Mondess122

Mondess122 said:

Anyone noticed from the trailer how the film might follow the same story structure from the first film?

Person A, who was involved in a fight with (the remnant of) the Empire and knows a terrible secret about them (R2-D2, Finn), crashes on a deserty planet. There he meets Person B (Luke, Rey), who's sick and tired of living on said deserty planet and wants to go on an adventure / leave it. The Empire tracks down Person A's location, Person B's place gets destroyed by the Empire as a result. They're now forced to escape the planet and they meet Han and Chewbacca, who take them off the deserty planet after a short exciting fight scene. Meanwhile, there's Person C (Leia, Poe Dameron), who's been captured by the Empire under command of Person D - who has a mask and a morphed voice - (Vader, Kylo Ren) (Twist might be that he is related to Luke?). Person C is manipulated into giving information to Person D, and he is forced to see his planet get destroyed by the secret(?) superweapon - which has a giant laser and a long trench (Death Star / Starkiller Base). Person A, who's now been trained to use the force and / or a lightsaber, fights Person D but loses (dies?). Person B is sad of this loss. The film ends with a massive dogfight, where the rebels have to destroy the Empire's superweapon. Superweapon gets destroyed, huge explosion, big celebration, cue end credits. We don't find out the exact identity of Person D and while he *might* have disappeared (sorta-kinda cliffhangers for the next movie), surprise surprise, he returns in the next movie!

Again, just a mostly silly theory. I might be looking too much into it and I see its holes; I don't know where all the stuff on the forest planet would fit in in, for example (place where Finn learns to use the force and / or a lightsaber, I guess). 

 No thoughts on this silly theory by a silly lurker? );

Anyone noticed from the trailer how the film might follow the same story structure from the first film?

Person A, who was involved in a fight with (the remnant of) the Empire and knows a terrible secret about them (R2-D2, Finn), crashes on a deserty planet. There he meets Person B (Luke, Rey), who's sick and tired of living on said deserty planet and wants to go on an adventure / leave it. The Empire tracks down Person A's location, Person B's place gets destroyed by the Empire as a result. They're now forced to escape the planet and they meet Han and Chewbacca, who take them off the deserty planet after a short exciting fight scene. Meanwhile, there's Person C (Leia, Poe Dameron), who's been captured by the Empire under command of Person D - who has a mask and a morphed voice - (Vader, Kylo Ren) (Twist might be that he is related to Luke?). Person C is manipulated into giving information to Person D, and he is forced to see his planet get destroyed by the secret(?) superweapon - which has a giant laser and a long trench (Death Star / Starkiller Base). Person A, who's now been trained to use the force and / or a lightsaber, fights Person D but loses (dies?). Person B is sad of this loss. The film ends with a massive dogfight, where the rebels have to destroy the Empire's superweapon. Superweapon gets destroyed, huge explosion, big celebration, cue end credits. We don't find out the exact identity of Person D and while he *might* have disappeared (sorta-kinda cliffhangers for the next movie), surprise surprise, he returns in the next movie!

Again, just a mostly silly theory. I might be looking too much into it and I see its holes; I don't know where all the stuff on the forest planet would fit in in, for example (place where Finn learns to use the force and / or a lightsaber, I guess). 

Also, notice how in the very first shots a starfield gets wiped away by Rey? Maybe we don't get the traditional pan-down after the opening crawl if the first shots of the trailer are also the very first shots after the crawl, although it seems unlikely.

Tobar said:

Mondess122 said:

Tobar said:

2:00

 But that's a reporter asking if there will ever be a sequel. That's not the same as the filmmakers deliberately changing the ending so that there will be room for sequels, which I don't think was their intention to begin with - unless someone has a source which states otherwise.

James Cameron said:

Basically, what I did in Terminator 2 is say that everything is meant to be a certain way. At least to that point in time where they're sending somebody back from that future. But can you grab that line of history like it's a rope stretched between two points, and pull it out of the way? If you can pull it just a little bit before it rebounds, and cut it exactly at that moment, then you can change it and go in a different direction. If you do that you get a future that no longer exists at all, except in the memories of the people that are here now.

But there was a sense that, why tie it up with a bow? If the future is changeable, then the battle is something that has to be fought continuously. And you can't do it with a single stroke. That it's the dualism, the dynamic between good and evil that's eternal.

 But, again, to me it seems that they made the ending open-ended for the sake of making it open-ended, not (necessarily) so that sequels could get made.

Neglify said:

Mondess122 said:

Tobar said:

2:00

 But that's a reporter asking if there will ever be a sequel. That's not the same as the filmmakers deliberately changing the ending so that there will be room for sequels, which I don't think was their intention to begin with - unless someone has a source which states otherwise.

You totally mis-interpreted the Cam there. He's telling us all to not talk about Terminator 3! 

 I do wish it was still kept a secret...

Tobar said:

2:00

 But that's a reporter asking if there will ever be a sequel. That's not the same as the filmmakers deliberately changing the ending so that there will be room for sequels, which I don't think was their intention to begin with - unless someone has a source which states otherwise.

Aren't sequels - in most cases - by definition cash grabs?

Guess we can't get that mad about the prequels anymore, you guise.

Searching for perfect logic in a time travel film? Good luck with that. :P

Ryan McAvoy said:

Mondess122 said:

Tobar said:

 Erm, you know they changed the original ending to make it open for sequels....

 Erm, no? Sure, they made the ending open-ended so you can pick your own conclusion, but it never flat-out stated "Oh yeah, Judgment Day will still happen".

I assumed all possibility of Judgement day had been melted in that furnace at the end of T2. I also assumed that original playground ending hadn't been used simply because it looked like a piece of sh*t ;-)

Exactly. Cyberdyne got destroyed, the basis for Skynet got destroyed, both Terminators got destroyed. I don't see how they would build Skynet from the ground up again, yet they somehow did in T3 - which got never explained. Truly lazy writing.

And yeah, future Sarah Connor sure looks creepy.

Tobar said:

Mondess122 said:

What the hell. Talk about the most retconned film franchise of all time; it makes even the retconning in the prequels look mild in comparison. Why piss all over the final lines of T2?

"'The Future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves'? Flush it down the toilet! We have to make a sequel somehow! Moneyz!"

I can't imagine Genisys going over well.

 Erm, you know they changed the original ending to make it open for sequels....

 Erm, no? Sure, they made the ending open-ended so you can pick your own conclusion, but it never flat-out stated "Oh yeah, Judgment Day will still happen". I always thought Judgment Day had been prevented from happening. That open ending was ruined by T3.

TV's Frink said:

For anyone looking for an improved T3...

 I don't know, I don't think this is a fixable turd. You can remove all the groaner jokes and change the ending a bit, but you're still stuck with shitty CGI and acting. People seem to like Uncanny Antman's version a lot though, so I might give it a shot some day.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

What the hell. Talk about the most retconned film franchise of all time; it makes even the retconning in the prequels look mild in comparison. Why piss all over the final lines of T2?

"'The Future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves'? Flush it down the toilet! We have to make a sequel somehow! Moneyz!"

I guess that's somewhat understandable - you want to make a sequel, but you can't, so you cheat and you make that clear from the start - but by the end of the movie, at least change the final message back to its original, positive meaning. What a creative way to piss people off. "Judgment Day is inevitable, you guys...we'll make the most of it!"

Also: worst groaner jokes I've seen and heard all year. It felt like it was missing a laugh track. 

1.3 out of 5 CGI gravestones.

I can't imagine Genisys going over well.

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional

 This is why I hate Lynch...

 To be honest, I was pretty 'eh' towards it. Most people either love it or hate it (a vast majority seems to love it however), but I was just in the middle. Some parts were very clever, some parts were really stupid. I get that it's a dream, a commentary on Hollywood culture and whatnot, but I generally just didn't care. Films like this (which also includes most of Kubrick's filmography) just don't do anything for me. I love analyzing themes in films like Barton Fink or The Big Lebowski, but analyzing the themes in this film and many of Kubrick's films (with possibly the only exception being (the American cut of) The Shining) very much feels like homework to me.

Mulholland Drive (2001) - ?. ?, ? ? ? ?. ?: ? ?. ? ?! ? ? ? ? ?? ?, ?. ? out of ?. 

Rope (1948) - Short but sweet film from Hitchcock. Great performances, great direction. Half of the cuts are expertly hidden, half are pretty obvious, but considering the film only had around 10 cuts, I think it's quite a daring film for its time. The experimental editing mostly paid off. 4.2 out of 5.

Obsession (1976) - Have you ever watched Vertigo and thought to yourself: man, that twist really needs more incest and convoluted nonsense. Well, you're in luck, because Brian De Palma's Obsession does just that! Seriously though, that twist was so stupid. Of all Brian De Palma's Hitchcock homages / rip-offs I've seen so far, this is by far the weakest, if mostly because of that ridiculous coincidence of a twist. The acting is not that bad and neither is the direction, even if De Palma's style is a bit more downplayed than usual. That twist just ruins it for me. 2.9 out of 5.

My advice: close the thread before it hits 72 pages.

Move along indeed.

^I don't watch that show, but that's good to know. I don't think it's very likely either, but if for some reason Frank Oz decides not to return for a future film, Tom Kane seems to be his first replacement.

I'm against this idea anyway, but if Disney decides to make a Yoda spin-off film, don't hire Tom Kane to do Yoda's voice. He's a terrible, terrible Yoda.

AuggieBenDoggie said:

From what his Facebook page says, there is not much left to do. So I'd say late summer or sometime this fall. I also suspect that work has already began on ROTJ:R. Maybe we will see a teaser for ROTJ:R on the ESB:R dvd. He had a Teaser for ESB:R on the ANH:R dvd.

However, I'm pretty sure we've been hearing that since late 2012. Not to critique anyone, but don't act shocked if this once again gets pushed to 2016 or a year later. It's almost routine at this point.

North by Northwest (1959) - Pretty good. Becomes rather tiresome when it hits its third act, but overall it's fairly enjoyable. No Vertigo or Psycho, but meh. 3.5 out of 5.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) - Truly terrible child actors aside, this one's also decent. Kind of strange though for Hitchcock to tell us right from the start there's something "off" about Charlie. Remove that opening scene, and it would've been a much more effective mystery thriller. As it is, it's quite flawed scriptwise, but Joseph Cotten's performance and the suspense building make it worth seeing. 3.35 out of 5.

Dead Ringers (1988) - Dull, to be quite honest. I don't care about the characters, I don't care about the love story, I don't care about the plot...I just don't care. I love me some Cronenberg, but it wasn't as disturbing as something like Videodrome nor as emotional as A History of Violence. It's kind of in the middle between his body horror stuff and his more recent, "less nasty" dramas, which is to its detriment, I think. Jeremy Irons is good and there's nothing that bad about the film, but it's not very engaging. 2.6 out of 5.

Crash (1996) - No. No, no, no. No. No, no. No. Just, no. No. Nooooooo. Little more than Cronenberg directed fetish porn. Big nope. 1.4 out of 5.

Is it just me, or does Rebels look too "empty" compared The Clone Wars? Granted, I've only seen snippets of both shows, but Rebels very much to me feels like a step backward (at least visually) rather than a step forward. 

Very short but also very interesting interview with director Gareth Edwards about what we can expect from Rogue One:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQsaEJMQ2wk

In short: darker, more realistic, more natural. Less about the fight between good and evil, more about the gray area. 

But who is saying that Kyle Katarn won't be in the film? Maybe he'll be in the film after all...! 

Probably not.

Somebody recorded it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NELx1y8cr1M

Man, that's DARK...I approve!

Body Double (1984) - If Dressed to Kill is De Palma's Psycho, then this is both his Vertigo and his Rear Window. Sleazy as hell, but very enjoyable. Craig Wasson looks like a cross between Jeff Bridges (in his younger years) and Bill Maher. I'd take this over his crime dramas any day of the week. Plus, it has Frankie Goes To Hollywood in it. Bonus points for that. 4.25 out of 5.

emanswfan said:

generalfrevious said:

2. JJ Abrams's last film was Star Trek Into Darkness; and the rest of his filmography isn't exactly stellar.

2. JJ didn't grow up as a Trek fan, so he didn't have the same passion, love, and care for the series as he did very much for Star Wars.

 Besides, Into Darkness's problems had to do with its script, not or barely with its director. I can say I liked all of Abrams' films I've seen so far (I haven't seen Super 8 yet), so I'm confident that it will at least be fun and not "skip to the battles" boring, like the prequels were.

Dressed to Kill (1980) - Pretty damn amazing. Why does everyone talk about De Palma's crime films, but not his pre-Scarface works? Dressed to Kill, Blow Out and Phantom of the Paradise all show you how amazing of a director Brian De Palma was. I'd argue they are much better directed than films like Scarface and Carlito's Way. Yeah, sure, he's "ripping off Hitchcock" and whatnot, but I think he's damn good at it. Sleazy fun. 4.2 out of 5.

Happy B-Day, USA! (04/07/2015)