Slashdot Mirror
'Star Wars: Episode VIII' Delayed By Seven Months (hollywoodreporter.com)
Mr.Intel writes with bad news for those of you champing at the bit to see the next Star Wars movie. Engadget reports: "You'll have to wait a bit longer to see what the heck is up with Luke Skywalker. Disney announced this afternoon that it's delaying Star Wars: Episode VIII from May 26, 2017 by seven months to December 15, 2017. Disney didn't give any reason for the delay, but sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that it'll allow the studio to give the film a Christmas release treatment, which worked pretty well for The Force Awakens. Additionally, it'll give director/writer Rian Johnson (Brick, Looper) more time to work on the film. THR's Borys Kit notes that may include rewrites to focus more on the new class of Star Wars characters."
Please turn in your "Nerd card" at the door. That is all
Because you sell more toys and other merchandise at Christmas time
That's about when those new parks open.
But it has swords, spacey ships, little toys, and fluffy teddy bears. That has to make up for the stilted dialogue, plots for simpletons (aka space cowboys), complete disregard for science in favour of space magic, and stupefying repetition.
I am altering the release date.
Pray I do not alter it any further.
Please turn in your "Nerd card" at the door. That is all
That's ok - I have a fairly cromulent "Geek Card" here anyway.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Star Wars is an awful franchise. Star Trek is far superior -- better characters, better plots, more imaginative, better writing, etc... Star Wars should cease.
Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is more real sci-fi. Both have their purposes, and can co-exist. why do we have to choose?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think the box office returns have made their statement, but thanks for your opinion, which, of course, means absolutely nothing.
I liked the new Star Wars film. My family enjoyed it very much.
I look forward to many more movies to come.
Star Wars is an awful franchise. Star Trek is far superior -- better characters, better plots, more imaginative, better writing, etc... Star Wars should cease.
Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is more real sci-fi. Both have their purposes, and can co-exist. why do we have to choose?
Why choose ? Because of vim versus emacs, commodore versus atari, amiga versus the world etc....We long for conflict and confrontation. There is nothing sci-fi about Star Trek. It's about as fantasy as Star Wars.
Oh wait, no, Disney owns both titles.
Having watched all 7 movies this week, I've decided that the franchise really died after ESB.
RoTJ was mostly crap (Jabba's palace an Ewoks were equally as bad as Jar Jar), and the prequels need no further explanation.
Ep7 was so pathetic it's not funny. Lame characters, unoriginal script and plot, and massive holes in the story. I'll watch Ep8 when it comes out, but only because I found a new way to enjoy them, picking the shit out of their weak production.
Apparently, Disney is asking for 40% more shocking plotholes. Also, the film in its present form contains several original ideas, and it takes time to meticulously edit these out.
Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is more real sci-fi.
My phony detector always goes on when someone brings out the "space opera" bullshit. It's like saying: "Under Siege is an action movie. The English Patient is a real movie."
Guess what, one is a subset of the other, so your comparison is just phony and lame.
lucm, indeed.
Bring George Lucas in, let him come up with another funny "Jar Jar" character to make the movie even better!
Do you have ESP?
But it has swords, spacey ships, little toys, and fluffy teddy bears. That has to make up for the stilted dialogue, plots for simpletons (aka space cowboys), complete disregard for science in favour of space magic, and stupefying repetition.
Are you talking about SW VII or Trek 11?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
No, it's not phony. Fine, say hard sci-fi rather than real sci-fi, since it may seem less snooty, but it makes the same point. Star Wars is focused on an adventure in a society with advanced technology, not so much the societal implications of a particular imagined technological advance. I'm not sure why you consider "space opera" pejorative, it's just focused more on a personal journey than on a narrative about the effect of hyperdrive on a society, for instance. I love Star Wars, but I don't think the cast and crew consider it a priority to deeply consider the ramifications (or even consistencty) of the technology it presents.
with all the money they made from the first movie, they can afford an original script.
to dick about with a 3-decade-long complex story by IGNORING THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT is just... well... disappointing.
Maybe you need a refresher about how Star Wars was created. The original stuff that George Lucas wrote was confusing, rambling and boring. It's a bunch of editors (including the guy's wife) and Brian De Palma who carved out of this confusing script the masterpiece that was the first movie.
Have a look at this book:
http://www.howstarwarsconquere...
lucm, indeed.
You go to hell and you die.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
On one hand there's a bunch of people exploring the universe, using teleportation to travel short distances and 3d printers to create food. On the other there's a bunch of people fighting with light sabers and using hyperdrive to run away from other spaceships. Both have aliens, energy shields, politics, fleets and a small band of heroes who do all the work even if there's thousands of people in their team.
Any subcategory you create to classify those two stories differently is phony.
lucm, indeed.
Star Trek is more real sci-fi.
Reroute power to the splodey consoles! Can you detect anything with your Betazed woo? What? Orcs^H^H^H^HKlingons with swords off the port bow?
On one hand there's a bunch of people exploring the universe, using teleportation to travel short distances and 3d printers to create food. On the other there's a bunch of people fighting with light sabers and using hyperdrive to run away from other spaceships. Both have aliens, energy shields, politics, fleets and a small band of heroes who do all the work even if there's thousands of people in their team.
Any subcategory you create to classify those two stories differently is phony.
Yeah, cause neither holds a candle to "The Expanse", a better space opera than Star Wars and a better SciFi show than Star Trek... so there....
and... that's my cue to duck.... (evil grin)
Yeah, but Under Siege has that chick from baywatch jump out of a cake topless.
Harrison Ford is getting old and doesn't need the cash like Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill
It's obvious where that dark side feeling comes from; Di$ney (c)orporation. I should have expected to find them holding the fans' leash. I recognized their foul stench as soon as I read the headline.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Having recently rewatched the prequel trilogy and seen the new movie, I've come to the conclusion that we're wrong about George Lucas. He creates a brilliant setting and is excellent at creating stories and characters. His problem is that he's terrible at dialog and terrible at directing.
They should have let Lucas write the draft for Episode VII and then handed it off to someone else to polish up and then have JJ Abrams direct that.
Yes, that's right, the new Star Wars movie was SO BAD it made me appreciate the Phantom Menace. The story in Phantom Menace was 10 times better than the horror that is the Force Awakens. The acting and visuals were better in the Force Awakens, but who cares? There's more to a movie than flashy visuals.
Give me another Phantom Menace any day rather than something as terrible as the Force Awakens.
There's more to a movie than flashy visuals.
Excuse-me, are you from the past?
lucm, indeed.
Yeah, cause neither holds a candle to "The Expanse", a better space opera than Star Wars and a better SciFi show than Star Trek... so there....
and... that's my cue to duck.... (evil grin)
No spoilers please! I'm waiting until there's enough episodes to go on a binge.
lucm, indeed.
Yeah, but Under Siege has that chick from baywatch jump out of a cake topless.
Gary Busey?
lucm, indeed.
.....Chimping on the nut? Cramping on the rag? Clamping on the bait?
Cringing at the thought.
fluffy teddy bears
Those damn Ewoks are as bad as Tribbles in a Klingon's bed.
my favorite show ever is Star Trek TSG. Picard will always be my captain.
Any subcategory you create to classify those two stories differently is phony.
The subcategory that separate them is:
one considers the raminfications of the technology on society as a key part of the story; as a key theme; that's hard sf.
one doesn't. the science fiction is just window dressing.
If you can replace planets with islands, star ships with boats, and light sabres with metal ones and tell the same story then its not hard sf.
The star trek episode where they've abstracted war to the point that the sims run, and people walk into suicide booths is hard SF. You can't remove the technology from that story. The de-personalisation of the conflict is a crucial point, the notion of a such a clean war and the extrapolation from the premise to the idea that such a war would never end, because it wasn't disruptive enough to the societies engaged in it... its not incidental to the plot -- its a primary theme.
Not all star trek is hard sf though; lots of it is no different than star wars. Not that star wars is bad. But hard sf and space fantasy are very different things.
maybe it will give them time to actually come up with a story this time rather than just rehashing the original movies.
Now I like both (some of) Star Trek and (some of) Star Wars. Some things to keep in mind are that :
* Trek was *many* series with some movies. SW was movies with a cartoon series, both had books
* Trek had some abysmal episodes, but there's a lot more to pick from when digging for gold
* Meesa Jar-Jar Bin... SHUT UP WESLEY!
* Both had some exceptional actors. I don't think many can say Patrick Stuart is pretty awesome, and Ford rocks
Most comparisons are likely going to be between STTOS and SW. I think overall Trek had more (quantity wise) memorable characters, but again it was a SERIES so there was more time for development. In the end though, some scenarios come to mind:
William Shatner gets VD and misses the audition, so another actor takes Kirk. Would it be better or worse?
Harrison Ford breaks his leg while saving a kitten from a tree, missing his audition. Better or worse?
In the above, I'd say Trek might do better or the same, but SW would be worse off. To me that means SW's main actor was better, but also that a lot of what made it good was due to Ford.
Now last scenario to drive it home:
Shatner gets kicked off set when he's caught banging the director' s assistant. Instead, they cast as Kirk... Harrison Ford.
Which one is the winner now? â
Disagree entirely. They have similar *settings*. Their stories share the goal of entertaining, but beyond that have entirely different purposes. Shaun of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead are both movies about a zombie plague. One is a horror comedy, the other is horror drama. "Hard sci-fi" is an extra descriptor that indicates a goal of the movie is to explore impact of X technology. It's just not something that applies to Star Wars.
If I want a great story, I'll read a book. Sure, some movies have both - great acting/visuals AND a great story, but those are rare, and always have been. Given the choice between one or the other, I'll take the Force Awakens over the acting mess that was the prequels. I'm in that theater for 2 hours to be entertained. The god-awful acting and dialogue in those three prequels took me right out of the story anyway. I found myself not caring about any of it. At least this new one kept me interested. That's more than 90% of all new releases are able to accomplish. I'll take it.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
The past had plenty of movies that were terrible. We just forget about them because, well, because they're forgettable. It's not like every movie was The Godfather or Pulp Fiction or whatever movie you have in your top 5. 99% of them sucked, in every decade. Memory wipes out the bad ones and reminds you of the good ones.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
I was a fan of the original Star Wars, they are tremendously well done space opera movies, but their time has passed. Lightsabers, the Millenium Falcon, the stupid Storm Troopers, the death star/planet, the masked bad guy, etc all seen before. The latest movie, although suberbly executed, was not fresh at all. It was a rehash of all the things we have seen in the past.
I hope they take those 7 months and update the Star Wars Universe, at last.
You appreciate Phantom Menace? You have GOT to check out this epic takedown of the Phantom Menace. http://redlettermedia.com/plin...
ed
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
99% of them sucked, in every decade. Memory wipes out the bad ones and reminds you of the good ones.
Here's my top 5 of bad movies that are unforgettable, by decade.
2010: Twixt (disclaimer: that's the only one in the list I was unable to watch until the end)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2000s: Freddy Got Fingered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1990s: Passenger 57 (best scene ever: "Who's in charge?")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1980s: Smokey and the Bandit part 3 (which has no Bandit in it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1970s: Good Guys Wear Black
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
lucm, indeed.
well..
jj abrams star wars is certainly better than jj abrams star trek.
both are plot challenged though.
having luke only at the end for 4 secs was such a piece of crock though. like you need to haul the actor around doing pr work for that eh
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
to dick about with a 3-decade-long complex story by IGNORING THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT is just... well... disappointing.
Maybe you need a refresher about how Star Wars was created. The original stuff that George Lucas wrote was confusing, rambling and boring. It's a bunch of editors (including the guy's wife) and Brian De Palma who carved out of this confusing script the masterpiece that was the first movie.
Have a look at this book: http://www.howstarwarsconquere...
So if Lucas was allowed to write the script for Episode VI all on his own that could explain the 'Great Teddy Bear Luau of Endor'? Or did he just cave in to pressure from the toy companies for the film to promote the sales of furry toys as well as plastic action figures?
Alright Mr Troll, here are 2 more questions for you:
- Emacs or Vim?
- Windows or Linux or MacOS ?
(To those who modded you Informative, great work, the troll is not hungry anymore)
Going totally against his entire character of the prior films? The Luke I know wouldn't turn tail and run and hide, so there better be a damn good explanation.
Hopefully it will give them time to make a good movie unlike that poorly directed poorly paced clusterfuck of a movie that spent all of the character development time ignoring the two new and interesting actors in favor of more overly long actions scenes and cameos with characters whose actors stopped giving a shit in 1980.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Somebody's pregnant.
I predict it's Andy Serkis.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
browncoat scum!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
aka space cowboys
See you space cowboy.
(If being a simpleton gets me more space cowboy, I'm all for it)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Space opera = future fantasy. Space magic.
There is no reason someone can't enjoy futuristic fantasy stories.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Edlin :D *runs*
http://chimpbox.us
Painting the Enterprise pitch black would make zero difference whatsoever. It would still be perfectly visible in infrared, as would be anything with a temperature above 2.7 Kelvin. Aside from magical plot contrivances like cloaking devices, there's no such thing as camouflage in space.
This is valid criticism, especially since they created another plot contrivance (saucer separation) to address that very issue, then barely used it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
And replace droids with slaves -- an issue which Star Trek (at least, pre-Abrams) would not just gloss over the way Star Wars does.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is more real sci-fi.
*Walks away whistling to myself after casting disturbing glances at the speaker*
I am surprised there isn't some good faith contractual violation here. When acquiring the rights to the movie, you might assume continued promotion via comicbook and so on.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Russian Roulette is hardly hard SF, even if you scale it up to a nation. Dice rolls and cyanide pills would come close enough for storytelling purposes.
Log in or piss off.
'Star Wars: Episode VIII' Delayed By Seven Months (engadget.com)
See that engadget.com at the end of the title, Dice has started hiding the link right there.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Notepad++
Joe
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
DIP switch
You owe me a new keyboard.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Which is just another Star Wars episode anyway thanks to JJ.
People love false dichotomies.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
bargain theaters still exist?
Space opera = future fantasy. Space magic.
How is teleportation more scientific than "The Force"? Because Jedi mind tricks are not done using hardware? That's like seeing surgery (a mechanical process) as the only legitimate branch of medicine.
In recent Star Wars movies they've made an effort to explain what The Force is and why some species are not affected by it. It's not perfect but I'd say this is different from magic.
lucm, indeed.
My personal favorite was Picard's practice of, when the ship's sensors weren't good enough, sending Geordi to Ten Forward to look out the window.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What do you see as left-wing politics in the new Star Wars? Is it left-wing to oppose a military takeover? Is it left-wing to be a competent female main character with fighting ability?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Star Wars is an awful franchise. Star Trek is far superior -- better characters, better plots, more imaginative, better writing, etc... Star Wars should cease.
Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is more real sci-fi. Both have their purposes, and can co-exist. why do we have to choose?
Star Trek is also space opera. They just had some better writers. Not that Star Wars was all that bad, but it was the fact they had some decent actors in there (Alec Guiness, Harrison Ford) and a very compelling story.
Star Trek also had more episodes (about 800 ish from memory for all 5 series). so it's easy to get 10 episodes of pure gold from that than 7 movies. That being said, ST had no problems falling back on a bit of deus ex machina to solve problems. Things like "repolarising the deflector shields" (you think for all their vaunted brilliance, Starfleet engineers would put the batteries in the right way the first time) or "ejecting the warp core". This got worse during the Berman/Braga era.
Star Trek, especially TNG and later series were more about exploring the human experience and aspects of humanity were often the focus of episodes (racism, violence, compassion) more often than not, reflected in alien species. Data's character was largely a means to examine human emotions. Star Wars was more about telling a grandiose story (much like B5 did).
But I digress, I agree completely both can co-exist and a lot of people like both (myself included).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Is this the equivalent of waving your hands and telling us that we don't need to see your identification? That these in fact are not the nerds we're looking for?
Move along.
Touché. Engage, #1.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Champ is the correct word, people just don't know what it means anymore so they use chomp instead.
I did not know that....
Now I feel like a chump.
Star Trek was more real sci-fi. Otherwise, concur.
my favorite show ever is Star Trek TSG. Picard will always be my captain.
Star Trek: The Sexy Generation
No sig for you! Come back one year!
It was pretty obvious that the Enterprise-D was designed for diplomacy and exploration. Yes, it's armed, but it's not particularly well set up for combat, which is evident from the way the bridge is laid out, how the weapons systems are set up, and the overall design. Which is probably why it tended to get its ass kicked in a lot of combat situations.
I was thinking Erika Eleniak, but what ever floats your boat I guess.
Some people do.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."