The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

aceman67

New member
Jan 14, 2010
259
0
0
Kwil said:
So the revelation here is that Disneycorp.. purveyors of all things "family" and the company that defines status quo and safe to such an extent that their very non-offensiveness is offensive in how blatant it is.. got a "safe" director to helm a movie that's going to cost their investors hundreds of millions of dollars?

I'm sorry, but the sun rising in the east is more momentous than that announcement -- because there's at least a chance, one far off day, that it might not rise at all. Expecting anything else.. hell.. hoping for anything else reveals a person to be little more than a dreaming idealist, completely out of touch with the world. Be happy it wasn't given to Michael Bay.

I mean, no argument with anything that was actually said about Abrams, I just think that expecting anything better is ludicrous.
Uh... Buena-Vista Entertainment, the publishing Uber-Arm of Disney, has produced many violent, offensive movies. Many of them Rated R.

You're forgetting that Disney currently owns Touchstone Pictures, and Marvel Studios Pictures, and formerly owned Miramax, Dimension, and Hollywood Films, all of whom do not make all family movies.

Your logic is flawed. Just because Disney owns them, does not mean that Disney will sanitize them into family-friendly-ness.

Hell, look at Avengers, that was not a family/child friendly movie. I would never dream of taking my 8 year-old nieces to see a movie like that because it would scare the crap out of them.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
trty00 said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Everyone wants safer that's why it sells. What about the Noland Batman films, his vision was a bit off....
Nolan's vision was dark and realistic, that's not too far off for Batman
Albeit for parts of 1 and 2 it might as well been a new IP. >>
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
It's an odd thing, I agree with a lot of what you have to say on the subject but in this case I don't think it's as bad of a thing as you make it out to be.

Right now this topic is sitting at about 3 pages and I'm willing to bet that if you go back and read the comments you'll find a small handful of folks who have stopped caring about the franchise as a whole or have had their once fanatical devotion to it dulled. On a more personal although anecdotal level you have guys like me who actively stopped buying Star Wars merch of any kind because they were tired of paying into a company that was just actively kicking them in the teeth in thanks for their patronage. I have two friends who were die hard fans of Star Wars from when we were kids who have had their devotion to the series completely soured by the prequels and the Clone Wars animated series.

Yes, people are still talking about how bad the prequels are years after they were made, but not in the good way that some movies are fun to pick on and pick apart even though you actually really love them (like the original Star Wars movies) They talk about them the way you talk about your ex after a particularly bitter break up.


In short, Star Wars has burned out a lifetime of good will from their older fans in record speeds while failing to capture the same fan base in a new generation. Compounding that is the fact that Disney, while making exceptionally great strides to correct its tarnished image, is still having some from the exact same PR problems leftover from the Eisner years.


The problem is that the Star Wars franchise can't take much more abuse right now and I can see that from a certain viewpoint what it needs is a "safe bet" to make a movie that reminds folks, at least on a superficial level of how good it used to be.

I commented in a different thread that I personally would have loved to have seen Zack Snyder take the helm. Or Gore Verbinski or Guillermo Del Toro because on a personal level I would have loved to have seen their take on the franchise. As you say, I would have loved to have seen their signature styles brought into the universe to see a setting I still really love explored by directors with unique styles.

Still, given the current state of affairs, that's not what Star Wars needs right now.
 

X10Unit1

New member
Dec 28, 2011
23
0
0
valium said:
Bob's rant starting at... 5:40~ perfectly described the current state of video games.
Honestly, it can be used to describe just about everything.

Safe, lowest common denominator, and ease of access/use = Low Risk/Highest Chance of profit
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Red X said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
trty00 said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Everyone wants safer that's why it sells. What about the Noland Batman films, his vision was a bit off....
Nolan's vision was dark and realistic, that's not too far off for Batman
Albeit for parts of 1 and 2 it might as well been a new IP. >>
for me Nolan's Batman films where great as films but not so much as Batman films with the exception of TDK. And really you can't really use Batman, that's not fair. Batman is Bigger and more profitable than most franchises
Its a simple action trope that is easy to do its just not cloned to ad nasuam like everything else.

A shame the third one is unwatchable tho. I really did like 2 but gaaaa 1 and 3 put me to sleep.
 

scott91575

New member
Jun 8, 2009
270
0
0
I am with you on this Bob. I have not seen anything from JJ Abrams that brought out any emotion (good or bad) or amazement. All of his stuff is "eh, it's not bad." I have no idea how he got to where he is. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the guy. In fact, if I diskiled him it would be better. I am not a fan at all of Joss Whedon stuff, but I at least understood there was some vision people would like. With Abrams, the best thing you can say is he isn't bad. Yet is that really something we want for Star Wars and Star Trek? I personally didn't like his Star Trek movie because it wasn't Star Trek in my eyes. As a generic sci fi action film, it wasn't bad. Yet it wasn't Star Trek. I have a feeling he will do the same thing with Star Wars. We will recognize the characters and the overall feel of the universe. Yet beyond that I fully expect a paint by number action flick with good effects (and lots of lens flares of course) that no one will ever look back on with nostalgia. I hope I am wrong, but nothing in Abrams past points to anything different.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
I was a little confused by him giving a bunch of examples of successful films (including the brilliantly successful Avengers) as examples that people want movies like the newest spiderman >.>...

Kwil said:
Hell, look at Avengers,
Sure. Let's look at Avengers. It was done by Marvel Studios. Does Disney have their name in there? Let's see.. "Marvel Studios".. hmm.. even if you anagram it you're still missing the 'n' and the 'y'.. Hm. Perhaps not in there. Maybe it's in the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOrNdBpGMv8 nope.. Marvel and Paramount. No Disney. It's almost as if Disney is keeping it's distance from those properties because it knows they're not family friendly enough for it's corporate image.

Now what do you think that says about Disney-Lucasfilm?
http://www.disneystore.com/figure-sets-play-sets-more-toys-the-avengers-figure-play-set/mp/1298773/1000262/

<.<...

Someone should report that Disney has Avengers stuff on their website, advertised on their channel, and in their brick and mortar stores. :x
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
Ya know, Bob raises an interesting point pertaining to just how bad the prequel trilogy is and the fact that we're still talking about it. They're so spectacularly bad that they have spawned video reviews [http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/] that are actually more enjoyable than the films themselves. Maybe it's because it was so wildly anticipated and so incredibly disappointing, but we Star Wars fans keep talking about them.

Perhaps it's because of the prequel debacle that Disney is going with a 'safe' director like Abrams. We'll always be able to go "well ya know, I don't like him that much, but at least the new trilogy is better than the prequel trilogy." Of course, that's if they don't turn out to be worse, which can happen. I don't really dislike him, but he doesn't really 'wow' me either. Maybe he'll change my mind, but I doubt it.
 

Nfritzappa

New member
Apr 1, 2010
323
0
0
So basically Bob is going to hate the movie regardless of what happens now. Well I know what review I'm going to stay away from when the movie comes out. Thanks for the warning of having bias, bob.
 

Frybird

New member
Jan 7, 2008
1,632
0
0
Red X said:
Frybird said:
Because...seriously, i like "The Avengers", very much so, but what risk has Whedon taken on that Abrams didn't.
many more.
Both have made a movie based on a risk THE STUDIOS have taken and managed to not piss off the Fanboys (admittedly, Whedon moreso) by delivering a decent Action Flick with some cool scenes, a by-the-books forgettable premise, a fun new look at a well established character (Hulk/Spock) and a seemingly crazy decision that may or may not be fully explored in the sequel.
Star Trek wasn't much of a risk considering how many there are and how bad the last ones where. The Avegers is a type of movie no one has done before (properly), it took other IPs and fused them in one congealed universe. Star Trek is reboot, bigger risk? Not really. And really the Hulk in the Avengers isn't new, it's about the same as it's always been a troubled scientist and a green monster with a big heart. (simplified, i know)
By that logic, we would have had a new Batman Movie by 1999, and yet we did not.
Star Trek was something that was slowly but surely turning into box office poison considering that the movies used to be somewhat excluding to the general audience as is, but also becoming something it's actual fans started to hate. And with the decision to make it a prequel with young versions of beloved characters (wich worked sooo well for the Star Wars Prequels) as well as literally destroying the established continuity still succeding as a well liked movie (i know people who don't like the Reboot, sure, but as i see it most people like it) is a feat not to be taken lightly.

And while the Avengers is technically a movie no one has done before, as an archivement it's nowhere near...let's say Peter Jackson adapting something deemed unfilmable within one long production.
"Avengers" undoubtely had a lot of luggage to carry with many many years of comic book mythology, but at it's heart it's a movie about a bunch of sort-of-misfits having to and succeding in a common goal even though they could not be more different from each other...something that, in the end, has been done before.

A deserved success: Yes. A groundbreaking archievement in moviemaking? No, and neither is Star Trek, but as it stands i have a hard time truly considering one of them to be far better or more impressive than the other.

It just happened to be that Bob liked one more than the other for reasons i reeeeeeeeeeaally couldn't possibly fathom.
you mean other than it being the first movie Avengers ever that was more than decent, clever dialogue, awesome visual, great set pieces, and more memorable scenes.
The only Major criticisms of the Avengers i can say is that the plot was too simple, the idea of those people in the dark controlling shield and nuking New York is silly and the overall solution was a rip-off of Independence day which was a rip-off of war of the worlds. A rip-off of a rip-off i'll admit is just sad ;)


Star Trek's writing was more complex but I honestly could tell you what the story was about (excluding the Top Gun thing)
See above. What i wanted to say with that statement is that Moviebob tends to say a lot how an Avengers Movie is what he has always dreamed about but didn't dare to imagine. Of course that makes it kind of a bigger deal for him...while at the also making it hard to imagine that he's completely objective about it.

Even as for "deserved better", you have to look at how massively skeptical everyone was before Star Trek based on it being a while that the movie series that has always been shaky at best brought up something that actually entertained more people than just the fanboys. It may not have been all the Geeks have hoped for, but it worked out pretty well.
i think it goes both ways, in one sense it's a bunch of kids not wanting to share their toys but going deeper it's the fact the small fanbase that support the franchise in begin are being left behind so everyone can enjoy. I'm all for sharing but if people aren't going to enjoy what you get out of it give them something else don't just change it.
Don't get me wrong they can and they will regardless for their money but it's going to suck the life out of our little neck of the woods.
I don't understand how the small (ha!) fanbase of Star Trek was "left behind" by the filmmakers. You make it sound a bit like that one Onion News Parody in wich "Trekkies" complained about the movie being fun and watchable.

Including one group does not always have to exclude another. And since i have a hard time believing that any Star Trek Fan truely LOVED "Nemesis" or "Insurrection", i don't see what has been taken away here. As i see it, Star Trek as a movie franchise was failing on EVERY Front.

EDIT: And yes i actually like every one of Abrams' MOVIES beyond just finding it "okay and forgettable" and go so far as to say that MI3 is the best of the series, even if it is less clever than the first one.
that explains a lot...
Does it?
Yes, i like Abrams' output as a filmmaker, and therefore wrote something in defense of him....wich is not to say that i don't find faults in each of his movies, but still crying foul over him being chosen as Star Wars Director feels to me like a premature overreaction.

but i kinda agree with you with the MI franchise, i'm struggling with MI1 and 3 because both have equal pros and cons IMO.

As do i, but in the end i find MI3 to be the most well-rounded in terms of plot and pacing, and it does have undeniably the bonus of having an amazing Badguy.
 

Marowit

New member
Nov 7, 2006
1,271
0
0
We as a people don't prefer rote mediocrity over vision, because it's safer...

You know who does though?

The Multinational Corporations who helm these undertakings. They prefer $1b in the bank, over a fresh new, and possibly less profitable, approach to the material. I like to think that this isn't always the case, The Avengers is the most recent example of this I can think of with Peter Jackson's LoTRs as another obvious example. But, I mean is it really surprising that Disney went with a director who will make a decent safe movie? I don't think so, I think that's basically the tag-line for Disney as a whole. It's also a function of what the source material is now.

See, it's part of nerd-culture going mainstream. Even if we, as in those of us who frequent the Escapist and other such forums, weren't to see the movie -- the once core-constituency of such films -- it would still make a killing at the box-office...so where's the risk in making the safe decent movie that will entertain the vast populous?

I'd argue that the original Star Wars, I wasn't alive for the original screenings, had to have that passion and feeling in it, just as Peter Jackson's LoTRs, or else the project would have never gotten off the ground. It was too expansive, to new, and too different to do so otherwise. Fast-forward 30-years, and the name "Star Wars" tm, will basically sell, and sell well, whatever they slap it on. Not to mention if it's a safe, decent (read better than episode 1-3) it will be hearkened as new day for the series by all other than those of us sitting on such forums as these.

I guess it's what happens when something gets too-large-to-fail. We, as consumers, and fans, lose sway over the medium. It happens with mediums we hold dear such as Video Games and Titles such as Halo, CoD, etc, but I digress. Not to mention the fact that the director really feels no need to prove themselves, such as I'm sure Mr. Lucas felt over 30-years ago.
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
Meh, my main disagreement here is to say that I don't think his movies even qualify as "decent". I remember almost nothing about MI:3 except thinking it was better than 2. Star Trek was beyond inispid, imo, and virtually everything you would give full credit to a director for was bad (sets, editing, framing, performances, etc.) except for the pacing. And Super 8 was a coming of age story that horrendously fumbled the 3rd act. A coming of age story w/o a point isn't worth much of anything.

And dues paid, visionary or not, talented or not, I don't care, no one person should be at the helm of both franchises. Their differences, their unique takes on a sci-fi universe, are what gave them their lasting appeal. Homogenizing that is just, well, wrong.
 

ferdinand82

New member
Oct 17, 2011
3
0
0
Azuaron said:
Bob complains that Abrams doesn't have any vision, but I assert that Abrams' vision is obscured by his constraints. If you watch Abrams' TED talk, you'll find that Abrams loves mysteries, and that's why he got into film making, and is also why the first season of Lost was so great.
Abrams loves mysteries but doesn't get it. Look at X-files. Each time you get a mystery and it gets resolved. That is fun because it makes your mind wander. Lost just had mysteries upon mysteries without any resolution. Like listening to the story of a mad man that just tells stuff that pops in his head. Fringe has the same problem. There are no rules in Fringe anything can happen it is all magic. So I don't care about what happens because there is no story. Anything can happen and it means nothing.
 

Larmo

New member
May 20, 2008
426
0
0
When it comes to who should direct i was really hoping for Matthew Vaughn to get he job, J.J will most likely do a fine job but I'm kinda hoping he will bring his A game here he lists Star Wars as the reason he went into film-making and i consider this a positive sign, but i was disappointed he might even have to turn down the job again if hes got too much on his plate, we shall have to see in 2015, but there's a good chance the date might get moved now one thing J.J rails against is a release date being set before the script is even written.
 

Monty McDougal

New member
Mar 15, 2011
153
0
0
You know what is cool? I wrote an article for my school news magazine where I listed my top directors for the new Star Wars. I listed the same people movie bob did. I just found that interesting.