Discussion Gary Whitta is no longer writer for spinoff movie.

Yeah, I never saw those comments. So I'm blissfully ignorant on that subject.

However, I don't think they should disqualify him from being involved. Billy Connolly hates everything Tolkien, and has made disparaging remarks about his fans, but I still think he was a great (and fun) choice to play Dain in the final Hobbit film.

Even though PJ inexplicably CGI'd his face for most of it...

 

It didn't. He did what he was hired to do. I saw some of the remarks and they were very vulgar, worse was the fact he tried to cover it up.

However, since he is done, we will probably never know what he involvement really was.

How would you feel if his hate rants had been directed at the OT?

 

dp

 

I would say that he is unfit to write the script for a Star Wars film.

 

I owe you an apology - I thought you would claim that you would hold the same opinion (that it doesn't disqualify him) or somehow dodge the question.

Well, you are more honest than Gary Whiita anyway.

I wonder, so , if you are the person who might finny be able to explain to me just what is the difference between the two trilogies.

It isn't that I haven't asked before. God knows it isn't that, but I've not encounter anyone who can.

 

OT: Sense of wonder
PT: Sense of clutter

 

Well, I guess I wrong. You are not the One.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if anyone can explain it. Ten years on and not one person.

 

I don't understand what you mean. There are hundreds of reasons why I find the two trilogies to be different. The reason above is the overriding "atmospheric" reason why I think the OT is different from the PT. But other fans are likely to have a number of other reasons for finding them different, and for liking the OT more than the PT. It's a matter of taste.

Since I just explained my reasoning (or one of my major reasons), how is it that no one has explained it? I just did.

In short, the OT is breezy and full of a sense of wonder and adventure. And it feels natural. The PT is stilted and full of a sense of clutter and muddle. And it feels artificial. The OT is like a cool glass of water on a summer's day, and the PT is like a warm glass of prune juice on a summer's day. They're so extraordinarily different. To me.

That's an explanation of their differences. From me.

 

DarthLightlyBruise

I didn't find your reasons explained anything to me. Sense of wonder/clutter doesn't mean anything without further detail or examples. Same with "cool drinks of water". What is "breezy", for example?

That is pretty much the same as what you said above - that they ARE reasons to you.

It was no slight against you, just not an answer at all from where I'm standing.

 

Well, take every comment I have made about the PT on this forum (hundreds, unfortunately), cobble them together, and I think you will have the explanation you are looking for! You don't want to read my treatise on the subject, believe me. Plus, I think it would violate the TOS here!

But to give you a bit more. The characters in the OT have been bee deemed far more engaging and relateable (esp. compared to two Jedi superheroes in AOTC and ROTS), the more streamlined and mythic storytelling structure of the OT has been deemed by many to be more satisfying, the acting in the OT has been deemed by many to be more natural and energetic, and the look of the OT has been deemed by many to feel more natural, real and smartly-designed (as opposed to heavily digital look of the PT, especially AOTC and ROTS). I would also add that the second and third films were plagued with poor conceptual design, which led to scenes that had no visual clarity. A mass of pixels, where the viewer's eye had nowhere to settle.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In any event, the two trilogies are so different, even to those who love both of them, that I am a little surprised at this question. I don't know of anyone that has claimed that they are very similar.

 

DarthLightlyBruise

I wasn't interested in "deemed by many". I was only interested in your opinion.

See this is the problem - when people are asked to discuss the issue it is always either dismissive remarks or what other people say.

And a difficulty with super powered heroes in a fantasy story? I don't get it.

However, the more important point is that you'd defend Whitta's involvement just because he holds the same opinion as you, more or less.\

Is it not better to be objective?

 

That is the problem with fans. It's not about their own personal opinions, but the opinions that would agree with what everyone else seems to be saying. The views of the majority doesn't necessary mean it is a good or valid view. A crowd of people has often made worse decision than the individual. It's always vague opinions deem correct by the community as opposed to any serious attempt at anaylsing it.

To me, I would think that problem with the PT is that it isn't MASSIVELY better than the OT. The audience who grew up with the OT had years of imagination building up in their mind, that it would require the PT to be some of the best movies ever made to match their expectations. To talk about having a sense of wonder and innocent is to expect the same sort of feeling older fans would have watching the OT as kids, which is near impossible to recreate.

Probably the main difference between the PT and the OT is the types of characters they have on screen. You have the princess who dared to break the sterotype of most damsel in distress, a rouge scoundrel that boys want to be and a earnest and kind farmboy would become a hero. The PT have a very idealistic politician, a very stoic Jedi Master and a young knight that will become a villain. In some ways the PT probably have characters that is a lot harder to relate to.

Most of the time, whether we liked the film or not is largely based on the role of characters and the actors playing them. A movie with poor storyline can be ignored if the actor or actress captures the attention of the audience easily.

 

Please. That is not my problem. I said "deemed by many" because every time I offered my own personal opinion, Hogg dismissed it as an insufficient explanation for why the PT and OT are different. In that context, I was trying to offer up a reason why many seem to think they are different. But those are my opinions. I hold them. I watch the OT and the PT, and those are some of the key elements that I find to be different between the two trilogies. Heck, it's not the most popular opinion that the PT had poor conceptual design. That's my belief (especially with AOTC and ROTS, which were both heavily influenced by Ryan Church's concepts, which I find generally subpar).

The most frustrating thing about the OT-PT debate is not what people say. It's that people immediately lump you into a category/camp. That's not me. I'm not a joiner. I have my own personal reasons for disliking the PT, which has mostly to do with taste (as do all opinions about art). So let me rephrase my previous post:

 

What do you "every time"? It was twice in the space of a few minutes.

And I didn't "dismiss" your opinions, I asked you to explain some of your views so that I could try to understand them. If anyone was being dismissive it was you, because your explanation was half hearted and lacked any real substance, and I know you to be better able than that.

Also, I didn't "immediately lump you into a category/camp". I gave you a fair shake at explaining you point of view.

 

And you wonder why I get frustrated with you sometimes? My explanations were not half hearted and without substance, and I'm offended by the description. My explanations are at the core of what I find to be different between the PT and the OT. They are the primary reasons why I dislike the PT.

You seem to value detailed explanations for opinions. But when it comes to film (and art), the reasons I respond to something, or don't respond to something, are more often than not conceptual, impressionistic, abstract and aesthetic. You don't value and/or understand these reasons, and you therefore label them "half hearted and without substance." I like to strike at the core of things, rather than wallow in a quagmire of detail. I focus on the forest, not the trees.

I will try again.

OT: A refreshing adventure.
PT: A plodding procedural.

That is ALL substance, and no style. And it's a full hearted explanation of my view.

 

DarthLightlyBruise

I haven't dismissed or belittled your opinion, I simply asked you to explain it so I could try to understand. What is so wrong with that?

It isn't about "detail", it is about substance. You are fully entitled to say something like "I just didn't like it", but when it comes to a discussion and a person asks for an explanation, then that isn't enough.

Who said I didn't "value" or "understand" these things? I don't don't understand your point of view, that is why I asked for you explain.

And you yourself have said it is is about taste and one's own opinion. So if a person thinks your explanation doesn't answer their question and lacks substance, then that opinion is no less valid then your own.

And...

​

​

... in my opinion, doesn't mean anything. It is a response without any substance, because it doesn't explain anything. and is half hearted, because I know you are capable of a better explanation.​

​

​

​

There is no substance to "OT: A refreshing adventure, PT: A plodding procedural " - what does it even mean?​

​

And what about the more important point - is it not better to remain objective about the cast and crew of the films, regardless of their opinions of any movie, Star Wars or whatever?​

 

Yes, it's better to be objective. However, if a future GFFA director were to say that he or she preferred the PT to the OT, I would naturally worry that his or her film would end up closer to the sensibilities in the PT. And since I don't appreciate the PT, I would justified in that worry, just as those who love the PT don't like the fact that Abrams has expressed a dislike for the PT.

It means exactly what it means. The Star Wars OT, to me, is a refreshing adventure story. That's the impression I get after watching it. The impression I get after watching the PT is a plodding procedural. A film series that plods from plot point A to B to C in order to tell me the story of Anakin's fall from grace. And there is ONLY substance in my comment. There is not a lot of detail, and no style. But it's pure concentrate. No water added.

But if you want the water, just read all my posts on the subject (too many to count, to the chagrin of many, I imagine). As I said, excessive PT criticism violates the TOS here at TFN, and so I am reluctant to say more.

 

Yes, concern is only natural in those circumstances however one has to remain objective.

I know (or at least I believe so) that you intended your earlier response - that Whitta is not acceptable if he was bashing** the OT instead of the PT - with humour, that is was tongue in cheek, but part of you really mean it?

And when and where has Abrams ever "expressed a dislike for the PT"?

** And a basher, a hater - personally I'd prefer someone capable of constructive criticism.

Yes, of course it means what it means, but it means it to you. Is it really unreasonable for someone to ask you to explain or expand on those remarks because they don't understand what you mean?

Just saying "a refreshing adventure story" and "a plodding procedural" doesn't mean anything to someone who isn't you.

And to "just read all my posts on the subject" is a dismissive attitude. It is "go away, I don't want to talk".

Yes, concern is only natural in those circumstances however one has to remain objective.

I know (or at least I believe so) that you intended your earlier response - that Whitta is not acceptable if he was bashing** the OT instead of the PT - with humour, that is was tongue in cheek, but part of you really mean it?

And when and where has Abrams ever "expressed a dislike for the PT"?

** And a basher, a hater - personally I'd prefer someone capable of constructive criticism.

And then there is this ...

... why do you need to "excessively criticise" (or excessively praise) one set of movies in a discussion where you were asked to explain what you feel the differences are?

Why can't it be "I don't like how in such-and-such, thingamabob happened because this-and-that" or "I didn't like .....because.... " and compare that to why you prefer the other? Is that not reasonable?

 

I always appreciated the breeziness and carefree adventure of the PT.

What I liked about it is how it brought me back to that childhood thrill that I experienced in the OT, when everything was like a mysterious gift to be opened, and cherished.

Gary Whitta didn't have the same experience? Sucks to be him.

 

Hogg,

I am really not asking you to go away, I'm simply trying to respect the site, its owners and its contributors. It's just that the mods, and the general TFN community, don't like a lot of OT-PT talk because of the implications it has for the board (can quickly descend into a flame war, whether I intend that or not). So I'm happy to give you more detailed reasons offline. PM me with a series of questions, and I'll answer as quickly as I can.

Best,
DLB

 

DarthLightlyBruise

A PM is fine with me although I'm trying to stay off the site at weekends (and I've found it is best to include Fridays in that) so I'd prefer if we left anything until Monday or such.

However, can you tell where you heard or read that Abrams expressed a dislike for the Prequels?

A few people have said this but I've never seen it.

 

Well, there is this thread:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/jj-abrams-opinion-of-the-prequels.50008830/

Personally I would say that Abrams is mostly dispassionate on the Prequels, but loves the OT. Of course he's far too diplomatic and PR-savvy to ever say something negative about any SW-movie, so all his statements have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

None of those quotes from Abrams say anything remotely negative about the PT. I've heard this "diplomatic and too PR clever" before but that is just people and "journalists" projecting their own opinions.

He only seems to ever mention AHN and TESB. Why don't people extrapolate from that he hates RotJ? Maybe because they don't want to.

Maybe Abrams just prefers the Originals because he likes the Originals better. Maybe he thinks the PT is great, just not as great the OT. Maybe he he thinks the PT is terrible, but it just doesn't bother him. Etc. etc.

Whatever his opinion, it isn't sensible for other people to project their own feelings onto Abrams.

 

It's JJ Abrams. I can assure you that I take everything he says with a grain of salt, no matter if it is about the prequels or not. He is simply not very trustworthy after the whole Kahn fiasco, and I am saying that as someone who likes him.

That's why I said "personally I think he is indifferent". Why do you take so much issue with that? I can't really stop my brain from making guesses, that's how brains work.

 

Well, that is up to yourself but it makes no sense to me. He was fibbing in an effort to make the movie more enjoyable. There is nothing wrong with that. A lie is not automatically a bad thing.

And if he is so untrustworthy, then he can't be trusted about what he says about the Originals OR what he doesn't say about the Prequels. So thee is even less justification to make assumptions about he thinks about the Prequels.

That isn't "guesses", it is assumptions. The "issue I take with it" is that there is basis for it. None.

A poster (I can't recall the name) in the Oscar Issac thread said the same thing about him - he praised the sets TFA by saying "they actually built stuff, it wasn't done CGI" and that suddenly became Issac passing anti-CG remarks.

A person liking, preferring or praising one aspect of the franchise does not automatically mean they dislike another partI. t "projecting" and that is ridiculous.