Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?

An anonymous reader writes "10 years ago today, in the wake of two disappointing Star Wars prequels, we discussed whether Episode III could salvage itself or the series. Now, as production is underway on Episode VII under the care of Disney, I was wondering the same thing: can it return Star Wars to its former glory? On one hand, many critics of the prequels have gotten what they wanted — George Lucas has a reduced role in the production of Episode VII. Critically, he didn't write the screenplay, which goes a long way toward avoiding the incredibly awkward dialogue of the prequels. On the other hand, they're actively breaking with the expanded universe canon, and the series is now under the stewardship of J.J. Abrams. His treatment of the Star Trek reboot garnered lots of praise and lots of criticism — but his directorial style is arguably more suited to Star Wars anyway. What do you think? What can they do with Episode VII to put the series back on track?"

61 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.

    1. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.

      Actually the only good one is Star Wars. Self contained no nonsense good guy versus evil guy. A princess, a farmboy and an adventurer. What more could you want ?

      From the first sequel onwards it all came crashing down. Yeah Empire is more sofisticated than Star Wars but a better film ?
      Nope. And ROTJ will having a good part in it (redemption of Vader) is just anahilated by all the other things (teddy bears waging wars against shock troopers, and the whole crazy part in Jabba the Hutt's palace).

      As for the prequels, lets not even touch the subject. Had JJB and midiclorians not been there APM could have turned out to be an enjoyable movie. But the second and third films are just huge trainwrecks and no amount of fan editing will ever be able to fix them.

    2. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and apparently lucas has nothing to do with this so...

      however. abrams is shit. he is just shit. star trek into darkness is just so shit. in the next star wars, han solo will be making a phone call to alternate(expanded) universe han solo to warn him that jar jar binks is going to screw him over in the _past_. makes sense? well, as much sense as any shit mr abrams puts in his movies.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The original Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds. Watch it again now, and if you enjoy it that's likely due to fond memories of watching them as a child, not because they're such great pieces of filmmaking on their own.

      Any remake is doomed if you expect a remake. It's also doomed if you expect to be transformed back into a 13 year old while watching the movie. All Star Wars movies are children's movies, aimed at their eras 13-year-olds. All of us adults who imagined they would be anything different were disappointed.

      If you instead expect a movie that will entertain you, set in or near the original universe (but with modern filmmaking techniques and different characters,) you might put yourself in a position to enjoy it. But you'll probably enjoy it most if you bring your own child to the movie.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?" as always with these questions the answer is a resounding: NO.

      gl4ss is 100% correct, Abrams is shit.

      Directing:
      Star Trek? Butchered - how many close ups do you need!?!
      Mission Impossible? Butchered - was there anything remotely "mission imposible-esque" about that movie?
      Super 8? Super Stupid

      Writer:
      Armageddon, Forever Young, Taking Care of Business, Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe: Not bad. The TV stuff not so much towards the end of their runs.
      Gone Fishin', Regarding Henry, Joy Ride, Mission Impossible 3, Lost Via Domus, Super 8, Undercovers: Complete SHIT.

      Producer:
      Star Wars, Super 8, Mission Impossible 3/4, Cloverfield, Morning Glory, Joy Ride, Suburbans, Pallbearer: ALL SHIT.

      In terms of movies, his success stems from 3 of his earliest films where he wrote/co-wrote the screenplay. The last of which came out 16 years ago. I have little to no hope for any of the Star Wars movies. What's worse is that this poser is going to be involved in the Half-Life/Portal movies too - another great franchise for him to ruin.

    5. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds."

      they where great for all ages because thy where ground breaking. They won academy awards, the first run was months, adults where lining up and waiting hours.

      In 1970s, no one spent millions making a movie for 13 year olds.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re: Star Wars Sucks! by barlevg · · Score: 3, Funny
    7. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that's largely impossible, as it is clear that Disney intended on having the main heroes from the original trilogy reappear. It would be one thing if you were telling the stories of other characters in the Expanded Universe, but I'd argue even that would be a mistake. If Star Wars is going to be a functioning film franchise again, it has to link directly to the previous films. It can't be simply "it happens in the same universe...", for them to refire the franchise, they need to have major crossover; that means, Han, Luke and Leia, even if only in a more secondary role. Since pretty much every move those three characters make for decades after RotJ is mapped out by the Expanded Universe, I can't see how it could be done, or why one would even try. Once they get the franchise up, then they can make their other "in the same universe" films, but the first film out of the gates has to be a direct sequel to RotJ, and Abrams and the writers cannot bind themselves down like Lucas was to the prequels.

      I'll be blunt, the Expanded Universe fans are only a small subset of the potential ticket and merchandise buyers that Disney needs to convince to spend money. I get that the fans of the Expanded Universe are feeling let down, but they don't have the numbers to make or break the franchise, and Disney isn't going to worry its head off about maybe a few tens of thousands of readers when it wants to go after a billion+ theater-goers, toy buyers and McHappy Meal eaters.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by plover · · Score: 2

      Awards are granted to all kinds of movies, and aren't the definition of adult entertainment. These movies were not nearly as popular among adults as they were among kids. They were and are kids's movies first.

      --
      John
  2. Lens flares by MouseR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...better be absent.

    1. Re:Lens flares by dunezone · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the Star Trek DVD commentary they(director and producer) even talk about how they overdid the lens flares. For the sequel they still had them but it wasn't as prevalent as the first. Its fine if you have like a single shot with it in there but not everything needs a flare.

    2. Re:Lens flares by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      I always figured lens flares were the result of bad setup and shot planning. Maybe if you have four or five Oscars for cinematography you could get away with one or two as artistic license. Absent that, it just makes it look like you don't know what you're doing.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Lens flares by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  3. You know... by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's hardly even started filming yet. Maybe wait until it's released to worry?

    Or better yet, don't worry. Skip it entirely if you can't hold "sequel" and "rose-tinted memories of the originals" in your brain at the same time. No one's ruining your childhood if you just stay home...

    1. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.

      Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.

      The prequels sucked because they tried to cram foreshadowing into every scene, as if we needed every single event in the prequels to relate to a specific event in the original 3. Then after the second prequel they realized they left so much undone that the third was just two hours of screen wipe-divided vignettes, and right at the end they were like, Oh shit, Anakin only has the one fake hand. So 5 minutes, one ill-constructed fight sequence, and single slashing of a light saber and suddenly he is Darth Vader in all his shiny, black awesomeness. Crap. Crap. Crap.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:You know... by JDAustin · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do realize that after the Ewoks killed the stormtroopers, they ate the stormtroopers (like they were going to do to Han/Luke/etc)???

  4. No by tsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it can not return SW to its former glory. That is because the three SW films that came out first have got their cult status over the last 30 years. You can't just 'make' that.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:No by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing you say is wrong but what you imply is.

      The prequels were fundamentally broken. Episodes 4-6 achieved cult status because they were enjoyable the first time around (not to mention the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). The prequels released stand alone, not as part of the already established series, would have been laughed out of the theater. It's not rose colored glasses, there is a large and irrefutable quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you actually want an explanation why they're bad movies, I'd suggest red letter media's star wars reviews.

      Link to the first one:
      http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

      This "you just liked it cause nostalgia" BS needs to die.

    3. Re:No by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      The main difference for me, is that ep4-6 were ground breaking stories for their time. There was nothing even close in it's genre (ok maybe Star Trek, but not to the same level). And despite the campy acting, it was fun. Ep1-3 were annoying. The whole Trade Federation piece was boring, Young Annakin was an annoying jerk, teenage Annakin was an annoying whiney twerp, Jar-jar was just ridiculous, And Boba Fett as a Maori was just plain dumb, especially for us Maoris :) Nothing took me away to different place, it just came across as Americans in Space. This begs the question can ep7+ match 4-6? Probably not. Because the sci-fi genre is well understood now. In 77 in was new and exciting, but westerns in space are done to death now. Sci-Fi as a genre has probably jumped the shark, so unless they go extremely left field and piss off all their fans, Star Wars can only ever succeed (financially) as a merchandising vehicle for 13 year olds.

  5. I remember... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...when the Star Wars fans were laughing at the situation with Abrams and the Star Trek movies that he made...

    I've noticed that they're rather quiet now...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I remember... by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      You know, I was thinking, what's the point of having a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument, if it's the same guy running both shows? Is there seriously no other competent director out there who could help maintain a different flavor in one of those universes?

  6. Does anyone care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our childhood memories have been raped six ways to Sunday, but does anyone care anymore? Yes, stupid remakes of the movies we grew up with exist. The songs of our youth have been remade into cheap dance tunes and ringtones. The games we played are now free-to-play tablet apps with in-app purchases. The originals all still exist, should we need them - but do we need them? How long can you hang on to the past without becoming old instead of grown-up? I just wish they would spare the actors the embarrassment.

  7. make people actually care for the characters by stewsters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Making it a bit darker in a gritty way would be nice. More character development. I saw this on reddit today, and I kind of agree with where that's going.

    1. Re:make people actually care for the characters by vux984 · · Score: 2

      You can do gritty without it being dark. Its more of a roughness of the area. Think Hoth, that is gritty and white.

      Nearly all of the original star wars sets were "gritty". That was one of the better Lucas decisions in the film.

      I was just taking the piss out of your post; because "make it gritty and dark" seems to be the new fashion. Whether its lord of the rings, or start trek, or a new FPS or anything else... it just needs to be gritty and dark.

      And then that sort of dovetailed with the black and brown palette that all things gritty and dark must now use to show us just how gritty and dark they are.

      I'd like to see something light and optimistic once in a while. I'm sick of everything needing to be 'gritty and dark'. Gritty and dark is just a cultural fad, and its starting to get old.

      As for Mass Effect in particular:

      The issue people had with it was that the premise of the series is that you make choices that matter, and it didn't really.

      And this is PRECISELY the last thing you want for a movie. Where you do all this plot and the characters do all this development, and then you have a big dumb deus ex machina at the end that makes everything they se tup to that point completely irrelevant.

  8. It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Stick a fork in it, it's done.

    Seriously, this isn't going to turn out well. For one thing, they got JJ "Lensflare" Abrams to do it, and he'll probably have the protagonists all be teenagers.

    But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars. The only conceivable way to fix this is to not do Episode VII yet, but to go backwards and redo the Prequels, and pretend the old ones didn't happen. They're obviously not going to do that.

    What's more, even if you ignore the crappy Prequels, Episodes IV-VI are quite old now, and are a product of a different time, and being sci-fi, would not ever pass as modern sci-fi movies.

    1. Re:It's hopeless. by jxander · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Teenage protagonists wouldn't be all that bad, honestly. Mark Hammil and Carrie Fisher were only in their early 20s when A New Hope released, and that panned out alright. Just make sure to get good actors, instead of Teen Heart-throb of the Month

      It's certainly be a lot better than trying to have the original 3 actors just trying to rehash their original roles, to appease the old fanbase. Don't get me wrong, they're all great actors, but I can just see the new film trying to shoe-horn 75 year old Harrison Ford back into the same Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder that he was 40 years ago. And he's simply not that character anymore. Harrison has grown and changed over the last 40 years. Han would have too.

      Also, if you look back on the original 3.. sure, they were considered SciFi, but the Sci part only existed to serve the story. They never stopped to explain the actual science behind ANYTHING. How do light sabers work? No one cares, they're laser swords. Why did that guy just vanish when he died? And how is the dead guy talking? Because he's awesome. Shut up and watch the movie. How does The Force work? Midocl-NO ... no one cares, they're space wizards, just go with it. And we did, and it was awesome. The Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12-parsecs ... that made ZERO sense and NO ONE CARED. That some fans wanked out some way for it to sort of make sense didn't help the story at all.

      You want to save Episode VII? Here's how: Have Luke, Leia and Han present, but only enough to help introduce the new characters (be they teens, 20s, or whatever) and then move on. They can hang out in the background, but should not be the main focus past the first third of the movie. Better yet, kill one of them. Have Luke go out Obi-wan style (that is, an active choice of self sacrifice) to save the new hero kid. Oh don't worry, Mark Hammil can float around as a Force Ghost if we need. But let his death inform the audience that this is not his story. That story is over. Oh, and if my previous paragraph wasn't a hint, skip the science part. Do what needs to be done for a good story, and if anyone needs an explanation, just say "because fucking space wizards."

      Oh and one more thing. No obvious big twist "I am your father" moment. We expect it, we'll be waiting for it. The bigger twist is for it to NOT go for the obvious. If you absolutely MUST have some twist or gut punch, dig deep and make it a good one. Think: 24 season 3. Ending with Keifer just breaking down in the car. Something no one sees coming.

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:It's hopeless. by jxander · · Score: 2

      As a 26 year old, I choose to believe that 26 is still "early 20s"

      --
      This signature is false.
  9. Midi-chlorians begone! by juanca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SW EP VII, Scene 1

    Leia: Luke, after studying for years the effect of Midi-chlorians in the way we use the Force, I've come to the conclusion that they bare no effect in who can or cannot become a Jedi, all we know about them is wrong...anybody can be a Jedi...

    Luke: whoa!

    --
    --Necesito una chela, bien fria...
    1. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code? The universe would be filled with light-saber wielding telekinetic lunatics of all it took was wanting it hard enough.

  10. Rocky V by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    Another Star Wars sequel shouldn't be made in the first place. You can only take a movie story line so far and then you're just milking nostalgia for the sake of box office returns with no art or soul. The first three movies were perfection. Enough already.

  11. Worried I am not by portwojc · · Score: 2

    If Disney knows how to do anything it's to take the work of others and run with it.

    Episodes I-III barely touched the extended universe just as fan boy nods - the new ones can have this easily too.

    The books are separate from the movies. The masses don't know what all happened in them anyway. We'll wish to see it on screen but I'm thrilled to see what they do.

    In closing. They are doing fine with Marvel and Disney paid a billion dollars for Star Wars. A BILLION dollars. They won't mess this up. If they do well it's safe to say the mouse will be very upset.

    1. Re:Worried I am not by tekrat · · Score: 2

      Lone Ranger / John Carter.
      Worried I am.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  12. It's Disney by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    Jokes aside, Disney is one of the worst pushers of extended copyright and draconian content laws. I for one won't be giving them a dime of my money. If I want to see it, I know how I will.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  13. I liked Cloverfield by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

    I think a Star Wars/Cloverfield mash-up could be cool. The sith would set loose several huge Rancorrs on Coruscant to further the purposes of the dark side and then the jedi could carve them up and create buildings from the skin and bones that would grow on their own under the influence of the Light Side and turn Coruscant into a giant pulsating heart of Force. This would accidentally produce a tear in the Force and a new Chosen one would be born to restore balance. Twist: the one to bring balance to the Force is the first Rancorr able to become a Jedi. It mind-melds with the flesh-and-bone half of Coruscant and becomes a living planet capable of moving itself across the galaxy because of the number of Midi-chlorians it now commands, smashing itself into other worlds to absorb their life essences and drain Midi-chlorians from any Force sensitives.

  14. Keep Uncle George far, far away... by fallen1 · · Score: 2

    George himself broke so much canon, or "retold" it, that it is not even funny. I've gone back and watched the original trilogy many times (I own them on laserdisc), to keep it fresh in memory so when I get into discussions about original vs prequels I'm not looking back with nostalgia.

    Here is one great example:
    Yoda: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

    vs

    Qui-Gon Jinn: Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells.
    and
    Qui-Gon Jinn: Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you.

    Complete and total turn around. The Force is now administered through a third party to let the Jedi/Sith know what to do - the will of the Force? *gags* *pukes* That is exactly opposite of what Yoda tells Luke - in that LIFE creates the Force. Quo-Gon says without midi-chlorians life could not exist and that you must "hear" the midi-chlorians speak to you. If that was the case, why didn't Yoda explain that to Luke? Because it was some retconning bullshit Lucas came up with to give life to his god-complex character.

    There are many, many other examples of complete "WTF?" moments between original and prequel.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  15. Abrams already ruined Star Trek by nctritech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should we expect anything less for Star Wars? Fuck plot, let's move the camera so much that the audience gets motion sickness! BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!

    The vast majority of Hollywood movies have been shit ever since this thing happened. Independent and classic film both seem far superior, especially since they have generally made up for poor access to special effects with creativity in other areas. (Remember when special effects were, well, special?)

    1. Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Informative

      BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!

      It seems that over time people have forgotten quite a few things about Vulcans and Spock. Here's what's been canon for thirty years:

      First, Spock is not Vulcan. He's half-Vulcan, half-human.
      Second, Vulcans do not have an absence of feelings. In fact, it was established that Vulcans can have STRONGER emotions than humans, but they train to suppress and purge those feelings. Way back in Star Trek: the Motion Picture (an event that would been long after the events of the Abrams movies) Spock was shown going through a ceremony that would have purged the last of his emotions.. but it was interrupted, and the priestess declared that he still had human emotions.

      So the whole "spock can still have emotions" thing doesn't contradict what was already established. Spock still has a lot of work to do to attain Kolinahr.

  16. No. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will."

  17. painted into a corner... by jpellino · · Score: 2

    Yup. He painted himself into a corner by releasing them as 4,5,6,1,2,3. But that need not be a problem. There are plenty of times when we know what's going to happen - such as with any movie based on a book - LOTR, Harry Potter, GoT... so what's a director / producer to do? MAKE US CARE. Use actors that we want to watch just because they are such great artists. He had decent actors at his disposal - he did well with Liam Neeson, less so with Ewan McGregor (see Life Less Ordinary or Trainspotting if you're not sure how good he can be.) He had Natalie Freaking Portman. This is the actress who chewed up the scenery in The Professional. She looked by Ep3 like she was the greenest member of a high school drama cast. I cared what happened to people in 4,5,6. What held me through 1,2,3 was the whizzy parts, the arc of the story, and the four-parallel story technique that was actually done so well you don't really notice it.

    I think Abrams can salvage it and make it thrive. He may not follow the canon, but hey - it's story telling. Did you ever hear a story told the same way forever? We can all excuse The Kessel Run if it gives us Ep4, right? Same here. Heck, I'll spot him JarJar if he makes a movie that I want to turn right around in the lobby and watch again - like he did with Star Trek.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Telling a story in a new way has nothing to do with canon. Sticking to canon is about continuity with the stories that have already been told, even if you're putting your on style on how it's told.

      What he did with the Star Trek movies was moronic. I get wanting to reboot things, start telling a new story based on details of a universe - I often enjoy them. The problem with what he did was that it made no sense whatsoever. There were huge gaps in logic, huge plot holes, character logic issues, fundamental misunderstandings of the science/theory behind SCIENCE fiction, etc, etc. I could write a book on everything wrong with those movies without touching on any canon. The worst of it was that he broke what is at the heart of the franchise: that it's a story that attempts to envision what a utopian society might look like. He's not the first to do so in the franchise's history but he was one of the worst offenders. The reality is that you could change the names/uniforms/etc to just about anything and it wouldn't have mattered because other than the name and a few details they had nothing to do with what Star Trek is.

    2. Re:painted into a corner... by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like J.J.'s work (minus lens flares), and I'm willing to support it. A nitpick, the definition of 'Star Wars canon' will be argued here,

      My view (and apparently George Lucas' at one time or another) is that the movies are canonical, the rest is fanboy fan fiction. Some of it is very well written fan fiction, and it brings you back to that special place in your head where you enjoyed the Death Star blowing up, but they are still not what Lucas made.

      I agree 1, 2, and 3, were not to the story quality of 4, 5, and 6, and I also agree that J. J. is not George Lucas so even these new ones won't technically be a Lucasfilm, but George signed off on it and he's a consulting producer, so that's canon enough for me. Here's hoping the force is with them.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:painted into a corner... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TOS is a product of the culture of the 50s and 60s and was in some important ways hobbled by being so. It was always way too cerebral and libidinous to be a lot of fun...I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.

      Which is it? Do you cerebral and intelligent so that you can have something to think about for a while, or do you want mindless fun?

      There's nothing wrong with mindless fun movies. Sometimes I want to shut my brain off and be entertained by James Bond. But there is a place for cerebral movies. Now, to be honest, none of the Star Trek movies fit that bill, unfortunately. Even the original movies went the action route, they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes. What JJ Abrams did was to turn the action into CGI-fest, which is ok, and turned the mindless action into something that will actively prevent you from suspending disbelief, which is not ok.

      Seriously, if I could have turned my brain off and enjoyed the action, it'd be fine. But he kept jolting me awake with things like "a supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy". Does he realize how big galaxies are? That stars go supernova and hypernova regularly? Because your average Star Trek viewer does. Or how about the second movie where they stop a volcano eruption with a "cold" fusion device. Where "cold" means it makes the volcano cold and freezes the lava. Which for some reason stops the eruption, because it's about temperature, not pressure, right?

      I can't shut down my brain if the movie keeps saying stupid shit that forces me to analyze what they're saying. If they just had gone the other way and explained less, it'd be an improvement. But then, it would also be nice if they didn't fill it with plot holes. That also forces me to analyze the movie.

      Look, you want to make a Star Trek movie that is pure action, to bring in the non-nerds to the theater? I'd rather have the cerebral Star Trek movie, but I'm actually ok with it, because that's the strategy that every other Star Trek movie took. We just have the ability for better special effects now. But the JJ Abrams movies were horrible. If they didn't have the Star Trek label to them, they would still be fucking horrible movies. I'm not raging against the reboot, I don't care that he rebooted the franchise. I care that he made two really bad movies. If they had handed over the franchise to Uwe Boll, they might have turned out better. Well, at least it couldn't be worse.

      What about Star Wars? Could he make good Star Wars? Probably not, because he has no incentive to. The absolute crap he puts out is generally commercially successful, so that's what's he going to do again. What bothers me is that the best Star Wars stories are not the movies, but they're in the expanded universe. So here they have the opportunity to make Episodes 7,8,9 by making a movie version of the Thrawn trilogy (and yeah, recast the actors as younger people, give the old actors cameos if you want). Instead they go the opposite way and completely break with expanded universe. That doesn't bode well for what JJ wants to do with them.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    4. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) The franchise did need a swift kick, just not to the head (it had enough of that with Voyager/TNG movies/Enterprise).

      2) Actually, Star Trek was the most expensive pilot in history and pushed the boundaries by having a black woman, a Russian, an Asian, etc. Those things were unheard of at the time. In the original pilot "Number One" was a female character - she was cut/replaced because she didn't test well with women oddly enough. As to the utopian nature of Star Trek it was intentional. Roddenberry wanted a world that had moved past racism/nationalism/war/social ills. The reason for this was two fold, one was that it allowed them to explore social issues in a non-threatening manner. Two, that the aliens/situations could represent aspects of humanity as they were in the 50s/60s contrasted against a utopian ideal.

      3) The science grounds the story. Even if the science is just theory and in the end is proven to be false, the strength of scifi is that these things that are and might be possible. It's that grounding that inspires and brings scifi above just another special effects mind numbing waste of time. Star Trek is far from perfect in that regard, there's a lot of stuff that's bogus/wrong, but there's also a lot that was based on actual science and some that became reality http://www.nasa.gov/topics/tec...

      Give me all the mind blowing special effects you want, so long as common sense/logic/basic intelligence are respected along with a solid story being told. I don't expect the next revelation in film - just something that has more intelligence than Love Guru.

    5. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "sanitary regulated onesie living" was a reflection of the fact that they were on the flagship of a psudo-military vessel. Militaries around the world wear much stupider things in this day and age:

      http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
      http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... --I'd take a Star Trek onsie over this any day

      The civilians depicted did not dress in onesies, far from it - the costume design (especially in TOS) for the aliens/civilians was as varied and out there as it gets - again, it was a contrast of normalization (everyone dressing the same - a very 50s attitude) vs the creativity that is possible when you don't have the expectation of the norm (what the alien cultures provided)

      In TNG they started to bring in more personality to the characters with Picard's anthropology, Riker's music, Worf's Klingon culture, etc and the sets "10 forward", the holodeck, etc without losing the ability to contrast. In DS9 they used the contrast to great effect - especially with what they did with Jake and Nog. Jake became less and less "federation-like" in his attitudes and dress as the story progressed while Nog made the opposite journey.

      Throughout TOS/TNG/DS9 there were always very clear distinctions between "military" and non-military dress, attitudes, & culture for all the major races.

    6. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....

      It was a poorly constructed sentence which combined a couple thoughts - having a positive Russian character a few years (5?) after the Cuban missile crisis was quite a change from the norm. Other media of the time depicted the Russians as evil (From Russia with Love) or bumbling (The Russians are Coming). So yes, he was not in the pilot, but the overall point is the same.

  18. Re:It's Not Possible by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

    The theatre I frequent serves alcoholic beverages. This may help.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  19. Avoid medechlorians and jar-jar by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    Pretty easy:

    1) avoid medechlorians, JarJar and Ewoks.

    2) Avoid really stupid looking special effects

    3). Avoid really bad dialog

    4). Avoid truly stupid plots.

    5). Avoid completely transparent toy marketing.

    Then the movie will make a billion dollars, as will the next two. Its really not that hard.

  20. Disney Crap Sequels Division by Animats · · Score: 2

    Disney has an entire division devoted to cranking out crap sequels to hits. They're responsible for Cinderella 2 and 3, Bambi 2, Pocohontas 2, Mulan 2, Tarzan 2, The Lion King 1.5 and 2, The Jungle Book 2, Lilo and Stitch 2, and a host of others, most of which can be found wherever used DVDs are sold. So grinding out Star Wars 7 is in line with the established Disney production pipeline.

    Yes, Star Wars 7 is nominally a live action film, but today that's just a few principal characters on top of CG animation. Most of the pixels come from the animation teams.

    1. Re:Disney Crap Sequels Division by Prien715 · · Score: 2

      I love John Lassester (Pixar, including Toy Story and Bug's Life ).

      From your link:
      On June 22, 2007, management of DisneyToon Studios was turned over to the control of Ed Catmull and John Lasseter under the banner of renamed Feature Animation studio, now called Walt Disney Animation Studios. As chief creative officer, Lasseter called for the cancellation of all future films in production or development at DisneyToon Studios that weren't connected to a Disney Consumer Products franchise. As a result, planned or in-progress sequels to Dumbo, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and The Aristocats were all cancelled, among other projects.[1][9] A few days later, it was announced that DisneyToon Studios would no longer produce future sequels to Disney animated films, but will instead focus on spin-offs and original films.[10]

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  21. Re:Star Wars fanois Sucks! by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The original Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds. Watch it again now, and if you enjoy it that's likely due to fond memories of watching them as a child, not because they're such great pieces of filmmaking on their own.

    yes plover, you nailed it

    often when I hear people talk about why the love trek or star wars or D&D or video games it relates to exactly the same...I just sort of insert "I like nostalgia and fun things" for whatever they are babbling about (fyi of all these i'm a 'trekkie' and a gamer sub-genre of tetris nerd)

    there *is* of course the times when these silly things that were aimed at middle schoolers have really interesting storylines that go beyond their target market

    that's up to interpretation, but it's all about distinguishing **why**

    Star Wars and Alien are awesome scifi films but are hugely different in tone/subject matter....I'm sure some fanbois would argue that both are equally great in all ways but they aren't. Alien is written and acted much better in all ways. Again that's an interpretation but it's one most people share and its easily defendable.

    I say the original trilogy are all "classics" for their own reasons...but in film discussions should be viewed as a whole...sort of like LotR...the prequels are kind of a B-/C+ retread, but reduced to its component parts it has some moments that are "classic" (note that the fan-edited versions of the prequels are much better)

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  22. How does one not disappoint in VII? by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really, the stakes are too high. Too many people have memories of IV, V, and VI that are too fond. Even if we had a young George Lucas directing it we would still likely deem it a failure after the first 10 minutes. If you try to make it feel like the original trilogy people will discard it as "uninspired" or "derivative". If you try to make it groundbreaking people will say you "tried too hard". And obviously he can't reboot it like he did with the new Star Trek movies for much the same reasons.

    I actually feel bad for JJ Abrams, as he will be the scapegoat in the end regardless of how good - or bad - the screenplay is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  23. Re:You really happy to be a haters? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    "JJ didn't made a bad job with Star Trek (way better than any previous ST movie previously release than JJ ones)."

    I couldn't disagree more. The Abrams Star Treks were, in my opinion, the worst of the lot by far. They were bad movies that often made no sense at all, but even worse (and unforgivable) was that they failed to even try to stay true to the established Star Trek universe.

    I expect the same treatment of Star Wars. That is, a hatchet job.

  24. I can happen by haplo21112 · · Score: 2

    1. Deep Storyline, focusing on story first action second, that's what made the original trilogy good
    2. Don't throw away the content the fans are screaming for...ok some of the expanded universe is just silliness, but there is some good stuff...AKA Timothy Zhan books...keep most the concepts from there...Mara Jade, Leia and Han's kids...
    3. Attribute 1,2,3 and to unclear memories and retcon some of that crap!
    4. Don't make new characters poor clones of previous characters
    5. for the love of god make sure the villains aren't Vader/Emperor retreads...and PLEASE don't find some half asses way to resurrect the them!

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  25. Get rid of J.J. Abrams by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong: I liked Lost and Fringe. However I wanted to strangle someone over Star Trek. The first three Star Wars movies were pretty good, I thought, and didn't need to have anyone pile on for more profit, but they did it anyway. I'll even admit to kind of liking the animated television series. But now Disney mucking about with this, and getting J.J. Abrams involved in it? Screw that, it's probably going to be a crime against humanity by the time they get done with it. Memo to Disney: Dump J.J. Abrams. I'd rather he keep making weird television series and stop mucking about in movies. Of course if I had my way I wouldn't have Disney having anything at all to do with anything Star Wars, either.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  26. C3-PO was dreaming by luckymutt · · Score: 2

    Opening scene of ep VII should be C3-PO waking up from a 30 year hibernation mode and say: "I just had the strangest dream that I was built by a young Darth Vader, hung out with an irritating alien no one liked, and everyone spoke in the most flat, two dimensional manner. It was a horrible, horrible dream. I'm certainly glad none of that actually happened."

    That is one way that ep VII could save the series and get it back on track.

  27. no by csumpi · · Score: 2

    it will be shit, just like episodes 1-3. except more masturbatory cg fx. but it will make shit loads of money anyway.

  28. No secret, just make an amazing movie by quantaman · · Score: 2

    If you make a sequel within a few years of the original film you're essentially making another version of the same film. The actors are roughly the same ages and playing the same characters, the action and direction style are similar. You have a pile of things that worked great and all you have to do is tweak the formula.

    Such was the case with the original trilogy. The first film was great, the next two were variations on the first film so they were great as well.

    But if you make the sequel decades later the characters are different, the action and direction are now outdated in the current era, all you have is the mythology which gets people in the door but doesn't tell you how to make a film.

    Thus the average decades late sequel ends up being as good as the average new movie, it sucks. You hear about most movies for a year or two and then forget them. The only difference with the sequels to the big franchise is they stick around so you keep remembering how not amazing they were.

    The second trilogy died with the first film. They came up with a crappy film and were stuck re-shooting that for the next two prequels.

    There's no secret for making Episode VII great. Even with the same actors the characters will have to have grown and they need a new feel. Hopefully Star Trek has shown Abrahms what not to do and he'll find something good. But make no mistake, this is essentially a new SF action/adventure movie. It might be great and it might suck just like any other movie.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  29. Dump JJ by dougiewright · · Score: 3

    Get rid of JJ. The man's a menace to everything sacred.

  30. You Can Never Go Home Again by Scot+Seese · · Score: 2

    No, because you can never be a child again. So you will never view Star Wars through the lens of the young person you were when Ep. 4/5/6 were released.

    Lucas had stuffed teddy bear people, cute robots and cartoonish muppet alien characters in all of the original films. Fans loved them. Lucas put silly characters in Ep. 1/2/3 and they were panned.

    Did Star Wars change?

    No.

    You did.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  31. Incorrect by aepervius · · Score: 2

    I first saw star wars I was 20+ (due to a combination of not owning a TV for a long time after I left my parents home, and before that I watched few TV). And they are good film with an arc, comply to standard story telling and film. The prequel do not comply. Check the red letter media review, plinkett bring a lot of good points :
    * You can easily tell who is the protagonist and main hero in SW4,5,6. You cannot with SW1 and arguably SW2.
    * character ? Character in SW4,5,6 can be described with trait independently of their role. It is much harder with SW 1,2,3
    * Plot ? The plot in SW4,5,6 is simple and follow the standard heroic epic there are plot holes but not many Villain actions make sense as a wehole. In SW 1,2,3 the plot makes no sense whatsoever as the villain is givign contradictory order to its goal.

    and I pass many other. Look I did not watch SW when I was young , but already an adult. I could recognize it as a nice fantasy (not SF) story with knight in space. The throne room scene still leaves frisson in me. The lava scene is forgettable. Lucas mistook the fight in the throne room for what it was. He then added fighting everywhere to break the boring dialogues.


    As a whole the prequel are poor tredning to bad. It is not only rose colored glasses , but simply a fair assessement.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org