Customer Discussions > Movie forum

The Star Wars VII-IX Official Discussion Forum


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 645 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 6:07:42 AM PST
D. Larson says:
I ignore the effort side because the whole midichlorian business was really stupid. Similarly, I refuse to think about a planetary civilization of stone-age teddy bears.

You can give a lot of absurdities (like walking tanks) some space to breathe, because they look cool. You can overlook some sciency unlikelinesses (blowing up planets; didn't even look that cool) because they advance the plot. But the midchlorian thing didn't even look cool or advance the plot. It was just dumb.

George Lucas knows what looks cool. He's got the technical resources to make those cool things look great. But Lucas has a tin ear for dialog and a plodding sense for exposition. Maybe the Disney folks can retain the looking cool and fuse it with exciting, unpredictable story telling.

I've decided that Fisher, Hamill and Ford should have no part in the new movies. Clean sheet of paper, start fresh, shrug off the dead hand of the past, and begin from scratch. Reboot, out with the old, in with the new, fill the thermos with coffee and go deer hunting!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 7:21:59 AM PST
S. Stalcup says:
"I think what bothers some fans (I does me a little) is that the midichlorian business somewhat takes away from the mysticism of the Force."

Yep, it becomes something you can catch off a public toilet. "The Force is strong with this one. You can tell by the sore on his lip."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 10:48:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 11:07:33 AM PST
gambitrmp says:
So the whole thing with Luke in Dagoba meant nothing to you?

The way I see it Han Solo bests Luke in combat if Luke never meets Ben or Yoda so training counts but you're welcome to ignore that.

I'd prefer to ignore the midiclorian part if I'm going to ignore one or the other between training & "mystic voodoo" ... damn I think that almost sounded like Han & not on purpose.

Edit: I look at it about the same as I do religeon in the real world. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true but it often affects thier confidence & confidence can sometimes work wonders. To me people who credit god with thier accomplishments are simply "selling themselves short" but I don't expect to convince anyone of that, just stating my personal belief.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:22:05 AM PST
D. Larson says:
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid!

Now, as Obi Wan Guiness says, "The force is an energy field created by all living things, it surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together. It is what gives a Jedi his powers."

Compare that to, "the force is controlled by a lot of virus particles in your bloodstream."

Which one has more dramatic power? I'm going with the recycled Carlos Castaneda business; you can keep your protozoan parasites.

Luke's training.... Does it seem kind of over-the-top for Luke to be so bummed at Ben's death on the Death Star? "I can't believe he's gone!" Luke, you only knew him for maybe thirty minutes. And your training with the blast shield down, what was that? Five minutes worth?

I don't know how much time Luke spends in the Degoba swamps levitating with Yoda, but in screen time, it feels like a couple three days. Quick study Luke!"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:40:38 AM PST
gambitrmp says:
Different people explain religeous concepts different ways. Heck even the midiclorian counter they used on Anakin could measure something like blood sugar for all I know. So they train people with lots of energy??

I don't know but it's a concept I can live with. Maybe it even seems to make the Jedi sound less intelligent in a way but I can deal with that as well.

Luke did have to go back to Dogoba to complete his training to actually be good not only have a half understanding that didn't match up to an aging Vader in the least & in that time they sent other people to try to free Han. We don't know how long that took & I'm not speculating. I do figure we only saw the tip of the iceberg in Luke's training though. Fast learner indeed probably as well considering most are trained from childhood (like gymnasts I suppose).

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 12:16:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 12:17:43 PM PST
gambitrmp says:
On the recasting front I think the guy who plays Dinozo on NSIC might have the right balance of ability to play Han's "charming cockiness" and such. Although I'm not sure what he'd do differently to come across as Han & not Dinozo since the two characters do share many characteristics so maybe not a good choice for NCIS fans??

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 1:06:50 PM PST
S. Stalcup says:
They'd probably need a wig for Michael Weatherly if they went that angle.

Actually, on a related line, Mark Harmon might be a really good stand-in for Ford as Han Solo as well.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 9:11:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 9:16:43 PM PST
Anthony L. says:
You're right Cavardossi.
Do NOT try to explain the force away again, George Lucas.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 5:24:23 AM PST
gambitrmp says:
Isn't Mark Harmon about as old as Harrison Ford? I was thinking of someone who could play a younger Han Solo. Harrison Ford can just do it if he's going to be an aging Han Solo.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 5:45:58 AM PST
W.T. says:
I thought the problem with Indy 4 wasn't so much Lucas as Spielberg. He made the tone of the movie too over-the-top during that prolonged chase scene that ended with the ants. That ten minutes or so of the movie needed a more serious tone, and Spielberg was going for laughs.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 5:54:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012 6:00:09 AM PST
Cavaradossi says:
The only real problem I had with Indy 4 was that out-of- the-blue other worldly aliens conclusion. It felt like it came from another movie entirely and didn't fit the Indiana Jones universe. Still, from the things I've read about Indy 4 on this forum, I've gotten the impression I'm one of the minority of posters who actually enjoyed the movie.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 6:51:32 AM PST
gambitrmp says:
I liked Indy 4 okay. On a sort of tangent note I was okay with the Alien thing at the end. I mean Alien seems as likely or more likely to me than all the religious mumbo jumbo in the other ones. I know most people would disagree but if you have the Arc, Mola Ram, and such you're already fairly Sci-Fi in my book so why not do Aliens yet?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 7:03:24 AM PST
S. Stalcup says:
"Isn't Mark Harmon about as old as Harrison Ford? "

No, there's about a ten year difference there. That could make all the difference, really.

It certainly is causing Kevin (Elmo) Clash a load of grief.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 7:03:43 AM PST
W.T. says:
I liked it overall myself, except for the campy and unrealistic directing during that chase scene. The CGI ants were a bit too cartoony as well.

I did think the Soviets worked as well as villains as the Nazis ever did. There's room for Indy to fight the Soviets for as long as they want to make movies, no matter who stars.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 7:12:52 PM PST
AndrewA says:
The alien thing sounds ridiculous until you remember the ark blasting people and melting peoples faces, a man pulling a guys heart out and him surviving it, and a cup of water healing a bullet wound.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 7:36:27 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
AndrewA says

My reason for describing the Aliens in Indy 4 as being like a bolt out of the blue refers to their not being of our beliefs, timeline or universe. Even if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian and Hindu traditions, the events and artifacts sought in Indy 1,2, and 3, if sometimes exaggerated, come out of them and are of our world, our timeline, our universe. This is what I mean when I describe the appearance of the Aliens at the end of Indy 4 as not really belonging in an Indiana Jones film. We have a frame of reference for those in the first three films and not for the fourth. Though some modern minds may find the events and artifacts of 1,2, and 3 bizarre, they are "our" bizarre.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 6:03:39 AM PST
Anthony L. says:
I loved Indy 4. Sure compared to the first ones it doesn't add up, but the locations and booby-trapped temples are a visual feast
.
Plus it has an amazing cast - Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, Shia Labouef, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, as well as Harrison Ford and Karen Allen.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 6:04:02 AM PST
Anthony L. says:
UPDATE: J.J. Abrams says he will not direct.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 6:19:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 14, 2012 6:20:09 AM PST
W.T. says:
You know, I usually don't like Shia Labouef's performances, but he did a good job in Indy 4. He did the whole "greaser" schtick well. Really funny, but without being unrealistic.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 9:27:56 AM PST
I enjoyed the 4th Indiana Jones movie too. When it first came out it seemed that all I read online about it were criticisms and complaints so I didn't bother to see it at the theaters, so when a friend of mine who owned a copy of it loaned it to me I thought it was probably going to be lame but it actually turned out to be quite entertaining. I would not mind seeing Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf return to do another one in the series and then maybe pass the torch to Shia, or reboot the series altogether.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 10:34:28 AM PST
W.T. says:
As Harrison ages, they could do it "Nero Wolfe" style where Shia is Indy's "Archie Goodwin" doing all the actual leg work.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM PST
It seemed to me the Aliens in Indy 4 were influenced by those History Channel documentaries of who built the pyramids.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 1:19:48 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
Rock N Rolla

"I would not mind seeing Harrison Ford and Shia LaBeouf return to do another one in the series....."

I totally agree.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 3:28:55 PM PST
Boss Oxmyx says:
Lukas/Spielberg were not trying for consistency. Temple of Doom was patterned after the exotic locale serials of the 1930s. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade were patterned after the WWII influenced serials for the late 1930s and 1940s. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was patterned after the invaders from outer space serials of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 4:06:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 14, 2012 4:33:55 PM PST
C. J. Vasta says:
I believe Harmon's 20 years younger. Someone Ford's age couldn't be an active-duty Naval Investigator. Harmon's about the age Ford was in the '90s when he was doing all those action movies.

I think Ford is closer to Ducky's (David McCallum's) age.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  50
Total posts:  645
Initial post:  Nov 5, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 22, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions