Star Wars Episode VII: What It Means (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Online



Message

Empire Admin -> Star Wars Episode VII: What It Means (31/10/2012 8:50:58 PM)

Post your comments on this article



iain99 -> Fully agree (31/10/2012 8:50:58 PM)

Thanks Helen, best, most balanced article I've read on it. Disney aren't going to spend $4.5 billion of Star Wars, then ruin it. They've a history of buying properties/studios and allowing them to flourish whilst retaining their independence (Pixar, Marvel, The Muppets, hell they owned Miramax when Pulp Fiction came out, that's hardly traditional Disney). Kennedy's the perfect person to head it. It's the right time for Lucas to pass it on. Star Wars is in safe hands. I, for one am very happy



Reiban -> The best that could have happened to Star Wars to finish its cinematic run with a golden close! (1/11/2012 5:37:34 AM)

Precisely, Today is a good day for film history! I like the way you talk to that cynical people and Lucas-Haters, they say boo to Disney and Lucas but they´ll surely go to watch the movie in 2015, and like iain99 wrote, Disney is not going to ruin it. They have respect for Pixar, they have respect for Marvel and sure they have a tremendous respect for Star Wars, like you said it, every person in the movie business right now grew up watching and loving Star Wars, I would love to see Christopher Nolan take a bite in that universe, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, David Fincher, Zack Snyder, JJ Abrahams



JonathanGray1989 -> Great Article (1/11/2012 8:26:36 AM)

Completely agree with you Helen. Fantastic read! Some people like to slag off Disney for the sake of it but they deserve the benefit of the doubt. As you point out, they have left Pixar and Marvel to their own devices to do what they do best. Certainly it seems that Kathleen Kennedy can be to Star Wars what Kevin Feige is to Marvel and shepherd the project and get the best people in to make the best movie possible. And, ultimately, you sum it up best in your final line, "It’s Star Wars, people, and it’s coming back. Today is a good day."



JonathanGray1989 -> Great Article (1/11/2012 8:47:18 AM)

Completely agree with you Helen. Fantastic read! Some people like to slag off Disney for the sake of it but they deserve the benefit of the doubt. As you point out, they have left Pixar and Marvel to their own devices to do what they do best. Certainly it seems that Kathleen Kennedy can be to Star Wars what Kevin Feige is to Marvel and shepherd the project and get the best people in to make the best movie possible. And, ultimately, you sum it up best in your final line, "It’s Star Wars, people, and it’s coming back. Today is a good day."



Old_Pyrate -> (1/11/2012 9:03:29 AM)

Agree Jedi vs Sith will no doubt feature (this is the spine of Star Wars after all), but can we make it more subtle than Episodes I-III. You could barely move for lightsabres in the prequels which somewhat destroyed the mystique of the weapon. They're no longer cool if everyone has one.



Dr Science -> well said (1/11/2012 9:10:27 AM)

Great summary Helen. Mirrors my own conclusions entirely. Just one complaint - do you have to be so snotty about "entitled fanboys"? I know sci-fi geeks are generally a repulsive and abrasive internet presence, but if there is one franchise that they (we) truly own, it's Star Wars. Star Wars doesn't exist in some high culture vacuum - it's pure genre pulp of the lowest brow style and while it may owe its original success to our childhoods, it owes its longevity to the fanboys.



common41 -> http://commonprosperity.org/ (1/11/2012 9:18:54 AM)

well said
Great summary Helen. Mirrors my own conclusions entirely. Just one complaint - do you have to be so snotty about "entitled fanboys"? I know sci-fi geeks are generally a repulsive and abrasive internet presence, but if there is one franchise that they (we) truly own, it's Star Wars. Star Wars doesn't exist in some high culture vacuum - it's pure genre pulp of the lowest brow style and while it may owe its original success to our childhoods, it owes its longevity to the fanboys



Nicky C -> It's a franchise. It's not supposed to end... (1/11/2012 12:03:36 PM)

... that's the whole point of a franchise, surely? I think this is all great. Remember Star Wars is only 35 years old. If the businessmen and artists involved with Marvel and DC hadn't found new ways to bring their ageing superheroes to the ever-changing, evolving audience then we wouldn't have had Avengers this summer, right? Or The Dark Knight Rises ... both of which made my summer a little bit sweeter. I think Disney have their heads screwed on straight and want Star Wars to last for many decades to come ... and to expand ... which is what I want. I want to see more of the grimey fringe characters. I'd really love to see under the surface more, especially the criminal underworlds on Coruscant and Tattoine. Be honest, there is literally a galaxy of stories to be told. I'm not ashamed to say this is the first time I've been excited about Star Wars in quite a while.



ApotheosisX -> Infinity Switchblade (1/11/2012 12:12:22 PM)


Awesome article Helen. I am definitely intrigued. I have a cunning idea too for part 7 that I've always wanted to see.

But I doubt any one will listen to little old me. (It involves the training of a particular kind of Jedi... One we haven't seen before... I get excited just thinking about my own idea within this saga. Am I sad? Am I a geek? No... I believe in the power of the force!



ApotheosisX -> Infinity Switchblade (1/11/2012 12:32:19 PM)


Awesome article Helen. I am definitely intrigued. I have a cunning idea too for part 7 that I've always wanted to see.

But I doubt any one will listen to little old me. (It involves the training of a particular kind of Jedi... One we haven't seen before... I get excited just thinking about my own idea within this saga. Am I sad? Am I a geek? No... I believe in the power of the force!



Helen OHara -> RE: http://commonprosperity.org/ (1/11/2012 12:36:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: common41

well said
Great summary Helen. Mirrors my own conclusions entirely. Just one complaint - do you have to be so snotty about "entitled fanboys"? I know sci-fi geeks are generally a repulsive and abrasive internet presence, but if there is one franchise that they (we) truly own, it's Star Wars. Star Wars doesn't exist in some high culture vacuum - it's pure genre pulp of the lowest brow style and while it may owe its original success to our childhoods, it owes its longevity to the fanboys


Common, to be clear, I don't think all fanboys are "entitled", but I do think there's a subset who are, and they're the ones who get all unreasonable about Lucas, about Star Wars and froth about money-grubbing. The fact is that all films are made with the hope that people will pay to see them, and ultimately show business depends on people doing so. The overblown criticism of Lucas on those grounds (which essentially boils down to, "How dare he make things for a mass audience rather than just for me?!") is a sense of entitlement that irritates me (and, evidently, Lucas).



Circumnambulator -> Bring it on (1/11/2012 12:53:30 PM)

I for one welcome the transition - Lucas showed he's not lost the reputation for awful dialogue with the prequels and I totally agree with dialling back the CGI a bit. If Disney get this right there is a huge amount of scope for a myriad of storylines across the SW universe - Bond has shown that franchises don't have to run out of steam if you keep involving talented directors/writers. I'd love to see people like Neill Blomkamp and Doug Jones have a go at mixing their intelligent sci-fi with a big budget. The possibilities are endless!



Dannybohy -> (1/11/2012 1:02:50 PM)

i was right there with you until you mentioned Nolan.



Moronifighter -> all well and good Buuuut.... (1/11/2012 2:48:21 PM)

Please don't bring back the Ewoks. ;-)



Dr Science -> RE: well said (1/11/2012 2:53:33 PM)

I'm going to hijack this conversation back from whoever common41 is, because it's a rare privilege to get a direct response from HoH.

Firstly I'm going to reject the term fanboys - I'm in my late 30's as are most of the more vocal Lucas objectors - I'm just a fan, with a broadly eclectic and balanced appreciation for cinema, and I have a very negative opinion of Lucas on purely creative terms. I really don't think it's fair to conflate the criticisms of the films themselves and Lucas's decline as a film-maker, with the endless griping about money-grubbing. I agree with you on that point: showbusiness is a business and we can always vote with our wallets - Lucas can hawk his wares in whatever way he deems fit.

But my point is that there wouldn't be a mass market for the Star Wars franchise if it wasn't for the original generation of fans who maintained the passion into the late 90s - so to that end, if we say that we feel betrayed by the direction that Lucas took with the prequels (and while we're at it, with Indiana Jones as well), and that we are overjoyed that he will no longer be demolishing his own reputation with further awful attempts at cinema, then I really think that we genuinely are entitled to that opinion.

As far as I'm concerned this news is proof that we were right all along: the franchise has a future and it's better off without Lucas.



Helen OHara -> RE: well said (1/11/2012 4:06:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Science

I'm going to hijack this conversation back from whoever common41 is, because it's a rare privilege to get a direct response from HoH.

Firstly I'm going to reject the term fanboys - I'm in my late 30's as are most of the more vocal Lucas objectors - I'm just a fan, with a broadly eclectic and balanced appreciation for cinema, and I have a very negative opinion of Lucas on purely creative terms. I really don't think it's fair to conflate the criticisms of the films themselves and Lucas's decline as a film-maker, with the endless griping about money-grubbing. I agree with you on that point: showbusiness is a business and we can always vote with our wallets - Lucas can hawk his wares in whatever way he deems fit.

But my point is that there wouldn't be a mass market for the Star Wars franchise if it wasn't for the original generation of fans who maintained the passion into the late 90s - so to that end, if we say that we feel betrayed by the direction that Lucas took with the prequels (and while we're at it, with Indiana Jones as well), and that we are overjoyed that he will no longer be demolishing his own reputation with further awful attempts at cinema, then I really think that we genuinely are entitled to that opinion.

As far as I'm concerned this news is proof that we were right all along: the franchise has a future and it's better off without Lucas.


Fanboys is not a blanket term for all fans - it applies to a hardcore of borderline (or over-the-border) irrationals. And you can have a negative view of the prequels and godspeed, we won't have any problems. I don't actually have a problem with people looking forward to a less Lucas-controlled Star Wars - I feel rather that way myself. My objection only begins when people heap abuse on Lucas personally because they didn't like the films. Making three disappointing films is NOT "raping my childhood" as the saying goes, and it's those people I intended to single out.



Dr Science -> RE: well said (1/11/2012 4:34:20 PM)

I appreciate the distinction but I still don't think I can separate myself from the group that you're criticising. I have never been so angry and sad after watching a film as I was after TPM. It still hurts. Irrational maybe, but it's a valid emotional truth.

It took Tartakovsky to provide me with a measure of catharsis. They should definitely have him on the shortlist for directors of Episode VII.




rwoo -> HRH HOH (1/11/2012 5:07:40 PM)

Helen O'Hara - legend. Should be made a Queen. And not one of those whiny ones who watch their people suffer and die while bureaucrats discuss trade sanctions in a committee.

Agree with the piece - had identical thoughts on the corporate analysis and think some people are focusing too much on possible Disnification (given the way post-Eisner acquisitions of Pixar and Marvel Studios have panned out so far).

You've also used a turn of phrase that I do sometimes - what does whelm mean, exactly? Suspect reading Empire has rubbed off on me over prolonged period.



Moonbucket -> RE: HRH HOH (1/11/2012 6:56:45 PM)

A only-slightly left field suggestion for Director?

Duncan Jones.



elmorello -> Why not new actors for Han Solo and Luke ? (1/11/2012 11:40:07 PM)

I disagree with this Empire article when it says that new actors shouldn´t be used to play Han and Luke ? Why not ? We saw how well using new actors to play Kirk and Spock worked in the Star Trek reboot. Why should we be denied seeing the continuation of these characters and their story just because the original actors are too old to play them now ? Move with the times surely.



richardpettet -> Totally new characters please (2/11/2012 8:39:43 AM)

I think Helen is right about not recasting the original leads. For me, as an aforementioned mid thirties fanboy, Han Solo is the symbol of the original trilogy. Empire was the first film I ever saw in the cinema, and the carbonite scene was pretty much all I remembered about it. For a confused 4 year old it was pretty upsetting. But from that point on Han Solo was my hero. Who didn't want to be Han Solo right? and that meant wanting to be Harrison Ford. The fact that he is also Indiana Jones just puts him on a different level, even in comparison to the Connery/Bond scenario, so as a result I'd be irrationally predisposed to not liking the new Han. He might be a fantastic actor. He might play the character really well. But we wouldn't be Harrison Ford and so he wouldn't be Han Solo. Irrational comments over....



elmorello -> (2/11/2012 9:52:35 AM)

Richard in reply to your comment about no other actor being able to play Han Solo weren´t Star Trek fanboys saying the same thing about Kirk and Spock before the Star Trek reboot ? I´d say that turned out pretty well and proved the fanboys totally wrong. Maybe you are right that no other actor will be quite as good at playing Han Solo as Harrison Ford was but it doesn´t mean that another actor won´t do a damn fine job of it.



JohnMcClane81 -> Briliant. (2/11/2012 10:27:24 AM)

This has the hairs on the back of my neck standing up and applauding. Fantastic article Empire. Bravo.



JohnMcClane81 -> P.s Han Solo (2/11/2012 10:29:32 AM)

On the whole debate surrounding the coolest cat in the galaxy, and who would play him. It can be only one man in my opinion. Cool, calm, funny, attractive and dangerous..... Mr Ryan Gosling.



xxghostbusterxx -> Break away from the original series. (2/11/2012 11:54:49 AM)

Anyone out there read Isaac Asimov's Foundation books? If not, you should definately check them out. They feature a lot of space travel, great characters, and unexpected plot twists. Not only that, they cover hundreds of years of intergalactic history over a series of seven books. It is also interesting to note that the books contain elements very similar tho those in the Star Wars universe. There is a Character called Han Pritcher, and a Capital planet called Trantor which is very similar to Coruscant. I would put money on this series of books being a direct influence on Lucas's Star Wars vision. But my point is this: Star Wars covers a hundred or so years of history, and with the comics and games you can go a few years back or forwards in time (fanboys will no doubt have this info), so why not, like the Foundation series, take a bold move and go four to five hundred years into the future, wiping the slate clean and paving the way for more adventures? It would be a time when the battle of Yavin and Endor are the stuff of legend. There would be no more awkward recasting of characters from the original series, which would mean no more imitations of existing actors (like Ewan McGregors Obi Wan).




xxghostbusterxx -> Break away from the original series. (2/11/2012 12:02:01 PM)

Anyone out there read Isaac Asimov's Foundation books? If not, you should definately check them out. They feature a lot of space travel, great characters, and unexpected plot twists. Not only that, they cover hundreds of years of intergalactic history over a series of seven books. It is also interesting to note that the books contain elements very similar tho those in the Star Wars universe. There is a Character called Han Pritcher, and a Capital planet called Trantor which is very similar to Coruscant. I would put money on this series of books being a direct influence on Lucas's Star Wars vision. But my point is this: Star Wars covers a hundred or so years of history, and with the comics and games you can go a few years back or forwards in time (fanboys will no doubt have this info), so why not, like the Foundation series, take a bold move and go four to five hundred years into the future, wiping the slate clean and paving the way for more adventures? It would be a time when the battle of Yavin and Endor are the stuff of legend. There would be no more awkward recasting of characters from the original series, which would mean no more imitations of existing actors (like Ewan McGregors Obi Wan).




clownfoot -> RE: well said (2/11/2012 1:52:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Science

I appreciate the distinction but I still don't think I can separate myself from the group that you're criticising. I have never been so angry and sad after watching a film as I was after TPM. It still hurts. Irrational maybe, but it's a valid emotional truth.



Tim?



bruciebonus -> Good point,Well Made (2/11/2012 2:17:26 PM)

Nicely done.
'Nuff Said



Dr Science -> RE: well said (2/11/2012 4:36:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Science

I appreciate the distinction but I still don't think I can separate myself from the group that you're criticising. I have never been so angry and sad after watching a film as I was after TPM. It still hurts. Irrational maybe, but it's a valid emotional truth.



Tim?


Yes - Spaced was a documentary.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875