RE: The best Star Wars related news I've heard since 1999 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News



Message


grucl -> RE: The best Star Wars related news I've heard since 1999 (31/10/2012 3:19:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

I honestly don't understand all those who hate this news. George Lucas no longer has creative control over Star Wars!


I am glad that Lucas is gone. He opened a door to a huge cinematic universe in 1977 and promptly slammed it shut again in 1980 when he reduced the scope to a "father and son" - story. The prequels shrunk that universe even further (Yoda is pals with Chewbacca, Anakin built C-3PO. At least we didn't get a teenage Han Solo...).

With Lucas gone those stop gaps are out and the universe can grow again!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon


Perhaps now, we'll also get the Original Trilogy on Blu Ray without Hayden Christiansen's ghost at the end! Huzzah!


I read somewhere that the Disney deal does not include the existing 6 films.




criffle -> Could we have a Marvel Star Wars cross over (31/10/2012 3:42:49 PM)

I can see it now: Avenger Wars.

Iron Man and Han teaming up!




NeilStone -> Mickey.. it's up to you to make it right!!! (31/10/2012 4:05:18 PM)

HAN SHOT FIRST!




Invader_Ace -> RE: Mickey.. it's up to you to make it right!!! (31/10/2012 4:17:19 PM)

Pirates of the Carribean:  Secret of Monkey Island, anyone?




Graphix489 -> ANYONE BUT DISNEY!!!!!! (31/10/2012 4:19:40 PM)

They ruined Tim Burton films. They ruined John Carter. They almost ruined pixar. Now there going for star wars! These people are evil!

I predict it will go down the same route as the star trek films. Keep them going until th




boristhespie -> RE: Bin ep1 (31/10/2012 4:26:01 PM)

Filmradar says that the Indie part , what with Paramount being involved will unlikely come to anything anytime soon.




boristhespie -> RE: ANYONE BUT DISNEY!!!!!! (31/10/2012 4:28:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Graphix489

They ruined Tim Burton films. They ruined John Carter. They almost ruined pixar. Now there going for star wars! These people are evil!

I predict it will go down the same route as the star trek films. Keep them going until th


How the hell can you ruin a Tim Burton film?!!

Tim Burton ruins Tim Burton films. Most over-rated film-maker out today.




Kalielyn -> TOTOR (31/10/2012 5:09:35 PM)

Sorry if this has been mentioned already (too lazy to read 5 pages of posts). But has anyone thought that they could do the Old Republic? Plenty of scope for films there and would stay away from the Skywalker Saga!




123GO! -> Star Wars' "vast universe" (31/10/2012 5:11:14 PM)

Lucas claims he created a vast universe with Star Wars. This was true of the films originally made in 1977 and 1980, but since then too much of the action revolved around Tatooine and the crappy Coruscant. I don't think I wanna see more action in the same bloody environments - Empire Strikes Back gave as 3 new settings that didn't appear in Star Wars (as it used to be known before those stupid extended titles). And I remember seeing Return of The Jedi in 1983 and feeling disappointed that the action moved back to Tatooine with stupid Disney-esque monkeys (Ewoks) and a boring Disney-esque Jabba the Hut - just look at how even crappier he appears in the revamped "episode 4". New characters in new environments would help. But I still think George Lucas is one of the best writers ever, having given us Star Wars, then 'Empire' and Raiders of The Lost Ark. But good wishes to all involved in making Episodes 7, 8 & 9!




cerebusboy -> RE: Star Wars' "vast universe" (31/10/2012 6:05:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 123GO!

Lucas claims he created a vast universe with Star Wars. This was true of the films originally made in 1977 and 1980, but since then too much of the action revolved around Tatooine and the crappy Coruscant. I don't think I wanna see more action in the same bloody environments - Empire Strikes Back gave as 3 new settings that didn't appear in Star Wars (as it used to be known before those stupid extended titles). And I remember seeing Return of The Jedi in 1983 and feeling disappointed that the action moved back to Tatooine with stupid Disney-esque monkeys (Ewoks) and a boring Disney-esque Jabba the Hut - just look at how even crappier he appears in the revamped "episode 4". New characters in new environments would help. But I still think George Lucas is one of the best writers ever, having given us Star Wars, then 'Empire' and Raiders of The Lost Ark. But good wishes to all involved in making Episodes 7, 8 & 9!


Isn't 'environments' one of the things the prequels got right? You've got kimino (water planet) , Utapa (sink hole planet, nice dragons), the planet with the giant flowers whose name escapes me, Kasshykk, Mustafar (lava planet) etc. Something the CGI-bashers forget is that, without it, we're kinda stuck with Earth environments and, as you say, we've already seen Sand and Ice planets in the OT.





cerebusboy -> RE: TOTOR (31/10/2012 6:07:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kalielyn

Sorry if this has been mentioned already (too lazy to read 5 pages of posts). But has anyone thought that they could do the Old Republic? Plenty of scope for films there and would stay away from the Skywalker Saga!


Good idea. Supershadow famously posted (fictional) outlines for Episodes VII, VIII and IX, and the 'official' sequels in other medium (heir to the empire, dark empire etc) are pretty meh. Old Republic's the way to go.




Toby Dammit -> (31/10/2012 9:37:42 PM)

Great news Lucas won't be involved after the mess he made of the prequels (as well as mucking about with the original trilogy). Would Disney taking over mean a release of the original films on DVD/Bluray without Lucas' tinkering?




cerebusboy -> RE: (31/10/2012 9:59:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby Dammit

Great news Lucas won't be involved after the mess he made of the prequels (as well as mucking about with the original trilogy). Would Disney taking over mean a release of the original films on DVD/Bluray without Lucas' tinkering?


I think fox still own the rights to eps. i-VI. Disney aren't averse to a bit of orginal-version changing themselves!
http://forum.bcdb.com/forum/banned_disney_P38306/




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:20:16 PM)

Some of those are quite different though, those were genuinely worrying while Lucas' tempering was masturbating with technology while claiming that you're doing it for narrative reasons.




cerebusboy -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:23:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Some of those are quite different though, those were genuinely worrying while Lucas' tempering was masturbating with technology while claiming that you're doing it for narrative reasons.


Disney also have the famous "for a limited time only!" DVD releases of their classics. I'd prefer a creator choosing to alter his movies than a vast multinational corporation making the same calls.

Plus, aren't there probably a lot of kids who've grown up with the Special Editions as the 'real' Star Wars? I don't see Disney opting to please fanboys over kids. The upgraded special effects in the OT make it easy to sell all six movies as a consistent whole, and Disney are all about making money.




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:34:31 PM)

And do the "for a limited time only" releases change things, add backgrounds/creatures or change the sound editing into a different thing for the sake of it? Again, there is a difference between changing or cutting out a blackface to what Lucas does.




cerebusboy -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:40:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

And do the "for a limited time only" releases change things, add backgrounds/creatures or change the sound editing into a different thing for the sake of it? Again, there is a difference between changing or cutting out a blackface to what Lucas does.


The changes aren't for the sake of it. For example, take the end of Return of the Jedi. Lucas said that it was a bit underwhelming that you only see a couple of planets celebrating the fall of a vast Galactic Empire, so he changed it.

The Disney examples aren't just blackfaces. And it's still an example of altering an original work.

The point about Disney release patterns is, if you want the One True Original versions of Star Wars to be permanently available, Disney is not exactly synonymous with such an approach.

And remember Lucas did offer a moral argument for the most famous change (Han not shooting first) .




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:47:23 PM)

And the adding of planets is a touch I liked (other than that hellish sound in Naboo) but virtually added nothing to the plot. Adding more Rontos on Tatooine adds basically nothing and just makes the shot look more cluttered. Most of the examples mentioned in that thread do involve changing things that are either cruelty or racism and while Star Wars is not untouched by stereotypes but I very much doubt Disney will touch those as they're not as bad as picaninny cats.

I mean, if you want find examples, find something that isn't changed because of of things today people will find more than a bit offensive.




cerebusboy -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 10:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

And the adding of planets is a touch I liked (other than that hellish sound in Naboo) but virtually added nothing to the plot. Adding more Rontos on Tatooine adds basically nothing and just makes the shot look more cluttered. Most of the examples mentioned in that thread do involve changing things that are either cruelty or racism and while Star Wars is not untouched by stereotypes but I very much doubt Disney will touch those as they're not as bad as picaninny cats.

I mean, if you want find examples, find something that isn't changed because of of things today people will find more than a bit offensive.


It makes it look more in line with the original vision. Everyone loves the Cantina scene, but (for budgetary reasons) they still had knock-off wolfman masks and the like. The fact that the changes don't advance the plot doesn't mean they're not (to the filmaker) legitimate aesthetic choices. You might disagree with Lucas that the orignal Mos Eisley was too underpopulated, but it's his movie. And if the changes are as minor as you say then they're not really 'film ruining' ones, decreasing the need for the untouched originals to be permanantly available.




bozo -> RE: Put the pen down George! (31/10/2012 11:02:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rooby

Oh Lord, that's not a pic of George penning the script is it?!



[sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif][sm=happy07.gif]




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 11:05:34 PM)

Just because it's his original vision (something I stopped believing a long time ago, I don't even think he knows how the scene is supposed to work and constantly amends it) doesn't make it good and fair enough that it his film, the problem I have with your comment is THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE tinkering with a past scene AND ELIMINATING BLACKFACE CENTAURS BEING SERVANTS TO PRETTY WHITES OR PICANINNY CATS.

One is Lucas playing with his own work, the other one is eliminating unabashed racism which is considered pretty much unacceptable by today's standards. Disney did not add extra dragons in the Chernabog sequence because they thought it was underwhelming, they took away something seen as repulsive.




cerebusboy -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 11:09:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Just because it's his original vision (something I stopped believing a long time ago, I don't even think he knows how the scene is supposed to work and constantly amends it) doesn't make it good and fair enough that it his film, the problem I have with your comment is THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE tinkering with a past scene AND ELIMINATING BLACKFACE CENTAURS BEING SERVANTS TO PRETTY WHITES OR PICANINNY CATS.

One is Lucas playing with his own work, the other one is eliminating unabashed racism which is considered pretty much unacceptable by today's standards. Disney did not add extra dragons in the Chernabog sequence because they thought it was underwhelming, they took away something seen as repulsive.



It's not playing. It's an aesthetic choice. Of course I'm aware there's a moral difference between racism and number of cats/aliens whatever in a scene. But, again, the Disney changes were not ALL racism.

I'm not arguing Lucas' changes are necessarily good, I'm arguing that it's his call.




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 11:13:40 PM)

quote:



It's not playing. It's an aesthetic choice.


Sure it is and it is still playing with the scene or adding sounds. Also, if Lucas is that series about those changes then I'm the Patriarch of Constantinople.

quote:

Of course I'm aware there's a moral difference between racism and number of cats/aliens whatever in a scene. But, again, the Disney changes were not ALL racism.


Yes, some others were because of Jewish stereotypes and animal cruelty. Moral choice is the key word on why Disney changes are different from Lucas' and why they did them.





cerebusboy -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 11:24:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


It's not playing. It's an aesthetic choice.

Sure it is and it is still playing with the scene or adding sounds. Also, if Lucas is that series about those changes then I'm the Patriarch of Constantinople.



It's not playing. The choices are made for reasons - for example, Jabba in ANH ties the trilogy together given his importance in Jedi, the aforementioned planet scenes, making the Ewok eyes blink so they seem more cuddly and less dead-eyed dolls, making a supposedly busy spaceport more ,er, busy, showing the X-Wings massing in space to create more tension before the climatic final battle. Etc . You think Lucas did these things for lulz? Why?



quote:

Of course I'm aware there's a moral difference between racism and number of cats/aliens whatever in a scene. But, again, the Disney changes were not ALL racism.

Yes, some others were because of Jewish stereotypes and animal cruelty. Moral choice is the key word on why Disney changes are different from Lucas' and why they did them.


The Han-shooting-first was a moral choice (which isn't to say I agree with Lucas' moral logic of course). To be clear, are you saying that you trust Disney because they've only made choices for moral reasons? You don't think there might also be commercial reasons? For example, comic scholars would love to have the original, untouched versions of some Scrooge McDuck stories, but Disney know that they can't repackage and sell those stories to contemporary kids without making whole scale changes to their colonial etc elements, which is what they do.




Deviation -> RE: RE: (31/10/2012 11:38:08 PM)

quote:

It's not playing. The choices are made for reasons - for example, Jabba in ANH ties the trilogy together given his importance in Jedi, the aforementioned planet scenes, making the Ewok eyes blink so they seem more cuddly and less dead-eyed dolls, making a supposedly busy spaceport more ,er, busy, showing the X-Wings massing in space to create more tension before the climatic final battle. Etc . You think Lucas did these things for lulz? Why?


Because most of them too fucking stupid to be actually with real intent and occasionally show fuck all knowledge of how the scene works. Jabba in ANH was a terrible poorly handled moment with no importance whatsoever (let alone him first appearing in ROTJ is more effectove then demeaning him in ANH), the Ewoks have had the adverse effect and the space battles are the only one which work. That's not original vision. That's a man showing he had no idea what his original vision was and how it worked and is constantly changing stuff and is selling more by adding "new additions" that mean jackshit and selling them as Special Editions.

They're about as believable as those canon books that explain plot holes in the series BECAUSE LUCAS ALWAYS MEANT THEM and are not just another way of getting money. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but those feel more money making then aesthetic.

quote:

The Han-shooting-first was a moral choice (which isn't to say I agree with Lucas' moral logic of course). To be clear, are you saying that you trust Disney because they've only made choices for moral reasons? You don't think there might also be commercial reasons? For example, comic scholars would love to have the original, untouched versions of some Scrooge McDuck stories, but Disney know that they can't repackage and sell those stories to contemporary kids without making whole scale changes to their colonial etc elements, which is what they do.


Yes, the Han shooting first is clearly on the level of eliminating racism and Jewish stereotypes as moral choices. Are you being serious? And of course there is economics involved because for example, SHOWING KIDS BLACKFACE is bound the cause a hundred times the shitstorms Han shooting first does.

And what you mentioned there is comics, not movies, and a far smaller scale than anything Star Wars. The appropiate one would be if they eliminated The Aristocats completely because of that Siamese. They didn't.





Darth Marenghi -> RE: RE: (1/11/2012 12:07:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

I'm not arguing Lucas' changes are necessarily good, I'm arguing that it's his call.



Well, was his call... [:D]




Histeria -> RE: Star Wars' "vast universe" (1/11/2012 7:43:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 123GO!
But I still think George Lucas is one of the best writers ever, having given us Star Wars, then 'Empire' and Raiders of The Lost Ark.


I love George as much a the next nerd from the 70s, but do remember he didn't write Empire or Raiders.




Timon -> RE: RE: (1/11/2012 8:29:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

The appropiate one would be if they eliminated The Aristocats completely because of that Siamese. They didn't.




You're thinking of Lady and the Tramp...

Sorry, I missed the point of the conversation didn't I?[:D]




NeoBrowser -> RE: that's some equity release (1/11/2012 8:32:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
quote:

ORIGINAL: boristhespie
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeoBrowser
This is the most disturbing thing I've seen on this thread! Why the hell would a company as advanced as Disney dump 30+ years of technology and rebate back to the horrible, horrible, horrible stop-motion and puppetry of the OT just to please a few old people who still think computers run by magic?

Yeah cause computer generated Jabba looks so much better to model Jabba whilenthe computer generated scenery looks so much better and real than.....errr... real scenery.
With respect, Peter Jackson's doing rather well with models, forced perspective and real props.
Sorry Lucas's playing with his "toys" is why the sequels frankly suck.

Ohhhhh he got you there!! he got you good!! CGI Jabba was shite! the puppet still looks the shit to this day! at least compared to the CGi version. And as much as I despise Peter Jackson his work on LoTR effects was a great mix of models and CGi


Uhh, no. No he didn't. CGI Jabba looked like an alien, barely movable puppet Jabba looked like a fucking low-budget puppet. And it looks like complete shitty crap. It did NOT age well!
Yes, Peter Jackson made brilliant work of sets, models, miniatures, & bigatures, but he is one of the few people who has! And he added PLENTY of CGI when necessary! What you guys are asking for is basically asking to have Andy Sirkis in a white leotard bouncing around without the digital Gollum overlay. And that would have been horrible!

NO fucking puppets! NO fucking stop-motion! Either real life or CGI for this modern day, please!
(P.S. also, there are no sequels - not yet. Not until 2015. There are Prequels though, fun prequels.)




dakes69 -> Pause for thought (1/11/2012 9:21:31 AM)

You all know that this makes Leia Organa a Disney princess!




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.328125