Forge wrote:His direction isn't so bad, it's his dialog-writing that causes pain.
Did you see the prequels?
--No, I'm not making the usual cheap-shot. I'm not talking about the overall quality of the films, the pacing, the acting, the dialogue, Jar-Jar, the completely interminable plot-plodding or even the green-screen.
I'm talking about absolutely lazy film-making. All of those films are stuffed full of conversations, and if you watch those scenes you should notice something: It's just over the shoulder shots of talking heads, reverse, repeat. Back and forth, for what must be approaching over an hour and a half of screen-time if you include all three films.
That isn't even bad direction, as he plainly wasn't even trying. I don't have a word for it other than lazy. It's kind of embarrassing, actually.
clone wrote:the reason the last 3 Star Wars movies were so disappointing at the box office and in the eyes of the majority of non 8 years who watched it is because the series never grew up.
That's simply untrue. They weren't disappointing at the Box Office at all. Phantom menace was #1 in the box office for 1999 and Revenge of the Sith was #1 for 2005. Attack of the Clones was #3, but it nearly beat Two Towers and was still 75% of the #1 for 2002 (Spider-man).
As to the "non 8 years old" perhaps they didn't like them because they were terrible. Plenty of those non 8 years desperately wanted to love the first prequel. Many people watched it several times trying to convince themselves they liked it before they finally submitted to the truth.
It wasn't that it didn't "grow up," it's that it clearly regressed into absolute silliness. Lucas left the identifiable symbols of our own history in favor of pod-racing plot detours, Dual-dual-wielding droids with asthma, riding dinosaurs, bizarre retro-50s space diners and absurdly racist aliens with idiotic and incomprehensible motivations.
He replaced the all-encompassing mysticism of the former film with a theme and plot destroying incoherent rationalism.
It's like he tried to grow up but, much like the lost boys of Neverland, had no idea what actual adult even looked like. The best he could do was poorly mimic Captain Hook and the Pirates, mere caricatures themselves and only foils at that. He knew the appearance, and even somewhat the forms, but the actual essence completely escaped him.
ludi wrote:I skipped Cabin in the Woods after reading a couple reviews and deciding that it wouldn't be edifying in any possible way, but according to those reviews, the very intention was to subvert the entire teen camp-horror genre, so I'm not sure how you went in expecting Serious Commentary.
Cabin in the Woods is actually VERY "Serious Commentary." It's probably the best movie I've seen all year, as I'd have to say I enjoyed it better than the Avengers.
I highly recommend you watch it.
Vrock wrote:The success of the original trilogy was that it appealed to both groups simultaneously. This was lost with Episode I.
Exactly. The amount of depth to the original trilogy is why it had the lasting presence it did. If it was just what clone says it is, why would it have a following that is akin to a religion (and in some countries actually IS).
clone wrote:I'd prefer not use him to be honest to do a new Star Wars film no matter how much of a fan he is of the series, and to be clear he is a huge fan of it.
I have to say I agree here. Whedon ought to be developing his own IP, not doing superbly competent executions of the IP of others.
clone wrote:yes and no, the success of the first Star Wars was sealed when the imperial cruiser flew onscreen in the first scene, because Star Wars came out when special effects could sell a movie
But that doesn't explain the lasting presence, especially given the existence of younger people who never saw those movies in the box office in the first place but rather much later in life on VHS/DVD/Fan-edits. If those movies affected them the same way in 1992, 1997, or 2007 the same way it did to theater-goers in 1977, it simply can't be the novelty of the special effects.
1 - 3 "failed" because they were just like the previous 3 but released into a market where special effects couldn't save them.
Again, Lucas "failed" all the way to the bank. The market response was completely fine, it was the lasting presence of those movies that was not.