Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars: Episode VII Cast Officially Announced

eldavojohn writes: "Word was leaking this week of some familiar faces in London hanging out together. Finally today an official cast listing for Star Wars Episode VII was handed down from on high to us mere mortals (Google Cache and Onion AV recap available). From the short release, 'Actors John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow will join the original stars of the saga, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Kenny Baker in the new film.' Let's not bicker and argue about who shot first but instead come to an agreement on expected levels of almost certain disappointment. No, this will not feature the Expanded Universe (EU) — you can now refer to those tales as 'Legends' which are not part of Star Wars canon. Instead prepare yourself for what will likely be the mother of all retcon films."

325 comments

  1. Looks like the site has been /.ed by probain · · Score: 1

    It's been a while since a site got hit by /. this bad. Site offline atm

    1. Re:Looks like the site has been /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      aka it was reddited and twitter...'ed? The internet is a lot larger than slashdot these days, it appeared en masse elsewhere first.

    2. Re:Looks like the site has been /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JJ Abrams seems very good at ruining the backstories of beloved franchises. "Retcon" should be his middle name.

    3. Re:Looks like the site has been /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      JJ Abrams seems very good at ruining the backstories of beloved franchises. "Retcon" should be his middle name.

      Perhaps though we have established here that his real name is Jar Jar Binks Abrams.

  2. May the first post be with me by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    No?

    1. Re:May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost. More gusto. *fists clenched* Nooooo!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:May the first post be with me by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The force is obviously not strong in this one.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:May the first post be with me by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Khaaaaan!!!! (Ducks)

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:May the first post be with me by jonyen · · Score: 1

      That should just be one fist clenched. The other hand is supposed to be severed by lightsaber.

    5. Re:May the first post be with me by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      For God's sake..PLEASE don't put Leia in any more gold bathing suits, unless you are VERY good at the CGIâ¦..man, she did NOT age well.

      For that matter, Luke and Han didn't eitherâ¦but wowâ¦Carrie went south bad and went earlyâ¦.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:May the first post be with me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Your reputation precedes you, Darth Errone(o)us.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:May the first post be with me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, the apparel in question would make for a fine "Mum, look what I found in your old wardrobe!" scene on Daisy Ridley's part. :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:May the first post be with me by tragedy · · Score: 1

      For that matter, Luke and Han didn't either

      Errr. Harrison Ford didn't age well? I mean, he's '72 now, but he was a pretty major Hollywood leading man for quite a long time, so your position seems pretty hard to defend.

    9. Re:May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avoid it all together, like me.
      In response to being grounded and prevented from viewing the first Star Wars when it premiered, and the social outcast I became at the hands of my classmates, I boycotted/ badmouthed the entire franchise from the beginning.
      If they wanted Leia to look good, they wouldve replaced her with her younger look-alike Edie Brickell, like Paul Simon did...
      Discuss....

    10. Re:May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ebgohu lo Meiwglp rwa rwb Mirumx Mrwb hmrzu Misus
      uthogbe ol phlgshiem ashr bshr chmurim bshrm uzrmth susim
      and-she-is-doting on paramours-of-her who flesh-of donkeys flesh-of-them and-effusion-of horses
      Mhmrz
      zrmthm
      effusion-of-them

      interesting sig, bet there is a story there....

    11. Re: May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ezekiel 23:20

    12. Re:May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    13. Re:May the first post be with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  3. Certain Disappointment by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am disappointed that they are even making another Star Wars "film."

    1. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just can't get enough of that zany Jar Jar.

    2. Re:Certain Disappointment by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then this isn't the thread you are looking for, move along.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Certain Disappointment by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      Same here. The movie storyline was fairly compactly wrapped up. More movies feels like a money grab. I was interested in the prequels and seeing the Republic in its former glory, but more SW movies feels like a comic movie sequel where they wheel out another villain.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Certain Disappointment by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      You aren't "certain" it's going to be a dissapointment before the movie is made. It's not like the first three were made, perfectly, by God himself. Furthermore, if it's terrible and you call it in advance, congratulations! You get to say "I called it!" to all the zero people who care.

      (Pointless cynicism is a pet peeve of mine)

    5. Re:Certain Disappointment by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, the first three they created told a story from beginning to end too. It's like complaining about LOTR because the Hobbit ended quite thoroughly(books, not movies).

    6. Re:Certain Disappointment by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      I was interested in the prequels and seeing the Republic in its former glory, but more SW movies feels like a comic movie sequel where they wheel out another villain.

      Timothy Zahn's Thrawn trilogy starting with Heir to the Empire , the first major post-Return of the Jedi book in the Extended Universe, was "wheeling out another villain". However, it was believable in the context of the overthrow of the Empire, since history has often shown generals refusing to accept the downfall of their employer and fighting on for the old cause.

      I'm not worried about wheeling out another villain per se, but rather it being done clumsily and with an eye mainly to tie-in marketing.

    7. Re:Certain Disappointment by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Cynicism is never pointless.

    8. Re:Certain Disappointment by xevioso · · Score: 1

      It is always only entirely pointless.

    9. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, am looking forward to this. Okay, 1, 2, and 3 sucked, but I thought JJ Abrams did a kick ass job on the Star Trek reboot they have the original cast coming back. It's not like Harrison Ford needs the money, so I can't imagine he'd sign on if it wasn't a good part (although what Samuel Jackson was thinking, I don't know).

      So we have all the basement dwelling slashdot neckbeard starwars purists whining about another episode, but you know that everyone here will be standing in line to see it.

    10. Re:Certain Disappointment by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Then don't watch it. You are completely free to watch the original trilogy, in their original versions, on laserdisc, over and over again.

      JJ Abrams did a good job with the new Star Trek movies. The prequel trilogy was ruined by George Lucas. With him out of the picture, I'm cautiously optimistic.

    11. Re:Certain Disappointment by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to admit, there was one episode of Clone Wars where the writers made good use of Jar Jar (the clone troopers effective used his as a bomb to take out the enemy - sadly, only a metaphorical bomb).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Certain Disappointment by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Its called lowering standards. If you expect bad movies, its easier to actually enjoy them. If you expect great movies, its easy to be disapointed. Most people aren't very good at approaching a given subject with objectivity.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    13. Re:Certain Disappointment by lgw · · Score: 1

      Does Lucas have any creative input for these? Certain disappointment, if that's the case.

      Abrams is a schlocky hack, but you know, these films are supposed to be schlock, so I'm with you in cautious optimism.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Certain Disappointment by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      The more time that hack Abrams spends on Star Wars means less time he has to screw up Star Trek even more than he already has.

    15. Re:Certain Disappointment by Toshito · · Score: 5, Insightful

      JJ Abrams did a good job with the new Star Trek movies

      What? Are you high? He fucking ruined it.

      He turned an intelligent show, an universe wich could be used to adress some core questions of humanity and morality, and turned it into boring action films.

      Great if you don't like to think for yourself and just want to be entertained.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    16. Re:Certain Disappointment by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      Amen to this!

    17. Re:Certain Disappointment by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 0, Troll

      How dare movies be entertaining, right?

      Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country, asked us such through provoking questions about...whales...or something.

    18. Re:Certain Disappointment by Wain13001 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not like Harrison Ford needs the money, so I can't imagine he'd sign on if it wasn't a good part.

      Did you watch Kingdom of The Crystal Skull?

    19. Re:Certain Disappointment by sjames · · Score: 1

      These movies were part of the plan before the first one (episode 4 ) even came out.

      I'm sure though that the prospect of great mounds of cash went a long way towards getting buy-in for the new movies.

    20. Re:Certain Disappointment by Mab_Mass · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Onion nailed it.

    21. Re:Certain Disappointment by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      How cynical of you.

    22. Re:Certain Disappointment by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The first movie told it all and was tied up in a single bundle and intended to be one movie only. The next two were to capitalize on unexpected success.

    23. Re:Certain Disappointment by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      He is a creative consultant plus Disney has access to all of his old files.

      I actually take this as a good sign. Lucas does the big stuff – like universe building – well. That is what he is going to have input on. I like JJ Abrams is very good at making great stuff that is bright and shinny – the deep stuff less well. Hopefully they will fill in the gap for each other weaknesses.

    24. Re:Certain Disappointment by almitydave · · Score: 2

      Well, since so much time has passed since Return of the Jedi, I believe in Episode VII Han Solo will be fighting the Soviets. Seriously, though, you can't have Star Wars without a villain, and Thrawn was a great one.

      More on topic, the Star Wars universe is a rich one with lots of potential, and it seems to me like there should always be a film in the works. I would have no problem if it became like the Bond franchise, with a new movie every few years. Sure, some will be crap, but those don't detract from the quality of the good ones. What if 7, 8, and 9 turn out to be good ones? Will people still say no one should have made any after RotJ?

      I look forward to seeing another Star Wars movie.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    25. Re:Certain Disappointment by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, with few exceptions, all the new parts are relative nobodies i.e. people who can be hired for all 3 movies in advance at a non-superstar rate.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:Certain Disappointment by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Say the truth!

      He took Kahn, a military genius and charismatic leader (the latter of which the original episode went out of their way to belabor) and turned him into a modern autist evil genius.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    27. Re:Certain Disappointment by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Star Trek 6, the undiscovered country" is a metaphor for the end of the cold war. Klingon have always been a Russian equivalent of a scary foreigner that we're not quite really at war with. By movie #6, the cold war was over and the movie's plot was centered around old war mongers that feared change and would commit to war just for their own desires. What do we do with our old war machines? Between the heavy topic and the Shakespeare quotes, #6 is one of the more intellectual movies of the set.

      The whales are in "Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home", which had a more lighthearted approach and the moral was that we shouldn't genocide species on Earth as they may be important some day. In this case, it's because a vastly powerful alien race made first contact with whales before human were around and their efforts to re-establish contact with the now extinct species was destructive to the surface.

      I hear what you're saying, but I like my sci-fi like I like my eggs. HARD.

    28. Re:Certain Disappointment by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 2

      I think you're overselling StarTrek a bit. It was a silly action/adventure show with regular goofy fight scenes. It was though, a show that was written by people with an interest in core questions of humanity. On the good episodes that humanity shone through in a way that was novel for television. On the bad.. well, not so much.

      I do agree that the show lost something in it's newest franchise and has become something else that I find isn't for me. Lets not kid ourselves on the source material though.

    29. Re:Certain Disappointment by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was still better than the Star-Wars prequels :-)

    30. Re:Certain Disappointment by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      That's perfect. Well played, sir.

    31. Re:Certain Disappointment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      yeah and the second movie was one of the best action movies ever so it puts a pot in the "sequelz is badzorz" meme.

    32. Re:Certain Disappointment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      actually disney has big plans for star wars, like they do for marvel. they're going to do one movie every year, alternating between a group movie and an individual character movie (ie. a movie about yoda). kinda like avengers movies and cap america thor iron man etc.

    33. Re:Certain Disappointment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      "where are your nuclear wessels?"

    34. Re:Certain Disappointment by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't.

    35. Re:Certain Disappointment by Zynder · · Score: 3, Informative

      ST6 didn't have WHALES jackass! You aren't a nerd. IMPOSTER! IMPOSTER!

    36. Re:Certain Disappointment by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I think it falls squarely between prequel 1 and 3, and far in advance of prequel 2.

    37. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly never dealt with politicians or highly paid businessmen. Always treat them cynically, and you'll find that you're not disapointed.

    38. Re:Certain Disappointment by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Does Lucas have any creative input for these?

      I don't know if you saw the photo, but credited is "writer Lawrence Kasdan". That detail pushed my optimism level up by quite a bit.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    39. Re:Certain Disappointment by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      +1, Good taste

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    40. Re:Certain Disappointment by vux984 · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't

      I had to think about it, but yeah it was. Crystal Skull was stupid as rocks and a stain on the franchise.

      But all 3 star wars prequels were much worse.

      Crystal Skull would have been worse only if one of the aliens had been Indy's mom, and indy's kid was half alien and the key to letting the aliens go home, using the force to fly a bicycle. Oh and Indy's kid would have married Marion and had a baby jedi.

    41. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's why Futurama is better than Clone Wars - they used Bender as an actual bomb!

    42. Re:Certain Disappointment by captjc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he turned Star Trek into Star Wars. So I guess he probably would be a good fit.

      Besides, If the movies are going to have one good point, Max Von Sydow. As villains go, he doesn't disappoint.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    43. Re:Certain Disappointment by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see SW go completely left field and discover Earth during WW2 or something. Or maybe medieval times where the Jedis use their sword fighting skills against King Arthur or something? I mean the franchise is fucked already so we may as well have fun with it right?

    44. Re:Certain Disappointment by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The movie storyline was fairly compactly wrapped up. More movies feels like a money grab.

      You're talking about after the first one, right? The one which was retrospectively retitled as Episode IV when Lucas realised there was money in making both sequels and prequels.

    45. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And Ender's Game? It's like Ford went tone deaf on what makes a good film when he turned 83, or however old he is now.

    46. Re:Certain Disappointment by jlv · · Score: 1

      JJ Abrams did a good job with the new Star Trek movies.

      Not really.

      He made two very nice space action/adventure movies. They just really had nothing to do with Star Trek. The only "Star Trek" in it was that he reused the names of existing characters and made them act entirely differently. They could have all had different names and differently shaped ships, and it would have worked just fine with the "Star Trek" name on it.

      He just plundered the existing fan base. He'll do the same with Star Wars.

    47. Re:Certain Disappointment by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Well, it probably won't actually be a film, but pure digital video.

    48. Re:Certain Disappointment by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Not trying to be snotty, but can you give a citation for that?

      I am not a comic book fan, but think Marvel has been hitting mostly home runs for about a decade now with movies. They're now probably making a _bit_ too many, but I can understand that happening, with them being so successful. 1-2 superhero movies a year would be good, IMHO. A Star Wars movie every year? That sounds like a lot, even if they're all good (which I suspect they won't be).

    49. Re:Certain Disappointment by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Then don't watch it. You are completely free to watch the original trilogy, in their original versions, on laserdisc, over and over again.

      Too bad they never made any sequels...

    50. Re:Certain Disappointment by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      How could that be resolved against the "Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away..." theme?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    51. Re:Certain Disappointment by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      It depends which definition of film you use.

      "Something thin and flat which clings to something more substantial" may be apropos.

    52. Re:Certain Disappointment by westyvw · · Score: 1

      There is only 1, which is number 4. All others are a travesty, so adding another wont hurt much. The horse already has lost its scent its been down so long, but hey they keep smacking it.

    53. Re:Certain Disappointment by westyvw · · Score: 1

      I would have been happy if they had stopped with A New Hope. The slope of suck just got steeper with each additional movie.

      I would rather just see a new space movie and skip the star wars altogether.

    54. Re:Certain Disappointment by westyvw · · Score: 1

      What? Abrams is a moron. He hasnt done anything, and I mean ANYTHING worth while. Its like he heads in the right direction and then flies of a cliff (or lans flares a time warp) whatever.

    55. Re:Certain Disappointment by westyvw · · Score: 2

      Difficult to be entertained while doging the minefield of plot holes. An hour of Hot wheels crashing in mid air with circus music and lens flare would be about the same as Abrams Trek.

    56. Re:Certain Disappointment by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1
      that's cool, people should be called out when they don't cite interesting claims. I didn't provide a citation earlier because I didn't know where I learned it, but I did some research-fu.

      Last July Bob Iger went on CNBC and said

      “There’s been speculation about some standalone films that are in development, and I can confirm to you today that in fact we are working on a few standalone films. Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are both working on films derived from great Star Wars characters that are not part of the overall saga. So we still plan to make Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 roughly over a six-year period of time, starting 2015. But there are going to be a few other films released in that period of time too.”

      I wonder which characters they'll be profiling? Ain't It Cool News says that Yoda is first.

      but all of this is based on year-old news, so who knows what the current situation is.

    57. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ST6 didn't have WHALES jackass! You aren't a nerd. RENEGADE!RENEGADE!

      FIFY (By changing film.)

    58. Re:Certain Disappointment by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The 4th, 5th, and 6th ones all blur together in my head under the category of "terrible".

    59. Re:Certain Disappointment by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Great if you don't like to think for yourself and just want to be entertained.

      If I wanted to think I'd read a highschool mathematics textbook. The new Star Trek movies are simply damn fun and a joy to watch.

      Why does everything need to be about thinking for yourself. The great part about watching a movie in the cinema is that after a hard day of thinking and working, you don't need to think. If rotten tomatoes is anything to go by people love the new Star Trek just as much as the old one. Different people maybe, but people none the less.

    60. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Ender's Game?!?

    61. Re:Certain Disappointment by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2

      So your saying your idea of intellectualism is star trek? Your not as intellectual as you think you are. The old star trek was hardly intellectual, unless you are 5.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    62. Re:Certain Disappointment by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Yea, all he does is take a few 10s to 100M dollars and turn it into 500M or more. Sure glad i don't have to share an office with that loser!

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    63. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this then... the lore from Star Trek actually produced technical manuals on how a huge number of things work (e.g. teleporter and warp and food, etc). I can't think of anything impossible physics-wise (at the time). This was an awesome slant for a geek. Now, the story is packed full of absolutely impossible events to drive an impossible storyline. There will never be that in the ST franchise again.

      Note: I only watched the first one, but it was bad enough I'll never watch another.

      I'll probably not watch SW either due to Ep 1.

    64. Re:Certain Disappointment by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I saw all of the Star Trek movies by Abrams and I honestly can not remember the plot line of any of them. There was nothing objectionable about them, I guess they were okay movies; they had decent effects and scenes... but I can not remember what they were about.

      I think of them like candy (not chocolate). Utterly devoid of any nutrition but they taste pretty good. I would rather have a nice steak.

      I can recite the plots of all of the non-Abrams Star Trek movies, even the bad ones. I wonder why...

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    65. Re:Certain Disappointment by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      The storyline was wrapped up in the movies. I'm not talking about Lucas' original vision. Had RotJ been left somewhat open ended like intended, I'd agree with you.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    66. Re:Certain Disappointment by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The first movie began "Episode IV: A New Hope", implying that at least three prequels were envisioned.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    67. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem was that he was such a clutz that it was way overboard. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about Jar Jar other than getting everyone around him killed. Characters should have at least SOMETHING redeeming about them. The fact that Jar Jar has NO redeeming qualities makes it that much more annoying. Seems like the writers are trying to piss you off. It worked, so I don't watch Clone Wars anymore.

    68. Re:Certain Disappointment by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with that, which is why I'm not saying anything positive about it. There's a ton of room between building up expectations and saying "It's certain to be bad."

    69. Re:Certain Disappointment by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      That "Episode IV" stuff was put in after the fact. Years after the movie was first released.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    70. Re:Certain Disappointment by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You can say what you want about Abrams' ability to make exciting action set pieces. He's got a lot of technical and artistic skill in that area. I think there's a lot of good that can be defended about the casting and art direction of the new "Star Trek" movies (disclaimer: I've only seen clips of "Khan Lite"). I would even go so far as to praise some of the changes that came out of the "reboot" aspect of altering the timeline.

      But the plots were absolutely and utterly incoherent. Then again, this is true for most action movies nowadays. I'm not talking about "Oh, there's a plot hole", but more along the lines of "Nothing that happens makes any sense, other than to be a thin substrate linking interchangeable action scenes."

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    71. Re:Certain Disappointment by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Gene Rodenberry was saying something about morality?

      As in how fast he wanted to send it out the window?

    72. Re:Certain Disappointment by Zynder · · Score: 1

      I cannot argue against that!

    73. Re:Certain Disappointment by slapout · · Score: 1

      Did you even watch Insurrection or Nemesis? The series was being run into the ground.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    74. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong

      In the original movie, the scrolling text says Episode IV

    75. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad they did. The Empire Strikes Back is *by far* the best of the Star Wars films. Return of the Jedi would have been a better film than the first if hadn't been for the Ewok shit. The final lightsaber battle between Luke and Vader was one of the coolest fight scenes in movie history.

    76. Re:Certain Disappointment by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      For some people. For others, they really see things in binary. It must be great, or it must be terrible. Thumbs up or Thumbs down. awesome sauce or lame.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    77. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're overselling StarTrek a bit. It was a silly action/adventure show with regular goofy fight scenes. It was though, a show that was written by people with an interest in core questions of humanity. On the good episodes that humanity shone through in a way that was novel for television. On the bad.. well, not so much.

      I do agree that the show lost something in it's newest franchise and has become something else that I find isn't for me. Lets not kid ourselves on the source material though.

      Heh, definitely, but it's not kidding to recognize the use of dialogue in the older Star Trek series vs. this movie, which was a blasty action flick from the first moments on.

    78. Re:Certain Disappointment by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Well, for some people, the 1940's might as well have been a million years ago. Plus the Earth has actually traveled pretty far in the last 70 years.

      Or maybe the Jedi will discover Red Matter and travel through time and space to help Earth defeat Kahn during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. Actually now I want to see that.

      Personally, I thought one of the better Star Trek: Voyager episodes was the one with the Klingons fighting Nazis, so there's precedent (of course, that was on the holodeck, but entertaining nonetheless).

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    79. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first movie begain as just Star Wars.

      It was re-released just before The Empire Strikes Back and at that time it became Episode IV: A New Hope.

    80. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only boring Action Films, Boring, non-sensical, internally inconsistent just plain DUMB Action films, I'm sure I've left some out, but my point is there I think

    81. Re:Certain Disappointment by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that when "Star Wars" was first shown in theaters, there was no mention of "Episode IV". That was a later addition.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    82. Re:Certain Disappointment by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So your saying your idea of intellectualism is star trek? Your not as intellectual as you think you are. The old star trek was hardly intellectual, unless you are 5.

      Yes, but at least the screenwriters for the original series knew the difference between "your" and "you're" - an important measure of intellect, don't you think?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    83. Re:Certain Disappointment by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You know this is a movie right? I'll give you a few right here: Wormhole, time machine, mysterious fog, spin the earth backwards, slingshot around the sun, a negative reality inversion, who really cares right? It's a movie, you make some shit up. As long as its interesting most audiences will let it slide.

    84. Re:Certain Disappointment by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      What? TESB was even better than ANH. I also have a soft spot for ROTJ. The prequels were not necessary (Jar Jar and Midichlorians), so were the new effects and CGI in the Remastered editions (not even talking about who shot first)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    85. Re:Certain Disappointment by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Only to a gamma Nazi. Guess how intellectual you are coming across.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    86. Re:Certain Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall, the original theatrical did not start the main crawl with "New Hope" or Episiode number and the movie was in fact just "Star Wars".

  4. Han won't move first this time around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Han: "Back in my day, we had to go through asteroid fields all the time! Right, Chewie?"

    Chewie: (asleep) "ZZZZZ"

    Han: "Now get offa my lawn!"

  5. WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Multiple Autoplay ads while unattended and minimized?

    I come back into office and my computer is yacking away.

    Good bye dickheads

    1. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can see ads? I almost forgot what those were like... Perhaps you shouldn't be using the internet...

    2. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AdBlock + NoScript--your best friends for surfing.

    3. Re:WTF slashdot by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      You can see ads? I almost forgot what those were like... Perhaps you shouldn't be using the internet...

      Gosh I guess, I've just reinstalled a now Win7 OS (clean) and using the basics, a 455 line HOSTS file from
      http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... and no ads (something works better as my old HOSTS file blocks too much).

    4. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, I just got promoted.

      Thanks Slashdot!

    5. Re:WTF slashdot by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

      AdBlock + NoScript--your best friends for surfing.

      If you block ads on slashdot, do you see anything at all?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      legend has it, if you go into a dark room, and stare into a mirror while holding a lightstick, and say "APK" three times, the NSA will cut off your internet.

    7. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps... you... should... pass... it... around... there... are... other... folks... waiting... for... the... turn... you... know...

    8. Re:WTF slashdot by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I didn't even know slashdot had ads until a few years ago, when it popped up a notice that I was eligible to opt out of seeing advertisements. So ya, you can use adblock and it all goes away. You don't even need noscript and extra efforts to hide stuff like some web sites. However there may be slashvertisements which are only filtered out based upon the individual readers' own perceptions.

    9. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey APK, when you are throwing around your stupid ads for HOSTS files, you aren't supposed to be logged in to your real account.

    10. Re:WTF slashdot by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, you're doing it wrong! Only an idiot would use HOSTS files, they're outdated, a pain to administer, and generally a complete waste of time. Only a psychotic internet troll could advocate the use of such a thing.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    11. Re:WTF slashdot by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

    12. Re:WTF slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said that?

  6. so? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's a fucking movie. IT's going to violate its previous mythologic narratives? It was MADE UP by writers. IT doesn't matter. It will still be a crap movie.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:so? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      It's a fucking movie. IT's going to violate its previous mythologic narratives? It was MADE UP by writers. IT doesn't matter. It will still be a crap movie.

      Well thank you very much, Mr. . . . uh . . . Spoilsport.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:so? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OTOH it's a thread about something you claim not to care about, and yet you post here.

      BTW +1 for the Fireside reference. :)

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:so? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The narrative is the entire point. It's a movie.

      If you want me to become emotionally invested in your story, you can't just suddenly say "Ignore everything I've been telling you for the past 30 years"

    4. Re:so? by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why all the snark and angst? The story submission dripped with unwarranted sarcasm ("cast list... handed down to us mere mortals?" What, you wanted them to consult you first?) and negativity ("mother of all retcon films" - the stupid EU stuff was never really canon to be retconned).

      I know everyone was disappointed by Episodes 1-3, but let's get over it and give the new movies a chance. Oh, and for the record, yes Episode 1 was utter trash except for about 15 minutes, but Episode 2 was at least marginal and Episode 3 was a decent movie. Attribute all this to George Lucas being a changed person/storyteller and having nobody looking over his shoulder to say "George, that's a stupid idea." (Who elects a queen? And who elects a 14-year-old girl to anything? Oh, and why do you want to prevent Jedis from having kids when using the Force is apparently an inherited trait?) We can all go on about what was wrong with the first three movies, but they were not collectively the unmitigated disaster people love to claim.

      I don't think that anyone can deny that George Lucas, in recent years, was an absolutely terrible steward of his own creations - basically "nothing going on" with Star Wars except for an awful animated TV show and EU novels that were a perpetual crapshoot in terms of quality. Star Wars was stagnant and heading downhill in terms of ever building on its legacy. Besides, the EU had run its course - the last novel I read had Han, Luke and Leia running around blowing things up while they practically needed scooters to get around, and the series failed to deliver a really compelling new generation of characters to care about (maybe except Jagged Fel and Ben Skywalker's Sith pseudo-girlfriend).

      So the EU was done, George Lucas had run the Star Wars empire into the ground, and it was time to start fresh. There's a new sheriff in town, and I'm OK with that. I know this is heresy here, but I actually liked what J.J. Abrams did with the Star Trek reboot. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with the new Star Wars movies. Yes, I will go into the theater in December 2015 with managed expectations but I don't understand everyone piling on and assuming they will be terrible.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:so? by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      These aren't the memories you're looking for.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    6. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want me to become emotionally invested in your story, you can't just suddenly say "Ignore everything I've been telling you for the past 30 years"

      No, he's saying "All those fanfic novels you bought? Don't expect me to honor some random storyline from them."

      Example: I do not expect Kyle Katarn to show up in any of these movies, and he was written by LucasArts. I expect there would be some excessive trademark wars if the scriptwriters tried to include any third-party characters in the story. On the other hand, Disney was capable of getting Capcom, Nintendo, Sega and a half dozen other game companies to approve use of their characters in a single movie, so maybe they'd have enough clout to get a scene with a high ranking Chiss tossed in to both tease the EU crowd and show the divergence of megaplot.

    7. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving your opinion about something you don't care about and caring about that something are two different things.

    8. Re:so? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      the stupid EU stuff was never really canon to be retconned).

      The Star Wars Extended Universe was considered canon to a large degree. To quote from the Wikipedia article:

      George Lucas retains artistic control over the Star Wars universe. For example, the death of central characters and similar changes in the status quo must first pass his screening before authors are given the go-ahead. In addition, Lucasfilm Licensing devotes efforts to ensure continuity between the works of various authors across companies.

      That degree of coordination and the involvement of studio figures really set Star Wars publications apart from Star Trek. For the latter, Paramount and the TV and film writers were pretty upfront about the fact that Pocket Books' Star Trek novels, while authorized, had bugger-all to do with the canon.

      So, after many years of tie-in products being seen as a part of a whole, it is understandable that the decision of Disney to junk all that disappoints longtime fans.

    9. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a decent movie

      If Episode 3 was a decent movie, someone get me Hollywood.

      And all the Oscars in every category go to.... Christopher Lambert. For Druids.

      Episode 3 was painful. I've seen elementary school plays with better acting.

    10. Re:so? by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      If you want me to become emotionally invested in your story, you can't just suddenly say "Ignore everything I've been telling you for the past 30 years"

      This isn't a change of existing policy. All along has been the understanding that only the movies are considered part of Lucasfilm canon.
        Other people can write as many stories as they want, but that doesn't mean "it happened" in the official universe.

    11. Re:so? by Kelbear · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, and why do you want to prevent Jedis from having kids when using the Force is apparently an inherited trait?

      I saw an interesting fantheory on this subject. To summarize, his theory was that the secret origin of the Jedi order is that force sensitives were growing in number across the galaxy due to the force sensitivity being a heritable trait. The power of the force easily lent itself to megalomaniacal personality development (essentially random people discovering themselves to be akin to gods among men). In order to resolve this growing issue. The Jedi Order was formed as a means of controlling the growth of the force sensitive population, by indoctrinating them with celibacy to cut down on the volume and potency of Force Sensitives in the galaxy, and avoid a need for mass genocide from the fearful majority of non-force sensitives, as well as avoiding too many power-mad force users. Over time, the overarching reason for the formation of the Jedi Order was lost over time, and all that they remember is the specific teachings of celibacy and self-discipline. Force users who simply embraced the gift of the force and welcomed the power it brought were labeled as the enemies of the Jedi Order, and called "Sith" by the Jedi.

    12. Re:so? by schnell · · Score: 1

      That is the first reasonable explanation I have ever seen for that. Thank you. I'm not sure I buy it, but it is at least interesting to think about.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    13. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He took the time to log in, enter a thread, read the heading article, and then to post. Now, either he cares about it, or he's trolling. Either way, shut the fuck up.

    14. Re:so? by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      I've heard it was more about avoiding any emotional attachments, and seeing as this is an important part of parenting the two don't go together very well.

      --
      horror vacui
    15. Re:so? by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      They should just do what the comic book guys do. Set the new ones in an alternate dimension, which is almost but not quite entirely unlike Star Wars. Then, they could do whatever they want to, the fans can keep their cherished memories and believe they came from the TRUE universe. To top it all off, they can have a movie where the two realities join forces to battle some inter-dimensional-something-or-other. At least if they mentioned such a thing it might get the whiny fanboys to simmer down a bit.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    16. Re:so? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      He took the time to log in,... he's trolling.

      Who the hell actually logs in every time they visit /. ? I logged in months ago, and it just keeps me logged in between sessions.

      Either way, shut the fuck up.

      You can't violate his First Amendment rights like that. Who do you think you are, Samuel L Jackson?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    17. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing with the wizards in Discworld.

    18. Re:so? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Only the government can violate First Amendment rights.

    19. Re:so? by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      The real mistake with the first trilogy is the focus on "society" and "cultural interaction" instead of what is going on inside one guy.

    20. Re:so? by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      The Jedi Order was all about promoting eugenics?

      Kind of like a for-runner of slashdot and Darwin?

      Actually, I heard Lucas modeled the empire officers (i.e. the bad guys) after the SS ... who were really into the whole eugenics thing.

    21. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I actually liked what J.J. Abrams did with the Star Trek reboot.

      You liked that he shit all over an age-old franchise in an effort to make it palatable to idiots?

    22. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok so .... why weren't the sith breeding en-masse?

      This explanation is garbage.

  7. Good luck with you FanFic, Disney by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

    Be sure to include lots of 'plosions and farting aliens!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  8. These are NOT... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    These are not the actors you are looking for... (Or the story, writers, or director .....)

    You KNOW that after 6 movies of declining quality and a host of spin off cartoons of horrible quality, this can go only one way. I'm already disappointed that they didn't leave the story alone after the first three (i.e. Star Wars, Empire, Return). What can they do now? Invent another alien character like JarJar Binks? PLEASE NOOOOOOooooooo!!!

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:These are NOT... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      C'mon, they have Gollum in this one. How can they go wrong?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:These are NOT... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.

    3. Re:These are NOT... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Empire and Jedi are both better then than Ep. 4

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:These are NOT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Max von Sydow? Not the actor I'm looking for?

      Yeah, complain about Lucas's direction, complain about the script, fret over the time wasted, but don't tell me I don't want him around.

    5. Re:These are NOT... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Hey, the cartoons by Genndy Tartakovsky were good.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:These are NOT... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Who do think is doing the motion capture for Jar Jar?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:These are NOT... by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      Pretty much this. If the series was going to be milked further, it should have gone forward, not backward*. Oh well, a bunch of people will pay $10-$35 to see it. That's all the people pulling the strings care about

      *(upward, not forward. whirling towards freedom, etc)

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    8. Re:These are NOT... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      You KNOW that after 6 movies of declining quality

      Really? I have them like this:

      1. V. Empire

      2. IV. Star Wars

      3. III. Sith

      4. II. Clones

      5. VI. Jedi

      6. I. Phantom Menace

      Hardly declining quality. And who knows? Maybe these will be awesome... The recent Star Trek movies are certainly better than the old ones.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    9. Re:These are NOT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who knows? Maybe these will be awesome... The recent Star Trek movies are certainly better than the old ones.

      The recent Trek movies are the worst pieces of camel dung I have ever seen. They are an abomination of sub-par pulp just like every thing else JJ Abrams has done. He is by far the most overrated producer/directer in ages. Him and Michael Bay can rot in a cesspool of excrement.

    10. Re:These are NOT... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I liked Jedi the best, myself. If you just squint and pretend the ewoks are wookies, it's really a good film. I found the pacing on Empire plodding, and the whole last act boring whenever Vader wasn't on the screen.

      But then, I also thought Phantom Menace was acceptable - not as good as IV, but not that bad. The plot was a hopeless tangle that made no kind of sense but the individual scenes were entertaining. Not like Clones and Sith which each had the worst direction in any movie ever (yes, each was worse than the other in a recursive loop of infinite suck).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:These are NOT... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Opening scenes of Star Wars Episode VII: An older Jar-Jar Binks walks through Mos Eisley and says "Meesa so glad me made it past all that craziness unharmed."

      Out of nowhere, Gollum jumps on top of Jar-Jar and dismembers him shouting "You ruined my Precious!!!"

      The Cantina band stops playing for a bit to watch the spectacle but soon starts up again. Wipe over to the main story after audience applause.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:These are NOT... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Oh well, a bunch of people will pay $10-$35 to see it.

      That would not include me. I'm saving my grocery money for The Matrix, part IV.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:These are NOT... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on your #1 and #2, but I thought Jedi was better than the episodes that came after the original trilogy. It might be that I didn't see the last three installments in theater but on DVD later. Actually, I only saw Empire and Jedi in theater, so I actually saw the original film after the last two.

      Where I thought the prequels where interesting, and I generally enjoyed them, I found the inconsistencies in the story line way too distracting, not to mention all the new aliens they invented where even more trumped up than the original three. But hey, if you like them, feel free to watch them.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:These are NOT... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You forgot the start of the Title sequence...

      A long time ago, In a galaxy far far away..... (pause)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:These are NOT... by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the most-recent, non-Abrams Trek films were pretty bad. Insurrection and Nemesis had terrible plots, and paled in quality when compared to First Contact. I had hoped that Abrams could reboot the franchise and take it in an entirely new direction. Sadly, he opted for a cheap way out. Now, a Michael Bay Star Trek...that has some potential.

    16. Re:These are NOT... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The Cantina band stops playing for a bit to watch the spectacle but soon starts up again. Wipe over to the main story after audience applause.

      I always thought that the Cantina music would be great dubbed over that scene from Return of the King where Frodo and Gollum are fighting over the ring in Mount Doom. Someone has to make that a reality.

    17. Re:These are NOT... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Empire and Jedi are both better then than Ep. 4

      That's not saying much...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    18. Re:These are NOT... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.

      Have you watched any Harrison Ford movie in the past 20 years where you thought he did a good job? I haven't.

      I suppose he was passable in Ender's Game.

    19. Re:These are NOT... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, I would NOT have rated any of the prequels higher than Jedi.
      Jedi sadly had a bit too much Ewok, but it has the best-choreographed of the space battles in all the Star Wars movies, Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor was perfection (especially with the use of lighting), and the whole Jabba cold open is great stuff as well.

      There's some shoddy writing in Jedi, but the acting is actually good enough to pull it off. I can't say the same of the acting in any of the prequel movies.

    20. Re:These are NOT... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      There should be a scene with him fawning over a light saber and muttering "my precioussss".

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    21. Re:These are NOT... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Empire and Jedi are both better then than Ep. 4

      In Borat voice "NOT!"
      Ep 4 is much better than Jedi.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    22. Re:These are NOT... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I agree with your ranking completely.
      Put Jedi and PM on the bottom, ESB and Ep 4 on the top.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    23. Re:These are NOT... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Which is episode 4, the Jar-Jar fourth movie, or the one that had its name retconned to be "A New Hope"? It's hard to keep track of the ever changing mind of Lucas.
      But the movie that was filmed first was better than all of the rest combined.

    24. Re:These are NOT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rank them like this:

      1. V Empire
      2. IV Star Wars
      3. VI Jedi

      It's a shame no one ever made the prequels we were promised. Maybe JJ will take care of that!

    25. Re:These are NOT... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.

      Well, by that theory, "Indiana Jones and the Crystal skull" would have been bad, long overdue and needed paramedics nearby and... oh, I take your point.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    26. Re:These are NOT... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      20 Years...hmm...

      He kind of forayed into the Humphrey Bogart realm for a bit with Sabrina (in which he played a role that Humphrey Bogart played in the original) and 6 Days and 7 Nights (where he played a Bogart-like character). I enjoyed those movies.

      And, of course, Air Force One (e.g., "Die Hard...on a Plane!") was fun. He's doing Expendables 3 and I'm wondering if he'll say, "Get off my plane!"

      I even liked Hollywood Homicide.

      But not much in the last 10 years has thrilled me.

    27. Re:These are NOT... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      What, you didn't like watching people teleported into wacky water tubes right out of Looney Tunes? Or the tiresomely overdone: big monster chasing character gets killed by bigger monster which inexplicably keeps chasing the character, abandoning the giant meal it just acquired? The inexplicable supernova that destroys the Romulans (I mean, I can see Next Generation level tech being unable to prevent planetary destruction from a supernova, but not somehow destroying the inhabitants before they could evacuate, since it would take years for the explosion to get there). Or "red matter". Or the inexplicable black hole that "red matter" can create that's capable of sucking up a supernova explosion, including the parts that have already escaped at the speed of light, while not being _more_ dangerous than the supernova. Or how Kirk ended up in the same cave as Spock (you could explain it away as vulcan telepathy guiding him there, but Spock didn't seem to expect him, so the only answer is obviously "the force" guided him). Or lens flares, Lens Flares, LENS FLARES!!!

      I still managed to enjoy the movie, but that doesn't mean I didn't recognize that it was junk.

    28. Re:These are NOT... by westyvw · · Score: 1

      LOL thanks. The second film got even more stupid.

      Shiny object theatre for sure.

    29. Re: These are NOT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, three times the explosions you got with Abrams and half the story... facts taken out of nowhere (like the ones that plague every single Transformers movie) or his other usual plot: "two persons went missing in (insert location, planet, natural phenomena name here). A party of 10 was sent to search for them, and face many perils. Just two and a half persons return, with one of them being part of the originally missing in the first place".

    30. Re:These are NOT... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Episode VII is the movie they should have made years ago. Instead, we got the godawful prequels and now all the original cast is a hundred years old and will be lucky to get through filming without needing paramedics standing by at all times.

      Have you watched any Harrison Ford movie in the past 20 years where you thought he did a good job? I haven't.

      I must disagree. Mr. Ford has played in a number of films where I thought he did an excellent job, even though the films where of marginal quality overall. His portrayal of Jack Ryan is pretty good and both of those movies are worth seeing. I thought "Six Days Seven Nights" was horrible as a movie, but Harrison Ford was good in it. "The Fugitive" is a really great film for him as was "Witness" and "Sabrina" and they are well worth seeing, but forget about "K-19", "Random hearts", and "Air Force One". "Regarding Henry" is interesting too if you get a chance.

      Don't judge Harrison Ford by his "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" characters which are both campy and unbelievable. But in both of these cases, remember that it's not about the characters in an action/adventure film anyway. It's about special effects and the action sequences. The characters are there to provide enough story to keep you engaged long enough to set up the next fight scene, car chase, gun fight or explosion.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    31. Re:These are NOT... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. Mr. Ford has played in a number of films where I thought he did an excellent job, even though the films where of marginal quality overall. His portrayal of Jack Ryan is pretty good and both of those movies are worth seeing. I thought "Six Days Seven Nights" was horrible as a movie, but Harrison Ford was good in it. "The Fugitive" is a really great film for him as was "Witness" and "Sabrina" and they are well worth seeing, but forget about "K-19", "Random hearts", and "Air Force One". "Regarding Henry" is interesting too if you get a chance.

      It's true, and Sabrina is one film I haven't seen that I should check out. I did use the timeline "in the last 20 years" intentionally, as his last Jack Ryan film is now just 20 years old, and The Fugitive is now 21 years old. Looking back I'm not a fan of his Air Force One performance, since to me it was the solidifying of the one type of character that he really seems to play these days: the grouchy, angry, bitter (and now old) man. I don't like that sort of Harrison Ford. I almost never see him in any other sort of demeanor in interviews either. Is that just how he is these days and he can't even break out of it on screen? That would be pretty sad, but I'm hoping the truth is otherwise.

      Don't judge Harrison Ford by his "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" characters which are both campy and unbelievable

      Actually, I do judge him by those characters. Are they campy and unbelievable? Yes, but it's his ability that sells them. He does an excellent job with what was essentially fluff. He -didn't- do as good a job in the 4th Indiana Jones movie, or movies like Cowboys and Aliens.

      Harrison Ford's improv and ad-hoc line rewriting in the original Star Wars trilogy resulted in some of Han Solo's better moments. If he'd just read the script as was written the character wouldn't have worked nearly as well (and I do think the Han Solo character works well in the original trilogy).

    32. Re:These are NOT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw IV in the theaters when it first came out.

      The scrolling text said:

      Episode IV
      A New Hope ....

      retconned my ass you 12 year old shit bag.

  9. Lucas Banned For Life from Star Wars Franchise by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    The moves, announced by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, are the most severe sanctions the league has ever levied against a Franchise owner.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Lucas Banned For Life from Star Wars Franchise by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yea, but he's not the real George Lucas

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  10. The worst part... by geminidomino · · Score: 2

    The most heart-wrenching part of the polygon article was finding out that Amy Hennig was going to be working on a new Star Wars game, but it'll be published by those bastards at EA.

    After her work on LOK, I would have loved to see what came of that...

    1. Re:The worst part... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Well these days it seems like EA is buying all the best developers

    2. Re:The worst part... by Torp · · Score: 2

      EA is buying all the best developers and turning them into a steaming pile of shit.
      See Bioware and Popcap.

      --
      I apologize for the lack of a signature.
  11. set it low by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Well, at least it has live human people and not animations or 100% robots or dogs or some crazy crap like that.

    1. Re:set it low by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Has live humans? Did you not read Harrison Ford will be in it?

      At this point they could animate it and it would still be awesome.
      In fact, they could redo the whole thing with animation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:set it low by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it has live human people and not animations or 100% robots or dogs or some crazy crap like that.

      R2D2 and C3PO are already confirmed. Also, Andy Serkis is a motion capture actor and so there will probably be a Jar Jar-like digital character in the film.

    3. Re:set it low by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      ... Also, Andy Serkis is a motion capture actor and so there will probably be a Jar Jar-like digital character in the film.

      Aaarrrggghhhhh!!!!!

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    4. Re:set it low by lgw · · Score: 1

      Andy has also acted as himself, and he's fine. He's also a good voice actor.

      Trivia: what movie has Andy Serkis, Ian McKellen, and Hugh Jackman? No, not a LORT/XMen crossover, amusing as that might be.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:set it low by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Flushed Away?

    6. Re:set it low by lgw · · Score: 1

      Got it in one. :) I liked it better than any of the XMen movies.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Hey Slashdot -- change the helptext for R2-D2 by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    To 'Star Wars Sequels'.

    Thanks,
    Everyone

  13. Most fandoms would be furious by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most fandoms would be furious at literally the entire storyline beyond six films being tossed aside, and new sequels commissioned using only a handful of the original actors and one original writer.

    *Most* fandoms didn't have to go through the prequel trilogy and a series of bad retconny rereleases being made by the original creator himself.

    Add the fact that the SWEU is remarkably uneven in quality - while some parts are downright brilliant, there's wide swaths of crap that were still canon because the movies didn't contradict it - and I can completely understand why the general fan reaction to this is "cautious optimism" or "reserved pessimism" rather than nerd rage (there's *some* nerd rage, but not much). My own response is "interested apathy" - it might be good, but I really just can't force myself to care anymore, not the way I used to.

    1. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most fandoms would be furious at literally the entire storyline beyond six films being tossed aside, and new sequels commissioned using only a handful of the original actors and one original writer.

      *Most* fandoms didn't have to go through the prequel trilogy and a series of bad retconny rereleases being made by the original creator himself.

      Add the fact that the SWEU is remarkably uneven in quality - while some parts are downright brilliant, there's wide swaths of crap that were still canon because the movies didn't contradict it - and I can completely understand why the general fan reaction to this is "cautious optimism" or "reserved pessimism" rather than nerd rage (there's *some* nerd rage, but not much). My own response is "interested apathy" - it might be good, but I really just can't force myself to care anymore, not the way I used to.

      At the end of the day, is it really that big of a deal? Why can't the fandoms just consider the original six and the expanded universe on their own and view these new films separately ("same universe different story")? If someone can't enjoy the movie because it breaks continuity from an expanded universe book that most people have never read, then it's likely that there is nothing anyone can do to satisfy such people. Personally, I would rather have a good new trilogy reboot than another prequel disaster that complies with the expanded universe.

      I agree with the statement that trying to comply with the expanded universe would limit the creativity of these new movies. Think about it. Seriously. To comply with the expanded universe means that they would have to comply with three decades of books, comics, and video games.

    2. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by steelfood · · Score: 1

      new sequels commissioned using only a handful of the original actors and one original writer.

      Please do not let the writer be George Lucas. Please do not let the writer be George Lucas. Please do not let the writer be George Lucas.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan. I actually can't wait for these films. With Kasdan adding to the script I'm hoping it won't be as annoying as some parts of EP 1 was. No, I'm not an apologist for Disney or Abrams, who actually annoys me sometimes, but I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt. I actually believe these films will be pretty cool, probably much better than EP's 1-3.

      Regarding Abrams as director, I couldn't stand the first Star Trek reboot, with "Spock Prime"(what the fuck is up with all the time travel bullshit! What is Spock Prime!?! When you get your time travel the next day?!?) but the second one was really good. I'm not expecting complete brilliance, but I bet they will be better than that steaming pile of bat shit known as Christopher Nolans nadir, AKA "The Dark Knight Rises". How anyone could rate that up on rottentomatoes is beyond me... And that came from the same guy who did "Inception", easily one of the best sci-fi films of the last decade.

      But I digress...
      I've never read ANY of the Star Wars EU books, etc;
      I could give two shits about any of that...
      The films and the animated Clone Wars series to me are what matters regarding "Canon".

      Unlike Tolkien, Star Wars was a film first experience, one where Lucas is really the guy in charge, regardless of what others may wish.

      You want nerd rage?
      How about when Faramir takes Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath?!?
      Unlike Star Wars, that example was(and countless other nastiness that Peter Jackson cooked up in his ridiculous Hobbits films) one where the audience already knew what was(supposed) to happen. I can't understand anyone getting miffed about how any Star Wars film turns out. There is little reference to check them by(except other films and animated series...) as opposed to Tolkien.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I think "interested apathy" is a good term for what I feel. Star Wars my first serious fandom when I was a teenager (I kind of got into it during the hipster phase of the early 90s before it was cool again) . The Zahn Trilogy was brilliant, but after years of literary abuse from Kevin J Anderson I just kind of lost interest. I'm no longer in the fandom. I've moved on.

      This is the equivalent of watching an ex-significant-other getting married, while you yourself got married to a much better person many years ago. You're happy for them, a little. You're sad because of what could have been - and also grateful you avoided it. But mostly, you just don't care any more.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    5. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never read ANY of the Star Wars EU books, etc;
      I could give two shits about any of that...

      You've missed nothing. Also, the Prawn... sorry, Thrawn series were shit, so don't waste you time, no matter how many weenies tell you that you should.

    6. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, I totally agree that the Star Wars 'verse needs a reboot, and now's probably the best time to do it. I actually would have gone further - redo the original trilogy (keeping the story intact, just using the new actors and modern technology in pretty much shot-for-shot remakes) and the prequels (substantially altering them to not suck). But after the reception of the last alterations to the original trilogy, I can see why even Disney shied away from that.

      I was merely remarking on the surprising scarcity of nerd rage over what would normally be a nerd-rage-inducing decision.

    7. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by chispito · · Score: 1

      My own response is "interested apathy" - it might be good, but I really just can't force myself to care anymore, not the way I used to.

      I think you mean "ambivalence."

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The fact that J.J. Abrams is in charge should be the the biggest concern.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      new sequels commissioned using only a handful of the original actors and one original writer.

      Please do not let the writer be George Lucas. Please do not let the writer be George Lucas. Please do not let the writer be George Lucas.

      It's not, it's Lawrence Kasdan, whose first writing credit was the screenplay for Empire Strikes Back. He also wrote the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Big Chill, Grand Canyon, Wyatt Earp. He's also tried directing, but the general sentiment seems to be that he's a better writer than director.

      I believe ... and strongly hope that George Lucas is receiving the Gene Roddenberry treatment from the early-mid 1980s: "kicked upstairs." Executive Producer but without the power to really meddle or force his vision. So far in the credits for the new star wars he's listed simply as "creative consultant," and he gets a credit for the original series characters.

      Interestingly, the production designer is Rick Carter (Back to the Future 2&3, Jurassic Park, War Horse, Avatar).

    10. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      J. J. Abrams is a total wildcard. He CAN do really good stuff... and he also can do fairly bad stuff.

      He directed the Star Trek reboot like it was a Star Wars movie instead of Star Trek, so this seems like it could be a natural for him.

    11. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Name one good thing he did. Just one.

      Lost was good at first, but went down hill fast.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Most fandoms would be furious by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Lost was good at first, but went down hill fast.

      Well that's fine, he created the characters and directed the pilot, and that was the end of that.

      But I also liked Super 8. And while I don't think it approaches real greatness, I think the Star Trek reboot was pretty good.

  14. I for one... by Guano_Jim · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...am looking forward to Andy Serkis' mocap performance of Jar Jar's light saber seppuku.

    1. Re: I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hung and have speedy healing factor... They can be cut in half and stick right back together...

  15. JJ Abrams Direction by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    He already tried turning Star Trek into Star Wars, now they are giving him that franchise to ruin too... Star Wars, now with 5000% more lens flare!

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    1. Re:JJ Abrams Direction by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Actually, when I originally saw the new Star Trek, I thought that it was a fun movie that wasn't Star-Trek-y enough. I remember saying at the time that I wished Abrams had done a reboot of Star Wars instead, since his style of action/adventure, mystical explanations, and lens flare would be better suited to that franchise.

      Say what you will, but I think lens flares will feel right at home in the Star Wars universe. And at least Abrams wouldn't have introduced the midi-chlorians. He might introduce a bunch of weird things that are never explained to the fans' satisfaction, but at least he won't over-explain.

    2. Re:JJ Abrams Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that JJ turns Star Trek into Star Wars:
      Everyone at conflict, love triangles, culture issues, too much fantasy.

      And turns Star Wars into Star Trek:
      Political conflict, everyone getting along/diversity, a storyline, a message, and Yoda fighting all the time (like Shatner).

    3. Re:JJ Abrams Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The action in the JJ trek films was more Star Wars Prequels like (one guy vs ridiculous amounts of enemies because all problems can be solve by shooting and ro stabbing them), than anything from the original trilogy or Star Trek canon.

      But lens flare will be terrible when the protagonist is holding a light source and Unless Abrams has a lot more respect for Star Wars canon than he did for Trek canon expect the movie to average 1 mediclorans level face-palm per 5 minutes.

    4. Re:JJ Abrams Direction by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      To be honest, anything not involving Lucas would be an improvement - however small. That man took something wonderful and wiped his a** with it. I regret not strangling him when I was next to him on 101 in Mill Valley...

      --
      Loading...
    5. Re:JJ Abrams Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightsabers are just normal swords with a lot of lens flare....

  16. does vegas have a line yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which will suck worse:

    Ep VII or Glen Larson's Galactica movie?

    I'm going to go w/the later b/c it's got so much further to fall (from Moore's BSG vs Ep I-III)

  17. Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A long time ago in a galaxy... (unreadable due to lens flare)
    STAR (unreadable due to lens flare) ....
    Princess Leia (unreadable due to lens flare)....

    Spaceship... (unwatchable due to lens flare)
    Monster/special effects, jiggly camerawork. Things happen in film for no logical reason and plot holes you could fly the death star through....

    This *is* a JJ Abhrams movie after all....

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by geekoid · · Score: 2

      In the second ST movie* he toned it down a lot. I hope that he keeps that trend. There is a place for them, the bridge of a ship is not it.

      *Great sci-fi movie, horrid ST movie.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot to include massive explosion and camera shake.

    3. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Great sci-fi movie, horrid ST movie.

      *Great fiction movie, horrid sci-fi movie.

    4. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I barely even noticed the lens flares. They're hard to see over the much larger, more glaring travesties being committed to the Trek-franchise during the film.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    5. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      In the second ST movie* he toned it down a lot.

      Thats because he just directed and didn't write the script.
      Kasdan, you're our only hope...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I had a friend, old enough to know better, say that he liked lens flare saying that it make it look more realistic. I face palmed myself so hard I passed out.

    7. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the second ST movie* he toned it down a lot.

      Yep, the second movies was a lot better than the first. On the whole it's about as good as Star Trek V (deserving a place on the "shelf of shame" next to Highlander 2 instead of being outright exiled from the library)

    8. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by sootman · · Score: 1

      "Episode 7: The Lens Flares"

      I like it! :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    9. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Leigh Brackett responsible for the bulk of the Empire script? She didn't get sole credit because she went and died before it was done, from what I understand.

    10. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things happen in film for no logical reason and plot holes you could fly the death star through....

      I think what you meant to have as an analogy here is plot holes you could fire a bomb at that are inexplicably straight, miles-long shafts exposing a power core directly to the vaccuum of space with no cover that cause the bomb to suddenly change its arc by 90 degrees and travel through the entire shaft without ever once hitting the sides of the shaft, and that are inexplicably made even larger when they rebuild the plot hole later.

    11. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's not good.

      Lens flare can be a fine artistic choice, but needs to be applied with a very light touch. The Praxis explosion from the start of ST6 and the torch scene from Toy Story are two great examples of how lens flare can make a shot. A little goes a long way.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    12. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by hey! · · Score: 1

      Despite the annoying camera work, the thing about J.J. Abrams' Trek reboot is that he and his scriptwriters really demonstrate understanding of the characters. If you're a TOS fan you can name those moments from the first Abrams reboot movie that make you sit up with that thrill of recognition, even if you didn't care for the movie overall.

      Trek is cerebral, even when it is being stupid. At its worst Trek is like Newt Gingrich, who someone once described as "a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." But occasionally Trek really is thought provoking. In this I think the second Abrams Trek movie is the more authentic *Trek* movie of the two. Both movies bolted a *trek* ethos onto a blockbuster action movie.

      Abrams was 12 when the franchise debuted, so it's virtually certain that Ep IV will be his touchstone. So I think we'll see some of the action movie set pieces, gimmicky camera shots and quick pacing of his Trek movies. Ep IV is a different kettle of fish from Trek; it's not cerebral, it's visceral, it's movement, it's surprising and arresting images. Most of all it's mythological, with characters quite literally concoted according to mythologist Joseph Campbell's guidelines for fairy tale characters. The thing about those archetypal characters is that, compelling as they can be, they don't have a lot of internal complexity. The best line in the original trilogy was ad libbed.

      So I'm thinking Abrams the storyteller might be tempted to punch up the Star Wars characters a bit, to shade them so they feel a bit more human. If that's true, I think we might see the Abrams' Star Wars movie approaching what he did in his his Trek movies, but from the opposite direction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Leigh Brackett responsible for the bulk of the Empire script? She didn't get sole credit because she went and died before it was done, from what I understand.

      So I guess it's out of the question to get her to write the new scripts?

    14. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After seeing the newer 300 film, I suspect that 'floating dust particle flare' may be the new lens flare. It was absolutely everywhere.
        Hopefully they will realise that in space you have scrubbers to remove airborne particles.

    15. Re:Star Wars, now with Lens Flare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star wars VII can't start like that. It must start with credits. Guild laws, unless JJ(Does that stand for Jar-Jar?) quits the guild.

  18. Han didn't shoot first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Han shooting first means there was a shot fired second. There wasn't. Therefore Han didn't shoot first, he just shot.

    1. Re:Han didn't shoot first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. My recollection of it as a kid watching in 1977 was that there was only one shot. Greedo didn't shoot at all, and I was just fine with that.

  19. Kenny Baker. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank god they got Kenny Baker. I would hate to see someone else we can't see inside a metal can that makes beeping noises.

    I wonder if they got the same key grip?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Kenny Baker. by rossdee · · Score: 2

      You'd think that by now they could make a real R2 robot, and not have to have a person inside.

    2. Re:Kenny Baker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how he kept many people for prior Star Wars films, but for Star Trek it was decreed that anyone who had involvement with prior Trek was not allowed to be a part of his film. That applied to actors, camera men, etc.

      Except for Leonard Nimoy. It seems there is a rule that he must be in the films.

    3. Re:Kenny Baker. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      If they don't get the same key grip it won't be canon!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:Kenny Baker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that by now they could make a real R2 robot, and not have to have a person inside.

      Well to be honest the Kenny Baker R2D2 was used (mainly) for shots where the droid had to actually go up or down stairs.
      Something that was not acheivable with a purely robotic model. And even nowadays except for some research human like robots you'd have a hard time finding one that can climb the stairs in a natural way if at all.

    5. Re:Kenny Baker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does he need complex mechanics to go up and downs stairs at all anymore?
      Now he has those cool side rocket things which were strangely absent in the original trilogy though they would've been quite handy.
      Perhaps he was out of fuel...

    6. Re:Kenny Baker. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, since we're going even further forward in time, not only will R2 have lost his ability to fly, but have lost his ability to go up and down stairs.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Kenny Baker. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If he can do the job, they're probably giving him right of first refusal, as a matter of respect. Artoo came off as lovable 3-6, so if he can do it, he'll probably do it well, so why go with an unknown? I don't know what Baker made off of his work in 3-6, but it probably wasn't enough.

      But I think there's better news that this is missing - he's hiring Baker and Mayhew. That means that Artoo and Chewie aren't going to be CGI absurdities. This is by far the best news to date and means that JJ doesn't need to be kidnapped and reeducated by saber-wielding weenies.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Kenny Baker. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was out of fuel...

      Perhaps Lucas was out of ideas. "Oh, Craft Services is here!"

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  20. Directed by ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ... Alan Smithee. Staring George Spelvin.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Harrison Ford by flogger · · Score: 1

    With Ford's last two movies, a cardboard cutout of him in his 40's would have done a better job than he did. His performance in Ender's Game was horrendous (don;t blame the script Asa Butterfield and Viola Davis did great with what they were given.) Hopefully Harrison Ford's reprisal will be Han Solo sitting in a Laser-Rocker in the old folks asteroid telling stories of who shot first to you bantha fodderlings.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Harrison Ford by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who liked that movie? It was one of Ford's few good turns in recent years.

    2. Re:Harrison Ford by xevioso · · Score: 1

      No, I actually loved him in Ender's Game. He certainly does still have it.

  22. Mother of All Retcon Films NOT!!!! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    First off, in most of canon, books are rarely considered canon. (ie: Star Trek, etc) there are a few exceptions, like Babylon 5 where JMS took an active hand in things.

    But frankly, I am so so so thankful that they are NOT doing the whole Skywalker Twins, Thrawn, etc. I never liked where those stories went. And so while you may be disappointed. I am sighing a huge sigh of relief.

    And retcon, was the silly stuff they did in the prequels. I think JJ Abrams will be a bit more mindful. That said, I kind of would like to see some soft ties to a few of the prequels. Aliens pictured...or about the Gungan genocide that wiped out the entire race. Etc.

     

    1. Re:Mother of All Retcon Films NOT!!!! by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Lucasfilm actually had a person whose ENTIRE job was maintaining canon through all the properties for over 20 years. MANY novel and comic ideas were turned down because she said no.

      It's really too bad Lucas himself didn't have to listen to her. With those constraints, we might have had a better movie (Boba Fett is just yet another Stormtrooper... Um, OK I guess...(disappointment...))

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  23. Re:I Shot First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And got first post

    No Greedo, you did not. ;-)

  24. Harrison Ford - 42 by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, IJ4 and Ender's Game Mr. Ford was weak. But he was amazing in the recent Jackie Robinson film 42.

  25. True by probain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe it was just me who was hoping that it wasn't a thing of the past.

  26. Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Should be interesting to see how they wrap Star Wars around "climate change." Doubtless there will be some cute, fuzzy species suffering the over-heated environment of an exploited planet as they stare pitifully from their bushes at the throbbing machines of industry. The Jedi will blow up another huge Trade Federation command ship and then dispatch white, municipal looking Gaia ships to fix the atmosphere as the credits roll. Scenes from the Galactic Senate will provide ample opportunities for self-flagellating lectures about the environment.

    You know that's what they're going to do.

    1. Re:Global warming by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      You talk about saving the planet like its a bad thing.

      Why is that?

    2. Re:Global warming by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Galactic Climate Change...the universe is getting warmer. Only the Jedi can stop the Sith factories from raising the thermal temperature of the universe and destroying ALL matter.

    3. Re:Global warming by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      It's much worse than that. You know all that unseen mass holding the Galaxy together? It's gone over to the Dark Matter side of the gravitational force.

    4. Re:Global warming by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could show the devestation of the forest moon of Endor that resulted when some terrorists blew up the artificial peace moon.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe gmhowell will eventually learn to write more than 1 sentence farts for replies!

  27. Future not hard to see it is by portwojc · · Score: 2

    If there is one thing Disney is good at it's their ability to take someone else's work and run with it.

    1. Re:Future not hard to see it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is one thing Disney is good at it's their ability to take someone else's work and run with it.

      Fixed:

      If there is one thing Disney is good at it's their ability to take someone else's work and ruin it.

      There, I fixed that typo for you.

  28. I'm just not going to get used..... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... to the idea of a star wars film beginning without John Williams conducting the LSO, playing the 20th Century Fox opening them that then leads into the main title.

    1. Re:I'm just not going to get used..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When John Williams was shot, killed, and then burned during the filming of Blue Harvest, they had to use Danny Elfman- it wasn't half bad ;)

  29. Stop whining, you old farts! by Cabriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know how you can retain your good memories of Star Wars? Don't watch the movies. As for the rest of us who never read the books and thought the original movies were a range of merely okay to pretty dismal, let us watch these new movies in equally okay to dismal peace.

    1. Re:Stop whining, you old farts! by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Funny

      On my lawn, you are.

    2. Re:Stop whining, you old farts! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      You know how you can retain your good memories of Star Wars? Don't watch the movies.

      Note, by the way, that that includes rewatching the originals. Rewatching them as an adult pretty much killed any interest in Star Wars in me. I find myself wondering why I ever thought they were great. Then I remember I also loved Knight Rider. Children have no standards, and I was no exception.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  30. JJ Abrams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no thanks hack ruined star trek i'm not going to watch him ruin another sci fi universe

    fuck you J.J. Abrams stop ruining good scifi and just stick to crappy action movies

    1. Re:JJ Abrams by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Really??????

      Cause Star Trek and Into Darkness both cream Star Trek V, and quite a few of the TNG movies.

    2. Re:JJ Abrams by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Cause Star Trek and Into Darkness both cream Star Trek V

      I agree on the first, but I just couldn't get over how unoriginal Into Darkness was. I hope Nicholas Meyer got some kind of compensation on account of him having written half of the script 30-odd years ago. Plus I have a special place in my heart for Star Trek V. Kirk interrupts God, for Kirk's sake!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  31. Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more like attempting to do a dozen full-length, theatre-released feature films based on the Silmarillion, having already done Lord of the Rings, and butchered The Hobbit into multiple movies because money.

    I preemptively grant potential exception to Disney though, because I enjoyed the hell out of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Also, completely unrelated, Frozen.

    I have hopes that they could potentially make up for the complete shit that were Lucas' prequels. So this could be a potential "Oh god, we're sorry, what have we done? Oh god. Oh god. Sorry. Can we have some money, if you forgive us?"

    Eh, I like charity cases. Damned altruism.

    1. Re:Eh... by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed the hell out of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Singular. The sequels were shite.

    2. Re:Eh... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      funny I was going to say thank god they only made one matrix movie.

      It is a good thing they never made an sequels to it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Eh... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      We all have opinions about the entertainment media we have enjoyed. Let's disagree with each other about it!

      (No really, sequelitus is bullshit, and makes it harder for good new concepts to get out)

    4. Re:Eh... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      My expected level of dissapointment is zero because the movie will be freaking awesome. max von sydow is a badass and I can't wait to see which sith lord he will be. i assume all the original cast will have a brief cameo, not a major role like the mistake in IJ4. The other cast I haven't heard of. What about James Earl Jones? I guess it doesn't matter since Vader is mort, although there could be flashbacks etc.

    5. Re:Eh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Luke, I am the force ghost projection of your father..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Eh... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, Max Von Sydow played Ming the Merciless, so this could be completely awesome!

    7. Re:Eh... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      It's more like attempting to do a dozen full-length, theatre-released feature films based on the Silmarillion...

      I for one would be delighted if they did that, money grab or no money grab. The nice thing about the Silmarillion is it's basically just Tolkien's collected backstory notes to himself. It's a miscellaneous pile of names and dates and the barest description of events. There are no characters with depth, no intricate plot lines, nothing I don't want to see raped and pillaged. (Rabbit sleight ride, anyone?) There are any number of basic plots that could be fleshed out and done as movies, and the results could be excellent.

      A depiction of the War of Wrath against Morgoth and the end of the First Age done well would be a license to print money, and it would deserve the cash. Done badly, it would be a travesty, but that's a permanent hazard. It has everything. It has action. It has adventure. It has an epic battle. It has romance too, and it could be considerably less forced than the movie treatment of Aragorn and Arwen, since Luthien Tinuviel directly participated in the recovery of the lone Silmaril to be returned to the Valar. I wouldn't mind at all if they did that. If they can refrain from further fucking rabbits.

    8. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > max von sydow is a badass and I can't wait to see which sith lord he will be.

      Maybe he'll be Grand Moff Sydow?

    9. Re:Eh... by bmcage · · Score: 1

      Over my entire life I have perhaps read 3 books twice. Silmarillion is one of them. You can dream away and fill in the story as much as you like. The only book I know that could be turned into 12 movies, that is for sure.

    10. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Matrix Reloaded was great. I'm glad that movie stands alone and needed no others to support it.

  32. What, what? by celebril · · Score: 1

    Episode VII? But they haven't even done the Episodes I-III yet! I do hope they don't screw them up, though. The first 3 episodes (by which I mean Episodes IV-VI) had so much promise.

  33. Dear Young'uns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get your own fucking pop culture.

    Sincerely,
    Old Farts

  34. No Benedict Cumberbatch? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought he had to be in everything these days

    1. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He KHAAAAAAAAN not

    2. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      I thought he had to be in everything these days

      He'll be in the second movie, playing a previously seen well known character. They'll tell everyone repeatedly he isn't playing that character, only to have an underwhelming scene in the movie where he reveals his true identity as said character.

      My money is on him playing Palpatine.

    3. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Padme. Guaranteed. And I'm not looking up the spelling on that, either.

    4. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      Nah... Noonian Hutt, Jabba's son.

    5. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Nah... Noonian Hutt, Jabba's son.

      Ho ho ho.

    6. Re:No Benedict Cumberbatch? by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      "Yes he is playing a blue skinned admiral, but he is definitely not Thrawn"

      --
      horror vacui
  35. following JJ logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all the old cast will be in the falcon and leia is having baby.
    ship explodes killing all old cast.

    years later when baby is in teens he/she and other new cast go after the killer of their parents.. oh and 1 of them has to be a jedi probably the baby of leia.

    that is the script for the new movie in a nutshell
    not that we can see anything of it becouse of camera shaking and lensflare hell

  36. I'm not so sure of that... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Ewoks.
    Jabba's entourage.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  37. We already had this happen back in '99 by SEE · · Score: 5, Informative

    The EU has always been subject to being tossed out for the films. I mean, I still have a copy of the 1994 "A Guide to the Star Wars Universe". On pages xviii-xx, it has a timeline that establishes the following:

    1) C-3PO is 57 years older than Anakin Skywalker.
    2) Obi-Wan Kenobi is only five years older than Anakin Skywalker.
    3) The Clone Wars ended 17 years before Anakin became Darth Vader and Palpatine became Emperor.
    4) Anakin was in his mid-thirties when he fathered Luke & Leia.

    How could anybody have anything like a reasonable expectation that things would be different this time?

    1. Re:We already had this happen back in '99 by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      The one thing that completely broke continuity with three of those timeline events was because they cast a 10 year old kid as Anakin. Lucas then went and made up some bullshit that Anakin made C3PO to establish the kid as some kind of boy genius. A droid that for some reason was identical to every other factory made protocol droid out there.

      If he'd have just cast Anakin with an actor in their twenties, and kept C3PO and R2D2 as droid friends from an unknown era of the Naboo palace we wouldn't have had to put up with:

      1. Annoying kid / boy genius messiah
      2. Teen angst
      3. Ridiculous teen romance with an older woman
      4. More teen angst
      5. Noooooooooo

    2. Re:We already had this happen back in '99 by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But there is good news - that Guide is for the Eps 4-6 universe. Those are some of many reasons that Eps 1-3 are in a different universe.

      I mean, how old was ObiWan at the end of Ep. 3? 40 at the most? Now Luke is 16 years older, and Ben looks 75, and Tarkin says, "surely he must be dead by now?" and Vader has to remind him that Jedi live longer than normal people (who probably hit 120 with ease in that universe) so he's probably 150, easily, maybe 180.

      There is no way that they can be in the same Universe. So, if JJ doesn't get flayed for ruining 7-9, he can circle back and make Eps 1-3 in a consistent universe and we can bury Lucas with the last three prints of his 1-3 that haven't been burned by angry mobs.

      Or ... JJ can use Max to retcon the Mongo Empire as beginning in Lucas's galaxy and expanding over time into an inter-galactic empire run by a Dark Jedi who feeds on life force to make himself younger, and learns to force-abosrb and manifest himself as desired with his ring vessel.

      Did I mention the flaying?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Max von Sydow by Galaga88 · · Score: 2

    C'mon people - they have Ming the MFing Merciless in this. In a just world, Brian Blessed would have a place in this movie.

    "OLD BEN'S ALIVE!?" "Wookiees, DIIIIVE!"

    Aping Flash Gordon for a Star Wars sequel is one of the less grievous mistakes they could make.

    1. Re:Max von Sydow by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, supposedly the Emperor and Darth Vader were based on Ming the Merciless. Now they have the real Ming the Merciless.

      Of course, what happens when they do the new Flash Gordon movie?

    2. Re:Max von Sydow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a just world, Brian Blessed would have a place in this movie.

      Brian Blessed is already in the Star Wars films; He voices Boss Nass..

  39. Star Wars has always been a kids movie by traces8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The original movies have always been kids movies. For us old timers we were teens or less when we saw them and loved them for the action, adventures, swashbuckling laser space fights. As we grew older our glass became rosier and rosier. We then started making Jedi a religion on the census and other squirrel crap nutty stuff like that. The prequels came out and we hated them because they "ruined" our star wars. We all failed to notice that our kids loved them though. Try getting your 6-8 year old to sit through star wars then pop in Phantom Menace and see how long they sit. Star Wars movies were always made for kids to love, we just stopped being kids. Go back and watch other shows that we loved. All out young nerd loves were just that. Let me know how well the original Transformers or GI Joe cartoon holds up. Go find the high school head cheerleader while your at it. She may have a little grey in her hair too.

    1. Re:Star Wars has always been a kids movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says more about the kids. They can't concentrate on a more drawn out, slower storyline and need action and flashy gimmicks. If I ever have kids, I hope to shield them as much as possible from this ADD riddled, sugar overloaded society that modern parents don't seem to give a shit about. Introduce them early to the joys of reading a good book, and eating good healthy food, and restrict their TV time and you prepare them for life, at least that's what I think.

    2. Re:Star Wars has always been a kids movie by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I think a part of this is that, as we grow up, we think back to the things we loved and give them a deeper look. We find a number of lesser questions and plotholes and try to answer those questions or fill those holes, both within our own minds and in discussions with fellow fans. Over time pockets of the fandom (or even just a lone super-fan) come to a rough consensus on this or that, and it becomes "headcanon". So when we go back to watch the movies, the headcanon comes with us and our glasses stay tinted. But kids, or even people new to the property, have no such glasses or headcanon, and so the more action/CGI-heavy films make it easier to keep them entertained.

  40. Run! [waves magic screwdriver] by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I though you said Steven Moffat for a second there.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  41. In the new film Han WILL shoot first by quantaman · · Score: 2

    At the neighbourhood kids running around on his lawn.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  42. These are not the cast you are looking for... by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 0

    Stormtrooper replies: "These are not the cast we are looking for"

  43. An abortion this will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be fucking awful.

  44. My take on the goods and bads by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

    The Goods:
    1. Say what you want, but J.J. can make actors act to their potential, puts emotions into scenes, and by all accounts is a fan of the Star Wars franchise.
    2. At least some attempt at a continuity will be welcome.
    3. I've never liked the EU books, so I'm not turned off.

    The Bads:
    1. Watch out for that LENS FLARE!
    2. I went to Disneyland last week with my girls and I saw Mickey Mouse swinging a light saber. How many hidden Mickey's will be in the film, and those that aren't so hidden? The script notes from the executives may kill the chance at a good story.

    I'm looking forward to it, fanboys will always complain, but I'll give the creator of LOST his shot.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  45. Not Retconning by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I would say that Episodes I-III, which went back and revised/reinvented the backstory of the original trilogy, would be The Mother Of All Retcon Films before Episode VII would be.* Since that's what "retcon" actually means.

    These upcoming films are simply a partial reboot, wiping out one semi-official post-RotJ continuity, and replacing it with an all-new all-different one.

    *Actually there are other, better candidates, but let's confine ourselves to the Star Wars universe here.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  46. Well, why even call it "Star Wars" then? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    If all the other canon is now Legend, then what's left is just generic Sci-Fi universe. Without the name recognition I wouldn't know or care that the story was "of Star Wars". IMO, it would be just as much of a "Star Wars" flick if they changed the universe out from under the characters instead of the other way around.

    I leave you with: Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager in a Galaxy Not so Far Away.

  47. false dichotomy by globaljustin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    How dare movies be entertaining, right?

    our choices are not: JJ Abrams or Star Trek 6

    and we don't have to choose between "fan service" and "general appeal" either

    it's these stupid, reductive contextualizations that make it up to the marketing morons who monitor "social media" for what "fans" want to see

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  48. Is it really retcon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't "retroactive continuity" imply the modifying of "history" in-story to make it fit with new narrative? (i.e. how Arthur C. Clarke's original novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey took place around Saturn, yet the movie couldn't afford that, so the movie took place around Jupiter - then the novel for 2010: Odyssey Two took place around Jupiter, like the film, instead of Saturn, like the book.)

    Only, in this case, they're not retroactively *CHANGING* the story. They're completely dumping an entire set of story - anything non-film. Thus, it's creating brand-new continuity, with no relation at all to the old continuity.

    "Midichlorians" was retcon. Placing Anakin's age at entering Jedi training as 9 years old, yet "too old to become a Jedi", after Luke being a late teenager, and just barely "too old" - THAT was retcon.

    This? This isn't retcon.

  49. It's always been about money. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    More movies feels like a money grab.

    Jesus H. Christ on a tauntaun - every movie in the series from Empire onwards has been nothing but a money grab. Hell, for that matter Star Wars itself was made for the sole and singular of generating a profit.

    1. Re:It's always been about money. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to when a series is extended beyond its "natural" life just to make money. In the case of Star Wars though it is claimed that there were always plans for 9 movies, so perhaps it isn't quite like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:It's always been about money. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That's my point - the "natural life" of a series as "as long as it continues to generate a profit". If Star Wars had tanked, there never would have been an Empire. Had Empire tanked, there never would have been a Return. Etc... etc... When the books/comics/toys/whatever stop making money, they'll stop being manufactured.

      It's all about the money, always has been.

    3. Re:It's always been about money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you are a stupid fuck. All movies are made to generate a profit, otherwise they would be free and come without any form of advertising. There is nothing wrong with creating something to make money; everyone who has a job does it.

    4. Re:It's always been about money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what happened to that money? Oh, that's right, George Lucas is DONATING it to charity. Billions of dollars. What have you done for the world?

      Bet you feel stupid now, you unemployed, worthless basement dweller.

  50. Have you seen Carrie Fisher lately? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    They are going to need a bigger bikini.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Have you seen Carrie Fisher lately? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if Nichelle Nichols can be naked in a Trek movie, I say Carrie can go nude for Star Wars!

      --
      That is all.
  51. Where's Lando? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What No return of Billy D Williams??? WTF!

  52. retcon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. I thought ignoring fanfiction was just business as usual. Fuck EU.

  53. Old and fat Kirk by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Sounds like ST Generations where they shoehorned in a old and fat kirk toasting marshmallows in for no real reason

  54. unreasonable expectations by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    it is understandable that the decision of Disney to junk all that disappoints longtime fans.

    these fans are expecting too much for Disney to follow all the post RotJ books, cannon or not...its fanboi mellodrama

    it's a question of **expectations**

    is it reasonable to expect Disney to know enough to keep the new films in line w/ cannon from *other films*?

    YES

    is it reasonable to expect Disney to obey cannon of *books* written long before their purchase of the franchise and never intended to be filmed?

    NO

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  55. Bored to hell by CGI by quantaman · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who finds a lot of the big action CGI stuff really boring? I mean a lot of the Marvel stuff has been good, Gravity was amazing, and there's other stuff that really makes good use of special effects. But it seems like there's a lot of movies that seem to live on long drawn out action sequences, 300, the new Star Trek films, the Star Wars prequels, the Hobbit. I just end up disinterested because I don't actually care about the characters.

    I maintain that it isn't the ignorance of youth, the original Star Wars is good, maybe it was the melodrama or the simple story but I actually did care about the characters, that's why those simple action sequences are still riveting. I don't see a basic difference between the new Star Trek and the old new old Star Wars, sure the Star Wars had some cringe-worthy writing but a lot of good things do as well, the problem was they used spectacle to distract from the fact the story and characters weren't that interesting. They need less spectacle and bigger story, I'm just not sure Abrams is the one to save the franchise.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Bored to hell by CGI by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Good CGI (like Gravity) when used appropriately still adds value to a movie. The problem is that CGI is so easy/cheap to do now, it is being used all over the place in movies, and it is replacing character development.

      Don't get me started on shaky cam.... I couldn't even watch the new Superman.

  56. Star Wars Me Bores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell cares?
    More costumes on couches?
    No thanks.

  57. Errr... No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't bring something as lame as Star Trek as an example when talking about Star Wars. I mean, it's easy to improve Star Trek, since you start with such low standards. And for the JJ Abrams part, he's in the same boat as Michael Bay: Give the people enough explosions and 3-D crap to fill 120 minutes and you're done. You don't even have to make a consistent story!

  58. Nailed it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy playing Anakin (don't even remember his name) had less acting skill than a 2x4 from my tool shack's ceiling. And the way they had to force the storyline to make it congruent with the good old 3 first movies was painful... You can summarize those two and a half hours in the last ten minutes, when Vader is born and Padme names Luke and Leia.

  59. Lest we forget... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Maybe. However people seem loath to recall the significant plot holes the original movies had.

    Anyway I think people were most fascinated with the *idea* of the universe. Keep those ideals in line, and I will still look forward to it. Actually making really good movies would be a nice change thought. You are right however JJ does have a "style" all his own, that I would call a formula (for money mostly). However there were elements that were done really well, like the first 10 min of Star Trek. They also cast very well. If they concentrate a bit more on some of the major elements of the story or character building and motivations I think it would go a long way, as his do seem to be a bit light in that department.

    The major problem is that the viewing audience is a dichotomy. Most of the people he is targeting for the movies he makes (Transformers, Start Trek, Star Wars, etc...) are basically kids movies 12-18. However because all of the above are remakes of classic memorabilia we all grew up with, it ALSO has that audience of 30-45 year olds. Go figure the kids are sated with action and funky camera work, whereas the old guard want something a bit more. Hell 1,2,3 had the same problem with Lucas, selling it to kids and merchandising. Shit the originals did the same, and there was no base back then. Best call it just the Hollywood machine and be done with it.

    Maybe they will come out with a new Serenity movie, that is one more aimed at adults.

  60. Kevin J Anderson crap thrown out by Disney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see anyone mentioning that this new move throws out all the years of crap Kevin J Anderson has pumped into the Star Wars universe. So even if the movie is awful, we still get this benefit.

  61. good story first and foremost by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I also wait for most comic movies to the dollar theater or Redhat. But sometimes I am pleasantly surpised if there is a creative story. For exmple the Nth remake of superman last year the backstory about Zor having good intentions, but msiguided, was novel.

  62. SW :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actors John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow will join the original stars of the saga, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Kenny Baker in the new film. free games