From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article , Cyber kNight
wrote:
> Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 21:30
> > In article , Cyber kNight
> > wrote:
> > > Your Name wrote on Tue, 23 August 2016 02:36
> > > In article
> > > , Cyber
> > > kNight
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> Your Name wrote on Tue, 09 August 2016 17:17
> > >>> In article
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We don't want nor need a supposedly "better" story ... we already
> > >>>> have the story. Making a new one is simply Disney being egotistical
> > >>>> and making a confused mess of the franchise. :-\
> > >>>
> > >>> That already happened with episodes I-III.
> > >>
> > >> No it didn't. The Prequel Trilogy is what George Lucas had
> > >> (semi)planned all along ... he said virtually from the start that he
> > >> started in the middle (with Episode IV) because he knew people would
> > >> find the start of the story less interesting.
> > >>
> > >> Even if it had done, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he
> > >> wanted with *HIS* creation.
> > >
> > > Certainly the basic story of Anakin becoming Darth Vader was more or
> > > less planned (or at least in the back of Lucas' mind) all along but
> > > much of the storytelling, particularly in Episode I, was a confused
> > > mess.
> >
> > No it wasn't. The complaints from the whiners about Episode I were due
> > to it be "boring" (as Lucas said they would) and because they didn't
> > like Jar Jar Binks (who is little different to the Ewoks or the droids'
> > banter) or the supposed racial steretypes (after whining there wasn't
> > enough "diversity" in the Original Trilogy).
>
> I disagree.
You can disagree all you want ... it doesn't alter the actual facts
though.
> > > > Disney now owns Star Wars because George Lucas sold it to
> > > > Disney (as he also had every right to do) and so now they have
> > > > every right to do whatever they want with it.
> > >
> > > No they don't. They may own the legal rights, but they did not
> > > create the idea. I could own the Mona Lisa, but it would still be
> > > abhorrent to any sane person if I was to draw a moustache and
> > > Harry Potter glasses on it simply because *I* thought it looked
> > > better that way.
> >
> > So you are saying that Lucas did not have the right to sell
> > his ownership of the franchise to someone else to create
> > stories in?
Where did I even remotely say that??? :-\
> > > >>>> It's too late ... JJ Abrams so-called "Episode VII" *IS*
> > > >>>> simply a lazy reboot of the original movies. The talentless
> > > >>>> idiot simply copied most of his movie from the Original
> > > >>>> Trilogy (plus a bit of the Rebels animated show with an
> > > >>>> orphaned main character), and then, similar to his Star
> > > >>>> Drek mess, tried to disguise such stupidity by making it
> > > >>>> seem like part of the same franchise. The reason so many
> > > >>>> people like Episode VII is because it basically is the
> > > >>>> Original movie again. :(
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The problem with continuing a franchise years later is that
> > > >>> you have to introduce new viewers in addition to appeasing
> > > >>> the existing fans.
> > > >>
> > > >> The existing fans have already introduced their kids to the
> > > >> Saga via the various theatrical and DVD releases (as well as
> > > >> occasional TV broadcasts) over the years.
> > > >
> > > > No doubt many have but others have not and of course there are
> > > > many others who are not children of existing fans.
> > >
> > > That's what DVDs are for.
> > >
> > > There was absolutely no need at all to reboot or recreate the
> > > original movies ... or *ANY* franchise - never was, is, never
> > > will be ... other than Jar Jar Abrams' complete lack of creative
> > > talent, sheer laziness, and over-bloated ego thinking he knew
> > > better than George Lucas (the guy who actually had the talent to
> > > come up with the idea!).
> >
> > Despite the derivative aspects of Episode VII there were unique
> > pieces as well and it was still a sequel, not a reboot (for which
> > I am personally thankful for).
All idiotic "reboots" have their own silly ideas ... that's what make
them a "reboot" rather than a "remake".
And yes, Episode VII was an idiotic "reboot", but like Abram's Star
Drek, it's pretending not to be, and also just like Abrams' Star Drek,
failing miserably to convince to anyone with actual eyes and a brain
who see it.
> > > > If you hate Abrams so much, why did you watch the movie? Do
> > > > you still plan to watch the rest? You seem to have already
> > > > pre-judged them.
> > >
> > > Jar Jar Abrams' is a talentless, over-hyped cretin. Everything he
> > > touches is a disastrous mess, and he then jumps ship when he gets
> > > bored leaving others to try and tidy up the crap he leaves behind.
> >
> > Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are
> > obviously many people who like his movies despite whatever
> > you may think of them.
Him being a cretin is perhaps an opinion. Everything else is an
observable fact.
> > > I certainly have never and will never pay to see his crap in a
> > > movie theatre. I only bought the DVD of his Star Wars "reboot"
> > > to complete the set, but regret doing that.
> >
> > Yet you apparently still watch them.
I watched the start of Alias and got conned by the over-hyping of Lost,
both of which turned out to be hopeless messes and quickly dropped from
the "will watch" list. His idiotic Star Drek movies were easy enough to
not bother watching after seeing the first trailer and reading about
it. T same with his silly Star Wars reboot. I certainly won't be
bothering to ever watching anything else the cretin foists about the
unwary public.
> > I guess one piece of good news from your perspective will be that
> > Abrams is not involved in at least the next couple of Star Wars
> > movies.
Wrong. Abrams is currently in control of the Saga movies (not the
up-coming Rogue One, Young Hand Solo, etc, although he no doubt added
his worthless 0.000001c to those too) ... at least until he gets bored
and moves on to his next disaster.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
