Star Wars- The Force Awakens Official Thread

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

That is a straw man argument.

Let's see:


"Straw man - A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."


You called Lucas a hypocrite and you alluded that he should have not been surprised that Disney did not remain true to his original vision for the third trilogy.

I posted a video where Lucas himself has come to think of the sale of the Star Wars franchise as similar to "selling his children to white slavers" (beginning at the 2:00 mark in the first video), rather that giving up his children for adoption to a loving family. It is clear to me that he had some expectation that at least the basic framework of the final trilogy would be true to his vision, just as an artist who sells a painting does not expect it to end up lining a bird cage. Episode 7 was not a respectful continuation of the narrative established by Episodes 1-6. It was a cynical cash and merchandising vehicle consisting of a shameless remake of Episode 4.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Disney didn't mistreat the product with any disrespect at all. I hope you are not suggesting this?

No, I'm not suggesting that, I am straight out saying it...and Lucas is too. He elaborates more during the entire 54 minute interview with Charlie Rose, which can be viewed here:

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60665244

If I had had any idea that "The Force Awakens" was going to be a regurgitated, half-digested glob of "A New Hope", I wouldn't have wasted my time and money.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Lucas may have creative differences, but that is to be expected, no?

"Creative differences" don't come into play here, because, as you noted, once Lucas sold the franchise, he lost all creative rights. However, just because you no longer own something, that does not mean you can't express regret, disappointment, and outrage over how it was/is treated. If you sell four kittens to a family, you expect the kittens to become beloved pets, not ingredients for cat stew, and not food for the family's pet alligator.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Lucas has to understand that once he sells the product, he is no longer in control of it. Simple as that. He sounds like a spoiled "billionaire".

He is not sounding like a spoiled billionaire. He is sounding like a disappointed artist. If I spent weeks modifying a pair of SDAs, inside and out, and then sold them to someone who I later learned had replaced the passive radiator with an active woofer, then put them on his back porch and used them as "party speakers", I wouldn't appreciate that, even though I know full well that the buyer can do whatever he wants with HIS speakers. I would have preferred that the speakers had been bought by someone who would have respected them and used them as they were intended to be used - in a nice, indoor, two channel stereo system.

Some home sellers won't sell their home unless they have some assurance that the new owners won't tear it down and build something out of character for the neighborhood or something identical to another house in the neighborhood.

cnh

Still have not seen it but I LOVE seeing all the free market boys decrying greed and profit above. That's quite enertaining. Must be a late X-mas present? Lol

nooshinjohn

Just listened to the soundtrack a bit... I love it. It is both new and refreshing, and gives a measured nod to the past. I am excited for tommorow 3pm to get here

cnh

xcapri79 wrote: »

cnh wrote: »

Still have not seen it but I LOVE seeing all the free market boys decrying greed and profit. That's quite enertaining. Must be a late X-mas present? Lol

No one has mentioned greed, let alone decried it. There is nothing wrong with someone becoming a billionaire - just be adult about it.
There is no problem with self interest as it allows us all to survive in a free market.
Both parties can profit to their mutual benefit from a free market transaction as George Lucas and Disney both did.
I and others just object to the self-serving, immature, belly aching by Lucas after the fact.
He did a wonderful job with Star Wars and his other movies and we are grateful for the entertainment that he has provided us.
He just needs to grow up now and get on with life after Star Wars.

With respect to greed cnh, you can learn from Milton Friedman.
My Christmas present to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Not a big fan of greed, my apologies to Milt-what a slimy fellow (only conservatives site this figure-duh, I can refer you to some of my friends in Latin American History who can document the fall of a number of nations at the expense of the expansion of first world markets, but hey Milt don't do History! lol He'd have so much to apologize for if he did!)I

But I'll be nice because, tis the season, no? And we're way OFF topic in any case! Mea culpa!

Joey_V

DarqueKnight wrote: »

xcapri79 wrote: »

I admire his genius, but he sounds like a typical Hollywood hypocrite.
What did he expect when he sold Star Wars to Disney for $4 billion?

I don't think it's hypocritical to expect your art to be treated with some measure of respect to its creator. I don't think any painter would appreciate someone buying his/her oil paintings and then learning that the buyer used them for lining garbage cans and bird cages.

Oh please - I watched the Lucas video posted. We are only hearing his side of the story and he is villianizing the purchasers of his "kids". Gag me.

He talks about Star Wars like they're his kids. Right. So because I don't have the time to spend with my kid, I'll just put her up for adoption and then I'll just villainize the new parents because they have different ideas of raising her?

What makes you say that Disney treated his "art" as garbage and without respect?

Don't expect a George Lucas SW7 from Disney. It's going to be Disney's version.

DaveHo

Saw it the other day, while it was entertaining, I thought it was predictable & re-gurgitated many of the same concepts from previous films. There were a couple of comedic attempts thrown in which really didn't fit well. If you're not a big Star Wars fan, you can wait for the Blu-ray.

nooshinjohn

DaveHo wrote: »

Saw it the other day, while it was entertaining, I thought it was predictable & re-gurgitated many of the same concepts from previous films. There were a couple of comedic attempts thrown in which really didn't fit well. If you're not a big Star Wars fan, you can wait for the Blu-ray.

I could not agree more. Saw the movie today and found it to basically be a highlight reel of the original trilogy with some filler material tossed in ala mystery theater 3000... I had such high hopes for this one. Glad JJ chose to only direct one. Perhaps he can see about **** up another franchise.

nooshinjohn

Screw ing is censored here,,, WTF?

DarqueKnight

Joey_V wrote: »

Oh please - I watched the Lucas video posted. We are only hearing his side of the story and he is villianizing the purchasers of his "kids". Gag me.

I was gagged too...by sitting through 2.5 hours of an unexpected re-run.

Joey_V wrote: »

He talks about Star Wars like they're his kids. Right.

It is common for artists, especially artists who spend years creating a work or body work, to refer to their work as their "kids". Maybe this is something only another artist can understand.

I was commissioned to do a painting 11 years ago. I spent 11 months on it. Halfway through the process I apologized and refunded the customer's deposit because I realized I wasn't going to be able to part with it. The customer asked why I couldn't sell the painting I was working on and make another one just like it for myself. The answer was that I had grown attached to ***that*** painting. Giving it up would have been like asking me to clone my child after I had agreed to give the original up for adoption.

Joey_V wrote: »

So because I don't have the time to spend with my kid, I'll just put her up for adoption and then I'll just villainize the new parents because they have different ideas of raising her?

He is not villainizing the new parents because they have different ideas of raising it. He is villanizing the new parents because they have radically different ideas of raising it.

Rather than raising the child to be a unique individual, they raised the child to be a cheap imitation of an older child, because that older child was very successful and they wanted to duplicate that success rather than take a chance on "someone new".

Joey_V wrote: »

What makes you say that Disney treated his "art" as garbage and without respect?

Lucas said he doesn't like retro movies and remakes. He said he had a framework for the last trilogy. "The Force Awakens" is a retro movie and remake. Rather than take a chance on a logical continuation of Episodes 1-6, Disney chose to play it safe and repackage and reintroduce Episode 4 to a new audience. Kudos to Disney since they apparently are hitting far exceeding their sales targets.

Lots of things about the new movie make it a disrespectful reboot/remake, such as:

Kylo Ren's fanatical devotion to "finishing what Vader started". Did he not get the memo that Vader reformed near the end of his life and reverted back to Anakin Skywalker? Furthermore, even if Luke Skywalker, for some insane reason, chose to keep Vader's reformation a secret, Anakin Skywalker (and Yoda, and Qui Gon Jinn, and Obi-Wan Kenobi) became an immortal force ghost and should have told his grandson Kylo that he was barking up the wrong side of the force.

The concept of the "Starkiller Station", which is a much bigger and badder Death Star, is ridiculous to the point of being insulting. If something the size of a small planet could pull and absorb mass from a star (without being incinerated), and then project the star's stored energy for millions of miles, then it shouldn't need a star's energy at all. An object able to exert enough gravitational force to pull all of a star's burning hot mass, while at a safe distance, would also be able to exert enough gravitational force to crush any number of planets that are much, much smaller than a star.

J. J. Abrams' Star Trek movies are non-canonical and occur in an alternate universe. Maybe the new Star War's movies are intended to be the same.

Joey_V wrote: »

Don't expect a George Lucas SW7 from Disney. It's going to be Disney's version.

I didn't expect a George Lucas SW7 from Disney. I expected a continuation of the narrative established in the first six movies. What I got was a ridiculous re-run of Episode 4.

tonyb

Hmmm.....haven't seen it yet but, some got a "ridiculous version of episode 4", George got 4 billion when he sold it, Disney got 1 billion in sales so far.

The common denominator is money folks, not whether the original artists visions are kept intact.....and George accepted that fact when he sold it. Disney bought the franchise as a way to make money, they have no emotional connection to uphold the original artists train of thought.

George sold it, giving up control of his "kids", and was paid well for it so he should stop whining. Disney will keep putting out extensions of the Franchise with new faces, same old story lines, and tons of new CGI...to get their investments back and then some. People will still pay regardless, to be entertained for 2-3 hours.

If Rays thoughts are correct, then that only solidifies my thoughts on the lack of talent in Hollywood these days between directors, writers and fresh ideas. I looked at all the new movies coming out for 2016, most are remakes or hold similar story lines to past successful movies. I'm holding my Johnson from sheer excitement.

dromunds

Did I mention Daisy Ridley?

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

George sold it, giving up control of his "kids", and was paid well for it so he should stop whining.

I didn't perceive George as whining. An interviewer asked him how he felt about the new SW movie and George gave his honest, unfiltered, opinions. He is not going around whining to everyone within earshot about how Disney %$@!-up his artistic vision for the last trilogy.

tonyb wrote: »

If Rays thoughts are correct, then that only solidifies my thoughts on the lack of talent in Hollywood these days between directors, writers and fresh ideas.

There isn't a lack of talent and fresh ideas. There is a lack of movie companies willing to risk money on talent and fresh ideas. Hollywood is run by accountants, and accounts view movies in terms of rate of return potential rather than artistic quality. They only want to remake what sold well before.

xcapri79 wrote: »

I wonder if George Lucas signed a non-compete clause with Disney?
I would guess that he did as this is normally the case.
Perhaps he is having second thoughts?

I don't think a non-complete clause was necessary.

In the extended interview that I linked to, George explains that he never wants to do another big budget, extravagant film like SW and that he never wanted to do those types of films in the first place. He said he wants to do small, experimental, artsy-type films, which is how he began his directing career.

George is grateful, however, that SW gave him the financial and artistic freedom to finally be the kind of director he always wanted to be and to make the kinds of movies he always wanted to make.

adabro

Saw it today, quite enjoyed it - they did veer a little too much into episode 4, but light years ahead of anything Lucas has done in the Star Wars universe since I was a kid.

11tsteve

I also felt it was a re-hash, and even more disappointing as it lacked the humanity and the soul of Episode IV. Even as a re-run, it was a shallow interpretation. It was more comic book than the original 3, and I was glad it was a Christmas Day matinee for a $5 ticket.

agfrost

I thought it was highly derivative, but that didn't interfere with my enjoyment. I thought they cast it well. (Did I hear dromunds mentioning Daisy Ridley?) My kid enjoyed it, so good enough!

The one cynical thought I had while watching it was that the battle sequences were made with the future video game in mind.

PSOVLSK

xcapri79 wrote: »

I admire his genius, but he sounds like a typical Hollywood hypocrite.
What did he expect when he sold Star Wars to Disney for $4 billion?

It's a (post)Christmas miracle...I'm agreeing with the x-man:)

Saw it today and thought it was pretty good. I'm no huge Star Wars fan though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

HHStuart

I saw it recently and thought it was pretty good. It was somewhat derivative of the original trilogy but you can also see that as paying homage. I am thankful that George Lucas had nothing to do with it because the prequels were awful. I don't know whether it was the script writing or the wooden acting by the Darth Vader characters (young and old), not to mention Jar Jar Binks. Even Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman could not do much with it and I like both of them.
I will definitely see the next few movies.

Polkie2009

DarqueKnight wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

George sold it, giving up control of his "kids", and was paid well for it so he should stop whining.

I didn't perceive George as whining. An interviewer asked him how he felt about the new SW movie and George gave his honest, unfiltered, opinions. He is not going around whining to everyone within earshot about how Disney %$@!-up his artistic vision for the last trilogy.

tonyb wrote: »

If Rays thoughts are correct, then that only solidifies my thoughts on the lack of talent in Hollywood these days between directors, writers and fresh ideas.

There isn't a lack of talent and fresh ideas. There is a lack of movie companies willing to risk money on talent and fresh ideas. Hollywood is run by accountants, and accounts view movies in terms of rate of return potential rather than artistic quality. They only want to remake what sold well before.

xcapri79 wrote: »

I wonder if George Lucas signed a non-compete clause with Disney?
I would guess that he did as this is normally the case.
Perhaps he is having second thoughts?

I don't think a non-complete clause was necessary.

In the extended interview that I linked to, George explains that he never wants to do another big budget, extravagant film like SW and that he never wanted to do those types of films in the first place. He said he wants to do small, experimental, artsy-type films, which is how he began his directing career.

George is grateful, however, that SW gave him the financial and artistic freedom to finally be the kind of director he always wanted to be and to make the kinds of movies he always wanted to make.

I did see some__ of George Lucas' interview the other day on Bloomberg cable tv channel. He did__ mention he now wants to do some small artsy movies like he did with THX 1138 and American Graffiti. Good interview to check out.

DarqueKnight

HHStuart wrote: »

I am thankful that George Lucas had nothing to do with it because the prequels were awful. I don't know whether it was the script writing or the wooden acting by the Darth Vader characters (young and old), not to mention Jar Jar Binks. Even Liam Neeson and Natalie Portman could not do much with it and I like both of them.

"Wooden" acting is when an actor is unable to convey the required emotion for a scene. It results when the director can't request, or coax, the required response from the actor because the actor doesn't have the training or ability to provide a convincing performance. Since all of the principle actors involved in the prequels have performances where they are not acting in a "wooden" fashion, I must conclude that they were speaking and acting as George Lucas wanted them to. Characters in science fiction/science fantasy movies typically act and speak differently than characters set in "ordinary" human times and situations.

George Lucas wanted to convey that these were extra-ordinary people, human and non-human, who lived in extra-ordinary situations in a far different time, in a far distant galaxy, and who had technological, physical, and mental capacities far greater than ours. The "other-worldly" nature of Star Wars' narrative would not have been well served by having the characters speak and act just like the people we interact with every day. Bear in mind that these characters were under intense physical, emotional, and psychological stress due to being in a constant state of warfare.

The Jedi Knights, similar to Buddhist Shaolin Monks, were trained from a young age in religion and martial arts. Shaolin monks don't act, speak, and fight like the "ordinary" people of their native countries, let alone the "ordinary" people of other countries. Similarly, I wouldn't expect the warrior monks in a distant galaxy to act and speak like the "ordinary" people of that time and place, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to act and speak like the people I deal with every day.

tophatjohnny

Funny,,when I first started reading this thread from the start..I said to my wife, "let's go check this movie out Saturday" and when I go to a movie it has to be Imax 3D or I just wait and watch in the comfort of my own home. Now that I finished the thread, I am not going to the movie. I am not a fan, just thought it may be cool, but that cool can wait for the DVD. Anything else jamming and whamming to see?? Let's see, I was 17 in 77. Man I am getting old.

westmassguy

tophatjohnny wrote: »

Let's see, I was 17 in 77. Man I am getting old.

But at least you're not Grumpy and Old like me Brother.

mhardy6647

Old? check.
Grumpy? check.

on the plus side, my son & daughter in law taught Mrs. H and I how to play Euchre last night.

Strong Bad

Here's an interesting read from 2010 about Gary Kurtz, producer on Eps IV and V. He was a very strong influence on both these movies, both story and script. He also filled in on directing duties for some sequences in Ep V: ESB.

It's a long read, but after over a decade of working with Lucas, they parted ways after ESB because he saw the driving force behind Ep VI: ROTJ was toy sales. He and Lucas went back and forth as to how the story line should have went with ROTJ.

"The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau."

Gotta agree with Kurtz!

The article

Joey_V

Strong Bad wrote: »

Here's an interesting read from 2010 about Gary Kurtz, producer on Eps IV and V. He was a very strong influence on both these movies, both story and script. He also filled in on directing duties for some sequences in Ep V: ESB.

It's a long read, but after over a decade of working with Lucas, they parted ways after ESB because he saw the driving force behind Ep VI: ROTJ was toy sales. He and Lucas went back and forth as to how the story line should have went with ROTJ.

"The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau."

Gotta agree with Kurtz!

The article

GL is a hypocrite. He sells it to Disney and he complains, acts like his story telling was not driven by the money he was making. Then when Disney steps in and does what he's been doing for decades, he immediately says that they are what? "White masters"... or some deragotory comment?

Please, George - you made 4,000,000,000 from the deal. $4,000,000,000... do not whine.

Do not whine.

Love Star Wars though.

DarqueKnight

Joey_V wrote: »

GL is a hypocrite. He sells it to Disney and he complains, acts like his story telling was not driven by the money he was making.

GL is very honest about the fact that he never wanted to do movies like SW and that he did them for commercial reasons. However, he, unlike Disney, did not take commercialism as a license to trick the audience into going to see a movie that was a remake of an earlier movie IN THE SERIES.

Joey_V wrote: »

Then when Disney steps in and does what he's been doing for decades, he immediately says that they are what? "White masters"... or some deragotory comment?

The term he used was "white slavers".

GL made 6 movies where each movie added substantially to the narrative of the life and times of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Disney made a movie that was a poorly executed remake of the 4th SW episode.

My criticism, and GL's criticism, is not that Disney didn't continue SW according to Lucas' vision, but that Disney had no vision at all. They just went and copied what Lucas did before. "The Force Awakens" is just "A New Hope" with different actors in the lead roles and the lead characters from ANH in supporting roles.

tonyb

Even if Disney has no vision at all Ray, so what ? GL got on board the minute he sold it. Star Wars as his "kids" ? What parent would sell their kids ? White slavers ? How ridiculous and over the top. He's lucky he doesn't get Disney's lawyers knocking on his door.

Simply not buying it, GL sold it and gave up any authority how the story proceeds, if at all. You can't have it both ways. He may want to cry over spilled milk, but he has 4 billion reasons not to.

Joey_V

tonyb wrote: »

Even if Disney has no vision at all Ray, so what ? GL got on board the minute he sold it. Star Wars as his "kids" ? What parent would sell their kids ? White slavers ? How ridiculous and over the top. He's lucky he doesn't get Disney's lawyers knocking on his door.

Simply not buying it, GL sold it and gave up any authority how the story proceeds, if at all. You can't have it both ways. He may want to cry over spilled milk, but he has 4 billion reasons not to.

You can't have your $4,000,000,000 cake and eat it too.

gce

Headed to Hollywood today. May the Force be with us!

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Even if Disney has no vision at all Ray, so what ? GL got on board the minute he sold it.

If you watch the entire Charlie Rose interview, you will learn that GL did get "on board" with Disney's decision by completely backing away and wishing them well. That does not mean that he gave up the right to express his opinion about the direction Disney took.

GL's opinion of TFA echoes my, and many other people's, opinion. To reiterate, GL is not going around whining about this movie. An interviewer asked him for his opinion of it and he provided it. GL was actually far more generous with his assessment than me, because I think TFA was a waste of my time and money.

tonyb wrote: »

Star Wars as his "kids" ? What parent would sell their kids ?

People who create works of art or who create businesses often refer to the artwork or business as their "child". I don't understand why some people are expressing shock at GL's use of this terminology.

People "sell" their kids all the time by giving them up for adoption. A person may not receive a cash payment for giving up a child, but they do receive a quantifiable tremendous economic benefit by being released from the financial responsibility of completely caring for a human being for 18 years. People typically give up a child for adoption when they realize they are not able to raise the child properly and that someone else is far better equipped to raise the child. GL said he sold the SW franchise because, at age 70, he wanted to do other types of films and he did not want to commit another 10 years of his life to completing the third trilogy.

Women who act as surrogates sometimes get attached to the child they carried and gave birth to. Business owners have expressed regret and remorse upon seeing the direction their former company was taken by the new owners. Biological parents have expressed regret and remorse upon learning how the child they gave up was raised or mistreated.

If a woman gave up her child to be raised in a Christian home, and she later learned that the parents were actually atheists and were raising the child as a atheist, wouldn't you expect her to express some disappointment, regret, and remorse about that situation if she were asked about it? You would just tell her "tough cookies, you have no right to express your opinion about how the child is being raised because you gave up your parental rights"?

tonyb wrote: »

White slavers ? How ridiculous and over the top. He's lucky he doesn't get Disney's lawyers knocking on his door.

Slavers sometimes use the tactic of luring people away from their homeland with the promise of good jobs, then when the victims get to the country of employment, their passports and money are confiscated and they are forced to work in slave labor conditions. In other words, the employers do a completely different thing than what the worker expected. Perhaps the enslaved workers should quit complaining and just be happy that they have a job...right? GL sold SW with the understanding that Disney was going to further the narrative of the first six movies, not that they would do a remake rip off of the original trilogy.

What would Disney's lawyers sue GL for? Last time I checked, expressing an opinion was a 1st Amendment right.

tonyb wrote: »

Simply not buying it, GL sold it and gave up any authority how the story proceeds, if at all. You can't have it both ways. He may want to cry over spilled milk, but he has 4 billion reasons not to.

But GL is not trying to have it both ways. He is not trying to exert authority over how the story proceeds. He is not crying over spilled milk. He simply expressed his opinion about how things turned out when he was asked.

Selling something, even selling something for $4 billion, does not remove the right to express an opinion about how the sold item was/is treated by the new owners. Expressing such an opinion does not equate to trying to exert influence on how the new owners treat their property.

adabro

I have zero interest in GL's opinion at this point. I thought the prequels were terrible, but it was his constant tinkering with the OT and his refusal to release an unaltered version that had me hoping he would walk away. Harmy's despecialized editions are my go to versions now.

I enjoyed TFA and I'm looking forward to the next movie - something I haven't said about Star Wars in many many years.