Star Wars Ep. 7 coming in 2015

sleeper wrote: Atavachron wrote: sleeper wrote: I wouldn't go to see them in the cinema, as the whole SW universe is massively overated for some unfathomable reason, but I'll probably rent them on DVD's, just to see what they're like.  Considering its true size and potential for expansion, I'd say the SW universe is underrated to the extent that most don't realize it's depth is on a par with LotR. I was reffering to the films and the fact that they are as generic and run of the mill as possible. Give me Firefly or the new Battlestar Galactica over SW any day of the week.

  

  

oh, and is anyone really excited about The Hobbit ?   Looks like a piece of sh*t.

 ^ the people he got to do Clone Wars were first-rate; as long as he's a creative consultant, anything should be good

wilmon91 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: wilmon91 wrote: It was all about money of course. [...] So I guess it was only about money again. All cries of "they only did it for the money!" fail to take one thing in account: Money is the reason any of the original films were made in the first place. This is entertainment, it's always about the money.   I don't quite agree...a commercial interest can be reflected to different degrees, it doesn't have to be 100% commercial with a complete sacrifice of artistic and creative quality. But when re-releasing the original movies as a box, what they had added to them had no real ambition behind it beyond enticing people to buy the box.   I think the original movies show countless of artistic and creative aspects that are independent of people's expectations. The sounds for example, the sound of the tie-fighter is a masterpiece in itself. It was based on the sound of an elephant. That really gave it character. That requires some creative thinking. It's got nothing to do with commerialism.  The original movies have an abundance of characteristic and expressive elements. Compare it to Jar-Jar Binks. There's a completely different mindset behind the creation of such a character.

The way I look at it, is that we're being treated to another Star Wars trilogy, and that's fantastic news.  If it's bad, it's bad.  If it's good, then AWESOME!  None of our lives will change either way.

Hating all the characters at face value startles me coming from you.If you dig a little deeper,especially into the EU,there are some complex and very interesting characters in the saga.

The Doctor wrote: wilmon91 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: wilmon91 wrote: It was all about money of course. [...] So I guess it was only about money again. All cries of "they only did it for the money!" fail to take one thing in account: Money is the reason any of the original films were made in the first place. This is entertainment, it's always about the money.   I don't quite agree...a commercial interest can be reflected to different degrees, it doesn't have to be 100% commercial with a complete sacrifice of artistic and creative quality. But when re-releasing the original movies as a box, what they had added to them had no real ambition behind it beyond enticing people to buy the box.   I think the original movies show countless of artistic and creative aspects that are independent of people's expectations. The sounds for example, the sound of the tie-fighter is a masterpiece in itself. It was based on the sound of an elephant. That really gave it character. That requires some creative thinking. It's got nothing to do with commerialism.  The original movies have an abundance of characteristic and expressive elements. Compare it to Jar-Jar Binks. There's a completely different mindset behind the creation of such a character. As for artistic merit, yes there were some fantastic achievements in special effects in the OT, but for story and character development, the PT was light years ahead of the OT.

A Person wrote: I used to think the prequels were okay but watching Plinkett's reviews completely tear them apart ruined them for me. At least if the new movies are bad they are more reviews to look forward to.

Hahaha, I love that guy!

The name of the cantina in Mos Eisley is Chalmun's Cantina,Chalmun is the name of the Wookie that owns it.

Edited by TheProgtologist - November 02 2012 at 14:02

or

thellama73 wrote: As usual, Doctor, we are on quite opposite sides of this issue. Top Ten Things to Hate About the Prequel Trilogy Other Than Jar Jar Binks 1. Child actors 2. Jabba the Hutt being reduced from a scary alien gangster to a cgi comic relief slug 3. The two-headed announcer at the pod races and his bad, bad jokes. 4. Anakin Skywalker built C-3PO? Really? 5. The force is no longer a spiritual mystery-religion, it is chemistry. 6. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 7. Acting so bad it makes Mark Hammill look like Anthony Hopkins. At least there is a family resemblance I guess. 8. The endless parade of ridiculous, borderline offensive accents coming from aliens. 9. The shoehorned nods and winks to the original trilogy that add nothing  ("He said 'I have a bad feeling about this!' They said that in the original trilogy! OMG that is so clever!") 10. Darth Vader goes from being a scary, enigmatic force of darkness to whiny emo kid who it's impossible to take seriously.

and as usual, we are also on opposite sides ;

1.  Child actors are the best to portray child characters.
2.  Jabba is what he's always been: scum and villainy whether he's CGI or some clunky marionette.
3.  I liked the two-headed announcer, he was funnier and cuter than Jarjar.
4.  Yes Anakin built C3PO really.
5.  I wasn't thrilled by this either, it was unneccesary.  I do like the idea of a spiritual belief having a biologic foundation though, but theu=y went a bit too far with it.  The Force is what it is, a mystery.  Leave it that way.
6.  I never quite got why people hated that so much, SW is filled with movie cliches just like that and no one seemed to complain.
7.  Thing is, Mark Hamill is a very good actor, as is Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid, and both Christensen and Portman are highly professional regardless of what you think of their acting.   You can't tell me the acting was better in the First Tril, though it might have been better scripted.
8.  Ah the 'offensive accent' argument, and we might as well add Dagobah as a subliminal racist slur even though it's of course the name of a type of Buddhist temple.   Nonsense, it's just Lucas' detached sense of theater.
9.  Yes this sort of referencing is silly and again, unnecessary.
10.  I don't follow: he was different as a young person.  Most people are, and plus he had to be shown to have drastically changed.