Star Wars: AOTC Trailer on Monster Inc
FortKnox writes "Starwars.com has officially announced that Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones 'teaser' trailer will appear at the head of the new movie, Monsters, Inc. Other reports have the full trailer on Harry Potter, but this is still speculation. Ep-I DVD owners should be able to view the trailers on starwars.com once Monsters, Inc. hits theaters." Good thing I'm planning on seeing both of those movies anyway.
Am I the only one who HASN'T read the Harry Potter books? I don't mean to sound like an arrogant prick (although I really am), but weren't these books written for little kids? I mean, sure, I enjoyed Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and all when I was younger, but these days I barely watch any TV. So, my question is "What's the appeal of these childish stories to grown, sophisticated adults?".
Thanks.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Anyone who has the Ep 1 DVD knows they've been hyping November 9th. It was just kinda assumed that was the release date for the new teaser for Ep 2. Anyone check lately to see if 11/9 is still being promoted, or if they've changed that to 11/2 (the release date of Monsters Inc)?
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
The first book is pretty light and features HP as an 11 year old boy. But each subsequent book is darker as Harry gets older (one year per book). The first time I read the 4th book (which I'm currently re-reading in anticipation of the movie and 5th book) I snuck it into my cubicle and work and spent the entire day reading it. It's that gripping.
So no, they aren't for "little kids". They are for children of various ages. Just like the Narnia and Alice books.
324006
I'm almost afraid to watch teasers for Episode II. Two days before Episode I hit then theatres, I saw a track called Qui-Gon's Noble End on the soundtrack. Spoilers lake that can take away for one's enjoyment of a movie, especially and epic-style flick like Star Wars.
First of all, J.K. Rowling is a woman. On a more relevant note, the Harry Potter series is a fascinating epic with many threads and topics that keep adults enthralled, myself included. My wife read the first one, and recommended it to me, and I thought, 'oh, ok, i'll succumb to the hype this once' but it was amazing, and the other three only get better. There are also parallels with Star Wars. Young boy of unusual ability lives with aunt and uncle from infancy due to parents' mysterious deaths at the hands of an unknown evil. These facts are revealed suddenly and the boy's world is changed forever, as he learns to tap his powers and fight evil, while gathering friends. A New Hope, or The Sorcerer's Stone? Both, actually.
You are not the customer.
To avoid the dreaded Off-Topic markdown, let me just mention that, as one of the DVD-owners, I have access to the Star Wars site; they're still hyping November 9th as far as I know. For the moment, they have what can only be described as a trailer for the trailer posted--a 7-meg Quicktime slideshow called "Choices" that shows images and posits such gripping questions as "What is the cost of failure?" and, my favorite, "What do droids worry about?"
Since Quicktimes can easily be downloaded, I expect you could find it on Gnutella by now. It's not all that great, but at least it's something.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Return of the Jedi?
The Empire Strikes Back?
They are cool names only because you associate them with cool movies. They sound 'retro'. Today, audiences are very wary, if receptive at all, of 'camp' and in general, the 'pulpy' style. Lucas, if anything, is not bowing down to current trends in keeping the names of the movies in line with the original campy names. Unfortunately, I thnk audiences are far too cynical and pessimmistic to accept such campy names anymore, as evidenced by the furor over the name "Attack of the Clones". Personally, I think the more money you spend on something, the less likely people are going to accept camp as entertainment, especially since camp is one of the cheapest styles to infuse into movie productions. (Indeed, being 'campy' is partly defined as appearing articicial; thus, your sets/titling/acting need not be juiced for every possible production dollar.)
The media/advertising pipelines are more clogged than ever, and since camp is more often a tool used by lower budget productions (for obvious reasons), people are not hearing of movies that utilize camp very much, and consequently are not demanding it or appreciating it unless its associated with a previously prooven franchise (ie, Star Wars, Batman, Star Trek)
At least, thats my take on it.
Garret
"Old man yells at systemd"
I remember the same thing-- that opening weekend grosses were boosted by quite a bit because the Episode 1 trailer was attached. (For the record, though, in my area at least, it wasn't attached to Meet Joe Black-- a minor tragedy, because anticipation for the trailer was the reason I agreed to take my girlfriend to MJB in the first place).
I doubt it'll be quite such a noticable effect this time around, though, for a few reasons:
1. Star Wars fever has cooled considerably. We're not waiting here after a 16-year buildup-- it's only been a couple since Episode 1.
2. Considering the general feeling of disappointment left over from Episode 1 among the hard-core fans-- who are the ones that would pay for another movie just to see the new trailer-- it probably won't be such an event.
3. Monsters, Inc. and Harry Potter are going to do some big fat business in the first place. Any boost they get from the new teaser is probably just another drop in the bucket. I know I'm more excited to see 90 minutes of Pixar than two minutes of Lucasfilm, and I doubt you'd be able to find a kid in America that would disagree.
Of course, all of this is rambling based on knowledge gained from my Entertainment Weekly subscription, so it's all up for debate.
You mean I'm not allowed to purchase tickets to a movie by WB or Disney but not like the fact that they take my rights away with the profits?
... regulate what they could and could not do with the money they make off making good movies.
I thought thats what laws were for
PS, yes, I do think they make good movies.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Having seen the Star Wars movies as a kid, the TPM trailer gave me chills. "wow, just like the previous" movies. It was so perfect, so slick, I couldn't get over it. Then I saw the movie and _yikes_ was it horrible. Did I just grow up or was TPM just plain embarrassing? Sadly I think that you needed to be nine years old to appreciate it.
Can anyone suggest a website that will have the trailer besides starwars.com? I assume that someone will save it from starwars.com and post it elsewhere...
That being said, Harry Potter seems to be mostly preteen wish fulfillment with a slight Orwellian flavor. Orwell had a very similar masochistic writing style (Except his characters never had a chance.) The writing is as formulaic as Saturday Morning cartoons, and about as literary. On the plus side, it does piss the Baptists off and anything that pisses the Baptists off is a good thing in my book. It's also encouraging the kids to read, which is also a good thing, and sometimes you just want the literary equivalent of a slice of pie. After a week of digging through XML books, you really don't want to schlog through anything too heavy.
Take what I say with a grain of salt though. I also despise CS Lewis, which is the literary equivalent of having a metaphor pounded into your head with a 2x4. Also, any Disneyesque story where children overcome hideously inept adult villians. That pretty well limits the children's literature that I'll be feeding my kids.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?