› ›

Star Wars (1977 - present)

1…5556586061…254

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It isn t futuristic. It was a long time ago, so it is the other way round.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    Salacious B. Crumb has been stuck on my mind today :))
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Murdock wrote: »
    Correct captain. Fascinating that a 1960's Earth camera flash holder became the universal basis for a futuristic laser sword weapon. A big violation of the prime directive. :P

    There's a Fanboys quote that fits this use of Star Trek lingo in a Star Wars thread perfectly, but sadly, I can't find a GIF of it...
  • Matt007Matt007
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,314
    .
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    ZwErd.png
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Is he dressed like the Pope?
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    RC7 wrote: »
    If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

    You mean Kincade ? :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    'Star Wars: Episode IX' to shoot on film, and it may film in outer space:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-9-film/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.

    Cameron knows how to make event movies that capture the zeitgeist. The SW brand is f****** enormous, a cinematic behemoth, as such it only serves to prove, for me, that TFA is not a Zeitgeist movie in the vein of SF, because had it been it would've destroyed Avatars haul. This is probably down to the fact it is more a slave to nostalgia than invention. There's only so far that can take you.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.

    Cameron knows how to make event movies that capture the zeitgeist. The SW brand is f****** enormous, a cinematic behemoth, as such it only serves to prove, for me, that TFA is not a Zeitgeist movie in the vein of SF, because had it been it would've destroyed Avatars haul. This is probably down to the fact it is more a slave to nostalgia than invention. There's only so far that can take you.
    I think the US fx rate had a lot to do with it too. It messed up the foreign conversion. Hurt SP too.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.

    Cameron knows how to make event movies that capture the zeitgeist. The SW brand is f****** enormous, a cinematic behemoth, as such it only serves to prove, for me, that TFA is not a Zeitgeist movie in the vein of SF, because had it been it would've destroyed Avatars haul. This is probably down to the fact it is more a slave to nostalgia than invention. There's only so far that can take you.
    I think the US fx rate had a lot to do with it too. It messed up the foreign conversion. Hurt SP too.

    If you look at Titanic and Avatar they were totally 'new' propositions, both a unique concoction of ingredients and favourable circumstances that combined to deliver something equally unique. SF functioned in much the same way. A lot of the word of mouth was, 'This isn't just a good Bond movie, it's a good movie'. That drove a lot of new fans to the cinema. TFA is the exact opposite, the word of mouth was, 'it's exactly like the original', which may sound positive, but not enough to encourage the necessary 'new breed' to push it's financial success into Cameron territory.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.

    Cameron knows how to make event movies that capture the zeitgeist. The SW brand is f****** enormous, a cinematic behemoth, as such it only serves to prove, for me, that TFA is not a Zeitgeist movie in the vein of SF, because had it been it would've destroyed Avatars haul. This is probably down to the fact it is more a slave to nostalgia than invention. There's only so far that can take you.
    I think the US fx rate had a lot to do with it too. It messed up the foreign conversion. Hurt SP too.

    If you look at Titanic and Avatar they were totally 'new' propositions, both a unique concoction of ingredients and favourable circumstances that combined to deliver something equally unique. SF functioned in much the same way. A lot of the word of mouth was, 'This isn't just a good Bond movie, it's a good movie'. That drove a lot of new fans to the cinema. TFA is the exact opposite, the word of mouth was, 'it's exactly like the original', which may sound positive, but not enough to encourage the necessary 'new breed' to push it's financial success into Cameron territory.
    TFA did surpass Avatar (but not Titanic) on an inflation adjusted basis in the US. I understand that such 'inflation adjustment' calculation is subject to interpretation and error, but it's clearly quite a bit ahead. So it had resonance in the US, and apparently in the UK as well, where it's been a monster hit.

    It's only in the rest of the world foreign gross where it didn't measure up (especially China), and I'm not sure why that is. It could be f/x rates or something didn't click with the non-English speaking audience.

    I don't think Avatar was all that ground breaking to be honest. It just had the 3D. I was quite bored. I did see Titanic but was fidgeting in my seat with all the sap, including Celine's monster song (which may have had a lot to drive box office).

    I get your point about TFA not being original, but as I said, I don't mind because it was a reintroduction to the franchise and a link to the classic trilogy. They made the link very well. Now they have to be creative.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Episode VIII Begins filming today!
    If the teaser trailer is any indication, it will start right where VII left off- a first in the Star Wars series!
    So if you haven't seen VII yet, you'd better not click the link!

    http://www.highsnobiety.com/2016/02/15/star-wars-episode-viii-production-announcement-video/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Thanks! Dec 2017 release and they are filming already. Now that's the way you do it. None of this last minute short post-production messing about.

    Shocking news in that article. Apparently Harrison Ford is not returning. Fancy that.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    It looks like TFA may not be able to surpass Titanic after all in worldwide box office. It's currently at $2,028m vs. Titanic's $2,187m and Avatar's mind boggling $2,788m.

    Keep in mind also that this is not adjusting for ticket price inflation, in which case the two Cameron vehicles are even farther ahead.

    Tragic. The high $ strikes again.

    Cameron knows how to make event movies that capture the zeitgeist. The SW brand is f****** enormous, a cinematic behemoth, as such it only serves to prove, for me, that TFA is not a Zeitgeist movie in the vein of SF, because had it been it would've destroyed Avatars haul. This is probably down to the fact it is more a slave to nostalgia than invention. There's only so far that can take you.
    I think the US fx rate had a lot to do with it too. It messed up the foreign conversion. Hurt SP too.

    If you look at Titanic and Avatar they were totally 'new' propositions, both a unique concoction of ingredients and favourable circumstances that combined to deliver something equally unique. SF functioned in much the same way. A lot of the word of mouth was, 'This isn't just a good Bond movie, it's a good movie'. That drove a lot of new fans to the cinema. TFA is the exact opposite, the word of mouth was, 'it's exactly like the original', which may sound positive, but not enough to encourage the necessary 'new breed' to push it's financial success into Cameron territory.
    TFA did surpass Avatar (but not Titanic) on an inflation adjusted basis in the US. I understand that such 'inflation adjustment' calculation is subject to interpretation and error, but it's clearly quite a bit ahead. So it had resonance in the US, and apparently in the UK as well, where it's been a monster hit.

    It's only in the rest of the world foreign gross where it didn't measure up (especially China), and I'm not sure why that is. It could be f/x rates or something didn't click with the non-English speaking audience.

    I don't think Avatar was all that ground breaking to be honest. It just had the 3D. I was quite bored. I did see Titanic but was fidgeting in my seat with all the sap, including Celine's monster song (which may have had a lot to drive box office).

    I get your point about TFA not being original, but as I said, I don't mind because it was a reintroduction to the franchise and a link to the classic trilogy. They made the link very well. Now they have to be creative.

    Whether you felt Avatar was ground-breaking or not is kind of moot, the masses felt there was something worth seeing. It was promoted as 'must-see' and with an original, non-canonical storyline there are less preconceptions. Couple that with the fact it brought 3D into the mainstream (something TFA benefited from) and it becomes an event movie. Yes, TFA was mammoth in the US and UK, but that was completely expected, as I pointed out in my comment about it being a cinematic behemoth. It was its inability to transcend the classic SW mould that stopped it from surpassing Titanic and Avatar across the globe.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Couple that with the fact it brought 3D into the mainstream (something TFA benefited from) and it becomes an event movie.
    This is why I went to see it. I suspect many others did so as well. I can't even remember what it was about to be honest. The proof will be in what happens with Avatar 2.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Couple that with the fact it brought 3D into the mainstream (something TFA benefited from) and it becomes an event movie.
    This is why I went to see it. I suspect many others did so as well. I can't even remember what it was about to be honest. The proof will be in what happens with Avatar 2.

    I don't expect Avatar 2 to do anything. I reckon it'll be very, very lucky if does half as well as the first in terms of cash. I guess what I'm saying regard SW is, had the film been truly original, coupled with the inbuilt audience (which I would argue is the largest in cinema by quite some distance) it would've made a ludicrous amount money.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Couple that with the fact it brought 3D into the mainstream (something TFA benefited from) and it becomes an event movie.
    This is why I went to see it. I suspect many others did so as well. I can't even remember what it was about to be honest. The proof will be in what happens with Avatar 2.

    I don't expect Avatar 2 to do anything. I reckon it'll be very, very lucky if does half as well as the first in terms of cash. I guess what I'm saying regard SW is, had the film been truly original, coupled with the inbuilt audience (which I would argue is the largest in cinema by quite some distance) it would've made a ludicrous amount money.
    That's the thing though. I'm not so sure about that. It had a lot of repeat audiences from what I heard. Do you think people stayed away because they heard it was a retread of SW?

    It's only the foreign audience converted $ amounts that were lower (I don't know about attendances). With a lower US $ it may have done better. Also, it appears that more action oriented fare (like FF7 and Transformers) are what set the foreign box office alight in the past few yrs. The SW legend is perhaps not as well known outside the 'mature' markets since it was from so long ago (prequels notwithstanding).
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Couple that with the fact it brought 3D into the mainstream (something TFA benefited from) and it becomes an event movie.
    This is why I went to see it. I suspect many others did so as well. I can't even remember what it was about to be honest. The proof will be in what happens with Avatar 2.

    I don't expect Avatar 2 to do anything. I reckon it'll be very, very lucky if does half as well as the first in terms of cash. I guess what I'm saying regard SW is, had the film been truly original, coupled with the inbuilt audience (which I would argue is the largest in cinema by quite some distance) it would've made a ludicrous amount money.
    That's the thing though. I'm not so sure about that. It had a lot of repeat audiences from what I heard. Do you think people stayed away because they heard it was a retread of SW?

    It's only the foreign audience converted $ amounts that were lower (I don't know about attendances). With a lower US $ it may have done better. Also, it appears that more action oriented fare (like FF7 and Transformers) are what set the foreign box office alight in the past few yrs. The SW legend is perhaps not as well known outside the 'mature' markets since it was from so long ago (prequels notwithstanding).

    Yeah, I do think they stayed away for that reason. Like I said, SF benefitted from the inbuilt audience coupled with the newfound audience. I don't think SW did. Had it done we'd be looking at a BO in the region of $3bn+.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I was cleaning up around the house and found some random things and put them together to make this most random crossover ever. :))
    OpWYquBl.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Now that is creative @Murdock. Well done! As good as some of EON's early days model work.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    bondjames wrote: »
    Now that is creative @Murdock. Well done! As good as some of EON's early days model work.

    @bondjames, Thank you. My evergrowing hobby of Action figure collecting is taking up my space So I thought I'd have some fun outside. I really need to update my gallery here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Murdock wrote: »
    OpWYquBl.jpg

    Awesome man!!! =D>
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    OpWYquBl.jpg

    Awesome man!!! =D>

    Thanks, here's a different angle. I remembered to make extra AT-AT footprints in the snow before taking it. :))
    Yq4ZHbBl.jpg
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Being born in '83, I grew up with people praising the OT but was never able to see the films in cinemas myself. I really wish I had been born two decades earlier so I could witness Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me in cinemas in my teens. Out of all the years before my time that I wanted to be alive in (I'm talking from a film-only perspective), 1977 is still number one.

    Also, nice work @Murdock.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Take home the blu-ray and DVD on April 5th, alongside these special features:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=18609
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Take home the blu-ray and DVD on April 5th, alongside these special features:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=18609

    I'm gonn wait a few years until all the post-theatrical tweaking is finished.
    Oh wait- that's not gonna happen anymore, is it? =))
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Take home the blu-ray and DVD on April 5th, alongside these special features:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=18609

    I'm gonn wait a few years until all the post-theatrical tweaking is finished.
    Oh wait- that's not gonna happen anymore, is it? =))

    Abrams will do it in three years as an homage, and it'll be rereleased in theaters in 4D.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks! Dec 2017 release and they are filming already. Now that's the way you do it. None of this last minute short post-production messing about.

    Shocking news in that article. Apparently Harrison Ford is not returning. Fancy that.

    Well his character kinda got impaled by a light saber then proceeded to fall down a very long shaft. So i kinda expected him not being there
Sign In or Register to comment.