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."
Because you sell more toys and other merchandise at Christmas time
That's about when those new parks open.
I am altering the release date.
Pray I do not alter it any further.
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.
Oh wait, no, Disney owns both titles.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.