The New Star Wars Director image - The Debating Society

I don't care much for Lucas anymore either, I'm just afraid disney will want to continue gearing star wars towards kids. At least it can't be worse than what Lucas did, he set the bar pretty low.

Let's not forgot Disney was also the company that 'made' Pirates of the Caribbean. Those movies are definately not geared towards children lol.

There is a difference between fan and fanboy, and i agree with Winston most 'fans' just eat up anything with Star Wars written on it. But they aren't true fans really. I think that Abrams will do a good job with the movie (same with Disney) I honestly don't see a cause for alarm with the current setup here.

We'll just have to wait for more news to come out about the actual movie before we can truly judge it. Just looking at the director and writer this movie should be very good, but it takes more than a director and writer to make a movie good. My advice is sit tight until more news comes out about the actual movie...

I find it funny that with all the complaints about Star Wars prequels, people refuse to admit that they added anything good to the Star Wars series.

1. John Williams awesome music as always
2. Additional lore that adds to the awesomeness of the universe. Like the Clone Wars.
3. Yoda no longer looks like a muppet
4. The lightsaber duels are far more intense than the originals, as they should be.
5. When you think of Jedi, it's not longer just "Luke Skywalker", since he was the only real Jedi in the originals (Yoda doesn't really count, he barely did anything to show that he was one besides lifting Luke's X-Wing). We actually got to see what it was like when there were many of them.
6. Some cool new characters. Like Jango Fett, Mace Windu, young Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul (thought Darth Maul was killed off far too quickly).
7. Some impressive CGI at times.
8. The ground battles were far better than the originals. The space battles were great in the originals, but now the ground battles no longer consist of "Stormtroopers missing almost every shot and getting their *** kicked by ******* Ewoks because of their worthless armor."

The prequels get nowhere near the amount of credit they deserve. If you can't rate the prequels as at least "Passable" then I can't respect your opinions on movies at all.

And I seriously don't know what you're talking about when you say "a lot of Star Wars fans don't even seem to give a **** about quality of Star Wars content anymore". That's the most incorrect statement I've ever seen, the majority of Star Wars fans that I meet are complaining about everything that Lucas does.

Also, the Indiana Jones comment is completely nonsensical. An ark that contains supernatural power to melt people's faces is more plausible than aliens?

..... What?

(Part 1)

1 - Its John Williams, even George Lucas can't **** that up unless he shoved dubstep into it.

2 - A prequel defining vaguely established lore? How innovative, I never expected that to be in them.

3 - Technology doesn't really matter and in some ways I preferred the feeble wise Jedi Master to the green midget ninja.

4 - The duel in the originals weren't centered on combat, they were used as a component of character development. Vader could have easily cut Luke a few new ******** in Cloud City within thirty seconds, but he didn't; character development. Besides that the fights were so obviously rehearsed that it takes any and all tension out of the fight to begin with.

5 - Moderately interesting I suppose, not important considering how poorly the movie was developed in pretty much every aspect.

6 - Yes, that would kinda be expected since there were about all of the Jedi missing in the original trilogy. And Darth Maul, he simply made no sense and was completely pulled out of Palpatine's ***. There were no references to any past nor was there any development to his character, as far as we know Palpatine **** him out the Saturday before episode one began.

7 - The CGI horribly detracted from the experience along with their ADD philosophy of shoving needless **** on screen. The environments were sterile and hell I'd well prefer the low tech in the originals to that any day. All flash, no substance.

8 - That is the single thing which benefited to some end with the CGI.

(Part 2)

Alright.

The only place I don't see immense praise for Lucas is on the internet, I haven't met anyone in person who had a negative opinion of Lucas and if anything they refer to him as a great film maker. The typical generic unopinionated passerby doesn't pay attention or care, they just know that movie they saw when they were a kid kicked *** because almost anything you toss in front of a kid will become something they like.

That was the point, it has its supernatural elements in the way of ancient tombs and relics. Throwing aliens in made no sense in relation to the lore of the universe. It was about Indiana Jones being the lone adventurer, not some ex US military spy or whatever going against some other ******** politics, along with some scifi mind power alien **** that was never really utilized. The series was an adventure story that kept mostly to realism while brushing the boring crap to the side and tossing an underlying unrealistic adventure storybook element in that completely made you forget about the petty ******** because it was about the damned adventure. Plus they failed to make it plausible that his "son" could take his place at all, just because he can do a little sword play in a magical CGI forest it doesn't suddenly make him an adventurer. If they kept the movie going like it was at the start putting aside the very beginning with the gophers and other cutesy cancer spread throughout the film that was obviously put there to make the movie far more kid friendly than the originals it could have been a decent movie.

(Part 2)

I think the overzealous hatred he gets over the internet by whiny fanboys is more than enough to counter the occasional praise-giver or people who lack a **** to give.

I really can't fathom this logic. "Hey, let's take a page out of the book of science fiction and use aliens as a plot device. That way it can be kind of realistic while still being classically unrealistic." "NO **** THAT, every plot device needs to be extremely silly and be completely based in the supernatural!"
Which sounds strange to me for yet another reason. Isn't that what the Pirates of the Caribbean movies tried to do, being all about adventure and unrealistic plot devices that were based in the supernatural, and then the critics ripped them apart? Yet another example of hypocrisy among movie buffs.
I myself really like how kid friendly the new Indiana Jones movie was. My favorite kid friendly part? When the guy got eaten alive by ants, that was fun for the whole family!

1. This sounds like you're trying to take an opportunity to complain about George Lucas when he's not even relevant to that particular issue.
2. Sure, that vaguely established lore that your Avatar is so obviously based off of? What is there even to complain about here? The Clone Wars era adds a lot to the series, we get to see what it was like before the totalitarian Imperial Empire.
3. You mean that version of him that in no way demonstrated how he was supposedly a Jedi Master? yeah, that really does make a lot of sense.
4. Alright, so you're admitting that the Lightsaber duels were pretty much pointless in the originals and could have been replaced with pretty much any other kind of character development method. And besides the Darth Maul fight in the Phantom Menace, how did the lightsaber duels seem to rehearsed?
5. Aspects which you have yet to prove, great. But yeah, that's not important. I liked it better when the only Jedis in existence were Luke, Yoda, and Obi-Wan (two of which are killed off), that really did a great job of showing what being a Jedi was all about. Oh yeah, and how there were also only two Siths in the series. Five light saber wielding guys in the whole series, really makes me wonder how the lightsaber became so iconic of the series, especially when combined with the lackluster lightsaber duels. Er, I mean character development moments.
6. This statement seems awfully hypocritical. Pulling a character out of your *** seemed to happen just as much in the original trilogy, even if it is a little bit better. Pretty much ever main character has a somewhat vague backstory, besides Luke anyways.
7. The CGI was never too horribly noticeable to me, and when was it ever "All flash, no substance"? The CGI rendering of Coruscant made the city look more alive, for example.
8. I'm actually surprised you can admit that anything good came from the movies.

#1

2: This was pretty much all established in the original trilogy. The prequels gave the references their own movie, however terrible ones that were at best pretty battle sequences.

4: It wouldn't be Star Wars without them, its the perfect way to indirectly express a character's mood or motivations like when Luke was enraged at the end of Return of the Jedi seemingly falling to the dark side just hammering away at Vader in pure rage. Or when Vader and Kenobi were having their relatively tame fight attentively anticipating every move; old friends, both on other ends fighting for what Kenobi likely understands is his final moments.

The way every move in every single last fight is anticipated or seemingly agreed upon by the conflicting characters ruins the all so 'epic' lightsaber fights completely and removes any sense of tension they were dreaming there would be. There is no meaning in any of the fights besides maybe the Kenobi & Anakin fight but they made the fight go on for far too long and in such a ridiculously dramatic set piece that it lost any assemblance of meaning it had after the first few minutes.

#2

5: What wasn't horrible, the Jedi were sometimes incredibly stupid and occasionally either hypocritical or just plainly made no sense where they obviously attempted to. The 'romance' was shallower than every ounce of empathy you could dream of getting out of my ex. Saber fights, already shat on. Battles though immense were somewhat ruined by the sterile plastic feel though were mostly entertaining at least but again pretty much no tension since you knew they wouldn't dare kill a major character in said immense battle. The CGI in every last god damned scene, already mentioned. I could go on and nitpick about plot holes and just plain dumb decisions. Trade things and all so important treaties the guy who so badly wanted it signed completely forgets about. Ugh.. thinking about this immense fail so deeply is going to give me a brain aneurysm.

6: A character who is I guess what would be called the main antagonist even though as far as anyone knows he's just some assassin who pops-up in the middle of the desert. There's never a thought or mention of him besides one very brief interaction at the beginning of the movie. As the primary antagonist, you can't just shove him on screen without any sort of character development at all of any sort. Unless you call deploying a recon drone, driving off a cliff, or taking a few swigs at a Jedi with your lightsaber in the middle of a desert character development; Boba arguably had more character development both in the originals and the prequel than this spiky headed *******.

5. This is the same thing I've heard from every other Star Wars fan. Saying general statements with no examples isn't going to convince me that you're right. It's like if I said "The rebels were incredibly stupid in the original trilogy", wouldn't I need an example or two to back that up?
6. I'm wondering if you read my statement correctly. I wasn't defending the way they "developed" Darth Maul, it's that the series is full of characters that have no story and come out of nowhere. This is another example of when people want to talk **** about the prequels while admitting no faults with the original trilogy for the same reasons. That's a double standard.

Also, I'm the Guest. Forgot to sign in, ****....

Also, you seem to be forgetting that I'm not saying they're superb movies or that they're superior to the originals. I'm just saying that saying they add nothing good to the series that would warrant them being made, and refusing to admit any of the flaws in the originals, is a huge double standard and is far too common among Star Wars "fans".

Besides maybe character development, as that seems to be one of his potential weaknesses as a director, I doubt the movie will be anything less than somewhat good based on some of his other movies.

Well, at least in the character development sense it wouldn't be too far from the original trilogy.

Describe any character from the prequels without referencing their position/job or physical appearance.

Try.

Alrighty

Anakin - Complains too much, even the other Jedi realize that, constantly **** talked by the Jedi council, becomes frustrated enough with them to turn to the Dark Side. He gets angry really easily, after his mother was killed by Tusken Raiders he killed every single one in the camp. He's kind of ****** up in the head, since he was willing to kill a bunch of children just because his new master told him to.

Alright, now an original trilogy character, go.

Hm, I think I should retract my original statement. I feel like movies in general never really get character development too spot on, since they're constrained to maybe six hours or so when talking about a trilogy of movies. As opposed to a television show where you have 20 hours or more to develop a character. I'm just not really much of a movie person. I like Star Wars more because of the universe more than the movies themselves.

I meant descriptive character traits, more so than a biography. Descriptions of the character, not the person.

Han Solo, the rogue.
Vader, the inhuman, the stern & vindictive overlord.
C3PO, the prissy, the hapless companion.
R2D2, the brave.

ect

I'm not quite sure how these prove character development. You can tell Han Solo is a rogue the second you learn about him. The same thing with Darth Vader.

Anakin Skywalker - The formerly whiny kid turned strangely powerful badass.

But what does that say? The more prequel characters you say have no character development I could say about the original trilogy.

Admiral Ackbar - The "It's a trap!" guy?
Lando Calrissian - Han Solo's random friend who ***** him over, and then changes his mind.

Unless you're trying to say how these characters have been developed in the expanded universe, which I could say the same for the prequel characters. And as I said before, I find the expanded universe to be far superior to any of the movies.

Queen Almondala, the bland.
Anakin, the whiny teenager.

There's no character in the characters. -.-

Enlighten yourself youngling: Redlettermedia.com

Even when I say "Hey, there's a ton of bland characters with no development in the original trilogy" you just ignore it and say "WELL THE PREQUELS HAVE THAT SO IT DOESN'T MATTER!" What the actual ****?

*facepalm*

They had interesting characters. -.-

Ah whatever, you're hopeless. Maybe you'll actually develop taste in a few years like I did.

"MY OPINIONS ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT MATTER" right? You represent most of the Star Wars fanboys I've met so far. Your response to my totally reasonable question of "How comes it's not okay for the prequels to have undeveloped characters but it's ignored in the originals?" Your answer: "Well, you're a kid so your opinion doesn't matter. And it's okay that they did it in the original trilogy because I personally think the characters are more interesting than the prequels, and my opinions are fact." You think anyone who likes something you don't like or criticizes something that you like has bad taste. You're an elitist douche, and a whiny fanboy, plain and simple.

Lol

I've seen you accuse so many people of being arrogant douches you couldn't hope to slight me. What I think is what I think, if you don't like it then you don't like it. Pointing out that I'm a human and that I have opinions won't shatter my ego. lol

And your accusations are so frequent they have no weight, they're like the constant **** shoved on the screen in the prequels actually. xD

Learn to not give a **** it helps quite a bit, kid. ;)

Oh really? Who are these people I have oh so incorrectly slighted? Please, let me know.

I just love this little bit of irony here: "What I think is what I think, if you don't like it then you don't like it." And yet you've insulted me for doing just that. I like the prequels, and I have some criticisms of all the movies, but you say I have bad taste and refer to me as "kid" for doing so? Don't be a hypocrite.

And once again, what accusations? Who are you even talking about? And of course, you couldn't miss an opportunity to whine about the prequels again. You're such an incredibly typical Star Wars fanboy.

Your opinions on this issue are unbelievably biased. Any problem that applies to both the prequels and originals suddenly turns into only a problem with the prequels. Because the originals are pretty much just perfect movies, of course.