This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Star Wars: The Disney Era

145791038

Comments

  • edited November 2012
    Branagh would have no action scenes, and it would all be the protagonist monologuing about whether the Light side or Dark side is truly the real force of good. Three movies later, he decides on Light and cuts Darth ______ in half.
    I'd hardly describe Thor as having "no action scenes." (edit: I got super-ninja'd on this)
    I'd like to see Neill Blomkamp take a swing at something Star Wars.
    I'd love to see a Blomkamp Star Wars. I would tend to think it would be a stylistic departure from the existing films, but we've really only seen one film of his. He's a bit tied up with Elysium right now, but that's due to be released in August, so maybe that's irrelevant.
    Post edited by trogdor9 on
  • Branagh would have no action scenes, and it would all be the protagonist monologuing about whether the Light side or Dark side is truly the real force of good. Three movies later, he decides on Light and cuts Darth ______ in half.
    imokwiththis.jpg

  • edited November 2012
    Sir Ian McKellen as Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin.

    That's all I want.

    EDIT: Clone Tarkin, obviously.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • I want a return to the likes of Tarkin and Piett. Piett not dying at the end of Empire is one of my favourite moments in the movie. Of course, you need a good bad guy like Vader and the Emperor for you to feel pity for someone like Piett.
  • Ronald D. Moore should direct Episode VII so we can have BSG space combat on a Star Wars budget.
  • I will staunchly stand by the opinion that John Carter was a great movie that had way too much budget and way too little of an advertising campaign.
  • edited November 2012
    I will staunchly stand by the opinion that John Carter was a great movie that had way too much budget and way too little of an advertising campaign.
    THIS!

    Though I don't agree on the budget. The movie looked amazing and that was definitely where a lot of the budget went. Also, what little advertising the movie had was completely ineffective at actually selling the movie.
    Post edited by Li_Akahi on
  • As soon as Sail edits the episode:

    image
  • I will staunchly stand by the opinion that John Carter was a great movie that had way too much budget and way too little of an advertising campaign.
    THIS!

  • I've not seen John Carter, So I don't understand what you mean. If a movie has way too much budget, is that what makes it great or bad? Or it just lost money because that money should have been spent on advertising? Are you saying it potentially could have been a great movie, but it was spoiled by the budget?
  • edited November 2012
    It's a great pop corn adventure movie that was sent out to die because they didn't know how to sell it. Andrew Stanton, the director, was given total control over the marketing and he was operating on the assumption that John Carter of Mars was on the same level as something like Lord of the Rings or Tarzan or at least Conan (since it was to him). The first trailers reflected this belief and the theatre going public didn't know what they were looking at.

    It had a budget of 300 million plus but you can't really tell were it went and for that kind of money you need to have HUGE public buy in. They probably could have made something that was just as good for a third of the budget and been a success.
    Post edited by DevilUknow on
  • Somehow this slipped under my radar until just now - Lucas is donating every penny of the Lucasfilm deal to education. Kinda hard to accuse him of being greedy or whatever when you hear that.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html
  • Hasn't that story been posted in this very thread four times now? I don't believe anyone ever called him greedy, just artistically overreaching and protective.
  • Hasn't that story been posted in this very thread four times now? I don't believe anyone ever called him greedy, just artistically overreaching and protective.
    I must not have been paying attention, but regardless I have definitely seen people accusing him of selling out and such. Not on these forums, mind you.
  • I've not seen John Carter, So I don't understand what you mean. If a movie has way too much budget, is that what makes it great or bad? Or it just lost money because that money should have been spent on advertising? Are you saying it potentially could have been a great movie, but it was spoiled by the budget?
    Yeah, I didn't articulate the point well enough, I was referring to the fact of it being one of the the biggest flops based on the amount of money it lost, which is in part due to it's rather massive budget ($250–350 million according to the wiki, making one if not the biggest movie budget in the history of cinema).
  • Okay, I admit that it was a great loser of money, and commercial success has very little to do with overall quality.
  • edited November 2012
    http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/11/2/luke-skywalker-to-be-primary-focus-of-new-star-wars-trilogy.html?utm_source=geektyrant.com&utm_medium=featured

    So they're not just planning a new trilogy. They're planning two new trilogies. Also, the list of directors that they have in the article is extremely fan-wanky.

    Note that this news has not been confirmed and that it is coming from a "solid inside source".
    Post edited by Li_Akahi on
  • Yeah. I'll wait for something reliable.
  • http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/11/2/luke-skywalker-to-be-primary-focus-of-new-star-wars-trilogy.html?utm_source=geektyrant.com&utm_medium=featured

    So they're not just planning a new trilogy. They're planning two new trilogies. Also, the list of directors that they have in the article is extremely fan-wanky.

    Note that this news has not been confirmed and that it is coming from a "solid inside source".
    Clearly bullshit. Only trust gaseous inside sources.
  • http://geektyrant.com/news/2012/11/2/luke-skywalker-to-be-primary-focus-of-new-star-wars-trilogy.html?utm_source=geektyrant.com&utm_medium=featured

    So they're not just planning a new trilogy. They're planning two new trilogies. Also, the list of directors that they have in the article is extremely fan-wanky.

    Note that this news has not been confirmed and that it is coming from a "solid inside source".
    Clearly bullshit. Only trust gaseous inside sources.
    I only trust gaseous Outsiders. Got an Reactionless Drive from those supercooled SOBs.
  • I'm going to try and give these movies at least as much of a chance as I gave episode 1.
  • Michael Arndt (writer of Toy Story 3) wrote a treatment for the entire new trilogy

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/08/toy-story-3-screenwriter-may-write-star-wars-episiode-vii
  • Michael Arndt (writer of Toy Story 3) wrote a treatment for the entire new trilogy

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/08/toy-story-3-screenwriter-may-write-star-wars-episiode-vii
    I saw a story today saying that he's been hired to write the screenplay.
  • I say the old adage used with live-action anime movie adaptations can be applied here as well: no proof until production. Except in this case it's not proof of the movie being made, but proof about anyone who might be potentially involved.
  • I'd like to see Disney throw some weight behind Blur style animations, perhaps for the TV show treatment.

  • A Blur animated Old Republic series would be pretty awesome.
  • Almost every time a group that is good at cut-scenes makes TV shows, they fail spectacularly. See GONZO.
  • edited November 2012
    GONZO shows are often incredibly popular. They're just not the shows you tend to like.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • edited November 2012
    A Blur animated Old Republic series would be pretty awesome.
    I'd be into that. They're some crazy dudes over there, they do good work, and I have faith they'd make a good series. Seriously, Blur are fucking great.

    Post edited by Churba on
Sign In or Register to comment.