Disney to acquire Lucasfilm

[The Romulan Republic]

In any case, I think Abrams is quite capable of doing a good battle scene. In particular, the editing of the sound in the opening scene of Star Trek was quite good. And the special effects and cinematography, while not ground breaking, were competent.

Here's a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5BONJcookQ

Judge for yourselves.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Why give a man so much power over so many series?

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up leaving Star Trek because of this. Which is a pity, because as much as some of the fans bitch about Abrams, he pretty much saved the franchise.

[ray245]

In any case, I think Abrams is quite capable of doing a good battle scene. In particular, the editing of the sound in the opening scene of Star Trek was quite good. And the special effects and cinematography, while not ground breaking, were competent.

Here's a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5BONJcookQ

Judge for yourselves.

On the other hand, his direction of the climatic battle weren't that impressive.

More importantly, the battles in Star Trek has yet to show me him having much visual creativity when it comes down to the construction of scenes.

[JLTucker]

But we need to define what "good " means when it comes to a space battle. Is it spectacle? The presence of a credible threat and its consequences? if we say both, then Star Wars rarely had spectacle outside of the touched up remastered versions and the PT, and there certainly weren't any credible threats and consequences. Did you really think Luke was going to be gravely hurt during his major action scenes? Han? leia? What about Anakin in AotC when he's hanging off a ship?

Fine. Then compare the space battles in OT to other space battles of its time. How many space battles during the 70s and 80s can really hold up against the space battles in Star Wars?

Are you telling me that the original, non tinkered OT holds up to this day?

[jollyreaper]

Trek XI stunk to high heaven but I'm not sure I'm particularly impressed with what Michael Bay did with Transformers, either. That being said, I agree the Bayformers movies had better action scenes, and while I don't know how much input a movie director has into the SFX, the reboot Trek movie hand phasers made the TOS ones look good.

I'm frankly amazed at the love JJ Trek gets. I thought the matter of the movie's poor quality wasn't even open to debate at this point. Sort of like Highlander 2. It was clearly as muddled and nonsensical as Battlefield Earth. But there is a lot of love for it, among geeks and non-geeks alike.

I predict JJ Wars will be an astounding success that I will watch on rifftrax and wonder about what might have been.

[jollyreaper]

I thought Abrams' Star Trek film was pretty good. And since the Star Wars film has a different writer, its biggest flaw, an implausible story, hopefully won't be a problem. Abrams is also apparently a Star Wars fan.

If this is true, its a decent choice. However, I thought he said he wasn't directing it.

And aside from an inability to get off the ground, its a wonderful aircraft.

There are movies I love that still have flaws but I find a good story to be pretty damn mission-critical.

How do you not see that as a show stopper?

[ray245]

Are you telling me that the original, non tinkered OT holds up to this day?

Generally yes. The older space battles might not have the same picture quality as modern day CGI space battles, but way the battles are framed on screen can hold up pretty well against modern day Sci-fi films.

Look at how imaginative George Lucas is when it comes down to creating space battles for his film. In an age whereby space battles is depicted as ships firing beams at each other from a distances, he gave us space fighters dogfighting each other and doing trench runs. He gave us fighters chasing the Falcon through an asteroid belt in ESB. He gave us the first true fleet on fleet battle in space.

The PT continues to showcase George Lucas imaginative mind as an artist. Look at the battle of Coruscant where fleets engage each other within the atmosphere of the planet, or at the battle of Utapau where the clones descend into sinkholes to defeat the droid army.

I do not want to leave the theater saying I've just watched a pretty decent Star Wars-like movie. I want to leave the theater saying "Wow! The visual of the movie knocked me off my seat!".

[Elfdart]

Battle of Endor was lame when I was 5.

But that was last month.

[Stark]

I'm frankly amazed at the love JJ Trek gets. I thought the matter of the movie's poor quality wasn't even open to debate at this point. Sort of like Highlander 2.

Are you upset you misread the Safe Fan Attitude barometer, or that people disagree with you?

But that was last month.

Even you can do better than that, darling.

Putting aside Ray's bizarre post, it'd be sad if the esteem the battles in the old SW films are held contributed to why those in the new films were so bad. The ROTS opening could have been replaced by a cab ride in a Tarantino movie (although the dialog would have been better). Perhaps trying to emulate the peculiar style of 'SW battles' that was so popular twenty years ago is why we got battles that were outdone by a goddamn cartoon.

[JLTucker]

I do not want to leave the theater saying I've just watched a pretty decent Star Wars-like movie. I want to leave the theater saying "Wow! The visual of the movie knocked me off my seat!".

So, in essence, you want style over substance with the new Star Wars movies. I think I'm wasting time discussing this with you.

[The Romulan Republic]

I thought Abrams' Star Trek film was pretty good. And since the Star Wars film has a different writer, its biggest flaw, an implausible story, hopefully won't be a problem. Abrams is also apparently a Star Wars fan.

If this is true, its a decent choice. However, I thought he said he wasn't directing it.

And aside from an inability to get off the ground, its a wonderful aircraft.

There are movies I love that still have flaws but I find a good story to be pretty damn mission-critical.

How do you not see that as a show stopper?

The story is very important, but I wouldn't say the story of Star Trek was entirely bad. It just had some points where it was implausible.

And in the end, their were enough positive elements of the film that I am willing to mostly forgive the flaws in the story.

In any case, Star Wars has different writers, so its a moot point as far as Star Wars is concerned.

[ray245]

So, in essence, you want style over substance with the new Star Wars movies. I think I'm wasting time discussing this with you.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Go read a book if you think visuals have no role to play in quality of a film.

Putting aside Ray's bizarre post, it'd be sad if the esteem the battles in the old SW films are held contributed to why those in the new films were so bad. The ROTS opening could have been replaced by a cab ride in a Tarantino movie (although the dialog would have been better). Perhaps trying to emulate the peculiar style of 'SW battles' that was so popular twenty years ago is why we got battles that were outdone by a goddamn cartoon.

I'm not arguing that Abrams's Star Wars need to have the same style of combat as the original Star Wars. I want to see a new Star Wars film with a new and innovative way to depict combat in space. I simply do not believe JJ Abrams is innovative enough to do that.

[JLTucker]

So, in essence, you want style over substance with the new Star Wars movies. I think I'm wasting time discussing this with you.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Go read a book if you think visuals have no role to play in quality of a film.

Of course they play a role. But your sole reason in seeing new Star Wars is so you can walk away and think "The visuals were outstanding!" In fact, the entire post I responded to was nothing but talk about the visuals and how innovative and awesome Lucas is. That's style over substance, my friend.

[Stark]

I'm not arguing that Abrams's Star Wars need to have the same style of combat as the original Star Wars. I want to see a new Star Wars film with a new and innovative way to depict combat in space. I simply do not believe JJ Abrams is innovative enough to do that.

Are you aware movies and tv shows with 'new and innovative ways to depict combat in space' already exist? Why do you want (apparently) a branded movie that turns on its head 30 years of battle visuals just to be 'innovative'?

[JLTucker]

I'm not arguing that Abrams's Star Wars need to have the same style of combat as the original Star Wars. I want to see a new Star Wars film with a new and innovative way to depict combat in space. I simply do not believe JJ Abrams is innovative enough to do that.

Are you aware movies and tv shows with 'new and innovative ways to depict combat in space' already exist? Why do you want (apparently) a branded movie that turns on its head 30 years of battle visuals just to be 'innovative'?

It's just a desperate plea from someone who wants a dead cinematic property to be reinvigorated. That can be done without "innovation."

[ray245]

Of course they play a role. But your sole reason in seeing new Star Wars is so you can walk away and think "The visuals were outstanding!" In fact, the entire post I responded to was nothing but talk about the visuals and how innovative and awesome Lucas is. That's style over substance, my friend.

I see the story as the foundation in which a good film can be build upon. It's the visual effects that alleviate a decent science fiction story into an excellent film. A good story can still end up as a bad film if the editing, special effects and cinematography is bad.

Are you aware movies and tv shows with 'new and innovative ways to depict combat in space' already exist?

Care to name anyone of them that is visually distinct from Star Wars? Even nBSG, innovative as it is, still retained elements of Star Wars.

Why do you want (apparently) a branded movie that turns on its head 30 years of battle visuals just to be 'innovative'?

Because I want to see how a director than take a pre-existing property and wow me again? And it is not as if we cannot retain the visual distinctiveness of Star Wars and at the same time construct new battle sequence.

Say what you want about the staleness and pacing of the battle of Coruscant, but at the least we manage to see how a space battle in the upper atmosphere. It's an excellent example of how you can retain the visual distinctivenesses of Star Wars, and yet at the same time, give us something new and innovative.

Perhaps JJ Abram's Star Trek II can help to change my mind, but we would have to wait until the movie is out.

[Stark]

Care to name anyone of them that is visually distinct from Star Wars? Even nBSG, innovative as it is, still retained elements of Star Wars.

If your starting position is that Star Wars 'owns' things like BIG SPACESHIP and FIGHTERS PEW PEW and SUPERWEAPON KABOOM than there's no wonder you are so narrow-minded.

Because I want to see how a director than take a pre-existing property and wow me again? And it is not as if we cannot retain the visual distinctiveness of Star Wars and at the same time construct new battle sequence.

Maybe it is, since they haven't done it for 30 years, while other creators (even those within the Star Wars licence) have been far more interesting. Nevertheless, its pretty odd to put SW combat on some bizarre 'innovation' pedestal and then say you want something more innovative (by which you appear to mean 'I haven't seen it yet').

Say what you want about the staleness and pacing of the battle of Coruscant, but at the least we manage to see how a space battle in the upper atmosphere. It's an excellent example of how you can retain the visual distinctivenesses of Star Wars, and yet at the same time, give us something new and innovative.

I don't recall a single element of that battle that indicated 'upper atmosphere' besides 'big blue circle in background'. Whereas y'know cartoons in the 80s had thrilling battles during re-entry manouvres, de-orbit errors, coordinated multi-vector assaults, space drops, and things like that. They ALSO had big blue circles in the background, so they didn't miss a beat!

Do you just ... not watch scifi? I was actually going to make a satirical post earlier about how we can't use nBSG as an example of space combat because Star Wars nailed 'missing a lot' in 1979, and B5 doesn't count either because SW invented WW2 fighters in space, and all the shows with BVR bombardment and fleet actions are just 'copying' Star Wars too. But ... it turns out you actually believe these things?

[JME2]

I'd love to know what's going on in the Paramount offices right now. I'm sure the executives are boiling with rage.

Though, it makes you wonder what exactly Disney offered to get Abrams to jump ship.

[ray245]

If your starting position is that Star Wars 'owns' things like BIG SPACESHIP and FIGHTERS PEW PEW and SUPERWEAPON KABOOM than there's no wonder you are so narrow-minded.

Star Wars certainly inspired the later generation of science fiction in depicting space combat.

Maybe it is, since they haven't done it for 30 years, while other creators (even those within the Star Wars licence) have been far more interesting. Nevertheless, its pretty odd to put SW combat on some bizarre 'innovation' pedestal and then say you want something more innovative (by which you appear to mean 'I haven't seen it yet').

Look at the movies/TV series before Star Wars and tell me the battles in Star Wars aren't innovative.

I don't recall a single element of that battle that indicated 'upper atmosphere' besides 'big blue circle in background'. Whereas y'know cartoons in the 80s had thrilling battles during re-entry manouvres, de-orbit errors, coordinated multi-vector assaults, space drops, and things like that. They ALSO had big blue circles in the background, so they didn't miss a beat!

The massive amount of smoke in space? Destroyed ships "sinking" into the planet?

Do you just ... not watch scifi? I was actually going to make a satirical post earlier about how we can't use nBSG as an example of space combat because Star Wars nailed 'missing a lot' in 1979, and B5 doesn't count either because SW invented WW2 fighters in space, and all the shows with BVR bombardment and fleet actions are just 'copying' Star Wars too. But ... it turns out you actually believe these things?

Would you notice any visual distinctiveness to most of those shows if you didn't really follow those series? Remove the dialogue improve the quality of the CGI and an non-science fiction fan would probably not tell the battles in B5 apart from the battles in Star Wars.

[Elfdart]

Why do you want (apparently) a branded movie that turns on its head 30 years of battle visuals just to be 'innovative'?

Because I want to see how a director than take a pre-existing property and wow me again? And it is not as if we cannot retain the visual distinctiveness of Star Wars and at the same time construct new battle sequence.

Say what you want about the staleness and pacing of the battle of Coruscant, but at the least we manage to see how a space battle in the upper atmosphere. It's an excellent example of how you can retain the visual distinctivenesses of Star Wars, and yet at the same time, give us something new and innovative.

Perhaps JJ Abram's Star Trek II can help to change my mind, but we would have to wait until the movie is out.

If I want a "new and innovative" version of Star Wars, I'll watch Avatar.

[Stark]

Star Wars certainly inspired the later generation of science fiction in depicting space combat.

Its like talking to a brick wall. Do you feel saying this confirms your bizarre belief that all of visual science fiction is copying Star Wars because of Lucas' innovative depiction of space combat as WW2?

Look at the movies/TV series before Star Wars and tell me the battles in Star Wars aren't innovative.

Look at Sink the Bismarck and tell me they're innovative.

You need to separate the absolute technical achievements ILM made when producing those films (easily exceeding the approaches common to scifi at the time, 'crap models' and 'models really far away' and 'paintings') and the idea that it in some way 'invented' or 'innovated' the nature of space combat people had been writing about for thirty years.

And the point which sailed directly over your head is that the innovation you are looking for already occurred, even in other Star Wars media. If you could put down your Star Wars filter glasses, you'd see that the kind of 'new approach to space combat' (actually WW2 + 50s novels lol) is available already.

If you can put aside the idea that 'big ships shooting each other' = Star Wars not innovative, or that 'thrilling dogfights' = Star Wars not innovative etc and look at the actual dramatic content of what's occurring.

The massive amount of smoke in space? Destroyed ships "sinking" into the planet?

... Are you saying you find these elements 'innovative'? Does this mean you believe they have not been used before? Do you believe the pedestrian space battle has a 'wow' factor because it had smoke?

Would you notice any visual distinctiveness to most of those shows if you didn't really follow those series? Remove the dialogue improve the quality of the CGI and an non-science fiction fan would probably not tell the battles in B5 apart from the battles in Star Wars.

Are you fucking stupid? Who fucking cares if you don't 'follow the series'? If you see guys having a fight between two re-entering spacecraft while dropping pods full of maniacs to attack a highly defended ground fortress and evading missiles, is it LESS INNOVATIVE if you don't know the names of the fucking characters? Not enough 'smoke' or 'sinking'?

At least I know now why heaps of people never move beyond the walled garden of their favourite brands - they honestly believe there is nothing outside. Fucking terrifying.

[bilateralrope]

Would you notice any visual distinctiveness to most of those shows if you didn't really follow those series? Remove the dialogue improve the quality of the CGI and an non-science fiction fan would probably not tell the battles in B5 apart from the battles in Star Wars.

Tell me where Star Wars used beam weapons to slice bits off the enemy ships. Because that's one feature of B5 space combat that I don't remember seeing in SW. Not even in the prequels. That's quite a significant difference.

Come to think about it, I don't remember any beam weapons in SW.

[Stark]

There's that whole Death Star thing. :V And they fire a single beam in ROTS. Obviously, the cartoon does this sort of thing much more.

[ray245]

Its like talking to a brick wall. Do you feel saying this confirms your bizarre belief that all of visual science fiction is copying Star Wars because of Lucas' innovative depiction of space combat as WW2?

Look at Sink the Bismarck and tell me they're innovative.

Yes, we have seen all those scenes in other movies, but those are from war films, not science fiction. Before Star Wars, no one really modelled space combat after world war 2 films.

Or what about the asteroid chase sequence? Before ESB, no one has really attempted space ships dodging asteroids while chasing each other. Sure, the chase sequence is fundamentally the same as a car chase sequence, but the the visual experience is still rather different.

If you can put aside the idea that 'big ships shooting each other' = Star Wars not innovative, or that 'thrilling dogfights' = Star Wars not innovative etc and look at the actual dramatic content of what's occurring.

The dramatic content define how exciting or boring an action sequence is, but it is always nice to be visually surprised by how the battle unfolds.

A simple chase sequence of the Falcon running away from the Imperial fleet in deep space is exciting by itself. Having the Falcon fleeing into an asteroid belt makes it memorable.

... Are you saying you find these elements 'innovative'? Does this mean you believe they have not been used before? Do you believe the pedestrian space battle has a 'wow' factor because it had smoke?

The failure to execute the scene in an exciting manner has nothing to how imaginative the setting was.

Are you fucking stupid? Who fucking cares if you don't 'follow the series'? If you see guys having a fight between two re-entering spacecraft while dropping pods full of maniacs to attack a highly defended ground fortress and evading missiles, is it LESS INNOVATIVE if you don't know the names of the fucking characters? Not enough 'smoke' or 'sinking'?

In what way is the space battles in most movies/tv shows unique from Star Wars?

Take a Babylon 5 battle as an example:



and compare it to the battle of Endor:


Tell me how the two battles isn't similar at all.