Dear JJ Abrams: Four rules for making Star Wars great again
dearjjabrams.com
dearjjabrams.com
Did not like Lost, I tried to watch a couple episodes of Fringe, I just hated it. It was bland, boring and feels so calculated. And Star Trek was a great example on how Hollywood movies are made nowadays, piece together a buncha action scenes and hope the story makes sense(I'm looking at your Iron Man 3).
Now I say this because I am not that big of a fan of Star Trek, I really liked TNG, Voyager and Enterprise, but I barely know anything about Star Trek(haven't even watched TOS) like many people do. But this man claimed on TV that he didn't like Star Trek, how on Earth can you expect someone to even understand it well enough to make a half decent movie. Especially considering the level of quality Star Trek is suppose to have.
Ah yes, avoiding making a film that appeals to everyone surely would be the best thing for the Star Wars franchise. What we need to do is make a film that appeals to a couple thousand people- what could be better for the future of Star Wars?
"Star Wars: A New Hope" was not a smash hit because it was deep or witty or catered to nerds wrapped up in the mythos. I wasn't there, but speaking to members of my family who were, "A New Hope" was tremendous almost precisely for the things folks are mocking in this comment chain- drama, action, and ground-breaking special effects.
Abrams TV shows are vapid mysteries that have no overriding theme and his movies are are plotless roller coaster rides.
http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-fi...
(Thinking of it, maybe that combination is the reason why I got hooked... :-)
JJ et al will destroy Star Wars like the locusts they are.
The prequels were horribly acted, but the attempt to make a classical backstory to illustrate the fall to a romantic frontier was, to me, admirable. The Prequels were set in high society (city) to show the great classical culture which valued learning (libraries) and articulated methodologies to master the world around them (real understanding of the force).
Let's use another great sci-fi 'verse to provide context on why the "frontier" is not a necessary backdrop for good Star Wars, but rather, was a convenient short-hand for the rebel alliance who had to live there.
In Firefly, the browncoats lived in the outer planets (the frontier) because they wanted to be far away from the Alliance (ironic, I know) in the central planets. This embodied the separatist/individualist spirit.
But we needed aspects of the Alliance to show a sharp contrast to what the browncoats fought against and lost to. Some of the best moments in Firefly came from Ariel or Trash, which were set very much in the Alliance world.
So how does this relate back to this wonderfully produced (hey, nice commercial!) but woefully short-sighted plea from some group who claims to speak for the "fans". Well if you ONLY watched the original trilogy, you would think that Star Wars was all about the frontier. After all, there was no Coruscant and the moments in the Death Star were really limited in backdrop and exposition.
Then again, if you've read any of the canon books or played any of the games, you will know that dozens of storytellers have expanded the Star Wars universe, giving it beautiful color and context around the edges that 7-8 hours of the original trilogy couldn't possibly cover.
Sure the prequels were bad, but they were bad because they're bad movies. I certainly don't agree with the de-mysticism of the Force, or Jar Jar, or the implicit racism, or Han not shooting first or Mannequin Skywalker's casting, but let's be honest, those are just bad movie dialogue, story-telling and direction. These are problems every movie has (have you seen Howard the Duck?)
The reason the prequels were NOT about the frontier because it's really a story about Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin and Palpatine, whom coincidentally, all lived in Coruscant, a city. The original trilogy were about Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia and they all lived in the frontier, away from the Empire. Let's also not overlook the fact that Threepio is comic relief and the Ewoks are cute.
In conclusion, let J.J. Abrams make a good movie and let's not put artificial boundaries in because we have some misguided fanboy adherence to rules that were made up to begin with. If we listened to the fanboys, we'd never have Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Heath Ledger as the Joker and there would be 30 minutes of Tom Bombadil singing in the Lord of the Rings.
TL;DR: Let JJ Abrams do his job without constraint and Firefly rocks.
They had great actors, so it must have been the writing that sucked, not the actors.
TL;DR: actors are only as good as the environment you give them to work in.
Basically, I don't think it's possible to ever recapture what those movies were, because they're entirely tied up in childhood nostalgia. The world would probably be better if no-one ever tried, but hey.
Those are the things that pissed people off the most. The general public didn't give a shit about the scientific/mystical "The Force" issue. They cared about pod racing having no fucking relevance to the movie and jar-jar looking like ass in addition to being annoying.
(The primary issue of shit dialog is probably already fixed, just by having new people on the job.)
It doesn't have much merit outside of that - the recommendations pick out a few arbitrary elements and say 'this is what made star wars great'. Classic cargo cult. Sincerely Truman may be a 'squadron of storytellers', but they don't seem understand that movies are comprised of characters.
That said, what a great soundtrack backing their Yoda scene. Wow.
Off the top of my head: Kurosawa style wipes, context during action scenes instead of horrible shakey cam, force as philosophy instead of force as "magic" (christ what a terrible way to describe the force), delivery of lines over complex dialogue... there's lots more, but I'm annoyed at how bad this site was.
But, like so many wonderful things, that will never happen.