, yes. Lucas KILLED my love of Star Wars.

Even when I watch the originals, my awareness of the Prequels at certain parts of the story sours my entire experience just a little.

However this helps!

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-...

The ORIGINAL edits, in HD, beautifully restored frame by frame. None of the Lucas nonsense.

And yes, oh yes, Han shoots first.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 5:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think the universe is about to implode. I am arguing to defend reclaimer's point of view. When you take something that people literally grew up with and wipe away everything that made it special, you are going to leave a sour taste in people's mouths. There is a reason why Abrams (Star Trek) and Bay (Transformers) are spoken about with derision by fans of the respective universes. Star Wars dwarfs both of those in nostalgia, and given Abrams' already bad track record with Star Trek, how can we not be "pre-bent"?

I would have loved to see Whedon do it. Firefly showed that he understands the space opera, space western, or whatever you want to call it, genre. I would even have settled for Jackson. I might not agree with some of the choices he made in his Tolkien adaptations, but at least he has a sense of epic.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Motoman on 4/29/2014 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
First there is J.J. "Lens Flare" Abrams at the helm.


Well...he can't possibly do any worse than Lucas did on Episodes 1-3. Especially 1. Or the re-releases of the original series with new editing, like Han not shooting first in the bar.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/29/2014 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
I actually liked Ep 2 and 3, except for a few elements. Jar Jar singlehandedly made sure that Ep 1 was unsalvageable.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By inperfectdarkness on 4/30/2014 4:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Red. Letter. Media.

GO watch the prequel reviews. 2 was even worse than 1...which I'm still baffled as to how that's possible.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By atechfan on 4/30/2014 7:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
I watched 5 minutes of their Winter Soldier review and had to turn it off. I could actually feel the stupid emanating from the monitor. Using those guys to prove your point is not making much of a case.


RE: Although I love Star Wars,
By Reclaimer77 on 4/30/2014 7:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
He's talking about the Plinket reviews, not "Half in the Bag".

The Plinkett reviews are THE definitive Star Wars Prequels reviews. Not a single point of his can be argued against.

But Half in the Bag, they aren't stupid, it's a purposeful stylistic theme of the series. Very entertaining if you give it a shot.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki