logo Sign In

Anchorhead

User Group
Moderators
Join date
12-Jun-2005
Last activity
5-Dec-2025
Posts
3,693

Post History

Post
#615688
Topic
What do you LIKE about the EU?
Time

zombie84 said:

I just started re-reading the Thrawn trilogy.....no one wrote Star Wars quite like Zahn. Is there any reason why he couldn't script Episode VII? He would hit it out of the park.

You're not alone with those thoughts, by the way.  Zahn's mentioned a few times that as soon as the Disney deal was announced he started getting asked that same question regularly.  Even if it weren't Thrawn-based, I have no doubt that the franchise would finally be in excellent hands indeed.

Post
#614689
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

SilverWook said:

I thought it grew out of the concept of a capital for the Empire, that existed in Lucas' early script ideas. (Which Timothy Zahn expanded on and gave it a proper name?) There is pre-production art dating back to the OT.

That's it.  I'm not really an early script guy, but I think it was what Alderaan was originally going to look like.  Seems like the Empire taking up residence came later when Alderaan had a separate identity.  Others will have to weigh in here.

Post
#612479
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

Here's hoping he does or that they at least feel the same way he does about substance over style;

More interestingly, though, make-up legend Rick Baker is up for a return...... "I think the problem that people have with the digital stuff is the problem I have: Just because you can do anything doesn’t mean that you should. Instead of having a spaceship battle with three spaceships, they have 3,000 spaceships. Everything is so big and there’s so much going on, you lose reality. It takes you out of it".

Post
#612366
Topic
When/Why did you become an OT purist?
Time

May 25th, 1983.

No, I'm not being flippant.  I called in sick so I could go to the theater opening day. That was my demarcation (I hated it).  I only really acted on it years later when the SEs were announced (or released, I forgot which).  That action was searching for a way to have DVDs of the theatrical versions of first two films. Which, for the unwashed, is how I discovered this community.

Post
#607612
Topic
Let's Talk Instant Gratification in Regards to Media.
Time

Kev,  my thoughts will be two parts.  One will address the topic, one will address you within it.

1. No doubt, your generation has instant, full access to everything that you've grown up on media-wise. Certainly more than my generation could even have imagined at your age.  If we dug something, we watched it as much as possible and then moved on (movies, cartoons, etc). 

I don't think instant access to everything has made your generation immature or slower to grow up.  At least not by default. It certainly hasn't had that effect on you - this topic is a perfect example.  I think people are who they are.  If they're immature they'll find a way to delay responsibility one way or another. If it's watching cartoons for six hours straight, they will.  If it's following their mom around the house and asking her to cut the crust off their PB&J sandwich or do their laundry like she did when they were children, they will.

The real difference to me, and it's considerable, is that we couldn't experience our comfort & escape on-demand.  I watched Speed Racer and Bugs Bunny every chance I could, but I still had to wait for the hour or so that they were being broadcast, on which ever days.  Because of that, my generation spend most of our time outdoors interacting with other people and using our imaginations.

That's where your generation is radically different than mine.  There seems to be a new type of person emerging - the true First World as you so eloquently put it.  Being able to retreat to the computer and live within their escape at-will, has created a generation of kids who seem unable to interact with other people.  They've become so used to the pretend world on a screen at their desk, that when faced with the vast & real one on the other side of their door, they don't know how to function within it.

It's not retarding their maturity, it's retarding their sociability. Growing up on a computer is creating a generation of Sheldon Coopers.  Great for a thirty minute comedy, terrible for reality.  The Facebook creator is a great example.  Entrepreneur and billionaire at 21, train wreck in an interview.  Find his original 60 Minutes interview and give it a look.  He's out of his element sitting across from an actual person.  He has the craziest flop sweat I've ever seen. 

It will be interesting to see how your generation develops.

 

2. One of the more interesting aspects of being on this board the past ten years, for me at least, has been watching you come of age. Your posts have always been somewhat advanced for what I image teenagers are like in their grasp of the world.  That said;  not having any teenage friends, I don't really have a control for the comparison.

Here's where I wanted to transition away from the topic and instead address how you see it. However, I want to first be absolutely clear on this - this is not a criticism of you personally.  In fact, I'm one of your biggest fans.  It's an observation and a realization that you can't have yet. You can't imagine it, you can't learn it, nor can you fully understand it.  It is, however, every bit as important to your topic as the subject itself is.  I'll use some of your post as an explanation, along with an anecdote from my own past.

People like me, who grew up during....

I can return to them as solace: a reminder of what once was...

this ease of revisiting childhood.....

On the last day of my senior year, I was 18 years old.  As you all know, that's a huge do-nothing day as you go to each class for the last time.  In my literature class, Miss Buscemi went around the room asking us what we planned to do after high school.

I knew what I wanted to do and had been working on it in my head for months.  I wanted to write a book about all my crazy high school experiences and friends.  When I told her, her response wasn't what I expected.  Her words, verbatim - "Write about what? - you're 18 - you're life hasn't even started yet."

That stung. "She has no idea all that I've done and seen", I thought to myself. "She just doesn't understand".

Man, talk about being off the mark.  Was I ever.  I couldn't possibly have grasped the concept of my life just beginning.  I couldn't grasp what she'd already experienced. 

Kev, that's where you are now.  You have no idea of "what once was" - yet.  But you will, and this topic of yours will be wildly different for you by then. I don't know what will become of all of us, but I hope I'm around to see what you think of things after you're well into your journey. 

Again, my thoughts are not at all meant to sting the way my teacher's did me and I hope they didn't.  You just reminded me of myself - 33 years ago - and made me smile at the remarkable similarity. 

This topic is a perfect example of why I wish we all lived within an hour or so of each other.  We could have a yearly gathering, for an evening with the libations of our choice, and sit around pondering the journey so far and solving the world's problems (if only we could get the world to listen to us).

;-)

Post
#607344
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

 

 

No spoilers.

Went to see it opening night.  First things first - Loved it!  As someone who loved Casino Royale (it became my favorite 007 film), yet hated Quantum Of Solace (one viewing only, don't own) - a new 007 film has been a long time coming indeed.  Skyfall did not disappoint. Great performances all around, great story - again, very grounded. 

Javier Bardem was fantastic as the villain, Daniel Craig was at his best yet at fully realizing the character of 007, and Judi Dench had her strongest performance, going well beyond supporting character.

All that said; Naomie Harris (Eve) made the film for me for several reasons, some I can’t discuss (spoilers).  Her physical beauty is distracting, in an incredible way, and her performance is perfect. Perfect.  Truthfully, I look at her and I can't make sense of how beautiful she is. Add in the amazing voice and her intelligence and she's the Bond Girl of all Bond Girls. *swoon*

I also like the nods to the history of the franchise.  They were limited, not at all distracting, and fit within the story. If you caught them, fine – if you didn’t, not an issue at all. In fact, after two viewings there was still one I missed that a friend pointed out to me.  It was so subtle that I didn’t see it, but it was a really nice touch.

It was particularly wonderful to get away from shaky-cam, image-a-second editing of Quantum.  In Skyfall there were long shots and the scenes are allowed to breathe.  Particularly the more cerebral passages.  Hats off to Mr. Mendes and Mr. Newman for recapturing the atmosphere of Bond. It’s nice that they finally embraced their past instead of trying to reinvent it or ignore it.

Well done on every level, and that's coming from 40 years of uber nerddom.  Where Casino Royale succeeded in refocusing the franchise - Skyfall went one step further and fully returned it.  I went for a second viewing Sunday morning - no, not just to see Eve again.  ;-) 

At this point, after a second viewing and four days of reflection, I'm ready to declare Skyfall my favorite 007 film. It edges out Casino Royale because of its full return-to-form.  The ending is a large part of that because the last five minutes of Skyfall are the first five minutes of every classic Bond film (post-title sequence).

For me, my Bond house is back in order.  One more viewing at least and then it’s the long wait for the DVD.  Until then, the soundtrack will have to hold me. Speaking of which;  Along with Thomas Newman’s expert handling of the score, Adele’s theme song is genius. It’s the first theme song in 17 years that I haven’t discarded.  In fact, I’m listening to it as I type this.

I give Skyfall an EASY 5 out of 5 cut-throat razors.

“She sent you after me, knowing you're not ready, knowing you would likely die. Mommy was very bad”

Post
#606376
Topic
Recasting our heroes
Time

Bingowings said:

 

If Luke is now the older Master Jedi someone else should be the optimistic young hero (though it could be a girl of colour this time around).

Excellent idea!

I could easily see Jessica Lucas as an aspiring Jedi on some sort of "idealistic crusade".  Having her as a protegee of an an elder Luke would be very interesting.

Jessica Lucas

 

 

Post
#606000
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

Bingowings said:

2001 might not have them but the monolith builders become organic spacecraft on their way to becoming stitched from the fabric of the universe itself.

Alistair Reynolds, Iain M Banks, Anne McCaffrey, Peter F Hamilton.

Put on hold Babylon 5 for a minute and list almost any television Space Opera and it will have at least one.

Battlestar Galactica, Lexx, Doctor Who, Farscape, Blakes 7, Star Trek.

Then you have films like Alien, even the remake of Invaders Of Mars has a bioship for crying out loud.

It's a trope that's employed at least as much as hyperspace.

If you aren't aware of it you obviously don't read or watch enough science fiction.

Dude! - how could you leave out V-ger?

;-)

Post
#605223
Topic
Recasting our heroes
Time

Mrebo said:

Okay...I do not understand...at all...casting people who are in their 20s and 30s for these roles.

If the next film is a continuation of the third film, it will have to be recast.  If it's a story taking place 40 years later, then we could expect to see Hamill and Ford.

I'm not sure how they would work Fisher into the story.  You would need some story element trying to explain why she's unrecognizable as the same person.  Hamill and Ford have aged correctly.  Her years of drug abuse and lifestyle have aged her prematurely.

I'm surprised at the number of people who are so emotionally against recasting. I can't think of a franchise more contaminated or more in need of a fresh start that Star Wars. 

Maybe because the NPR version of the original story is my canon, maybe because I'm EU-only, or maybe because I'm a life-long James Bond nerd - but to me the story is paramount, not the actors.  No two ways about it, actors can sometimes make a character, but if Kirk, Spock, or 007 can be played by more than one person, anyone can.

Post
#604996
Topic
Recasting our heroes
Time

We've briefly touched on it since the news, so I thought I'd start a more serious discussion.  At this point, every side is saying all sorts of things about the seventh film.  Lucas is a consultant, Kennedy is a producer, Disney will listen and use their ideas, Disney won't use their ideas, no existing novels will be filmed, etc, etc, etc.

Truth is, nothing at all is decided yet.  It's just a bunch of glad-handing and mutual admiration from all parties.  I get that.  It's very early in the change-over.

With that in mind, I thought I'd toss out a few ideas for recasting our heroes.  I'm firmly in the camp that it can be done and that it should be done.  Weird CGI would (to me) be distracting. 

As I've said before, if you can recast Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones et al - as iconic a set of film characters as there has ever been - you can recast anyone, including Luke, Han, & Leia.  Not to mention the several times over recasting of 007 - all of which have worked well.

So without further ado, here are my two picks so far.  I've based it on the small samples I've seen of their work - plus a physical presence to the characters as written and acted. My picks are for stories that take place only a few years after the events in Return of the Jedi.

My pick for Leia;  Clea Duvall.

My pick for Han;  Chris Hemsworth.

I think both could pull it off and to me, both look like the characters the way they come to life in the novels.

Also, while they have said no existing novels, they could easily recant and go Thrawn.  I think the fan base would be very ok with that.  Personally, I would assume I should stop playing the lottery if they filmed them because all my karma would be spent.  ;-)

My absolutely no two ways about it pick for Mara would be Bryce Dallas Howard.

 

No one has jumped out at me for Luke or Lando, but I'm still working on it.

 

 

Post
#604692
Topic
Star Wars - Episode VII - FACTS IN TOP POST
Time

lth said:

They really ought to film the Thrawn trilogy by Tim Zahn, because the books are excellent and in the same tradition as the films of high adventure and good fun. Either rotoscope the likenesses of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher et al, or recast.

I'd love a straight adaptation of the books (obviously), but I'd very much prefer they recast our heroes.  If Kirk, Spock, and Scotty can be recast, then so can OT Star Wars.  In fact, as I've said before, I think the casting of Star Trek 2009 was expertly handled.  No reason Star Wars couldn't be handled just as well.  To me, finding some weird way to work in the original actors would be distracting.

Post
#604622
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

My apologies if this has been linked in here already.  As a non-Lucas Star Wars fan and huge Zahn nerd, my very first thought when they made the announcement was "They have to get Bryce Dallas Howard to play Mara".  ;-)

Most of us (and the rest of fandom) have been wondering what this means for the suddenly announced future films, the theatrical originals, why Lucas did this, etc, etc, and rightly so. 

That said; I had to laugh when I logged on to Facebook yesterday and there was a post by Zahn saying Disney hasn't contacted him about the Thrawn Trilogy, but he would hop on a plane immediately if they wanted to talk.  Said he'd charter one personally if he had to.  ;-)

Nice to know I'm not the only one who would love to see EU, non-Lucas Star Wars.  This goes back to what Alex and I touched on several pages back.  Some people see this as a bad thing, some see it as a good thing.  Either way, one thing is certain.  Star Wars the entity just got a whole lot more interesting.

Post
#604164
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

evan1975 said:

Oh yeah, I forgot to ask, how are the apologists handling this?

They seem to be mainly in two camps,  1. They think it's horrible because it means the story is no longer complete - the way they think it is and should be.  2. They are convinced that behind the scenes, Lucas will retain full creative rights and intellectual property control.  Apparently they have no idea how Disney operates.  ;-)

Today they took a hit - the way we did 15 years ago.  Funny to see them scramble to make sense of the wrong they were just dealt.  Being a powerless, voiceless fan - it sucks.

Post
#604155
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

Alexrd said:

To me, anything Star Wars related...has to come from his mind

Considering I'm the polar opposite - I only follow\own\care about Star Wars that is non-Lucas - this has the potential to be positive.

Abrams got Star Trek back to it's roots, so maybe Disney can give the world something Star Wars other than the twirling colors, small galaxy, children's films that Lucas turned them into in 1983.

 

 

Post
#603966
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

For us, things can't really get worse.  George said never with regard to theatrical versions and there aren't levels of never.  I'll follow this with mild interest. 

That said;  Put me firmly in the camp of there will be sequels\prequels.  Disney is every bit the leviathan that LFL is.  They'll make billions from this.

Post
#601748
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

No Spoilers

Fantastic.  I figured I'd find it entertaining. If anything, just for the historical significance.  However, I had no idea I'd dig it as much as I did.  It's the true story of a joint Canadian\American operation during the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1980, when I was 18 years old.

It's weird to see a film discussing important historical events that took place when I was old enough to remember them vividly and care about them.  The fact that it was happening when I was a high school senior made for some very timely Social Studies and History discussions. For my generation, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a very big deal.

It was weird to revisit that time via film.  A time that is still very clear in my memory. To try to put it in perspective for the 20-somethings on the board;  It would be what it may be like for your generation 30 years from now when there is a film about The Arab Spring.

It's very topical now, so you'll remember it very well  when you're 50 years old - while there will be 20-year-olds in your audience that will be thinking "man, that must have been a big deal at the time".

Anyway, the film is expertly handled and very interesting.  Fantastic cast, acting, and depth.  I'll buy this when it's released.

An easy 6 out of 6 passports.