Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
StillKirok

General Star Wars Discussion

1,162 posts in this topic

Hmm...I like the idea. Just forget them. The trick will be if the new movies are able to do erase them by being great in quality. If they don't, the prequels run the risk of becoming the foreshadowing moment for the franchise. 

That I can't quite believe. Abrams loves Star Wars too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...I like the idea. Just forget them. The trick will be if the new movies are able to do erase them by being great in quality. If they don't, the prequels run the risk of becoming the foreshadowing moment for the franchise. 

That I can't quite believe. Abrams loves Star Wars too much.

Normally, I wouldn't be worried but we saw what Singer did with Superman Returns. I appreciated the love for 'our' Superman but it didn't work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...I like the idea. Just forget them. The trick will be if the new movies are able to do erase them by being great in quality. If they don't, the prequels run the risk of becoming the foreshadowing moment for the franchise. 

That I can't quite believe. Abrams loves Star Wars too much.

Normally, I wouldn't be worried but we saw what Singer did with Superman Returns. I appreciated the love for 'our' Superman but it didn't work. 

We won't know what Abrams ends up doing until the day it drops, but Singers biggest problems were trying to give Superman too much emotional baggage, making him a deadbeat father and not so super person, and, I might havbeen able to forgive that if he hadn't copied beats from the 70s original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to dismiss Superman Returns as a movie where they had the right type of guy, who just happened to do a very bad job.  Just because that happened doesn't mean that the idea wasn't right.

Singer had the love, but not the understanding to pull off Superman.

The only thing he got right was the music, but that alone won't make a good movie.  He should have used the music, but adapted the character more in line with how he is today, yet still remember that he is Superman, not Superwimp.

You want a perfect example of doing something right, look at what Ryan Coogler did with Creed, or Cynthia Cidre did with Dallas TNT.

I honestly believe that if we could magically make Stallone 30 years younger, and Coogler was able to make a chapter in the life of Rocky Balboa where Stallone could play the character at a point in his life when fighting in the ring made sense, he would have done a great job with it.

Singer should be looked at as an exception, not an invalidation that liking a franchise means you can't do it right.

Hopefully, Abrams nailed it. 

 

As for the prequels, what is so amazing about them is that Lucas is the one that made them.  Seeing someone screw up his own masterpiece is really unique and hard to fathom.  It's hard because how do you tell Lucas that he doesn't get it?

Yet clearly, the prequels show that he didn't seem to get what the fans loved about the original trilogy.

That said, the lightsaber battles in the prequel were awesome, though that's about it.

Lucas to this day still defends a lot of changes he made that many fans hate, but it's an example of how he didn't get it, and hopefully Abrams did a great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that, in ST09, I saw the elements for a good Star Wars movie all over the place.  Arguably those elements were far more appropriate for a SW movie than the Star Trek movie they belonged to, so based on that 'audition movie'?  I think TFA is in the right hands.

People could've arguably said the same thing (and did) about Singer and Superman Returns, since he successfully helmed two X-Men movies at that point, but the X-Men movies aren't quite Superman movies (or at least the Donner Superman movies); there's a very different vibe to them.  The whole Marvel vs. DC thing at play.   But Singer tried to make a Donner Superman movie for a world that was a bit too cynical, and so he tried to shoehorn in 'modern' problems (deadbeat dad, stalking the ex, etc) and the hybrid result just wasn't as successful with the mass audiences the way it should've been.   Post modern Superman just didn't fly.   I personally admired the film for a lot of reasons (even while acknowledging its flaws) but there were shortcomings in the script and one or two in the casting that kind of sunk it a bit.

TFA doesn't really have those same issues; most of the original cast is back, the scripting is being done by a pro who arguably wrote the best Star Wars movie of all time,  the producer/director is the guy who (for better or worse) ushered the Star Trek movie series back into profitability and popularity (even if STID was hindered by a lead-weight clunker of a script).   ST09 was a ST movie that felt much more like Star Wars at its heart; I half-expected young Jim Kirk to see two suns in that Iowan sunrise...

And while trailers are a tough means of judging the quality of a movie (Phantom Menace had an awesome trailer), there are enough right ingredients in TFA to have at least a small measure of optimism.  

Will it make me feel like a 10 year old again?  Doubtful.  You can't get your 'movie virginity' back once you've lost it; and my generation lost it in that summer of '77 when all movies changed forever (others lost theirs in '93 with Jurassic Park, or in '99 with The Matrix).    But.... I will settle for a fun, energetic movie with good characters that is at least better than the failed prequel trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what kills me about Singer--he DID make good X Men movies.  But he was so wrong about Superman.  It wasn't that he was wrong to use Donner as his guide, but it's that he completely got the character all wrong.  I saw the love of the character, but not the understanding.

He wasn't Superman.  He was Superwimp.

It's like he never asked himself the question--would Superman do this?  Should Superman do this?

The whole premise was messed up. 

And the thing is, everything was set up to turn Lex Luthor from the pre-Crisis guy to the post-Crisis guy and he didn't do it.

The opening scene, where Luthor conned Noel Neill out of her money set the stage.  Luthor didn't need to have some evil plan to make a rock.  He could have used his intellect to turn the millions he just got and turn it into billions, setting himself up as the super businessman.

At that point, he's a multi-billionaire and could BUY all the land he wanted.  Even better, he could use those billions to make a new public image and boom--he's the modern Lex Luthor.

As for Superman--giving him a son with Lois was ridiculous.  That's something you do in a story that ends Superman's life as an active hero, like in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.  That's not something you do if you are restarting a franchise and planning on making many movies.

But worse--to have Superman be some sort of deadbeat dad and a stalker was so out of character.

But even worse--if this is truly a sequel to the Donner films--how do you have Superman leave Earth to do a lap around Krypton?  He would NEVER do that--especially at the cost of SIX YEARS.  He already knew Krypton's location from his time with Jor-El.  It was several galaxies away, so how NASA could discover it made no sense.  But he promised the President he would never leave the people without him again, and he does some sort of lap around the universe?

And he was too much of a coward to say goodbye to Lois? 

 

Singer just dropped the ball.

 

That said, it does NOT mean Abrams will, and I think SINGER was the exception, not the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that Singer was too close to his subject to be objective to its issues.  Despite Abrams' obvious passion for his subject, he also has the advantage of having the SW prequels as a model for what not to do in his movie.   Singer was trying to kick start the Superman franchise after a long slumber with only the Donner movies as a guide.  As much as I love the Donner movies, they were made for a different era.   It felt a bit awkward in the post 9/11 era.  

Star Wars is luckier in that regard because the story is timeless; it's Lancelot, Camelot, Excalibur and all other kinds of mythologies from different ages and eras (including the Space Age) all blended together.   "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away..."  It's not as 'time-stamped' as say, a Superman or an X-Men movie.   The hardest part is ignoring the junk of the prequels (when Lucas himself got lost in the forest) and try to reboot SW from a purer, more honest place.  

I don't entirely know if Abrams has accomplished this, but what we've seen so far looks very promising... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if being too close was the problem.  I just think Singer himself wasn't the right guy no matter how much he loved the project.  I think it's more likely than not when you have someone of that caliber running a franchise that they love that much, the product will end up excellent.  I really feel Singer was just the exception, not the rule. 

The Donner movies themselves weren't the issue.  They are still awesome to watch and remain the best film interpretation of Superman.  It was Singer blowing it.  Routh was NOT Reeve's Superman even though he was intended to be. 

I actually don't think Star Wars is different.  The prequels show that you can totally screw up Star Wars.  And who is closer than Lucas?

It happens.  We need to hope, and I'm guessing it will work, that Abrams' talent and love of the franchise translates.  I have to believe it will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if being too close was the problem.  I just think Singer himself wasn't the right guy no matter how much he loved the project.  I think it's more likely than not when you have someone of that caliber running a franchise that they love that much, the product will end up excellent.  I really feel Singer was just the exception, not the rule. 

The Donner movies themselves weren't the issue.  They are still awesome to watch and remain the best film interpretation of Superman.  It was Singer blowing it.  Routh was NOT Reeve's Superman even though he was intended to be. 

I actually don't think Star Wars is different.  The prequels show that you can totally screw up Star Wars.  And who is closer than Lucas?

That is precisely what I mean by someone being 'too close' to a subject to give it what it needs, and not what they want personally (i.e. Lucas and his prequels, Singer and his underperforming Superman/would-be Donner film).   This is where a good storyteller (in SW's case, Larry Kasdan) might be of help.  

Sometimes it's best to have a partnership; the 'fan' filmmaker who is passionate, and the objective storyteller who knows good story structure and drama.   Put those together and you've really got something....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, this person who is a great fan of the franchise should also be that good storyteller.  It's not like it's impossible.  Like I said, Singer is the exception, not the rule.  Look at Doctor Who for example--Davies and Moffat were huge fans and their encyclopedia level knowledge comes through big time in that franchise.

Cynthia Cidre--what she did on Dallas TNT was nearly impossible, yet the quality of that show rivaled its hey day.

And we all just saw what Ryan Coogler did with Creed.

There is no excuse to make a bad Superman movie.  Singer had the right attitude, but just screwed it up. 

You're right that you need a big fan of the franchise and an objective storyteller, but there is absolutely no reason that it can't be the same guy.

I think Singer was a big fan, but I don't think he gets the character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not why.  Superman has lasted for 75 years because he IS such a strong character.  He's been successfully adapted on television and in cartoons.  The only area that has failed has been in the movies, and that's because the people put in charge are clueless about the character.

Think of some of the ideas that DIDN'T make it--like having Superman driving a car, or Luthor being a Kryptonian. 

DC characters are a lay up, but they miss the mark because they just don't understand Superman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

This is true. There have only been two good Superman films and Donner did them both. The rest range from, "meh" to "I want that two hours of my life back."

And he is difficult to adapt because he's a boy scout. He's morally perfect, and that's dull as dirt because no one's like that. Try to add some grey and it looks forced because everyone knows the character is morally perfect. Then, if they stray too far, he comes off looking like a criminal.

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

This is true. There have only been two good Superman films and Donner did them both. The rest range from, "meh" to "I want that two hours of my life back."

And he is difficult to adapt because he's a boy scout. He's morally perfect, and that's dull as dirt because no one's like that. Try to add some grey and it looks forced because everyone knows the character is morally perfect. Then, if they stray too far, he comes off looking like a criminal.

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Arguably, Star Wars is equally difficult; the first two movies (ANH, TESB) were the only ones I consider true classics; the rest range from mediocre (ROTJ, ROTS) to downright awful (TPM, AOTC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

This is true. There have only been two good Superman films and Donner did them both. The rest range from, "meh" to "I want that two hours of my life back."

And he is difficult to adapt because he's a boy scout. He's morally perfect, and that's dull as dirt because no one's like that. Try to add some grey and it looks forced because everyone knows the character is morally perfect. Then, if they stray too far, he comes off looking like a criminal.

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Arguably, Star Wars is equally difficult; the first two movies (ANH, TESB) were the only ones I consider true classics; the rest range from mediocre (ROTJ, ROTS) to downright awful (TPM, AOTC)

I give Sith a C- and when that's by far the best of your trilogy you have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

This is true. There have only been two good Superman films and Donner did them both. The rest range from, "meh" to "I want that two hours of my life back."

And he is difficult to adapt because he's a boy scout. He's morally perfect, and that's dull as dirt because no one's like that. Try to add some grey and it looks forced because everyone knows the character is morally perfect. Then, if they stray too far, he comes off looking like a criminal.

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Arguably, Star Wars is equally difficult; the first two movies (ANH, TESB) were the only ones I consider true classics; the rest range from mediocre (ROTJ, ROTS) to downright awful (TPM, AOTC)

I give Sith a C- and when that's by far the best of your trilogy you have problems.

Gets about a C- from me as well; that dialogue... it's like nails on a chalkboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness. No excuse to make a bad Superman movie? Plenty of factors come into play. Plenty of reasons. Superman has made more bad movies than good, maybe because he isn't as strong or as easy a character to adapt as you think. 

This is true. There have only been two good Superman films and Donner did them both. The rest range from, "meh" to "I want that two hours of my life back."

And he is difficult to adapt because he's a boy scout. He's morally perfect, and that's dull as dirt because no one's like that. Try to add some grey and it looks forced because everyone knows the character is morally perfect. Then, if they stray too far, he comes off looking like a criminal.

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Arguably, Star Wars is equally difficult; the first two movies (ANH, TESB) were the only ones I consider true classics; the rest range from mediocre (ROTJ, ROTS) to downright awful (TPM, AOTC)

I give Sith a C- and when that's by far the best of your trilogy you have problems.

Gets about a C- from me as well; that dialogue... it's like nails on a chalkboard. 

I am firmly in the D range. Still too boring and plenty of stuff that doesn't make sense.  It is all just flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's NOT easy to adapt theatrically because, in forty years, only one person has done it.

Because the wrong people have been in charge.  There's no difference between adapting a character on TV and in the movies.  If anything it would be easier in the movies because you have a bigger budget and can throw more into a story. 

We have all discussed in various franchises, be it Rocky, Star Trek, or more relevant to this thread, Star Wars, the importance of character driven stories.  That's what would work for Superman too, but the essence of that is understanding the character. 

For Superman, you need to get who he is and what drives him, and of course, cast an actor that can convey those emotions.  Superman is confident but warm.  He inspires people to be better.

His fears exist, but they only come out when he can't help someone.  Perfect example would be when Non and Ursa had the bus filled with people, and Superman was helpless to prevent them from throwing it.  Or when Darkseid murdered Dan Turpin for no reason, and Superman lost it.

Moments like this would be amazing and powerful, and you don't need the big budget. 

The TV shows capture the warmth of this world.  Supergirl is doing a pretty good job there too, as I knew they would.

It's not the character.  It's the writers and choices made by the studios that is making Superman movies tough.

Back on topic, I see we are grading the prequels.

For me, the prequels' only saving grace was the lightsaber battles.

Phantom Menace--gets a D.  I thought the movie was ridiculously boring.  If the pod race was to determine that Anakin was using the Force unknowingly, fine, but why not cut a lap or three out of it?  Jar Jar?  Are you nuts?

The only thing that saves it from an F was Darth Maul and the battles that included him.  What a waste that he was killed in the first movie.  Even that wasn't perfect.  The way that Qui Jon and Maul died seemed so anti climactic after those fights. 

A kick to the gut and stabbed? 

Also, if Qui Jon could be a Force ghost, why didn't he come back sooner and help out with Anakin?

Anyway, Episode I really sucked.

 

Episode II--I give it a C-.  Also a lousy movie, but it did pick up in the last 45 minutes.  Again, it was the Jedi that saved the movie from an F.  The higher grade is due to more time dealing with the Jedi.  Less Jar Jar also helped.  Plus, if you didn't enjoy Yoda's fight scene, I don't know what to say.  That was great stuff.

 

Episode III--C+.  Best of the prequels.  But bad dialogue and casting hurt the film.  We've discussed this before, but Anakin's murder of the Jedi children to me, ruined the ending in Jedi.  I can't reconcile it with any good he did.  It would take a lot more good on Anakin's part to make up for that sin, if that's even possible.  And that also depends on if you believe that punishment is more important than rehabilitation.  That's another topic, but that scene alone brought the movie down.  Also, Padme's death remains ridiculous.  She died because she felt like it.  WTF?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Plus, if you didn't enjoy Yoda's fight scene, I don't know what to say.  That was great stuff.

Sorry but Yoda's fight with Dooku elicited too many laughs in the theatre to be taken seriously; he looked like a frog on a hot plate.  Too cartoonish and silly; it had no gravitas at all.   Might as well have been watching Mighty Mouse vs. The Hulk. 

AOTC remains the all-time nadir of the SW franchise for me; you know a SW movie is in trouble when you look at your watch almost as much as the screen.  An irredeemable F.   Nothing about it was truly enjoyable for me.    Even the Fett/Kenobi asteroid chase seemed ripped off from "Empire."  And the romance was literally unwatchable.   It's Tommy Wiseau's "The Room"-level bad.

tearing-me-apart.gifattack-clones8.gif

I have not seen it in full since the theatrical run back in 2002.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoda's fight with Dooku got the reaction it was intended to get.  He stole the movie. 

It was unexpected to see him that amazing.  Finally, after all those years, the audience gets to see why Yoda was such a badass, and that laughter was joy at seeing Yoda kick so much butt. 

In Avengers, when Hulk grabbed Loki and threw him around, that got the same type of laugh because it came out of nowhere, and was unexpected awesomeness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phantom Menace - D. More watchable than I expected when I recently watched it, but still a biring incoherent mess. 

Attack of the Clones - F. Everything in this movie looks fake and awful, it is boring, with bad acting and cartoony action scenes, and sorry StillKirok but I am with Vie here...that Yoda fight was dumb and goofy. I like Yoda as a mystic, that is why he is cool. We didn't need to see him doing a bunch of exhausting flips to realize he was cool. It diminished him from wise mystic Master to a tiny cartoon ninja. Worst of the franchise. 

Revenge of the Sith - D. Its just as bad as the others really, it just puts Anakin in a suit we are all familiar with. The lightsaber fight that seems to be the main reason people love this one, and I like it too...until about the half hour mark when I'd rather they just get on with it. Lots of bad acting, plenty of lousy ideas, and it still just stinks. 

A New Hope - like an B+ to A-. I like it, and it holds up well enough, but it is a tad dated and I think had Empire not been as good as it was it might have lost some of its grip on the public. Still it is a classic and it works. 

Empire - A+. Kind of perfect entertainment, blends action, adventure, characterization, emotion, humor and drama. Just the best kind of movie. It may be a sequel, but in almost every eay it surpassed the original. 

Jedi - Solid B range. Not perfect, admittedly flawed but still some good entertainment with characters I love. Everything with Luke and the Emperor is top notch. I personally don't hate the Ewoks. They really aren't that irritating to me. As a kid I loved this movie the best, but as an adult I can see it isn't the strongest. I have nostalgia for it and I really don't think it is that bad or should be on the same plane as any prequel really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but Yoda's fight with Dooku elicited too many laughs in the theatre to be taken seriously; he looked like a frog on a hot plate.  Too cartoonish and silly; it had no gravitas at all.   Might as well have been watching Mighty Mouse vs. The Hulk.

This.

Most of the people in my theater laughed and laughed throughout."Yaaaaah...raaaaah." and him jumping around like an idiot. He wasn't a badass, He was unintentionally funny and having him fight that doesn't display mastery of the force, it's just the lowest common denominator in that it's trying to force a character of uncommon height to fight as though he were.

Someone of his size using the force meets the sword. They jump to the wall and launch an attack from high ground. (which he did do once or twice as I recall) They force push at every opportunity and lob everything in the environment at Dooku throughout. An opponent like Yoda keeps Dooku off balance causing a mistake.

Instead we get a squealing, rabid Tasmanian Devil. 

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoda's fight with Dooku got the reaction it was intended to get.  He stole the movie. 

Yes, but not in the way it should've; it wound up looking ridiculous, not cool.  There's a gulf of dfference between laughing with a character and laughing AT them.

Instead we get a squealing, rabid Tasmanian Devil. 

^
Speaking of WB cartoon characters... after the fight, I half-expected Yoda to put on a top hat and do this:

ga7pCnI.gif

 Finally, after all those years, the audience gets to see why Yoda was such a badass, 

When he lifted Luke's x-wing fighter out of the swamp on Dagobah?  THAT was badass.

But when he leaped around a CGI double of Chris Lee like a spastic cartoon?  That was ridiculous.  I also wanted Yoda to WIN.   That would've been bad ass.  

Instead he just hopped around, and avoided getting cut up into green veal cutlets by an 80 year old man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he lifted Luke's x-wing fighter out of the swamp on Dagobah?  THAT was badass.

No doubt. A little kid could watch that in awe. 

 Instead he just hopped around, and avoided getting cut up into green veal cutlets by an 80 year old man...

Indeed. And that was even before he confronts the emperor in a fight that he was winning, or, at the very least, not losing, when he bailed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0