Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:You probably do it by blurting out your intentions before you have any idea how you're going to pull it off, and no actual plan for moving forward in place. Disney style.

Is disney normally bad about that stuff, or is this just a star wars comment. I assumed they have their shit together with stuff like this

The anti Disney stuff has always confused me. Yeah they've put out bad movies and had poor creative stretches but all studios do I don't hear people freaking out about New Line or Paramount. You might hear complaints about studios like Fox or Warners about their superhero properties(fan boys)but it seems like there is a really vocal community that says all Disney sucks and if they do put out a good product it's because of the third party they are working with like Pixar or Marvel. Freaking out over rumors seems odd as is the idea that a Star Wars script requires 3 years of intensive writing and polish.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I wonder how tortured Batman's soul will be.

It's Affleck, so. The most tortured. Boston tortured.

durdencommatyler wrote:Boston tortured.

Redundant

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Boston tortured.

Redundant

Reredundantant

bada wrote:The anti Disney stuff has always confused me. Yeah they've put out bad movies and had poor creative stretches but all studios do I don't hear people freaking out about New Line or Paramount. You might hear complaints about studios like Fox or Warners about their superhero properties(fan boys)but it seems like there is a really vocal community that says all Disney sucks and if they do put out a good product it's because of the third party they are working with like Pixar or Marvel. Freaking out over rumors seems odd as is the idea that a Star Wars script requires 3 years of intensive writing and polish.

Disney have done some good movies on their own terms, but I think it makes sense that people would be worried about the tone of a Disney Star Wars film.

As opposed to more adult themed hard boiled Star Wars that we are used too?

Disney kid movies like The Black Hole and Something Wicked This Way Comes are way more cerebral, darker and challenging the anything George Lucas did with Star Wars. What Star Wars movies are you guys watching that you think Disney is too kid friendly? The ones with the forest teddy bears or the wacky Jamaican lizard ones?

When was the last 'edgy' Disney movie? Seriously, I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you. I'm not saying I have the same fears I'm just saying I perfectly understand other people having them based on Disney being 99% brightly-coloured sentimental shlock. My personal opinion is that anyone would do an awful job as the franchise is dead.

Obviously Disney has never made an adult dark, cerebral arthouse movie, but there's that, and then there's the first Star Wars trilogy, which is without a doubt more sophisticated than any of the latest three, and will no doubt be more sophisticated than this new Disney three.

harmless wrote:Obviously Disney has never made an adult dark, cerebral arthouse movie

Their divisions have. Particularly Miramax, back in the 90s. We're treating "Disney" like it's a company that makes one specific type of movie, but that's just not the case.

harmless wrote:Seriously, I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.

I love when you do this.

harmless wrote:Obviously Disney has never made an adult dark, cerebral arthouse movie, but there's that, and then there's the first Star Wars trilogy, which is without a doubt more sophisticated than any of the latest three, and will no doubt be more sophisticated than this new Disney three.

I have doubt.

Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo. I would have made the star wars prequels more grown-up to match it's aging audience, but that ship sailed. They went for the new generation of toy buying idiot children, and it's worked out for them I guess.

BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.

I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.

I changed my mind.

bada wrote:

harmless wrote:Seriously, I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.

I love when you do this.

Of course you do, I'm awesome.

Disney is really in a great spot to do whatever the fuck they want. Unlike Indiana Jones and the Dan Akroyd Vodka, which took a beloved character and trashed it in the most remarkable way possible, Disney is in a spot where...

A. most of our living memory regarding the franchise is of the part where it sucked dick
B. they've effectively stepped in to replace the guy who ruined it all in the first place, at a time when Pixar has helped rebuild its reputation from what it was ten years ago
C. any idea that a Star Wars ought to be great...or maybe even that it CAN be great...is gone

Basically, they can make this movie half a step above that Indiana Jones film (or 3/10ths of a step above that first Hobbit movie, if you're keeping track), and get none of the deserved blowback. And if it's a soulless shell of the original concept, with all the heart taken out in favor of mishmashed callback jokes and tired familiarity, people will still walk out going "Gee, that was a lot better than the prequels." And most of them will never bother going "Wait a minute. Just because the prequels sucked doesn't mean this had to be mediocre. I wonder why they didn't do any better than that."

durdencommatyler wrote:Hey guys, did you realize we're in the Superman v Batman thread? This whole page, I thought we were in the Disney/Star Wars/Kill JJ Abrams thread.

Life is funny sometimes.