I actually dont think this will be very good. I thought it was with the other trailers but I am so not getting a star wars vibe from it. May just be me but I don't really have high hopes.

Meh.

I can't work up enough of a fuck to be excited about this. It'll probably be fine like the reboot Trek movies but nothing special I think but thats probably the best outcome.

Even if its fine the fans will probably hate it because Lucas ain't working on it or love it because Lucas ain't working on it. They'll complain that Abrams hates the Prequels when he invariably tries to decanonize them despite just a few years (if even that) they were still railing about how the Prequels suck and raped their dog and killed their parents and went in their homes and erased all their uncut unedited Star Wars OT non-Special Editions.

Fucking nerds will complain its too politically correct despite complaining how racist Jar Jar and the Nemoidians were.

Just bitch and bitch and bitch, you know like I am right now.

On the movie itself, I kinda like the cast kinda. John Boyega is a fine actor (Attack the Block was a good movie if you haven't seen it yet), Daisy Ridley is cute, Adam Driver was in some child rapist's tv show jacking off on people apparently, the pilot dude I've seen in stuff that was okay I think, and the OT cast are all fine. Gwendoline Christie is fucking tall as shit but cute and I dig a female stormtrooper especially one without fucking boob-cups (and find it hotter that way anyway, strangely Christie being tall as fuck kinda does it for me too).

Hell my only real complaint for the cast is the fact they have Andy Serkis doing yet another fucking CG character. Serkis is a good actor without a fucking mocap suit.

The story is probably going to be garbage. Done by fanboy motherfucker JJ LENS FLARE OH GOD MY FUCKING EYES Abrams who doesn't respect the franchise at fucking all, it sounds like a rehash of the OT to please the whiners who whined that the PT was too different. Rebels fighting the Empire (now its the Resistance vs the First Order) with Sith hunting some plucky Rebels on a desert planet that totally isn't Tattoine because its got 3 suns and racing to stop some super weapon controlled by some Dark Helmet douche with some family connection to the heroes.

Atleast the scenery porn should be nice and seeing actual stormtroopers again will be cool even if I'm halfway convinced I hate the First Order stormtrooper armor.

I'll probably maybe go see it in theaters thought not opening and certainly not in my armor but I ain't saying for certain whether I'll even do that considering everything between my continual loathing of Star Wars and my friends being a bunch of lazy good for nothing cocksuckers who I swear to fucking Christ I'd enjoy sticking fucking sharpened pencils in their bastard eyes some days.

Anyway, anybody got any idea what chest rig this guy has. This is an action figure but the actual costume looks the same but haven't been able to find any better pics of the actual costume

>>33281
That's because they hired a competent cinematographer.

I'm hoping it will be good, I like the Star Wars universe to an extent, but I hated that pudgy hack, Autismo Prime -- I mean, George Lucas. Fucker can't write, direct or edit on his own. He needs people to reel his bad ideas back, but the more powerful he became, the less people could do.

>>33282

>JJ LENS FLARE OH GOD MY FUCKING EYES

>trailer at 0:49

WELCOME ABOARD THE SS. OHFUCKIMBLIND!

Where nobody can see their workstation, or their own hands!

"Sir uh... we can't see anything... can we close the shutters?"
"NO I WANT TO GLOW RED. RED IS FOR EVIL. JUST GUESS WHAT BUTTONS TO PRESS!"

When they make movies that add on to huge franchises like this and the hobbit. I simply don't give a fuck. Looks like another drunk movie theater fiasco for me. The hobbit was amazing drunk. But then I passed out after Gandalf took a shit after seeing Sauron. CALLING it right now the chick and Obama-jedi turn evil Luke back to the light after making him realize his dad was truly fucking evil and snap him out of a force trance.

>>33285
>>33285
Your choices are red, blue, or ucmj.

Red is acceptable mood lighting for slaughter, so shhh...

>forced nostalgia to make $

Typical hollywood, but I'm still intrigued.

Han Solo dies at the end
He's killed by Kylo Ren, who is Lukes son
Also the entire movie is about getting back a lightsaber

The only worthwhile thing in this is Oscar Isaac, and I can see him in plenty of other films that are actually good.

I feel bad for you people that trust JewJew Abraham, king of exploiting existing popular franchises.

  >>33282
I'm with Doomguy. The cast seems solid, and I'm sure it'll be every bit as enjoyable as the latest pair of Star Trek movies, but I can't get all hyped up for the new Star Wars movies.

Oh, look, another desert (but it's not Tatooine), another jungle (but it's not Endor), another ice planet (totally not Hoth)...

I get that they had to discard the entire EU for licensing reasons. Honestly, I get that. Disney isn't going to EVER willingly give Timothy Zahn royalties for the best post-OT books written, and even a measly 5% of the gross would be close to $100,000,000 when it's all done. So we're not going to get a big-screen Thrawn Trilogy.

You buy licensing rights to names and concepts when you buy a franchise, what you don't want to do is put yourself in a position where you have to follow nearly four decades of added-on storylines, with dozens of contributing authors.

So I get it...

But I'm just not very hyped.

This isn't "The story we've all been waiting to see, how Anakin became Vader", this isn't even "We're getting a new story set a few decades ABY in the familiar EU", this is just "Here's a few names and concepts we recognize, and a story that probably won't even follow up the OT/PT."

So, in the end, I'll buy a ticket and watch it in a theatre, but I'm expecting to be underwhelmed by the story, overwhelmed by the visuals, and channeling thermonuclear nerd rage by the time it's over. It'll be fun, and I'm hoping that Han Motherfucking Solo gets to be the overwhelmingly cool guy he always was, but at the same time..I have no hype to give.

Maybe it's just a shit trailer. It's like "LOOK, IT'S FUCKING STAR WARS. HERE'S STAR WARS SHIT, AND HAN SOLO, AND LENS FLARES, AND MORE OBVIOUS STAR WARS SHIT THAT'LL SHOW UP IN THE TOY AISLE BECAUSE THIS IS STAR WARS", which doesn't do shit to make me want to see the film.

Unlike the best trailer I've seen in the past few years. Which wasn't just "HOLY SHIT IT"S MAD MAX!", it set up a vibe that was true to the film, and made me want to experience it. Yeah, it had spectacle, but it wasn't cheap, and did a good job and showing just enough that the >implications made by the trailer teased me into the theatre.

Even being optimistic, Star Wars 7 is going to be like Jurassic World. Good visuals, but the storyline will be driven by them, not the other way around.

>>33293
>Star Wars 7 is going to be like Jurassic World

Thats probably how its going to be. A shallow but pretty movie that relies on nostalgia. Like Jurassic World with its "remember dis, remember dat" with BD Wong, the Park, and the T-Rex it will be the same with TFA with the OT cast, all the slightly different lazy as fuck X-Wings, Star Destroyers, stormtroopers, TIEs, and everything else.

Jurassic World wasn't a bad movie but it relied too much on nostalgia and wow special effects to cover up a shitty story.

And Han Solo is supposed to die .

Sounds retarded tbh

Maybe not worse than ITS SO DENSE or MESA GOO JAMAICA, but it would be hard to top that suck anyway

>>33296
>A shallow but pretty movie that relies on nostalgia.

So basically like normal Star Wars but with nostalgia?

I mean I'm a total Star Wars fangirl, don't get me wrong. I have opening night tickets (somehow it being 7:30 and not midnight is a little less fun but whatever). But the movies aren't deep! They always were a bit shallow. You think it was deep because you saw it as a kid, because you have your nostalgia goggles on, or because you're thinking of the EU which was always a different beast. And even then plenty of the EU wasn't that deep!

>>33298
Star Wars isn't all that deep either but its certainly more deep then Avatar or Jurassic World. And while the OT is in some ways the retelling of a standard heroes journey but in space it tries to do different shit with it unlike say Avatar where its literally Pocahontas in space. The Prequels are even more so their own beast that tells their own story unless you believe the theory its supposed to be about the Iraq War and I doubt I have to say what that is incorrect and bad.

While I did see Star Wars as a wee child I was too young to really get attached, like being 4 or 5 and so young I didn't understand what I was really seeing and thought the Death Star from Ep6 was the same from Ep4 just damaged. I only rediscovered Star Wars as a teen with the discovery of a Boba Fett book at the library and it helped to ignite my love for SW. It is kinda ironic now considering how much I hate Boba Fett but he was what got me into Star Wars.

And the EU was even more shallow then the movies. I can go on and on and on about how fucking shallow the EU was, how badly written it was (a trend that seems to be continuing in the new EU), how it made even the worst Star Wars movie (Episode 1 or 6) seem like goddamn Shakespeare in comparison. I hate the EU. The EU pretty much killed my love of Star Wars for awhile (and still hasn't recovered) and turned me into a formerly detested movie purist. Fuck the EU, fuck it right in Waru's dickhole. I'm so fucking glad its dead. I'm so fucking glad the adventures of the Mandawhorians are gone, that dumbass Daala doesn't exist, Darth Dumbass Jacen Solo and his Mand'oh dicksucking whore of a sister are even deader then their brother Anakin was, overjoyed that Chewie is alive, and practically weeping with joy that Kyp Durron is no more.

To reiterate, fuck the EU.

>>33299
>Star Wars isn't all that deep either but its certainly more deep then Avatar or Jurassic World.

We're talking about a puddle with slightly more water in it.

>To reiterate, fuck the EU.

See, that's the problem. You can't look at the EU as a whole any more than you can look at the Star Trek books as a whole. It's just official fanfic. Some fanfic is awesome! Some is weird crappy shit.

>>33300
>We're talking about a puddle with slightly more water in it.

Yes and no, but still Star Wars is a bit deeper. It actually had some thought put into it. Avatar didn't and Jurassic World didn't have much beyond "what would be cool?"

>See, that's the problem. You can't look at the EU as a whole any more than you can look at the Star Trek books as a whole. It's just official fanfic. Some fanfic is awesome! Some is weird crappy shit.

You could and to a degree still can look at as a whole considered the EU was a mostly cohesive universe. A universe that was until recently considered canon whereas ST books never have been.

Even now the old EU is still an official universe even if its no longer the canon universe and maintains a sort of integrity. The Trek books are just haphazard trash that has no sort of continuity or official supported.

There was an attempt to keep the EU straight, a policy of canon levels, and lore specialists that made sure story ideas stayed kosher with the established canon and it worked mostly. Now with the new EU (same as the old EU, shit) and the old EU reorganized as Legends its a clusterfuck with nobody sure if the Legends will continue, whether attempts will be made to keep it cohesive if it continues, what is Legends now like is Old Republic shit or Clone Wars shit Legends, and why the fuck people spent hundreds of dollars on books that now are essentially ascended fan-fiction.

But whatever to all dat, whether or not the EU is Legends, canon, or whatever it still with a very few exceptions sucks. I can look at the whole of the old and new EU and know this because this is a demonstrated fact. They are minimalist, poorly written, inconsistent shit that repeats the movies so fucking much that TFA looks fresh and with original ideas.

>>33301
Explain how Star Wars is "deeper" than Avatar or Jurassic Park, or how being "deeper" is better. In fact, define what a "deep" plot is. I'm tired of hearing that critique, it's as bad as calling something pretentious.

>>33298
>hurr i saw the movies once
>i think
>im a total fangirl!
No you aren't

The only star wars films worth a damn were the original trilogy, watching the movies makes you a pleb at this point not a fan

>>33302
Maybe you should read ANY part of star wars fluff before talking about it

JJ Abrams is a no talent hack and he's just continuing the ruination of the series, at least on film, which is why you should read the novels

>>33302
Star Wars isn't a blatant rip-off of another property and until recently the movies themselves stood alone without relying too much on nostalgia.

Deeper is better because shallow trash is........shallow trash. Its why 2001 is better then Transformers.

>>33303
>you should read the novels

Or she could stab herself in the brain a couple times to get the same effect.

Reading the novels with the exception of some of the Zahn's stuff and the X-Wing books is a stab to the brain considering how bad they are. No not bad, Episode 1 was bad. The Ewoks were bad. The EU is beyond even horrible, its beyond even the Holiday Special. Its so fucking bad a new adjective needs made to describe how shitty goddamn shit it was (and still is).

>>33301
>Avatar

Avatar actually had a fuckton of thought put into it--it was just all incredibly goofy thought.

> They are minimalist, poorly written, inconsistent shit that repeats the movies so fucking much that TFA looks fresh and with original ideas.

I agree that it's incredibly uneven. The thing is: how is this shallow compared to the movies? They're good movies, but they ain't deep. And that's okay! That isn't criticism. Star Wars was never really attempting to be deep in the original trilogy, and the prequels show what a bad idea a real attempt was.

>>33303
>No you aren't

Dude I fucking grew up on the Kevin J. Anderson/Rebecca Moesta Young Jedi Knights series. I had Star Wars action figures instead of barbies. Don't fucking even, casual.

>>33303
>talking about a film franchise
>DUDE YOU NEED TO READ THE BOOKS BEFORE YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS
That's totally on point about how calling something 'deep' is poor criticism. Completely not autistic and non sequitur at all. God damn, you sure showed me. I'll be sure to never challenge your authority on a child's merchandise franchise again.

>>33304
>Deep is good because it's good and if it isn't it's garbage
I asked for you to qualify your opinions and that's all you can muster?

>>33305
>Avatar actually had a fuckton of thought put into it

Yeah.....when it was still called Pocahontas. The only thought that went into the movie itself was into the special effects much the same as the much maligned prequels but Avatar gets a pass because hair sex.

>I agree that it's incredibly uneven.

Uneven would mean there is atleast as many good things in the EU as bad. Be it books, comics, games, or even action figures (it took them forever to make a decent looking stormtrooper action figure) they are predominately bad even if to varying degrees. The books especially have far more crap then gold.

>The thing is: how is this shallow compared to the movies?

They are shallow compared to the movies because much of the shit was just retreads of the movies. Most of it was yet more Luka, Leia, and Han adventures fighting yet another Imperial threat with yet another superweapon. It was so lazy they refought long vanquished foes including the Emperor, Fett and Maul. They even repeated the twins with similar sounding names thing.

>They're good movies, but they ain't deep. And that's okay! That isn't criticism. Star Wars was never really attempting to be deep in the original trilogy,

They are certainly more deep then alot of shit even if they are still pretty shallow. The plot is more then just a paper thin hack job there only to show pretty effects.

>the prequels show what a bad idea a real attempt was.

No, the Prequels show us what a bad idea making shit for fanboys is because you can't please fanboys.

>>33306
>I asked for you to qualify your opinions and that's all you can muster?

I can muster more if you insist. Deeper is better (though not good) because there is some effort put into it. Someone tried to make something good, something new and possibly original. They might fail but still an effort was made.

Shallow works are invariably garbage because no effort was put into them. They are a slapped together shit heap that relies on special effects or thrills to carry the thing, not plot, not characters.

Why is Transformers inferior to 2001? Clearly they were both special effects driven and one can argue roboballs and all Transformers effects beat out 2001's models and props. But 2001 A Space Odyssey has a story behind it. The effects serve the story, the story isn't just there to move from special effect to special effect.

>>33307
>Yeah.....when it was still called Pocahontas.

I'm sorry. Are you attempting to tell me Disney's Pocahontas is deep? Where's the depth? Just around the riverbend? Hell, there's more depth in Pocahontas 2, where Pocahontas realizes John Smith is kind of a douche and breaks up with him (seriously). Of course they cut out the part where she's a young teenager when she meets Smith and later dies of disease but ANYWAY depth ain't really a thing here

>Most of it was yet more Luka, Leia, and Han adventures

What do you think the audience wanted, here?

>No, the Prequels show us what a bad idea making shit for fanboys is because you can't please fanboys.

"I know what pleases fanboys! Trade negotiations. Fanboys fucking love trade negotiations. Oh! and put in HOVER SENATORS. And make sure they know Jedis don't fuck, not ever. Or they turn evil. MIDICHLORIANS."

>Shallow works are invariably garbage because no effort was put into them.

I disagree. A hell of a lot of effort was put into Star Wars (and Jurassic World, and Avatar, et cetera). But only so much "depth" can fit into a two hour movie that's aimed at a broad audience. If you want depth you have to go to a different genre. Not space fantasy.

>>33307
>dat pic
Decompression!

>>33308
>I'm sorry. Are you attempting to tell me Disney's Pocahontas is deep?

Its certainly derper then the shit ripping it off though considerably less deep then the real story it rips off. Its a story about societal traditions and their limits, meeting new peoples, prejudices, creepy tree grandmas, and I think a hunting subplot.

>What do you think the audience wanted, here?

They wanted a continuation of the Star Wars story but they wanted something new too, they wanted existing characters to grow and new characters that were the equal of the old to be introdouched. The main complaint alot of people had back in the day though was the fact its seemed like the big 3 were in everything to the point of absurdity. Its the same complaint people have (had) about Tattoine appearing in everything.

>I know what pleases fanboys.......

They weren't trying to please fanboys, which was part of the problem kinda considering the people that would be watching this and most vocal about their hate would be the fanboys. The average movie goer didn't seem to hate the Prequels, children who grew up with them love them, casual Star Wars fans like them well enough until the internet told them they shouldn't.

Fanboys were the ones who hated them with such flaccid penis fury. They were pissed because Lucas told his story, put on screen the midichlorians and Anakins that he'd be writing about since the 70s. The fanboys wanted their story told, they wanted their fanfiction about the Clone Wars to match what was on screen. They wanted massive fights between Jedi clones with Mandalorian commandos flying around fighting Jedi General OB-1 and big breasted green alien women jumping on trampolines.

They didn't get that so they were pissed.

And Jedi are allowed to have sex but can't form attachments. So they can fuck but no cuddling afterwards.

>I disagree. A hell of a lot of effort was put into Star Wars (and Jurassic World, and Avatar, et cetera)

I disagree with your disagreement. Star Wars had alot of work put into with multiple completely different scripts made before the final product and thats without even getting into the effort to get it made dealing with the studio and the fact some of the techniques to do the movie had to be invented.

Avatar had alot of effort put into making it shiny and chrome and a crapton of effort into its marketing. Jurassic World had alot of effort put into making it nostalgic and creating a realistic reaction to Jimmy Fallon "comedy". Neither had much of a story beyond the stuff they ripped off and neither had much in the way of new technology or techniques developed just for the films.

Now that ain't me trashing Jurassic World (though it is me trashing Avatar because Avatar is as bad as people make out the prequels to be) but it was still a very derivative movie. And kinda stupid at times. Like seeing the old abandoned Park, it was awesome but kinda stupid. So was the raptor and T-Rex team-up fight, awesome but stupid. Or the iMurdersaurus Rex, really awesome but so goddamn pants on head retarded in every way.

>>33307
Oh, you actually think film is a narrative medium. That's pretty sad if I'm being honest.

Again, define what the hell you think 'deep' means. What is the deepest movie in your opinion? What is the shallowest?

Is Collateral a deep movie because it broke ground with digital photography? Was it deep because Michael Mann started developing a new style of cinema by embracing the strengths of digital cameras? Or was it shallow because the story could be boiled down to "hitman forces cabbie to drive him around to his hits?"

And Star Wars isn't deep. It is the archetypal hero's journey, something that had been around for centuries before 1977. All it did was put it in a fantastical space setting. Which, when you think about it, is exactly what Avatar did.

>>33311
>Oh, you actually think film is a narrative medium.

Films are a narrative medium as much as they are visual. They have a script, a story structure. They tell a story not just show pretty pictures. Well atleast a good movie does.

>Again, define what the hell you think 'deep' means. What is the deepest movie in your opinion? What is the shallowest?

Deep means having some thought, some emotion, evokes feelings from the viewer, not shallow. Has some depth to it, not something that has all the depth of the average porn movie.

And I don't know what I'd consider the deepest, I don't watch a ton of movies. Probably right now I'd consider The Fisher King because its probably the only movie I've watched recently that wasn't shallow action bullshit. The shallowest would probably be some shitty parody movie like Starving Games.

>Is Collateral a deep movie because it broke ground with digital photography? Was it deep because Michael Mann started developing a new style of cinema by embracing the strengths of digital cameras? Or was it shallow because the story could be boiled down to "hitman forces cabbie to drive him around to his hits?"

I can't comment on the story because its been forever since I watched it and I'm unlikely to watch it again because of the actor in it but it sounds like it is technically deep while its story is shallow kinda like AvatavA.

>And Star Wars isn't deep. It is the archetypal hero's journey, something that had been around for centuries before 1977. All it did was put it in a fantastical space setting. Which, when you think about it, is exactly what Avatar did.

Which is why I never said Star Wars was that deep. But its deeper then Avatard because it actually took that story and did a little bit different with it. It might have closely follow the Joseph Campbell guide to the stereotypical heroes journey pretty closely but it wasn't a 1 for 1 lift of an earlier stories like King Arthur. LotRs, or Wizard of Oz (though Oz could only have been improved with lazer swords).

Avatar is pretty much a direct copy of the Disneyfied Pokeherhotass, fuck they couldn't even change John Smith's name all that fucking much. Never has a name been so on the nose since John Conner as a Jesus Christ metaphor (which really fucks with your head considering they pretty much turned him into the devil in Genisys, I guess the atheist conspiracy or something).

And thats pretty much par for course with James Cameron movies, rip-offs of other shit. Terminator is a rip-off of some Harlan Ellison stories, Aliens is Starship Troopers meets Vietnamistan, the Abyss rips off a HG Wells story with a similar name, and who knows what True Lies was rip-off from. Titanic however was a completely original tale clearly inspired by nothing NOTHING else clearly.

>>33304
Watching post original trilogy movies is a stab of cock in the brain by comparison

>>33306
Faggot your entire quibble is you 'don't understand why people think its deep', well I'm giving you one answer, don't fucking complain about an answer you asked for

>>33311
Actually what Avatar did was rip off verbatim a Judge Dredd 2000ad comic (The Fire Kind), it had nothing to do with Pocahontas, Cameron knew of the 2000ad comic through a friend

In this comic a blue savages live in trees, have a psychic connection to their planet and fly on dragons
They try to stop a corporation from mining a rare mineral on their planet of floating rocks because the largest mineral concentration is below their home forest
Oh and and one of the miner researchers goes turncloak to help them

The plugging his body into an avatar is from Call Me Joe, which is a famous novel literally everyone into science fiction has read, I could forgive that element

>archetypal hero's journey
Look at the cute sophist trying to sound all intellectual! Except Pocahontas was a real person

>Oh, you actually think film is a narrative medium.
What's sad is that people like you exist and vote with your wallets to ruin an entire art form

Star Wars hasn't been good since Return of the Jedi in 1983.

Abrams has never directed a good film in his life.

Why would you even get your hopes up for this.

>>33308

I FUCKING LOVE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

FUCK YES

>>33313
>Avatar is pretty much a direct copy of the Disneyfied Pokeherhotass, fuck they couldn't even change John Smith's name all that fucking much.

Okay, real talk: how long has it been since you've seen Pocahontas? I think I was a bit too mean to it--it does have some great music, and Hunchback of Notre Dame pretty much proves you don't need to be true to source material to make a good narrative--but I'm not seeing these total parallels with Avatar at all. A lot of movies about [usually white male but not always] explorers encountering other cultures play with the same tropes. It's not copying Pocahontas, it's just part of the same genre.

>>33320
Also--I think we have to prepare for big differences between the core 7-8-9 trilogy and the other movies that are going to be coming out in the franchise. Rogue One is probably going to be a lot grittier and possibly more "deep," whatever the fuck that means, while the core three will be family and kid-merchandise friendly movies.

It's like the difference between the Avengers movies (look at all these guys meeting up and being together and explosions! Golly gee wow buy the set, the Captain America movies (hey kids my ex girlfriend is an old lady with Alzheimers) and Daredevil (we're allowed to do what on Netflix? Awesome let's do it then).

>>33320
Its been awhile, atleast since a kid but I know the basic story John Smith comes to the New World under orders from Governor guy who in reality got a tepee for Pocahontas, meets the natives, falls in love with a already called for native girl, assists the natives in fighting off the outsiders, and gets the native girl after the dude she didn't love gets offed.

Its pretty much the same story for Avatar just.....IN SPACE!!!!! and done even more poorly.

Now its a pretty common trope that Avatar and Pocahontas play in, the white savior troper, that includes such movies as the very similar Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, and Far Cry 3 but Avatar and Pocahontas aren't just similar but practically clones of each other just one clone is a blue kitty alien and the other has mouse ears.

>>33321
I don't mind differences between the movies honestly, one of the things I defend the PT trilogy about. Its a different feeling then the OT and that makes sense. Its a different age, a peaceful age that moves into a age of open warfare where all the war fighting machines were brand spanking new.

The OT is in an age after that war in a time of continuing strife but no major open warfare. All the space planes and shit are worn from decades of use, all the people have been living for atleast 2 decades under the heel of the Empire.

The ST should be even more different being 50 years after the fall of the Old Republic and 30 since the Empire collapsed. 50 years since the Jedi were common. 50 years since there was peace. 30 years for people to start thinking that maybe the Empire wasn't so bad. 30 years of mismanagement by the idiot New Republic.

The ST should be as far removed from the OT as the PT is from the OT if not more.

  >>33320
>Pocahontas

Dances With Wolves is MUCH closer to Avatar, except it was a good movie.

  Hey guis, they just released the final trailer for Force Awakens!

Does feels!

The nerd rage is palpable in this thread.

Thanks for the laughs.

>>33298
>>33303

I particularly like the "You are not a real SW fan because you did not watch the originals" Even though they have been re-released 23748923749238742 times in multiple forms of re-masters, and you make an assumption that she has only seen the movies once.


Overall.
Regarding this part of the discussion
>But the movies aren't deep! They always were a bit shallow.

Star Wars was written and shot in the Wagner operatic style. The three acts (IV, V and VI) cover that gambit of story telling to a T.

Star Wars at the core is an action adventure saga. Some of you are critical of the series because the action adventure movie does not delve into hours of ancillary character development and then lob insults such as plebian for those who do not agree with that point of view.

Stare at the slide and watch this develop. It is about "deep" as you seem to be able to fathom in story telling.

>>33328
>if you don't like a shit movie with a cookie-cutter plot you have no culture
OOOHH KAAAAAY BUDDY!!! Just because there are trends and tropes in cinema does not mean the director can get away with making zero original contribution aside from signature lens flares, a hero with a thousand faces isn't meant to be used to justify laziness you fucking philistine sophist

>>33337
The irony of your post.

Thank you for proving my point.

>>33325
Epic work!

Apparently there is some big push happening about the movie in Russia, and the Russian government is on board.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/darth-vader-statue-unveiled-in-ukraine-151407101.html

>>33339
>about the movie in Russia, and the Russian government is on board
>vader-statue-unveiled-in-ukraine
>in-ukraine
Never change, Merica, never change.

>>33340
Implying that Ukraine is not a sock puppet for Russia at this point.

Never change RT shill, never change.

  >Ukrainians in American police uniform arrest a Ukrainian citizen in American costume
I dare say it is hard to underestimate such kind of allegory.

>>33341
>Ukraine
>sock puppet for Russia
Would you like to try to be convincing, at least?

>>33342
proofs from your own news organization.

https://www.rt.com/news/319792-star-wars-elections-ukraine/

I saw this trailer for the first time last week. When is this supposed to take place? I see an old Han Solo played by Ford but then I thought I saw a Darth Vader looking figure again.

In lieu of watching the actual movies usually I just read the Wikipedia articles, but I did watch the Red Letter Media critique for Episode III.

I've grown up around the impression that the original trilogy was only culturally significant because of developments in special effects and because at the time, due to their familiarity with most students they were a good classroom example of showing the Joseph Campbell hero's journey model.

These days I think the focus is supplanted by more effective use of CG and I don't think the franchise is even a fraction as significant in post-millenial fandoms, but then again I've been out of the loop for this sort of thing for a long while now.

Also, my brother said that people shouldn't get to wound up about it, because we'll see about fifty more in our lifetime.

Personally I don't think US production models can pull that off, because the closest thing to that sort of consistency I can think of are the Dr. Who series.

Also also, I couldn't bring myself to watch the Hobbit live-action films once I found out about Evangeline Lilly's character.

I get it, I get it, about adaptations and whatnot, and yeah LotR wasn't perfect either, and I'm sure there are a couple examples somewhere in my head of things I enjoyed in media that I knew weren't part of the source material, but in this case introducing a completely original character is something that at the end of the day I just can't get over in order to watch and enjoy the movies.

Like, I know Tolkien's estate refused to sell the rights to Unfinished Tales and the Sil, but Jesus, there had to have been somebody actually named that they could have used, even if they had to mischaracterize or exaggerate, if you really had to balance out the cast.

  Apparently... This appears still prepared to be ready to rock your motherfucking world.

>>33375

Those tie fighters coming in from the sunset...

>>33376
Yeah, I gotta admit that shot was pretty badass. If nothing else the cinematography when it ain't blinding with lens flare should be beautiful.

Thats one of my main complaints about the 1st two prequels is they didn't have any real shots that made me go "wow".

Episode 3 was chock full of them (the opening shot of the Battle of Coruscant, sexy curly haired Padme and little orphan Ani staring in silence while some pretty damn good music plays, the Jedi Temple on fire, Anakin about ready to murder some kids, Anakin kill fucking the Seps while having the worse case of pink eye ever and more) but Episode 1 and 2 didn't have shit.

TFA looks like its going to have some pretty amazing looking setpieces that will make me go wow. Already shit we've seen like the crashed Star Destroyer, the Imperial.....sorry First Order rally and the Flametroopers flammenwerfing some people look like it will be bretty cool.

I just hope they didn't stick all the cool shots in the trailers like some movies do.

>>33376

>>33382
I'll give JJ Abrams one thing; he's damn good at setting up visual spectacles. I'm not a superfan of the two ST movies he did, they're certainly very different in feel than the old series', but damn, did they have some beautiful shots or what? That scene were the Enterprise comes up out of the ocean in the second one, or the fight scene on the planet-boring-thingy in the first one...those were amazing.

>>33385
You fucking said it dude. The Abrams Trek were....okay. The story was meh. I enjoyed the first well enough though the 2nd was dumb wannabe Wraith of KHANNNNNNN!!! KHANNNNNNNN!!! with some 9/11 truther shit in it but both movies visually were top notch. Pretty much any shot was scenery porn (I particularly love any shot with the Vengeance).

Of course thats a problem alot of Trekkies had with those movies is the fact they were all style and no substance. Thats what I fear Abrams will do with the sequel trilogy.

  >>33384

>>33384
>dude apocalypse now lmao

>>33392

Here's what we know based on leaks.
>Evil Empire rules galaxy, fought by a plucky rebellion led by a Princess.
>Introduced to a Desert world, where an old ally of Rebels has spent decades in hiding
>secret message placed by Rebel Leader inside cute droid before capture
>Cute droid becomes property of desert kid with mysterious past and dreams of galactic adventures
>Our youthful heroes find an old man who tells them about the Force and mentors them. Also, Chewbacca and the Millennium Falcon are involved
>One of the heroes learns he can use the Force. Is given Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber
>Millennium Falcon accidentally runs into planet-sized Imperial Superweapon
>Heroes learn Rebel Leader is imprisoned on Superweapon, devise plan to rescue prisoner
>Mentor character audience has grown to love dies
>angst.jpg
>Heroes escape
>Rebels devise last-ditch plan to stop Imperial Superweapon


Also:
>Alien Cantina
>Tiny wise mystical green alien
>masked Villian who uses the Dark Side
>Bigger Dark Side villain who is only hinted at who is masked villain's boss and rules Empire
>Mysterious gun-toting villain who is made to look cool
>Crazy plot-twist family relationship reveals


So..
It's 'A New Hope' reboot with some story hooks from 'The Empire Strikes Back' thrown in, with enough nostalgia to make it past people's critical faculties.

>>33441

That's not a planet, that's a battlestation.

[dies]

>>33444

It's a Death Planet this time that kills stars. Instead of a Death Star that kills planets.

So its totally different, right guys?

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/

This was worth the read. And it makes me want to rewatch the OT/PT in a marathon.

Apparently, George Lucas didn't just shit out the PT like we all thought he did, he actually did a lot of very, very specific things that all line up very cohesively across all six movies.

>>33446

You mean he copied the basics of Wagner's operatic style? Most specifically from 'Der Ring des Nibelungen'? Yup.

>>33448
Wagner didn't invent that way of telling stories, and Star Wars has been called "space opera" since before the prequels, but basically, yes.

Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief. Nothing's truly original, everything's based on something that came before, with a new idea added to it, a new paint job, and some spin.

>>33449

Eh not begrudging him for it, some concepts are so basic and intrinsic now that they're virtually impossible to claim it was 'stolen', more just that its in the public domain for use.

>>33450
There still has to be _something_ original in the movie, even if it's just an interesting composition of a bunch of pre-existing tropes.

J.J. Abrams clearly lacks even that.

>>33454
It's not that Lucas didn't make a very original trio of films, it's just that it was a Wagnerian opera set in space. He used storytelling techniques and structures that add up to a fairly deep composition, if one is inclined to dig a little deeper.

In the end, Lucas' films have two layers. There's the grand, visual, adventurous film, and then a deeper layer of philosophy that's got something to say. Which is good, most good films do that.

Abrams is not known for this. He's fantastic at making grand, adventurous visual spectacles, but there's probably not going to be a great deal of depth, no messages within the movie. I mean, feel free to point out where I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything in either of the two latest ST movies. Not even "war is bad".

>>33455

Its an opera with lasers. People watching this dumb crap are digesting a form of high culture without even knowing it.

In this, I highly applaud Lucas even if his actual content creation was... rough, to say the least. The concept of the space opera is of classical composure moving past ancient mythology and into modern reality and future-looking mythology...

>>33454

...Which yes, JJ cannot say for himself, and he is a hack who should just go crawl into a hole and never come out again.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Some of the wepons of Star Wars The Force Snoozes. Some appear based or built on real weapons and real optics though atleast to my untrained eye the optics look backwards alot of times.

First the two stock Cap'n Phasma blaster.

The Nu-Stormtrooper blaster. Apparently its magazine is on the opposite side from a real Sterling for easier holstering.

Apparently the folding stock on the E-11s and F-11s are not stock but grips. From what I heard the Sterlings buttplate was used as a grip anyway so I guess it works.

This one appears to be based on a 1911 judging by the trigger and eject button.

This one I assume to be a complete fabrication though maybe its based on an BB gun considering the CO2 cartridge thats part of it.

I guess made from a Sterling casting maybe? Also the scope looks backwards.

Finn's shoota after he turns into a damn dirty Rebel......I mean Resistance Scum. Looks to be based on a G-36 meaning the Resistance might be fighting the Evil Empir.......First Order but they are using the products of another. Because even in another galaxy H&K thinks you suck and hates you.

I assume a complete fabrication.

Appears to be a bog standard DH-17 as seen in the OT which was based on the Sterling.

Based on a Sig maybe?

Another that I'm guessing is a complete fabrication with a Co2 cartridge stuck on it.

No fracking idea.

This one should be incredibly obvious to figure out what it is.

Another shot of the Finn blaster with stock extended giving even more evidence of its G-36 nature. I wonder if it too overheats and melts if it fires too much and there was a bunch of shady shit done by the company and government to cover the shit up?

Possibly a complete fabrication. Dunno. The grip looks vaguely familiar but its at a bad angle for me to tell what it might be.

Another that I have no fucking clue.

Another possible complete fabrication. Looks to be the same gun Rey handles (she can handle my gun if you get my meaning) in the trailer. Looks a bit like a "futurized" DL-44.

The new Stormtrooper grenade replacing the thermal detonator. Appears to have part of a AR sight on the top. Why would they need a sight for a grenade?

And the Elite Stormtrooper grenade. Some fairly interesting props.

>>33477
Not gonna lie, I want that.

Those props look like absolute fucking garbage tbh fam. Only JewJew would think painted plastic would be acceptable.

>>33497
Uhhhm, jew may not realize this but in every movie most of the blasters were painted plastic, well resin. There were blank firing E-11s in ANH and ESB but most of the guns were props cast from real guns.

You can bitch about alot of things JJ did but using prop guns cast from real guns is something that was happening since the first movie.

The DH-17 from A New Hope. Clearly not a real gun. Clearly a kinda shitty casting with some paint slapped on.

Pretty obviously based on a STG-44 but also clearly not made from a real one.

Parts from a M16 and some airgun.

A considerably better casting. Still not a real gun though.

>>33499
BlasTech DH-17 Blaster Pistol

One of the weapons utilized by the Rebels in the films is the "BlasTech DH-17 blaster pistol". These blasters are first seen in A New Hope used by Rebel troops against Stormtroopers on the blockade runner Tantive IV and are later seen being carried by guards and officers on the Death Star. These were nonfunctional props with the receiver and pistol grip based on casts from a Sterling SMG (hence the larger trigger guards) and a (back then) distinctive looking Singlepoint OEG (Occluded Eye Gunsight) attached. Consequently, the muzzle flashes were added in post-production. There is an interesting continuity error where a couple of Imperial guards start off carrying this weapon but then switch to the E-11, firing it one handed like a pistol no less. This is perhaps because they looked similar enough and blanks provided a better reference point for adding blaster effects later.
In The Empire Strike Back, it is the weapon of a few Rebel soldiers on Hoth and a couple of guards on Darth Vader's Super Star Destroyer. For the film, the DH-17s were made from real Sterlings and were usable props that could actually fire. Despite the prop upgrade, the weapon had very little overall screen time during the film. http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Star_Wars

>>33498
>hero guns were modified existing weapons
>now they're abysmally painted and finished pieces of plastic shit like >>33483 and >>33481

Have you ever considered thinking before posting?

>>33505
>Have you ever considered thinking before posting?

Nope but neither have you.

There was firing guns in ANH and ESB but a majority of the guns weren't, even hero guns. Han Solo's DL-44 was a real gun in ANH but after that prop walked off it was always a resin casting of the original gun or built from shitty pot metal Model Gun Corporation replicas.

There were few if any actual weapons in ROTJ, all were cast replicas or built on shitty replicas. Even the Sterling E-11 was made off of MGC replicas and castings. While most weren't painted as terribly as some of The Force Sleeps in Ten Minutes props some like >>33499 were and just as poorly made.

So clearly you a force damned moron bitching about how Abrams ruined Star Wars and blah blah bitch bitch when your bitching is fucking moronic considering what you are bitching about is old hat for Star Wars.

>>33486
looks more like a Zastava EZ-9 with grip panels cut short of the beavertail.

Look, we all know that Star Wars is a big toy commercial, right?

If they're gonna sell a bunch of kids fake guns, you might as well have them look like fake guns so no one gets Swatted.