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

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Star Wars » [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip
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
[NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267730] Thu, 18 September 2014 17:39 Go to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From ComingSoon.net ...

Get Up Close and Personal with Star Wars: Episode VII's
Millennium Falcon with an Unlikely Surprise
-------------------------------------------------------
Following the overhead images of the Millennium Falcon that
debuted online last week, Bad Robot Productions has released
a video of the fan-favorite ship on the set of "Star Wars:
Episode VII" and it features a rather interesting Easter egg
for those keeping up with the Star Wars/DC shenanigans that
have been going on between Zack Snyder and J.J. Abrams' Bad
Robot. Check it out below!

YouTube:
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267828 is a reply to message #267730] Sat, 20 September 2014 03:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <190920140939143351%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> From ComingSoon.net ...
>
> Get Up Close and Personal with Star Wars: Episode VII's
> Millennium Falcon with an Unlikely Surprise
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Following the overhead images of the Millennium Falcon that
> debuted online last week, Bad Robot Productions has released
> a video of the fan-favorite ship on the set of "Star Wars:
> Episode VII" and it features a rather interesting Easter egg
> for those keeping up with the Star Wars/DC shenanigans that
> have been going on between Zack Snyder and J.J. Abrams' Bad
> Robot. Check it out below!
>
> YouTube:

Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...


--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267867 is a reply to message #267828] Sat, 20 September 2014 18:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm1qd3b.hiv.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <190920140939143351%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> From ComingSoon.net ...
>>
>> Get Up Close and Personal with Star Wars: Episode VII's
>> Millennium Falcon with an Unlikely Surprise
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Following the overhead images of the Millennium Falcon that
>> debuted online last week, Bad Robot Productions has released
>> a video of the fan-favorite ship on the set of "Star Wars:
>> Episode VII" and it features a rather interesting Easter egg
>> for those keeping up with the Star Wars/DC shenanigans that
>> have been going on between Zack Snyder and J.J. Abrams' Bad
>> Robot. Check it out below!
>>
>> YouTube:
>
> Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...

That's what you get when you put a self-obsessed fan in charge of the
franchise ... to quote C-3PO and others: "I have a very bad feeling
about this" and have done every since the Geroge Lucas sold out and the
idiot Abrams was brought in. :-(
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267881 is a reply to message #267867] Sun, 21 September 2014 06:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <210920141022467617%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> YouTube:
>>
>> Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...
>
> That's what you get when you put a self-obsessed fan in charge of the
> franchise ... to quote C-3PO and others: "I have a very bad feeling
> about this" and have done every since the Geroge Lucas sold out and the
> idiot Abrams was brought in. :-(

Yeah, because the franchise was doing so great with George Lucas at the
helm. Duh.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267926 is a reply to message #267881] Sun, 21 September 2014 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm1t9un.uqn.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <210920141022467617%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> YouTube:
>>>
>>> Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...
>>
>> That's what you get when you put a self-obsessed fan in charge of the
>> franchise ... to quote C-3PO and others: "I have a very bad feeling
>> about this" and have done every since the Geroge Lucas sold out and the
>> idiot Abrams was brought in. :-(
>
> Yeah, because the franchise was doing so great with George Lucas at the
> helm. Duh.

The franchise was fine and (mostly) consistent and fitting together.

The problem now is that there will be different over-egoed idiots all
thinking they know better and each making all sorts of separate stuff -
some good, some abysmal, and some just fan-made drivel. Pretty much the
same as the novels have been, but on a bigger scale and messing up the
entire franchise. Then some moron in management will decide they aren't
getting enough money in their own pockets, so it's time for a moronic
"reboot" to add the final nails to the franchise's coffin. :-(
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #267975 is a reply to message #267926] Mon, 22 September 2014 11:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <220920140856521401%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnm1t9un.uqn.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <210920141022467617%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > YouTube:
>>>>
>>>> Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...
>>>
>>> That's what you get when you put a self-obsessed fan in charge of the
>>> franchise ... to quote C-3PO and others: "I have a very bad feeling
>>> about this" and have done every since the Geroge Lucas sold out and the
>>> idiot Abrams was brought in. :-(
>>
>> Yeah, because the franchise was doing so great with George Lucas at the
>> helm. Duh.
>
> The franchise was fine and (mostly) consistent and fitting together.

Hahahaha!!!

> The problem now is that there will be different over-egoed idiots all
> thinking they know better and each making all sorts of separate stuff -
> some good, some abysmal, and some just fan-made drivel. Pretty much the
> same as the novels have been, but on a bigger scale and messing up the
> entire franchise. Then some moron in management will decide they aren't
> getting enough money in their own pockets, so it's time for a moronic
> "reboot" to add the final nails to the franchise's coffin. :-(

Yeah, because George Lucas never did anything to maximize profit, duh.

I would rather have a Star Wars fan work with the franchise than someone as
George Lucas, who seemingly knows very little about what made Star Wars
what it was.

GL did one great movie in the hostry of the world, and that was Star Wars,
what made the franchise great was that someone else made the two sequels.
Then he decided some decades down the line that he should make more movies,
and do them himself, but he forgot to make movies. Or maybe he never did,
and he just got insanely lucky with the first one.

American Graffiti was an ok flick, but not the scale SW is, THX1138 was an
experiment, which was interesting, but hardly a work of art or visionary.

He didn't direct a movie for 22 (twenty-two) years between Star Wars and
Phantom Menace, so no wonder it was such a wreck. It's a shame, it coudl
have been so much more, if it had been done by someone that was a Star Wars
fan, or at least respected the way Star Wars movies were made and told.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #268043 is a reply to message #267975] Mon, 22 September 2014 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm20gbq.6lt.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <220920140856521401%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnm1t9un.uqn.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
>> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>> In article <210920141022467617%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > YouTube:
>>>> >
>>>> > Holy motherfucking nerdgasm...
>>>>
>>>> That's what you get when you put a self-obsessed fan in charge of the
>>>> franchise ... to quote C-3PO and others: "I have a very bad feeling
>>>> about this" and have done every since the Geroge Lucas sold out and the
>>>> idiot Abrams was brought in. :-(
>>>
>>> Yeah, because the franchise was doing so great with George Lucas at the
>>> helm. Duh.
>>
>> The franchise was fine and (mostly) consistent and fitting together.
>
> Hahahaha!!!

There's very little in the movies that doesn't fit. Even the TV shows
(ignoring the obvious crap of the Holiday Special and the Muppet Show
appearances) mostly fits.

The problems start when you try to add in all the novels and comic
books - things like ridiculous zombie stormtroopers, an idiotic clone
Emperor, etc.



>> The problem now is that there will be different over-egoed idiots all
>> thinking they know better and each making all sorts of separate stuff -
>> some good, some abysmal, and some just fan-made drivel. Pretty much the
>> same as the novels have been, but on a bigger scale and messing up the
>> entire franchise. Then some moron in management will decide they aren't
>> getting enough money in their own pockets, so it's time for a moronic
>> "reboot" to add the final nails to the franchise's coffin. :-(
>
> Yeah, because George Lucas never did anything to maximize profit, duh.

Profit isn't the problem. Screwing up the franchise is.




> I would rather have a Star Wars fan work with the franchise than someone as
> George Lucas, who seemingly knows very little about what made Star Wars
> what it was.

And therein lies the problem with "fan" made garbage. They don't know
what makes the franchise what it is ... they only know what they want
the franchise to be, which is two entirely different things.




> GL did one great movie in the hostry of the world, and that was Star Wars,
> what made the franchise great was that someone else made the two sequels.
> Then he decided some decades down the line that he should make more movies,
> and do them himself, but he forgot to make movies. Or maybe he never did,
> and he just got insanely lucky with the first one.

George Lucas was the one with the ideas for the entire fanchise (the
movie side of it anyway). Whether he actually makes the movies or
someone else does isn't relevant - he's the one who should be always in
charge of them since he created the idea and he knows what it should
be.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #268121 is a reply to message #268043] Tue, 23 September 2014 08:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <230920140856147705%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> The franchise was fine and (mostly) consistent and fitting together.
>>
>> Hahahaha!!!
>
> There's very little in the movies that doesn't fit.

There are tons of things that doesn't "fit", but that isn't the main
problem with the wreck that is the prequels. It's the lack of story,
characters, pacing and special effects that's the problem.

>> Yeah, because George Lucas never did anything to maximize profit, duh.
>
> Profit isn't the problem. Screwing up the franchise is.

Yes, that was his problem.

>> I would rather have a Star Wars fan work with the franchise than someone as
>> George Lucas, who seemingly knows very little about what made Star Wars
>> what it was.
>
> And therein lies the problem with "fan" made garbage. They don't know
> what makes the franchise what it is ... they only know what they want
> the franchise to be, which is two entirely different things.

Uh, George Lucas didn't know what made the "franchise" what it was, that's
why we got the prequel mess.

>> GL did one great movie in the hostry of the world, and that was Star Wars,
>> what made the franchise great was that someone else made the two sequels.
>> Then he decided some decades down the line that he should make more movies,
>> and do them himself, but he forgot to make movies. Or maybe he never did,
>> and he just got insanely lucky with the first one.
>
> George Lucas was the one with the ideas for the entire fanchise (the
> movie side of it anyway).

Ideas are one thing, and in 20 years, he had run out of good ideas as well.

> Whether he actually makes the movies or someone else does isn't relevant

Uh, yeah it is - since all the movies he has made save one has been utter
garbage, it's a clear sign that it's pretty relevant.

> - he's the one who should be always in charge of them since he created
> the idea and he knows what it should be.

What he supposedly "knows" is of no concern to me, the movie-goer. He made
three prequel-movies that weren't even a faint shadow of the original
trilogy.

Instead of listing the million things wrong with the prequels, I'll list
what was good about them:

1. The music
2. Less Jar Jar in two movies
3. There is no third point


--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #268186 is a reply to message #268121] Tue, 23 September 2014 16:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm22q6o.9ji.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
<snip the same tired and meaningless old load of bollocks>
>

Since you've completely missed the point (as usual) :-\
there's no point in me wasting any more time with this.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #268249 is a reply to message #268186] Wed, 24 September 2014 02:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <240920140852162298%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnm22q6o.9ji.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
> <snip the same tired and meaningless old load of bollocks>
>>
>
> Since you've completely missed the point (as usual) :-\
> there's no point in me wasting any more time with this.

Thank god! Now run along.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269710 is a reply to message #268249] Wed, 01 October 2014 15:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Someone else taking over the helm of Star Wars was inevitable. George Lucas won't live forever. This fact by itself doesn't mean the Star Wars franchise will get better or worse. That remains to be seen. But from the position of a fan, even if mediocre Star Wars movies get released on a regular basis this is better than none for the rest of my life which is what we likely would have got from George Lucas.

[Updated on: Wed, 01 October 2014 15:07]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269727 is a reply to message #269710] Wed, 01 October 2014 17:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <acYWv.365633$FX2.131388@fx18.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Someone else taking over the helm of Star Wars was inevitable. George Lucas
> won't live forever.

The Star Wars franchise (as well as the other Lucasfilm franchise like
Indiana Jones) should have been given over, under watertight legal red
tape, to the stewardship of Rick McCallum and others already within the
Lucasfilm franchise.




> This fact by itself doesn't mean the Star Wars franchise will get better
> or worse. That remains to be seen. But from the position of a fan, even if
> mediocre Star Wars movies get released on a regular basis this is better
> than none for the rest of my life

*Only* if those movies, novels, etc. actually fit with the established
franchise. Some new moron(s) going off making huge changes to suit
themselves is not wanted by any real fan of any franchise. Such things
simply create a complete mess of the franchise.

JJ Abrams claims to be a fan of Star Wars, and yet in other franchises
we have already seen so-called "fans" produce ill-fitting rubbish full
of their own silly ideas of what that franchise "should be" rather than
sticking to what the franchise actually is.



> which is what we likely would have got from George Lucas.

Apparently that is wrong since George Lucas was reportedly already
working on a sequel Trilogy before he sold out to Disney.

No Star Wars ever again is much better than ill-fitting rubbish that
confuses and destroys the franchise.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269734 is a reply to message #269727] Wed, 01 October 2014 18:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Wed, 01 October 2014 17:08

>> Someone else taking over the helm of Star Wars was inevitable. George Lucas
>> won't live forever.

>The Star Wars franchise (as well as the other Lucasfilm franchise like
>Indiana Jones) should have been given over, under watertight legal red
>tape, to the stewardship of Rick McCallum and others already within the
>Lucasfilm franchise.

Given? In what kind of dream world does this happen? Having said that, LucasFilm still exists (although owned by Disney) and many of the people that were working there before Disney are still working there now (although not Rick McCallum). Others who have been involved in past Star Wars films (e.g. Lawrence Kasdan who co-wrote Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark) are also involved in the new films. It's not like there is no continuity.

>> This fact by itself doesn't mean the Star Wars franchise will get better
>> or worse. That remains to be seen. But from the position of a fan, even if
>> mediocre Star Wars movies get released on a regular basis this is better
>> than none for the rest of my life

>*Only* if those movies, novels, etc. actually fit with the established
>franchise. Some new moron(s) going off making huge changes to suit
>themselves is not wanted by any real fan of any franchise. Such things
>simply create a complete mess of the franchise.
>
>JJ Abrams claims to be a fan of Star Wars, and yet in other franchises
>we have already seen so-called "fans" produce ill-fitting rubbish full
>of their own silly ideas of what that franchise "should be" rather than
>sticking to what the franchise actually is.

So why assume the worst?

>> which is what we likely would have got from George Lucas.

>Apparently that is wrong since George Lucas was reportedly already
>working on a sequel Trilogy before he sold out to Disney.
>
>No Star Wars ever again is much better than ill-fitting rubbish that
>confuses and destroys the franchise.

And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films. Again, why assume the new movies will be 'ill-fitting rubbish'? The prequel trilogy was mediocre at best when compared with the original, regardless of how well it 'fit in'. Abrams doesn't have to do much to improve on that. These movies aren't a 'reboot' like the Trek movies and at this point I don't think we have any reason to believe they won't 'fit' with the established (movie) franchise. What other franchises are you referring to?
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269749 is a reply to message #269734] Wed, 01 October 2014 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <X8%Wv.10168$Em1.469@fx10.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Wed, 01 October 2014 17:08
>>>
>>> Someone else taking over the helm of Star Wars was
inevitable. George
>>> Lucas
>>> won't live forever.
>
>> The Star Wars franchise (as well as the other Lucasfilm franchise like
>> Indiana Jones) should have been given over, under watertight legal red
>> tape, to the stewardship of Rick McCallum and others already within the
>> Lucasfilm franchise.
>
> Given? In what kind of dream world does this happen?

Given in the sense of under their charge, but owned entirely by the
Lucasfilm company and not by any individual or group of people.



> Having
said that, LucasFilm still exists (although owned by Disney)
and
> many of the people that were working there before Disney
are still working
> there now (although not Rick McCallum). Others who have been involved in
> past Star Wars films (e.g. Lawrence Kasdan who co-wrote Empire Strikes
> Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark) are also involved in
> the new films. It's not like there is no continuity.

Continuity or lack of it remains to be seen, but will almost certainly
become a problem as more and more people are introduced to try and
insert their own ideas into the franchise. In fact, Disney has already
thrown out all previous non-movie material (some for the better) and
started they own line of continuity.




>>> This fact by itself doesn't mean the Star Wars franchise will get better
>>> or worse. That remains to be seen. But from the position of a fan, even if
>>> mediocre Star Wars movies get released on a regular basis this is better
>>> than none for the rest of my life
>
>> *Only* if those movies, novels, etc. actually fit with the established
>> franchise. Some new moron(s) going off making huge changes to suit
>> themselves is not wanted by any real fan of any franchise. Such things
>> simply create a complete mess of the franchise.
>>
>> JJ Abrams claims to be a fan of Star Wars, and yet in other franchises
>> we have already seen so-called "fans" produce ill-fitting rubbish full
>> of their own silly ideas of what that franchise "should be" rather than
>> sticking to what the franchise actually is.
>
> So why assume the worst?

Because past experience of Hollyweird has shown that the worst is what
happens. Thanks to the "reboot" fad infesting Hollyweird, many
franchises have already been butchered into a confused mess by some new
fool who believed they knew better than the creator what the franchise
"should have been".




>>> which is what we likely would have got from George Lucas.
>>
>> Apparently that is wrong since George Lucas was reportedly already
>> working on a sequel Trilogy before he sold out to Disney.
>>
>> No Star Wars ever again is much better than ill-fitting rubbish that
>> confuses and destroys the franchise.
>
> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.

No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
and Disney and Lucasfilm management.



> Again, why assume the new movies will be 'ill-fitting rubbish'?

Again, Hollywierd's past performance in many other franchises.



> The prequel trilogy was mediocre at best when compared with the original,
> regardless of how well it 'fit in'.

The quality is irrelevent to the point. "Quality" is an opinion and as
such everybody has a different one.

Conintuity and fitting into the existing franchise are facts, and it is
that continuity that makes a successful franchise. That continuity is
not just the general in-universe facts, but also includes such things
as the style of the movies..

A new movie which is a musical (for example) would be ill-fitting to
the franchise, no matter how "good" or "bad" it is in anybody's
individual opinions. There are many now-adult fans who want a "grown up
Star Wars", which is also out of context and ill-fitting with the Star
Wars franchise which is and has always been aimed mainly at young boys
aged approximately 7-15.



> Abrams doesn't have to do much to improve on that.

Again, "improving" is an opinion and not relevent to the point.



> These movies aren't a 'reboot' like the Trek movies and at this point I
> don't think we have any reason to believe they won't 'fit' with the
> established (movie) franchise. What other franchises are you referring to?

Lucasfilm owns many franchises, the two biggest of course being Star
Wars and Indiana Jones.
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269789 is a reply to message #269749] Thu, 02 October 2014 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Wed, 01 October 2014 21:16

>> there now (although not Rick McCallum). Others who have been involved in
>> past Star Wars films (e.g. Lawrence Kasdan who co-wrote Empire Strikes
>> Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark) are also involved in
>> the new films. It's not like there is no continuity.

>Continuity or lack of it remains to be seen, but will almost certainly
>become a problem as more and more people are introduced to try and
>insert their own ideas into the franchise. In fact, Disney has already
>thrown out all previous non-movie material (some for the better) and
>started they own line of continuity.

There is at least some continuity in terms of people working on the films. That much is a fact.

>> So why assume the worst?

>Because past experience of Hollyweird has shown that the worst is what
>happens. Thanks to the "reboot" fad infesting Hollyweird, many
>franchises have already been butchered into a confused mess by some new
>fool who believed they knew better than the creator what the franchise
>"should have been".

But it has already been established that these films are not a 'reboot' but sequels. Aside from Trek (which WAS a reboot) which franchises to you feel have been butchered?

>> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.

>No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>and Disney and Lucasfilm management.

Legal say or no he is still collaborating. I doubt that he would do so if they are simply going to ignore everything he says.


>> Again, why assume the new movies will be 'ill-fitting rubbish'?

>Again, Hollywierd's past performance in many other franchises.

>> The prequel trilogy was mediocre at best when compared with the original,
>> regardless of how well it 'fit in'.

>The quality is irrelevent to the point. "Quality" is an opinion and as
>such everybody has a different one.
>
>Conintuity and fitting into the existing franchise are facts, and it is
>that continuity that makes a successful franchise. That continuity is
>not just the general in-universe facts, but also includes such things
>as the style of the movies..

I certainly want the new movies to fit in with the established movies but...
Quality may be "opinion" but there is often a general consensus that is indicative of the quality. Most people don't feel that the sequel trilogy lived up to the original regardless of whether they liked it or not. Quality is even more important than fitting in (in my opinion). I would rather have a good movie that changes the continuity or is a 'reboot' that a crap movie that 'fits in' if I had to choose between the two.

At this point we have every reason to believe these movies will fit in with the established movies. They are using original actors in a sequel for goodness sakes.

>A new movie which is a musical (for example) would be ill-fitting to
>the franchise, no matter how "good" or "bad" it is in anybody's
>individual opinions. There are many now-adult fans who want a "grown up
>Star Wars", which is also out of context and ill-fitting with the Star
>Wars franchise which is and has always been aimed mainly at young boys
>aged approximately 7-15.

I'll bet good money that the new movies will be PG or PG-13 and will not be musicals.


>> These movies aren't a 'reboot' like the Trek movies and at this point I
>> don't think we have any reason to believe they won't 'fit' with the
>> established (movie) franchise. What other franchises are you referring to?

>Lucasfilm owns many franchises, the two biggest of course being Star
>Wars and Indiana Jones.

I was referring to franchises that have sequels that you feel don't 'fit in'.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269802 is a reply to message #269749] Thu, 02 October 2014 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <021020141316222931%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>
> No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
> in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
> and Disney and Lucasfilm management.

Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he did
the prequels. Very good.


--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269815 is a reply to message #269789] Thu, 02 October 2014 16:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <EyeXv.401009$Vw1.257214@fx27.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your Name wrote on Wed, 01 October 2014 21:16
>
>>> there now (although not Rick McCallum). Others who have
been involved in
>>> past Star Wars films (e.g. Lawrence Kasdan who co-wrote
Empire Strikes
>>> Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark)
are also involved in
>>> the new films. It's not like there is no continuity.
>
>> Continuity or lack of it remains to be seen, but will
almost certainly
>> become a problem as more and more people are introduced to
try and
>> insert their own ideas into the franchise. In fact, Disney
has already
>> thrown out all previous non-movie material (some for the
better) and
>> started they own line of continuity.
>
> There is at least some continuity in terms of people working
on the films.
> That much is a fact.
>
>>> So why assume the worst?
>
>> Because past experience of Hollyweird has shown that the
worst is what
>> happens. Thanks to the "reboot" fad infesting Hollyweird,
many
>> franchises have already been butchered into a confused mess
by some new
>> fool who believed they knew better than the creator what
the franchise
>> "should have been".
>
> But it has already been established that these films are not
a 'reboot' but
> sequels. Aside from Trek (which WAS a reboot)
which franchises to you feel
> have been butchered?

JJ Abrams so-called "Star Trek" movies are marketed as a continuation,
although they are in fact really a silly "reboot". What terms they use
to describe any new material doesn't actually prevent ill-fitting
changes being made by new people ... especially over-egoed people like
JJ Abrams who think they know better what the franchise "should have
been".

The phrase "jumping the shark" was coined because TVs suddenly changed
in some way(s) - these weren't sequles or "reboots".



>>> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the
new films.
>
>> No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely
no legal say
>> in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of
JJ Abrams,
>> and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>
> Legal say or no he is still collaborating. I doubt that he
would do so if
> they are simply going to ignore everything he
says.

No, George Lucas is advising ... *if* asked. It is mostly an honourary
position and he has no legal say in what does or doesn't happen.

JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new movie should
include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George Lucas would say
"no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include it anyway simply
because that's what he thinks the franchise "should be".



>>> Again, why assume the new movies will be 'ill-fitting
rubbish'?
>
>> Again, Hollywierd's past performance in many other
franchises.
>
>>> The prequel trilogy was mediocre at best when compared
with the original,
>>> regardless of how well it 'fit in'.
>
>> The quality is irrelevent to the point. "Quality" is an
opinion and as
>> such everybody has a different one.
>>
>> Conintuity and fitting into the existing franchise are
facts, and it is
>> that continuity that makes a successful franchise. That
continuity is
>> not just the general in-universe facts, but also includes
such things
>> as the style of the movies..
>
> I certainly want the new movies to fit in with the
established movies but...
> Quality may be "opinion" but there is often a general
consensus that is
> indicative of the quality.

Quality is completely irrelevant to the point. Whether any additions
are "good" or "bad" doesn't stop them fillting or not with the
established franchise.




> Most people
don't feel that the sequel trilogy
> lived up to the original
regardless of whether they liked it or not. Quality
> is even
more important than fitting in (in my opinion). I would
rather have a
> good movie that changes the continuity or is a
'reboot' that a crap movie
> that 'fits in' if I had to choose
between the two.

Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as defined by the
meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes something THE WAY IT IS
and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning it into something
very different.



> At this point we have every reason to believe these movies
will fit in with
> the established movies. They are using
original actors in a sequel for
> goodness sakes.

At this point we know nothing at all about the movie itself.

We do that the first new movie is being helmed by an egotistical hack
who claims to be a "fan" and decided the original storyline wasn't good
enough, so re-wrote it himself. We also know that JJ Abrams has already
butchered the Star Trek franchise with his silly new movie that pee'd
all over existing continuity (and tried to use the silly excuse of an
alternate timline to get around that ... and failed miserably due to
many reasons of being ill-fitting).

There are also many other pointers that lead to the good *possibility*
that this will be an ill-fitting movie with ridiculous changes that
destroys another franchise ... or to quote many STar Wars characters:
"I have a bad feeling about this."



>> A new movie which is a musical (for example) would be
ill-fitting to
>> the franchise, no matter how "good" or "bad" it is in
anybody's
>> individual opinions. There are many now-adult fans who want
a "grown up
>> Star Wars", which is also out of context and ill-fitting
with the Star
>> Wars franchise which is and has always been aimed mainly at
young boys
>> aged approximately 7-15.
>
> I'll bet good money that the new movies will be PG or PG-13
and will not be
> musicals.

That was simply one example. There are many ways in which idiotic
changes can mean any new material is ill-fitting with the franchise.



>>> These movies aren't a 'reboot' like the Trek movies and
at this point I
>>> don't think we have any reason to believe they won't
'fit' with the
>>> established (movie) franchise. What other franchises are
you referring to?
>>
>> Lucasfilm owns many franchises, the two biggest of course
being Star
>> Wars and Indiana Jones.
>
> I was referring to franchises that have sequels that you feel don't 'fit in'.

Pretty much everything Hollyweird has "resurrected" has been
ill-fitting and butchered the original franchise ... whether it's given
a label a "sequel", "prequel", "reboot" or anything else isn't
relevant.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269816 is a reply to message #269802] Thu, 02 October 2014 16:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm2r41j.fdc.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <021020141316222931%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>>
>> No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>> in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>> and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>
> Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he did
> the prequels. Very good.

And here we have the typical so-called "fan" who doesn't really give a
damn the franchise nor what is done as long as "I think it's good".
:-\
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269869 is a reply to message #269816] Fri, 03 October 2014 05:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <031020140915046503%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnm2r41j.fdc.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <021020141316222931%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>>>
>>> No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>>> in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>>> and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>>
>> Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he did
>> the prequels. Very good.
>
> And here we have the typical so-called "fan" who doesn't really give a
> damn the franchise nor what is done as long as "I think it's good".
> :-\

Uh, because supposed "fans" should blindly love everything that has "Star
Wars" on it? How about some critical thinking?

I care very much about the franchise, which is pretty obvious from my
expressed joy of not having George Lucas being able to destroy it further.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269893 is a reply to message #269815] Fri, 03 October 2014 11:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Thu, 02 October 2014 16:53

>JJ Abrams so-called "Star Trek" movies are marketed as a continuation,
>although they are in fact really a silly "reboot". What terms they use
>to describe any new material doesn't actually prevent ill-fitting
>changes being made by new people ... especially over-egoed people like
>JJ Abrams who think they know better what the franchise "should have
>been".

In all your talk about 'franchises' being 'ruined' you've only managed to list Star Trek. The new Star Trek movies I happen to think were pretty good movies but they certainly weren't Star Trek as we know it. But other than the fact that Abrams is directing, there is no indication that Star Wars will be a reboot or otherwise ill fitting in any way. Incidentally, Abrams did not write the script for the new Trek films nor was it his decision for them to be a reboot. He was just the director.

>No, George Lucas is advising ... *if* asked. It is mostly an honourary
>position and he has no legal say in what does or doesn't happen.

You can subcategorize it any way you want but he is still involved hence still 'collaborating'. The word 'collaborate' doesn't imply anything legal.

>JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new movie should
>include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George Lucas would say
>"no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include it anyway simply
>because that's what he thinks the franchise "should be".

Yes, but this is a stupid example and won't happen. And Abrams doesn't have that sort of control over the direction of the Star Wars universe. He was hired to direct and co-write the screenplay of the first of the new movies, not be God of the Star Wars universe. He could NOT include an X-rated scene just because that's what he thinks the franchise should be and I imagine there are a lot of other things he can't do. Also, thus far he doesn't have any role in any of the other future Star Wars movies (unlike with Trek).

>Quality is completely irrelevant to the point. Whether any additions
>are "good" or "bad" doesn't stop them fillting or not with the
>established franchise.

Quality is never irrelevant. It's not as if people are going to be saying 'boy that movie was crap but it fit in great with the established franchise so that's ok!'

>Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as defined by the
>meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes something THE WAY IT IS
>and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning it into something
>very different.

I think this conversation has gone past the point of being ridiculous to the point of just being a troll on your part. Despite what you may think, you aren't the sole authority on what a 'fan' is. By your definition, no fan of Star Wars (or anything else) would want a sequel because it will in some way change their perception of the way things are. Some would argue just the opposite and say that a true fan would like anything Trek (or whatever) just because it was Trek regardless of how crappy or how ill fitting it was.

>At this point we know nothing at all about the movie itself.

Actually we know quite a lot. Actors, director, producer, writers, characters, etc. Plus filming locations some pics from the sets, rumors (at least some of which are probably true), etc.

>We do that the first new movie is being helmed by an egotistical hack
>who claims to be a "fan" and decided the original storyline wasn't good
>enough, so re-wrote it himself. We also know that JJ Abrams has already
>butchered the Star Trek franchise with his silly new movie that pee'd
>all over existing continuity (and tried to use the silly excuse of an
>alternate timline to get around that ... and failed miserably due to
>many reasons of being ill-fitting).

What did Abrams rewrite? He has no writing credits on the Star Trek movies. Abrams is co-writing the screenplay for Episode VII with a veteran Star Wars scriptwriter and it is supposedly based on a treatment by George Lucas. Yes, in this case it is a rewrite but several rewrites of screenplays for large productions are normal and this has nothing to do with egotism on the part of Abrams. And again, he is co-writing with a guy that also co-wrote ESB and ROTJ. Also, rewrites of this nature don't typically involve completely changing the story idea.

>There are also many other pointers that lead to the good *possibility*
>that this will be an ill-fitting movie with ridiculous changes that
>destroys another franchise ... or to quote many STar Wars characters:
>"I have a bad feeling about this."

Yes, anything is possible but I don't think there is any evidence yet to suggest the new movies won't fit in with the old. The evidence that exists for the most part suggests otherwise.


Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269937 is a reply to message #269869] Fri, 03 October 2014 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm2sqs7.lav.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <031020140915046503%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnm2r41j.fdc.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
>> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>> In article <021020141316222931%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>>>>
>>>> No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>>>> in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>>>> and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he did
>>> the prequels. Very good.
>>
>> And here we have the typical so-called "fan" who doesn't really give a
>> damn the franchise nor what is done as long as "I think it's good".
>> :-\
>
> Uh, because supposed "fans" should blindly love everything that has "Star
> Wars" on it? How about some critical thinking?

I never said that, but that is opinions. I do not deal with worthless
opinions since everyone's are different. I'm talking about facts and
changes.


> I care very much about the franchise, which is pretty obvious from my
> expressed joy of not having George Lucas being able to destroy it further.

Nope. That shows you "care" about your own enjoyment and the worthless
opinion of "it's good" / "it's bad" ... if you really cared about the
franchise you'd be worried about whether or not it fits with
established facts, established styles, etc.
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #269938 is a reply to message #269893] Fri, 03 October 2014 17:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <sgzXv.367796$Lj7.218879@fx22.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Thu, 02 October 2014 16:53
>>
>> JJ Abrams so-called "Star Trek" movies are marketed as a
continuation,
>> although they are in fact really a silly "reboot". What
terms they use
>> to describe any new material doesn't actually prevent
ill-fitting
>> changes being made by new people ... especially over-egoed
people like
>> JJ Abrams who think they know better what the franchise
"should have
>> been".
>
> In all your talk about 'franchises' being 'ruined' you've
only managed to
> list Star Trek. The new Star Trek movies I
happen to think were pretty good
> movies but they certainly
weren't Star Trek as we know it.

EXACTLY the point.

There are many other franchises (big and small) that have been ruined
by the same sort of moronic stupidity from Hollyweird's fad for
resurrecting the past. Although it must be noted that the comic book
industry has also done this "buthering" of the past.

As for a list, it's near endless. Ignoring the idiocy of "it's good" /
"it's bad", franchises that have been changed (in some cases multiple
times) include, but are not limted to:
- Star Trek (starting with the "Enterprise" TV series)
- Battlestar Galactica
- Batman
- Superman
- Spider-Man
- Bewitched
- 21 Jump Street
- Starsky & Hutch
- The Smurfs
- Thunderbirds
- Happy Days



> But other than the fact
that Abrams is directing, there is no indication
> that Star
Wars will be a reboot

Again, the "reboot" phrase doesn't necessarily have to be used. Changes
can be made to an on-going series ... that's where "jumping the shark"
comes from.



> or otherwise ill fitting in any way.

I have never said it definitely will be, only that almost every
indication so far is pointing in that direction. Hence: "I have a bad
feeling about this."




>> No, George Lucas is advising ... *if* asked. It is mostly
an honourary
>> position and he has no legal say in what does or doesn't
happen.
>
> You can subcategorize it any way you want but he is still
involved hence
> still 'collaborating'. The word 'collaborate'
doesn't imply anything legal.

The point is that George Lucas has no say in what does or doesn happen,
so JJ Abrams (or whoever else is in charge) can make ill-fitting
changes simply because they think that's what the franchise "should be"
.... rather then George Lucas who actually created the franchise.

The fact that multiple people are being brought in for vaious movies,
etc. means it is even more likely that at least some of it will be
ill-fitting.



>> JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new movie
should
>> include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George Lucas
would say
>> "no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include it
anyway simply
>> because that's what he thinks the franchise "should be".
>
> Yes, but this is a stupid example and won't happen.

It was an *EXAMPLE*. :-\



>> Quality is completely irrelevant to the point. Whether any
additions
>> are "good" or "bad" doesn't stop them fillting or not with
the
>> established franchise.
>
> Quality is never irrelevant. It's not as if people are going
to be saying
> 'boy that movie was crap but it fit in great
with the established franchise
> so that's ok!'

Continuity ios what makes it a franchise. Having a pile of ill-fitting
things creates a confused mess, or at best a set of comprting
sub-franchises. Either way, nobody knows what the real "Star Wars" (or
whatever) actually is.



>> Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as defined
by the
>> meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes something
THE WAY IT IS
>> and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning it
into something
>> very different.
>
> I think this conversation has gone past the point of being
ridiculous to the
> point of just being a troll on your part.
Despite what you may think, you
> aren't the sole authority on
what a 'fan' is. By your definition, no fan of
> Star Wars (or
anything else) would want a sequel because it will in some
way
> change their perception of the way things are.

Again, that's not what I said. I said no true fan winats the franchise
to be changed. They are a "fan" because they like the franchise as it
is - that's the dictionary definition of a fan. They may not like
everything in it, but they like it as a whole and a set of things that
fit properly together.




>> There are also many other pointers that lead to the good
*possibility*
>> that this will be an ill-fitting movie with ridiculous
changes that
>> destroys another franchise ... or to quote many STar Wars
characters:
>> "I have a bad feeling about this."
>
> Yes, anything is possible but I don't think there is any
evidence yet to
> suggest the new movies won't fit in with the
old. The evidence that
> exists for the most part suggests
otherwise.

And yet again, I never said it will "definitely be a disaster", simply
that many things are pointing in that direction.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270108 is a reply to message #269937] Mon, 06 October 2014 11:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <041020140939177795%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>>> >> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>>>> >
>>>> > No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>>>> > in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>>>> > and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he did
>>>> the prequels. Very good.
>>>
>>> And here we have the typical so-called "fan" who doesn't really give a
>>> damn the franchise nor what is done as long as "I think it's good".
>>> :-\
>>
>> Uh, because supposed "fans" should blindly love everything that has "Star
>> Wars" on it? How about some critical thinking?
>
> I never said that, but that is opinions. I do not deal with worthless
> opinions since everyone's are different. I'm talking about facts and
> changes.

You've yet to list one single fact, however.

>> I care very much about the franchise, which is pretty obvious from my
>> expressed joy of not having George Lucas being able to destroy it further.
>
> Nope. That shows you "care" about your own enjoyment and the worthless
> opinion of "it's good" / "it's bad" ...

That's YOUR opinion. I care about the franchise, which now has a chance to
be redeemed.

> if you really cared about the franchise you'd be worried about whether or
> not it fits with established facts, established styles, etc.

Since George Lucas already took a big dump on established facts and style
with the prequels - not to mention the special editions, that train left
the station a long time ago. If there is any chance of new Star Wars movies
to adhere to established style and and facts, it's without Lucas at the
rudder.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270141 is a reply to message #270108] Mon, 06 October 2014 15:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm35cos.9gj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <041020140939177795%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> And George Lucas is also reportedly collaborating on the new films.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > No. George Lucas is an honorary adisor. He has absolutely no legal say
>>>> > > in what can and cannot happen - that is now the decision of JJ Abrams,
>>>> > > and Disney and Lucasfilm management.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, that's great. So he couldn't possibly mess up the sequels like he
>>>> > did
>>>> > the prequels. Very good.
>>>>
>>>> And here we have the typical so-called "fan" who doesn't really give a
>>>> damn the franchise nor what is done as long as "I think it's good".
>>>> :-\
>>>
>>> Uh, because supposed "fans" should blindly love everything that has "Star
>>> Wars" on it? How about some critical thinking?
>>
>> I never said that, but that is opinions. I do not deal with worthless
>> opinions since everyone's are different. I'm talking about facts and
>> changes.
>
> You've yet to list one single fact, however.

Someone else coming along making idiotic, ill-fitting changes is
already a fact in many other franchises which have been ruined into
confused and conflicting messes.


>
>>> I care very much about the franchise, which is pretty obvious from my
>>> expressed joy of not having George Lucas being able to destroy it further.
>>
>> Nope. That shows you "care" about your own enjoyment and the worthless
>> opinion of "it's good" / "it's bad" ...
>
> That's YOUR opinion. I care about the franchise, which now has a chance to
> be redeemed.

Nope. If you really cared about the franchise then you wouldn't want it
to be changed ... that's what a "fan" is - FACT.

Making idiotic ill-fitting changes creates (at best) a confused mess of
conflicting sub-franchises and ruins the real franchise - FACT



>> if you really cared about the franchise you'd be worried about whether or
>> not it fits with established facts, established styles, etc.
>
> Since George Lucas already took a big dump on established facts and style
> with the prequels - not to mention the special editions, that train left
> the station a long time ago. If there is any chance of new Star Wars movies
> to adhere to established style and and facts, it's without Lucas at the
> rudder.

George Lucas is the creator of the franchise, which means he's the only
person who has any moral rights to make changes to it - FACT.

Besides which, pretty much nothing George Lucas did in the Prequel
Trilogy conflicts with the Original Trilogy. Some of it does conflict
with rubbish in the Expanded Universe material, which was done by
someone else ... so again, it's someone else sticking their over-egoed,
know-nothing noses into it that caused the problems - FACT.

The six movie Saga also ends with "happily ever after" and is a
complete story, meaning trying to tack on a third Trilogy is
moronically silly. Yes, you can make *other* stories within the Star
Wars universe, but that one is complete.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270170 is a reply to message #269938] Mon, 06 October 2014 18:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Your Name wrote on Fri, 03 October 2014 17:53

>> weren't Star Trek as we know it.
>>
> EXACTLY the point.
>
> There are many other franchises (big and small) that have been ruined
> by the same sort of moronic stupidity from Hollyweird's fad for
> resurrecting the past. Although it must be noted that the comic book
> industry has also done this "buthering" of the past.
>
> As for a list, it's near endless. Ignoring the idiocy of "it's good" /
> "it's bad", franchises that have been changed (in some cases multiple
> times) include, but are not limted to:
> - Star Trek (starting with the "Enterprise" TV series)
> - Battlestar Galactica
> - Batman
> - Superman
> - Spider-Man
> - Bewitched
> - 21 Jump Street
> - Starsky & Hutch
> - The Smurfs
> - Thunderbirds
> - Happy Days

Most of these don't directly apply. For example, in the case of something like Superman, you can't really have continuing stories in the 'Superman universe' without Superman. Who plays Superman will change over the generations almost necessitating a reboot or reworking it in some other way. To keep in the comic book world, this isn't so different from different authors and artists coming along to continue the comic book (which is done fairly frequently). Franchises like Trek and Star Wars are a little different. You have far more opportunity to tell other stories and continue the timeline with different characters (as for example Star Trek the Next Generation proved). I don't like the fact that Trek got a reboot instead of a continuation with the latest movies either but that is really the sole significant complaint I have about those movies. Otherwise, I think Abrams did a fairly good job with Trek and we already know the new Star Wars is not a reboot in that sense anyway. And as the reboot thing wasn't Abrams decision I don't see what there is to fear from Abrams directing Star Wars. Did you fear Kershner coming along to direct Empire Strikes Back?

>> Again, the "reboot" phrase doesn't necessarily have to be used. Changes
>> can be made to an on-going series ... that's where "jumping the shark"
>> comes from.

I think 'nuking the fridge' might be a better phrase for what you are talking about in this case Smile. However, neither phrase is directly related to new people working on a series/franchise nor is it directly related to continuity changes. 'Jumping the Shark' refers to the point in a series where the quality starts to decline, for whatever reason. In the Star Wars world some people would would point to when the Ewoks showed up in Return of the Jedi or when Jar Jar showed up in the prequels as jumping the shark moments. I think there is a lot of life in Star Wars, am cautiously optimistic about the new movies and don't expect a jumping the shark moment until at least the fourth trilogy Smile.

> I have never said it definitely will be, only that almost every
> indication so far is pointing in that direction. Hence: "I have a bad
> feeling about this."

But most of your reasoning why and all of your examples how it might be bad have been pretty bad themselves.

>> You can subcategorize it any way you want but he is still
>> involved hence
>> still 'collaborating'. The word 'collaborate'
>> doesn't imply anything legal.

> The point is that George Lucas has no say in what does or doesn happen,
> so JJ Abrams (or whoever else is in charge) can make ill-fitting
> changes simply because they think that's what the franchise "should be"
> .... rather then George Lucas who actually created the franchise.

But the very fact that they did retain him as an adviser would seem to indicate that they don't want to make 'ill-fitting' changes just for the hell of it.

>The fact that multiple people are being brought in for vaious movies,
>etc. means it is even more likely that at least some of it will be
>ill-fitting.

Why? The movies in the original trilogy all had different directors, different script-writers and many other different people working on them.

>>> JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new movie
>>> should
>>> include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George Lucas
>>> would say
>>> "no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include it
>>> anyway simply
>>> because that's what he thinks the franchise "should be".
>>
>> Yes, but this is a stupid example and won't happen.

> It was an *EXAMPLE*. :-\

Yes, but a BAD one, otherwise known as a straw man argument.

> Continuity ios what makes it a franchise. Having a pile of ill-fitting
> things creates a confused mess, or at best a set of comprting
> sub-franchises. Either way, nobody knows what the real "Star Wars" (or
> whatever) actually is.

Absolutely, but in the case of the new Star Wars movies where you have many of the same actors, same writers, and other same people who worked on the originals and have the original creator as an adviser it seems a little silly to start questioning continuity before they come out.

>>> Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as defined
>>> by the
>>> meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes something
>>> THE WAY IT IS
>>> and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning it
>>> into something
>>> very different.

>> I think this conversation has gone past the point of being[/color]
>> ridiculous to the
>> point of just being a troll on your part.[/color]
>> Despite what you may think, you
>> aren't the sole authority on[/color]
>> what a 'fan' is. By your definition, no fan of
>> Star Wars (or
>> anything else) would want a sequel because it will in some
>> way
>> change their perception of the way things are.

> Again, that's not what I said. I said no true fan winats the franchise
> to be changed. They are a "fan" because they like the franchise as it
> is - that's the dictionary definition of a fan. They may not like
> everything in it, but they like it as a whole and a set of things that
> fit properly together.

Any addition to a franchise is by definition a change and most fans DO want that. If you mean a change to the continuity then I agree. But again, every indication is that that will NOT be the case with the Star Wars movies for the reasons I've already mentioned. And no, that is not the dictionary definition of what a fan is.

>> Yes, anything is possible but I don't think there is any
>> evidence yet to
>> suggest the new movies won't fit in with the
>> old. The evidence that
>> exists for the most part suggests
>> otherwise.

> And yet again, I never said it will "definitely be a disaster", simply
> that many things are pointing in that direction.

But the only real indications you have given why you believe that is because there are some new people working on them (which has been the case for every single Star Wars movie).

On a semi-related note, I have heard that the creator of Babylon 5 is thinking of rebooting it and making a new movie. So in your opinion would a true fan support this since the creator is doing it or reject it since it is a reboot and therefore a damn big change to the franchise?
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270171 is a reply to message #270141] Mon, 06 October 2014 18:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member

> Nope. If you really cared about the franchise then you wouldn't want it
> to be changed ... that's what a "fan" is - FACT.

That is your opinion, not a fact and has no bearing on the definition of "fan". Look it up.

> George Lucas is the creator of the franchise, which means he's the only
> person who has any moral rights to make changes to it - FACT.

This is not a fact either. Besides, why would it be okay for him to make ill-fitting changes and not other people? Ill-fitting is ill-fitting. Crap is crap. None of it has anything to do with 'morals'. George's final real change to the franchise was selling it to Disney so he has by definition already approved all future changes.

> Besides which, pretty much nothing George Lucas did in the Prequel
> Trilogy conflicts with the Original Trilogy. Some of it does conflict
> with rubbish in the Expanded Universe material, which was done by
> someone else ... so again, it's someone else sticking their over-egoed,
> know-nothing noses into it that caused the problems - FACT.

But George Lucas approved those stories.

> The six movie Saga also ends with "happily ever after" and is a
> complete story, meaning trying to tack on a third Trilogy is
> moronically silly. Yes, you can make *other* stories within the Star
> Wars universe, but that one is complete.

While it remains to be seen, my belief is that the new trilogy will probably be at least as much about introducing a new story and new characters as continuing the story of the old characters. Besides, since this new trilogy is supposedly based upon a treatment originally written by Lucas, who are you to decide it was complete if he felt otherwise? If you think it is silly you must not be a true fan. Lucas has spoken.

[Updated on: Mon, 06 October 2014 18:26]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270207 is a reply to message #270171] Mon, 06 October 2014 20:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <oGEYv.291539$Hb3.223888@fx03.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Nope. If you really cared about the franchise then you
> wouldn't want it
>> to be changed ... that's what a "fan" is - FACT.
>
> That is your opinion, not a fact and has no bearing on the
definition of
> "fan". Look it up.
>
>> George Lucas is the creator of the franchise, which
> means he's the only
>> person who has any moral rights to make changes to it -
> FACT.
>
> This is not a fact either. Besides, why would it be okay for
him to make
> ill-fitting changes and not other people?
Ill-fitting is ill-fitting. Crap is
> crap. None of it has
anything to do with 'morals'. George's final real change
> to
the franchise was selling it to Disney so he has by
definition already
> approved all future changes.
>
>> Besides which, pretty much nothing George Lucas did in
> the Prequel
>> Trilogy conflicts with the Original Trilogy. Some of it
> does conflict
>> with rubbish in the Expanded Universe material, which
> was done by
>> someone else ... so again, it's someone else sticking
> their over-egoed,
>> know-nothing noses into it that caused the problems -
> FACT.
>
> But George Lucas approved those stories.
>
>> The six movie Saga also ends with "happily ever after"
> and is a
>> complete story, meaning trying to tack on a third
> Trilogy is
>> moronically silly. Yes, you can make *other* stories
> within the Star
>> Wars universe, but that one is complete.
>
> While it remains to be seen, my belief is that the new
trilogy will probably
> be at least as much about introducing
a new story and new characters as
> continuing the story of
the old characters. Besides, since this new trilogy
> is
supposedly based upon a treatment originally written by
Lucas, who are you
> to decide it was complete if he felt
otherwise? If you think it is silly you
> must not be a true
fan. Lucas has spoken.

Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\

It's amazing how many people are so incredibly stupid that they don't
understand what a "franchise" actually is. Slap the same title on it
and it must be the same thing, even when the people making it are
telling you it's very different. The average human being is simply
astoundingly stupid. :-(
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270208 is a reply to message #270170] Mon, 06 October 2014 20:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <ctEYv.349255$FY2.124647@fx07.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your Name wrote on Fri, 03 October 2014 17:53
>
>>> weren't Star Trek as we know it.
>>>
>> EXACTLY the point.
>>
>> There are many other franchises (big and small) that
> have been ruined
>> by the same sort of moronic stupidity from Hollyweird's
> fad for
>> resurrecting the past. Although it must be noted that
> the comic book
>> industry has also done this "buthering" of the past.
>>
>> As for a list, it's near endless. Ignoring the idiocy of
> "it's good" /
>> "it's bad", franchises that have been changed (in some
> cases multiple
>> times) include, but are not limted to:
>> - Star Trek (starting with the "Enterprise" TV series)
>> - Battlestar Galactica
>> - Batman
>> - Superman
>> - Spider-Man
>> - Bewitched
>> - 21 Jump Street
>> - Starsky & Hutch
>> - The Smurfs
>> - Thunderbirds
>> - Happy Days
>
> Most of these don't directly apply. For example, in the case
of something
> like Superman, you can't really have continuing
stories in the 'Superman
> universe' without Superman. Who
plays Superman will change over the
> generations almost
necessitating a reboot or reworking it in some other way.
> To
keep in the comic book world, this isn't so different from
different
> authors and artists coming along to continue the
comic book (which is done
> fairly frequently). Franchises
like Trek and Star Wars are a little
> different. You have far
more opportunity to tell other stories and continue
> the
timeline with different characters (as for example Star Trek
the Next
> Generation proved). I don't like the fact that Trek
got a reboot instead of a
> continuation with the latest
movies either but that is really the sole
> significant
complaint I have about those movies. Otherwise, I think
Abrams
> did a fairly good job with Trek and we already know
the new Star Wars is not
> a reboot in that sense anyway. And
as the reboot thing wasn't Abrams decision
> I don't see what
there is to fear from Abrams directing Star Wars. Did
> you
fear Kershner coming along to direct Empire Strikes Back?
>
>>> Again, the "reboot" phrase doesn't necessarily have to be
used. Changes
>>> can be made to an on-going series ... that's where
"jumping the shark"
>>> comes from.
>
> I think 'nuking the fridge' might be a better phrase for
what you are talking
> about in this case :). However, neither
phrase is directly related to new
> people working on a
series/franchise nor is it directly related to
> continuity
changes. 'Jumping the Shark' refers to the point in a series
where
> the quality starts to decline, for whatever reason. In
the Star Wars world
> some people would would point to when
the Ewoks showed up in Return of the
> Jedi or when Jar Jar
showed up in the prequels as jumping the shark moments.
> I
think there is a lot of life in Star Wars, am cautiously
optimistic about
> the new movies and don't expect a jumping
the shark moment until at least the
> fourth trilogy :).
>
>> I have never said it definitely will be, only that
> almost every
>> indication so far is pointing in that direction. Hence:
> "I have a bad
>> feeling about this."
>
> But most of your reasoning why and all of your examples how
it might be bad
> have been pretty bad themselves.
>
>>> You can subcategorize it any way you want but he is
still
>>> involved hence
>>> still 'collaborating'. The word 'collaborate'
>>> doesn't imply anything legal.
>
>> The point is that George Lucas has no say in what does
> or doesn happen,
>> so JJ Abrams (or whoever else is in charge) can make
> ill-fitting
>> changes simply because they think that's what the
> franchise "should be"
>> .... rather then George Lucas who actually created the
> franchise.
>
> But the very fact that they did retain him as an adviser
would seem to
> indicate that they don't want to make
'ill-fitting' changes just for the hell
> of it.
>
>> The fact that multiple people are being brought in for
vaious movies,
>> etc. means it is even more likely that at least some of it
will be
>> ill-fitting.
>
> Why? The movies in the original trilogy all had different
directors,
> different script-writers and many other different
people working on them.
>
>>>> JJ Abrams could ask George Lucas if he thinks the new
movie
>>>> should
>>>> include a four-hour graphic X-rated sex scene. George
Lucas
>>>> would say
>>>> "no, of course not", but JJ Abrams could still include
it
>>>> anyway simply
>>>> because that's what he thinks the franchise "should
be".
>>>
>>> Yes, but this is a stupid example and won't happen.
>
>> It was an *EXAMPLE*. :-\
>
> Yes, but a BAD one, otherwise known as a straw man
argument.
>
>> Continuity ios what makes it a franchise. Having a pile
> of ill-fitting
>> things creates a confused mess, or at best a set of
> comprting
>> sub-franchises. Either way, nobody knows what the real
> "Star Wars" (or
>> whatever) actually is.
>
> Absolutely, but in the case of the new Star Wars movies
where you have many
> of the same actors, same writers, and
other same people who worked on the
> originals and have the
original creator as an adviser it seems a little silly
> to
start questioning continuity before they come out.
>
>>>> Then you aren't a true "fan" of the franchise, as
defined
>>>> by the
>>>> meaning of the word. A true fan actually likes
something
>>>> THE WAY IT IS
>>>> and does not want idiotic ill-fitting changes turning
it
>>>> into something
>>>> very different.
>
>>> I think this conversation has gone past the point of
being[/color]
>>> ridiculous to the
>>> point of just being a troll on your part.[/color]
>>> Despite what you may think, you
>>> aren't the sole authority on[/color]
>>> what a 'fan' is. By your definition, no fan of
>>> Star Wars (or
>>> anything else) would want a sequel because it will in
some
>>> way
>>> change their perception of the way things are.
>
>> Again, that's not what I said. I said no true fan winats
> the franchise
>> to be changed. They are a "fan" because they like the
> franchise as it
>> is - that's the dictionary definition of a fan. They may
> not like
>> everything in it, but they like it as a whole and a set
> of things that
>> fit properly together.
>
> Any addition to a franchise is by definition a change and
most fans DO want
> that. If you mean a change to the
continuity then I agree. But again, every
> indication is that
that will NOT be the case with the Star Wars movies for
> the
reasons I've already mentioned. And no, that is not the
dictionary
> definition of what a fan is.
>
>>> Yes, anything is possible but I don't think there is any
>>> evidence yet to
>>> suggest the new movies won't fit in with the
>>> old. The evidence that
>>> exists for the most part suggests
>>> otherwise.
>
>> And yet again, I never said it will "definitely be a
> disaster", simply
>> that many things are pointing in that direction.
>
> But the only real indications you have given why you believe
that is because
> there are some new people working on them
(which has been the case for every
> single Star Wars movie).
>
> On a semi-related note, I have heard that the creator of
Babylon 5 is
> thinking of rebooting it and making a new
movie. So in your opinion would a true fan support this
since the creator is doing it or reject it since it is a
reboot and therefore a damn big change to the franchise?

Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270221 is a reply to message #270141] Tue, 07 October 2014 03:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <071020140859250534%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>>> I never said that, but that is opinions. I do not deal with worthless
>>> opinions since everyone's are different. I'm talking about facts and
>>> changes.
>>
>> You've yet to list one single fact, however.
>
> Someone else coming along making idiotic, ill-fitting changes is
> already a fact in many other franchises which have been ruined into
> confused and conflicting messes.

Yes, we've already talked about George Lucas ill-fitting and idiotic
changes to the style and facts of the Star Wars franchise.

>>>> I care very much about the franchise, which is pretty obvious from my
>>>> expressed joy of not having George Lucas being able to destroy it further.
>>>
>>> Nope. That shows you "care" about your own enjoyment and the worthless
>>> opinion of "it's good" / "it's bad" ...
>>
>> That's YOUR opinion. I care about the franchise, which now has a chance to
>> be redeemed.
>
> Nope. If you really cared about the franchise then you wouldn't want it
> to be changed

I don't - but then Lucas went and changed it anyway. Now, with him out of
the picture, there's a chance someone who can direct movies will be able to
redeem it.

> ... that's what a "fan" is - FACT.

You're confused. YOu seem to think a "fan" is someone who blindly accepts
all the idiotic and ill-fitting changes Lucas did just becuase it's Lucas.
That's not a fan, that's a fanboy. And you most certianly are a blind
fanboy.

> Making idiotic ill-fitting changes creates (at best) a confused mess of
> conflicting sub-franchises and ruins the real franchise - FACT

I agree - and it's a good thing that Lucas can no longr make those idiotic
ill-fitting changes anymore.

>>> if you really cared about the franchise you'd be worried about whether or
>>> not it fits with established facts, established styles, etc.
>>
>> Since George Lucas already took a big dump on established facts and style
>> with the prequels - not to mention the special editions, that train left
>> the station a long time ago. If there is any chance of new Star Wars movies
>> to adhere to established style and and facts, it's without Lucas at the
>> rudder.
>
> George Lucas is the creator of the franchise, which means he's the only
> person who has any moral rights to make changes to it - FACT.

I don't care who you think has the "moral right" to do anything. The
*license owners* have the *legal* right to do anything they want.

I am talking about the *FACT* that George Lucas, having the right or not,
made a series of ill-fitting and idiotic changes to the Star Wars mythos
when he created the Special Editions and the prequels. It's not like there
is room for an argument here - everyone knows about this.

> Besides which, pretty much nothing George Lucas did in the Prequel
> Trilogy conflicts with the Original Trilogy.

Except pretty much everything.

When it comes to style, the prequels made a series of ill-fitting and
idiotic changes. The original trilogy had very straightforward story arcs
that were a staple of concise storytelling. The prequels were a
story arc mess.

Visually, the idiotic and ill-fitting change was that the prequels were
made to have technology that was far more advanced in the chronologically
later original trilogy. Not just space ship designs overall, but also
computer displays and the likes.

Thematically, the idiotic and ill-fitting changes were that the prequels
become a three-movie story arc about politics, while the three-movie
storyarc of the original trilogy was the struggle of good vs evil and the
uprising of the underdogs.

Character-wise, the ill-fitting and idiotic change in the prequels is that
we have no character development at all. Obi-Wan Kenobi is the same person
in the first as in the third film, which you could hardly say about Luke
Skywalker, Leia or Han Solo in the original trilogy. They developed as
characters over the cause of their adversities. Anakin Skywalker has no
development over the cause of three movies.

Adversity-wise, the idiotic and ill-fitting changes in the prequels were
that there was no clear villain. No one knew who was the ultimate bad guy,
they didn't know if and what they fought, or even if they fought anything.
They spend lots of time "investigating" things, but there is no clear
villain. Maul is revealed and disbanded in the third act of one movie,
count dooku is revealed in second act in second movie and killed in first
act of third movie, darth sidious is revealed in third act in third movie.
The original trilogy has a clear and obvious villain in the first movie,
that in the second is revealed to take his orders from an even larger
villain, and both are vanquished in the last act of the third movie.
Complete and perfect villain storyarc.

I could go on forever about all the ill-fitting and idiotic changes to the
Star Wars franchise that the prequels made, and I haven't even mentioned
the midichlroians-idiocy or Jar Jar Binks.

> The six movie Saga also ends with "happily ever after" and is a
> complete story, meaning trying to tack on a third Trilogy is
> moronically silly.

Hey fanboy - didn't you just say GL had the "moral right" here? Well, his
vision was nine films from the start, so you should welcome them with open
arms.



--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270222 is a reply to message #270207] Tue, 07 October 2014 03:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <071020141319591324%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\
>
> It's amazing how many people are so incredibly stupid that they don't
> understand what a "franchise" actually is. Slap the same title on it
> and it must be the same thing, even when the people making it are
> telling you it's very different. The average human being is simply
> astoundingly stupid. :-(

You're not an average human being though, you're an idiotic fanboy that
can't tell facts from a hole in the ground.

You lie there on the floor screaming that GL's word is law, but GL's word
is "Disney makes it now", but you can't handle that. Nooo, you need uncle
GL to continue ruining the franchise for millions of real fans out there.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270251 is a reply to message #270208] Tue, 07 October 2014 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member

>> On a semi-related note, I have heard that the creator of[/color]
>> Babylon 5 is
>> thinking of rebooting it and making a new[/color]
>> movie. So in your opinion would a true fan support this
>> since the creator is doing it or reject it since it is a
>> reboot and therefore a damn big change to the franchise?
>
>Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\

I guess it's time to stop feeding the troll when they can't come up with anything better than personal attacks...
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270294 is a reply to message #270221] Tue, 07 October 2014 15:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm3760i.br0.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Hey fanboy - didn't you just say GL had the "moral right" here? Well, his
> vision was nine films from the start, so you should welcome them with open
> arms.

Ahhh .. the final piece to prove you're just a brainless know-nothing
moron. Not that it was any surprise. :-\
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270295 is a reply to message #270222] Tue, 07 October 2014 15:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <slrnm3764u.br0.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <071020141319591324%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\
>>
>> It's amazing how many people are so incredibly stupid that they don't
>> understand what a "franchise" actually is. Slap the same title on it
>> and it must be the same thing, even when the people making it are
>> telling you it's very different. The average human being is simply
>> astoundingly stupid. :-(
>
> You're not an average human being though, you're an idiotic fanboy that
> can't tell facts from a hole in the ground.
>
> You lie there on the floor screaming that GL's word is law, but GL's word
> is "Disney makes it now", but you can't handle that. Nooo, you need uncle
> GL to continue ruining the franchise for millions of real fans out there.

Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny know-nothing single braincell.
:-\
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270296 is a reply to message #270251] Tue, 07 October 2014 15:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <GRVYv.284918$Wt5.560@fx01.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On a semi-related note, I have heard that the creator
> of[/color]
>>> Babylon 5 is
>>> thinking of rebooting it and making a new[/color]
>>> movie. So in your opinion would a true fan support this
>>> since the creator is doing it or reject it since it is a
>>> reboot and therefore a damn big change to the franchise?
>>
>> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell.
> :-\
>
> I guess it's time to stop feeding the troll when they can't
> come up with anything better than personal attacks...

When the know-nothings can only say "but it's good" as an idiotic
excuse to ruining a franchise, then you know you're dealing with
"people" who are dumber than dog crap. :-\
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270301 is a reply to message #270296] Tue, 07 October 2014 18:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member

>> I guess it's time to stop feeding the troll when they can't
>> come up with anything better than personal attacks...

>When the know-nothings can only say "but it's good" as an idiotic
>excuse to ruining a franchise, then you know you're dealing with
>"people" who are dumber than dog crap. :-\

Who said that? It certainly wasn't I. A "ruined franchise" by definition cannot be "good". The new Star Wars movies aren't even out yet but to you they are already "ruined" apparently. I have merely pointed out many logical reasons why the new movies will NOT "ruin" the franchise. You have pointed out NO logical reasons why they will. I don't KNOW they will be any good any more than you KNOW they won't. It's not "dumber than dog crap" to have a different opinion on the matter. But your name-calling personal attacks are asinine and childish.
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270302 is a reply to message #270294] Tue, 07 October 2014 18:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CyberkNight is currently offline  CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member

>> Hey fanboy - didn't you just say GL had the "moral right" here? Well, his
>> vision was nine films from the start, so you should welcome them with open
>> arms.

>Ahhh .. the final piece to prove you're just a brainless know-nothing
>moron. Not that it was any surprise. :-\

Why? It's true there weren't plans for 9 films from the very beginning (after all, it wasn't known Star Wars would be a success) but Star Wars WAS written in the form of a serial and as soon as the success of the first film became apparent Lucas had rough plans for 6-9 more films. See http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/gary_kurtz_reveals_ original_plans_for_episodes_19_80270.asp
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270312 is a reply to message #270294] Tue, 07 October 2014 18:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <081020140851278137%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnm3760i.br0.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hey fanboy - didn't you just say GL had the "moral right" here? Well, his
>> vision was nine films from the start, so you should welcome them with open
>> arms.
>
> Ahhh .. the final piece to prove you're just a brainless know-nothing
> moron. Not that it was any surprise. :-\

YOu proved it the first time you posted in this group, remember?

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270313 is a reply to message #270295] Tue, 07 October 2014 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <081020140852311957%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnm3764u.br0.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <071020141319591324%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell. :-\
>>>
>>> It's amazing how many people are so incredibly stupid that they don't
>>> understand what a "franchise" actually is. Slap the same title on it
>>> and it must be the same thing, even when the people making it are
>>> telling you it's very different. The average human being is simply
>>> astoundingly stupid. :-(
>>
>> You're not an average human being though, you're an idiotic fanboy that
>> can't tell facts from a hole in the ground.
>>
>> You lie there on the floor screaming that GL's word is law, but GL's word
>> is "Disney makes it now", but you can't handle that. Nooo, you need uncle
>> GL to continue ruining the franchise for millions of real fans out there.
>
> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny know-nothing single braincell.
> :-\

Troll megafail. Man, you trolls are so hopelessly lost these days. :/

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270314 is a reply to message #270296] Tue, 07 October 2014 18:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sandman is currently offline  Sandman
Messages: 97
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Member
In article <081020140853375938%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <GRVYv.284918$Wt5.560@fx01.iad>, Cyber kNight
> <darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On a semi-related note, I have heard that the creator
>> of[/color]
>>>> Babylon 5 is
>>>> thinking of rebooting it and making a new[/color]
>>>> movie. So in your opinion would a true fan support this
>>>> since the creator is doing it or reject it since it is a
>>>> reboot and therefore a damn big change to the franchise?
>>>
>>> Whatever utter idiocy pleases your tiny single braincell.
>> :-\
>>
>> I guess it's time to stop feeding the troll when they can't
>> come up with anything better than personal attacks...
>
> When the know-nothings can only say "but it's good" as an idiotic
> excuse to ruining a franchise, then you know you're dealing with
> "people" who are dumber than dog crap. :-\

I don't think you even register on the dog crap scale of dumbness, we need
a new low to measure the levelk of your idiocy.

--
Sandman[.net]
Re: Re: [NEWS] Star Wars: Episode VII Millennium Falcon clip [message #270327 is a reply to message #270301] Tue, 07 October 2014 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Your Name is currently offline  Your Name
Messages: 910
Registered: September 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <YOZYv.455204$Vw1.118226@fx27.iad>, Cyber kNight
<darth_azrael@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> I guess it's time to stop feeding the troll when they
>>> can't come up with anything better than personal attacks...
>
>> When the know-nothings can only say "but it's good" as an
>> idiotic excuse to ruining a franchise, then you know you're
>> dealing with "people" who are dumber than dog crap. :-\
>
> Who said that? It certainly wasn't I. A "ruined franchise"
> by definition cannot be "good". The new Star Wars movies
> aren't even out yet but to you they are already "ruined"
> apparently.

I never said that is eas already ruined. That was someone moron whining
on about the Prequels.

I was pointing out that the chances of it being ruied are good due to
someone else taking over (especially an egotistical moron like JJ
Abrams) and looking at Hollyweird's past.



> I have merely pointed out many logical reasons
> why the new movies will NOT "ruin" the franchise. You have
> pointed out NO logical reasons why they will.

Actually I did, but again you weren't able to read or comprehend them.

As I said, the vast majority of people are dumber than dog crap - slap
the same name name on it and fools blindly believe it's actually part
of the same franchise, even when told by the people making it that it
is different. :-\
Pages (2): [1  2    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: [NEWS] ABC to Air Star Wars Rebels with new Darth Vader scene
Next Topic: Star Wars Weekends (2004-05-15)
Goto Forum:
  

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

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 14:54:22 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06348 seconds