STAR WARS General Discussion | Warning: Possible SPOILERS!Movies 

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 2,343 comments
  • 130,795 views
R1600Turbo
I think everyone just forgot with Redbox around.
Click to expand...
For new movies, sure. Try finding anything older than a year or two there, though.

@Danoff - I've considered adding the BR back into the Netflix fold but went the Amazon Prime route, instead. Not the same, I know, but there's plenty that I'm still catching up on.
 
TB
For new movies, sure. Try finding anything older than a year or two there, though.

@Danoff - I've considered adding the BR back into the Netflix fold but went the Amazon Prime route, instead. Not the same, I know, but there's plenty that I'm still catching up on.
Click to expand...

Other things like Game of Thrones can be impossible to find in Redbox or Netflix Streaming. We used it for Breaking Bad as well. Like you say, anything that's more than a year or two back, and especially something that was popular a few years back, is pretty much out of the question for Redbox and Netflix Streaming. So like (I'm just pulling this out of thin air, maybe it's available streaming) Ex Machina. That's a title that's not in redbox, and it was popular enough to not be streaming. Just checked, yup DVD only.
 
....Oh, boy. Ron Howard, is it. Damn.

Don't get me wrong, Howard is a good director, but he's incredibly script-dependant, like Ridley Scott. He can create a compelling picture when handling a tight, well-written script but when handed a bomb, his outputs can be just as stinky. See the Dan Brown trilogy as an example.

As someone on the internet once said, Ron Howard is the person who confirmed to the whole world that Dan Brown's works can not be translated to the big screen, no matter what.

I just hope that the screenplay they have is a good one....
 
JKgo
....Oh, boy. Ron Howard, is it. Damn.

Don't get me wrong, Howard is a good director, but he's incredibly script-dependant, like Ridley Scott. He can create a compelling picture when handling a tight, well-written script but when handed a bomb, his outputs can be just as stinky. See the Dan Brown trilogy as an example.

As someone on the internet once said, Ron Howard is the person who confirmed to the whole world that Dan Brown's works can not be translated to the big screen, no matter what.

I just hope that the screenplay they have is a good one....
Click to expand...

I mean I don't expect a director to be able to translate a bad story into a good one, that's on the producer. I think this is great, if the picture and visual of a story is your concern then it shouldn't be a worry. If the story and concept is a concern then you should look to see who is producing this and writing the screenplay.
 
R1600Turbo
According to everyone involved with the movie, the script is "really good".
Click to expand...

...Well, we'll see. Everyone involved would obviously say "it's the bestest thing EVAR" to build a positive buzz. Lawrence Kasdan does have a good-ish track record, though, so there is a kindling of hope there, I guess.

Edit:

Damn, why can't I add quoted posts while editing?! Bah.

@LMSCorvetteGT2

No, my concern, or fear in this case, is that Howard is onboard as a "director for hire" - meaning, he's in it only for the paycheque. I don't know what kind of deal they discussed behind the closed doors, but usually the salary negotiations should take longer than a couple of days unless the money was really too good to pass up.

A movie is the vision of the director. A producer assembles a team making it. There are directors that elevate whatever script or souce material given to them. Howard, on the strength of his Dan Brown movies, doesn't seem like that kind of director, at least not lately.
 
Last edited:
JKgo
There are directors that elevate whatever script or souce material given to them. Howard, on the strength of his Dan Brown movies, doesn't seem like that kind of director, at least not lately.
Click to expand...

A film adaptation of a book is always going to be hard to condense everything down to 120min screen time. Something is always going to be lost and the pacing is always going to be rushed.

A film based on a script written for a film has a much better chance of working out, given the right team of people behind it.
 
JKgo
See the Dan Brown trilogy as an example.
Click to expand...
I think the Dan Brown trilogy is excellent from a technical perspective. The problem is that the source material isn't fit to wipe your backside with. Howard's problem is that he made them in the first place, not that he made them badly.
 
TheCracker
A film adaptation of a book is always going to be hard to condense everything down to 120min screen time. Something is always going to be lost and the pacing is always going to be rushed.

A film based on a script written for a film has a much better chance of working out, given the right team of people behind it.
Click to expand...

...Not to sound argumentative, but that doesn't wash as well as you think. Let us not forget, many of the cinema's greatest films are based on books. Even with the caveat of the running time you put there, I can still think of quite a few book-to-film adaptations that were successful than not.

I understand, as much as the next guy, that in the transition from one medium to another, there needs to be a sacrifice of some capacity in the source material in order to fit the narrative structure. It falls upon the filmmakers to discern which part to cut out and rejig. And it goes without saying that the so-called "right team" of people would strike gold more often than not regardless of whatever they were given to work with.

The most recent personal example would be Clint Eastwood's "Sully" which I saw last week. Based on a book, Eastwood and his peeps managed to craft something that is quite entertaining and gripping at times from only a portion of the source material, almost entirely cutting out the bits that weren't necessary to the story he wanted to tell.

prisonermonkeys
I think the Dan Brown trilogy is excellent from a technical perspective. The problem is that the source material isn't fit to wipe your backside with. Howard's problem is that he made them in the first place, not that he made them badly.
Click to expand...

...Well, from the technical standpoint, sure, it's not as bad as the overall film quality, but so were the Quantum of Solace's action set pieces....
And I disagree that he did a good job on those films - with a different director, someone with more popcorn action or thriller bent like Louis Leterrier would have made just as a competent film as Howard would have. Just a speculation, of course. I could be wrong there.
 
...Ah, so this is why Chris Miller and Phil Lord had to go:

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/star-wars-han-solo-kathleen-kennedy-director-fired-1202473919/

The duo also clashed with Kasdan, who has been an integral creative part of several “Star Wars” movies, dating back the the 1980 “The Empire Strikes Back.” Like Kennedy, he questioned many of the pair’s directing choices.

“Kathy, her team and Larry Kasdan have been doing it their way for a very long time. They know how the cheese is made and that’s how they want it made,” said the source. “It became a very polarizing set.”
Click to expand...
 
...Well, they could have had a falling out after all the contract signing was done and the preproduction began in earnest. Lord and Miller have built up a fine reputation in the industry as a duo of young, hip and in-tune with his target audiences, plus their previous efforts made a very good return on investment for the studios involved. On that strength alone, I can see why Lucasarts was interested in hiring them.
 
From what I've read it kicked off with a meeting the guy playing young Han Solo asked for a with Kennedy and informed her that he didn't really think the direction they were taking his part was in keeping. Although the producers had seen and were happy with the footage of the scenes they were shown so far, once a rough cut of those scenes were put together they didn't think what was coming to be was suitably Star Wars in how it felt. File under 'artistic differences'.
 
They also released some info on the new parks coming, and this tidbit has me sold on going to the Orlando version for this alone:

Last but not least, Disney announced that they will building a new Star Wars themed hotel in Walt Disney World in Orlando. but this won’t be your typical hotel. It will be sold as a multi-day experience that will completely immerse you in the world of Star Wars. You will be surround by Star Wars characters, Star Wars themed rooms and restaurants. The entire resort will make you feel as if you are spending a few days on a spaceship making your way to the Galaxy’s Edge complete with every window being a view screen that will give you a view of space out your window.
Click to expand...

:drool:
 
20046397_1567762409935808_7407182047400356418_n.jpg
19989275_1567762423269140_3989388661808404799_n.jpg
20139601_1567762466602469_1179067030977731243_n.jpg
19961257_1567762473269135_3507454925478068885_n.jpg
19989280_1567762509935798_7594536577786506913_n.jpg
20108565_1567762529935796_8996129127242040316_n.jpg
 
prisonermonkeys
Seems a missed opportunity to me.
Click to expand...
SWNN said it best, so I will just quote them:

The name is fitting in that this new planet that we will be traveling through is an outer rim world on the (you guessed it) edge of the galaxy. Focusing on a spaceport on the edge of the galaxy allows Disney to mix a number of eras and species so we can get a full selection of all aspects of Star Wars without being restricted to one familiar set of aliens, vehicles, or environments.
Click to expand...
 

Latest Posts

Back