DominicCobb

Guys, I'm sorry. I don't know how to be funny on the internet.

Also, at the risk of sounding more less intelligent, I would like to point out that it is rather obvious that my posts were jokes, and also not wrong. 

DominicCobb said:

Well M and Kincade were with him so the connection isn't that good.

Yeah, this is a fact, and I was just joking that Bond wasn't quite "Home Alone."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I think it's very easy for us here at OT.com to say we would prefer if the ST was PT neutral. We have to face the fact, though, that it won't be. We're talking about episodes 7, 8, and 9. In order for them to be 7, 8, and 9; there has to be a 1, 2, and 3. It's crazy to think they wouldn't be acknowledged. And is it really that bad that they will be?

There are actually quite a few elements of the PT I think would be great to see in the ST. A lot of it does have to deal with the jedi order. What's wrong with having a jedi council and calling apprentices padawans? If the answer is Luke wasn't told about in the OT, remember he had the ghosts of his father, Obi Wan, and Yoda to keep him company at the end. Why wouldn't they tell him? 

And what about some of the planets featured in the PT? What's wrong with revisiting Coruscant? The PT introduced quite a few planets, and I don't see why any of them shouldn't be reused in the ST.

As for Luke reforming the jedi order, and avoiding the mistakes made previously, I think it would actually be cool to have this be a plot point. It would, first of all, connect all three trilogies, and give a further continuity that I think is lacking a bit, and would give Luke a very interesting challenge to overcome.

I think, the bottom line is, though, I get that people here don't like the PT. But the PT is still part of the SW saga. I get that many people don't like how the story played out in the PT. But that's how they decided it would play out. That is part of the story of the SW saga. And I get that some people want to pretend that they don't exist because of their lackluster quality. But they do exist, and will forever be the first three parts of the SW saga, whether you like it or not. 

My last post was mostly a joke as well. The thing was you quoted me (and my joke) before you went on your rant. I actually didn't even read your response.

Wow, didn't expect my joke to get such a big response.

This is a really cool topic. I think it deserves more threads.

Well M and Kincade were with him so the connection isn't that good.

Also wondering if this thread was created just for that picture...

I read somewhere that the Wolf Blitzer cameo was only for the US release.

Bingowings said:

No I disagree.

All the Jurassic Park films are wobbly but contain interesting moments.

The only thing the first one has going for it is it is the first one.

Arguably if you could splice the best bits of the two sequels in a meaningful way together you would have a better constructed film than the first one.

Deep Rising is a much better monster movie than all of them(cheaper too).

This was kind of my point. The concept's not interesting enough to warrant more stories. The other two are worse because they're not the first JP film.

Though I would be up to making the argument that the first is the best not just because it's the first.

Bringing it back to my original point, Johnston's is near the top of my list.

I think we can all agree that the first JP was by far the best.

I personally enjoy both of the sequels, but don't think either come remotely close. This is because of the aforementioned sameness. The JP concept is not one I think works well for more than one movie. There's only so much you can do with it.

As for JP3 specifically, I think in terms of style, tone, and execution, it definitely fits well with the other two, which I think gives Johnston some points. I actually think parts of JP3 are much better than TLW.

The only other Johnston films I've seen are Rocketeer and Captain America, and I think in both he proved that he can make fun, retro influenced genre films, which, last I checked was exactly what SW should be. He's not my first choice, but I think he would be a damn good one.

SPOLIERES

What I meant was killing M does not require 'slopsions. But Silvia is as annoyed with the world as he is with M, so that's why he plan is far more than just killing M. He wanted to embarrass her, and, well basically make her feel awful about her decisions - make her feel responsible for the people he killed. Then he wanted to kill her and him and end it. All while causing massive destruction.

Sorry about the Joker quote, really wanted to use it, but I will admit it kind of muddled my point.

As for the other stuff, I guess, in way a way, he did win. But he doesn't know that. He never got the satisfaction. But I think this whole situation just makes the film more interesting. Yeah, it's not a typical Bond villain. He doesn't just want to take over the world. I guess it comes down to opinion, but I loved the story we got. I loved the intricacies of the Silva character. And I think to have the final act focus on him doing whatever else would, in a way, make his character development less meaningful. I like that the culmination of the film has to deal with the culmination of his, and Bond's, character arcs.

EL FIN

^So could I

Guillermo Del Toro says it's not likely based on what's on his plate, but says he would think about it if approached. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/del-toro-on-directing-star-wars-episode-vii

SOME SPOILERS

As to Silva and his motivation, yeah, I think it was mostly getting revenge. In that sense, if M died half-way through, the end would, presumably be Bond just going after Silva. But I don't think that would be nearly as interesting.

As for it being a huge and destructive operation to get revenge against M, all I can say is, some men just want to watch the world burn. After Silva was "betrayed" he clearly had a mental breakdown of some sort and is now hell bent on getting revenge on M in the biggest, most explosive ways possible.

And, to further explain what he would do after he killed M, my best guess would be that he would kill himself.

ACTUALLY THAT WAS A LOT OF SPOILERS

Um... I would like for this to happen.

You Only Live Twice (1967) 8.5/10 - Back to Connery. I have to say I was a little disappointed in this one. My memory didn't serve me well. This used to be top 5 for me when I was younger. But it's not so exciting now. It's all very well done and goes at a great pace (something that can't be said for most Bond films), but the first two-thirds are only vaguely interesting. The last third, of course is completely awesome (though it could have done with a better henchman/final showdown). I think the imbalance comes mainly from the fact that Bond is in Japan for the majority of the film. It's just not as exciting as it should be. And why does he die at the beginning? I still don't know.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971) 7.5/10 - I like to see this one as a follow up to YOLT. As a follow up to OHMSS, it is unacceptable. But to YOLT, it's rather enjoyable. Being the second Bond film I ever saw, this was always one of my favorites as a kid. It's easy to see why. This movie is really, really fun to watch. But it has some definite downsides. Connery is bored, the Bond girls suck, Bond's final confrontation with Blofeld is anti-climactic (it doesn't really happen!), and most of the story is set in one place again, this time it's Las Vegas (side-note, I think that's the only location that both me and Bond have both been to). Still, like I said, very fun.

GoldenEye (1995) 9.5/10 - I love this movie. There's a lot great here. Brosnan, the story, the action, the characterization, the villain, the locations, the girls, and even the score (I know some people dislike it because it's not like Barry, but I think, by itself, it works). It's really a shame that Brosnan's other films weren't more like this, he really was a good choice for Bond.

Casino Royale (2006) 10/10 - I can't tell you how proud I am to be able to say that this was the first Bond film I saw in theaters. I love every bit of this movie, from start to finish. Amazing action, story, characters, locations, cars, score, everything. A great title sequence too, one of, if not, the best. I'm glad Bond got this reboot, he needed it. Bond feels real again, in fact, he feels more real here than he ever has before. And Daniel Craig does a great job. I might go so far as to say that, out of all the Bonds in all the films, he gives the single best performance here. And the ending is simply outstanding - and by that I mean both the heartbreaking Venice conclusion, and Craig's first utterance of "Bond, James Bond."

Quantum of Solace (2008) 7.5/10 - Yeah, it's pretty disappointing. I was about to do a whole write up on its shortcomings, but it basically boils down to this: it's no fun. There are a number of good aspects, though, in particular the final scene. I still very much like this movie, it's just not nearly as good as CR. Which I think is also because Bond, honestly, isn't given much to do here, character wise. Which is a real step down from CR. 

Infinitely excited about Skyfall, though. I hope to see it tonight.

One thing's for sure, EpVII needs to be smaller for many reasons. I think they should slowly build up in size to Episode IX, which, in my opinion, should be the largest movie ever. I'm kind of hoping this because I think it should be everything that ROTJ failed to be. 

Speaking of being what ROTJ failed to be, I think EpIX should have an ambiguous ending. I would have loved to have seen Luke walking into the sunset, destination unclear. So have Luke's son do just that. I think it would be awesome.

Harmy said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

Though, that being said, the bad acting didn't help matters much. Admittedly, much or most of the blame for those poor performances should be shouldered by George Lucas, especially in the case of Jake Lloyd.

I'm not saying Hayden is a great actor but I dare you to read this aloud trying to make it sound like you actually mean it and keep a straight face, let alone give a good performance:

"The thought of not being with you...I can't breathe! I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me. My heart is beating, hoping that that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me. What can I do? I will do anything that you ask. If you are suffering as much as I am, please tell me."

Jesus. Honestly, just reading that, tip of my hat to Hayden. It could have been A LOT worse.

^I think this is a very good thing. And re: prequel merit - I personally believe the prequels do have merit, and could argue as to why, though I don't think there's much a point to that. The fact of the matter is, though, these films are NOT going to just ignore the prequels. It just won't happen.

I wonder if it is even possible to have a whole new trilogy that doesn't contradict the EU. Personally, I think they should try to keep continuity, just because I think that would be cool for everyone. But the second they start bending over backwards to fit it, I would say press the reset button on the EU post-OT.

1990osu said:

I agree that Brad Bird is the only true heir of old-school Lucas and Spielberg style filmmaking. 

I would say J.J. Abrams is definitely vying for that position as well.

1990osu said:

Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and John Williams are back and Luke has a Jedi Academy where he trains Jedi in a more serious, character-driven script.   

 

It sure looks like they're off on the right foot!

Hell yes! If those script parameters are true, then we seem to be in for something that could very well live up to the OT in ways that the PT never did.

Christopher Nolan just doesn't make sense. First of all, I don't believe he would ever agree to it (just came off a blockbuster trilogy, would be working off someone else's script). Some people are saying that if he did it, it would be all gritty and such. I don't believe Nolan is dumb enough to Dark Knightify SW for a sequel. I think he would be able to make it like the others. But the thing is, I don't think he would want to. 

I'm staying with Brad Bird (though Spielberg is definitely my number one).

By the way, if the new trilogy was a reboot, I would say my number one is Nolan.

Great news!