Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Wars » More than one Young Han Solo movie planned
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #323880] Wed, 27 July 2016 02:16 Go to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Disney is really trying to cash-in on their Lucasfilm purchase. Now
they're planning more young Han Solo movies. This is from
ComingSoon.net ...


Lucasfilm planning multiple Han Solo movies with Alden Ehrenreich
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
Surprising no one, The New York Daily News reports that Disney
and Lucasfilm are already looking to the future with their new
Han Solo, formally introduced to the public as Alden Ehrenreich
at Star Wars Celebration.

The outlet reports that Ehrenreich has signed at least a
three-picture deal for his role as everyone's favorite smuggler
as they hope for box office success with the first film. They
quote an insider as saying:

"There is a real sense of excitement around the Han Solo movie
and its potential. Given that Han's early adventures do not need
to be tied to the Empire, it leaves story lines open with the
opportunity to really give fans something different. They can
explore new galaxies and crazy creatures and bring in a wide
array of new characters."

The screenplay for the Han Solo movie is written by Lawrence
Kasdan and Jon Kasdan and will focus on how young Han Solo
became the smuggler, thief, and scoundrel whom Luke Skywalker
and Obi-Wan Kenobi first encountered in the cantina at Mos
Eisley. It has also been confirmed that Chewbacca will also be
a featured character in the film and, while unconfirmed, it's
likely that The Force Awakens' Joonas Suotamo will reprise the
role.

Slated for a May 25, 2018 release, the Han Solo movie will be
directed by 21 Jump Street and The LEGO Movie directors Phil
Lord and Chris Miller. It will be executive produced by Lawrence
Kasdan and Jason McGatlin and co-produced by Will Allegra with
production set to begin in January of 2017.
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #324907 is a reply to message #323880] Fri, 05 August 2016 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Mr. Man-wai Chang

On 27/07/16 14:16, Your Name wrote:
>
> Slated for a May 25, 2018 release, the Han Solo movie will be
> directed by 21 Jump Street and The LEGO Movie directors Phil
> Lord and Chris Miller. It will be executive produced by Lawrence
> Kasdan and Jason McGatlin and co-produced by Will Allegra with
> production set to begin in January of 2017.
>

Would it cover the time of A New Hope? I suspect they would avoid the
appearance of young Luke Skywalker....

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_ addressesa
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #324953 is a reply to message #324907] Fri, 05 August 2016 17:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <no2dr1$4fn$7@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/07/16 14:16, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> Slated for a May 25, 2018 release, the Han Solo movie will be
>> directed by 21 Jump Street and The LEGO Movie directors Phil
>> Lord and Chris Miller. It will be executive produced by Lawrence
>> Kasdan and Jason McGatlin and co-produced by Will Allegra with
>> production set to begin in January of 2017.
>
> Would it cover the time of A New Hope? I suspect they would avoid the
> appearance of young Luke Skywalker....

It's a younger Han Solo, so set before Episode IV. The currently
rumoured storyline line is about how Han became a smuggler and met
Chewie ... which, thanks to Disney binning all the old stories, will no
doubt be different to the already established version. :-(
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325007 is a reply to message #324953] Sat, 06 August 2016 08:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Mr. Man-wai Chang

On 6/08/16 05:29, Your Name wrote:
>
> It's a younger Han Solo, so set before Episode IV. The currently
> rumoured storyline line is about how Han became a smuggler and met
> Chewie ... which, thanks to Disney binning all the old stories, will no
> doubt be different to the already established version. :-(

Are there *published* novels/fictions/scripts/whatever that has already
talked about young Han Solo?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_ addressesa
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325082 is a reply to message #325007] Sat, 06 August 2016 18:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <no4l37$eld$3@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/08/16 05:29, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> It's a younger Han Solo, so set before Episode IV. The currently
>> rumoured storyline line is about how Han became a smuggler and met
>> Chewie ... which, thanks to Disney binning all the old stories, will no
>> doubt be different to the already established version. :-(
>
> Are there *published* novels/fictions/scripts/whatever that has already
> talked about young Han Solo?

There are various stories (books and comic books) that have some of
Han's adventures before and between the movies and the Trilogies. There
were also rumours of a very young Han Solo as a child appearing briefly
in the one of the Prequel Trilogy movies ... thankfully that didn't
happen - it's a big universe, there's absolutely no need for *everyone*
to keep appearing in every movie / story.

It's long been established that Han was an Imperial Officer and
deserted the Empire when he saved Chewbacca's life, which is when they
become companions (Chewie's "life debt" to Han).

The problem now is that Disney, being the new owners and as usual
wanting to do things their own way, have already thrown out all the old
stories as no longer "canon" and can make up any rubbish they want to
as the new "official" background. :-(
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325116 is a reply to message #325082] Sun, 07 August 2016 03:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Mr. Man-wai Chang

On 7/08/16 06:50, Your Name wrote:
>
> The problem now is that Disney, being the new owners and as usual
> wanting to do things their own way, have already thrown out all the old
> stories as no longer "canon" and can make up any rubbish they want to
> as the new "official" background. :-(

Let's wish Disney could tell a better, interesting story. :)

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_ addressesa
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325117 is a reply to message #325116] Sun, 07 August 2016 03:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <no6ma5$bt4$4@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/08/16 06:50, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> The problem now is that Disney, being the new owners and as usual
>> wanting to do things their own way, have already thrown out all the old
>> stories as no longer "canon" and can make up any rubbish they want to
>> as the new "official" background. :-(
>
> Let's wish Disney could tell a better, interesting story. :)

We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
use it and has to make something themselves.
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325138 is a reply to message #325117] Sun, 07 August 2016 09:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Mr. Man-wai Chang

On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>
> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
> use it and has to make something themselves.

Not everyone read them! So...

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_ addressesa
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325189 is a reply to message #325138] Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
>> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
>> use it and has to make something themselves.
>
> Not everyone read them! So...

So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.

Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it now
in a completely different way.
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325238 is a reply to message #325189] Mon, 08 August 2016 07:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Mr. Man-wai Chang

On 8/08/16 06:41, Your Name wrote:
> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.


After I finished others books and fictions... :)

> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version
> of it now in a completely different way.

If Disney could write a better story, why not?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_ addressesa
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325283 is a reply to message #325238] Mon, 08 August 2016 16:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <no9s5p$kbv$4@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/08/16 06:41, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
>> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
>> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.
>
> After I finished others books and fictions... :)
>
>> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
>> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version
>> of it now in a completely different way.
>
> If Disney could write a better story, why not?

We've already got the story. We don't need a supposedly "better" one
nor a different one ... something that the lazy, talentless morons
infesting Hollyweird these days completely fail to understand, which is
why we are still getting all these idiotically silly "reboots" of
everything under the sun. :-(
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325339 is a reply to message #325189] Tue, 09 August 2016 16:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41
In article <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai Chang
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
>> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
>> use it and has to make something themselves.
>
> Not everyone read them! So...

So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.

Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it now
in a completely different way.


Except that the Hindenburg disaster really happened whereas Han Solo is a fictional character. I've never read the stories either so it will all be new to me. I don't have any reason to believe Disney can't do a better story anyway. I don't much care about whether or not they pay attention to the various and assorted written accounts out there as long as they don't start remaking the original movies or doing alternate timelines like Star Trek.




Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #325341 is a reply to message #325339] Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oUqqz.1463$oF2.836@fx13.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41
> In article
> <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai
> Chang
>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
>>>> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
>>>> use it and has to make something themselves.
>>>
>>> Not everyone read them! So...
>>
>> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
>> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
>> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.
>>
>> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
>> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it now
>> in a completely different way.
>
> Except that the Hindenburg disaster really happened whereas Han Solo is a
> fictional character. I've never read the stories either so it will all be new
> to me. I don't have any reason to believe Disney can't do a better story
> anyway.

We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have
the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical and
making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\



> I don't much care about whether or not they pay attention tothe
> various and assorted written accounts out there as longas they don't start
> remaking the original movies or doingalternate timelines like Star Trek.

It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like Episode
VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. :-(
Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326727 is a reply to message #325341] Tue, 23 August 2016 01:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
In article <oUqqz.1463$oF2.836@fx13.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41
> In article
> <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai
> Chang
>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have a
>>>> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far too egotistical to
>>>> use it and has to make something themselves.
>>>
>>> Not everyone read them! So...
>>
>> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
>> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
>> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.
>>
>> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
>> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it now
>> in a completely different way.
>
> Except that the Hindenburg disaster really happened whereas Han Solo is a
> fictional character. I've never read the stories either so it will all be new
> to me. I don't have any reason to believe Disney can't do a better story
> anyway.

We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have
the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical and
making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\


That already happened with episodes I-III.


Quote:

> I don't much care about whether or not they pay attention tothe
> various and assorted written accounts out there as longas they don't start
> remaking the original movies or doingalternate timelines like Star Trek.

It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like Episode
VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. Sad


The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that you have to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing the existing fans. I think Episode VII worked well as a sequel AND an introduction but it really depends on where the series goes from here. Episode VII was a lot like the original movies but I don't expect Episode VIII to follow along the same lines. Time will tell.
Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326729 is a reply to message #326727] Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <e0Ruz.30550$zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
> In article
> <oUqqz.1463$oF2.836@fx13.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41
>>> In article
>>> <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai
>>> Chang
>>>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we
> already have a
>>>> >> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far
> too egotistical
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> use it and has to make something themselves.
>>>> >
>>>> > Not everyone read them! So...
>>>>
>>>> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
>>>> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
>>>> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
>>>> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it
>>>> now in a completely different way.
>>>
>>> Except that the Hindenburg disaster really happened whereas Han Solo
>>> is a fictional character. I've never read the stories either so it will
>>> all be new to me. I don't have any reason to believe Disney can't do a
>>> better story anyway.
>>
>> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have
>> the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical and
>> making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>
> That already happened with episodes I-III.

No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
(semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
find the start of the story less interesting.

Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
wanted with *HIS* creation.



>>> I don't much care about whether or not they pay attention to the
>>> various and assorted written accounts out there as long as they don't
>>> start remaking the original movies or doingalternate timelines like
>>> Star Trek.
>>
>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
>> reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
>> of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
>> animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
>> his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
>> like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like Episode
>> VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. :-(
>
> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that you have to
> introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing the existing fans.

The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the Saga via
the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as occasional TV
broadcasts) over the years.



> I think Episode VII worked well as a sequel AND an introduction but it
> really depends on where the series goes from here. Episode VII was a
> lot like the original movies but I don't expect Episode VIII to
> follow along the same lines. Time will tell.

Jar Jar Abrams has already bulldozed his way through much of the
Original Trilogy in his one silly "reboot" movie, so of course it can't
follow the same lines. There's very little left to follow ... although,
it's certainly possible that psuedo-Vader survived, and the pseudo-Yoda
(Luke) could train the psuedo-Luke (who of course "had" to be female
this time) and then psuedo-Emperor in his psuedo-Death Star II, while
also redeeming her brother / cousin from the Dark Side.

Yawn!! Been there, done that, got the 50 T-shirts and 20 caps. Even the
ridiculous Clone Emperor and invading aliens from the novels would have
been better than Jar Jar Abrams' talentless copy-cat drivel. :-(
Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326820 is a reply to message #326729] Tue, 23 August 2016 16:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
In article <e0Ruz.30550$zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
> In article
> <oUqqz.1463$oF2.836@fx13.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Sun, 07 August 2016 18:41
>>> In article
>>> <no7c7f$e8r$1@dont-email.me>, Mr. Man-wai
>>> Chang
>>>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On 7/08/16 15:28, Your Name wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We don't need a supposedly "better" story ... we
> already have a
>>>> >> perfectly good story. Unfortunately Disney is far
> too egotistical
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> use it and has to make something themselves.
>>>> >
>>>> > Not everyone read them! So...
>>>>
>>>> So what. Go and read them now. Even if in the unlikely event that you
>>>> can't get the real books / comic books secondhand on eBay, etc., they
>>>> will be pirated PDF versions somewhere on the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone was around when the Hindenberg crashed (or infinite other
>>>> things) ... that doesn't mean we have to create a new version of it
>>>> now in a completely different way.
>>>
>>> Except that the Hindenburg disaster really happened whereas Han Solo
>>> is a fictional character. I've never read the stories either so it will
>>> all be new to me. I don't have any reason to believe Disney can't do a
>>> better story anyway.
>>
>> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already have
>> the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical and
>> making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>
> That already happened with episodes I-III.

No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
(semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
find the start of the story less interesting.

Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
wanted with *HIS* creation.


Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but much of the storytelling (particularly in Episode I) and acting (more likely directing) was a confused mess.

Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so now they have every right to do whatever they want with it.


Quote:

>>> I don't much care about whether or not they pay attention to the
>>> various and assorted written accounts out there as long as they don't
>>> start remaking the original movies or doingalternate timelines like
>>> Star Trek.
>>
>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
>> reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
>> of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
>> animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
>> his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
>> like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like Episode
>> VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. Sad
>
> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that you have to
> introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing the existing fans.

The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the Saga via
the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as occasional TV
broadcasts) over the years.



No doubt many have but others have not and of course there are many others who are not children of existing fans.


Quote:

> I think Episode VII worked well as a sequel AND an introduction but it
> really depends on where the series goes from here. Episode VII was a
> lot like the original movies but I don't expect Episode VIII to
> follow along the same lines. Time will tell.

Jar Jar Abrams has already bulldozed his way through much of the
Original Trilogy in his one silly "reboot" movie, so of course it can't
follow the same lines. There's very little left to follow ... although,
it's certainly possible that psuedo-Vader survived, and the pseudo-Yoda
(Luke) could train the psuedo-Luke (who of course "had" to be female
this time) and then psuedo-Emperor in his psuedo-Death Star II, while
also redeeming her brother / cousin from the Dark Side.

Yawn!! Been there, done that, got the 50 T-shirts and 20 caps. Even the
ridiculous Clone Emperor and invading aliens from the novels would have
been better than Jar Jar Abrams' talentless copy-cat drivel. Sad


Anything is possible but it's just speculation at this point. If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to have already pre-judged them.

[Updated on: Tue, 23 August 2016 16:49]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326845 is a reply to message #326820] Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ZC2vz.3430$M27.3138@fx33.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
> In article
> <e0Ruz.30550$zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
> kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>> In article
>>>>
>>>> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already
>>>> have the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being
>>>> egotistical and making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>>>
>>> That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>
>> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
>> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
>> started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
>> find the start of the story less interesting.
>>
>> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
>> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>
> Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or less
> planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but much of the
> storytelling, particularly in Episode I, was a confused mess.

No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about Episode I were due
to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and because they didn't
like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the Ewoks or the droids'
banter) or the supposed racial steretypes (after whining there wasn't
enough "diversity" in the Original Trilogy).



> Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to Disney (as he
> also had every right to do) and so now they have every right to do
> whatever they want with it.

No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but they did not create
the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it would still be abhorrent to
any sane person if I was to draw a moustache and Harry Potter glasses
on it simply because *I* thought it looked better that way.



>>>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
>>>> reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
>>>> of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
>>>> animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
>>>> his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
>>>> like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like
>>>> Episode VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. :(
>>>
>>> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that you have
>>> to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing the existing fans.
>>
>> The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the Saga via
>> the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as occasional TV
>> broadcasts) over the years.
>
> No doubt many have but others have not and of course there
are many others
> who are not children of existing fans.

That's what DVDs are for.

There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or recreate the original
movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was, is, never will be ... other
than Jar Jar Abrams' complete lack of creative talent, sheer laziness,
and over-bloated ego thinking he knew better than George Lucas (the guy
who actually had the talent to come up with the idea!).



> If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do you still plan
> to watch the rest? You seem to have already pre-judged them.

Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin. Everything he
touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps ship when he gets bored
leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he leaves behind.

I certainly have never and will never pay to see his crap in a movie
theatre. I only bought the DVD of his Star Wars "reboot" to complete
the set, but regret doing that.
More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326930 is a reply to message #326845] Wed, 24 August 2016 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
In article <ZC2vz.3430$M27.3138@fx33.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
> In article
> <e0Ruz.30550$zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
> kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>> In article
>>>>
>>>> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already
>>>> have the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being
>>>> egotistical and making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>>>
>>> That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>
>> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
>> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
>> started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
>> find the start of the story less interesting.
>>
>> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
>> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>
> Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or less
> planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but much of the
> storytelling, particularly in Episode I, was a confused mess.

No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about Episode I were due
to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and because they didn't
like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the Ewoks or the droids'
banter) or the supposed racial steretypes (after whining there wasn't
enough "diversity" in the Original Trilogy).



I disagree.

Quote:


> Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to Disney (as he
> also had every right to do) and so now they have every right to do
> whatever they want with it.

No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but they did not create
the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it would still be abhorrent to
any sane person if I was to draw a moustache and Harry Potter glasses
on it simply because *I* thought it looked better that way.



So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right to sell his ownership of the franchise to someone else to create stories in? That's just silly. You don't have to like it but they can certainly do it and if you don't like it then why not just ignore it, enjoy the originals, and quit bitching about it? The thing about art, in any form, derivative or not, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:



>>>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS* simply a lazy
>>>> reboot of the original movies. The talentless idiot simply copied most
>>>> of his movie from the Original Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels
>>>> animated show with an orphaned main character), and then, similar to
>>>> his Star Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it seem
>>>> like part of the same franchise. The reason so many people like
>>>> Episode VII is because it basically is the Original movie again. Sad
>>>
>>> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that you have
>>> to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing the existing fans.
>>
>> The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the Saga via
>> the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as occasional TV
>> broadcasts) over the years.
>
> No doubt many have but others have not and of course there
are many others
> who are not children of existing fans.

That's what DVDs are for.

There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or recreate the original
movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was, is, never will be ... other
than Jar Jar Abrams' complete lack of creative talent, sheer laziness,
and over-bloated ego thinking he knew better than George Lucas (the guy
who actually had the talent to come up with the idea!).



Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there were unique pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a reboot (for which I am personally thankful for).

Quote:

> If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do you still plan
> to watch the rest? You seem to have already pre-judged them.

Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin. Everything he
touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps ship when he gets bored
leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he leaves behind.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are obviously many people who like his movies despite whatever you may think of them.

Quote:

I certainly have never and will never pay to see his crap in a movie
theatre. I only bought the DVD of his Star Wars "reboot" to complete
the set, but regret doing that.


Yet you apparently still watch them. I guess one piece of good news from your perspective will be that Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple of Star Wars movies.



[Updated on: Wed, 24 August 2016 14:46]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326957 is a reply to message #326930] Wed, 24 August 2016 17:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
>> In article <ZC2vz.3430$mailto:M27.3138@fx33.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
>>> In article
>>> <e0Ruz.30550$mailto:zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
>>> kNight
>>>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>>> > In article
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already
>>>> >> have the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical
>>>> >> and making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>>>> >
>>>> > That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>>>
>>>> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
>>>> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
>>>> started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
>>>> find the start of the story less interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
>>>> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>>>
>>> Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or
>>> less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but
>>> much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode I, was a confused
>>> mess.
>>
>> No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about Episode I were due
>> to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and because they didn't
>> like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the Ewoks or the droids'
>> banter) or the supposed racial steretypes (after whining there wasn't
>> enough "diversity" in the Original Trilogy).
>
> I disagree.

You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the actual facts
though.




>>>> Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to
>>>> Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so now they have
>>>> every right to do whatever they want with it.
>>>
>>> No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but they did not
>>> create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it would still be
>>> abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a moustache and
>>> Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I* thought it looked
>>> better that way.
>>
>> So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right to sell
>> his ownership of the franchise to someone else to create
>> stories in?

Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\




>>>> >>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS*
>>>> >>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies. The talentless
>>>> >>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from the Original
>>>> >>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated show with an
>>>> >>> orphaned main character), and then, similar to his Star
>>>> >>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it
>>>> >>> seem like part of the same franchise. The reason so many
>>>> >>> people like Episode VII is because it basically is the
>>>> >>> Original movie again. :(
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that
>>>> >> you have to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing
>>>> >> the existing fans.
>>>> >
>>>> > The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the
>>>> > Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as
>>>> > occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt many have but others have not and of course there are
>>>> many others who are not children of existing fans.
>>>
>>> That's what DVDs are for.
>>>
>>> There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or recreate the
>>> original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was, is, never
>>> will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete lack of creative
>>> talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego thinking he knew
>>> better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had the talent to
>>> come up with the idea!).
>>
>> Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there were unique
>> pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a reboot (for which
>> I am personally thankful for).

All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ... that's what make
them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".

And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like Abram's Star
Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like Abrams' Star Drek,
failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes and a brain
who see it.


>>>> If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do
>>>> you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to have already
>>>> pre-judged them.
>>>
>>> Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin. Everything he
>>> touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps ship when he gets
>>> bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he leaves behind.
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
>> obviously many people who like his movies despite whatever
>> you may think of them.

Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything else is an
observable fact.



>>> I certainly have never and will never pay to see his crap in a
>>> movie theatre. I only bought the DVD of his Star Wars "reboot"
>>> to complete the set, but regret doing that.
>>
>> Yet you apparently still watch them.

I watched the start of Alias and got conned by the over-hyping of Lost,
both of which turned out to be hopeless messes and quickly dropped from
the "will watch" list. His idiotic Star Drek movies were easy enough to
not bother watching after seeing the first trailer and reading about
it. T same with his silly Star Wars reboot. I certainly won't be
bothering to ever watching anything else the cretin foists about the
unwary public.



>> I guess one piece of good news from your perspective will be that
>> Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple of Star Wars
>> movies.

Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies (not the
up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he no doubt added
his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until he gets bored
and moves on to his next disaster.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #326958 is a reply to message #326930] Wed, 24 August 2016 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I guess one piece of good news from your perspective will be that
> Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple of Star Wars
> movies.

Even he did drop out now, it's too late, just like Star Drek. He's
already made the mess and now everything else has to try and fit with
it ... or be yet another idiotic reboot to yet another version. Either
way, the original and real version is dead. :-(
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327033 is a reply to message #326957] Thu, 25 August 2016 16:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Wed, 24 August 2016 17:55
In article <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
>> In article <ZC2vz.3430$mailto:M27.3138@fx33.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
>>> In article
>>> <e0Ruz.30550$mailto:zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
>>> kNight
>>>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>>> > In article
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already
>>>> >> have the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical
>>>> >> and making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
>>>> >
>>>> > That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>>>
>>>> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
>>>> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
>>>> started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
>>>> find the start of the story less interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
>>>> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>>>
>>> Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or
>>> less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but
>>> much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode I, was a confused
>>> mess.
>>
>> No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about Episode I were due
>> to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and because they didn't
>> like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the Ewoks or the droids'
>> banter) or the supposed racial steretypes (after whining there wasn't
>> enough "diversity" in the Original Trilogy).
>
> I disagree.

You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the actual facts
though.



You mean it doesn't alter YOUR opinion. When I say much of the prequel trilogy was a confused mess that's my opinion. I liked the prequel trilogy but there were a lot of problems with it despite (and because of) Lucas being in control. It is widely believed (and I'm among those who do) that they would have been better movies with other directors. Empire Strikes Back is considered by most fans and critics to be the best Star Wars movie and Lucas didn't direct that one.

Quote:

>>>> Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to
>>>> Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so now they have
>>>> every right to do whatever they want with it.
>>>
>>> No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but they did not
>>> create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it would still be
>>> abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a moustache and
>>> Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I* thought it looked
>>> better that way.
>>
>> So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right to sell
>> his ownership of the franchise to someone else to create
>> stories in?

Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\



I said Disney owns the rights and has the right to do whatever they want. You said "no they don't". See above. If Lucas has the right to sell his creation than whoever he sells his creation too surely has the right to use it. That's the whole point. It's hardly worth paying billions of dollars for otherwise.

Quote:

>>>> >>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS*
>>>> >>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies. The talentless
>>>> >>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from the Original
>>>> >>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated show with an
>>>> >>> orphaned main character), and then, similar to his Star
>>>> >>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it
>>>> >>> seem like part of the same franchise. The reason so many
>>>> >>> people like Episode VII is because it basically is the
>>>> >>> Original movie again. Sad
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that
>>>> >> you have to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing
>>>> >> the existing fans.
>>>> >
>>>> > The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the
>>>> > Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as
>>>> > occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt many have but others have not and of course there are
>>>> many others who are not children of existing fans.
>>>
>>> That's what DVDs are for.
>>>
>>> There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or recreate the
>>> original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was, is, never
>>> will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete lack of creative
>>> talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego thinking he knew
>>> better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had the talent to
>>> come up with the idea!).
>>
>> Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there were unique
>> pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a reboot (for which
>> I am personally thankful for).

All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ... that's what make
them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".

And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like Abram's Star
Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like Abrams' Star Drek,
failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes and a brain
who see it.



Episode VII is obviously a sequel no matter how derivative you think it is. Old characters have aged, there are new characters, story is new (despite derivative nature), etc. On the other hand, Trek was never really pretending not to be a reboot.

Quote:

>>>> If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do
>>>> you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to have already
>>>> pre-judged them.
>>>
>>> Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin. Everything he
>>> touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps ship when he gets
>>> bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he leaves behind.
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
>> obviously many people who like his movies despite whatever
>> you may think of them.

Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything else is an
observable fact.



"Disastrous mess", "talentless", etc. are all opinions as much as "cretin" is and obviously many people have a different opinion than you about Abrams hence his success. I would agree that he tends to be over hyped but that's just an opinion too.

Quote:

>>> I certainly have never and will never pay to see his crap in a
>>> movie theatre. I only bought the DVD of his Star Wars "reboot"
>>> to complete the set, but regret doing that.
>>
>> Yet you apparently still watch them.

I watched the start of Alias and got conned by the over-hyping of Lost,
both of which turned out to be hopeless messes and quickly dropped from
the "will watch" list. His idiotic Star Drek movies were easy enough to
not bother watching after seeing the first trailer and reading about
it. T same with his silly Star Wars reboot. I certainly won't be
bothering to ever watching anything else the cretin foists about the
unwary public.



I never watched much of Lost or Alias. Never got that interested. I did really like Fringe though, particularly the first couple of seasons. The new Trek movies are pretty good though I would much rather see them do new stories with new characters instead of the alternate timeline thing. Episode VII was pretty good though, as has already been acknowledged, too derivative. It's hard to judge it as a standalone story because it isn't. My opinion will be affected by where it goes from here. If VIII and IX are as derivative as VII then I will be disappointed. But I see why that did what they did with VII and despite the derivative nature there are enough new elements to open up intriguing possibilities for the other episodes.


Quote:

>> I guess one piece of good news from your perspective will be that
>> Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple of Star Wars
>> movies.

Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies (not the
up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he no doubt added
his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until he gets bored
and moves on to his next disaster.


Abrams isn't writing the script or directing Episode VIII or IX. He is an "Executive Producer" in VIII but that doesn't mean much. Not sure how you think he is controlling it. So what's your opinion of what you know of Rogue One? Do you think any new Star Wars movie will always be crap if Lucas is not involved?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327042 is a reply to message #327033] Thu, 25 August 2016 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <xKIvz.5587$yi7.2406@fx42.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Wed, 24 August 2016 17:55
> In article
> <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
>>>> In article <ZC2vz.3430$mailto:M27.3138@fx33.iad>,
> Cyber kNight
>>>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
>>>> > In article
>>>> > <e0Ruz.30550$mailto:zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
>>>> > kNight
>>>> >> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>>> >> > In article
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better"
> story ... we
>>>> >> >> already have the story. Making a new one is simply
> Disney being
>>>> >> >> egotistical and making a confused mess of the franchise.
> :-\
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George
> Lucas had
>>>> >> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually
> from the start that
>>>> >> he started in the middle (with Episode IV) because
> he knew people
>>>> >> would find the start of the story less interesting.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right
> to do whatever he
>>>> >> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>>>> >
>>>> > Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth
> Vader was more
>>>> > or less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas'
> mind) all along
>>>> > but much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode
> I, was a
>>>> > confused mess.
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about
> Episode I were
>>>> due to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and
> because they
>>>> didn't like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the
>
>>>> Ewoks or the droids' banter) or the supposed racial steretypes
>>>> (after
> whining there wasn't enough "diversity" in the
>>>> Original Trilogy).
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the
> actual facts
>> though.

>
> You mean it doesn't alter YOUR opinion. When I say much of
the prequel
> trilogy was a confused mess that's my opinion. I
liked the prequel trilogy
> but there were a lot of problems
with it despite (and because of) Lucas being
> in control. It
is widely believed (and I'm among those who do) that
> they
would have been better movies with other directors. Empire
Strikes Back
> is considered by most fans and critics to be
the best Star Wars movie and
> Lucas didn't direct that one.

As I said, it doesn't alter the facts. The actual facts is that almost
all of the complaints were about Jar Jar / racial stereotypes and it
being boring (except for the Darth Maul / Qui-Gon / Obi-Wan light saber
battle near the end).

You opinion is completely irrelevant to anyone but you.




> Quote:
>>>> > Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas
> sold it to
>>>> >> Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so
> now they have
>>>> >> every right to do whatever they want with it.
>>>> >
>>>> > No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but
> they did not
>>>> > create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it
> would still be
>>>> > abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a
> moustache and
>>>> > Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I*
> thought it looked
>>>> > better that way.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right
> to sell
>>>> his ownership of the franchise to someone else to
> create
>>>> stories in?
>>
>> Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\

>
> I said Disney owns the rights and has the right to do
whatever they want. You
> said "no they don't". See above. If
Lucas has the right to sell his creation
> than whoever he
sells his creation too surely has the right to use it.
That's
> the whole point. It's hardly worth paying billions of
dollars for otherwise.

Whoosh!! Straight over the top, didn't touch the sides. :-\




> Quote:
>>>> > >>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called
> "Episode VII"
> *IS*
>>>> >> >>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies.
> The talentless
>>>> >> >>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from
> the Original
>>>> >> >>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated
> show with an
>>>> >> >>> orphaned main character), and then, similar
> to his Star
>>>> >> >>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity
> by making it
>>>> >> >>> seem like part of the same franchise. The
> reason so many
>>>> >> >>> people like Episode VII is because it
> basically is the
>>>> >> >>> Original movie again. :(
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The problem with continuing a franchise years
> later is that
>>>> >> >> you have to introduce new viewers in addition
> to appeasing
>>>> >> >> the existing fans.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The existing fans have already introduced their
> kids to the
>>>> >> > Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases
> (as well as
>>>> >> > occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No doubt many have but others have not and of
> course there are
>>>> >> many others who are not children of existing
> fans.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's what DVDs are for.
>>>> >
>>>> > There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or
> recreate the
>>>> > original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was,
> is, never
>>>> > will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete
> lack of creative
>>>> > talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego
> thinking he knew
>>>> > better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had
> the talent to
>>>> > come up with the idea!).
>>>>
>>>> Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there
> were unique
>>>> pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a
> reboot (for which
>>>> I am personally thankful for).
>>
>> All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ...
> that's what make
>> them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".
>>
>> And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like
> Abram's Star
>> Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like
> Abrams' Star Drek,
>> failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes
> and a brain
>> who see it.

>
> Episode VII is obviously a sequel no matter how derivative
you think it is.
> Old characters have aged, there are new
characters, story is new (despite
> derivative nature), etc.

Almost nothing in it is new. It's almost all a rip-off of the Original
Trilogy movies, with the obligatory idiotic "reboot" changes to satisfy
the JJ Abrams' "I know better" ego.



>
On the other hand, Trek was never really pretending not to
be a reboot.

Yes it was. That's the entire point of the idiotic "alternate timeline"
nonsense.




> Quote:
>>>> > If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the
> movie? Do
>>>> >> you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to
> have already
>>>> >> pre-judged them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin.
> Everything he
>>>> > touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps
> ship when he gets
>>>> > bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he
> leaves behind.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
>>>> obviously many people who like his movies despite
> whatever
>>>> you may think of them.
>>
>> Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything
> else is an
>> observable fact.

>
> "Disastrous mess", "talentless", etc. are all opinions as
much as "cretin" is
> and obviously many people have a
different opinion than you about Abrams
> hence his success. I
would agree that he tends to be over hyped but that's
> just
an opinion too.

Nope, it's a fact, as proven by watching anything he's made ... it's
all complete rubbish and a total mess.



> Quote:
>>> I guess one piece of good news from your
> perspective will be
> that
>>>> Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple
> of Star Wars
>>>> movies.
>>
>> Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies
> (not the
>> up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he
> no doubt added
>> his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until
> he gets bored
>> and moves on to his next disaster.

>
> Abrams isn't writing the script or directing Episode VIII or
IX. He is an
> "Executive Producer" in VIII but that doesn't
mean much. Not sure how
> you think he is controlling it.

He's in charge, so of course he's controlling it. :-\



> So
what's your opinion of what you know of Rogue One? Do you
think any new
> Star Wars movie will always be crap if Lucas
is not involved?

From what little information has *so* *far* been released, Rogue One
looks like it will be crap due to being overly-realistic (so
ill-fitting with the Star Wars style) and changing the already
established storyline for how the Death Star plans were stolen.

The Han Solo movie will need a VERY good actor who can "channel"
Harrison Ford to fill the role properly, otherwise it too will be crap.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327043 is a reply to message #327042] Thu, 25 August 2016 17:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
doctor is currently offline  doctor
Messages: 50
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <260820160939146046%YourName@YourISP.com>,
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <xKIvz.5587$yi7.2406@fx42.iad>, Cyber kNight
> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your Name wrote on Wed, 24 August 2016 17:55
>> In article
>> <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
>>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
>>>> > In article <ZC2vz.3430$mailto:M27.3138@fx33.iad>,
>> Cyber kNight
>>>> > <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
>>>> >> In article
>>>> >> <e0Ruz.30550$mailto:zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
>>>> >> kNight
>>>> >>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>>> >>> > In article
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better"
>> story ... we
>>>> >>> >> already have the story. Making a new one is simply
>> Disney being
>>>> >>> >> egotistical and making a confused mess of the franchise.
>> :-\
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George
>> Lucas had
>>>> >>> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually
>> from the start that
>>>> >>> he started in the middle (with Episode IV) because
>> he knew people
>>>> >>> would find the start of the story less interesting.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right
>> to do whatever he
>>>> >>> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth
>> Vader was more
>>>> >> or less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas'
>> mind) all along
>>>> >> but much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode
>> I, was a
>>>> >> confused mess.
>>>> >
>>>> > No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about
>> Episode I were
>>>> > due to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and
>> because they
>>>> > didn't like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the
>>
>>>> > Ewoks or the droids' banter) or the supposed racial steretypes
>>>> > (after
>> whining there wasn't enough "diversity" in the
>>>> > Original Trilogy).
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the
>> actual facts
>>> though.
>
>>
>> You mean it doesn't alter YOUR opinion. When I say much of
> the prequel
>> trilogy was a confused mess that's my opinion. I
> liked the prequel trilogy
>> but there were a lot of problems
> with it despite (and because of) Lucas being
>> in control. It
> is widely believed (and I'm among those who do) that
>> they
> would have been better movies with other directors. Empire
> Strikes Back
>> is considered by most fans and critics to be
> the best Star Wars movie and
>> Lucas didn't direct that one.
>
> As I said, it doesn't alter the facts. The actual facts is that almost
> all of the complaints were about Jar Jar / racial stereotypes and it
> being boring (except for the Darth Maul / Qui-Gon / Obi-Wan light saber
> battle near the end).
>
> You opinion is completely irrelevant to anyone but you.
>
>
>
>
>> Quote:
>>>> >> Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas
>> sold it to
>>>> >>> Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so
>> now they have
>>>> >>> every right to do whatever they want with it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but
>> they did not
>>>> >> create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it
>> would still be
>>>> >> abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a
>> moustache and
>>>> >> Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I*
>> thought it looked
>>>> >> better that way.
>>>> >
>>>> > So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right
>> to sell
>>>> > his ownership of the franchise to someone else to
>> create
>>>> > stories in?
>>>
>>> Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\
>
>>
>> I said Disney owns the rights and has the right to do
> whatever they want. You
>> said "no they don't". See above. If
> Lucas has the right to sell his creation
>> than whoever he
> sells his creation too surely has the right to use it.
> That's
>> the whole point. It's hardly worth paying billions of
> dollars for otherwise.
>
> Whoosh!! Straight over the top, didn't touch the sides. :-\
>
>
>
>
>> Quote:
>>>> >> >>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called
>> "Episode VII"
>> *IS*
>>>> >>> >>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies.
>> The talentless
>>>> >>> >>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from
>> the Original
>>>> >>> >>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated
>> show with an
>>>> >>> >>> orphaned main character), and then, similar
>> to his Star
>>>> >>> >>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity
>> by making it
>>>> >>> >>> seem like part of the same franchise. The
>> reason so many
>>>> >>> >>> people like Episode VII is because it
>> basically is the
>>>> >>> >>> Original movie again. :(
>>>> >>> >>
>>>> >>> >> The problem with continuing a franchise years
>> later is that
>>>> >>> >> you have to introduce new viewers in addition
>> to appeasing
>>>> >>> >> the existing fans.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > The existing fans have already introduced their
>> kids to the
>>>> >>> > Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases
>> (as well as
>>>> >>> > occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No doubt many have but others have not and of
>> course there are
>>>> >>> many others who are not children of existing
>> fans.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's what DVDs are for.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or
>> recreate the
>>>> >> original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was,
>> is, never
>>>> >> will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete
>> lack of creative
>>>> >> talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego
>> thinking he knew
>>>> >> better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had
>> the talent to
>>>> >> come up with the idea!).
>>>> >
>>>> > Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there
>> were unique
>>>> > pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a
>> reboot (for which
>>>> > I am personally thankful for).
>>>
>>> All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ...
>> that's what make
>>> them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".
>>>
>>> And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like
>> Abram's Star
>>> Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like
>> Abrams' Star Drek,
>>> failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes
>> and a brain
>>> who see it.
>
>>
>> Episode VII is obviously a sequel no matter how derivative
> you think it is.
>> Old characters have aged, there are new
> characters, story is new (despite
>> derivative nature), etc.
>
> Almost nothing in it is new. It's almost all a rip-off of the Original
> Trilogy movies, with the obligatory idiotic "reboot" changes to satisfy
> the JJ Abrams' "I know better" ego.
>
>
>
>>
> On the other hand, Trek was never really pretending not to
> be a reboot.
>
> Yes it was. That's the entire point of the idiotic "alternate timeline"
> nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>> Quote:
>>>> >> If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the
>> movie? Do
>>>> >>> you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to
>> have already
>>>> >>> pre-judged them.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin.
>> Everything he
>>>> >> touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps
>> ship when he gets
>>>> >> bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he
>> leaves behind.
>>>> >
>>>> > Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
>>>> > obviously many people who like his movies despite
>> whatever
>>>> > you may think of them.
>>>
>>> Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything
>> else is an
>>> observable fact.
>
>>
>> "Disastrous mess", "talentless", etc. are all opinions as
> much as "cretin" is
>> and obviously many people have a
> different opinion than you about Abrams
>> hence his success. I
> would agree that he tends to be over hyped but that's
>> just
> an opinion too.
>
> Nope, it's a fact, as proven by watching anything he's made ... it's
> all complete rubbish and a total mess.
>
>
>
>> Quote:
>>>> I guess one piece of good news from your
>> perspective will be
>> that
>>>> > Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple
>> of Star Wars
>>>> > movies.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies
>> (not the
>>> up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he
>> no doubt added
>>> his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until
>> he gets bored
>>> and moves on to his next disaster.
>
>>
>> Abrams isn't writing the script or directing Episode VIII or
> IX. He is an
>> "Executive Producer" in VIII but that doesn't
> mean much. Not sure how
>> you think he is controlling it.
>
> He's in charge, so of course he's controlling it. :-\
>
>
>
>> So
> what's your opinion of what you know of Rogue One? Do you
> think any new
>> Star Wars movie will always be crap if Lucas
> is not involved?
>
> From what little information has *so* *far* been released, Rogue One
> looks like it will be crap due to being overly-realistic (so
> ill-fitting with the Star Wars style) and changing the already
> established storyline for how the Death Star plans were stolen.
>
> The Han Solo movie will need a VERY good actor who can "channel"
> Harrison Ford to fill the role properly, otherwise it too will be crap.

You really are an old bugger!!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Time for the USA to hold a referendum on its republic and vote to dissolve!!
Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327121 is a reply to message #327042] Fri, 26 August 2016 17:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Thu, 25 August 2016 17:39
In article <xKIvz.5587$yi7.2406@fx42.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Wed, 24 August 2016 17:55
> In article
> <OMlvz.4635$Zu.4438@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
>> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
>>>> In article <ZC2vz.3430$mailto:M27.3138@fx33.iad>,
> Cyber kNight
>>>> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
>>>> > In article
>>>> > <e0Ruz.30550$mailto:zd4.21269@fx11.iad>, Cyber
>>>> > kNight
>>>> >> <mailto:darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
>>>> >> > In article
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better"
> story ... we
>>>> >> >> already have the story. Making a new one is simply
> Disney being
>>>> >> >> egotistical and making a confused mess of the franchise.
> :-\
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > That already happened with episodes I-III.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George
> Lucas had
>>>> >> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually
> from the start that
>>>> >> he started in the middle (with Episode IV) because
> he knew people
>>>> >> would find the start of the story less interesting.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right
> to do whatever he
>>>> >> wanted with *HIS* creation.
>>>> >
>>>> > Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth
> Vader was more
>>>> > or less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas'
> mind) all along
>>>> > but much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode
> I, was a
>>>> > confused mess.
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about
> Episode I were
>>>> due to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and
> because they
>>>> didn't like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the
>
>>>> Ewoks or the droids' banter) or the supposed racial steretypes
>>>> (after
> whining there wasn't enough "diversity" in the
>>>> Original Trilogy).
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the
> actual facts
>> though.

>
> You mean it doesn't alter YOUR opinion. When I say much of
the prequel
> trilogy was a confused mess that's my opinion. I
liked the prequel trilogy
> but there were a lot of problems
with it despite (and because of) Lucas being
> in control. It
is widely believed (and I'm among those who do) that
> they
would have been better movies with other directors. Empire
Strikes Back
> is considered by most fans and critics to be
the best Star Wars movie and
> Lucas didn't direct that one.

As I said, it doesn't alter the facts. The actual facts is that almost
all of the complaints were about Jar Jar / racial stereotypes and it
being boring (except for the Darth Maul / Qui-Gon / Obi-Wan light saber
battle near the end).

You opinion is completely irrelevant to anyone but you.


Sort of ironic mentioning the irrelevancy of my opinion while referring to the opinions of others AND stating an opinion about what "most" peoples' opinion is (unless you have numbers to back that up anyway).


Quote:

> Quote:
>>>> > Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas
> sold it to
>>>> >> Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so
> now they have
>>>> >> every right to do whatever they want with it.
>>>> >
>>>> > No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but
> they did not
>>>> > create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it
> would still be
>>>> > abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a
> moustache and
>>>> > Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I*
> thought it looked
>>>> > better that way.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right
> to sell
>>>> his ownership of the franchise to someone else to
> create
>>>> stories in?
>>
>> Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\

>
> I said Disney owns the rights and has the right to do
whatever they want. You
> said "no they don't". See above. If
Lucas has the right to sell his creation
> than whoever he
sells his creation too surely has the right to use it.
That's
> the whole point. It's hardly worth paying billions of
dollars for otherwise.

Whoosh!! Straight over the top, didn't touch the sides. :-\


I think the words above are reasonably clear. :-\



Quote:

> Quote:
>>>> > >>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called
> "Episode VII"
> *IS*
>>>> >> >>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies.
> The talentless
>>>> >> >>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from
> the Original
>>>> >> >>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated
> show with an
>>>> >> >>> orphaned main character), and then, similar
> to his Star
>>>> >> >>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity
> by making it
>>>> >> >>> seem like part of the same franchise. The
> reason so many
>>>> >> >>> people like Episode VII is because it
> basically is the
>>>> >> >>> Original movie again. Sad
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The problem with continuing a franchise years
> later is that
>>>> >> >> you have to introduce new viewers in addition
> to appeasing
>>>> >> >> the existing fans.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The existing fans have already introduced their
> kids to the
>>>> >> > Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases
> (as well as
>>>> >> > occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No doubt many have but others have not and of
> course there are
>>>> >> many others who are not children of existing
> fans.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's what DVDs are for.
>>>> >
>>>> > There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or
> recreate the
>>>> > original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was,
> is, never
>>>> > will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete
> lack of creative
>>>> > talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego
> thinking he knew
>>>> > better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had
> the talent to
>>>> > come up with the idea!).
>>>>
>>>> Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there
> were unique
>>>> pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a
> reboot (for which
>>>> I am personally thankful for).
>>
>> All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ...
> that's what make
>> them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".
>>
>> And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like
> Abram's Star
>> Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like
> Abrams' Star Drek,
>> failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes
> and a brain
>> who see it.

>
> Episode VII is obviously a sequel no matter how derivative
you think it is.
> Old characters have aged, there are new
characters, story is new (despite
> derivative nature), etc.

Almost nothing in it is new. It's almost all a rip-off of the Original
Trilogy movies, with the obligatory idiotic "reboot" changes to satisfy
the JJ Abrams' "I know better" ego.


>
On the other hand, Trek was never really pretending not to
be a reboot.

Yes it was. That's the entire point of the idiotic "alternate timeline"
nonsense.


The alternate timeline is a mechanism for doing a reboot, not a disguise of one.



Quote:

> Quote:
>>>> > If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the
> movie? Do
>>>> >> you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to
> have already
>>>> >> pre-judged them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin.
> Everything he
>>>> > touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps
> ship when he gets
>>>> > bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he
> leaves behind.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
>>>> obviously many people who like his movies despite
> whatever
>>>> you may think of them.
>>
>> Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything
> else is an
>> observable fact.

>
> "Disastrous mess", "talentless", etc. are all opinions as
much as "cretin" is
> and obviously many people have a
different opinion than you about Abrams
> hence his success. I
would agree that he tends to be over hyped but that's
> just
an opinion too.

Nope, it's a fact, as proven by watching anything he's made ... it's
all complete rubbish and a total mess.


Most people don't think so. Not sure why you think your opinion is more relevant. It's as irrelevant as mine is.


Quote:

> Quote:
>>> I guess one piece of good news from your
> perspective will be
> that
>>>> Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple
> of Star Wars
>>>> movies.
>>
>> Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies
> (not the
>> up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he
> no doubt added
>> his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until
> he gets bored
>> and moves on to his next disaster.

>
> Abrams isn't writing the script or directing Episode VIII or
IX. He is an
> "Executive Producer" in VIII but that doesn't
mean much. Not sure how
> you think he is controlling it.

He's in charge, so of course he's controlling it. :-\



Disney is in charge, not Abrams. His involvement is minimal in the next episode.

Quote:

> So
what's your opinion of what you know of Rogue One? Do you
think any new
> Star Wars movie will always be crap if Lucas
is not involved?

From what little information has *so* *far* been released, Rogue One
looks like it will be crap due to being overly-realistic (so
ill-fitting with the Star Wars style) and changing the already
established storyline for how the Death Star plans were stolen.

The Han Solo movie will need a VERY good actor who can "channel"
Harrison Ford to fill the role properly, otherwise it too will be crap.


Just because a movie is not what you expect or want or like does not make it crap though it may be crap in your *opinion*. Others may have different opinions and clearly do.
Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327126 is a reply to message #327121] Fri, 26 August 2016 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 871
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <4v2wz.1559$SX5.1464@fx01.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Sort of ironic mentioning the irrelevancy of my opinion while referring to
> the opinions of others AND stating an
opinion about what "most" peoples'
> opinion is (unless you have numbers to back that up anyway).

As I said, those are the usual main complaints. I don't think I've ever
come across anyone else complaining that Episode I / Prequel Trilogy
was a "confused mess".




> I think the words above are reasonably clear. :-\

Well you obviously failed to understand them then.





> The alternate timeline is a mechanism for doing a reboot, not a disguise of
> one.

Then you failed to understand JJ Abrams' StarDrek as well.




> Most people don't think so. Not sure why you think your opinion is more
> relevant. It's as irrelevant as mine is.

As I said, it's an easily observable fact by simply forcing yourself to
watch any of the garbage he makes and MANY MANY MANY people know it ...
unfortunately almost none of those people are in Hollyweird management,
so they keep hiring the moron. :-(



> Disney is in charge, not Abrams. His involvement is minimal in the next
> episode.

Abrams *is* in charge and he will have the almost final say on
everything, short of a Disney / Lucasfilm suit having the balls to tell
him "no" (which thanks to his massively over-hyped "genius" status in
their eyes, isn't likely to happen).

The fact that he completely screwed up Episode VII by also (supposedly)
helping to write it isn't really relevant.




> Just because a movie is not what you expect or want or like does not
> make it crap though it may be crap in your *opinion*. Others may have
> different opinions and clearly do.

It's all an OBSERVABLE FACT ... observable facts are not opinions.

Fact:
Episode VII is largely just a lazy, talentless rip-off of
the original movie / Original Trilogy. Anyone with eyes,
ears, and a working brain can see that from the other side
of the universe - virtually every scene is a knock-off.

Fact:
JJ Abrams is a lazy talentless hack who makes a mess of
everything he touches, then gets bored and moves on leaving
the mess for someone else to try and tidy up.

Opinion:
JJ Abrams is a cretin - there's no way to observe / prove
that.


But, you believe whatever you want. I'm done with this topic. I haven't
got the time nor desire to bother with it anymore (especially
continually trying to tidy up the mess your newsreader / forum makes of
the text).
Re: Re: More than one Young Han Solo movie planned [message #327381 is a reply to message #327126] Mon, 29 August 2016 17:56 Go to previous message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1503
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Fri, 26 August 2016 18:32
In article <4v2wz.1559$SX5.1464@fx01.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Sort of ironic mentioning the irrelevancy of my opinion while referring to
> the opinions of others AND stating an
opinion about what "most" peoples'
> opinion is (unless you have numbers to back that up anyway).

As I said, those are the usual main complaints. I don't think I've ever
come across anyone else complaining that Episode I / Prequel Trilogy
was a "confused mess".




> I think the words above are reasonably clear. :-\

Well you obviously failed to understand them then.



I understood them just fine. Even quoted back to you what I was referring to.

Quote:

> The alternate timeline is a mechanism for doing a reboot, not a disguise of
> one.

Then you failed to understand JJ Abrams' StarDrek as well.



Not thinking an alternate timeline is a "disguise" is hardly failing to understand something.

Quote:

> Most people don't think so. Not sure why you think your opinion is more
> relevant. It's as irrelevant as mine is.

As I said, it's an easily observable fact by simply forcing yourself to
watch any of the garbage he makes and MANY MANY MANY people know it ...
unfortunately almost none of those people are in Hollyweird management,
so they keep hiring the moron. Sad


They keep hiring him because his films keep making money. It's really as simple as that. His films make money because a large number of people like them and go see them even though you may not.

Quote:

> Disney is in charge, not Abrams. His involvement is minimal in the next
> episode.

Abrams *is* in charge and he will have the almost final say on
everything, short of a Disney / Lucasfilm suit having the balls to tell
him "no" (which thanks to his massively over-hyped "genius" status in
their eyes, isn't likely to happen).

The fact that he completely screwed up Episode VII by also (supposedly)
helping to write it isn't really relevant.


He is not in charge and repeatedly saying so does not make it true.

Quote:

> Just because a movie is not what you expect or want or like does not
> make it crap though it may be crap in your *opinion*. Others may have
> different opinions and clearly do.

It's all an OBSERVABLE FACT ... observable facts are not opinions.

Fact:
Episode VII is largely just a lazy, talentless rip-off of
the original movie / Original Trilogy. Anyone with eyes,
ears, and a working brain can see that from the other side
of the universe - virtually every scene is a knock-off.

Fact:
JJ Abrams is a lazy talentless hack who makes a mess of
everything he touches, then gets bored and moves on leaving
the mess for someone else to try and tidy up.

Opinion:
JJ Abrams is a cretin - there's no way to observe / prove
that.


But, you believe whatever you want. I'm done with this topic. I haven't
got the time nor desire to bother with it anymore (especially
continually trying to tidy up the mess your newsreader / forum makes of
the text).


You have no idea what the difference between a fact and an opinion is. Next you'll be telling me to get off your lawn.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 August 2016 17:56]

Report message to a moderator

  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: MegaCon 2016 - Anthony Daniels
Next Topic: William Shatner: "Star Trek Owes A Big Debt To Star Wars"
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Jan 24 18:52:32 EST 2022

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01173 seconds