Disney buys Lucasfilm

[Hurlshort]

Guardians of the Galaxy looks pretty good, that's in space

 

I guess I don't see it as a struggling genre.  Sure, we don't have Stargate and two spinoffs running right now, but they did have a pretty good run.  I'm sure something new will come along eventually.

 

I never got into BSG either, but it was popular, which means it's likely we will see studios take chances on the next one that comes along.

 

edit:  Wasn't there a couple space based pilots on amazon in the works?  Plus I'm guessing Netflix will produce something sci/fi down the line.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Hurlshot

[Raithe]

Oh, apparently the guy who directed Stargate (the film) is pushing to do a reboot.  Of course, that would also involve not having any connections to the tv show...

[Oerwinde]

Syfy has Ascension and The Expanse coming, both set in space. I believe both got direct to series orders, so no chance of a rejected pilot. Ascension sounds BSG-esque, while The Expanse sounds more adventurey.

[TheChris92]

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

[ShadySands]

No Lindelof?

 

Thank god for small miracles

[Raithe]

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hamill has been keeping things going with the voice work everyone knows, a whole bunch of stage work, and the occasional foray into "interesting" films like Sushi Girl. So what do you call proper acting?

[Blarghagh]

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Raithe]

J.J. Abrams.  A man who will spend 5 years showing us a box, doing close-ups of a box, circling the box, panning out around the box, then revealing that the box.. is Empty.

[Malcador]

Sounds like the Peter Molyneux of gaming.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

[Hurlshort]

JJ Abrams is a very good director, you folks is crazy.

 

 

If we are going to be worried about one of the older actors, it should probably be Carrie Fisher.  But honestly I doubt their roles will be huge in the films.  AS an aside, Abrams did work Leonard Nimoy into Star Trek pretty well, despite him being far removed from acting, so there is that.

[Blarghagh]

He makes a pretty good image and he's good at setting a mood, but he's got problems in the storytelling and thematic cohesiveness department. I hope Kathleen Kennedy keeps him on a short leash.

[TheChris92]

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TheChris92

[Raithe]

JJ Abrams is a very good director, you folks is crazy.

 

 

If we are going to be worried about one of the older actors, it should probably be Carrie Fisher.  But honestly I doubt their roles will be huge in the films.  AS an aside, Abrams did work Leonard Nimoy into Star Trek pretty well, despite him being far removed from acting, so there is that.

 

 

Well there was that delay in the new film because they were deciding to rework the script for 7.  Apparently they've decided against using the original actors as more a cameo, and intend to make this first one more about them as the aging leading characters, and then use it as a platform to introduce the next generation (or however they're planning it). So Luke, Leia, and Han are going to be more significant then not.

 

Or at least that's what the current trend of leaked rumours and statements tends to say.

[Blarghagh]

This discussion does remind me of the Honest Trailer for Star Trek, especially the bit at 2:20 that explains 2009 Star Trek was essentially a Star Wars demo reel.

 

[Gorgon]

 

 

am thinking of the new battlestar galactica tv series. recall the silly "all along the watchtower" music and sudden having new cylons revealed... and some wackiness with tigh's wife being the Big Brain behind the cylon plan? is not as if that were planned from the start o' the series. the "and they have a plan" was a mystery to the writers as much as to viewers. the show's creators were asked 'bout their big reveal and they were surprisingly honest that it just kinda happened organic. they kinda hit a wall with story and didn't know how to advance it. gotta bunch o' sci-fi geeks sitting in a meeting wondering, " so now, where do we go?" somebody suggests something crazy/insane and in a moment o' poor judgement (or perhaps because nobody has anything better) you gets new canon. 

Spoiler much?

 

new bsg were 2004. you figure on waiting another decade before watching?

 

rosebud were brand name of Kane's sled.

 

apollo creed beats rocky at the end of the movie.

 

jr weren't actually shot-- it were all a dream sequence.

 

the chick who kinda looked like a guy in the crying game were actually a guy.

 

we would spoil christmas/easter/tooth-fairy for you, but sometimes you give impression of being 'round 8 years old, so we will forebear and lets you continue to enjoy your childlike ignorance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It was actually a really cool series ruined by plot curveballs that made no sense at all. BSG that is. 

[Meshugger]

For all his faults, JJ Abrams will be forgiven for his lenseflare effects.

[Gromnir]

JJ Abrams is a very good director, you folks is crazy.

 

 

If we are going to be worried about one of the older actors, it should probably be Carrie Fisher.  But honestly I doubt their roles will be huge in the films.  AS an aside, Abrams did work Leonard Nimoy into Star Trek pretty well, despite him being far removed from acting, so there is that.

 

 

one issue we does have with abrams is that he is more than willing to complete ignore internal logic. there were so many freaking errors in abrams first  star trek that even Gromnir, who is not one to quibble over minutiae, were disturbed. heck, abrams tv shows such as alias and lost are perfect examples o' how the director will throw Crap into a script to achieve effect and ignore any kinda plausibility or rationality. also, we will note that for all you folks who has some interest in maintaining canon, abrams is kinda the anti-canon director. gene roddenberry would roll over in grave if he saw what star trek has become. roddenberry were very much against having focus of star trek be 'bout combat and fighting. he would also, given his rather intentional efforts to embrace multiculturalism, wonder why Khan Noonien Singh became a pasty-faced englishmen. 

 

 

we don't mind abrams as choice of director for star wars. star wars space fairy tale is actually a far more appropriate setting for abrams than were star trek, but dont be surprised that if by film 3 in the new series you got all kinda inconsistencies and unanswerable questions. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TheChris92]

Looks like Oscar-gal Lupita Nyong'o might be added to the cast. Haven't seen 12 years yet but I do feel obliged to do it after liking McQueen's debut Shame with Fassbender. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

 

 

JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. 

Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. 

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

am thinking of the new battlestar galactica tv series. recall the silly "all along the watchtower" music and sudden having new cylons revealed... and some wackiness with tigh's wife being the Big Brain behind the cylon plan? is not as if that were planned from the start o' the series. the "and they have a plan" was a mystery to the writers as much as to viewers. the show's creators were asked 'bout their big reveal and they were surprisingly honest that it just kinda happened organic. they kinda hit a wall with story and didn't know how to advance it. gotta bunch o' sci-fi geeks sitting in a meeting wondering, " so now, where do we go?" somebody suggests something crazy/insane and in a moment o' poor judgement (or perhaps because nobody has anything better) you gets new canon. 

Spoiler much?

 

new bsg were 2004. you figure on waiting another decade before watching?

 

rosebud were brand name of Kane's sled.

 

apollo creed beats rocky at the end of the movie.

 

jr weren't actually shot-- it were all a dream sequence.

 

the chick who kinda looked like a guy in the crying game were actually a guy.

 

we would spoil christmas/easter/tooth-fairy for you, but sometimes you give impression of being 'round 8 years old, so we will forebear and lets you continue to enjoy your childlike ignorance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It was actually a really cool series ruined by plot curveballs that made no sense at all. BSG that is. 

 

one thing we prefers 'bout many bbc tv shows is that they is having a set duration. producers/writers can plan out a coherent story arc from start to finish. am suspecting that one reason why 24 has been so popular is 'cause each season is an insular and discreet story arc that we presume (we has never actually watched 24,) satisfactorily answers all plot questions raised during the limited run of episodes. bsg, and other such shows, seems to inevitably collapse under their own weight. their were no plan, so the dangling plot threads continue to fray and become an increasingly tangled mess.

 

sit coms, and older episodic shows, could plausibly last forever as there were no singular story one needed to be conscious regarding. even so, such shows invariably get repetitive or dull. 

 

regardless, one wishes that American tv shows would embrace the model o' a set run o' a specific # of episodes. that way bsg plot nonsense wouldn't be so typical.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[TheChris92]

 

 

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

 

 

JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. 

Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. 

 

Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by TheChris92

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas?

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

While I agree that Matthew Vaughn especially would have rocked this(Though he likely would have just left halfway through Pre-Production like he did on X-Men 3, Thor, and Days of Future Past), I felt like the new Star Trek films felt a lot more like Star Wars films, and based on those, I'm willing to give Abrams the benefit of the doubt.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

 

 

JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. 

Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. 

 

Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be. 

 

 

Its a great fairy tale for a particular time and generation but I can't take it seriously, to me its at best a good representation of commercial cinema at worst a movie for kids. Its not remotely close to, say, Blade Runner in any regard IMO of course.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[TheChris92]

 

 

 

 

Voice acting is definitely proper acting, especially for someone as good at it as Mark Hamill. His portrayal of the Joker is still the definitive Joker and it makes both Nicholson and Ledger look like illiterate hacks, and that's no small feat.

 

Also, what's with the J.J. Abrams hate? I mean I don't think he's great but I don't consider him a hack either. More like middle of the road.

Except there's a difference between voice acting, stage acting and even film acting -- Perhaps I should have referred to it as "film acting". Different factors are put into play. In fact, most stage actors aren't very adapt in voice acting, and a lot of theater players aren't comfortable with TV or film acting -- Usually, because, with stage acting, you have to make everything bigger without looking as if you are over-exaggerating. One of the major problems that can occur for TV-actors, with no theater experience, is audibility. Because they are used to having microphones, they are not used to projecting their voices and can sometimes be too quiet for some of the audience to hear. I know this because I've performed cabaret myself, alongside acting in shortfilms. There's such a large difference like you wouldn't believe. Hamill's career as that sort of actor was fundamentally ruined with Star Wars. I wouldn't know if Hamill has done any theater work ever since, I haven't followed him in that department, but if we are talking about film it hasn't been going well.

 

 

Mark Hamill hasn't done any proper acting in years, and it's been a while since Lawrence Kasdan has written a good script. Taking that into considertaion it can still easily flop especially with that hack J.J as director. I do, however, approve of Max von Sydow & Oscar Isaac and would have liked to see Ryan Gosling or Billy Dee returning, hmm.

 

Hack as compared to what, George Lucas? 

 

 

A hack as compared to Irvin Kershner(Empire Strikes back -- May he R.I.P), or literally any other sci-fi director I could list. Abrams feels like a 'safe choice' and I find most of his film to be unremarkable in terms how they are shot, edited, but visually they are pretty but the they sure to draw too much attention -- Hence why he has received notoriety for the insistence emphasis placed on lighting "lens flares". -- I believe Star Wars would benefit from compromising by leaving the reigns to people like Duncan Jones (if he wasn't busy with Warcraft), Matthew Vaughn, Alfonso Cuaron, Edgar Wright or Jaco Van Dormael (the cinematography in Mr Nobody is nothing short of extraordinary, so having him and the his subsequent camera man Christophe Beaucarne would have been fascinating to say the least.

 

 

JJAbrams is an average director. But I don't consider any of the Star Wars film as particularly well directed. I'm not a fan, as it were, and I don't think that at this point in the very bloated SW universe a movie can be made that will bring back the magic for those who grew up around the originals even if you hire the best possible directors. 

Back in the day, when it was a fairy tale without a ton of lore hanging around its neck, there was a lot more room for creativity. 

 

Empire Strikes Back was extraordinarily well directed, and what I'd consider a marvel visually & audio wise, whether or not you think that its plot can hold up to the standards of today is arguable, I suppose. It set a standard for social aesthetics of future generations of today, which none of the other movies ever managed to reach. It followed up with a more mature & darker tone than its predecessor with the inclusion of moral ambiguity -- It tended to lots of subplots and character arcs that all got resolved, expanded upon the workings of the Force, and ended with one of the shocking twists in cinema. I don't think anybody has to be into Star Wars to see what is so great about Empire -- I do get what you're saying though -- I wouldn't want a follow-up to Blade Runner either since it's impossible to achieve the same level the first one got, merely because a sequel would have to go even further, which isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, it's a film and as a film-nut and one who holds Empire Strikes Back in high regard, it deserves to be as great as it can be. 

 

 

Its a great fairy tale for a particular time and generation but I can't take it seriously, to me its at best a good representation of commercial cinema.

 

That's fine. Commercial cinema I wouldn't call it. But then again I don't really like Tolkien all that much despite the effect his writing and lore has had fantasy overall. I acknowledge that too. Empire Strikes Back, viewed from a film-making perspective is a tightly packed achievement. Although, it's obvious we don't agree so let's end it here then.