Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 1, 2012.
I don't see how all of those are related to John Carter and TPM.
What does "relating to a character" in a movie mean?
From what I can figure out people can relate to a millionaire who dresses up like a bat, talks like he has a severe sore throat, and kicks the poo out of bad guys. People cannot relate to a younger man feeling isolated and complaining about it.
I watch TV and movies to be entertained.
This relating business is odd.
So how exactly would everyone here have made Phantom Menace if they had done it themselves and explain continuity if I may ask?
Heck the whole entire story would change if it was me. No Naboo, No Pod race, No gungans, No child Anakin. I would change Attack of the Clones too. You get two movies that seem relatively close in time but leave way to many questions open. Then you get Revenge of the Sith that I feel like they try to cover way to much information in one movie. Its like GL made the first two and then was like crap I still have tons of story to tell and only one episode left.
So how does that relate to Episode VII? I think Disney needs to take its time with it, go slow....no need to rush things
I would call up George Lucas and ask "Hey, George, how do I do this?"
I stand corrected!
but it's not really the same thing, is it? you neglect all of the things people do identify with, like dealing with trauma from childhood experiences and our innate desire for justice/vengeance. what did john carter have to offer? cheesy, incomprehensible plotting and characterization, that's what.
I challenge your assumption that the Phantom Menace and John Carter are in any way comparable just because you happen not to like either.
Art is opinion but money is what really matters to the continued survival of a franchise and John Carter was a massive financial flop where TPM cleared $1bn after its 3D re-release.
Despite what the guild of internet film makers may think, all 3 prequels were hugely profitable meaning huge numbers of people liked them enough to part with their hard earned money to see them.
Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about Ep 7.
Also, it doesn't matter what lessons Disney has learned. As the parent company to LFL, which will be a subsidiary, LFL still retains a great amount of autonomy to follow its creative missions. The question is whether LFL has learned from its past missteps rather than Disney. Sure, the movies have to comply with the Disney policies and mission but overall, when it's boiled down, that mission is making $$$$$$$.
The fact that GL only provided treatments rather than developing the actual scripts means that we will have tonal consistency and the potential for better writing, dialogue, etc.
Yeah, that was kind of the point. Like how Anakin in the prequel trilogy is often reduced to a caricature (dumb cutesy kid, whiny, not badass etc.) rather than a character with an actual thematic place in the narrative.
Of course that's not to say people can't relate to simple, adventurous fun. Which is why I'll take John Carter any day over Nolan's ponderous bat-rumblings.
stop liking what i don't like
Do you like Perfect Strangers? I think that show is awesome. I could relate to all the characters.
nah, i pretty much hate that one
That's one of the silliest threads here. Apparently, some people think that TPM was box office flop that no one knew about...
Even if it was a disappointment to many, it wasn't something that should be erased out of existence.
It took massive balls to admit taking TPM over The Dark Knight. I will join your decision, simply because TDK is so overrated people pretend it has a perfect script. Yet there are iincredibly stupid scenes like the drawn out "bullet analysis subplot" and the fact that party scene just ended with Batman and Rachel landing on the car. So the Joker simply left all the hostages up there and gave up checking that one door Dent is behind? Those two examples are bigger plot holes and deux ex machinas than anything in the SW Saga combined.
And while we are at it, why is the rabid PT online bashing suddenly back in full swing?
Very aggravating. Shame on you, Jabbadabbado. "Let it gooo, Princess."
I've certainly seen TPM more times than TDK. Admittedly, I don't consider myself to be a big fan of the Batman franchise in any form while I'm a die-hard fan of SW so I feel the need to rewatch even the weakest installments (that's ROTJ and TPM for me). TDK might have better performance/dialogues than any SW movie, but the story and the plot are a total mess and the action scenes are not really better than anything in the prequels. Batman Begins is still my favorite in the trilogy (at least it focuses primarily on Batman, as it should).
The Dark Knight Trilogy does make an interesting role-model for any future Star Wars movies. Nolan showed you can have big expensive action movies and they can still be intelligent with character-driven narratives and intricate plots (Inception did this very well too). He is the anti-Michael Bay, who just makes movies that are about overwhelming viewers with visual & audio awesomeness.
What the SW Prequels lacked was enough substance, the characters were often poorly written and developed and so it was hard to care. Too much emphasis on visuals and not enough on the people.
The OT managed to balance likable characters with good action and spectacle, no reason why the new movies can't do that.
Can I ask what you do for a living?
In what way were the OT characters better written and developed?
In what way was their less emphasis on visuals?
Could they come up with a worse character than Jar Jar?
Star Wars, Avengers, Batman, John Carter, Indiana Jones, etc. are escapism and fantasies.
You are not supposed to "relate" to any of the characters in them because they are there to entertain you. They are not real.
I manage a warehouse, why do you ask?