Star Wars- The Force Awakens Official Thread

Strong Bad

Disney wisely heard the cries of all the fans over the years with GL's tinkering of the OT and the many blunders of the PT. I think once they took possession of Lucasfilm, they listened what GL had to say, then perhaps said "No thanks!" They really did need to distance themselves from GL or risk angering the fan base...aka...the people who give money to Disney. I wonder though as to what went on behind closed doors with Disney and GL. He could have had more involvement with this new trilogy than what is being said. Who knows! Anyway..GL has angered a lot of fans over the years...

Come on...

1. Han shoots first
2. Jar Jar
3. General "Robitussin" Grievous and that infernal sore throat
4. Ewoks
5. Replacing old Anakin ghost with young Anakin ghost

I also believe as part of the sale of Lucasfilm, it was specifically stated that Disney could not go back to any prior movie and make any alterations. The way they are at the time of sale is the way they will remain. Disney can't release the unaltered OT.

Oh, I like Disney's decision to make Anthology "One off" films. December of this year (can't believe it's 2016) comes Rogue One, the story of the battle that takes place before Ep IV that leads to the stolen Death Star plans. Would love to see them having the plans being handed to a white cloaked Princess Leia in the distance next to the Tantive IV (that flies in first at the beginning of Ep IV, then is chased by the Star Destroyer), then it takes off...cut to credits.

Sure Disney is going to milk this for everything. You don't buy something for $4 billion and sit it on the shelf and do nothing.

kevhed72

Finally saw it yesterday....still digesting it in my mind. A few thoughts though:
1. Visually stunning movie
2. I sat through the first half of the flick, up until the part where Han Solos son took his mask off, thinking "wow....they nailed it". Then the movies plot line started moving too fast, leaving me saying "really??"
3. I guess there are no new ideas left in the galaxy
4. Come on....no IG-88??? I have been waiting 30 + years....
5. Acting was pretty much spot on....especially compared to the last 3 movies. Who the H E double hockey sticks CAST the last three movies anyways???

cnh

There are a NUMBER of ONLINE courses that teach you HOW to innovate, plot twist and SURPRISE an audience-and they do it QUITE WELL. So there is NO excuse for being unable to do that when you have 100s of millions of dollars behind you. The problem, there are HUNDREDS of BRILLIANT screenwriters waiting tables in Hollywood when they should be writing dialogue and scripts for the next Blockbuster. Alas...this is America and we just keep doing what "we" think will SELL! And we keep using the same tired old writers again, and again, and again rather than taking a chance. What a cowardly industry!

whgarrett1394

Kevhed72, why was Han's kid wearing a mask?

oldrocker

I'm probably the only guy here who hasn't seen it yet.
When the wife and daughter went, I did get some grief for staying home and listening to music music instead. But I had fun...

ken brydson

whgarrett1394 wrote: »

Kevhed72, why was Han's kid wearing a mask?

I dunno but anybody besides me think he looked like Vinny Barbarino (John Travolta) from Welcome Back Kotter?

westmassguy

I heard there were/are a lot of nasty comment about Carrie Fisher. I though she looked great. She ain't no spring chicken, and those of us who saw the original in theaters aren't either. Mark looked great also. Both had trainers.

tonyb

Saw this over the weekend. Just ok in my book and I have to agree a rehashing of episode 4. How many death stars are we going to have to endure ?

BTW....the kid wore the mask because he wants to be the new Darth Vader.

I did like how they brought the force out in the girl though. I was expecting something special in the way of special effects but saw nothing really worth mentioning above and beyond from the original movies.

txcoastal1

tonyb wrote: »

Saw this over the weekend. Just ok in my book and I have to agree a rehashing of episode 4. How many death stars are we going to have to endure ?

That was my main issue, first 2 3rds of the movie story line was fitting the death star battle was like watching the Titanic sink.

The wife conned me into the 3D viewing and I thought it sucked, really bad motion blur and cruddy blacks. The Blu ray remasters of the originals looked better on my TV than the 3D.

Right after the show I took my son to see the OLED TVs at Best Buy and showed him what I was complaining about at the theater

tonyb

Yeah, was it just me or did the picture even suck at the theatres ? I saw it in non 3d form, and the pic looked like I was watching 720p.

txcoastal1

tonyb wrote: »

Yeah, was it just me or did the picture even suck at the theatres ? I saw it in non 3d form, and the pic looked like I was watching 720p.

Well thanks for confirming & saving me another ticket, or a sneak peek because I curious enough to possibly see it again...I thought it was maybe just the 3D

DarqueKnight

whgarrett1394 wrote: »

Kevhed72, why was Han's kid wearing a mask?

Partially due to Sith tradition and partially out of homage to his grandfather, Darth Vader.

It is common for Sith lords and Sith apprentices to partially or totally cover their faces. They often wear full or partial masks to project a more menacing appearance and to avoid any show of emotion on their face which could give an adversary an advantage. At the very least, most of them wear hooded cloaks which obscure the upper half of their faces. Darth Maul let his face show, but it was completely covered in hideous tattoos.

In the case of Vader, his mask obscured his badly burned face and contained a respirator which was required to keep him alive. Prior to his facial disfigurement, Vader's cloak hood partially obscured his face in typical Sith fashion.


Darth Sidious


Darth Maul


Darth Vader (prior to disfigurement)

DarqueKnight

westmassguy wrote: »

I heard there were/are a lot of nasty comment about Carrie Fisher. I though she looked great. She ain't no spring chicken, and those of us who saw the original in theaters aren't either. Mark looked great also. Both had trainers.

Ummmm... why were people making nasty comments about Carrie's appearance? Were they expecting a repeat of her skimpy bikini outfit? She and Mark are both playing middle-aged characters with grown children and I thought they both looked great.

gurot1

Saw it with my son the other week. We both enjoyed it. It was much more like the original ones. I did some time travelling watching it. It was nice how the movie was not about the special effects, rather it all seemed integrated nicely together. First 3d movie I have watched in quite some time...it was very nicely done.

westmassguy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

westmassguy wrote: »

I heard there were/are a lot of nasty comment about Carrie Fisher. I though she looked great. She ain't no spring chicken, and those of us who saw the original in theaters aren't either. Mark looked great also. Both had trainers.

Ummmm... why were people making nasty comments about Carrie's appearance? Were they expecting a repeat of her skimpy bikini outfit? She and Mark are both playing middle-aged characters with grown children and I thought they both looked great.

Shallow people obviously. As I said, I thought they both looked great. Harrison hasn't been out of the spotlight, so we know how he looks, and he too looked great in the part.
To her credit, she gave it right back to them.

Ron-P

I saw this exact same film back in 1977, what a crappy remake!

ken brydson

Thought this was hilarious...

https://www.facebook.com/JeffDunham/videos/10153794582633827/?fref=nf