More Star Wars Films

[Dunder74]

How do we feel about Disney's acquisition of LucasFilm?

Are you excited? Anxious? Annoyed?

Who would you like to direct?

Personally, I heard about a bunch of guys like Abrams and even the dude who did Safety Not Guaranteed denying the gig, why I'll never understand. No matter what, it's still Star Wars.

I will watch them all, but I cannot say I am excited to do so.

[Filligan]

Without a script or any signed on actors, there's nothing to feel about this yet. All these directors passing on the opportunity makes sense to me. Star Wars has such a deep-rooted cultural impact that I doubt anybody feels a new film can come close to matching, and nobody wants to be responsible for another set of Prequel-quality Star Wars films. Disney isn't necessarily taking a monetary gamble, but it could be a risky venture for directors who value their careers.

Oh, and just to add: I'd be a thousand times more excited if Disney approached and struck a deal with Fox to release the theatrical cuts of the original trilogy.

[El Guapo]

I'm cautiously optimistic about it. The great Pro the new movies have already is that George Lucas will have very little if anything to do with them. And they hired the writer of Toy Story 3 to write the new movie, which is a good sign. Although John Carter was a disaster with the directer of Wall E. We shall see.

[Neonman]

I bet this new trilogy is going to be horribly adequate and not ground-breaking at all -- just a mediocre bore (I'm calling it now). I just want these films to be really bad, worse than 1-3, just for the laughs (and hopefully some more Plinkett reviews).

[El Guapo]

I bet this new trilogy is going to be horribly adequate and not ground-breaking at all -- just a mediocre bore (I'm calling it now). I just want these films to be really bad, worse than 1-3, just for the laughs (and hopefully some more Plinkett reviews).

That's a bit cynical. I'm actually hoping for the exact opposite!

[ayall]

I think I addressed this in another thread but i'm hopeful too.

This is a cash cow, why the hell wouldn't they milk it? It's America baby, c'mon.

I've heard some rumors floating around Hollywood and think they're gonna try to squeeze this guy for 3 to 6 more movies.

I've heard they're looking at having the original actors play older versions of their original characters as the next series dictates.

Regardless of how this plays out, I think it'll be a rather interesting and cinematic break through if done well.

For the same reason I really like the new Star Treks, i think this series will prevail.
CGI is so fucking awesome right now that it can adequately bring to screen what many of these sci-fi flicks have always hoped for.

The story is based on is obviously solid as proven by now (1-6), but will 7-9 be a let down?

I love Star Wars and understand the appeal to the vets of original 3, but i also happened to have liked 1 - 3.
Ya the acting was awful and some terrible characters introduced, but the CGI was great and the base story progressed very well.

Having now seen some of the clone wars cartoon episodes and seeing much of the story potential with the right CGI mixed in with already knowing the plot to 7 - 9 (jedi training); i think it's a safe bet that these movies will generate revenue through ticket sales and merchandising.

I might not be lining up to see this movie at the theaters, but I'll definitely give it a watch.

[CMonster]

CGI is so fucking awesome right now that it can adequately bring to screen what many of these sci-fi flicks have always hoped for.

This is why I think the special editions are so...well special. They manage to enhance the original trilogy in such an amazing way!

[ayall]

Hold on a second here CMonster,

I as any man will agree that i puked during avatar and couldn't' stand to wear those 4 eyed piece of shit plastic glasses that don't make that 3d movie "less worst" then it was in 2d.

However, you telling me sci-fi now brought to screen isn't phenomenal?
Ah, did you not see the matrix?

Maybe you enjoyed Lucas's plastic ship rolling around on asphalt drive way in the 70's, but i called that tupay out the second I saw it in the 90's. I enjoyed General Grievous (despite the fucking awful name) though.

In addition, ewan mcgregor did a great job as young old ben.

Anyway, if you can't appreciate the awesomeness that is CGI now, then you are "truly lost."

[ShogunRua]

However, you telling me sci-fi now brought to screen isn't phenomenal?

When done in a unique and visually splendid manner, yes. (Avatar comes to mind) However, audiences quickly become desensitized to new technology, and when that occurs, they realize most modern sci-fi films' visuals are just recycled, generic crap from film to film.

For a simple analogy, imagine how incredible a garden-variety 60s sci-fi flick like "Barberella" would have looked in the 1940s. I mean, just look at the colors alone! But by the 70s, audiences viewed "Barberella" as just another sci-fi picture, with nothing special in its visual style. And by the 90s, it looked poor and dated.

An audience's expectation of a film's visual quality is constantly increasing, and the technology you call "phenomenal" will soon be viewed by most audiences (yourself included, at some point) as "average".

And once again, only a choice few pictures will stand out from the bunch.

[Filligan]

However, you telling me sci-fi now brought to screen isn't phenomenal?
Ah, did you not see the matrix?

Here's the difference between The Matrix and the Star Wars prequels. The former is a film that delicately balances stunning CGI technology with practical effects, makeup and costumes on real actors. The prequels are actors in front of green screens interacting with green screens with half the characters not really there. The human eye is exceptional at finding things that don't look real in film. When CGI is slathered over every frame, it hurts the film's realism more than anything. This is also why Star Trek is so engrossing. Directors like JJ Abrams use CGI carefully and smartly to its best result. Some directors like Christopher Nolan refuse to use it unless the scene cannot be done without it, and whatever your opinion on his films may be, you can't say he hasn't earned respect for doing so. I mean, The Dark Knight has a character with half his face burned off. It's absurd, but we buy it in the film's darkly realistic world because we aren't being beaten over the head with it everywhere else. The CGI has its moment to shine where it deserves to, it doesn't replace everything.

I'll give you a recent example that, while not sci-fi, is a perfect reason why CGI needs to be used sparingly: The Hobbit has just come out ten years after Lord of the Rings, and yet Lord of the Rings looks more realistic despite the advances in technology this past decade. It's because practical effects and real actors doing real things still looks better than the opposite. It's only when you carefully splice CGI into real things that it achieves its best effects and the audience buys it. Davy Jones is a real character in Pirates not just because the technology makes him look so good, but because he's surrounded by real people on real sets and it's a real actor dictating the performance. The goblins in The Hobbit, however, make their entire sequence look closer to something you'll find on a Saturday morning cartoon.