STAR WARS General Discussion | Warning: Possible SPOILERS!Movies 

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 2,353 comments
  • 132,924 views
no sound effects in vacuum

Abrams actually did this in Star Trek, in some scenes during the Kelvin attack there was silence in the vacuum of space. Unfortunately entire battles with no sound whatsoever probably won't go down well with the general viewing public.
 
Unfortunately entire battles with no sound whatsoever probably won't go down well with the general viewing public.

As far as I can work out, its exactly why any movie in space never applies the real world properties of sound to it because silence doesn't hold the attention of the audience, couple that with the fact that today's movie goers are of a very short attention span.
 
^ Exactly, and they are the ones who are going to make up much of the total gross. Fans probably only make up like 30%. The film is pure fantasy, I doubt there is tons of emphasis on real physics and science. If anything it matters more in something like Star Trek which is based in 'our world'.
 
I guess space sequence like in Robot Jox will only be a past times :(

More like not as appreaciated by the mass general population as it would be by the small few that actually have seen it.
 
^ Robot Jox was not known by many, especially the new generation from the late 90's :( It was an okay movie in it's day, simple plot, unique visual effects, and the realistic short space sequence was a standout. What other movies which have true to life space sequences ? I can only remember 2001 : Space Odyssey and maybe Soldier.
 
Not really any such thing as a realistic space battle. Given the relative velocities achievable, most battles would either be very, very short or long and drawn out chases decided by whoever runs out of reaction mass first.

In space, it's entirely possible to outrun bullets.
 
Nope. Where Abrams said "I want it to be an homage to Steven Spielberg", all I heard was "I was to be Steven Spielberg".
I'm going to take a wild guess that he isn't the first to say that. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the directors signed to Dreamworks have their self-esteem and self-worth based on his judgements for their films and ideas.


It will be when he ruins the franchise in ways George Lucas could never have imagined.
Oh God, you think he would have Anakin pout as he takes Jar Jar to meet the Ewoks (keep in mind the quality of every Ewok appearance where Han Solo wasn't also present)? And maybe he will have R2-D2 fly around the Ewoks just to show he can do it without the aid of "Gods," but just refuses to do it, even when it would have made things ten times easier on Luke.
 
Sample dialogue of a JJ Abrams STAR WARS film:
LUKE JNR.
I want to be a Jedi right now.

LUKE SNR.
Normally it takes years of dedication and
training to become a Jedi, but okay.​

Not really any such thing as a realistic space battle. Given the relative velocities achievable, most battles would either be very, very short or long and drawn out chases decided by whoever runs out of reaction mass first.
The climactic battle of SERENITY was reasonably realistic, though it took place in the upper atmosphere of a planet rather than in space itself.

I'm going to take a wild guess that he isn't the first to say that. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the directors signed to Dreamworks have their self-esteem and self-worth based on his judgements for their films and ideas.
No, I mean that Abrams didn't just want Spielberg's nod of approval; he wanted to be Spielberg.

SUPER 8 was intended as an "homage" to Spielberg, particularly E.T: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. But the reason why it came off as such cheap imitation is because, moreso than any of his other films, E.T. showed Spielberg's brilliance. He made the decision to shoot the entire film with the cameras positioned at hip-level rather than at eye-level, and the reason why he did that is because hip-level on an adult is the eye-level of a child. The net effect is that the entire film is shot from the perspective of a child, and that is what makes it such a brilliant piece of cinema. How could anything Abrams do compare to that?

Oh God, you think he would have Anakin pout as he takes Jar Jar to meet the Ewoks (keep in mind the quality of every Ewok appearance where Han Solo wasn't also present)? And maybe he will have R2-D2 fly around the Ewoks just to show he can do it without the aid of "Gods," but just refuses to do it, even when it would have made things ten times easier on Luke.
It depends on how much influence Abrams has over the script. If he has enough creative control, then I wouldn't put it past him to make a film based on the intricacies of galactic politics and ewok culture. After all, he a) doesn't know what a MacGuffin is, b) wrote a scene in which a tiny pick-up truck derails a speeding train in a fiery explosion of cartweeling carriages (defying both common sense and physics), and c) rebooted "Alias" at the end of every season (a tactic which you only resort to when your continuity is irrevocably broken).
 
The climactic battle of SERENITY was reasonably realistic, though it took place in the upper atmosphere of a planet rather than in space itself.
Serenity, the pilot episode of Firefly or Serenity the movie? Firefly, the TV show did not have sound in space. Serenity the movie did.

No, I mean that Abrams didn't just want Spielberg's nod of approval; he wanted to be Spielberg.
I know what you meant, and if you think that other directors don't want to be Spielberg just because they didn't get the opportunity to sit there next to him going, "Pretty good, huh?" you are kidding yourself.

SUPER 8 was intended as an "homage" to Spielberg, particularly E.T: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. But the reason why it came off as such cheap imitation is because, moreso than any of his other films, E.T. showed Spielberg's brilliance. He made the decision to shoot the entire film with the cameras positioned at hip-level rather than at eye-level, and the reason why he did that is because hip-level on an adult is the eye-level of a child. The net effect is that the entire film is shot from the perspective of a child, and that is what makes it such a brilliant piece of cinema. How could anything Abrams do compare to that?
And Spielberg then ruined it all with his 25th Anniversary Special Edition wher guns become radios and ET can suddenly run like a gorilla. Don't worry, even the best in the business suck on their bad days.

rebooted "Alias" at the end of every season (a tactic which you only resort to when your continuity is irrevocably broken).
Or when making American Horror Story.
 
PM, I would like to remind you that this does indeed exist, granted Lucas didn't play a major part in it.

StarWarsHS.jpg


I really don't think JJ can screw up Star Wars more than has already been done, not to mention Clone Wars and The Phantom Menace are also in existence. Plus there were 2 Ewok movies Lucas played a part in.
 
I don't quite recall the sounds in Serenity, but when they were leaving the Reaver's system, it was still silent. The final battle takes place in the upper atmosphere of a planet, so some sound is acceptable.

-

Spielberg has had some extraordinarily bad days. I love the concept and design of "AI", but even I have to admit it's plodding and completely lacking in empathy. The chase scene in "Minority Report" is almost as contrived as the Droid Factory scene in Episode II and "War of the Worlds" was gripping in parts, but it was mostly a mess.
 
I know what you meant, and if you think that other directors don't want to be Spielberg just because they didn't get the opportunity to sit there next to him going, "Pretty good, huh?" you are kidding yourself.
So because other directors wanted to be like Spielberg, that means Abrams won't screw EPISODE VII up?

Abrams is a talentless, over-rated hack who shot to fame by attaching his name to projects that later became popular. His direction is mediocre, his scripts alternatve between ham-fisted action and banal dialogue, and his entire reputaiton is built on attaching his name to as many shows as he can, hoping they become successful, and then distancing himself from the stuff that gets cancelled whilst overplaying his role in whatever becomes popular.

Or when making American Horror Story.
"American Horror Story" was created by Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, who also created "Glee". It was always going to be a disaster. Espeically since Ryan Murphy likes to style himself as a man who understands women and womens' issues, when trash like EAT PRAY LOVE prove that he really doesn't.

However, I do believe that each season of "American Horror Story" was conceived as its own min-series. A reboot is what EON did to the James Bond franchise after DIE ANOTHER DAY - they took the characters and setting and placed them in a new timeline, one where the events of the first twenty films never happened. Each season of "American Horror Story", on the other hand, exists in isolation, even if they are in the same universe. Events of each season might be referenced in subsequent seasons, but only indirectly. The charcters and events of one season have no influence on the other.
 
Well like I've already said, movies are no more than entertainment to me. I usually don't give a damn who's making it, or directing it, or whatever. If I'm entertained, I'm happy. I've loved pretty much everything Abrams has made, hell I've NEVER been a Star Trek fan and I love the reboot. Can't wait for the new one.

So I'm looking forward to Ep VII.

Only bad part about him directing VII is that a Cloverfield sequel happening anytime soon just went down the toilet.
 
My stomach is relieved. I somewhat liked Cloverfield (logical inconsistencies and all), but the stomach-churning fake "camera-shake" nearly did me in. :lol:
 
So because other directors wanted to be like Spielberg, that means Abrams won't screw EPISODE VII up?

How does it mean he will?

I find what he does in taking the credit for work of others to be distasteful.

What about movies based on different source material not by the screenwriter or movies based on real events?

As I've said in the Star Trek thread, I'm amazed someone as cynical as you can enjoy any movie let alone Bond films.
 
How does it mean he will?
Because he's got a documented track record of making poor films. In SUPER 8, he was too busy trying to be Spielberg to make a decent film. In MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3, he couldn't even handle a simple MacGuffin. In STAR TREK, things just happened for two hours and I walked out of the theatre unable to remember much of what happened.

One poor film might be an accident. Two poor films might simply be coincidence. But three poor films is a pattern.
 
What an intriguing discussion of STAR WARS EPISODE SEVEN we have in the STAR WARS EPISODE SEVEN thread.

If you'd like to discuss Abrams directorial wares, start a thread on it, thanks.
 
After looking up writer Michael Arndt's writing history I have to admit I am kind of excited. He's also credited with "Little Miss Sunshine," "Toy Story 3," and "Brave." All great films in my opinion. Disney is bringing in one of their best current writers. Between now and Star Wars he will also have the next "The Hunger Games," "Oblivion," and a "Phineas and Ferb" movie. Looks like we will get a taste of a live-action powerful female character and sci-fi from this writer. By the end of this year we will have a better taste for what he is capable of doing.

For right now no one is talking about any kind of details for the next Star Wars so any judgment would be premature, but the signed on production team has me hopeful.
 
TB
What an intriguing discussion of STAR WARS EPISODE SEVEN we have in the STAR WARS EPISODE SEVEN thread.

If you'd like to discuss Abrams directorial wares, start a thread on it, thanks.
I'm just trying to explain why I think JJ Abrams was the worst choice Disney could have made for the director of EPISODE VII, pointing out examples from Abrams' previous films and television shows as to why I think he's a poor choice.
 
Have you ever watched the pre-production phase of a James Bond film? Anyone and everyone remotely associated with the project - even if it's just the latest Page 3 Model that the tabloids are talking up by linking her to a role in the film - will talk about how the films were so important to them during their childhood. And it might be true, but there's no way to tell. After a while, you just take it with a grain of salt, because you know that they're just telling the fans what they want to hear to try and quell any doubts about their ability in the role and reassure the fans that everything will be okay. Even when they then proceed to massacre everything they touch about the film.

I seen no reason to believe this is anything different.
 
Back