Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Imagine the Lens Flare a Light Saber Gives OffFollow

#1 Jan 24 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
JJ Abrams to direct new Star Wars movie?

I feel like it's a logical enough choice, even as odd as it is to have him take the helm of both the Star Wars & Star Trek series. He seems comfortable enough with sci-fi and a well-framed dramatic scene.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 4:57pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2 Jan 24 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
As long as he stops with the **** jittery camera, quick cuts, and overly cluttered visuals that look like they were put together by a first year animation student trying out all the buttons, it's fine I suppose. They seriously couldn't come up with anyone else?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Jan 24 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,354 posts
Quote:
As an update to reflect the new director's vision A-Wings will now be renamed Apple-Wings and be given a high-white gloss.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#4 Jan 24 2013 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
He was probably picked because he's a relatively safe bet. He's responsible for Lost, Fringe, and the Star Trek movie which did very well. I can't think of many others with the sci fi experience that could give him a run for his money right now.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#5 Jan 24 2013 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,354 posts
Star Wars: Episode IX - Directed by Paul Verhoeven
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#6 Jan 24 2013 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,109 posts
gbaji wrote:
As long as he stops with the **** jittery camera, quick cuts, and overly cluttered visuals that look like they were put together by a first year animation student trying out all the buttons, it's fine I suppose. They seriously couldn't come up with anyone else?

It would also help if the movie had a decent plot, non-one-dimensional characters, and a bad guy more menacing than Eric Bana.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Jan 25 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
He was probably picked because he's a relatively safe bet. He's responsible for Lost, Fringe, and the Star Trek movie which did very well. I can't think of many others with the sci fi experience that could give him a run for his money right now.


The Star Trek movie is exactly the film that bothered me the most. It was awful. And not just the plot (which was "ok" if not for the massive holes), but the visuals were obnoxious. Oddly, when I watched it on TV, it looked just fine. It was just too busy and hard to watch when on the big screen (especially Imax which is what I saw it on).

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Star Wars: Episode IX - Directed by Paul Verhoeven


Ok. You win! I stand corrected. Smiley: glare
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Jan 25 2013 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
He was probably picked because he's a relatively safe bet. He's responsible for Lost, Fringe, and the Star Trek movie which did very well. I can't think of many others with the sci fi experience that could give him a run for his money right now.


The Star Trek movie is exactly the film that bothered me the most. It was awful. And not just the plot (which was "ok" if not for the massive holes), but the visuals were obnoxious. Oddly, when I watched it on TV, it looked just fine. It was just too busy and hard to watch when on the big screen (especially Imax which is what I saw it on).


I rather enjoyed it (not the best ever, but I didn't hate it), but yeah, I can agree with there being too much going on with the visuals. Despite that, you have to admit it was a commercial success, and Sci Fi has been a fairly dry genre in recent years. Easier to pick an established director for a big-name movie like this.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#9 Jan 27 2013 at 8:04 AM Rating: Default
****
9,278 posts
I'm honestly fine with this. Star Wars seems like the kind of movie he should be doing. Maybe this means he'll relinquish Star Trek to someone better suited to it after the upcoming movie(and maybe that person will go with a script option that doesn't further legitimize this alt-timeline **********
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#10 Jan 28 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
Despite that, you have to admit it was a commercial success...


Twilight was a commercial success.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Jan 28 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
Despite that, you have to admit it was a commercial success...


Twilight was a commercial success.


Exactly. I'm saying that the Powers that Be are going to grab the director they think is a safe bet, the one with a track record. If the film is good, that's a bonus, but Abrams' name carries weight, and he will sell tickets, even if the actual movie is terrible.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129


Join us in the =4 subreddit!
#12 Jan 28 2013 at 10:27 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,109 posts
I dislike the selection of Abrams. I won't go into the specifics of why, because THE ENTIRE INTERNET has already covered those ad nauseum.

I will say, however, that the revival of the lens flare meme has humored me immensely.

Edited, Jan 28th 2013 10:29pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#13 Jan 29 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Demea wrote:
I will say, however, that the revival of the lens flare meme has humored me immensely.


I think we can all safely say that my iteration is the best of the recent offerings.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#14 Mar 05 2013 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Quite frankly I think Abram's "rebooted" Star Trek with the alt-timeline is far better than the Star Wars prequels that George Lucas directed.

Boy did Lucas ever stuff THOSE up. The original 1970's-80's Star Wars are classics that will live forever, despite some extended dodgy bits in Return Of The Jedi. The prequels had fantastic costumes, fantastic green-screen sets, some great scenes, and great actors including Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Samuel L Jackson, Rose Byrne* and Natalie Portman**. It had a fantastic pre-existing fictional universe and untold story, and yet all those things were let down by everything else Lucas did.

Basically, after the Star Wars prequels pretty much the only way to go is up, and I trust Abram's to do something interesting and fun with it.

*See Rose Byrne in Two Hands, and other indy films.
**See Natalie Portman in The Professional, and The Black Swan, where she is outstanding in both. Also indy movies.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#15 Mar 05 2013 at 6:19 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,092 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
**See Natalie Portman in The Professional, and The Black Swan, where she is outstanding in both. Also indy movies.


Watched this just for some Kunis on Portman action. A friend of mine's wife wanted to watch it, and tried to convince him to watch it with her by using that as a lure. He didn't go for it and refused to watch it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#16 Mar 05 2013 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,833 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
The original 1970's-80's Star Wars are classics that will live forever, despite some extended dodgy bits in Return Of The Jedi.
The originals are over-rated, nostalgia fueled fairly decent movies with an annoying, whiny main character. They get way too much credit for what they are and what they do wrong is ignored while similar mistakes made in the prequels are villified.

On the other hand, Jar-Jar can go eat a ****.
#17 Mar 05 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
On the other hand, Jar-Jar can go eat a ****.
Ewoks were worse.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Mar 05 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,833 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
On the other hand, Jar-Jar can go eat a ****.
Ewoks were worse.
Didn't say they weren't, but I had to put it out there that I thought one thing in the prequels was god awful.
#19 Mar 05 2013 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
On the other hand, Jar-Jar can go eat a ****.
Ewoks were worse.


I have a cousin who will simply refuse to watch Return of the Jedi because of the Ewoks. His hate for them burns like a thousand suns (or something like that). He could just never get around the idea that a mighty galaxy spanning empire, run by the baddest bad guys ever, who utterly defeated the most powerful of good guys, and who seemed to always be 5 steps ahead of everyone else, could be brought down by a group of teddy bears with rocks and sticks. Me, I get the message there, so it doesn't bother me that much, but honestly, he's got a point. Only in a screenplay does that sort of thing actually happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Mar 06 2013 at 3:07 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,197 posts
My only beef with the Ewoks (prior to receiving eyelids, turning them into forest demons) is that the sequence on Endor is so @#%^ing boring. NOTHING. HAPPENS. It's just a big forest and some puppets. There's no sci-fi about it, it looks more like a low-budget fantasy movie.

Then again, I didn't mind Jar Jar either. Funny sidekicks are prominent in the movies. We had C-3PO, Yoda and Han Solo as the comical reliefs in the originals. I don't understand why people hate Jar Jar so much, though I'm guessing people used him to personify their disappointment with the movie(s). He's just another funny* sidekick with a weird alien dialect.

Jake Lloyd, on the other hand... god, that kid could not act. As much as it pains me, they should have gone with Haley Joel Osment (kid from The Sixth Sense). At least he could pull off a convincing sob scene.

Edited, Mar 6th 2013 10:07am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#21 Mar 06 2013 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,833 posts
Mazra wrote:
Then again, I didn't mind Jar Jar either. Funny sidekicks are prominent in the movies. We had C-3PO, Yoda and Han Solo as the comical reliefs in the originals. I don't understand why people hate Jar Jar so much, though I'm guessing people used him to personify their disappointment with the movie(s). He's just another funny* sidekick with a weird alien dialect.
He annoys me on a personal level. I can't really explain what it is about him, just that I don't like him.
#22 Mar 06 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
The biggest thing was that he was obviously the funny sidekick, but wasn't particularly funny.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Mar 06 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
On the other hand, Jar-Jar can go eat a ****.
Ewoks were worse.


I have a cousin who will simply refuse to watch Return of the Jedi because of the Ewoks. His hate for them burns like a thousand suns (or something like that). He could just never get around the idea that a mighty galaxy spanning empire, run by the baddest bad guys ever, who utterly defeated the most powerful of good guys, and who seemed to always be 5 steps ahead of everyone else, could be brought down by a group of teddy bears with rocks and sticks. Me, I get the message there, so it doesn't bother me that much, but honestly, he's got a point. Only in a screenplay does that sort of thing actually happen.


I'm right there with your cousin. Ewoks ruin Return of the Jedi for me. Even setting aside the improbability of the whole thing, they really harm the rest of the films through way that they make the Empire look like Scooby Doo villains. It's a rough contrast. The comedic relief that the Ewoks are supposed to provide is awful, and it's awkwardly crammed in right alongside the "drama" of the battle scene where they're all getting killed. Also, they age so much worse than everything else in those films, too - they look like something out of a lower budget (and generally speaking, dumber) movie.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#24 Mar 07 2013 at 4:47 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
they really harm the rest of the films through way that they make the Empire look like Scooby Doo villains.

That's what always annoyed me about it. Especially after the prequels and Clone Wars are added into the mix.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#25 Mar 07 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
they really harm the rest of the films through way that they make the Empire look like Scooby Doo villains.

That's what always annoyed me about it. Especially after the prequels and Clone Wars are added into the mix.


Yeah. Like I said, I "get it" in that they're playing up the empires arrogance factor. They were trying to recapture the same concept as in the first movie (episode 4) where the weakness of the Death Star was because the Empire didn't consider small fighters a threat. But what made that work was that Luke had the force on his side, turning a nearly impossible attack (which everyone fails at until Luke comes along) that the Empire didn't worry about into a believable outcome. You could get why the Empire didn't take efforts to prevent that attack because they'd already made it as close to impossible to exploit as possible.

In episode 6 though, the empire was defending that building. They had intentionally put sufficient force there to prevent the rebel assault (which they knew was coming) from succeeding. There's no special reason for the Ewoks to be able to tip the balance except that they wanted to do the whole "They weren't expecting it, so it worked" kind of deal. It's the David vs Goliath kind of thing, except that when David was Luke, it made sense and worked. But when David was a band of little bears with spears and rocks, it didn't so much. I suppose it also blunted the whole victory over evil thing because it wasn't the "heroes" who won. It was dumb luck (and not force related either).

To be fair though, the point of the whole thing was that the real battle was taking place between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor. That was the good triumphing over evil part, so the battle on the planet could be left to that dumb luck I suppose. Again, I got what they were doing, but I also totally see why that resolution was supremely unsatisfying for a whole lot of fans.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Mar 07 2013 at 10:51 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
gbaji, I so agree with you.

The only thing that I can think that George Lucas was going for there was a Vietnam War commentary: Impenetrable jungle (forest) negates most of the USA's (Empire's) technological out-of-sight superiority. The USA could have won if they were prepared to pull back from the ground war and nuke the **** out of Vietnam from the air. But they weren't that cruel and ruthless. The EMPIRE, though, is totally prepared to give up the ground war and just Death Ray Endor from orbit asap. As far as I can see, The Empire's ground forces on Endor are just a little isolated military outpost holding things down till the Death Star can get there.

Which is why the battle between the moral and the immoral use of the Force, up on the Death star, is the crux of the Endor campaign. Luke's choice to stop fighting and thereafter only passively resist, ultimately leads to Luke's win. Which is of course is commentary on Ghandi-style politics, peaceful striking and protesting, and a whole gammut of religious ethics and tactics found in most major religions. (Think bhuddist and christian passive protesters, even unto death).

It works as a story, but the blasted Ewoks were executed horribly on screen. Not nearly well enough to carry the gravitas and joy that the script was supposed to have.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CST
Jophiel, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (24)