Star Wars Land

[jt04]

No. If the Beatles had reuinited, it would have been historic. Star Wars 7 can't hope to come close to the level of buzz a Beatles reunion would have generated. Almost nothing ever could.

Getting the original stars back will generate about as much buzz as having Harrrison Ford play Indy again. On the one hand, nostalgia. On the other, aren't they too old?

Also, I think you're over-estimating the "talent behind the camera". Abrams is kind of a hack. His Star Trek movies are fun but oh so dumb. (My review of Star Trek 2 Fast 2 Furious, er I mean Into Darkness here.)

Star Wars 7 will be big. Avengers big. But not Beatles big. Not cultural phenomenon big. Not pre-release of Episode I big. It's going to be huge summer movie big. Sell lots of toys and make Disney lots of money big. It's as close to a sure fire global hit as you're going to find. But at the end of the day, it's just going to be another big budget summer movie.

Yeah, we'll find out exactly where it lands in 2 years. If people love it, it may even topple Avatar. But the 7th movie in the series can't hope to generate the same excitement of the original films or the long-awaited return of the franchise with Episode I. At this point, it's just another Star Wars movie.



Amen.

I'd say there is no bigger Star Wars fan than me. But there's some pretty huge Star Wars fans here. So I won't commit to that. I'll just say that Star Wars was formative to me. (Here's the story of my first experience with Star Wars.)

When Episode I came out, I was excited as anyone. We had waited so long. I had given up hope of ever seeing new Star Wars movies. And then, here it was. The dream realized. New Star Wars. Only it sucked. And then with Attack of the Clones we were promised it would be better. Only it wasn't. even with less Jar Jar, it was still terrible. Finally with Revenge of the Sith, slight improvement. But the prequels as a whole are just an utter disappointment.

I'm still a Star Wars fan. But those prequels can't help but take the wind out of your sails. I have faith the new films will be better because how can they not be? But based on Abrams' two Star Trek films, they can't be all that great either. At best, I expect slick empty-headed entertainment with more nostalgia than is healthy.

I think we all knew HF would come back for another Indy. But Episode VII was unlikely especially with the possibility of the original stars participating. I knew someone would mention age but that is not a limiting factor in Star Wars lore. Your opinion is welcome and interesting but you have not changed my mind. I will stick with my Beatles analogy. It is all about 'story' this time. I really enjoyed the writing for "The Hobbit" and hope for equally good writing. JJ will assure the rest works. IMO.

 

[lebeau]

I think we all knew HF would come back for another Indy. But Episode VII was unlikely especially with the possibility of the original stars participating. I knew someone would mention age but that is not a limiting factor in Star Wars lore. Your opinion is welcome and interesting but you have not changed my mind. I will stick with my Beatles analogy. It is all about 'story' this time. I really enjoyed the writing for "The Hobbit" and hope for equally good writing. JJ will assure the rest works. IMO.

Obviously, we can only deal in opinion here. There's no objective measurement. But I wouldn't go around making that Beatles compairson if I were you. You're going to embarass yourself in front of anyone who understands the cultural significance of the Beatles.

I think you are greatly over-estimating the importance and the appeal of the original cast returning for the new movie. No one knows anything - especially where Abrams is concerned - but I think conventional wisdom is that these will be cameos. Probably not all that different from Leonard Nimoy appearing in the Star Trek reboot.

I have no illusions that it is possible to change your mind about anything. We've danced too many times for that.

At this point, I'm keeping my expectations realistic. I don't want to be disappointed by Star Wars 7. With a little luck, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[jt04]

Obviously, we can only deal in opinion here. There's no objective measurement. But I wouldn't go around making that Beatles compairson if I were you. You're going to embarass yourself in front of anyone who understands the cultural significance of the Beatles.

I think you are greatly over-estimating the importance and the appeal of the original cast returning for the new movie. No one knows anything - especially where Abrams is concerned - but I think conventional wisdom is that these will be cameos. Probably not all that different from Leonard Nimoy appearing in the Star Trek reboot.

I have no illusions that it is possible to change your mind about anything. We've danced too many times for that.

At this point, I'm keeping my expectations realistic. I don't want to be disappointed by Star Wars 7. With a little luck, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Soon we will have objective metrics by which to compare. I think you may be underestimating the cultural significance of Star Wars.

 

[lebeau]

Soon we will have objective metrics by which to compare. I think you may be underestimating the cultural significance of Star Wars.

I'm sure it will be huge. Like I said, I won't be surprised if it tops Avengers. Maybe even Avatar. It will be a big movie. But even the biggest movies don't have the same cultural impact the Beatles did. Look at Avatar. A few years later, people around here complain it is irrelevant.

Movies have become disposable. They have a big weekend and then they are forgotten. There's another big opening the next weekend. A really big movie like Iron Man 3 might enjoy a couple of weekends at the top.

Back in the days of the original Star Wars movies, that was not the case. Star Wars dominated the pop cultural landscape for years. It ran in theaters for just about a full year, left for a few months and was rereleased. There was nothing else to compete with its level of escapist entertainment. Today, we're on a steady diet of escapist entertainment. So its impossible for any one movie to have the same pop culture dominance.

I don't downplay the importance of the Star Wars franchise to American pop culture. Star Wars shaped my childhood. But a new movie in a series that has lasted this long and will likely continue indefinitely won't change the pop culture landscape. Even if it breaks every box office record in the world, it will just be another big movie.

 

[misterID]

I don't understand why it's a sure thing because of JJ Abrams. He's not as great as people are making out. He's defintitely successful, but not Star Wars epically big. And I'm talking content, not box office. If anyone read his take on Superman with the script he wrote, I'm not sold on what he can do with Star Wars. Star Trek were two good films. Nothing revolutionary as a Beatles reunion. The material would have to be epic.

Now if this was Joss Whedon we might have a conversation. If anyone has seen Serenity or Firefly, you'd know he is perfect for Star Wars.

 

[twebber55]

Obviously, we can only deal in opinion here. There's no objective measurement. But I wouldn't go around making that Beatles compairson if I were you. You're going to embarass yourself in front of anyone who understands the cultural significance of the Beatles.

I think you are greatly over-estimating the importance and the appeal of the original cast returning for the new movie. No one knows anything - especially where Abrams is concerned - but I think conventional wisdom is that these will be cameos. Probably not all that different from Leonard Nimoy appearing in the Star Trek reboot.

I have no illusions that it is possible to change your mind about anything. We've danced too many times for that.

At this point, I'm keeping my expectations realistic. I don't want to be disappointed by Star Wars 7. With a little luck, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

the franchise (IMO) will get it to a billion after that it will be based on the quality of the film

 

[lebeau]

I don't understand why it's a sure thing because of JJ Abrams. He's not as great as people are making out. He's defintitely successful, but not Star Wars epically big. And I'm talking content, not box office. If anyone read his take on Superman with the script he wrote, I'm not sold on what he can do with Star Wars. Star Trek were two good films. Nothing revolutionary as a Beatles reunion. The material would have to be epic.

Now if this was Joss Whedon we might have a conversation. If anyone has seen Serenity or Firefly, you'd know he is perfect for Star Wars.

Agreed.

I was big on Abrams during the first two seasons of Alias. But since then, his short-comings have become very apparent. He can still entertain. MI-3 was good. The Star Trek movies are fun if you can shut of any critical analysis or logical thought (which some people seem to be much better at than me). Super 8 was... well terrible. There's no getting around Super 8 it was just bad.

That Superman script. Shudder. Thank goodness that never happened! I don't blame Abrams 100% for that one. Writing Superman back when Jon Peters was involved was a no win situation at best. But still, Abrams' script was awful. Not only that, it had the same kind of problems as his Star Trek movies. So it's likely his Star Wars script will have the same kind of issues.

I don't think Star Wars 7 will be big because of Abrams. But since Whedon is tied up with Avengers, he's probably the most logical choice for a new Star Wars movie. He can't do any more damage than Lucas did with the prequels. And hey, maybe Star Trek 3 will be better.

 

[misterID]

Just thinking of Joss writing Han Solo scenes and his dialogue puts a big smile on my face.

 

[lebeau]

the franchise (IMO) will get it to a billion after that it will be based on the quality of the film

huh?

Just thinking of Joss writing Han Solo scenes and his dialogue puts a big smile on my face.

Whedon is awesome. Star Wars is awesome. Whedon + Star Wars = Mind Blown

But he's probably better suited to Avengers, so I'll be happy to have him working his magic there.

(I bet WB is kicking themselves for not making his Wonder Woman movie a few years back.)

 

[twebber55]

huh?



Whedon is awesome. Star Wars is awesome. Whedon + Star Wars = Mind Blown

But he's probably better suited to Avengers, so I'll be happy to have him working his magic there.

(I bet WB is kicking themselves for not making his Wonder Woman movie a few years back.)

ill repeat... the franchise star wars will get this movie to a billion after that will be based on quality..kind of like the hobbit...not the greatest movie but the LOTR franchise made it a hit..pretty simple

 

[lebeau]

ill repeat... the franchise star wars will get this movie to a billion after that will be based on quality..kind of like the hobbit...not the greatest movie but the LOTR franchise made it a hit..pretty simple

The extra words helped. Caps and proper punctuation would really drive the point home.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

I don't understand why it's a sure thing because of JJ Abrams. He's not as great as people are making out. He's defintitely successful, but not Star Wars epically big. And I'm talking content, not box office. If anyone read his take on Superman with the script he wrote, I'm not sold on what he can do with Star Wars. Star Trek were two good films. Nothing revolutionary as a Beatles reunion. The material would have to be epic.

Now if this was Joss Whedon we might have a conversation. If anyone has seen Serenity or Firefly, you'd know he is perfect for Star Wars.

1. J.J. is not writing the script for the upcoming Star Wars movies. I'm not sure why writing a bad Superman script means that he couldn't make a good movie based on someone else's script.

2. If we're gonna ding J.J. for a bad Superman script, surely we can't excuse Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman script, which was panned by pretty much everyone who read it?

I was big on Abrams during the first two seasons of Alias. But since then, his short-comings have become very apparent. He can still entertain. MI-3 was good. The Star Trek movies are fun if you can shut of any critical analysis or logical thought (which some people seem to be much better at than me). Super 8 was... well terrible. There's no getting around Super 8 it was just bad.

That Superman script. Shudder. Thank goodness that never happened! I don't blame Abrams 100% for that one. Writing Superman back when Jon Peters was involved was a no win situation at best. But still, Abrams' script was awful. Not only that, it had the same kind of problems as his Star Trek movies. So it's likely his Star Wars script will have the same kind of issues.

So you have a problem with Star Trek's plot holes, but not The Avengers'? That's strange to me.

I don't think it's fair to assume that J.J.'s take on Trek is any indication of what his Star Wars will be like. The tasks are totally different: For Trek, his job was to take an essentially dormant series that was seen as inscrutable by most of the public, and work with his house screenwriters to make an ensemble series for the international box office. (he has been very successful in this, for what it's worth). Star Wars is totally different. People already like Star Wars. He's not rebooting anything. He's not writing it, it's not even his story concept, so I'm not sure why Michael Arndt's script would be bad because the director wrote a bad script a decade ago.

Trek and SW are fundamentally different, in genre, in mood, in aesthetics. SW is a much better match for J.J.'s style, and it certainly doesn't hurt that he grew up with Star Wars and holds the original trilogy in high esteem, which was never true of him and Trek.

And I really don't get your Super 8 swipe. I've never encountered anyone who didn't at least like that movie. That was classic Spielberg sentimentality. Do you not like ET and Close Encounters?

He can't do any more damage than Lucas did with the prequels.

I think this is definitely a wise way of thinking about Episode VII.

 

[lebeau]

1. J.J. is not writing the script for the upcoming Star Wars movies. I'm not sure why writing a bad Superman script means that he couldn't make a good movie based on someone else's script.

2. If we're gonna ding J.J. for a bad Superman script, surely we can't excuse Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman script, which was panned by pretty much everyone who read it?

1. You're right. I temporarily forgot JJ wasn't writing the script. And hey, it's possible he could write a good one even if he was writing it. I am confident it will be better than the Lucas-written prequels.

2. I haven't read the WW script so I have nothing to go on there. I'd love to read it if anyone has a link.

So you have a problem with Star Trek's plot holes, but not The Avengers'? That's strange to me.

I was able to overlook the plot holes in both movies for the most part. Avengers entertained me a lot more, so the plot holes didn't really dawn on me until after I left the theater. In both Star Trek movies, I had to actively push them aside in order to enjoy the movie.

It's a little strange to me that my reaction would be strange to you.

I don't think it's fair to assume that J.J.'s take on Trek is any indication of what his Star Wars will be like. The tasks are totally different: For Trek, his job was to take an essentially dormant series that was seen as inscrutable by most of the public, and work with his house screenwriters to make an ensemble series for the international box office. (he has been very successful in this, for what it's worth). Star Wars is totally different. People already like Star Wars. He's not rebooting anything. He's not writing it, it's not even his story concept, so I'm not sure why Michael Arndt's script would be bad because the director wrote a bad script a decade ago.

Surely past performance is an indicator of the future. I've seen everything Abrams has done since Felicity. I am basing my opinion on all of his works, not just the Superman script. I thought that was clear when I talked about a bunch of his other works. But in case there is any confusion, my opinion is based primarily on his finished works and not an unproduced script.

Trek and SW are fundamentally different, in genre, in mood, in aesthetics. SW is a much better match for J.J.'s style, and it certainly doesn't hurt that he grew up with Star Wars and holds the original trilogy in high esteem, which was never true of him and Trek.

Definite agree.

And I really don't get your Super 8 swipe. I've never encountered anyone who didn't at least like that movie. That was classic Spielberg sentimentality. Do you not like ET and Close Encounters?

I love those movies. Wasn't a big fan of the cheap knock-off Abrams made. As it turns out, I wrote a review of that one too.

I think this is definitely a wise way of thinking about Episode VII.

Hey, I hope Abrams makes a great Star Wars movie. No one will be happier than me. And I'm not at all upset about him getting the job. He's probably the best man for it. I'm sure whatever the final product is like, I'll enjoy it at least a little. Probably quite a bit. But I am trying to keep my expectations in check.

Also, I am playing counter point to the idea that the next Star Wars movie will be anywhere near as big of a deal as the fabled Beatles reunion that never was. So I'm probably coming across far more negative on the project than I actually am. I'm actually cautiously optimistic.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

I still think that they need to go back to being a working studio, especially for television work. They could use the audience. Of course bringing back the "Mickey Mouse Club" with a live studio audience would be a no-brainer; but other shows could work as well. "Family Fued" is filmed at Universal in Florida, and each day the tag about being filmed there is a daily commercial for the park.

While Bob Iger did say "We're Also working on opportunities for television and our parks", Bob didn't say the filming would happen inside the theme parks. The fact is Disney has a studio in California and that is where they do the filming.

Disney can't go back to having a working Studio at DHS either as much as you want it to in terms of doing recording tv shows. I think animation is the only thing DHS might able to do still if Disney decides to.

Disney used 3 Sound Stages for projects like the Mickey Mouse Club as an example. The problem is the Sound Stages are being use for attractions now.

The 2nd thing is Backlot Tour never can be the size as it was. One Man's Dream, Voyage of the the Little Mermaid, The Legend of Jack Sporrow, Toy Story Midway Mania actually were all sound tages when they were part of the Backlot Tour. That means they can't be part of a working studios anymore, unless they get a rid of the attractions.

The third thing is DHS really lacks space unless for attractions the way it is now without bringing back the working studios part back. The only answer to use part of the Parking lot for theme park expansion. The Backlot Tour Space would be perfect adding rides/attractions to.

I am saying that because I went to Disney MGM Studios for the first time ever in 1991. There wasn't a lot of attractions in the Park at the time and what you can do in the Park either. Now Granted that was expansions after, but the fact the Park doesn't the space to be a Working Studios and be a full day Park theme park at the same time. Filming doesn't happen every day.

 

[misterID]

1. J.J. is not writing the script for the upcoming Star Wars movies. I'm not sure why writing a bad Superman script means that he couldn't make a good movie based on someone else's script.

2. If we're gonna ding J.J. for a bad Superman script, surely we can't excuse Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman script, which was panned by pretty much everyone who read it?



So you have a problem with Star Trek's plot holes, but not The Avengers'? That's strange to me.

I don't think it's fair to assume that J.J.'s take on Trek is any indication of what his Star Wars will be like. The tasks are totally different: For Trek, his job was to take an essentially dormant series that was seen as inscrutable by most of the public, and work with his house screenwriters to make an ensemble series for the international box office. (he has been very successful in this, for what it's worth). Star Wars is totally different. People already like Star Wars. He's not rebooting anything. He's not writing it, it's not even his story concept, so I'm not sure why Michael Arndt's script would be bad because the director wrote a bad script a decade ago.

Trek and SW are fundamentally different, in genre, in mood, in aesthetics. SW is a much better match for J.J.'s style, and it certainly doesn't hurt that he grew up with Star Wars and holds the original trilogy in high esteem, which was never true of him and Trek.

And I really don't get your Super 8 swipe. I've never encountered anyone who didn't at least like that movie. That was classic Spielberg sentimentality. Do you not like ET and Close Encounters?



I think this is definitely a wise way of thinking about Episode VII.

JJ does revisions on all his films (he's a screenwriter, first and foremost) whether he's credited or not. And JJ isn't going to work on a project that he doesn't develop story-wise. So if you think he's just jumping on as a director and that's it, you are mistaken.

 

[twebber55]

The extra words helped. Caps and proper punctuation would really drive the point home.

its a message board besides somebody learned me good

 

[lebeau]

its a message board besides somebody learned me good

It is. I expect spelling errors, etc. I'm as guilty of them as anyone else. I just had no idea what you were talking about until you clarified. And even the clarification was difficult to read without caps or punctuation. No offense intended. Maybe Gen Y doesn't need that stuff. As a Gen X-er, I am having difficulty following your posts.

 

[twebber55]

It is. I expect spelling errors, etc. I'm as guilty of them as anyone else. I just had no idea what you were talking about until you clarified. And even the clarification was difficult to read without caps or punctuation. No offense intended. Maybe Gen Y doesn't need that stuff. As a Gen X-er, I am having difficulty following your posts.

IM 40 SO IM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU and an educator with two degrees

im somewhat incredulous that you would think im a GEN Y Guy

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Obviously, we can only deal in opinion here. There's no objective measurement. But I wouldn't go around making that Beatles compairson if I were you. You're going to embarass yourself in front of anyone who understands the cultural significance of the Beatles.

What's the Beatles?

An Avengers-like movie?
TMNT part 8: The TMNT vs. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Beetles?
A rash - 'oh, man, I've so got the beatles on my legs'?

 

[lebeau]

IM 40 SO IM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU and an educator with two degrees

im somewhat incredulous that you would think im a GEN Y Guy

Kids today. AmIright? (where's my hammer to the head smiley?)

What's the Beatles?

An Avengers-like movie?
TMNT part 8: The TMNT vs. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Beetles?
A rash - 'oh, man, I've so got the beatles on my legs'?

They were a musical group in the 60's. Ripped off The Monkees I think.