Post Praetorian said:
If mankind were on the brink of discovering time travel, would it be better that the knowledge be shared universally or banned outright?
Time travel already exists within the laws of physics. You can't ban the laws of physics.
Bingowings said:
imperialscum said:
I make these observations:
1. If majority liked story-driven and character-driven films, the Hollywood would surely make them. The studios probe the audience and when they get a feedback on what people dig the most they start making just that.
2. They surely aren't making CGI action driven films because that would be cheaper compared to making a story/character driven films, as so many falsely assume around here. Making all the fancy CGI scenes costs lightyears more than just picking a story/character-focused screenplay, or adopt one of the countless great books out there. Many young writers are producing countless of screenplays every year. The studios pick what people like and what sells best in the end.
3. If Lucas/PT is guilty of anything, it is merely discovering what majority of people currently like the most.
1.I doubt it.
2.The reason why we get these brand fixated painted by numbers movies is because business managers are risk adverse.
If studios are going to make an expensive film about AI run amok (for one example) it's easier to stick the words Terminator or Galactica on the poster than take a risk with something new (risks can be taken but they tend to be lower budget). With those brands comes a level of audience expectation. When the plot to kill John Conner and replace him with a sympathetic cyborg was leaked before the release of Terminator Salvation, the resulting fandemonium made the studio flinch and rework the film to death.
Potentially astonishing sequels like Alien 3 were screwed up by studio anxiety about a pricey brand with a history of success. That also led to a screwy prequel or three.
3.I concede that generally speaking audiences are a bit like patrons at a restaurant. Some people know their way around the menu, some people are willing to take a stab at something new but most people will settle for something they know. And in this respect the marketing bots are probably on the right track.
Well I agree with the point that people stick to what they know and what they like. But that point is viable in "using established franchise vs making new one" argument.
However, I was mainly trying to point out that the notion that Hollywood studios go for CGI-action focused film because they are cheaper than story/character focused films is completely wrong. It is completely opposite.
That leads to the second point I was trying to make. Apparently majority of audience prefers CGI-action focused films, otherwise studios would not invest so much money into their production and would rather make less-expensive story/character focused films instead.
And I must also note that this does not mean that story/character focused films are not being produced. They are but they just don't seem to attract many people.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Yeah The Adventures of Robin Hood is my fourth favorite film of all time. That is a classic film.
Which are first three?
Anchorhead said:
If it's strictly the style over substance trend, Independence Day, Armageddon, and the Matrix trilogy are every bit as responsible.
You see... "style" and especially "substance" of film are something completely subjective. So it is unreasonable to make such generalisation based on your opinion.
I make these observations:
1. If majority liked story-driven and character-driven films, the Hollywood would surely make them. The studios probe the audience and when they get a feedback on what people dig the most they start making just that.
2. They surely aren't making CGI action driven films because that would be cheaper compared to making a story/character driven films, as so many falsely assume around here. Making all the fancy CGI scenes costs lightyears more than just picking a story/character-focused screenplay, or adopt one of the countless great books out there. Many young writers are producing countless of screenplays every year. The studios pick what people like and what sells best in the end.
3. If Lucas/PT is guilty of anything, it is merely discovering what majority of people currently like the most.
Nocturnaloner said:
imperialscum said:
The only film of PT that can be fixed by editing is TPM.
I'm not even with you on that one. Having Anakin be born on Tatooine, and sticking us as viewers on Tatooine, again, was a terrible idea. Casting him as an 8 year old, golden haired chipmunk with a cringeworthy love interest 10 years older than him, was a series of terrible ideas. To make matters worse, Jake Lloyd was terrible, and there's no getting around that. Not to say I didn't enjoy parts of all the prequel movies, but none of them can be truly fixed.
I am not saying TPM is good. I am just saying that pretty much anything in TPM is lightyears better than the annoying unlikable Anakin in AOTC and ROTS.
The only film of PT that can be fixed by editing is TPM. AOTC and ROTS are unfixable. If you wanted to fix them you would need to remove 70% of the scenes related to the main character (Anakin) where he acts like an annoying unlikable jerk. If you did that then the films would no longer make any sense since it was the storyline that prescribed him being an annoying unlikeable jerk. Even a remake would not fix them since the foundations (storyline, main character) would have to be completely altered.
Ok.
Possessed said:
Other than the governing power in china is the Chinese...ahem... Communist... excuse me... party, yeah you're right.
Well North Korea calls itself "Democratic". Does that make it democratic?
Possessed said:
I don't believe the question was "Do you care about directors".
The reasonable options to answer that question would be "yes or "no".
The reasonable answer to the current thread's question would be "Joe, Bob and Rob" or "I have no preference". I went for the later as that is my opinion and added some explanation as a bonus...
TV's Frink said:
imperialscum said:
TV's Frink said:
imperialscum said:
I really don't have any preference over directors. I think generally people give way to much credit to directors (especially when they aren't screenwriters).
...
The primary things that concern the director, i.e. acting, camera work and on-set details, are really secondary to me when it comes to determining whether I will like the film or not.
So basically, you like reading books.
Not particularly.
In that case, what you said was complete nonsense.
Not really. Screenplay is not a book. It is a blueprint for a film. And what happened to the part where I said I am into visual design as well?
TV's Frink said:
imperialscum said:
I really don't have any preference over directors. I think generally people give way to much credit to directors (especially when they aren't screenwriters).
...
The primary things that concern the director, i.e. acting, camera work and on-set details, are really secondary to me when it comes to determining whether I will like the film or not.
So basically, you like reading books.
Not particularly.
I really don't have any preference over directors. I think generally people give way to much credit to directors (especially when they aren't screenwriters).
For me the crucial things that determines the film are the story and screenplay, and in some cases visual design too (for example H.R. Giger for Alien; McQuarrie and Johnston for OT).
The primary things that concern the director, i.e. acting, camera work and on-set details, are really secondary to me when it comes to determining whether I will like the film or not.
DrCrowTStarwars said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
I'd like to visit China, but my lack of a passport, money, and desire to bolster the economy of a corrupt communist regime all get in the way.
How is that any worse then bolstering the economy of a corrupt capitalist regime?
China isn't communist. They run a hardcore capitalism. Well they have single party system, but that's no different from US two-party system with two (in reality) exactly the same parties.
DuracellEnergizer said:
In the case of SW (aka ANH), I could see why fighters were involved in a space campaign -- so I'm willing to excuse it -- but from ROTJ onward, I just don't get the logic of fighters involving themselves in battles with capital ships; they don't have the firepower to take down large ships, so basically they're just being wasted blowing away other fighters.
So yeah -- I'm hoping the ST limits fighters to surface battles and leaves the big space battles to the larger ships.
That's absurd. It is like saying that aircraft were useless against ships in pacific theatre of WW2, when it was completely opposite.
In fact, starfighters are the only thing that makes the rebel victory in ROTJ reasonable... assuming rebels had better bombers (B-Wings) that devastated imperial ships.
Possessed said:
He was in a sense being deceitful. While it is true that Frink said he hates all religions, he was being sarcastic, so I don't see how that makes it admissible.
What are you? His lawyer? Anyway so that makes me a judge and in my court all that counts are written facts. I don't care what he "actually" intended or whether he had a period at the time or dissociative identity disorder (well perhaps if have a certificate).
Possessed said:
Of course it's all insignificant, but he shouldn't throw somebody under the bus and say lies about them just because he disagrees with them.
Well to be honest I just read the first two paragraphs and he didn't lie about those. I then made the generalisation across the rest.
TV's Frink said:
I'm not sure exactly what argument you think I'm having...and I'm certainly not insignificant.
You weren't having an argument... you were the argument.
Possessed said:
And I shouldn't have to find anything because I'm not the one who was making accusations. I wanted DrCrow to have to find them since he was the one saying absurd things about him.
Well a petty forum argument doesn't really warrant citing every little nonsense... especially when it comes down to quotes of an insignificant troll. :)
Possessed said:
DrCrowTStarwars said:
He has also made it clear that he hates all religious people and wants to see any religion he personally finds stupid banned. Quote?
If he does practice the Jewish faith in his own way then how come he is allowed to do that but this player isn't allowed to practice his faith in his own way? Quote?
The only reason he is saying anything is because he disagrees with this man's faith and wants it banned. Quote?
Just remember that while it may start with what you think is 'over the top and idiotic" once that door is opened it can never be closed and you can't complain when they come for you if someone decides that just saying you are Jewish, or Christian, or Hindu, is "over the top and idiotic". He wasn't talking about his religion you jackass he was talking about the way he preached it.
I find the idea that someone should be offended by a player giving god credit for something in a game over the top and stupid myself. It was the manner not the message.
Well i will not waste any more breath on him. I just think banned people from speaking because we find what they have to say stupid is a very bad and dangerous idea. Again, got a quote for where he said this?
Let's see some quotes.
Here are quotes for the first and second. Find the rest yourself.
My memory is super amazing... but I don't want to waste my time.
How can a sane person possibly like this sport?
darklordoftech said:
TV's Frink said:
darklordoftech said:
If this article is anything to go by:
http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/How-George-Lucas-Star-Wars-7-Ideas-Were-Used-By-Disney-69271.html
I'd say WRONG THREAD if this thread was actually about something.
I'd say RIGHT THREAD if this thread was about the OOT.
I would say LEFT THREAD if this thread was on the left.
TV's Frink said:
He wants what he wants and wants someone else to do it for him.
It is my pleasure to inform you that you were selected for this honour.
What would have made the prequels better in your opinion?
I would have made the prequels better.