Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[Falaskan]

I rate them: 1, 3, 2, 4. I liked the first one because it was fun and simple, but I don't mind the epicness of the 2 sequels. They are all equally enjoyable for different reasons. Now the 4th was a little more of a letdown. People have acted like Jack was the only one carrying the Pirates franchise, as if the films would've done as well if not better had Jack been the only character at all. I think OST proves this to be folly. I didn't give a rip about the missionary and mermaid girl, or Blackbeard, or any of the other supporting cast. Penelope Cruz keeps her head above water, but that is about it.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

In Curse of the Black Pearl, Jack Sparrow was a good man AND a pirate. That's what he tried to teach Turner about his father, and that's why everyone rushed to save Jack at the end. He was, in the end, a decent fellow.

In Pirates 2 and 3, Sparrow was a self-centered nutter who would screw anyone over, at any time. We really didn't care about him, because he was no longer the "good man AND a pirate". I was waiting for some scheme to be revealed in his selling of Turner to Davy Jones, but there isn't one. He sent Turner to his doom. By the end of the second film, Elizabeth has turned murderer, Jack tried to swap his mortal fate in exchange for Turner, and Turner feels betrayed by everyone. By the end of the third film, we're left with a Captain Jack who has all the moral conviction of a leaf blown by the wind.

In fact, by the time 3 came along, the story was so intent on wrapping up all the "expanded saga" storylines they'd started with Liz, Will, Davey and Tia, Jack not only ended up missing, literally and figuratively, but came off a bit of a loser as well. He's left with almost nothing to do, and pretty much ends up to Annoying Comic Sidekick, of the type that usually one step away from being dumped overboard.

(He just didn't have that rebellious minor pride he had sailing into the first movie standing atop his sinking ship...)

Pirates 4 remembered who Jack was in the first film -- a good man *and* a pirate. He has loyalty, he values friends, he has a sense of injustice. The film has wonderful visuals, and good performances. It simply lacks a compelling villain that can stand next to Rush and Nighy.

Probably because 4 had been lifted from a completely different existing book where Jack wasn't a character, so he wanders through the story largely as spectator, and doing quirky bits of business that will end up in the trailer.
The whole movie began life as simply an afterthought to a failed Disney Parks tie-in deal in the first place, so it was basically wrapped up to say They Made One, but it was those darn foreigners who like Big American Hollywood Stuff Happening Without Translation that kept Disney thinking they had a serious entry in the canon.

[segagamer12]

Originally Posted by EricJ

In fact, by the time 3 came along, the story was so intent on wrapping up all the "expanded saga" storylines they'd started with Liz, Will, Davey and Tia, Jack not only ended up missing, literally and figuratively, but came off a bit of a loser as well. He's left with almost nothing to do, and pretty much ends up to Annoying Comic Sidekick, of the type that usually one step away from being dumped overboard.

(He just didn't have that rebellious minor pride he had sailing into the first movie standing atop his sinking ship...)



Probably because 4 had been lifted from a completely different existing book where Jack wasn't a character, so he wanders through the story largely as spectator, and doing quirky bits of business that will end up in the trailer.
The whole movie began life as simply an afterthought to a failed Disney Parks tie-in deal in the first place, so it was basically wrapped up to say They Made One, but it was those darn foreigners who like Big American Hollywood Stuff Happening Without Translation that kept Disney thinking they had a serious entry in the canon.

Or there really were a lot of people who just enjoyed the films and wanted to see more? I disgaree with your assessment of 2 and 3, did you NOT notice Sparrow was being chased by the Devil to be sentenced to HELL, of course he was going to do anything to get out of it. There is such a thing as a good man going bad, or have you never watched Star Wars? I thought this was a Star Wars thread, so that was why I mentioned the Pirates and yes I see a lot of other parallels and the one where Jack a good man, turns bad is one of them. But I guess when George Lucas does it is magic when Disney does it, it is shameful?

I think people who tend to over think movies are the ones who can't enjoy a good fun movie because they are looking for ways to tie it into their world view.

It is just like the Han shot first BS, Han was ALWAYS in danger it was ALWAYS self defense weather Greedo shot first or Han shoots first Greedo still had his gun out and was ready to kill so Han was ALWAYS reacting in Self Defense, yet depending on your world view of self defense and George Lucas bashing will determine if you think a MINOR insignificant change totally destroyed a character or if it was just a bad effect.

In fact being able to dodge a shot so close so causally makes him MORE bad ass.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

Or there really were a lot of people who just enjoyed the films and wanted to see more? I disgaree with your assessment of 2 and 3, did you NOT notice Sparrow was being chased by the Devil to be sentenced to HELL, of course he was going to do anything to get out of it. There is such a thing as a good man going bad, or have you never watched Star Wars? I thought this was a Star Wars thread, so that was why I mentioned the Pirates and yes I see a lot of other parallels and the one where Jack a good man, turns bad is one of them. But I guess when George Lucas does it is magic when Disney does it, it is shameful?

I think people who tend to over think movies are the ones who can't enjoy a good fun movie because they are looking for ways to tie it into their world view.

It is just like the Han shot first BS, Han was ALWAYS in danger it was ALWAYS self defense weather Greedo shot first or Han shoots first Greedo still had his gun out and was ready to kill so Han was ALWAYS reacting in Self Defense, yet depending on your world view of self defense and George Lucas bashing will determine if you think a MINOR insignificant change totally destroyed a character or if it was just a bad effect.

In fact being able to dodge a shot so close so causally makes him MORE bad ass.

If it was so insignifcant, why change it in the first place.

As for Sparrow "going bad", the writers can do whatever they want (obviously), that doesn't mean I have to like it. And no, I don't think the Jack Sparrow in the 1st and 4th films would kill one of his friends to save his own hide.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

I'm the minority I guess, I hated the 4th POTC. I loved Jack (like always) but the rest of the characters were very weak.

No, I don't think it's the minority - I think, with the fourth Pirates, it was a 50/50 split and you either loved it or hated it. Depp was as brilliant as ever but the main problem is the lack of good villain, as Ernest Rister has already pointed out. For me, there was simply too much going on but not enough decent characters to hang it on.

Originally Posted by segagamer12

It is just like the Han shot first BS, Han was ALWAYS in danger it was ALWAYS self defense weather Greedo shot first or Han shoots first Greedo still had his gun out and was ready to kill so Han was ALWAYS reacting in Self Defense, yet depending on your world view of self defense and George Lucas bashing will determine if you think a MINOR insignificant change totally destroyed a character or if it was just a bad effect.

In fact being able to dodge a shot so close so causally makes him MORE bad ass.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

If it was so insignifcant, why change it in the first place.

The most pointless change ever - the reasoning behind it was even worse, with Lucas not wanting children to think that Han Solo was a straight up murderer. The charm and attraction of Solo, I felt, was always in the anti-hero way he was presented - yes, he's a nice guy and wants to help people eventually, but he is also not afraid to use violence if it's necessary. Changing that scene pretty much changed the character of Solo, and that's the reason I don't like it.

Even if Lucas would have come out and gave his reasons, maybe less people could have faulted what he did. But, instead, he gave us this BS:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/georg...were-ju,69159/

Completely ridiculous.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

No, I don't think it's the minority - I think, with the fourth Pirates, it was a 50/50 split and you either loved it or hated it. Depp was as brilliant as ever but the main problem is the lack of good villain, as Ernest Rister has already pointed out. For me, there was simply too much going on but not enough decent characters to hang it on.





The most pointless change ever - the reasoning behind it was even worse, with Lucas not wanting children to think that Han Solo was a straight up murderer. The charm and attraction of Solo, I felt, was always in the anti-hero way he was presented - yes, he's a nice guy and wants to help people eventually, but he is also not afraid to use violence if it's necessary. Changing that scene pretty much changed the character of Solo, and that's the reason I don't like it.

Even if Lucas would have come out and gave his reasons, maybe less people could have faulted what he did. But, instead, he gave us this BS:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/georg...were-ju,69159/

Completely ridiculous.

Especially since I've read the actual shooting script, and what's on the page is what happened on the stage. Lucas is such a baffling figure in that he's done so much great work and is so seemingly nice and charitable, but then can also be so....look, if it was important for Greedo to shoot first, they would have shot and edited it that way. You don't even need a "wide shot", just a cut to Greedo's cun firing, followed by a cut to Han's blaster and the resulting explosion.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

Pirates IV
Or there really were a lot of people who just enjoyed the films and wanted to see more?

Umm....no, not really, flopped over here, if untouched memory serves; it was just all that Easily Dazzled Foreign People business that pumped up the overseas B.O., and created that "$1 BILLION" that Disney liked to trumpet, as if it had somehow actually happened here.
Disney was seriously contemplating not doing a IV at all, after taking a bath on the Pirates 3 merchandise--But the fourth movie only began life as a New Orleans plotline, as canon alibi to try and expand more of PoTC: the Ride into New Orleans Square at Disneyland. (And hopefully try and annex Tom Sawyer's Island, which they eventually had to compromise on, which meant the movie didn't have to take place in New Orleans anymore.)

There is such a thing as a good man going bad, or have you never watched Star Wars? I thought this was a Star Wars thread, so that was why I mentioned the Pirates and yes I see a lot of other parallels and the one where Jack a good man, turns bad is one of them.

Really? Thought it was because people were knee-jerk tossing around Gore Verbinski as a "He does big stuff!" name for the SW's, despite the fact that one viewing of Rango will traumatically shatter any illusions of Verbinski as a disciplined director capable of handling anybody else's material faithfully.
(Insert obligatory "Lone Ranger...Don't come cryin' to me, folks!" comment here.)

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Umm....no, not really, flopped over here, if untouched memory serves.

On Stranger Tides grossed $241,071,802, stateside. Not a flop.

One viewing of Rango will traumatically shatter any illusions of Verbinski as a disciplined director capable of handling anybody else's material faithfully.

Liked RANGO, thought it was unique, with a quirky script and ambitious visuals.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Especially since I've read the actual shooting script, and what's on the page is what happened on the stage. Lucas is such a baffling figure in that he's done so much great work and is so seemingly nice and charitable, but then can also be so....look, if it was important for Greedo to shoot first, they would have shot and edited it that way. You don't even need a "wide shot", just a cut to Greedo's cun firing, followed by a cut to Han's blaster and the resulting explosion.

You have more experience than me in that area, then. I just can't believe that Lucas would try to lie his way out of something that stupid -- if he just admitted it straight away and gave his explanation, I'm sure more Star Wars fans would have left the topic (I still wouldn't have been happy about it but I probably could have understood it better, at least).

The problem with the final edit is the stupid "Han's head jerking awkwardly to the side" when the shot is fired. It doesn't even look like a credible way to avoid the gunfire...and the fact that Greedo's reputation is obviously complete crap because he can't even hit a target sitting a foot away.

Originally Posted by EricJ

Umm....no, not really, flopped over here, if untouched memory serves; it was just all that Easily Dazzled Foreign People business that pumped up the overseas B.O., and created that "$1 BILLION" that Disney liked to trumpet, as if it had somehow actually happened here.
Disney was seriously contemplating not doing a IV at all, after taking a bath on the Pirates 3 merchandise--But the fourth movie only began life as a New Orleans plotline, as canon alibi to try and expand more of PoTC: the Ride into New Orleans Square at Disneyland. (And hopefully try and annex Tom Sawyer's Island, which they eventually had to compromise on, which meant the movie didn't have to take place in New Orleans anymore.)

The problem is that Disney, and other studios, really don't look for the complete market in the US like they once did; overseas figures count a lot more now towards how much profit a film makes, especially in the 3D aspect, since ticket sales in America are steadily dropping. America isn't top priority anymore, so we'll continue to see more studios flaunting huge profits mainly because of the overseas market.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

The problem is that Disney, and other studios, really don't look for the complete market in the US like they once did; overseas figures count a lot more now towards how much profit a film makes, especially in the 3D aspect, since ticket sales in America are steadily dropping. America isn't top priority anymore, so we'll continue to see more studios flaunting huge profits mainly because of the overseas market.

Also because US audiences don't like summer-blockbuster special-effect action/flash as much as they used to, but foreign audiences do--
Think of the movies they make in UK and France, and then all of a sudden Tim Burton's Alice shows up...Which do you think is going to make more money in London or Paris or Tokyo theaters?
Especially when it IS a universal no-specified-country subject like fantasies, or pirates, or space, or Harry Potter/LOTR, or CGI talking animals, or just general good-vs.-evil action--As compared to something with very specifically American cultural undertones, like Lincoln, or Argo, or Zero Dark Thirty, or Marvel's Avengers, which don't have as much cultural basis for export markets, and end up treated as a well-done but nationally idiosyncratic cultural export, the way we would treat, say, "The King's Speech".

We Yanks may have thought Pirates 4 was inane, unnecessary and overmarketed, but in other countries, where there's plenty of flash and FX and jumping off of waterfalls, but not great many pages of actual English dialogue to translate and overdub....wow, it's a real American movie, like the Star Wars!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

You have more experience than me in that area, then. I just can't believe that Lucas would try to lie his way out of something that stupid -- if he just admitted it straight away and gave his explanation, I'm sure more Star Wars fans would have left the topic (I still wouldn't have been happy about it but I probably could have understood it better, at least).

The problem with the final edit is the stupid "Han's head jerking awkwardly to the side" when the shot is fired. It doesn't even look like a credible way to avoid the gunfire...and the fact that Greedo's reputation is obviously complete crap because he can't even hit a target sitting a foot away.

The easy fix is just a quick insert of Greedo's gun firing, followed by everything else exactly the way it was, with maybe a digital tweak of Greedo's missed shot smoldering on the wall. Lucas obviously wanted it to be crystal clear that Greedo shot first and missed, with no possible ambiguity whatsoever.

The problem is that Disney, and other studios, really don't look for the complete market in the US like they once did; overseas figures count a lot more now towards how much profit a film makes, especially in the 3D aspect, since ticket sales in America are steadily dropping. America isn't top priority anymore, so we'll continue to see more studios flaunting huge profits mainly because of the overseas market.

Disney has relied on the foreign market since the 30's. Roy never would have let Walt spend like he did on Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi if he thought they'd never be able to release those films in foreign territories for half a decade because of WWII - the foreign market made up almost half of their revenues. As a result of the war, Bambi didn't pay for itself until the 50's. Fantasia never made a profit while Walt was alive.

Today, in the 21st Century, when it comes to the foreign market, it really depends on the film. Disney doesn't expect Lincoln to be a big international draw, it's primarily a Western film, a talky one at that. But Pirates 4 was huge overseas. Now we're seeing tentpole franchise films like The Avengers come to market in foreign territories first (to combat piracy, and for other reasons).

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Even if Lucas would have come out and gave his reasons, maybe less people could have faulted what he did. But, instead, he gave us this BS:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/georg...were-ju,69159/

Completely ridiculous.

Got that right

Lucas:

"The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down."


If that's the case then why was there not a pyro squibs going off on the wall behind Solo?

And speaking of squibs, whats his rational for removing the Death Star officer's blaster hit squibs then? He cant blame that one on editing. When he directed that he made sure that they were included in the shots and went off without a hitch.

.

[Rainhurt]

I was still a kid (11) when the special editions came out and didn't know about the whole "Han shot first" thing until over a decade latter when I had my own computer with the Internet. I watched these movies practically every week and never noticed. The only things I have never liked about the special editions was the extended mos eisley intro, the Jabba scene and the expanded dance scene in Jedi, even as a kid I thought they were bad additions. There are some changes That are bad in the newer special editions that I don't like.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Rainhurt

I was still a kid (11) when the special editions came out and didn't know about the whole "Han shot first" thing until over a decade latter when I had my own computer with the Internet. I watched these movies practically every week and never noticed. The only things I have never liked about the special editions was the extended mos eisley intro, the Jabba scene and the expanded dance scene in Jedi, even as a kid I thought they were bad additions. There are some changes That are bad in the newer special editions that I don't like.

I was 11 in '97 too!

[segagamer12]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Really? Thought it was because people were knee-jerk tossing around Gore Verbinski as a "He does big stuff!" name for the SW's, despite the fact that one viewing of Rango will traumatically shatter any illusions of Verbinski as a disciplined director capable of handling anybody else's material faithfully.
(Insert obligatory "Lone Ranger...Don't come cryin' to me, folks!" comment here.)

I am not talking about the fourth pirates movie, it sucked no argument there, but you made it sound like everything past the first was because of foreigners dazzled by special effects which is BS because the first three were all great films. And rango is a cartoon so what does that have to do with anything? plus I never saw it so I can't comment but if he is the same guy who handled the Ring then he deserves any respect he gets.


And my good man going bad comment was about Jack Sparrow not the director. You said the pirates were bad because a Good man, Jack, turned into an evil man, I said they did it in Star Wars so why is it suddenly wrong here.


And my reasons for picking that guy as director had nothing to do with anyone else, I said it many times and I will repeat it here so it can sink in, *I* get a distinct feeling when I watch Pirates that is very similar to watching Star Wars, they just remind me of each other so much they have a very similar style. It is not all about the flashy effects, there are story similarities, open adventure similarities, magic and mystic similarities, a shit ton of awesome sword fighting, they both star pirates, they are very much alike, hell the scene in Dead Man's Chest with the cannibals is very similar to the scene in Jedi.

Note here when I say Star Wars I am talking the entire experience, if your one of those OT only folks then yeah the similarities are harder to spot but if you an complete saga guy then they are practically the same movies just one is set in space one is set in Earths past.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Got that right

Lucas:

"The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down."


If that's the case then why was there not a pyro squibs going off on the wall behind Solo?

And speaking of squibs, whats his rational for removing the Death Star officer's blaster hit squibs then? He cant blame that one on editing. When he directed that he made sure that they were included in the shots and went off without a hitch.

.

When you read that quote and understand the situation, it comes down to two options --

1) either Lucas did make the changes which, rightly or wrongly, angered Star Wars fans and lied about it afterwards

or

2) he's admitting that he directed (at least that scene) terribly, and that what came out of the editing was not a true portrayal of the events he wanted to be seen, even though he knew exactly what he wanted at that time.

If it's number two, my question to him would be such: if you knew what you wanted within that scene, you knew exactly who you wanted to shoot first and how the scene would end, why did you allow the release of the film before changing it? It's pretty obvious he just lied about it but, once again, I'm at a loss for words to explain why. Lucas is a creative genius and I love him for what he has brought to the cinematic world but, dammit, he makes some terrible decisions.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

When you read that quote and understand the situation, it comes down to two options --

1) either Lucas did make the changes which, rightly or wrongly, angered Star Wars fans and lied about it afterwards

or

2) he's admitting that he directed (at least that scene) terribly, and that what came out of the editing was not a true portrayal of the events he wanted to be seen, even though he knew exactly what he wanted at that time.

If it's number two, my question to him would be such: if you knew what you wanted within that scene, you knew exactly who you wanted to shoot first and how the scene would end, why did you allow the release of the film before changing it? It's pretty obvious he just lied about it but, once again, I'm at a loss for words to explain why. Lucas is a creative genius and I love him for what he has brought to the cinematic world but, dammit, he makes some terrible decisions.

Or....a third option-


3) A second unit director handled that scene. We have all seen from Star Wars documentaries that Lucas was way overworked during it's filming(He had to go to the hospital at one point due to all the stress involved in it's production).

So maybe he had someone else handle that particular scene but he never gave them credit for it. Kinda like Alan Dean Foster's ghost writing of the Star Wars movie novel.

.

[rickah88]

OKay, just got back into town.
Anything new...let's see: speculation, Lucas bashing, who shot first...great I'm all caught up!

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Got that right
Lucas:

"The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t.

No, George--We wanted him to shoot first because he never knows what else to do in a situation. Like in the Death Star control room. ("*blam!* It was a boring conversation anyway!")

Go ahead and blame the fans for being mean and "wanting something else"--Petulant much?
Or is it...THAT little issue again?

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Or....a third option-


3) A second unit director handled that scene. We have all seen from Star Wars documentaries that Lucas was way overworked during it's filming(He had to go to the hospital at one point due to all the stress involved in it's production).

So maybe he had someone else handle that particular scene but he never gave them credit for it. Kinda like Alan Dean Foster's ghost writing of the Star Wars movie novel.

.

Yeah, that is a possibility - I honestly have no idea how many scenes were directed by the second-unit at all - but surely Lucas would have had time to review those scenes and choose to re-shoot them if they were ambiguous or confusing. If he knew that that particular scene was either shot or edited in a way that hid the true meaning, why would he allow that to be released and then change it in the future?

It's clearly just a lie on his part because you can see the original scene on YouTube and it in no way looks like Greedo shot first, even if the editing wasn't done correctly or to Lucas' liking.

Originally Posted by rickah88

OKay, just got back into town.
Anything new...let's see: speculation, Lucas bashing, who shot first...great I'm all caught up!