|
Star Wars
Oct 20, 2015 8:55:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lark11 on Oct 20, 2015 8:55:55 GMT -5
The lead characters are too young imo. It's gonna be "too Disney." I'm afraid they may have screwed this up.....again. Mark Hamill was ~26 when the original Star Wars, Episode IV, came out in 1977. Carrie Fisher was ~31, and Harrison Ford was ~35. Daisy Ridley is 23, John Boyega is 23, Adam Driver is 31, Oscar Isaac is 36. It's not like they're kids, in any sense of the word. When mocking Disney I would think of little children, maybe teenagers... Hannah Montana/Miley Cirus for example. These Star Wars actors are all adults. Most Star Wars fans don't resent young people, sorta like how most baseball fans don't resent young players/prospects. I don't resent young people, but I agree that young Anakin changed the tone of The Phantom Menace....and not for the better.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 20, 2015 9:26:18 GMT -5
Mark Hamill was ~26 when the original Star Wars, Episode IV, came out in 1977. Carrie Fisher was ~31, and Harrison Ford was ~35. Daisy Ridley is 23, John Boyega is 23, Adam Driver is 31, Oscar Isaac is 36. It's not like they're kids, in any sense of the word. When mocking Disney I would think of little children, maybe teenagers... Hannah Montana/Miley Cirus for example. These Star Wars actors are all adults. Most Star Wars fans don't resent young people, sorta like how most baseball fans don't resent young players/prospects. I don't resent young people, but I agree that young Anakin changed the tone of The Phantom Menace....and not for the better. Jake Lloyd was about 10 at the time, I think that is an appropriate Disney comparison. I avoided mentioning him because he's such an outlier from a series know for mid-to-late-20's, early 30's actors. Hayden Christensen later showed himself to be a terrible actor playing the same character, when he was 21 and 24 years old, but I don't believe age was the problem - being a bad actor was. And bad writing didn't help. Natalie Portman was ~18 for her first Star Wars movie, and ~24 for her last, although I always thought cheesy writing was more of a problem with her performance than her acting... not that I think highly of her acting. None of these stars are 10, the youngest is 23. We just have to hope they're better actors than Hayden Christensen, but most professional actors are. Once people are 18 or older I tend to see little correlation between age and acting ability.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 20, 2015 9:46:42 GMT -5
In my opinion the most interesting thing in the new trailer, by far, was the short conversation...
(Daisy Ridley) “There were stories about what happened." (Han Solo) “It’s true. All of it. The Dark Side. The Jedi. They’re real.”
Han obviously knows all about The Force, the Jedi, and the Dark Side from the events of Star Wars IV-VI, yet when he met Obiwan Kenobi in A New Hope he clearly had little respect for the Jedi, referring to them as a 'hokey religion', and Kenobi as "old man". Heck, he didn't seem to care to meet a Jedi. So, fast forward thirty something years, and kids the age of Daisy Ridley's character remember the Jedi as what, a fairy tale? As someone born years after the Battle of Endor, the apparently reclusive Luke Skywalker would be the only Jedi or Sith in the galaxy. Perhaps with his contributions widely forgotten, like those of Obiwan Kenobi's before him. This absence of Jedi or Sith to extent that they've seemingly been forgotten (at least as far as being historical) in the galaxy probably points to the movie's title, The Force Awakens (which was initially mocked, because, what, has The Force been sleeping or something?). The youth of the new actors, and their need to learn of history/heritage from the older actors, is probably a big part of the plot.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Oct 20, 2015 14:49:34 GMT -5
Mark Hamill was ~26 when the original Star Wars, Episode IV, came out in 1977. Carrie Fisher was ~31, and Harrison Ford was ~35. Daisy Ridley is 23, John Boyega is 23, Adam Driver is 31, Oscar Isaac is 36. It's not like they're kids, in any sense of the word. When mocking Disney I would think of little children, maybe teenagers... Hannah Montana/Miley Cirus for example. These Star Wars actors are all adults. Most Star Wars fans don't resent young people, sorta like how most baseball fans don't resent young players/prospects. I don't resent young people, but I agree that young Anakin changed the tone of The Phantom Menace....and not for the better. Dreadful rubbish in the second series: you come in for the wooden acting, but you stay for the stilted, unintentionally hilarious dialogue...
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 20, 2015 15:10:16 GMT -5
That trailer has a Hunger Games vibe. It's really, really bad. I fear they screwed this up royally.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 20, 2015 16:03:06 GMT -5
I don't think they've screwed it up at all. So far all the signs, including this trailer, are overwhelmingly positive. We'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see who is right.
It looks a little more post-apocalyptic than we might have initially expected, and in that way it might seem similar to Hunger Games.
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 21, 2015 7:24:26 GMT -5
I don't think they've screwed it up at all. So far all the signs, including this trailer, are overwhelmingly positive. We'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see who is right. It looks a little more post-apocalyptic than we might have initially expected, and in that way it might seem similar to Hunger Games. Well, my opinion is the signs are all pointing to garbage. It's completely kiddie and Disney and it has the lighting and camera work of a Hunger Games movie. And the CGI is just too much...there's too much.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 21, 2015 9:09:15 GMT -5
I don't think they've screwed it up at all. So far all the signs, including this trailer, are overwhelmingly positive. We'll have to wait until the movie comes out to see who is right. It looks a little more post-apocalyptic than we might have initially expected, and in that way it might seem similar to Hunger Games. Well, my opinion is the signs are all pointing to garbage. It's completely kiddie and Disney and it has the lighting and camera work of a Hunger Games movie. And the CGI is just too much...there's too much. Director (and writer) JJ Abrams has really emphasized the relatively limited use of CGI in this movie, relying on models as much as possible, following the original movies in that respect, rather than the heavily-CGI prequels. And the Hunger Game movies. The Storm Troopers even are extras in costumes. We've seen the same scenes over and over again in the trailer, with explosions, X-Wings making an attack run along a lake, stuff which likely won't consume most of the movie, but allow them to maintain the plot secrecy. The second Hunger Games movie had really annoying camera work I thought, but we haven't seen enough of The Force Awakens, in my opinion, to even make a comparison. I've seen lots of JJ Abrams' work and he doesn't do kiddie stuff. He's one of the best science fiction directors out there. And he was mostly in charge of the whole move.
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 21, 2015 9:57:35 GMT -5
Well, my opinion is the signs are all pointing to garbage. It's completely kiddie and Disney and it has the lighting and camera work of a Hunger Games movie. And the CGI is just too much...there's too much. Director (and writer) JJ Abrams has really emphasized the relatively limited use of CGI in this movie, relying on models as much as possible, following the original movies in that respect, rather than the heavily-CGI prequels. And the Hunger Game movies. The Storm Troopers even are extras in costumes. We've seen the same scenes over and over again in the trailer, with explosions, X-Wings making an attack run along a lake, stuff which likely won't consume most of the movie, but allow them to maintain the plot secrecy. The second Hunger Games movie had really annoying camera work I thought, but we haven't seen enough of The Force Awakens, in my opinion, to even make a comparison. I've seen lots of JJ Abrams' work and he doesn't do kiddie stuff. He's one of the best science fiction directors out there. And he was mostly in charge of the whole move. lol...."Lost" was pure garbage. Super 8 was good. Star Trek was painfully bad. Horrible decision to sign him on as director. Who is he screwing?
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 21, 2015 11:17:52 GMT -5
Director (and writer) JJ Abrams has really emphasized the relatively limited use of CGI in this movie, relying on models as much as possible, following the original movies in that respect, rather than the heavily-CGI prequels. And the Hunger Game movies. The Storm Troopers even are extras in costumes. We've seen the same scenes over and over again in the trailer, with explosions, X-Wings making an attack run along a lake, stuff which likely won't consume most of the movie, but allow them to maintain the plot secrecy. The second Hunger Games movie had really annoying camera work I thought, but we haven't seen enough of The Force Awakens, in my opinion, to even make a comparison. I've seen lots of JJ Abrams' work and he doesn't do kiddie stuff. He's one of the best science fiction directors out there. And he was mostly in charge of the whole move. lol...."Lost" was pure garbage. Super 8 was good. Star Trek was painfully bad. Horrible decision to sign him on as director. Who is he screwing? Lost was an excellent show, at least until the final episode. You might dislike it, but among science fiction fans you'll often see it listed as one of the best science fiction shows ever made. Did you actually watch it, or turn it off after one episode because a show about an airplane crash seems boring? JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was excellent (one of the top 5 of the 12 Star Trek movies... not as good as II, III, IV, and VI, but also the single best movie to introduce new people to the franchise). The sequel wasn't as good, but was still in the top half of Star Trek movies for quality. It's easy to make a bad Star Trek movie, but hard to make a good one. Of course if you don't like Star Trek (or Star Wars)... or science fiction in general, you're not likely to enjoy JJ Abrams' work, or these movies no matter who makes them. His show 'Revolution' was bleh. At this point he's one of the best and most respected science fiction directors out there. So do you even like ANY science fiction? At least any since the 1990s or later? In the past I've gotten the impression that you dislike the whole genre, rather than just the works of JJ Abrams...
|
|
|
Star Wars
Oct 21, 2015 11:30:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lark11 on Oct 21, 2015 11:30:32 GMT -5
lol...."Lost" was pure garbage. Super 8 was good. Star Trek was painfully bad. Horrible decision to sign him on as director. Who is he screwing? Lost was an excellent show, at least until the final episode. You might dislike it, but among science fiction fans you'll often see it listed as one of the best science fiction shows ever made. Did you actually watch it, or turn it off after one episode because a show about an airplane crash seems boring? JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was excellent (one of the top 5 of the 12 Star Trek movies... not as good as II, III, IV, and VI, but also the single best movie to introduce new people to the franchise). The sequel wasn't as good, but was still in the top half of Star Trek movies for quality. It's easy to make a bad Star Trek movie, but hard to make a good one. Of course if you don't like Star Trek (or Star Wars)... or science fiction in general, you're not likely to enjoy JJ Abrams' work, or these movies no matter who makes them. His show 'Revolution' was bleh. At this point he's one of the best and most respected science fiction directors out there. So do you even like ANY science fiction? At least any since the 1990s or later? In the past I've gotten the impression that you dislike the whole genre, rather than just the works of JJ Abrams... Is Star Wars commonly considered science fiction? Or, is it just its own thing entirely?
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 21, 2015 12:13:03 GMT -5
Lost was an excellent show, at least until the final episode. You might dislike it, but among science fiction fans you'll often see it listed as one of the best science fiction shows ever made. Did you actually watch it, or turn it off after one episode because a show about an airplane crash seems boring? JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was excellent (one of the top 5 of the 12 Star Trek movies... not as good as II, III, IV, and VI, but also the single best movie to introduce new people to the franchise). The sequel wasn't as good, but was still in the top half of Star Trek movies for quality. It's easy to make a bad Star Trek movie, but hard to make a good one. Of course if you don't like Star Trek (or Star Wars)... or science fiction in general, you're not likely to enjoy JJ Abrams' work, or these movies no matter who makes them. His show 'Revolution' was bleh. At this point he's one of the best and most respected science fiction directors out there. So do you even like ANY science fiction? At least any since the 1990s or later? In the past I've gotten the impression that you dislike the whole genre, rather than just the works of JJ Abrams... Is Star Wars commonly considered science fiction? Or, is it just its own thing entirely? I consider it science fiction or epic/high fantasy (like Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings)... since it takes place in its own universe with magical powers inherent to said place. It's commonly called a Space Opera, which is a sub-genre of science fiction.
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 21, 2015 12:56:11 GMT -5
lol...."Lost" was pure garbage. Super 8 was good. Star Trek was painfully bad. Horrible decision to sign him on as director. Who is he screwing? Lost was an excellent show, at least until the final episode. You might dislike it, but among science fiction fans you'll often see it listed as one of the best science fiction shows ever made. Did you actually watch it, or turn it off after one episode because a show about an airplane crash seems boring? JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was excellent (one of the top 5 of the 12 Star Trek movies... not as good as II, III, IV, and VI, but also the single best movie to introduce new people to the franchise). The sequel wasn't as good, but was still in the top half of Star Trek movies for quality. It's easy to make a bad Star Trek movie, but hard to make a good one. Of course if you don't like Star Trek (or Star Wars)... or science fiction in general, you're not likely to enjoy JJ Abrams' work, or these movies no matter who makes them. His show 'Revolution' was bleh. At this point he's one of the best and most respected science fiction directors out there. So do you even like ANY science fiction? At least any since the 1990s or later? In the past I've gotten the impression that you dislike the whole genre, rather than just the works of JJ Abrams... I LOVE sci-fi. Event Horizon...c'mon. Great movie. Explorers (well, the ending sucks)...fantastic. I LOVE Star Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY)...the new movies were a travesty besides Simon Pegg.
|
|
|
Post by kramer1 on Oct 21, 2015 12:57:46 GMT -5
Lost was an excellent show, at least until the final episode. You might dislike it, but among science fiction fans you'll often see it listed as one of the best science fiction shows ever made. Did you actually watch it, or turn it off after one episode because a show about an airplane crash seems boring? JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was excellent (one of the top 5 of the 12 Star Trek movies... not as good as II, III, IV, and VI, but also the single best movie to introduce new people to the franchise). The sequel wasn't as good, but was still in the top half of Star Trek movies for quality. It's easy to make a bad Star Trek movie, but hard to make a good one. Of course if you don't like Star Trek (or Star Wars)... or science fiction in general, you're not likely to enjoy JJ Abrams' work, or these movies no matter who makes them. His show 'Revolution' was bleh. At this point he's one of the best and most respected science fiction directors out there. So do you even like ANY science fiction? At least any since the 1990s or later? In the past I've gotten the impression that you dislike the whole genre, rather than just the works of JJ Abrams... Is Star Wars commonly considered science fiction? Or, is it just its own thing entirely? It's considered a "space opera" which is a sub-genre of sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by redsfanman on Oct 21, 2015 15:33:42 GMT -5
I don't think I ever finished Event Horizon, since the first half hour to an hour are sooooo bad. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
|
|