** Star Wars Episode VII - SPOILERS WITHIN **

Casino Royale gave the Bond franchise a much needed reboot by returning to its roots (no implausible technology, fighting and stunts etc.)

If this new film follows the lessons learned from the Bond films, it will be great.
 
Shamikebab said:
In what way? They've hardly done that with Marvel.
Click to expand...

they will certainly want a return on their $4 billion investment.... I just hope they don't produce so many Films now that SW becomes ubiquitous. The appeal of new SW is indeed their rarity,which will most definitely not be the case anymore.

Anyway,let's hope Disney don't dilute the brand too much.
 
I suspect these days you make more from toys and clothing associated with the film than from the film itself. I am sure Disney will make their money back very very quickly.
 
well,that is indeed correct,however you need Films in the first place to sell those Toys... so far we know of 6 new Films and Episodes 9-12 are also rumoured so there will be plenty.

I agree though that Disney will definitely recoup their investment within maybe 5-10 years.(my guess)
 
_Jimlad_ said:
You serious? How many marvel films we had and how many more coming ?
Click to expand...

Yeah but they've been good, and are just getting better. Why would you not want good films :confused: I feel like you're kind of misusing the word rape. Especially considering Star Wars was already a franchise that had been merchandised to hell before this.
 
Shamikebab said:
Yeah but they've been good, and are just getting better. Why would you not want good films :confused: I feel like you're kind of misusing the word rape. Especially considering Star Wars was already a franchise that had been merchandised to hell before this.
Click to expand...

you have misread what i put...

- Disney are going to rape this franchise (some sort of film / spin off each year)
- IT IS A GOOD THING!
 
Shamikebab said:
Lens flare is a technique. It's fine using it, the problem is the way he has used it in the past. Nothing in this trailer suggests that really, it's just people trying to find a problem.
Click to expand...

It might be for certain modern film makers now however, historically lens flare was a mistake.

Had a lecture that mentioned it; it drew attention to the camera and would damage the illusion of the experience.
 
Tummy said:
It might be for certain modern film makers now however, historically lens flare was a mistake.

Had a lecture that mentioned it; it drew attention to the camera and would damage the illusion of the experience.
Click to expand...

I can see that being valid in the earlier days of movies, where it was all about the experience, and anything that reminded you of it being a movie might take away from that.

However, movies are so commonplace now that I wouldn't say it's valid based on that alone.
 
Looks awesome. Liked the light sabre too :)
Wish people would stop moaning. I don't mind a bit of lens flare and I don't care too much Disney acquired Lucasfilm. Aren't the same people still working there anyway? Just Disney has a bunch of $$$ to throw at the films?
 
spoffle said:
I can see that being valid in the earlier days of movies, where it was all about the experience, and anything that reminded you of it being a movie might take away from that.

However, movies are so commonplace now that I wouldn't say it's valid based on that alone.
Click to expand...

Huh? I do not totally understand what you're saying? You're agreeing with me?

It was valid and is valid historically, if you disagree you can quite easily find information on it in film text books, my professors of film and the text books, general film related books, all point to this being the case. It was considered a mistake in the earlier days of cinema.

It was in the 1960 (iirc, totally off the top of my head at 3.30am) with the emergence of the 'New Hollywood' and the times of experimental cinema, coupled with the influx of European art house cinema that started to use it for aesthetic reasons.

I hate no strong feeling either way, I thought it was over used by Abrams in Star Trek (D. Abrams, 2009) but depending on the context, it's fine as an effect.
 
Couple of random thoughts...

The lightsaber "blade" looks a bit different to the usual - kinda more like red electricity than the usual smooth glow. I doubt this is just them trying to jazz up the design a bit. The feeling I get is that it's a really ancient weapon (maybe the first lightsaber?) and the hilt is there to give a suggestion of that age. Probably way off, but that's the impression I got :)

Also, we all know Lucas made that brilliant business decision way back in the early days whereby he got all the money from the merchandising. I wonder if he managed to get something similar with the Disney deal?

Finally, I bet JJ is just trolling us with that bit of lens flare :D
 
Tummy said:
Huh? I do not totally understand what you're saying? You're agreeing with me?

It was valid and is valid historically, if you disagree you can quite easily find information on it in film text books, my professors of film and the text books, general film related books, all point to this being the case. It was considered a mistake in the earlier days of cinema.

It was in the 1960 (iirc, totally off the top of my head at 3.30am) with the emergence of the 'New Hollywood' and the times of experimental cinema, coupled with the influx of European art house cinema that started to use it for aesthetic reasons.

I hate no strong feeling either way, I thought it was over used by Abrams in Star Trek (D. Abrams, 2009) but depending on the context, it's fine as an effect.
Click to expand...

About it being a mistake rather than undesirable, and it being a distraction is what I meant about validity. In that cinema and movies were so new that that sort of thing was distracting.

I don't mean that your statement about it being undesirable is not valid.

I don't mind lens flare when it's natural lens flare, I find it distracting when it's obviously added in and then turned up to 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom