JJ Abrahms is finishing out the new trilogy:) After the fallout of Colin Trevorrow I am sure this will please many Star Wars Fans who don't want the crisis that the Han Solo movie went through. Good times:)
http://www.theforce.net/story/front/JJ_Abrams_to_Write_And_Direct_Star_Wars_Episode_IX_175845.asp
J. J. Abrams is bug, not a feature. The other guy wasn't anything to me, but Abrams has already let me down on a number of films.
I know I am likely in the minority here, but I am pleased to hear this. I quite enjoyed Episode VII. You can tar and feather me all you want, but it won't change my mind.
1 hour ago, kaosoe said:I know I am likely in the minority here, but I am pleased to hear this. I quite enjoyed Episode VII. You can tar and feather me all you want, but it won't change my mind.
I loved the movie allot after the bitter disappointment that I~iii were I'm super happy with it.yes I heard all the it's a rehash story guys what don't care it was an epic star wars movie. Now should be blow it wide open with new narrative. Absolutely and I think I can trust him with that.
On 9/12/2017 at 10:25 AM, kaosoe said:I know I am likely in the minority here, but I am pleased to hear this. I quite enjoyed Episode VII. You can tar and feather me all you want, but it won't change my mind.
TFA was OK
Not as good as the OT or R1, or even Rebels which is for younglings
But I enjoyed TFA enough to get the DVD
Unlike the prequels
1 hour ago, Ghost Mouse said:TFA was OK
Not as good as the OT or R1, or even Rebels which is for younglings
But I enjoyed TFA enough to get the DVD
Unlike the prequels
To compare to OT is a bar unlikely to ever be met again just because of the legend of it and how ingrained it is in our culture. Not many movies do that. To get "ESB"special would be a monumental task. Tfa did it's job well relaunch and continuation. All nods were fine and the magic was back and that was a monumental task all by itself. I will require more from his next outing we will require something all new. But I have faith in him. Unlike how we felt about Lucas after tpm...
4 hours ago, splad said:To compare to OT is a bar unlikely to ever be met again just because of the legend of it and how ingrained it is in our culture. Not many movies do that. To get "ESB"special would be a monumental task. Tfa did it's job well relaunch and continuation. All nods were fine and the magic was back and that was a monumental task all by itself. I will require more from his next outing we will require something all new. But I have faith in him. Unlike how we felt about Lucas after tpm...
Speak for yourself...
7 hours ago, Gallandro said:Speak for yourself...
ty i do, box office also agreed
14 hours ago, splad said:To compare to OT is a bar unlikely to ever be met again just because of the legend of it and how ingrained it is in our culture. Not many movies do that. To get "ESB"special would be a monumental task. Tfa did it's job well relaunch and continuation. All nods were fine and the magic was back and that was a monumental task all by itself. I will require more from his next outing we will require something all new. But I have faith in him. Unlike how we felt about Lucas after tpm...
Rogue One met and matched the bar. Proving that it can be done.
But The Force Awakens was much better, even with the numerous plot holes and Deathstar III, than the prequels. I'm also among those who enjoyed the new Star Trek movies. Not so much the third one, but Star Trek and Into Darkness were great. Not as good as Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country or First Contact, but better than other Star Trek movies.
I would rather have Jabrams finish what he started. Get ready for lens flare, little plot, unexplained occurrences that defy logic or common sense, but loads of special effects, pew pew, bang bang.
4 hours ago, splad said:box office also agreed
Counterpoint to Box Office = Quality:
3 hours ago, Ghost Mouse said:Rogue One met and matched the bar. Proving that it can be done.
But The Force Awakens was much better, even with the numerous plot holes and Deathstar III, than the prequels. I'm also among those who enjoyed the new Star Trek movies. Not so much the third one, but Star Trek and Into Darkness were great. Not as good as Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country or First Contact, but better than other Star Trek movies.
I would rather have Jabrams finish what he started. Get ready for lens flare, little plot, unexplained occurrences that defy logic or common sense, but loads of special effects, pew pew, bang bang.
As one of the few big Trek fans around here, I have to say I'm always astounded when people still throw Simon Pegg's "even numbered ones are better than the odd numbered ones" (from Spaced) argument out there. And, Ghost Mouse, you didn't even like Pegg's film in the new franchise!
The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home are hands down the best Trek films to date. They had the best production values, the most imagination, the best writing, the best directing, the best acting, and felt true to the spirit of the original series. The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country looked at the success of The Voyage Home (the comedic one with the whales) and started tying some kind of silly, self-aware vibe to the look/feel of the new (at that time) Next Generation series... And the results were abominable; Star Treks V and VI had simplistic plots full of hollow comedy and fanwank BS. Seriously, I'm always ready to provide a detailed list of reasons as to why The Undiscovered Country - a "fan favorite" - is actually a terrible, terrible, terrible Trek film.
I would agree that First Contact was a really fun popcorn flick, but it cannot compare to the First Four.
The Abrams-era Trek movies are also fun popcorn movies. But, honestly, they feel more like "Super Space Starmen in Space Shooting Lasers" than Star Trek...
*two bits*
PS - As to Abrams' The Force Awakens? Well, I don't think it was nearly as good as the more imaginative and gritty Rogue One, but TFA was certainly an enjoyable (again) popcorn flick. It's the kind of movie in which you just don't want to think too much... "Hey, I see X-Wings! I see TIE Fighters! I see stormtroopers! Another Death Star!" So no high concept stuff there. Unlike the derided prequels that - despite featuring the franchise's most stilted writing, acting, and directing - were extremely high concept with the premise of societies that use either cloned people or droids/drones to do their fighting for them. (Yeah, not a stretch of the imagination to see that sort of thing in our future, despite the possible ethical/moral implications.) And exploring the Jedi further and their place in the galaxy decades before the original trilogy was quite a lot of fun.
[Edit: Actually, these days, I tend to see the prequels as the companion pieces to the spectacular Clone Wars series.]
Edited by Harlock9997 hours ago, Desslok said:Counterpoint to Box Office = Quality:
Lol hey if you want find reasons to hate go ahead not my job to show you the truth. Yes bad movies do make money so hey https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_vii_the_force_awakens
5 hours ago, Harlock999 said:As one of the few big Trek fans around here, I have to say I'm always astounded when people still throw Simon Pegg's "even numbered ones are better than the odd numbered ones" (from Spaced) argument out there. And, Ghost Mouse, you didn't even like Pegg's film in the new franchise!
The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home are hands down the best Trek films to date. They had the best production values, the most imagination, the best writing, the best directing, the best acting, and felt true to the spirit of the original series. The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country looked at the success of The Voyage Home (the comedic one with the whales) and started tying some kind of silly, self-aware vibe to the look/feel of the new (at that time) Next Generation series... And the results were abominable; Star Treks V and VI had simplistic plots full of hollow comedy and fanwank BS. Seriously, I'm always ready to provide a detailed list of reasons as to why The Undiscovered Country - a "fan favorite" - is actually a terrible, terrible, terrible Trek film.
I would agree that First Contact was a really fun popcorn flick, but it cannot compare to the First Four.
The Abrams-era Trek movies are also fun popcorn movies. But, honestly, they feel more like "Super Space Starmen in Space Shooting Lasers" than Star Trek...
*two bits*
I would not count ST the motion picture among the best, it was stilted and boring. It was just nice to see the crew before they devoured the buffet cart. The latest installment was horrible. Into Darkness should never have been made, it was not like they were relaunching the chain at that point and wanted to give us something familiar. Benedict Cumberpatch is a great actor and while he made a good Khan he wasn't my Khan. First Contact was way better than the motion picture. The acts were solid and the combination of Trek adventure and humour was perfect. Picard was off the hook good. As for Undiscovered Country it was a good send off for the crew and wrapped it with a bang. The Final Frontier was a character piece and yes was shaky in a lot of spots but the trio together was gold, very sentimental but that's what sold it. Abrams Era lost alot of the trek feel and it was star wars orientated so when he got the Directors chair i was like, yea i see it. I know this is a ramble...oh well lol
Yeah, but using a review aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes as a benchmark of quality is also a flawed metric. In order to get a tomato instead of a splat, all a movie has to clear is a C grade - a passing grade but decidedly "meh". Now if 100% of reviewers say that a movie is "meh", the tomato score will give it a fresh rating. An example of this in action? Ghostbusters '16, a movie that even the most glowing of reviews were mostly "Eh, it was okay I guess. But it was nowhere nearly as good as the original." - and that's lurking at something like 85% Fresh (or thereabouts - I haven't looked at the score in ages). That movie is NOT 85% good, and certainly not better than Natural Born Killers (47%) Halloween III (33%) and The Boondock Saints (20%).
So yeah, Rotten Tomatoes is not proof of a good movie either.
20 minutes ago, Desslok said:Yeah, but using a review aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes as a benchmark of quality is also a flawed metric. In order to get a tomato instead of a splat, all a movie has to clear is a C grade - a passing grade but decidedly "meh". Now if 100% of reviewers say that a movie is "meh", the tomato score will give it a fresh rating. An example of this in action? Ghostbusters '16, a movie that even the most glowing of reviews were mostly "Eh, it was okay I guess. But it was nowhere nearly as good as the original." - and that's lurking at something like 85% Fresh (or thereabouts - I haven't looked at the score in ages). That movie is NOT 85% good, and certainly not better than Natural Born Killers (47%) Halloween III (33%) and The Boondock Saints (20%).
So yeah, Rotten Tomatoes is not proof of a good movie either.
No what has happened is you graded it as a C the average was higher. I could show you reviews and metrics till you went blue in the face but because you see C it's a C. Not going to debate with an unmovable object I got other things to do.
Art is purely subjective thing. If you don't like a piece of art, then all the rotten tomatoes in the world is not going to convince you otherwise. Either you like it or you don't, and it doesn't matter if the entire world thinks otherwise.
I've pretty clearly stated my reasons why I think E7 was a steaming turd many, many times around here. No amount of "Look at everyone else liking this movie! You must BE WRONG!" will convince me that it was any good.
13 hours ago, Desslok said:A
Edited by splad
19 hours ago, Harlock999 said:PS - As to Abrams' The Force Awakens? Well, I don't think it was nearly as good as the more imaginative and gritty Rogue One, but TFA was certainly an enjoyable (again) popcorn flick. It's the kind of movie in which you just don't want to think too much... "Hey, I see X-Wings! I see TIE Fighters! I see stormtroopers! Another Death Star!" So no high concept stuff there. Unlike the derided prequels that - despite featuring the franchise's most stilted writing, acting, and directing - were extremely high concept with the premise of societies that use either cloned people or droids/drones to do their fighting for them. (Yeah, not a stretch of the imagination to see that sort of thing in our future, despite the possible ethical/moral implications.) And exploring the Jedi further and their place in the galaxy decades before the original trilogy was quite a lot of fun.
[Edit: Actually, these days, I tend to see the prequels as the companion pieces to the spectacular Clone Wars series.]
While i agree in part Rogue One was already written in part or near whole by 'A New Hope' their was much more at stake for TFA, he pulled off a soft relaunch and restored allot of faith. But now he has to produce something wholly new for IX
There's also the matter that Rogue One is a "one and done" stand-alone that doesn't have to soft relaunch a franchise that in terms of cinema has lain fallow for nearly a decade, and was pretty much backstory with lead characters that executives decided didn't need to survive past the film.
As many authors and directors will tell you when it comes to working within a franchise that you don't own and operate, you pretty much have to play nice with the franchise owners and operate under their guidelines. We saw this with the Han Solo movie with the original directors (who were apparently trying to make it a comedy) getting the boot and Ron Howard brought in to bring the film more in line with Disney's expectations. JJ Abrams, for all his faults (I will freely admit he's not a perfect director, but then I don't think any director is, including James Cameron and Francis Ford Coppalla), was able to play the game and delivered the main thing that Disney and Lucasfilm were after, which was a financially successful restart of a film franchise that didn't exactly exit on a high note. I'll freely admit that TFA was not without its problems, but quite frankly even the original trilogy had some serious flaws and plotholes once you get past the nostalgia and take a more critical look at the films.
I think folks overlook the fact that Lucasfilm (especially now that it's owned by Disney) is not some arthouse film studio that's focused on making "artistic masterpieces" that win lots of critical praise at film festivals but draw minimal crowds at the box office, but instead is a major league for-profit company that is looking for a healthy return on its investment of producing said films; they want to make back the money spent making the film and then some. Abrams delivered that return on the investment with plenty of profit with TFA while also delivering a film that has positive word of mouth from the general public, so from a business perspective (because Lucasfilm/Disney is first and foremost a business looking to stay in business by turning a healthy profit) Abrams is a solid choice for Episode IX to ensure a repeat performance on both fronts, especially as there may not be current plans to establish a new trilogy once this one wraps up.
There's also the matter that unlike Lucas with the prequels, Abrams is going to have folks around that will tell him "No JJ, you can't do that" or "No JJ, that's a terrible idea." Odds are it'll be Kathleen Kennedy, who thus far as done a solid job of having Lucasfilm deliver product that is enjoyed by the masses and profitable, so she'll have the backing of the House of Mouse with regards to her executive decisions where Episode IX is concerned. The biggest problem with the prequels was that Lucas was surrounded by spineless yes-men that kow-towed to his every decree because he was the boss of the company.
On 2017-09-12 at 0:25 PM, kaosoe said:I know I am likely in the minority here, but I am pleased to hear this. I quite enjoyed Episode VII. You can tar and feather me all you want, but it won't change my mind.
I gave it 8/10 as a movie, I thought it was enjoyable, funny, dramatic, and good pacing. I gave it 4/10 for Star Wars because it was too derivative along with some other issues, but I'm not going to dwell on it.
As long as E9 isn't a rehash of E6, the way E7 was a rehash of E4, I'm sure it will be fine.
I'm more concerned about E8, and the rumours about retconning the Jedi into forces of evil.
3 hours ago, whafrog said:I gave it 8/10 as a movie, I thought it was enjoyable, funny, dramatic, and good pacing. I gave it 4/10 for Star Wars because it was too derivative along with some other issues, but I'm not going to dwell on it.
As long as E9 isn't a rehash of E6, the way E7 was a rehash of E4, I'm sure it will be fine.
I'm more concerned about E8, and the rumours about retconning the Jedi into forces of evil.
To change the narrative of the Jedi at this point would be insulting. Though the Jedi could and have been zealots on occasion if only in the EU Legends now.
Say what you will about the prequels; awkward leads, midichlorians, Jar Jar, etc. But at least they had some vision and were telling new stories. Force Awakens was a paint-by-numbers rehash who's sole goal was to not embarrass Disney. Abrams has never done anything that wasn't focus-grouped to death and that didn't just trade on the good will created by better artists who took chances.