Star Wars (1977 - present)

14142444647254

Comments

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Personally, I could give two craps about box office.

    Thanks for sharing that personal information...NOT. :-O

    btw:- No box office, means no films to go and enjoy. :)

    I must go and see this bleedin film soon, before everyone tells me about the story and the other details!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm certainly recommending this one to everyone I know enthusiastically, so hopefully I'm able to contribute to getting some behinds in seats over the holidays.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just saw it. Incredible film and well worth the wait!

    It captures the spirit of the originals (which is very difficult to do imho) brilliantly. It may be a little derivative here and there plot-wise, but not so much as to spoil the experience at all - I just saw the original trilogy over the past few days, and this still felt fresh.

    Wonderful character work as well (the mark of a film that will age well) and as I hoped, the right bit of humour injected where required to keep the viewer engaged and energized. The tone (another important ingredient for me) is just perfect throughout.

    I'm really looking forward to the next installment - they've set everything up nicely for that one.

    Also, I think I have a new favourite droid.

    I must go and see this bleedin film soon, before everyone tells me about
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »

    btw:- No box office, means no films to go and enjoy. :)
    !

    Not true. During the era of great American films, 60s-70s, no one talked box office. Now the studios have their fans doing the fretting for them. It only matters if you care about generic sequels and such. Not my business, I want good film. Which is in short demand anymore.

    And don't worry, STAR WARS could make a fifth of what it will and they'd make more. This opening weekend box office means nothing anyway, it's all hype. Those tickets were sold before anyone saw the damned movie.

    That's because in the pre internet days, BO info was generally not available to the public, and one may of only seen figures when a film trade article in a paper, on the years top earners.

    But, it does seem in today's world that many people are fascinated by the earnings of films, its like a sort of competition, and there are scores of box office sites on the net, and the film media sites, particularly in North America are so engrossed by BO, and are always discussing whether a film will be a hit or a miss.

    Yes, i do realize that SW could make a lot less money, than what it is expected to make, and still be profitable.........but anything other than a stellar gross, would be judged a disappointment.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »

    btw:- No box office, means no films to go and enjoy. :)
    !

    Not true. During the era of great American films, 60s-70s, no one talked box office. Now the studios have their fans doing the fretting for them. It only matters if you care about generic sequels and such. Not my business, I want good film. Which is in short demand anymore.

    And don't worry, STAR WARS could make a fifth of what it will and they'd make more. This opening weekend box office means nothing anyway, it's all hype. Those tickets were sold before anyone saw the damned movie.

    Your comment about the 'fans doing the fretting for them' is absolutely bang on. I've been saying similar for a while. The last 5 years has seen the spin surrounding box office accelerate. It's partly because the once largely unattainable $1bn holy grail is now quite achievable had has been installed as the consistent narrative for each and every franchise blockbuster. The studios no longer have to do any work because slavering fan boys are more interested in besting rivals at the tills than on the screen.

    This obsession with gross is setting a dangerous precedent, even within the industry. Personally I thought Jurassic World was a weak film, a rehash, but its enormous haul has resulted in the gifting of SW:EP9 to Colin Trevorrow. I can think of a hatful of directors who would work wonders in that universe, but money talks.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,021
    SW has the 2nd best opening of the year in France...SPECTRE keeps the number 1 spot.

    619 200 admissions on Wednesday for STAR WARS (also less admissions than EP III 641 799 in 2005)

    850 297 admissions for SPECTRE (on its opening day)

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,043
    The Box office was always a given for this film but like some are saying there is too much of preoccupation with this factor now.

    Some people are measuring films quality by this and Trevorrow getting Episode 9 on the back of Jurassic World is worrying considering the ballsy choice of Rian Johnson for episode 8.

    I didn't mind JW but it was nothing mind blowing, that being said Jurassic Park has always been a vastly overrated film that people get wet over just because of the advance in SFX, yeah they do look great but seriously the acting is sub standard and the reworking of Crichton's novel is so lame. I like it for entertainment but I can't believe it's been put over the likes of Close Encounters when charts are compiling Spielberg's best films, it's Jaws all the time and not some Oscar bait before anyone starts.

    TFA was so much better an experience that JW because it's got heart and soul and we care about the characters. Yeah they repeated many beats from Episode IV, V VI but the momentum of it all carried it along, no it wasn't perfect and in my ranking it's a little early for it to leap Jedi. It's the weakest of the OT but I think TFA's nicking moments from the OT see's it lose points. My ranking would be.

    1. The Empire Strikes Back
    2. Star Wars*
    3. Return of the Jedi
    4. The Force Awakens

    I'll stop there because I've wiped the other films from my memory and have no desire to watch them again so there is no reason to do anymore ranking.

    *Edited because Birdleson has a very good point!
  • Posts: 613
    Is this thread spoiler free I'm scared to start reading.
  • Posts: 1,098
    Birdleson wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »

    Yes, i do realize that SW could make a lot less money, than what it is expected to make, and still be profitable.........but anything other than a stellar gross, would be judged a disappointment.


    But why would you, as a filmgoer, care if it's judged a disappointment? That's my point. That is some weird phenomena that did not exist in my youth or early adulthood, that I don't think that I'll ever understand. I want filmmakers to be adventurous, and creative. I want to see challenging films, let the people making a profit on this stuff worry about box office or failure/success. Very few of my favorite films were made by committee. They are almost all visions of a director or writer or both. Which is probably why hardly any of my favorites date past the '70s (many are from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and so on). This cycle of targeted genre film>publicized box office>fans worrying more about box office than the result (basically doing the studio's work)>sequels> more generic films, is what has harmed the industry.

    I don't mean us the viewing public would judge the film as a disappointment if the BO grosses weren't stellar, but the money men would.

    Yes, of course you are right, as people we want to see the best film possible, as we want to be entertained, but really since the 80's the film studio's have got into this sequel thing, that if a film makes a decent amount of money, then the money men order more sequels, in the hope of coining in more cash, though usually we as viewers get inferior films to see.

    It just seems to be the way of things, nowadays.

    On another topic regarding SW. Did George Lucas really have in his mind a set of stories in the 70's as prequels to the original film, and if so why the hell did he start off with the 4th episode, because in the long run, it has screwed things up a bit, the way he has done it.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    My rank is as follows:

    -The Empire Strikes Back
    -Star Wars
    -Return of the Jedi/The Force Awakens (I agree with you @Birdleson)
    -The Phantom Menace (liked it apart from Jar Jar. Darth Maul rules)
    -Revenge of the Sith
    -Attack of the Clones (freaking poorly written & acted love garbage in the middle kills it for me, along with Hayden)
  • Posts: 1,098
    One thing i want to know about SWTFA, does it do away with the long political dialogues that plagued the second trilogy?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    One thing i want to know about SWTFA, does it do away with the long political dialogues that plagued the second trilogy?
    Yes, thankfully. None of that.
  • Posts: 1,098
    bondjames wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    One thing i want to know about SWTFA, does it do away with the long political dialogues that plagued the second trilogy?
    Yes, thankfully. None of that.

    Thanks for that, i thought that would be the case, now i can go and buy a ticket for the film.

    :)
  • Posts: 1,314
    Absolutely it does. It replaces boring needy pseudo political clap trap with whizz bang escapism. Albeit derivative in the last 45 mins. The first hour is as good as anything in the original trilogy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Albeit derivative in the last 45 mins. The first hour is as good as anything in the original trilogy.
    Agreed. First hour or so is absolutely brilliant film making. Having just rewatched the original trilogy, I was impressed with how this new film immerses you straight into that world from the get-go, 32 years later.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,314
    I think this film will repay in spades on second viewings.

    The opening scenes are great. I think Kylo ren is also a villain with terrific potential.
  • Posts: 3,336
    I just came back from: Star wars: A new hope 2, really enjoyed it
  • Posts: 12,523
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I would go:

    1. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
    2. STAR WARS
    ( I refuse to call it by that idiotic name given to it three years after it's release with new special effects, I went to the theater and saw a film titled STAR WARS, no roman numerals, no subtitle, on the screen, on the posters; just STAR WARS).
    3. RETURN OF THE JEDI/THE FORCE AWAKENS (the best of JEDI is better than FORCE, but the bulk of it is much worse, so I call it even)
    4. ATTACK OF THE CLONES
    5. THE PHANTOM MENACE

    Revenge of the Sith?
  • Posts: 12,523
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Corrected:

    1. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
    2. STAR WARS
    ( I refuse to call it by that idiotic name given to it three years after it's release with new special effects, I went to the theater and saw a film titled STAR WARS, no roman numerals, no subtitle, on the screen, on the posters; just STAR WARS).
    3/4. RETURN OF THE JEDI/THE FORCE AWAKENS (the best of JEDI is better than FORCE, but the bulk of it is much worse, so I call it even)
    5. REVENGE OF THE SITH
    6. ATTACK OF THE CLONES
    7. THE PHANTOM MENACE


    Glad to see it above the other two prequels; always have really liked Revenge of the Sith personally. We have the same bottom two.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Just saw The Force Awakens and loved every minute of it. It's been my second most anticipated film of the year behind Spectre and was very happy. Bring on Rogue One!

    1. The Empire Strikes Back
    2. The Force Awakens
    3. A New Hope
    4. Return of the Jedi




    5. Revenge of the Sith
    6. Attack of the Clones
    7. The Phantom Menace
  • Posts: 1,098
    Latest news from BO tracking sources, is that SWTFA could be in for a mind boggling opening weekend (including Thursday previews) of somewhere between $250-260 mil in the North American market. :-O
  • Posts: 1,985
    Absolutely blown away. This film alone makes up for the entire prequel trilogy. Give my short review in the morning.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited December 2015 Posts: 7,314
    I'm very sad to report that I was disappointed. I bought into the hype and I should have known better. I don't want to be negative though. There were certain things that I absolutely loved. It's far superior to the prequels. I can't get into specifics without spoiling so I'll wait a bit for an in depth review. Although, whoever said that TFA got a free pass on the things that SP was heavily criticized for was absolutely right. In fact, I've gained more appreciation for SP after tonight. I still have issues with it but it's an absolute masterpiece compared to the overrated TFA.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Out of interest does anyone else here who didn't see Star Wars in the cinema still refer to it as such and not, 'A New Hope'?

    Like @Birdleson and others I have always called it this, but wasn't born until 84. As with Bond it's something I've watched obsessively since around 1987/88 on VHS, but I have no recollection of how it was billed in those days, but to me it was always SW. It may be perhaps that my father and grandfather referred to it as such, but one memory that is clear as day is that school time chats with friends were always based around which was better, 'Star Wars' or 'The Empire Strikes Back'. It could only have been late 90's when I heard people referring to it as ANH. That title still never registers with me and never will. In my mind that just isn't its name.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think the title of "A New Hope" has only really taken hold since the prequels came out.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited December 2015 Posts: 7,314
    Wonderful insight there. I was born in '78 and only caught ROTJ in theaters. I grew up with the OT though and no one ever referred to Ep. IV as anything but Star Wars. I think when the Special Editions were released (in 1997) was when they really started shoving this Episode so and so thing down our throats. At least TFA got away from that ridiculous aspect.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I was born in 1985 so I missed the impact of the OT. However, I did buy the VHS versions of the original films that came out during the mid 90s (this was BEFORE the special editions were released in '97).

    I don't remember the original being widely referred to as "A New Hope" back then either. I 'm pretty sure its the prequels that really gave that title a meaning and significance. Star Wars was no longer the name of a film but the name of a series.

    Can anyone imagine Dr No originally being titled "James Bond" or "The Adventures of James Bond" back in 1962 and then it being re-titled years later?
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    One question: Did somebody said "I have a bad feeling about this"?

    Sadly, I only could see it in Spanish... I thought
    maybe Han Solo in a close-up?
  • Posts: 1,985
    My order of the movies would be
    1. Return of the Jedi
    2. A New Hope
    3. Empire Strikes Back
    4. Force Awakens
    5. Phantom Menace
    6. Revenge of the Sith
    7. Attack of the Clones


  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    That's a very interesting ranking.
  • Posts: 9,860
    question in the title scroll does it say Star Wars Episode 7 or just Star Wars the force awakens the reason I ask I because I wonder if Abrams is trying to pull a Lucas and later on say this is really episode 10 and do a trilogy between return of the Jedi and Force Awakens with a new Han Solo Luke Skywalker and Leia..

    Just a thought
Sign In or Register to comment.