StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darksider wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

You know, when the "non-lucas" SW (though why you're saying that confuses the hell our of me, as Lucas is still on as a creative consultant.) ends up being better than most of the prequels, I am going to laugh my ass off.

He's already made up his mind that it will be horrible, so to him it will be horrible.

Maybe they should've hired the director of Red Tails, just to make sure it's done the way Lucas wants.

I didn't see Red Tails... I'm not sure what that means. I am assuming bad.

You know me too well.

Abrams can definitely direct and write "spectacles" (like Star Trek 2009), and that's no doubt what Disney is looking for. I think it will at least be entertaining in the same way that Star Trek 2009 was, if you don't think about the plot or characters too much. It might even be better than that.

Darksider wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

You know, when the "non-lucas" SW (though why you're saying that confuses the hell our of me, as Lucas is still on as a creative consultant.) ends up being better than most of the prequels, I am going to laugh my ass off.

I'd put the Umbara arc of The Clone Wars against TPM any day, any place.

Yeah sure Lucas is "involved" with TCW but not as directly as the prequels. And I'm sure he'll probably have some kind of involvement with Ep7 so there's that.

But y'know I enjoyed nuTrek, lens flares and all. So I'm looking forward to this.

Flagg wrote:

Darksider wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
If I were interested in watching non-George Lucas "Star Wars", I would have preferred seeing it directed by Michael Bay. At least he knows how to shoot stars and sunsets without those annoying halos or whatever that stuff is called. He also does a better job of shooting action scenes.

You know, when the "non-lucas" SW (though why you're saying that confuses the hell our of me, as Lucas is still on as a creative consultant.) ends up being better than most of the prequels, I am going to laugh my ass off.

He's already made up his mind that it will be horrible, so to him it will be horrible.

Unfortunately I think a lot of people have done that. I can almost garuntee that whatever this movie is like, people will say its just like the Prequels and go on about how their childhood was raped, again.

RogueIce wrote: I'd put the Umbara arc of The Clone Wars against TPM any day, any place.

Yeah sure Lucas is "involved" with TCW but not as directly as the prequels. And I'm sure he'll probably have some kind of involvement with Ep7 so there's that.

But y'know I enjoyed nuTrek, lens flares and all. So I'm looking forward to this.

Supposedly Lucas was heavily involved in the Geonosis arc, which I think you said you liked.

Lucas can do great things as a creative consultant, giving pointers on the general direction of the story arc and the themes and such, and he doesn't have to write any of his god-awful dialog. It's a win-win scenario.

Havok wrote:I didn't see Red Tails... I'm not sure what that means. I am assuming bad.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/red-tails/

Darksider wrote:

RogueIce wrote: I'd put the Umbara arc of The Clone Wars against TPM any day, any place.

Yeah sure Lucas is "involved" with TCW but not as directly as the prequels. And I'm sure he'll probably have some kind of involvement with Ep7 so there's that.

But y'know I enjoyed nuTrek, lens flares and all. So I'm looking forward to this.

Supposedly Lucas was heavily involved in the Geonosis arc, which I think you said you liked.

Lucas can do great things as a creative consultant, giving pointers on the general direction of the story arc and the themes and such, and he doesn't have to write any of his god-awful dialog. It's a win-win scenario.

Indeed. TBH I don't care if or if not Lucas is involved; I've seen good Star Wars stories and bad Star Wars stories with or without his involvement. Yes he's important to the franchise but at the end of the day he's still just one man.

I thought Abrams did pretty good with Trek, so I'm willing to see what he can do with Wars.

I'm not sure if Abrams have the imagination to surpass people's expectation. There is an epic quality to Star Wars that is rarely matched by most modern films.

The scale of the battles for instance were rarely matched by many contemporary sci-fi films. The Battle of Endor, the battle of Coruscant, the battle of Genosis and Hoth were cinematic masterpiece in depicting the scale of warfare. Visual spectacle has always been a important aspect of Star Wars, and I have my doubts whether JJ Abrams can deliver it.

I liked the battle between the Kelvin and the Narada (though the final showdown between Enterprise and Narada was mediocre and the other big battles in Star Trek took place off screen).

The Romulan Republic wrote:I liked the battle between the Kelvin and the Narada (though the final showdown between Enterprise and Narada was mediocre and the other big battles in Star Trek took place off screen).

The spacebattles and fights in Star Trek just felt so generic in my opinion. Lucas on the other hand has always pushed the boundaries of special effect techniques to achieve impressive shots.

Judging science fiction on 'battles' is pretty fucking stupid, but on top of all its other problems ROTS had some amazingly badly paced space battles. Nobody cares.

I thought SW was all about drama and themes!

ray245 wrote:The scale of the battles for instance were rarely matched by many contemporary sci-fi films. The Battle of Endor, the battle of Coruscant, the battle of Genosis and Hoth were cinematic masterpiece in depicting the scale of warfare. Visual spectacle has always been a important aspect of Star Wars, and I have my doubts whether JJ Abrams can deliver it.

You have to be joking if you think those scenes from Star Wars are "cinematic masterpieces." You really think Endor is cinematic mastery and spectacle? What have you been watching? By comparison to what has been considered modern science ficiton, it looks like amateur hour.

But I'll bite: Avatar's scope of warfare surpasses everything Star Wars did. Sure, you can harp on about how stupid the movie is, but at least the climax is visually exciting and the consequences feel real.

Star Wars excels when we aren't seeing battles. Sith wasn't good because of the opening or because of the spectacle in Order 66. It was good because we saw the fall of Anakin. ESB isn't good because of Hoth. It's good because we see Luke come to grips with what he is and what he needs to do to save his friends. Battles aren't everything.

If you want to see a movie that tells you all you need to know about how well Abrams can handle complex emotional themes watch Super 8.

JLTucker wrote:

ray245 wrote:The scale of the battles for instance were rarely matched by many contemporary sci-fi films. The Battle of Endor, the battle of Coruscant, the battle of Genosis and Hoth were cinematic masterpiece in depicting the scale of warfare. Visual spectacle has always been a important aspect of Star Wars, and I have my doubts whether JJ Abrams can deliver it.

You have to be joking if you think those scenes from Star Wars are "cinematic masterpieces." You really think Endor is cinematic mastery and spectacle? What have you been watching? By comparison to what has been considered modern science ficiton, it looks like amateur hour.

But I'll bite: Avatar's scope of warfare surpasses everything Star Wars did. Sure, you can harp on about how stupid the movie is, but at least the climax is visually exciting and the consequences feel real.

Star Wars excels when we aren't seeing battles. Sith wasn't good because of the opening or because of the spectacle in Order 66. It was good because we saw the fall of Anakin. ESB isn't good because of Hoth. It's good because we see Luke come to grips with what he is and what he needs to do to save his friends. Battles aren't everything.

lol you're silly. Battle of Endor still stands up. Specifically the space battle around the Deathstar, but even the Ewoks V Imperials is still pretty damned good after what? 30 years?

Battle of Endor was lame when I was 5.

Knife wrote:lol you're silly. Battle of Endor still stands up. Specifically the space battle around the Deathstar, but even the Ewoks V Imperials is still pretty damned good after what? 30 years?

The composition sucks. It's boring and tedious to sit through, like most of the movie and the entire series.

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?

ray245 wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:I liked the battle between the Kelvin and the Narada (though the final showdown between Enterprise and Narada was mediocre and the other big battles in Star Trek took place off screen).

The spacebattles and fights in Star Trek just felt so generic in my opinion. Lucas on the other hand has always pushed the boundaries of special effect techniques to achieve impressive shots.

well thats not so much lucas as it is the tallent of the people at ILM. I'm not worried about that.

Stark wrote:Judging science fiction on 'battles' is pretty fucking stupid, but on top of all its other problems ROTS had some amazingly badly paced space battles. Nobody cares.

Star Wars has always been sold as a series that showcase huge battles. Sure, an excellent Star Wars movie/story could be written without having any battles at all, but that would just take away the uniqueness of the Star Wars movies. The general public expects to see battles in star wars, no matter how badly pace it might be.

Flagg wrote:I thought SW was all about drama and themes!

It is about drama and themes, but those factors alone aren't the ones that makes Star Wars so distinct from any other movie. You can still create a Samurai fantasy movie with the same drama and themes as Star Wars, but no one would actually call it a Star Wars movie.

JLTucker wrote:You have to be joking if you think those scenes from Star Wars are "cinematic masterpieces." You really think Endor is cinematic mastery and spectacle? What have you been watching? By comparison to what has been considered modern science ficiton, it looks like amateur hour.

The Battle of Endor for its time can be considered as a cinematic masterpiece. How many movies in the 80s have hundreds of spaceships and fighters all duking it out? To have the desire to create the battle on screen without modern technology is a testament to Lucas's vision.

But I'll bite: Avatar's scope of warfare surpasses everything Star Wars did. Sure, you can harp on about how stupid the movie is, but at least the climax is visually exciting and the consequences feel real.

And how many other sci-fi films can match Avatar's visually exciting depiction of warfare? Matrix 3? Star Trek Nemesis?

Star Wars excels when we aren't seeing battles. Sith wasn't good because of the opening or because of the spectacle in Order 66. It was good because we saw the fall of Anakin. ESB isn't good because of Hoth. It's good because we see Luke come to grips with what he is and what he needs to do to save his friends. Battles aren't everything.

Of course the battles aren't the sole factor that allows Star Wars to excel as movies. However, visually impressive shots and scenes remain a crucial aspect of making a film good. What happens if the first death star battle was as simple as a space battle in an episode of Star Trek.

The Dykstraflex system used in A New Hope adds a lot of urgency and dynamic to the dogfight simply because it has the ability to roll and pan a shot.

zman wrote: well thats not so much lucas as it is the tallent of the people at ILM. I'm not worried about that.

Do you not think the director has no control over the visual effects crew? ILM would not set up the Battle of Yavin in the manner we saw on film if Geroge Lucas did not tell them to base it off WW2 dogfights.

He only really did A New Hope. I was really refering to the prequels which had some exciting space combat scenes but I doubt he had anything to really do with them. Still Returns space combat scene had nothing to do with him.

zman wrote:He only really did A New Hope. I was really refering to the prequels which had some exciting space combat scenes but I doubt he had anything to really do with them.

He is the director. He is the one who overseas the construction of individual scenes, as well as being responsible for the storyboards (meaning the storyboard artist must still get their approval from him).

Still Returns space combat scene had nothing to do with him.

He was essentially the co-director for Return of the Jedi.

JLTucker wrote: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?