Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
HoldenIsHere

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS

Recommended Posts

Lucas shoulda handed the entire film-making and writing process over to someone else for the third movie.

 

As it is, it sucks. Big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucas shoulda handed the entire film-making and writing process over to someone else for the third movie.

 

As it is, it sucks. Big time.

 

The best of all the STAR WARS movies is THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, directed by Irvin Kershner with a screenplay by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan.

 

Lucas has good story ideas but writes bad dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I agree. Too bad too, because AMERICAN GRAFFITI was a brilliant movie. Lucas just peaked early. I wonder what kind of product we'd have if he continued to make regular films instead of living off his adolescent "empire"?

 

I wholly agree: American Graffiti was a brilliant film, and, I think, Lucas' best film. It’s just a shame that Darth Sipid took over his writing talents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually George Lucas had the idea of Luke and Leia being the children of Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker separated at birth during the production of the first STAR WARS movie.

The first clues were given in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Yoda's "There is another" comment and Luke and Leia communicating telepathically.

The "reveal" in RETURN OF THE JEDI was not a last minute decision.

The redemption of the father by his son was part of his initial planned story arc, but when he made the first movie he thought he would never get to tell the complete story so made changes (such as kiI understand but I maintain that Lucas still blew it. Why?lling off Ob-Wan Kenobi) to fit the stand alone film that he  thought STAR WARS would likely be.

But George Lucas still did blow it. Why? Because we have all this psychic/force connection bs goin' on between Luke and Vader especially in empire strikes back

Now there are numerous scenes early in the first movie where Darth Vader is in very close physical proximity to Leia on the rebel ship and the death star and later in her detention cell. Question: Shouldn't the force, albeit the dark side, have tipped off Vader that the princess leia was his daughter??? That's not only a slip-up but a major slip-up in writing if you ask me.

Either continuity in a franchise is important or it's not.

in fact, in terms of good writing and story, it's a humungous blooper. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But George Lucas still did blow it. Why? Because we have all this psychic/force connection bs goin' on between Luke and Vader especially in empire strikes back

Now there are numerous scenes early in the first movie where Darth Vader is in very close physical proximity to Leia on the rebel ship and the death star and later in her detention cell. Question: Shouldn't the force, albeit the dark side, have tipped off Vader that the princess leia was his daughter??? That's not only a slip-up but a major slip-up in writing if you ask me.

Either continuity in a franchise is important or it's not.

in fact, in terms of good writing and story, it's a humungous blooper. :D

I mean Vader has no great difficulty sensing a connection between himself and young Luke Skywalker. He should have been just as clairvoyant espeicially when he was real close up and personal with Leia in the first film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean Vader has no great difficulty sensing a connection between himself and young Luke Skywalker. He should have been just as clairvoyant espeicially when he was real close up and personal with Leia in the first film.

I'll bet Lucas didn't realize the slip-up until long after the release of ROTJ.

maybe this explains all the lousy cgi-based prequels.

George Lucas wants to do pennance for the slip-up. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even recall in one of the three original films luke and leia being refered to as twins...

 

give me a break...

 

Hamill and Fisher look nothing like each other plus there did seem to be some jockeying going on in the first film between luke and solo for the affections of leia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even recall in one of the three original films luke and leia being refered to as twins...

 

give me a break...

 

Hamill and Fisher look nothing like each other plus there did seem to be some jockeying going on in the first film between luke and solo for the affections of leia.

that must have been before lucas hit on the idea of making them siblings. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even recall in one of the three original films luke and leia being refered to as twins...

 

give me a break...

 

Hamill and Fisher look nothing like each other plus there did seem to be some jockeying going on in the first film between luke and solo for the affections of leia.

 

Reminds of the old joke:

 

Do you have any kids?

 

Yes. Twins.

 

How do you tell them apart?

 

The boy is taller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a greed centered thing with a series of endless prequels working up to events already played out in the three original films more than 30 years ago. the same thing with The Lord of the Rings too.

we're suppose to by the malarkey that the first three films woulda been much better with modern cgi.

whatta crock.

I haven't seen anything better with modern cgi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a greed centered thing with a series of endless prequels working up to events already played out in the three original films more than 30 years ago. the same thing with The Lord of the Rings too.

we're suppose to by the malarkey that the first three films woulda been much better with modern cgi.

whatta crock.

I haven't seen anything better with modern cgi.

 

Colorization makes a film better but modern cgi doesn't?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colorization makes a film better but modern cgi doesn't?     

 

Right. Colorization and dubbing "foreign" films into English make them better , but "modern" CGI doesn't???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Colorization and dubbing "foreign" films into English make them better , but "modern" CGI doesn't???

 

Yes,  it is hard for me to understand the reasoning (if any),  behind that POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,  it is hard for me to understand the reasoning (if any),  behind that POV.

 

It's not a real POV. It's just BS. And stupid BS at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

Anyway I wish they didn't make any more Star Wars movies or Lord Of The Rings movies as it seems obvious it is all about the money. When Disney did John Carter in 2012 and it bombed all I heard was they had expected to make it into another "franchise" like McDonald's but can't now. Boohoo. The movie industry has turned into fast food.

 

After the next three Star Wars movies they will magically come up with three more, and three more, and three more.

 

Threepeats forever, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

Anyway I wish they didn't make any more Star Wars movies or Lord Of The Rings movies as it seems obvious it is all about the money. When Disney did John Carter in 2012 and it bombed all I heard was they had expected to make it into another "franchise" like McDonald's but can't now. Boohoo. The movie industry has turned into fast food.

 

After the next three Star Wars movies they will magically come up with three more, and three more, and three more.

 

Threepeats forever, lol.

 

As I pointed out before the movie industry has always been about making money and serials have been around since the start.

 

Do you object to the Thin Man series?   Sherlock Holmes?      The Saint?  Charlie Chan?  Mister Moto?  etc....

 

How about what TCM is going to show in March;  Ann Sothern and the Maisie series? 

 

As for fast food;  The programmers of the 30s were a lot more like fast food then movies today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for fast food;  The programmers of the 30s were a lot more like fast food then movies today. 

 

Yeah, maybe, but the difference being the "fast food flicks" of the '30s probably possessing a little less "empty calories" than the larger "portioned" "fast food flicks" of today!

 

And thus perhaps an ADDITIONAL reason why the butts that sat and watched those old lower-budgeted "empty calorie fast food flicks" back in the 1930s were a heck of a lot smaller in general than those that fill the seats in American movies houses TODAY!!! LOL

 

Yep, it's like I always say, "It's the PORTION sizes, fata$$!", but in THIS case, it's the MOVIE BUDGETS that have grown to gargantuan sizes.

 

(...and along with, as I said, the average size of the American R-U-M-P!!!) LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe, but the difference being the "fast food flicks" of the '30s probably possessing a little less "empty calories" than the larger "portioned" "fast food flicks" of today!

 

And thus perhaps an ADDITIONAL reason why the butts that sat and watched those old lower-budgeted "empty calorie fast food flicks" back in the 1930s were a heck of a lot smaller in general than those that fill the seats in American movies houses TODAY!!! LOL

 

Yep, it's like I always say, "It's the PORTION sizes, fata$$!", but in THIS case, it's the MOVIE BUDGETS that have grown to gargantuan sizes.

 

(...and along with, as I said, the average size of the American R-U-M-P!!!) LOL

 

Those programmers of the 30s were movies made to be shown for a few weeks in the theater and then never shown again.   Only if a movie was an unexpected 'hit' would it be held over for a longer run.   

 

Movies made today are also made for their post theatrical revenue stream; DVD sales (foreign and domestic).    That concept didn't exist in the 30s.

 

As for empty calories:  I wasn't even making that point but while I enjoy 30s programmers a lot more then most of the films made today,  I can't say those 30s programmers had less 'empty calories'.   In fact I would say they have just as much if not more.   It is just that I like the empty calories they are pushing more so then what is being pushed today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those programmers of the 30s were movies made to be shown for a few weeks in the theater and then never shown again.   Only if a movie was an unexpected 'hit' would it be held over for a longer run.   

 

Movies made today are also made for their post theatrical revenue stream; DVD sales (foreign and domestic).    That concept didn't exist in the 30s.

 

As for empty calories:  I wasn't even making that point but while I enjoy 30s programmers a lot more then most of the films made today,  I can't say those 30s programmers had less 'empty calories'.   In fact I would say they have just as much if not more.   It is just that I like the empty calories they are pushing more so then what is being pushed today.

 

True on Count One.

 

However, on the whole "empty calorie" thing I used as a metaphor to describe this country's obesity problem, I meant that in the context of movies in more the idea that the "empty calories" I mentioned might have been in "less quantity" in the "fast food flicks" of the 1930's ONLY because those "programmers" you mentioned usually had a fraction of the budget(and even accounting for inflation) than do the "programmers" of today. And thus the reason I also earlier used the phrase "portion sizes".

 

(...and yes, I'm referring to these big budgeted movies of today and especially the sequels as "programmers", and which I believe you seem to agree with me on that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out before the movie industry has always been about making money and serials have been around since the start.

 

Do you object to the Thin Man series?   Sherlock Holmes?      The Saint?  Charlie Chan?  Mister Moto?  etc....

 

How about what TCM is going to show in March;  Ann Sothern and the Maisie series? 

 

As for fast food;  The programmers of the 30s were a lot more like fast food then movies today. 

 

 

I can't remember TCM ever showing many Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto movies, they must be filet minion, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember TCM ever showing many Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto movies, they must be filet minion, lol.

 

What MM?! Couldn't come up with a better and more appropriate Asian food analogy than that "filet mignon" thing there???

 

(...though now that I think about it, I suppose using "Moo goo gai pan" and/or "Sukiyaki" doesn't quite get your point across as well, huh) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What MM?! Couldn't come up with a better and more appropriate Asian food analogy than that "filet mignon" thing there???

 

(...though now that I think about it, I suppose using "Moo goo gai pan" and/or "Sukiyaki" doesn't quite get your point across as well, huh) ;)

 

It's all the same to me, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember TCM ever showing many Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto movies, they must be filet minion, lol.

 

MOVIES shows the Chan and MOTO movies.    I believe Fox owns the rights to these and as we know TCM doesn't make enough effort to get those Fox films.   OR,   it could be because, as some here believe,   the movies are censored for PC reasons.   

 

Man I would hope it is the former but who knows.    Either way,  my point is that Hollywood has always made serials.   (and I don't mean corn flakes!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disney and Lucasfilm recently unveiled the second teaser trailer for STAR WARS:THE FORCE AWAKENS (which Disney plans to show before AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON that opens in May).

 

 

There's still no indication of what Adam Driver's role will be, but there's a glimpse of Harrison Ford as Han Solo, with a line of dialogue

 

Is that Mark Hamill in the voiceover in the beginning talking about the Force being strong in his family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...