Star Wars

[Ray]

Is it better than Attack of the clones? Yes? We'll take it!

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

That poster commits the gravest sin a movie poster can commit, particularly one for Star Wars: it looks really fucking boring. At this point I doubt I'll even see the thing in theaters; I mean, I had no love for Abrams to begin with, but everything I see for this project unsells me on it more and more.

I'm not sure how Star Wars VII looks boring in the least, but that's my view on things. The box office probably won't miss your money, though.

[Bagheera]

Is it better than Attack of the clones? Yes? We'll take it!

It's Abrams, I'm not sure we can take that for granted. Heck, given his Star Trek efforts I'm pretty sure we can't.

[Sachi]

Whether or not you like the Abrams Star Trek, they are most certainly better than A Phantom Menace and this new Star Wars will be too.

Also, what actually is exciting about Star Wars in the first place that this new movie isn't also demonstrating?

[movieartman]

That poster commits the gravest sin a movie poster can commit, particularly one for Star Wars: it looks really fucking boring. At this point I doubt I'll even see the thing in theaters; I mean, I had no love for Abrams to begin with, but everything I see for this project unsells me on it more and more.

I think it might be fan art, altho that said the official poster by the guy that painted the original trilogy posters was pretty stiff also.

It's Abrams, I'm not sure we can take that for granted. Heck, given his Star Trek efforts I'm pretty sure we can't.

Both his trek films are VASTLY better than all 3 Prequels and I say that as someone who can find more to like in the 3 than most.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The poster is boring. Plain and simple. Very little dynamic poses, the eye isn't naturally drawn to any one focal point by the art itself, and that's mainly because there isn't any one focal point to the art itself. At least in the poster for the original movie you had lighting striking Skywalker's lightsaber as the focal point to the piece. Here, it's nothing.

Now, whereas I do like me some Abrams every now and again (MI:III was really good, IMO, and for a while there the LOST TV series was much better than most of the Hollywood movies screening in theaters), I always feared that "Better than the Prequels" was going to be the only bar set by the fans that SW7 needed to surpass. I don't want something that's merely "better than the Prequels." The cinemas have been full of movies, terrible movies even, that were "better than the prequels." I mean, sure, I'll be happy if SW is better than the prequels, but that's mostly because I don't want to be spending money to have that experience all over again. What I really want is for SW7 to be as exciting as The Empire Strikes Back, or even better than that film. I don't want to look back at SW7 and have the only nice thing I say about it be "Well, at least it didn't feature Jar Jar Binks." I want to say that the film was better than that.

...And because Abrams likes his stupid little "Mystery Box" trope so much (which I do really find annoying about him, regardless of how much I liked MI:III) we can't get enough material from the film to judge whether or not it'll even be worth our time. This is one of the reasons why I'd rather Brad Bird have accepted the job of directing SW7. At least by now we would have known what the movie was about, other than "Skywalker, Lightsabers, and Sith." You know, the exact three things we've seen for the past 6 SW movies.

Edit: If that is a fan poster, then that would make more sense. It does look like something a fan who's really skilled and talented would be inspired to create given what little we actually known about the film.

[Sachi]

There's nothing official looking about that poster, and without a source to say it is so I wouldn't assume that it to be one.

[Gendo'sPapa]

*Pops head into the room.

Star Wars is boring.

*Quickly runs out of the room, gets in a car & drives away as fast as he can. Constantly checking the rearview mirror with a panicked look on his face.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

At this point the only reason I watch the original SW films anymore is for nostalgia of being 5. And even then Star Trek: Next Generation fulfills that first and foremost.

[Bagheera]

Both his trek films are VASTLY better than all 3 Prequels and I say that as someone who can find more to like in the 3 than most.

Into Darkness was not better than any SW movie ever made. It was complete and utter shit, start to finish.

[unz]

Maybe it's me looking at tragic characters but I get anakin/darth vader arcs from watching tv Rei2&3. I'd watch star wars for DV, this silent dude meaning business by appearing on screen. It's just that when you think about it the business isn't that intersting to watch. His story can be boring for a good part of the trilogy without the need to include anakin's.
Still, these silent dudes who turn into monsters for a big finale, they are cool. Wimpy sons, ehh, shrugs.

[movieartman]

Into Darkness was not better than any SW movie ever made. It was complete and utter shit, start to finish.

Sorry, Really can't agree.
1.) Gave more menace & emotionality to Cumberbatch than any of the prequel villains. And i say that as a fan of Dooku. Weller was a solid villain also.
2.) No racial or offensive caricatures. Khan not being Indian is iffy, but the film never mentions Khan's Ethnicity, so it is irrelevant to the quality of the self contained story of the film.
3.) You can dislike them redoing the reactor sequence, but i think emotionally, both actors put their all into the scene.
4.) On that note, both actors for Kirk & Spock are much better than Ewan Mcgregor, & IMMEASURABLY better than Hayden, So the film has better leads than the 2nd & 3rd prequels.
5.) Into darkness had actual solid sets instead of using cgi for 80% of indoor rooms like the prequels did.
6.) What little bit of romance is in INTO, is not whiny or cringe inducing like the most of the Hayden & Portman stuff.
7.) I am aware that a good number of years in-between them but the CGI for the ship battles is inevitably better than anything in 2 & 3, probably better than the space battle in 1, but its closer as phantom menace was still using model & prop ships that look pretty good even today.

[Sachi]

4.) On that note, both actors for Kirk & Spock are much better than Ewan Mcgregor, & IMMEASURABLY better than Hayden, So the film has better leads than the 2nd & 3rd prequels.

Ehh. Ewan McGregor is actually a really good Obi-Wan, and probably delivers the best performance of the entire prequel trilogy given what he had to work with, particularly in Episode III. It speaks a lot about the direction of the film when even Samuel L. Jackson's performance is uninspired, so I'd give McGregor and Christensen a lot more credit than what they usually receive.

That, and I've just never been entirely impressed with Zachary Quinto as Spock, especially not in Into Darkness. Chris Pine is okay as Kirk, but he's a rather bland actor in general, IMO. The advantage they have over than anything in the Star Wars prequels is better writing with intelligent and witty dialogue, mixed with a director that can actually pull performances out of their actors.

[Bagheera]

^This. Also, the plot holes for _Into Darkness_ actively destroy brain cells. The Khan blood thing was the absolute worst.

[Gendo'sPapa]

The Star Wars prequels AND Star Trek Into Darkness can BOTH be absolute garbage! Why they are.


Though Into Darkness is clearly the worst of the bunch because it's Bob Orci ugly garbage Truther conspiracies played out large in the Star Trek universe for 2 boring hours. The Star Wars prequels are just bad. Into Darkness is bad while creating parallels to nonsense Orci believes like Bush set up 9/11 but played out in Star Trek sets & costumes to push his ignorant agenda.

The Klingon planet in that film may as well be called Planet Middle East & Peter Weller's character should be called Admiral George W. Bush.

[Bagheera]

Yup. And hey, at least the SW prequels gave us cool lightsaber fights. They weren't perfect (Ray Park clearly didn't know what to do with a double-bladed lightsaber, and nor should he because they're stupid), but some of them were very, very good.

And to reiterate, MacGregor did a fantastic job as Obi-Wan. He suffered from terrible direction, same as everyone, but he managed to capture the voice and mannerisms of Alec Guinness in a way few actors could. He was one of the few things about the prequels that was actively good.

[KingXanaduu]

Say what you guys will about the prequels and everything wrong with them, but we can at least acknowledge what good they accomplished in the Star Wars universe, such as giving us more to the Jedi then the original trilogy ever did, especially in the Clone Wars cartoon.

Say what you will about Abbrams, but I'll at least give him a chance with SW: VII before I make my absolute judgement.

[Chuckman]

The prequels seriously had a stellar cast, they just had atrocious scripts and a lazy director.

[Ray]

Meh episode 2 is the only one I would say genuinely bit it in terms of quality.

Of course I got into star wars as a kid around the time the prequels came out. So I guess it's more nostalgia than anything else.

[soul.assassin]

http://www.therobotsvoice.com/2015/10/a ... ing-it.php