The Big Picture: A Disturbance In The Force

[Frontastic]

As a casual at best Star Wars fan, I have nothing to offer to this debate. However what I want to set one thing straight, Fringe was not mediocre in any way. It was easily my favourite show of the last five yers and if we see a sci-fi show that bold and original in the next few years, I'd be very surprised... But I don't think that was anything to do with Abrams. Sure he got the ball rolling on that show but he took a back seat pretty quick and I think the show being as good as it was (and not turning into LOST) is down to his lack of tight control.

So I think the new SW will at least have an interesting premise but unless someone else takes the project off him before he finishes, it'll probably end in a pretty unsatisfying way. But as Bob says (and it was my first thought when I heard he had the job), it'll be fine.

 

[ash12181987]

Okay, here is a point: WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Could it not be Joss Whedon!?

 

[daibakuha]

I did. It says Star Wars was a big film. It doesn't say Star Wars gave us the Blockbuster.

The part where it says that Speilberg and Lucas were the ones who caused the redefinition?

You mean Jaws redefined it. Star Wars was just one early blockbuster among many.

No I mean exactly what I said, you being obtuse and sarcastic isn't helping anyone see your argument.

Exactly! And Harry Potter isn't fantasy, it's teen detective stories with set-dressing. Now you're getting it. People who shallowly evaluate movies often confuse the movie's setting with the movie's genre, at least in the case of sci-fi and fantasy. Why? No other genre is bound by such convention. A movie isn't automatically a mystery just because it's set on the moors on a moonlit night, is it? A movie isn't automatically a war movie just because it's set in 1942. To call everything with a space ship or a laser gun sci-fi is to superficially evaluate the genre.

Science Fiction and Fantasy aren't like other genres and shouldn't be classified the same way. Look at the wikipedia article on science fiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction. This is why there are so many subgenres for Science fiction and fantasy. You don't see as many for other genres.

butts in seats != impact.

You are right, but you honestly can't say it's the amount of people who saw it didn't make an impact on it's apparent popularity and the number of director's who cite it as influences.

Care to give an example from the original trilogy?

The scene where Luke looks at the sunset in IV, The Cantina scene (the beginning), The opening of VI (especially the action sequence at the end, Luke's fight with the Rancor and when Luke enters the palace). The whole end of VI was stellar (except the for the Ewoks, imagine if they were Wookiees instead? Like they were supposed to be). Especially the part where Luke is beating the crap out of Vader.

I specifically didn't mention V which was not by Lucas.

Lucas is notorious for giving actors and actresses vary little direction in how they should read their lines, which is part of a director's job, and almost certainly part of the reason that the acting was so wooden in the prequels.

With dialog this bad it's hard to say really. It wouldn't have mattered either way for most of them.


EDIT: To add more to my argument, look at the wikipedia definition of Space Opera:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Opera

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, usually involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

And under a list of popular Space Opera:

The Foundation series (1942?1999) by Isaac Asimov
The Ender's Game series (1985?present) by Orson Scott Card
Guardians of the Galaxy (1969-present) by Marvel Comics
Star Trek (1966?present) created by Gene Roddenberry
Star Wars (1977?present) created by George Lucas
Battlestar Galactica (1978?1979 and 2004?2009) created by Glen A. Larson & Ronald D. Moore
Babylon 5 (1993?1998) created by J. Michael Straczynski
The Chronicles of Riddick, characters by Ken Wheat and direction and universe by David Twohy.
Stargate (1994-2011[29]) created by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin
Titan A.E. (1999) created by Ben Edlund, John August, and Joss Whedon
Firefly (2002) created by Joss Whedon
Warhammer 40,000 (1987?present) Games Workshop
Star Ocean (1996-2010) created by tri-Ace
StarCraft (1998-present) created by Blizzard Entertainment
Homeworld (1999-2003) created by Relic Entertainment
Starlancer (2000) and Freelancer (2003) created by Digital Anvil
Halo (2001?present) created by Bungie and 343 Industries
Ratchet & Clank (2002-present) created by Insomniac Games
EVE Online (2003?present) created by CCP Games
Xenosaga (2003?2006) created by Monolith Soft
Mass Effect (2007?present) created by BioWare

Are you going to honestly sit there and say none of those are science fiction?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

On Fanboys and what is deserved:

As I grow older, I am more and more reluctant to identify with "geek culture" or being a "fanboy." And this is entirely why: there is an inherent danger in basing one's cultural identity around the consumption of a product, especially a product that in this case is owned by a company that has had aesthetic intentions that are questionable at best. I do not even really think that "geek" can be identified as a culture, because real cultures have philosophical, religious, historical, or ideological bases to them, whereas "geek" is mostly concerned with their own interpolation from marketed products, and rarely if ever attempts to turn these interpolations into anything more.

So, this is not what fanboys deserve so much as what fanboys and geek "culture" have unintentionally created. A product that truly does reflect them, and I feel that so much nerd rage and backlash have their roots at the horrifying image that they see when a film or game truly does reflect them.

 

[I.Muir]

We haven't decided that we want safer
The businesses steered by old out of touch men have
If you think it's bad in the movies you should know that's it's many times worse in games
Games also appear to be no one persons vision and appear to be too heavily influenced by what marketing thinks is hip and in at the moment

I suppose that makes Bobs one point I could agree with about Other M all the more true, that it tried something new if only it hadn't fallen flat on it's face

 

[RedDeadFred]

Honestly, I liked Abram's Star Trek more than every Star Wars movie except for Episode V...

Who knows, since he's not rebooting Star Wars but actually being forced to continue the series, he might find that creative spark you're talking about.

Also, maybe he'll do a better job with motivating the actors to actually be good. IMO, the only two actors who were good in ANY of the Star Wars movies were Ewan Mcgregor and Harrison Ford. Everyone else was mediocre, bad or awful (Hayden-angsty *****-Christensen).

At this point, I can't see a breath of fresh air being anything but good for this franchise, even if that breath is a little shallow.

Edit: Also, Bob, how can you honestly say that you need something "deeper" in Star Wars when you named The Avengers as your movie of the year? Don't get me wrong, I liked Avengers (more than the Star Trek reboot) but IMO, the plot was paper thin and was only there to allow the super heroes to fight and stand around having awesome dialogue. I mean at least Star Trek had decent character progression. All The Avengers had was Hulk suddenly being able to control his anger.

 

[Knife-28]

Damn, now I really want to see a Star Wars movie directed by Neill Blomkamp. I mean, there's no way you couldn't make that sound awesome.

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

I know this is going to sound condescending but you really should take some time to play this game. Heck, even Bob prefaced his video by explaining that it was just his opinion.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

 

[Hexley]

In the interest of honesty. I had tons of problems with Abram's Star Trek, and I'm not really much of a Star Trek fan, though I do have an interest in the universe. Everything wrong with it from my perspective mainly had to do with the narrative.

My main issue with the idea of Abrams being director for the movie is that it's just sucked all the excitement of getting to see what a new Star Wars movie is going to be like. I already know what kind of stuff Abrams makes, and it just doesn't make for something to get me very intrigued.

I'm still interested to see what kind of story they have for a post-original trilogy movie, but mainly for its own sake rather than the interest of getting to see something compelling being done with the universe.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

Disclaimer: I hate JJ Abrams and I'm going to ***** about it and will unconditionally hate the new Star Trek AND Star Wars movies based purely on this notion regardless of their quality.

I wasn't going to say anything...but that's what I got...

I've enjoyed everything that J.J. has put out onto the big screen, even Cloverfield. To me, he is my generations Spielberg. I look forward to Into Darkness, maybe even Star Wars.

 

[LightspeedJack]

Lost is my favorite television show of all time and Star Trek took a series I didn't care about and made me enjoy it immensely. So yeah I'm excited about this. In fact, aside from getting Fincher on this thing, this is about the only choice that would have excited me about the project as I really don't care about Star Wars.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

I know this is going to sound condescending but you really should take some time to play this game. Heck, even Bob prefaced his video by explaining that it was just his opinion.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

LOL

I dunno everything in media these days is about the safe route and screwing over the fiction(or mechanics/depth for games) to make it more pliable to the public. It dose not always result in something being very bad but it tends to degrade the content harshly.

For me Batman 3 was as bad as Batman and Robin only it was more boring....which is a shame since I had to sit through the Gorilla suit scene wondering WTF. Bane didn't hurt brains as much since I snoozed through it.... LOL

But seriously boil batman down, what are its main plot points? Gadgets, Quasi detective/mystery work, Costumes, Big explosions, Action scenes I mean its 1 point away from Mission Imposable. Mind you Batman has a larger more devise mythos to pull from as dose most comic series but when they toss it out to do "something new" I get ticked off because they missed the point of the fiction they are trying to make a film from.

/rant
/ramble
/rage
/wonders off to cry in corner...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

In the interest of honesty. I had tons of problems with Abram's Star Trek, and I'm not really much of a Star Trek fan, though I do have an interest in the universe. Everything wrong with it from my perspective mainly had to do with the narrative.

My main issue with the idea of Abrams being director for the movie is that it's just sucked all the excitement of getting to see what a new Star Wars movie is going to be like. I already know what kind of stuff Abrams makes, and it just doesn't make for something to get me very intrigued.

I'm still interested to see what kind of story they have for a post-original trilogy movie, but mainly for its own sake rather than the interest of getting to see something compelling being done with the universe.

My main problems with it where the crappy plot just to needlessly bridge the gap with die hard fans. It was not needed, they did not need to do every other plot point in it much less bring out Learned Nimoy. It would have been a much better film and foundation for a new take on it...but no they had to screw up what could have been a great film to tie it into the older TV/Films...... it kinda goes against the fiction IMO...

/rant
/ramble

 

[kburns10]

I'd say we are pretty damn close to accepting mediocrity if not already doing it. I may be off base when I say this, but I also think it has to do a lot with geek culture becoming more accepted by the mainstream. Instead of using the newfound public eye to push the envelope, studios and some directors would rather appeal to them. Play it safe, don't do anything to scare away your new cash cows. They keep raking in the dough at the detriment of the fans who got them there.

At least that's my two cents on the matter.

 

[octafish]

JJ Abrams made the best Star Wars movie since Return of the Jedi when he made Star Trek Reboot.
Maybe we will finally get the best the Star Trek Movie since First Contact.

Anyways, the fact that people care so much about these two Franchises is part of the problem with movies today. Where are the new ideas today. They have both been around for so long and been thoroughly explored that what would get me excited is something that at least pretends to be original. Personally I am looking much more forward to Oblivion or Pacific Rim.

And I have seen a consistent theme in most of Abrams stuff. There is the superficial sci fi ideas of time travel and the alternate worlds that this creates. But there is also the deeper exploration of how regrets effects us and how unintended consequences can bite us in the ass. Mind you I have never scene Alias so I don't know if it fits.

I'm coming late to this, but yes it fits. Not the time travel, but the rest...

Also Alias is good, like really good, you watch Alias (and Suddenly Thirty...don't judge me!) and you realise why Jennifer Garner got cast in everything for a while there in the right role and with the right director, she is brilliant. It is the Timothy Oliphant story though, seemingly great actors who only work for one character and one creative talent.

Plus Victor Garber and Carl Lumbly are awesome in Alias, like Michael Ironside awesome. Middle-aged menace for the win!

snip

Now that is fucking depressing.,
As to the above post,while I generally agree with Bob, I LIKED the latest Spiderman movie.

It was way better than Raimi's third one.

Which sucked donkey balls

Not Raimi's fault really, the studio interfered and forced him to include Venom. I guess Raimi could have walked away. Raimi wanted to focus on just the Sandman...that would have made a better film, it wouldn't have been the bloated mess it turned into.

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

I know this is going to sound condescending but you really should take some time to play this game. Heck, even Bob prefaced his video by explaining that it was just his opinion.
http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

LOL

I dunno everything in media these days is about the safe route and screwing over the fiction(or mechanics/depth for games) to make it more pliable to the public. It dose not always result in something being very bad but it tends to degrade the content harshly.

For me Batman 3 was as bad as Batman and Robin only it was more boring....which is a shame since I had to sit through the Gorilla suit scene wondering WTF. Bane didn't hurt brains as much since I snoozed through it.... LOL

But seriously boil batman down, what are its main plot points? Gadgets, Quasi detective/mystery work, Costumes, Big explosions, Action scenes I mean its 1 point away from Mission Imposable. Mind you Batman has a larger more devise mythos to pull from as dose most comic series but when they toss it out to do "something new" I get ticked off because they missed the point of the fiction they are trying to make a film from.

/rant
/ramble
/rage
/wonders off to cry in corner...

See I liked it because it explored the idea that Bruce Wayne might be able to do more good for the city just as Bruce Wayne than as Batman. I thought they raised some really great points. I guess it's hard to put my finger on it but for me, what puts all of the Nolan's Batman movies above all of the generic action movies (or even good action movies) is the emotional impact it has on me. Maybe I just have an easier time connecting with these movies but every time I see any of the 3, I always feel emotionally drained afterwards (in a good way).

I guess I don't mind how much Nolan deviates from the comics as much as others. I do see that as being a common complaint but I really don't mind. Nolan set out to tell his own story that is influenced by the comics. In my mind, he succeeded rather spectacularly. I can see how it could bother you though.

Also, thanks for taking my jape in such a lighthearted way. After I posted that reply I thought: "hmm, maybe that wasn't the best idea." I figured I was either going to get the response you gave me or pure rage.

 

[MasterBrief]

I don't think we will do a bad job but as he is directing the Star Trek movie, not sure if there will be a third, I'm not sure if he should be doing this too. Was actually hoping Whedon would get it I think he would do well on it and if not him Favreau. Also I just watched that episode of Futurama!

 

[Redd the Sock]

Funny, the scuttlebutt from friends that follow these things more than I do is that no one wants this gig. It's the franchise whose fans have spent 15 years bitching about an alteration of a a split second of blaster fire. It's not a project for anyone not wanting to get flayed alive for any little fault.

I suppose I could go on at length about how people with no skin in the game are complaining about the "safe" choice, but I'm honestly very tired of it. Short version: not your money, company, reputation, or anything else on the line here so you don't get to get too up in arms that the people putting up the cash for this don't want to risk a flop, on endless bad press from red letter media as just about any geek movie is made with sequels in mind. This is true for everything, not just Star Wars.

No, the larger issue is that we really don't know what king of story they even want to tell, hence the condemnation of the director choice is somewhat premature. Particualry for adapted projects, the choice of the director can have drastic implications. Joss Whedon for example was the perfect choice for the Avengers given his history with comedic personal interplay. He might have made an interesting Lord of the Rings, but I think the epicness would be neutered somewhat. He;d be rather inappropriate to touch something like 300, or inception, or Watchmen. Sometimes while "safe" you have to go with the director that will handle your material in the matter intended without going off on weird tangents, or missing the point. You don't need someone that's going to insist on a swing dancing number in the middle of your space opera Spider0Man 3 style, or has no idea what they're doing a la Green Lantern. I mean, no, I'm not thrilled with the choice myself having been bored to tears by just about everything he's done (particularly on TV) but he's fitting, and until script leaks show things are trying to go in a direction he's not good with, I'm willing to give him a shot.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Some nice thoughts that mirror my own fairly well

Though I will say that your spiel at the end about "Fanboys preferring rote mediocrity" is absolutely HILARIOUS coming from you after you never-ending Nintendo apologetics in general, and your defense of Other M in particular

Heh, looks like MovieBob called you out on Twitter:

Bob Chipman @the_moviebob

Wow, someone in the Big Picture comments went all the way back to Other M for why I'm not worth taking seriously. That takes dedication.

I think he kinda missed the point with that one...