Are You Effing Kidding Me?

Lazarus411 on 3/11/2012 at 16:54

Quote Posted by Renzatic

It was still a religion back then, too. You just didn't have the internet around to expose all the weirdness that surrounded it back then.

The Jedi religion is actually one of the biggest and fastest growing religions in the UK.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon)

Jason Moyer on 3/11/2012 at 16:54

Nicked you could make that exact same post substituting Toy Story for Cars.

nicked on 3/11/2012 at 19:12

I dunno - Toy Story just has the one suspension of disbelief hurdle to get over. There are certainly some unanswerable questions about Toy Story that don't bear thinking about too hard, but the biggest hurdle, "Toys are magically sentient" makes sense within it's own universe. Sure there's no explanation as to why, but if you do accept that fact, there aren't many other inconsistencies to get in the way. I'd say Monsters Inc. needs more hand-waving than Toy Story, but still nowhere near as much as Cars.

fett on 3/11/2012 at 21:22

I guess I just automatically substituted humans for cars in my mind. It's their world and everything fits them, so I just replaced them. I wasn't thinking to hard about it. Ratatouille is the one I have trouble swallowing. It's rooted in our world, and I don't even have a problem with sentient rats, but the whole human puppet/hair pulling thing just had no context or relationship to anything in either world. Really bizarre to me - just like the Brave girl's mom turning into a bear.

Morte on 3/11/2012 at 21:52

The nonsensical setting of Cars wouldn't really matter if the story was engaging, instead of a tired, charmless retread of Doc Hollywood.

Stitch on 3/11/2012 at 22:55

Don't forget the flabby pacing, spotty humor, and grating protagonist.

At the same time, it's clever enough to entertain in a lazy, that'll-do sort of way. It's not a bad movie--they saved the utter shit for the sequel--but it's well below Pixar par.

Scots Taffer on 4/11/2012 at 06:10

Hay guyz how'd I miss this thread... (oh yeah because I hardly come here anymore - sorry :() ... now to the quotes!

Quote Posted by Stitch

You're really going to regret those harsh words after Disney releases a cleaned up original trilogy on Blu Ray with all of Lucas's added bullshit removed (because they will).
Taking Star Wars away from Lucas but (hopefully) giving him some creative input is the best thing possible for the franchise. I'll happily take sequels that don't fucking suck, thanks.

Quote Posted by SD

First task: making it so Han shot first again.

:thumb:

Quote Posted by heywood

Forget about the Star Wars franchise for a moment, the deal is much bigger than that. The jewels in the Lucasfilm crown are Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound. ILM and Skywalker Sound have been instrumental in producing many, many good films, developing key technologies, and consistently pushing the state of the art. And until now, their services have been available to any studio.

Has it been confirmed ILM and SS will be Disney only service providers now?

Quote Posted by Stitch

I also want to get drunk in a Mos Eisley-themed Cantina in Disneyland so bad it hurts.

Quote Posted by Stitch

a Dia de los Muertos film from the guy who directed Toy Story 3 and Ratatouille? Yeah, I'll take that

:o

I predict some awesome Grim Fandango homage now given the rights they've acquired!

Quote Posted by fett

How exactly are those sequels going to work though? Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher at 70 trying to reprise roles (which neither of them will do). A whole new story set in that universe? It would have to be awfully compelling to square with a universe that spawned some of the most beloved sci-fi/fantasy characters of all time. It'll be their kids, but they themselves don't show up in the films? Someone else plays the characters? None of these scenarios seem tenable in the least.

I think you're underestimating:
a) the cultural currency SW still holds (even if it is massively devalued by both the prequels and the mockery those encouraged)
b) the canniness of a studio that has pulled themselves back from the direct-to-DVD category-sequel brink that Disney were in around the early 2000s to now being a powerhouse producer that released the biggest movie of this year (The Avengers)
c) the potential talent that will be attracted to a new SW flick, I'm talking generations of writers, directors, producers who grew up on the originals and want to be part of making this franchise special to a whole new generation of people
d) MONEY MONEY MONEY doesn't always create bad decisions (case in point - The Dark Knight led to Inception)

Quote Posted by fett

The charm of Star Wars is the bad acting, bad haircuts, cheesy dialogue, campy cantina/Jabba scenes, etc. A modern version (as we saw with the prequels) will attempt to "fix" all those things.

:wot:

Stop, fett, please.

Quote Posted by heywood

Bookmark this thread, so when the next movie comes out we can go back and see who eats their words.

I'm up for that. :cool:

EDIT: Has everyone apparently missed that they've said it won't be linked to the PT/OT at all? (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-next-star-wars-movies-will-be-based-on-a-new-s,88198/) Link.

fett on 4/11/2012 at 14:32

It's the first I've heard of it (thanks for the link) but has anyone also noticed that it's chock full of bullshit double-speak? It goes on and on about how the stories "aren't linked" to the previous films, have "new characters" blah blah blah, then they throw this gem in there:

Quote:

However, he also claims that they concern a Luke Skywalker "in his 30s and 40s," meaning the series would have to recast the role if they went in this direction, and everyone would then probably start freaking out about that.

In other words, new characters, new story, re-cast Luke Skywalker who apparently has NO interaction with characters from the previous films. Which brings us full circle to my original (and pretty much ONLY objection) - how the fuck is this going to work?

I'm sorry but that whole article smacks of "Hey, don't worry old fans, we're not going to mess with beloved characters, this is a new story!" and "We're going to keep Luke Skywalker because that's what George Lucas intended." They're talking shit out of both sides of their mouths.

Here's what I don't get about you guys (in general, this may not be the case individually) - you are the first to poo-poo a new Thief game, un-needed sequels, three Hobbit films, etc. But you're all for this convoluted idea - a half-assed re-boot of a story that has long outlived its originality or the character's purpose.

I hope I have to eat my words. But until I hear - "We're doing a completely new story in another part of that world that doesn't attempt to shoehorn in some sad version of Luke at 40 with George Lucas standing over our shoulder," I'm not likely to get very excited about this. And the fact is, they haven't said that yet - in fact, it seems they plan on doing exactly the opposite. I'm not expecting everyone to throw shit at Disney, but I'm flagergasted (Yes, I said FLABERGASTED, GOOD SIRS), that very few in the press or in this conversation are willing to acknowledge what a horrible idea this is if Disney tries to straddle the new story/George's story fence.

edit: Am I the only one who gets a kick out of the myriad flaws in the SW trilogy? It's what made the prequels bearable for me. People complain about Darth Vader's "Nooooo!" and such, but I love stuff like that. It reminds me that these are Saturday morning cartoons, not Shakespeare. I don't want that stuff fixed or "modernized" - and a new set of movies (like the prequels) are sure to be so polished that the earthiness and grunge is all gone. These aren't the only films appreciated for those qualities either.

Jason Moyer on 4/11/2012 at 14:44

Until I hear "we're going to excise everything from Star Wars that isn't in the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy, the dark forces trilogy (DF/JK/JK2), and the 2 KotOR games" I won't get excited.

SubJeff on 4/11/2012 at 15:02

Quote Posted by fett

But until I hear - "We're doing a completely new story in another part of that world that doesn't attempt to shoehorn in some sad version of Luke at 40 with George Lucas standing over our shoulder," I'm not likely to get very excited about this.

I don't find the galaxy it's set in very compelling really. I like the OT because I like the plot, and because it was actually (despite being a set of "blockbusters") pretty minimal. The new trilogy was just too frikking flashy. In the OT we see Tatooine, Dagobah, Bespin and Endor. There is sod all on these planets. In the new trilogy all the planets are teeming with CGI stuff. Yeah, it may be because of cost and technology but the feel of the old vs new is so different.

It's almost like a horror film - what you don't see has more weight than what you do see. I'll wager that this also helps Firefly because it too didn't show loads of massively populated and built up locations.

The OT had ships that look battered. As has been said about the new ones - the tech looks better and it's set in the past.

I just don't think that the new films will offer anything special because imho the universe is dull (now we've seen lots of it) and unless they are a big throwback to the OT it'll just be flashy yawns.