Star Wars 7 shit talk

why the question mark?

i wasn't addressing you much less attacking you; i didn't even notice your posts.

They (like practically everyone who's trying to make an expansive, multi-tiered movie franchise) are probably overshooting with the multiple spin-offs etc. I mean, in this case, they'll probably do fine business-wise but it kinda dilutes the special-ness of these movies being a once-in-a-while thing. We've previously had six movies over the span of almost 40 years (at least half of which were not well-loved by many) and we're on track to double that number within the next probably five years or so? Seems...unwise.

why the question mark?

I just talk that way, it's annoying probably

i wasn't addressing you much less attacking you; i didn't even notice your posts.

I didn't think you were addressing me or attacking me specifically. I just felt you were creating a dichotomy between true believers and everyone else, and that everyone else will be underwhelmed ... and by a movie none of us have seen yet except maybe some of the film goons.

I bored to shit with the whole Marvel thing, even though I was super inboard at the beginning. That definitely feeds into my hesitation on the new trilogy-plus angle.

metal hand we see in the trailers probably isn't even luke, it's Iron Man.

and that everyone else will be underwhelmed ...

it's just a hypothesis

it's just a hypothesis

and it very well could be correct!

Vader: Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. It is your destiny! Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy as father and son! Come with me. It is the only way.
[Luke lets go of the projection and falls into the shaft]
Vader: Luke, it's just a hypothesis.

I still love the whole Marvel thing but the way they're structuring their movies/shows makes sense because it's a reflection of how those stories were told in their original medium. Every other impending attempt at constructing a cinematic universe (yes, even DC's, given that their decisions thus far indicate the absence of a strong guiding hand) seems like folly to me.

i get that the hype is annoying but it kinda bums me out that ppl are actively rooting for disappointment

*clutches chewbacca hoodie*

Seems...unwise.

it's bizarre, it's like they're committed to extracting profit from their resources as voluminously as possible regardless of that level of extraction's sustainability or effects on the atmosphere

I'm not campaigning for disappointment. I'm skeptical of my own attention span.

I'm curious to see how much this makes. Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World both were surprisingly (to me) record-book huge. Then again, this one doesn't have Chris Pratt in it.

I still love the whole Marvel thing but the way they're structuring their movies/shows makes sense because it's a reflection of how those stories were told in their original medium.

This could work well for Star Wars too given the Flash Gordon influence.

that was lucas' original idea i think-- his real original idea, not the 9-part campbellian saga he pretty quickly retconned it to. he expected a lot of spinoffs from different people: compare his relative distance from empire, as if when it began it were just another episode, to his micromanagement of jedi.

no, sorry, forget that about empire/jedi. the idea early on tho, mid-70s, was for an infinite serial; by 78 lucas was promising a twelve-movie series to be completed in 2001, which just meant "a lot of movies" i think.

then he "cut that number down to nine because the other three were tangential to the saga", uh-huh.

I distinctly remember Lucas babbling about eight more movies between Empire and Jedi.

babbling b/w 1980 and 1983 about those eight more movies, that is

his heart and his best intentions still tell him that's true

dlh, you're going to find that a lot of the dates we discuss depend on our point of view

a certain point of view?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoAPSBMQEKU

I think I'd uh like to remind you that Obi Wan Kenobi didn't have a degree in Jedi mind control

http://f.cl.ly/items/3p2p0g3h1x2K3t0x3Y2a/IMG_3708.JPG

er, really? how is that??

the reviews i've read thus far (just a few!) suggest that, plot-wise, the new one is a reshuffling of the 1977 film -- a crypto-remake

(see e.g. http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/star-wars-review-the-force-awakens-1201661978/)

c'mon amateurist, school me in 15/70 format and how that shows "40% more of the image"

xp It's not at all. The elements are unmistakenly there, but like.. the death star feels like a minor detail in the film. And it never once felt like it was matching beats with ANH. They've got some of the same textures, but this felt like its own movie. I mean that honestly - I'd be the first to admit it if was a copy, partly because I thought that sounded like a pretty good idea. But it was never something I thought of while watching it, even having read about it earlier today.

Movie's pretty great and Daisy Ridley is GREAT and her and Boyega are basically super castings, bringing joy and humanity to every scene.

i see that Daisy Ridley's only previous film is Scrawl; i assume not a biopic of the band.

Would watch.

why no star peace

Edelstein:

I find myself of two minds about this. Apart from the suspenseful last half hour of The Revenge of the Sith, the Star Wars prequels were truly terrible, marked by lifeless pageantry, tectonic-plate pacing, Jar Jar, effects-cluttered frames, and Medusa dialogue (i.e., it turned actors to stone). But Lucas was attempting something that would surpass Lawrence of Arabia. He wanted to tell the story of the fall of a democratic republic, beginning with the sabotage of trade routes, lingering on debates (and betrayals) in a government assembly, and ending with the corruption of an idealistic young man who would go on to become one of the most iconic villains in pop culture. He wanted to explore the peril of having too much passion, which could be exploited by a knowing demagogue, so that the story of Darth Vader became The Last Temptation of Anakin Skywalker. He wanted to do all this with light-saber battles and awesome sci-fi spectacle. Yes, he forgot how to tell a story. Yes, he forgot (or ignored) what the fans wanted. But in his clumsy way he was going for what had never been done instead of redoing something that had.

It’s too bad it has to be one way or the other. Can someone—as they'd say in Ghostbusters—merge the streams?

http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/review-star-wars-the-force-awakens.html#

yes, as they'd say in Ghostbusters: "Hey, can someone merge the streams?"

the prequel apologists are becoming rather absurd

Is this only out in Australia so far? lol if so

Been out here for three hours now

only on the goddamn internet can a mostly shitty, decade-old movie that made almost a billion dollars be labeled "TRAGICALLY underrated"

It's not a tedious mess, it's Verfremdungseffekt!

what's almost as absurd is people willing to call Empire, the best of the movies, "great."

It's a film starring MARK HAMILL.

There's a lot of truth in that tbh

what's almost as absurd is people willing to call Empire, the best of the movies, "great."

It's a film starring MARK HAMILL.

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius),

yeah I know I say the same thing about movies starring Gary Cooper

i've come around to the idea that Cooper is good at well-written comedy! eg Design for Living, Ball of Fire

i saw Mark Hamill do a comedy on Broadway btw, which i'd completely forgotten about til this very minute!

http://www.ibdb.com/Production/View/4445

omigod, Hamill was a replacement Mozart in the Broadway production of Amadeus

only on the goddamn internet can a mostly shitty, decade-old movie that made almost a billion dollars be labeled "TRAGICALLY underrated"

― Does that make you mutter, under your breath, “Damn”? (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, December 16, 2015 9:08 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah it's true that actually finding this "tragic" is absurd, but it's possible for a film to be very successful and also underrated in certain circles.

i was just reading about how the intelligentsia looked down on fritz lang's films in the 1920s -- making a lot of the same complaints that a snob like jonathan rosenbaum (who i admire as a critic!) would later make about STAR WARS--i.e. that the subjects were puerile, the treatment hypercaffeinated, the whole thing unedifying, etc. (btw there's a lot of Lang in STAR WARS, I think -- and probably more NIBELUNGEN than i'd like to admit in the prequels.)

i posted above a link to a very thoughtful (a lengthy by blog standards) defense of the prequels by Roderick Heath.

i got my issues w/ gary cooper too, but he is pretty great in MAN OF THE WEST

xpost

and i do have a fair amount of respect for the /ambitions/ of the prequels. it's all rather impressive if you consider it in the abstract. unfortunately, unlike Heath, i find that Lucas pretty consistently fails to capitalize on his best ideas, and the prequels are a riot of narrative and stylistic misjudgements.

Well its mostly the "tragic" that i am harumphing at but tbrr imo none of the star wars films are great movies even as genre. They are well world built and innovative and considerate of core storytelling technique and historical saga and film history but the acting is generally terrible and the scripts are abhorrent. Viewed sans nostalgia they are mostly notable for ahead-of-their-time sfx and brilliant design... And the prequel trilogy doesnt even do those things well.

And i say this as a genx boba fett halloween mask wearer and as someone who loves scifi genre flicks when theyre done well.