posted by
CoolHand
on Friday April 17 2015, @09:55AM
from the we-got-high-apple-pie-in-the-sky-hopes dept.
from the we-got-high-apple-pie-in-the-sky-hopes dept.
A trailer spanning about 90 seconds has emerged for the upcoming new Star Wars movie. Featuring footage of Han Solo and Chewbacca, together with shots of a grand scope reminiscent of Star Wars: A New Hope, the trailer appears to depict a film quite closely aligned with the first Star Wars trilogy of yore. The anticipation was huge and reactions generally positive, with several high profile fans posting exuberant reactions minutes after seeing the trailer.
Could this be the redemption of the Star Wars franchise?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New Trailer Emerges of Star Wars: The Force Awakens
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Marneus68 on Friday April 17 2015, @10:08AM
>Could this be the redemption of the Star Wars franchise?
Nope. Not as long as the Thrawn Trilogy keeps being excluded form the canon.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Friday April 17 2015, @10:38AM
Why bother? When so few (likely none) movie or TV adaptations of any books are ever as good as their original formats. At this point, no Thrawn movie will ever be as good as the book and will instantly be slated were it made.
For the same reason as they change things in HBO's adaptation of GoT, I'd rather they made new original stories so I get more out of the franchise. If I ever want to re-experience the Thrawn trilogy, i can just read the books again. What is the great fascination with making movie adaptations of everything, and always being disappointed with the end result? Look at the recent Hobbit movies and how they were received. Ender's Game, Hunger Games, even Harry Potter fans claim that as good as the movies are, the books were better...
Even the argument about whether they are canon or not is moot. Do you really accept Lucas' ruling (or that of some Disney exec) about whether you should accept what they decide is canon or not in a completely fictional universe?
I thoroughly enjoyed the Thrawn books and I don't need a movie adaptation of it and I don't need someone to confirm they are canon to justify my enjoyment of them.
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Friday April 17 2015, @11:44AM
I think that you can say that most books are always better than the film adaptations. Enders Game for example was a great book, the film was only meh. Another one is 2001. Awful film, great book. The problem the hollywood types have is trying to squeeze a book that could be several 10's of hours long into 1.5 or 2 hours. Then there are all the internal dialog issues that Enders Game had a huge amount of in the book, but none in the film.
As for what is canon and what isn't, I would say that only a handful of people that watch these films will actually care. That is not to say it's right or wrong, but most people simply don't care and just want to watch a movie.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday April 17 2015, @01:42PM
Another one is 2001. Awful film,
Really, not a good example! 2001 wasn't a film adaptation of a book - the book and film were written concurrently [wikipedia.org] (you really ought to turn in your geek card for that one!). Leaving aside the subjective matter of whether or not it is "awful", on thing you can not accuse it of is trying to squeeze too much in - it must be one of the slowest-paced "mainstream" films ever made.
2010, maybe... but I don't think a post-Voyager tourist's guide to Jovian system with friendly Russians would have worked in a mass-market film.
The problem the hollywood types have is trying to squeeze a book that could be several 10's of hours long into 1.5 or 2 hours.
That's why the winning formula for SF films seems to be "take one mind-blowing idea and the name of the protagonist from a (probably unfilmable) Philip K Dick story, shred the rest, then write a Tom Cruise/Governator/Harrison Ford vehicle around it." I actually think that Total Recall and Minority Report told stronger stories than the PKD shorts, while Blade Runner was just a different experience that was pointless to compare with the book.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Friday April 17 2015, @04:48PM
I think that you can say that most books are always better than the film adaptations.
I still feel unclean for liking the the film ending of Fight Club more than the book ending.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sudo rm -rf on Friday April 17 2015, @10:04PM
I don't want to flamebait, but the movie adaption of 2001 is my absolute favorite movie. The book is great, and so is the film. Just different. Just in case somebody hasn't heard of this before: watch the last sequence (Juptiter and Beyond The Infinite) to Pink Floyd's "Echoes", synchronize the first *ping* with said title, like here [youtube.com](starts at 00:58)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Friday April 17 2015, @11:47AM
Oh come on, the "Twilight" moves were just as good as the books.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Rivenaleem on Friday April 17 2015, @01:38PM
I will admit that on the 'goodness' scale, they do occupy the same position.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday April 17 2015, @02:15PM
Fifty Shades of Poo.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 17 2015, @06:52PM
Oh come on, the "Twilight" moves were just as good as the books.
Honest question: Do they actually sparkle in the books?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 17 2015, @02:05PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday April 17 2015, @02:22PM
I just want a good buddy flick, like 48 Hours, with Han Solo and Lando Calrissian. Is that too much to ask?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 17 2015, @03:19PM
Episodes IV-VI are the canon. There is no canon but that canon. Anything other than that is crap.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:44PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday April 17 2015, @03:53PM
This, of course, can't happen without completely disregarding the prequel trilogy.
Or without alienating the casual audience who's never heard of the Thrawn Trilogy, and will have no idea who these new, but seemingly significant, characters are.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mrsam on Friday April 17 2015, @12:05PM
It's not even funny how scripted, and predictable this trailer is. It follows the stock JJ Abrams formula for "Trailers For Old Franchise Revivals". That formula has just two key ingredients:
1. The trailer is just a bunch of disconnected scenes, stitched together, that mean absolutely nothing. After the trailer is over, you know absolutely nothing about the movie, not even a hint of what its plot is.
2. Include some cameo shots of characters from the revived/rebooted franchise.
That's it. The same stock formula was, pretty much, the story with the Star Trek reboot, and is the story here. You can tell how much a JJ Abrams reboot is going to suck by the amount of time the old characters appear in the trailer. The less confidence there is that the movie will stand on its own, the more you'll see of the old actors. If there was any confidence that the movie would have its own legs to stand on, there wouldn't be any need to use the characters from the original, as a crutch.
As I recall, the trailer for the 2009 Star Trek reboot had just a few seconds of Spock at the end. And the movie sucked, but just slightly. This time, you've got Mark Hamill rambling his stream-of-consciousness for pretty much the entire trailer, before he hands off the baton to Ford, for a few seconds.
That doesn't bode good, for the movie. Well, at least I didn't see any lens flares, in the trailer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:59PM
You left out the obligatory Joss-Whedon-snap-zooms
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quacking duck on Friday April 17 2015, @01:24PM
All your points would be valid, if this were actually a trailer.
What was released yesterday was called the second *teaser* though, and I always saw teasers as trailers for the actual trailer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:52AM
Nevermind the criticism of a Movie trailer being scripted. I bet he hates bread that is baked too.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday April 17 2015, @02:18PM
Lens flair?
I think there was a momentary glint or flash off of Harrison Ford's cane.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Friday April 17 2015, @12:32PM
terrible. How can you possibly tell a coherent story without all the lens flairs?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jbWolf on Friday April 17 2015, @01:57PM
Did you mean with or without? In either case, I gotta comment [theguardian.com] about it.
I saw the second Star Trek movie in the theater and it had lens flares coming out the wazoo BUT when it went to DVD, they removed them. It definitely looked a hell of a lot better without them. (Yes. I liked the movie and bought the DVD.) In my link, he apologizes to the fans, promises to not use as many in Star Wars, and that his wife figuratively beat him over the head about the flares. I think the fans (like you and me) had something to do with his change of heart too.
Not sure how the new Star Wars is going to be. Jar Jar taught me to be reserved about films no matter how good the trailer looks. (I still think Episode I has one of the best trailers ever made. The film? Excuse me while I hurl into a bucket.) On the plus side, I've now taken it upon myself to write parodies of at least the first seven Star Wars films. When I have the time, my creative side enjoys doing so immensely.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @02:25PM
Didn't the very first Star Wars have a prominent lens flare when the Falcon arrived to save the day?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Friday April 17 2015, @04:34PM
Didn't the very first Star Wars have a prominent lens flare when the Falcon arrived to save the day?
It sure did. ONE. Used as dramatic emphasis for an important event. That's how you use dramatic, eye-searing, distracting special effects - sparingly, and to grab the audience's attention.
Overuse, especially saturating the entire film with it, dilutes the effect to the point where it's useless for what it's good at. It's like using a straight razor to whittle wood - it'll work, but it damages the edge, and it won't be useful anymore when the time comes to shave your face.
Sorry for the rant, my cinematography courses in college made me especially sensitive to those sorts of crafting mistakes by filmmakers.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jbWolf on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:28AM
I'm going to admit that I enjoyed the first Star Trek movie by J.J. Abrams including the lens flares. I thought they were unusual, artistic, and added an interesting flavor to the movie. He could have used one or two less, but it was something different from the copycat world of Hollywood. But lens flares would be an annoyance to me if every movie were to have them and with many fans expressing displeasure about the lens flares in the first movie, it should have been a warning sign to him not to use it in the second movie. Then, of course, he goes and does so many of them that even I hated them. I remember one scene where it looks like a lens flare cuts off a lady's head for about 4 - 5 seconds. Ugh. Awful. It pulled me right out of the movie.
My current ire is focused on the shaky camera movements and cutting to a different angle every half second -- especially during a fight. I remember seeing the first Bourne movie and hating the fight scenes because they jumped around so much that you couldn't make out anything. I happened to look at the behind the scenes and my jaw just about the dropped. For one fight scene, they showed it from a single angle and I saw a beautiful choreography. That fight scene was extremely amazing but the martial arts was lost in the editing room.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zinho on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:36AM
I think I feel the same way about Bourne as you do about the Trek reboot. I felt that the editing in Bourne Identity did a good job of capturing Jason's perception of the fights - time compressed and running on autopilot; barely under conscious control, if at all. Then I found myself wishing that the directors and editors of the sequels had shown the same reserve and judgement with the shaky cam/jump cuts that the director for Identity had. They pushed it over the edge from barely controlled to frantic, panicked confusion; that feel didn't match with Jason's training or improved control of his faculties. He was getting better over the course of the movies, not worse, but the filming made it feel like the opposite was happening.
Like lens flares, shaky cam and fast cuts have their place, and should be used sparingly. As you suggested, they can even be used as a visual style for a movie and be appropriate (e.g. shaky-cam for Blair Witch). I hope the fads of overusing these techniques passes soon so that we can get back to using them where appropriate, instead of putting them everywhere just because there's a macro for it in the video editing software.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Friday April 17 2015, @01:17PM
Quietly muttering "Five more minutes"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mrcoolbp on Friday April 17 2015, @01:22PM
This video got a lot of attention and was so well done, it's very likely he saw it, I'm just hoping he listened:
4 rules of Star Wars: A fan’s plea to J.J. Abrams [youtube.com]
For the non-video folks, here are the rules:
Let's hope it doesn't suck.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by zugedneb on Friday April 17 2015, @01:58PM
ahhh... film noir...
battered characters in trenchcoats...
old places soaked in smoke, rain and fog...
godlike dialogues...
characters who don't fucking grin when they kill, but walk away sad...
characters that act as if the adversary was worth more than just a shit...
characters who act, and greet as if they knew each other...
clothes that don't look newly washed...
characters who seem to love and know every corner of their place...
random objects that give the impression of a longish life lived, many gray anydays...
...I go to take a smoke and weep a little...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zugedneb on Friday April 17 2015, @01:38PM
...i miss the female characters I could kind of fall in love with =)
Take princess Leia, for example, or Rachel in Bladerunner, or the woman in Dune, or the woman Jill in the western movie Once upon a time in the West, or the animated woman character in Final Fantasy, or almost any female from animes, or even fucking Tigress from Kungfu Panda...
So whats up with that biatch in the trailer? Is she a fictional anorectic on treatment and rehabilitation in that world? What with all those young men posing and smelling strawberry lubricant? And why does everyone seem to fucking POUT these days?
And this USA bullshit with a white female stretching out a brotherly hand to random nigga? I mean, can't characters fucking lay of the racism honk, and just act as if they knew each other?
So many questions, so few answers...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @02:13PM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/apple_lightsabers_to_feature_in_ithe_force_awakensi/ [theregister.co.uk]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Kromagv0 on Friday April 17 2015, @02:34PM
I'm just hoping that if one of the characters finds a light saber it has a purple blade and has "B.M.F." on the handle.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @06:32PM
After all, Abrams first two Star Wars movies were pretty good, even if they did call them 'Trek' by mistake....
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Friday April 17 2015, @08:28PM
Wookies age much better than humans . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 5, Funny) by rts008 on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:02AM
At least until they start going bald...then it gets ugly!