ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

Mixing the genres, myths, etc. was "innovative" - that hadn't been done before had it?

Other than that the "groundbreaking" was all in the VFX

 

That isn't ringing any bells with me, so this could be the first time I've heard that the early drafts had Obi-Wam playing the Qui-Gon. I have, myself, considered that alternative from time to time - not that I dislike Qui-Gon, he is a favourite of mine.

Yes, I've played out similar alternatives in my head over the years**. I have to disagree that Kenobi is a "jerk" though - what does he do to warrant that?

If anyone was acting like a "jerk" - it was Qui-Gon. He was the one being stubborn and willing to cast of his Padawan without so much as a by-your-leave. Obi-Wan was simply trying to make him see sense. And Obi-Wan was right.

** Before I get targeted for Prequel blasphemy, I do the with the OT, for example, if Lucas made the Saga in the chronological order how would ANH be different, etc. - so I all round blasphemous.

As for deeper characterisation, arcs, flaws etc... What do we really get? Beyond their jobs, why are these men doing what they're doing? What is really driving them? Who are they within this world? In ANH, every character has a very clear, relatable and strong personal motivation for doing what they're doing.[/quote]

Personally, I don't need a character to always have a "personal motivation" - "detective haunted by his past", etc. - a couple guys just doing good for the sake of doing good is a nice change.

I do see your point though - that the Jedi are just on the job, with no personal stakes in the events of Naboo - it does get personal later on on though with Anakin.

 

Yeah, I'm of the mind that you can go too far with backstory etc. I just like a little more personality and something I can sink my teeth into. TPM has many problems laced throughout the screenplay. Individually they might not be too severe, but IMO they tend to compound each other and make for an overall misfire.

 

While I disagree with your overall judgement, I do my best to understand your point of view and unreservedly respect, and indeed welcome, that your opinion differs to mine.

 

Ha! Yeah, it's just my opinion and I respect that others feel differently.

 

EDIT: There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism.

Actually, I've just recalled old memories - of reading a movie magazine (Starlog) I believe around the time that news was out of Lucas developing the Prequels.

If I remember it correctly the rumours/speculation were very close to how you thought TPM should go. Kenobi concludes his training on Dagobah and later crosses paths with a teenage Anakin. Kenneth Branagh was considered the obvious choice at the time.

Just a few minutes I had no memory of that when reading your post, but clearly your comments dusted of some cobwebs.

Darth PJ

Sorry, I didn’t see** your last response to me earlier. It is a long post and I can’t stay on much longer, so I’ll read it later.

EDIT: ** Well., I did actually see it, it was hard to miss but it didn't register with me because I didn't get an alert for it so I overlooked it.

Is the the large meant to represent something? Or the result of cut and paste or something? My first impression is that there is a meaning to you increasing the text size? Upset or annoyance or such. If you are, it isn’t worth us getting into a “thing". If I'm off the target, then let me know.

 

I concur with this.
Similarly I don't expect anything beyond a "good" story from the new movies, and hopefully a better execution than the prequels.

 

No not at all... Because I was quoting multiple paragraphs I cut and pasted in Microsoft word... so it's just formatting. Don't worry - I'm not offended/annoyed by anything.

 

I don't think the story is particularly original, but the storytelling techniques are (certainly in cinematic terms). I can't think of a similar story that's been told over 6 films. Harry Potter and TLOTR gets close, but SW was obviously first in how it told that story cinematically... And I certainly see SW as a much more post-modern piece of cinema than it's contemporaries (other than Indiana Jones).

 

You really think the ire of trekkies is anywhere near the same level as warsies?

 

I'm still not sure long form story telling is innovative?

 

If it helps to inspire other filmmakers to use the same methods/techniques to tell similar stories, and is innovative in how it translates that story to screen... then yes, I'd say it's innovative... be that in the use of music, sound effects, visual effects etc. Those things are intrinsic to the kind of storytelling SW is using.

 

Hmmm. Not convinced to be honest. Tech stuff, absolutely.

 

But we're talking about technical application of storytelling aren't we? If one creates a new mythology using classic archetypes and presents it in a new way, cinematically, which helps shape cinema that comes after (certainly mainstream/populist)... then what's a better/more appropriate way to define that than 'innovative', 'original', 'groundbreaking' etc? Of course it should be viewed in context, and relative to, 'mainstream/populist cinema', but within that context I certainly think SW has been those things... And I certainly hope it continues to be those things (although it becomes more difficult when it's broadly the same premise).

It's a bit like The Godfather... nothing particularly original in the story per se... but it's in FFC's interpretation of the material, his storytelling that brings that to screen in a rather innovative, new way... I think one can't distinguish storytelling from technical application of it...

 

I too respect those with differing opinions, especially if said opinions are informed, reasonable and well articulated. Further, I do sympathize with those who felt burned by the PT. I was one for a good many years, but the announcement of the ST allowed me to step back, re-evaluate and entertain the PT's meaning within a framework of three trilogies representing three acts.

That said, I think one could make an argument that some concepts in the TPM or the PT can no longer be judged in isolation from the rest of the narrative i.e. Episodes IV - IX. Logic dictates that the PT is not only the back story for the OT, but also the ST as well, but only when considered within the three-act framework. If this were the case then I would argue one could look at the PT and make some qualitative judgement on its merits; some of them reasonable, like acting and dialogue. Conclusions on the merits of some concepts i.e. midichlorians, the Prophecy, would be premature due to an incomplete narrative. One mustn't judge before we see the entirety on screen. Especially of the PT is setup/exposition and the ST is payoff/resolution. Hopefully Lucas's original ideas for the resolution survived the re-writes and remain intact. His DNA will certainly be there, but my hope is that in some fundamental way the ST explains some of what others view prematurely as lacking in the PT.

 

I must state that my previous comments apply to the SW films as a whole... I certainly think the OT is more innovative and original than the PT, but that shouldn't take away from Lucas' aspiration in relation to all six, and what the PT achieved on this front too. Ultimately, I think Lucas' SW has to be viewed holistically and assessed as a whole rather than OT and PT (I think that's how history will asses them).

 

My thoughts on the actual storytelling applies equally across the saga, and I'm still not convinced

 

If you mean the concept of Midichlorians and the Prophecy will have some final resolution in the ST? then I think you're going to come away disappointed I'm afraid. This is a continuation of the story after ROTJ. These concepts were not mentioned at all in the OT (for the obvious reasons)

 

I think the reason Ahab and Khan prime work for people, as opposed to Nero and Palpatine is that they're much more personal vendettas. The whale physically hurt Ahab. Kirk physically and directly hurt Khan.

But as far as I can tell, does Nero even know Spock? I can't remember what is in the flashbacks. But even if he did, nero's revenge against him just feels misplaced. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen or there's not precedent, but I think people don't relate to it much because it's not the you- hurt-me-I-hurt-you type of revenge.

I feel the same way when Maul brings up revenge. I basically ask, you want revege against people you don't know who may have hurt someone who lived a thousand years before you did? It's not the same type of personal revenge Khan had against Kirk, therefore doesn't resonate as much with me. It rings kind of hollow

 

I haven't been too disappointed thus far, like some; and I like what I've seen and read from The Force Awakens production. So, I hope for the best. Thank you for being afraid for my disappointed feelings, though. Or was that your insincerity tied into your own tragic reaction to the PT's deflowering of your childhood?

But allow me the opportunity to entertain real sincerity from you instead of being hasty and dismissive. In terms of Sith immortality, I can certainly imagine midichlorians playing a part in the ST. The Prophecy needn't be the same in the ST as the PT, but who knows? The Living Force and the Cosmic Force are certainly concepts worth exploring in the ST, IMO. Also, the origins of the Skywalkers and the Jedi/Sith conflict are subjects with questions that continue to fascinate and generate hypotheses, at least speaking for myself.

Simply, I hope we get answers from the ST and not a reboot of the OT.

Yes, these or a few of my favorite things....I simply remember my favorite things and then I don't feel so bad.

 

Star Wars Weekends KK and JJ give an update on VII.
from 3:58-4:39

 

Okay, because it would be silly topic to offended by. As I said, I did suspect the "cut and paste" caused it, but I have seen text used before in such a manor to express an emotional state, but I did want to make sure before reading and responding, because it was a long post.

Yes - the stories themselves are based hundreds of myths and legend are are nothing new - it is the hybrid nature of it all that is the actual brand new element.

Yes, genres had been combined in the past, but Lucas' "mix" of myth, legends and genres went way beyond any of that. I know my post said "mixing genres and myths" but it was a very basic explanation of what Lucas did. There was more to it than that, I was just being lazy.

 

The first part - Being popular does not automatically mean that the characters resemble the original. or previous, incarnations. Being popular means that people like what was done with the character - I’m not arguing against the fact (and a fact it is) that these two incarnations are popular. Moore’s Bond is played for jokes - he makes it lighthearted and lacks the coldness of Bond, he is far too pleasant, lacks the violent streak. Rathbone ... well, I wouldn’t know where to start because his portrayal bares no resemblance to Sherlock Holmes at all - there is no shared group from which to start.cx v

The second part - that doesn’t make any sense. The point of using Homes, Bond, etc. is the point of the individual projects. It has been around as long as the entertainment industry. People put together a production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, because they want to perform in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. You can’t do Hamlet and give the characters completely different personalities. The point of Star Trek 2009 was to tell a James Kirk story, not to create a new spinoff. Therefore, the writer’s have use the Kirk personality, otherwise it isn’t Kirk but just a person with the same name. The point the Bond movies is to tell a story around the established character of James Bond. People don't James Bond, etc. movies, because they are "less risky” than creating something new, they make these movies because the characters are popular and that is the character they want to use.

What “numbers”? The intention was was for the franchise to reach beyond it’s fandom, which it never really had. I don’t see why Leonard Nimoy would have made the makers and studio believe he was necessary for the box office success.

"Rather than them thinking “how do we get the original Spock into this picture?”, perhaps they should have thought, “why does it even need the original Spock?”” - What makes you think this was the case? How do you know it wasn’t the other way around?

No, you are looking at the alternate timeline concept from an in-universe point of view, not from a real world point of view.

The intention was to retell the story of the original characters, but to include a connection to to the original stars. Just because the events are changed, does not mean that the personalities have too - if they were going to do that then there was no point in making a film about Captain Kirk. It would be just another Star Trek spinoff.

*** No, you’ve missed the point again. I’m not talking about just revenge - I’m talking about misplaced anger. Ahab has no real reason to blame and obsess over a giant fish - I’m not being negative about the character, he is one of my all time favourites. Yes, the motivation is plausible like you said, because of human behaviour, but where is the sense in seeking revenge against the whale, it is like trying to destroy the wind for blowing down your house.

It is the same with Nero. You are essentially quite correct in criticising him for blaming Spock. Spock is no more to blame than the whale or the wind, but you are wrong that the writing is to “blame” - because Nero’s response is no different to Ahab. Both are obsessed with seeking revenge against a target that that is not to blame - it beside the point that the whale actually bit off Ahab’s leg.

Isn’t what is "at the heart” is the “main thrust” of a story, and Nero’s actions/George’s death are the catalyst.

Or by “thrust” did you mean catalyst?

Your belief that it required “better thought” is the same as the point I just commented on above, and I think we have too many strands in the discussion that are essentially the same point.

Movie characters aren’t supposed to be written as always rational. In real life people are wrong and justly blame others for their misfortune. In a movie, a character (hero or villain) doesn’t have to assess every situation correctly and respond justly.

For example, you mentioned The Dark Knight - Harvey Dent motivations are exactly the same as Nero’s. Dent doesn’t go after The Joker, he goes after the people who failed to stop him killing Rachel and disfiguring him. Same mindset for both villains - and it isn’t the first time the concept has been used in fiction, but it isn’t always necessary to explain it. Sometimes writers leave elements up to the reader/audience to figure things out. In Trek, it quite obvious and doesn’t need to be expanded on to move the film along.