My problem with this is that I find the original Star Wars trilogy to be just as shallow and lacking in vision as Bob is predicting the JJ Abrams film(s) will be. Superficially entertaining but ultimately predictable and lacking in substance is exactly how I would describe those movies.
The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok two points;
Who is this guy? That is a great question and is what excites me the most about this project. Often when that question comes up we get some very interesting results "The guy from A Knight's Tale is the Joker?!" "Evil Dead guy is doing Spider-Man?!" It can easily be argued back and forth but if you look back over movie history, sometimes when someone rolls a hard six it pays off.
What is Star Wars/ George Luca's driving theme? The one common thread his movies share. I would say references to the old popular culture mixed in with some Japanese romanticism and Hero with a thousand faces stuff. But what is his EMOTIONAL core. Bob listed some great examples there and think along those lines and you see that Star Wars doesn't need a connected emotional core. It's something different to everyone. For teens it's getting away and making something of yourself, for parents it's not letting your sins be passed to your kids. For girls it seems to be mostly about looking up to a strong female role model by dressing the way she did in like, 2 scenes and objectifying yourself for guys at conventions (half joke) The point is Star Wars needs a ring master, someone to build up the crowd and showcase the acts. The money is made on the popcorn and Star Wars is all about popcorn. I have my doubts about Abrams but I am not ready to call this one just yet.
Oh and Blomkamp needs to STAY AWAY from big name franchises and keep making thoughtful satirical hyper violent sci-fi for my immense amusement and mine alone.
Who is this guy? That is a great question and is what excites me the most about this project. Often when that question comes up we get some very interesting results "The guy from A Knight's Tale is the Joker?!" "Evil Dead guy is doing Spider-Man?!" It can easily be argued back and forth but if you look back over movie history, sometimes when someone rolls a hard six it pays off.
What is Star Wars/ George Luca's driving theme? The one common thread his movies share. I would say references to the old popular culture mixed in with some Japanese romanticism and Hero with a thousand faces stuff. But what is his EMOTIONAL core. Bob listed some great examples there and think along those lines and you see that Star Wars doesn't need a connected emotional core. It's something different to everyone. For teens it's getting away and making something of yourself, for parents it's not letting your sins be passed to your kids. For girls it seems to be mostly about looking up to a strong female role model by dressing the way she did in like, 2 scenes and objectifying yourself for guys at conventions (half joke) The point is Star Wars needs a ring master, someone to build up the crowd and showcase the acts. The money is made on the popcorn and Star Wars is all about popcorn. I have my doubts about Abrams but I am not ready to call this one just yet.
Oh and Blomkamp needs to STAY AWAY from big name franchises and keep making thoughtful satirical hyper violent sci-fi for my immense amusement and mine alone.
Well this is based on the idea that whatever Director who got the job would have any kind of large influence on the new trilogy. There's no chance in hell of that when you've got both Disney and Lucasfilm at the reins. Kathleen Kennedy would kill anyone who'd try and widely change the Star Wars formula at this point.
Hell they're the ones picking the writer and it's likely that they're taking bits from Georges scripts on top of that. And to get back to the formula, all Star Wars was, at the heart, was an action adventure in space. A kid with a boring life who suddenly gets to train as a warrior, join a rebellion against the evil empire, blow up their doomsday weapon and get a medal and kiss (which is pretty creepy now) from the lead lady.
It's hardly a work of art, it's just a lot of fun and hit the right spot for a lot of people. The special effects is what really sold it though. The next two weren't far off from that either. Empire was just a darker take with some better writing, a plot twist and a bigger budget. And Return was more of the same but lighter with an ending on top.
It was when they tried to make it "deeper" by adding this big romance between Anakin and what's-her-face, make everything connect, make a bigger, wider plot and some other crap other than the action adventure core of the original 3 that it all started to fall apart.
And that's what the new Star Trek film was. An action adventure at heart that was a lot of fun and did very well for itself. As long as Abrams is given a good script by Disney and Lucasfilms, he'll have no problem pulling that off and getting the Star Wars series back on track after over a decade of dilapidation.
Hell they're the ones picking the writer and it's likely that they're taking bits from Georges scripts on top of that. And to get back to the formula, all Star Wars was, at the heart, was an action adventure in space. A kid with a boring life who suddenly gets to train as a warrior, join a rebellion against the evil empire, blow up their doomsday weapon and get a medal and kiss (which is pretty creepy now) from the lead lady.
It's hardly a work of art, it's just a lot of fun and hit the right spot for a lot of people. The special effects is what really sold it though. The next two weren't far off from that either. Empire was just a darker take with some better writing, a plot twist and a bigger budget. And Return was more of the same but lighter with an ending on top.
It was when they tried to make it "deeper" by adding this big romance between Anakin and what's-her-face, make everything connect, make a bigger, wider plot and some other crap other than the action adventure core of the original 3 that it all started to fall apart.
And that's what the new Star Trek film was. An action adventure at heart that was a lot of fun and did very well for itself. As long as Abrams is given a good script by Disney and Lucasfilms, he'll have no problem pulling that off and getting the Star Wars series back on track after over a decade of dilapidation.
You are correct, but you're also right in saying that a film is rarely one person's "singular" vision. A great film is backed up by the vision of many people, from the actors to the editors to the director and screenwriter and musician. The original cut of "The Godfather" was deemed unwatchable until a talented editor salvaged the film through amazing editing. The original 2001: A Space Odyssey tossed out its entire soundtrack in favor of the one audiences now recall as forever linked to the visuals on screen. Little details all collaboratively shape a film's "vision", so no director has "one unique" vision.Farther than stars said:
But on that same subject, I would argue that the prequel trilogy (let's say The Phantom Menace in particular) is filled with areas where it FAILS to excel in nearly every area. The pacing is incredibly bad, plodding, and meandering. Entire subplots are brought up and dropped. Minor scenes take up massive chunks of screentime. The finale itself alternates between the epic and tragic battle of Darth Maul and the Jedis and the wacky shenanigans of Jar Jar and the giddy cheese of 8-year-old Anakin accidentally blowing up a star ship. The composition of shots is largely lacking due to an over-reliance of CG that prevents proper staging to take place and forces actors to, by and large, just stand around or sit down, or they'll throw in copious amounts of CG that your eye struggles to follow. The CG, itself, is very bad, not in terms of technology, but in terms of violating a very important rule CG artists (like myself) are taught, which is to make a world look "lived in". That means make it dirty. Make it scratched and rusted and grimy and worn and lived in. The original Star Wars is a world that looks lived in and worn in, while the new one has everything pristine and clean and flawless, fresh off the factory floor no matter where they go. It looks fake because the artists didn't take the time to add in the little details that make it look real and believable.
Couple that with bad writing, several bouts of bad acting, a bad story, a lack of any central protagonist whatsoever, and it's a mess of a film that had more wrong than just its director (though he was certainly the one most responsible).
The only thing I can safely say that is "good" about the film without fail is John William's musical score.
Having never watched an episode of Star Trek ever but listening to people talk about all my life, I was disappointed with how safe the movie was. People really hyped up this franchise for me and the movie was supposed to get me interested in it.
I really hope Mr. Abrams makes something deserving of the title EPIC with this Star Wars movie.
I really hope Mr. Abrams makes something deserving of the title EPIC with this Star Wars movie.
Eh, I think there's a fundamental difference in the franchises, that makes Abrams a much better fit for Star Wars than he was for Star Trek. Because the two franchises are important and enduring for completely different reasons.
Here's a little trivia about Star Wars... and I don't say this to bash Star Wars. I love Star Wars too (heck, I even kind of liked the prequels in their own way), but there are a couple things you need to keep in mind:
The original Star Wars began as a pitch for a Flash Gordon adaptation that Lucas wanted to make. When that got turned down, George Lucas instead decided to slap on new character names and make it an original property. And all the time he was writing, by his own admission, he was going by the Joseph Campbell checklist for the story and character points. Star Wars was awesome, it thrived on its world-building and the stock characters were played in endearing ways... but it wasn't sophisticated. It wasn't about ideas. It was "Lord of the Rings IN SPACE," only with less running time to explore the various interesting places that might have gone.
And yes, Star Trek wasn't exactly intellectual fare in its first couple iterations, but it grew into something more interesting, something almost approaching sophistication, later on (though it certainly took it a while). Star Wars was content to remain a space fairy tale throughout its entire history.
No, Abrams wasn't my first choice either. I would have picked Joe Johnston, if only because Johnston is the best at taking a giant pile of clichés and turning them into a watchable film (which he's been doing his entire career). But if you're worried about Abrams ripping off Top Gun, well, the Star Wars franchise lends itself much better to that kind of story.
Besides, they've got Arendt writing instead of the Bayformers guys.
Here's a little trivia about Star Wars... and I don't say this to bash Star Wars. I love Star Wars too (heck, I even kind of liked the prequels in their own way), but there are a couple things you need to keep in mind:
The original Star Wars began as a pitch for a Flash Gordon adaptation that Lucas wanted to make. When that got turned down, George Lucas instead decided to slap on new character names and make it an original property. And all the time he was writing, by his own admission, he was going by the Joseph Campbell checklist for the story and character points. Star Wars was awesome, it thrived on its world-building and the stock characters were played in endearing ways... but it wasn't sophisticated. It wasn't about ideas. It was "Lord of the Rings IN SPACE," only with less running time to explore the various interesting places that might have gone.
And yes, Star Trek wasn't exactly intellectual fare in its first couple iterations, but it grew into something more interesting, something almost approaching sophistication, later on (though it certainly took it a while). Star Wars was content to remain a space fairy tale throughout its entire history.
No, Abrams wasn't my first choice either. I would have picked Joe Johnston, if only because Johnston is the best at taking a giant pile of clichés and turning them into a watchable film (which he's been doing his entire career). But if you're worried about Abrams ripping off Top Gun, well, the Star Wars franchise lends itself much better to that kind of story.
Besides, they've got Arendt writing instead of the Bayformers guys.
Something mediocre would still be better then the Catastrophe that where the Prequel movies. And yes, they really where that bad. It even taints the older Movies because now you know what absolute nonsense happened to make all this possible. Bleh.
The Prequel movies do however contain a sweet bit of delicious irony.
George Lucas tried to write his little Citizen Kane story with Anakin. Poor little good natured boy gets corrupted by "evil".
Funny thing th<at he failed so spectacularly at that while he was living that very Story he tried to write. He fought the System of the lazy Filmindustry that had its sights set on making the most money with as little risk as possible.
His greatest blow struck against the Industry was "Star Wars".
You could see early signs of his Transformation in "Return of the Jedi", where he made the Ewoks to be sold as toys. Do they fit into the style of the Movie? Who cares, we'll make loads of money!"...
He finished his own little way to the "Dark Side" with the Prequels. He sits in his Chair, drinks his Coffee and fires People who disagree with him. He became the System.
His own Story is better then anything he could ever write.
The Prequel movies do however contain a sweet bit of delicious irony.
George Lucas tried to write his little Citizen Kane story with Anakin. Poor little good natured boy gets corrupted by "evil".
Funny thing th<at he failed so spectacularly at that while he was living that very Story he tried to write. He fought the System of the lazy Filmindustry that had its sights set on making the most money with as little risk as possible.
His greatest blow struck against the Industry was "Star Wars".
You could see early signs of his Transformation in "Return of the Jedi", where he made the Ewoks to be sold as toys. Do they fit into the style of the Movie? Who cares, we'll make loads of money!"...
He finished his own little way to the "Dark Side" with the Prequels. He sits in his Chair, drinks his Coffee and fires People who disagree with him. He became the System.
His own Story is better then anything he could ever write.
I was hesitant at the beginning of the video, but you make a great argument this time, and I have to say I agree with you now.
From a corporate standpoint, though, being safe so you can rake in tons of money seems like a good idea.
From a corporate standpoint, though, being safe so you can rake in tons of money seems like a good idea.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
This may be one of the dumbest things that Moviebob has actually put up as a video. The last couple of lines where he named Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy, Joss Wheden's Avengers, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and talked about these movies as if they were products of a bygone age that no longer exists honestly made me mad. Moviebob is wistfully musing about movies in a tone of "well they don't make them like they used to" about movies that came out LAST SUMMER, less than 6 months ago!
Really? REALLY?!
The Avengers is one of the most successful movies to ever be created, Peter Jackson just made The Hobbit, which made millions, and Guillermo del Toro TURNED DOWN directing the Star Wars movies. But no, no you're right, obviously movie goers haven't been supporting these kinds of stylized movies and we much more prefer mediocre tripe.
Hey Moviebob, good job coming off like a butt-hurt jackass.
Really? REALLY?!
The Avengers is one of the most successful movies to ever be created, Peter Jackson just made The Hobbit, which made millions, and Guillermo del Toro TURNED DOWN directing the Star Wars movies. But no, no you're right, obviously movie goers haven't been supporting these kinds of stylized movies and we much more prefer mediocre tripe.
Hey Moviebob, good job coming off like a butt-hurt jackass.
I would like to agree with you but I just don't want you to be right in this case. Let this one be his breakthrough
Why do I get the feeling when Bob was talking about "fresh out of films school visionaries", he was making a not so subtle nod to himself?
This is my thought as well, and it totally sidesteps anything to do with Abrams in my mind. You could have the most visionary and capable mind out there, and it would still be a bad idea to have that mind be in charge of both Star Trek and Star Wars. The two universes are too fundamentally different from concept all the way to visual design.Safaia said:
I honestly can't bring my self to care who's directing Star Wars VII, though the rant at the end is pretty spot on :/
Hey, Bob. Big fan, love your work, watch all of your videos. One suggestion as a form of constructive criticism, I know you used to change your accent for a more "ear-friendly" way but you're constantly switching back and forth recently. Personally, I don't care if you go one or the other but I find when you switch, I find myself distracted in indentifying which voice I'm hearing. Hey, maybe I'm wrong but just thought I'd mention.
My question is "Why do you pretend that episodes 4-6 were great movies?". Really! I mean, they are unbelievably important in the history of the film making and they set new standards in filmography. Lots of them. But as films they are mediocre and boring. The effects still hold up for me, sound is still awesome, world is still OK although obviously with many holes as later novels demonstrated, and design is top notch. But story is not a tribute to a '60 SF ultracheap movies. It is '60 ultracheap movie and a boring one. It's not Forbidden planet or Village of the Damned that's for sure, because those movies are still interesting to watch.
I watched Return of the Jedi when I was a kid, on its original theatrical run. Soon after I managed to watch first two movies too, only this time at someones home (original movie reel but on home projector). I was blown away. But at that time I was blow away even more bu original run of Battlestar Galactica and equally impressed by Blake's Seven. But I watched movies when I was 18 with friends and they were good. Then, around the time the remasters were about to come up I got the bug to see them again. But this time I said to myself that I will sit and watch them alone to really appreciate them. And I didn't appreciate them, except for the Episode 4 which is a nice self contained space hero story with a dab of magic. That's the thing, they are important milestones but they are not great movies. I would watch 12 Angry Men 12 times in a row without food or water rather then the original trilogy. Lucas is not Hitchcock or even Spielberg.
If new movies have a bit of world building material I will be pleased, but I will never be disappointed if the turn out bland with great world and visuals. Because, for the most part I see the Star Wars movies up to this time as such (Again A new hope standing somewhat out of the pack).
I watched Return of the Jedi when I was a kid, on its original theatrical run. Soon after I managed to watch first two movies too, only this time at someones home (original movie reel but on home projector). I was blown away. But at that time I was blow away even more bu original run of Battlestar Galactica and equally impressed by Blake's Seven. But I watched movies when I was 18 with friends and they were good. Then, around the time the remasters were about to come up I got the bug to see them again. But this time I said to myself that I will sit and watch them alone to really appreciate them. And I didn't appreciate them, except for the Episode 4 which is a nice self contained space hero story with a dab of magic. That's the thing, they are important milestones but they are not great movies. I would watch 12 Angry Men 12 times in a row without food or water rather then the original trilogy. Lucas is not Hitchcock or even Spielberg.
If new movies have a bit of world building material I will be pleased, but I will never be disappointed if the turn out bland with great world and visuals. Because, for the most part I see the Star Wars movies up to this time as such (Again A new hope standing somewhat out of the pack).
I completely disagree with MB, I personally am pretty content with JJ Abrams. Star Wars is a (amazingly done, and I will sell my soul to the original 3 and many of the expanded universe stories) Science Fiction adventure movie nothing more nothing less. I personally loved the Star Trek movie, I believe it was really well done, and I get a feeling that JJ Abrams will do his best not to disappoint fans (which no matter what will be better than the prequels).
I definitely think JJ Abrams will do a great job with Star Wars, and I cannot wait to see what he does with the new trilogy.
I definitely think JJ Abrams will do a great job with Star Wars, and I cannot wait to see what he does with the new trilogy.
That was my first thought too, is the new Star Wars going to be good? Yeah, sure it will. They put down 4billion dollars on this franchise though and with that I thought they would show some courage and make it Great. Even Memorable.
I don't blame them for playing it safe with the amount of cash at stake and I certainly don't agree that some relatively unknown director should get to helm this film, by all means get someone tried and true but Abrams? That's just playing it safe and nothing more. I was really excited about the Disney acquisition of the franchise but now I'm just meh about it all.
I don't blame them for playing it safe with the amount of cash at stake and I certainly don't agree that some relatively unknown director should get to helm this film, by all means get someone tried and true but Abrams? That's just playing it safe and nothing more. I was really excited about the Disney acquisition of the franchise but now I'm just meh about it all.