- Time
- Post link
Gael said:
ST may be sci-fi, but it's not "good" sci-fi. (IMHO)
Emphasis mine. =P
Gael said:
ST may be sci-fi, but it's not "good" sci-fi. (IMHO)
Emphasis mine. =P
I dig anything involving the original crew as far as Trek goes, but try as I might I can't get into any of the other iterations. And when I say that, I'm including the Abrams movies; my attachment is to the characters rather than the actors (that said, there was a lot wrong with Into Darkness). Anyway, I've always thought the Trek v. Wars thing was really arbitrary, just a product of the fact that they're the two biggest franchises. They're completely different flavors of space-based fiction, no need to pit them against each other.
Gael said:
Frank your Majesty said:
So Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness never happened?
Also, Mission Impossible 3 and Super 8 have a pretty clear definition of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
uggg ... I'm a SWs guy, definitely not a trekie. Haven't even seen those trek films. (probably never will)
I've actually not seen super 8 either, and have become bored with the M.I. series. (which I definitely wouldn't call classics in any sense) So I guess I can't comment on any of your examples.
To which of his movies are you referring then, when you haven't seen half of what he's done? How can you say he never directed a sci-fi movie when he made three of them?
Gael said:
Trust us, Star Trek is sci-fi.
Team Olie
ST may be sci-fi, but it's not "good" sci-fi. (IMHO)
Many people think otherwise, while Star Wars is sometimes not even classified as sci-fi, because it lacks the aspect of how technology influences a society. Instead, it fits better in the fantasy genre.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
Lucas has called it a space fantasy.
Where were you in '77?
One thing I'm hoping Abrams "replicates" from the new hope, is the slight peppering of humor throughout the film. Think about the little bits of humor spread lightly here and there: between R2 & C3, between Han and Chewie, Leia and Han, and I'm sure other relationships I can't think of at the moment. One fear of mine (hopefully I'm worrying for nothing) is that Abrams makes this a totally serious film throughout. Sure it will probably be awesome even if that were the case, but if he takes a cue from his predecessor, I think adding a little humor (sparingly) here and there will make it that much better.
Totally agreed on that one. That's part of what makes Star Wars fun to watch, and Guardians of the Galaxy just wouldn't be the same with no humour. A healthy combination of action, humour, adventure, and story is what I want to see.
SilverWook said:
Lucas has called it a space fantasy.
This 1977 Interview with Mark Hamill supports that view strongly
“First feel fear, then get angry. Then go with your life into the fight.” - Bill Mollison
Frank your Majesty said:
Gael said:
Frank your Majesty said:
So Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness never happened?
Also, Mission Impossible 3 and Super 8 have a pretty clear definition of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
uggg ... I'm a SWs guy, definitely not a trekie. Haven't even seen those trek films. (probably never will)
I've actually not seen super 8 either, and have become bored with the M.I. series. (which I definitely wouldn't call classics in any sense) So I guess I can't comment on any of your examples.
To which of his movies are you referring then, when you haven't seen half of what he's done? How can you say he never directed a sci-fi movie when he made three of them?
Actually, I never said Abrams never directed a sci-fi movie. Not sure where that came from. Oh well, to each their own opinion when it comes to either liking or disliking ST. This is a SWs forum anyway, and that's what I'm into.
Actually, you did!
TV's Frink said:
Actually, you did!
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Why-the-future-SW-films-concern-me/post/785375/#TopicPost785375
I stand corrected. Although I was just agreeing with what someone else had said.
I wouldn't worry about it...nothing can be worst than PM and AOTC...EVER
The True Prequels are "Darth Plagueis & Labyrinth of Evil" by James Luceno and the "Revenge of the Sith" Novelization by Mathew Stover!
Darth Zannah said:
I wouldn't worry about it...nothing can be worst than PM and AOTC...EVER
I've gotten plenty of PMs that were better than ROTS.
TV's Frink said:
Darth Zannah said:
I wouldn't worry about it...nothing can be worst than PM and AOTC...EVER
I've gotten plenty of PMs that were better than ROTS.
To be fair, most of us thought before seeing Episode I that George Lucas couldn't make anything worse than Howard the Duck.
Lucas did not direct Howard.
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
Lucas did not direct Howard.
But he produced the film, Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz were involved with American Graffiti and Temple Of Doom, and it was a passion project of his (even before Star Wars), so it is 100% a George Lucas film.
I don't see how it could be a "100% George Lucas film" if Lucas wasn't involved with the writing or the directing -- y'know, two of the primary things that help shape a film.
generalfrevious said:
TV's Frink said:
Darth Zannah said:
I wouldn't worry about it...nothing can be worst than PM and AOTC...EVER
I've gotten plenty of PMs that were better than ROTS.
To be fair, most of us thought before seeing Episode I that George Lucas couldn't make anything worse than Howard the Duck.
I had totally forgotten about the existance of Howard the Duck, until now! (and was a better person for it!)
generalfrevious said:
SilverWook said:
Lucas did not direct Howard.
But he produced the film, Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz were involved with American Graffiti and Temple Of Doom, and it was a passion project of his (even before Star Wars), so it is 100% a George Lucas film.
I've read different accounts that he only stepped in as producer to help Hyuck and Katz out. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, if it been produced by say, Samuel L. Bronkowitz, the reaction would have not been so harsh.
Where were you in '77?
Gael said:
generalfrevious said:
TV's Frink said:
Darth Zannah said:
I wouldn't worry about it...nothing can be worst than PM and AOTC...EVER
I've gotten plenty of PMs that were better than ROTS.
To be fair, most of us thought before seeing Episode I that George Lucas couldn't make anything worse than Howard the Duck.
I had totally forgotten about the existance of Howard the Duck, until now! (and was a better person for it!)
He's never been totally gone from the comics all these years, (a new HTD solo book was launched in 2015) and Howard even had a cameo in a certain blockbuster Marvel flick last summer...
Where were you in '77?
Anyways, I hope I'm wrong about TFA being worse than the Prequels.
Darth Zanah is probably right.
I think there will be humor. BB-8 seems a bit whimsical. I can see a general concern with a film maker going too far in the opposite direction of the prequels, well Phantom Menace in particular, but Abrams' other pictures have been peppered with humor.