Lothic
-
Posts
6294 -
Joined
-
I think it's safe to say that just about every movie unravels when you over-analyze it. And let's be honest here: every James Bond movie has a sense of "over the top" impossibility that ultimately renders it implausible to some degree or another. No movie is absolutely plot-perfect.
When it comes to how I judge a movie it usually boils down to whether or not I start mentally nit-picking it WHILE I'm watching it or only AFTER it's over. If it's fun enough then I'll usually enjoy my time watching it and not consciously think about the impossibilities until it's done. For me this Bond film was good enough that I really didn't think about its shortcomings until it was over. To me that automatically makes it one of the better Bond films. Was it the best Bond film ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But it was certainly better than many of the other latter-day installments.
For me this Bond was very Nolan-esque "Batman versus Joker" oriented - right down to fight in Bond's version of Wayne Manor with his Scottish version of Alfred. They even drove home the point of Bond being an orphan and showing his parents' graves alluding indirectly to Bruce Wayne's origin story. Might not have been the most original plot idea for a Bond film, but it worked well enough for me. -
Quote:I'm willing to go with the idea that the whole "Vader is Luke's father" deal might not have been the most earth-shatteringly clever plot-twist to hang the entire sci-fi franchise on. If I thought about it I could probably come up with at least several other alternatives that would have been at least as cool. But there's really no way to argue that in its own way the Anakin-Luke storyline was at least functional/interesting enough to keep the entire thing linked together. And yes I'm even willing to concede the likely idea that Lucas was "just making it up as he went along" for the first movie and only dreamt up the father-son twist some time -after- ANH became a hit. In the long run the glorious mess Lucas came up with did work for him regardless of when he conjured it up, all things considered.Originally Posted by Ironik
Ironically, I'm not.
I was 12 when Star Wars came out and 15 when ESB was released. Those 3 years were critical developmental years for me in terms of understanding story craft and appreciating the art of film beyond "Boy, that was cool!" Before that, I basically just consumed science fiction, fantasy and adventure stories without thinking about them critically. But by 1980 I had been formally introduced to (and forced to read) things that were outside my comfort zone. Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Paton, Faulkner, Beckett... knowledge changes your worldview, especially at that age.
On the film front, there was no such thing as cable TV or videotapes yet, so I spent nearly every single weekend at the theatre. It only cost 35 cents to see a matinee, so I would just watch everything. If you look at this list of the top 100 movies from 1980, I saw nearly every one of those in the theatre of my own volition. 1978 and 1979 were the same way. I was there so much that the manager would let me watch a movie twice in a row without making me pay again.
I take your point about Indy, but he is the scion of adventure serials, after all. I'm all for epic, but I just think it was the wrong way to go in the case of Star Wars.
My basic issue with ESB is that the father twist flips everything on its head and revealed that Lucas never had a planned-out "trilogy of trilogies". (Which we later found was true, when long-time producer Katz -- who had been in on the earliest drafts of Star Wars -- told us that Lucas was just making stuff up as he went along.) If you ignore the stuff you've seen and only look at the world from Luke's point of view, the only truthful person he's met is Vader. Kenobi is a liar and he, along with everyone else in the Rebellion, uses Luke for his own ends, which is basically a revenge plot. But they never followed through on that, keeping the story shallow. Until Luke discovers that Vader is his dad, he's keen on killing him. But the *instant* he becomes Dad, suddenly he's worth saving. Bah.
It's just a badly-written movie, too. I don't know why Leigh Brackett is held in such high regard. Hatari is a terrible movie, primarily because the script is awful. Every other movie she has a credit on was heavily rewritten by a more talented screenwriter. Her books are really dull. Even Kasdan coming in at the last minute after she died couldn't do much to save it because the locomotive was already on its way down the track and Lucas was fixated on his big new twist. Kasdan once said that even he made C3PO redundant because he couldn't figure out a way to make him relevant to the core story and he only had a couple weeks to work on the story in the middle of pre-production. Compare the story beats and dialogue of ESB ("nerf-herder") to RotJ ("I dunno, fly casual") as well as the story arcs. What are the two most memorable moments from ESB? "I am your father" and "I know." And the second one was an improvisation by Ford. Jedi, on the other hand, had those moments constantly. "How we doin'?" "Same as usual." "That bad, huh?"
As far as whether or not ESB was "badly written" I think we have to accept the idea that it is relatively unique among the SW films. While you see it as "bad" compared to the others there are people out there who like it better precisely because it is less similar to the "fluffiness" of the others. While I won't go so far as to say ESB was a perfect film as films go, I generally stand by the accepted idea that was one of the better Star Wars films. It introduced the very cool idea that the Jedi and Sith weren't necessarily morally black-and-white. As you say it seemed like Vader, although clearly naughty, was in some ways the only one being honest with Luke. The moral ambiguity introduced here helped drive home not only the real challenge Luke faced towards becoming a Jedi but the consequences of what happened to Anakin in his fall from grace.
As cute one-liners go I'm all for that in most any movie. But just because ESB had fewer of them than other Star Wars movies doesn't really make it a bad Star Wars movie. When you get right down to it the dialogue/acting in ALL the Star Wars movies was fairly awful and wooden because for some reason Lucas liked that I guess.
The Stormtroopers being clones were enough for me as far as this franchise goes. It could get all Scooby-Dooish if overused, especially if half the main characters started turning out to be clones. I guess I'm old school enough to think death ought to be meaningful, at least most of the time.Quote:Originally Posted by Ironik
There's more than one way to go epic. Suppose Obi Wan's name was actually OB-1, aka Old Ben One. He fought in the Clone Wars and Owen calls him Old Ben. He's the first clone, and he's flawed. He tried to do what a Jedi master would, but his greatest mistake was training Vader, who betrayed Kenobi and killed Skywalker, the hero of the Republic. And therein were planted the seeds of the Empire. Make Luke a clone, too, so Kenobi sees him as a way to redeem himself with a second chance to train the student he lost. There are plenty of other ways to go, too, but that's one that immediately presents itself.
I'd argue that most movies made in 1977, 1980 and/or 1983 look relatively crap special effects wise compared to what's being made today. Again I don't think you can really single out ESB as the "worst" of the original three when overall they're ALL fairly antiquated at this point. Even Lucas' vain attempt to "update" them hasn't really helped.Quote:Originally Posted by Ironik
Plus, the special effects. Ugh. They were a real step backward. I don't think anyone really remembers the bizarre boxes around the spaceships because they haven't seen the originals in so long, but for some reason the mattes didn't match so there was this constantly-shifting square around each ship as it moved, which was absolutely horrendous-looking on the big screen.
P.S. I was only 10 when ESB was released. Perhaps I'm simply willing to cut it more slack than you because I first saw it when I was more of a kid than you were. To be honest I sort of hate on RotJ much more mostly because I was just getting to be old enough by then to see more of the franchise's overall silliness - obviously killer teddy bears didn't help.
-
Quote:Well that's certainly an interesting take on things, assuming of course that this post is not just living up to your name.Originally Posted by Ironik
For me, Lucas broke his universe with Empire Strikes Back and the fateful words, "I am your father." That ruined everything. The seeds of awfulness that were the Special Editions and the prequels can be found in the jumbled mess that is ESB, with its terrible dialogue, lame ideas and weak story. Star Wars was youthful and fun and you can excuse the shallowness of it because it has such verve. Trying to introduce adult themes and gray areas into that world simply turned it into a morose juvenile with a bad attitude and worse skin.
To be honest if Lucas had not gone with the "adult" father/son plotline I'm not really sure what the basis of every movie after Ep.IV would have been. Sure Lucas has made plenty missteps over the years, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if you had taken away that core Anakin/Luke dynamic then the entire Star Wars universe would have turned out very differently. Not saying it would have totally sucked that way - just saying its hard to imagine there would have been any point to making (or seeing) any movies past the first one without something like that to link all the movies together.
You mentioned Indiana Jones: while those movies were generally good the fact that there's no core plot thread that connects them all left us with the disjoint weaker installments (Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) to deal with. Those two movies could have not even existed and it would have left us with the two *fun* ones to remember. Disconnected episodic installments like Indiana Jones only go so far - Star Wars only became a true phenomena as soon as a dose of classic epic tragedy was introduced via Anakin Skywalker. Shallow youthful "verve" as you put it would simply not have carried the Star Wars franchise through 6+ movies and 35+ years of popularity. -
Quote:It's true they always implied that heredity had "something" to do with being skillful in the use of the Force. I don't really have any problem with the idea that family lines could play a -part- in predicting future Jedi/Sith. But I still contend that the Midichlorian concept took too much "mystery" out of the whole thing and reduced it down to something as pedestrian as finding out a person's blood type.Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
1 - The Force was always described as in part hereditary - Luke was strong it it, like his father. Leia would to paraphrase Luke 'do what I can do' in time because she was his sister. Yoda and Vader took it as a given that she could be trained/turned for the same reason.
This is actually what I'm most annoyed with when it comes to making the Jedi order monks who don't have families in canon. If the Force runs in family lines and you are recruiting less and less Jedi per year - it's because you're (lack of) breeding the sensitivity out of the population, *********.
2 - The midichlorian thing could haved used a better explanation. It's implied that they're responsible for power in the Force, but not clearly stated. Perhaps they simply flourish in people who are Force sensitive... and that the more sensitive you are the more they flourish (not so much causing Force potential as being nourished by it). An effect, not a cause.
Then again being Lucas probably not. Still, I like my explanation better so it's canon to me (and my SW RPG group, who loved the idea - leaving the Force mysterious yet giving a biological marker for Jedi science to recognize potentials).
The Force worked better when it was a vaguely mystical/magical/wizardly thing that was left in soft-focus for its own good. As soon as it became "scientifically detectable" it suddenly introduced all sorts of uncomfortable questions like "why hadn't the Jedi/Sith actively introduced Gattaca-style eugenics into the galaxy to breed super-Force users?" or "Why wasn't the Galaxy organized into great noble houses with ancient Force-using families ruling the galaxy?" and so on.
Basically the Midichlorian concept represented a huge unnecessary MacGuffin to explain why Anakin was supposed to be the Chosen One. Couldn't he have been the Jedi Messiah due to luck and/or fate without needing a DNA tricorder test that was never mentioned in the original trilogy? My simple answer is yes, and the fact that Lucas barely mentioned them again in Ep II or III demonstrates that he realized it was ultimately a dumb idea (even if it did have its basis in the novels as Nericus pointed out).
I can agree with you on the "two Sith" concept as far as that kept them more significant and menacing. With an army of Sith you'd suddenly have "random Sith #433443" to deal with.Quote:Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
3 - There has only ever always been two Sith in Star Wars. It's never even hinted at that there are more kicking around in the background in the original trilogy. Why not? Palpatine's ruled uncontested for almost 20 years by this point - enough time to track down other force sensitives and turn them to the dark side and make a Sith secret police to cement his power.
Oh. Right. Because twisted by the dark side 'dominating their destiny' they'd probably try to overthrow him. Just like Vader was planning.
The 'two' thing I completely agree with. Plus, as The Old Republic games show, the more Sith you add the less menacing and interesting they become. Less 'oh my god, a Sith!' and more 'faceless minion 433443, with a lightsaber'.
On the other hand it did make the entire Jedi organization look a bit ineffectual when you consider that apparently dozens/hundreds of Jedi couldn't ultimately handle/contain just two evil individuals. I can see how limiting yourself to two members would help you keep a low-profile during years of plotting and planning. But when ready to strike it doesn't seem unreasonable to instantly promote at least a small cadre of Sith Lords to help you fight against an entire galaxy.
Let's put it this way: Somehow Lord Recluse never had much trouble keeping multiple supervillain minions in City of Heroes in-line. If he could have several dozen jokers running around the Rogue Isles then surely there could have been several dozen Sith Lords running around at least when the fighting started... just saying. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Dr_Illuminatis
Cut out the midichlorian thing all together because it weakens the whole force concept in one truly significant way. That if anyone has the insight, instinct, and is so in tune with the Universe, than they have the possibility to be able to use the Force like any Jedi. The reason only Jedi and Sith are able to use it, is that they are the ones who understand how the Universe truly works.
Once he introduced MidiChlorians, that whole thing became mute, you just needed a high midichlorian level to be able to use the force. IMO it weakened the concept significantly.The whole idea of trying to "explain" the Force as a quantifiable, detectable thing was completely misguided and lame for many, many reasons.Quote:Originally Posted by Nericus
No argument there. When they first did the midichlorian test to show Anakin's power level I suddenly flashbacked to DBZ when Vegita said "OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!"
I think what originally made the whole Force concept so appealing was that as long as it was something "without definition" then the individual viewer was free (forced?) to come up with their own rationale for what it was. Was it a form of life-based magic? Was it an expression of some kind of divine influence? Or even was it just a side-effect of little microscopic critters living inside you? The exact "answer" to that question was never really important because the Force can, and should, be whatever -you- want it to be.
Lucas' hamfisted attempt to explain the Force ruined all those perfectly valid fan-generated ideas and attempted to pigeon-hole it into one narrowly-defined (and arguably silly) point of view. Lucas basically lost sight of the fact that the Force was cool BECAUSE it was vague and mysterious. As they say sometimes less is more... -
Quote:Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man
Pretty sure that Posi said almost exactly this during the Loregasm (aka "Ask Me Anything") they did in September.
In a later Twitch video, a few possible Omega Slot powers that were being tossed around in idea-land got mentioned: a pet doppelganger of yourself, an ability that acted like the recent Super Speed pool addition Burnout, a power that circumvented limitations on existing powers (aka, allowed a Controller or Mastermind to summon their pets multiple times). These were by no means set in stone.
As for Genesis, I seem to recall hearing that they were unhappy with the implementation they'd come up with internally and were in the middle of reworking it, without saying what it did... but I don't readily remember the bit in the AMA mentioned by the OP that said they'd be patch powers, either.Yeah that was actually my impression on this all along: The Devs probably had vague ideas about the final powers but nothing set in stone. To be honest I think if the game had not been axed the Devs were going to be hard-pressed to come up with "cool" Incarnate powers that were also not going to be grossly overpowered "I WIN!" buttons. Not even sure how they would have accomplished that. *shrugs*Quote:Originally Posted by Golden Girl
They had a lot of ideas that were changing on a regular basis.
For what it's worth I always hoped for an Incarnate Pet power that would have allowed us to effectively have a single NPC-like "sidekick" - it would've been like what we could design in the Mission Architect where we could establish a basic powerset combo for it and create a costume for it. To keep it from being too overpowered it could have acted independently (like a Controller/Dominator pet) but it would have been very cool. -
Quote:I did my best to like STO when it first launched (if for no other reason than that I'm a multi-decade fan of Star Trek) but I mostly gave up on it after a few short months. Stories like this isn't going to give me motivation to try it again.Originally Posted by Draugadan
What I am not happy about is the response that boils down to "Dude that sucks. Sorry."
-
Quote:As one of this forum's self appointed Devil's Advocates I actually have fonder memories of the many examples of utter gibberish the people have said -against- me because they couldn't conjure up mature/intelligent defenses for their hopelessly faulty arguments. I suppose we all have our own particular "badges of honor" to bear.Originally Posted by Ironik
If you're going to do a vanity search, make it epic.
As a rule I almost never directly praise or deride other people's posts - most don't deserve my time either way. But I must admit that you, Ironik, were one of the better "ironically entertaining" posters here. I suppose that means you can now add my last sentence to your list... go figure. Good luck and take care.
-
I honestly could believe anything from "the Devs had every Incarnate power planned out for years" to "the Devs really had no idea what the last Incarnate powers were going to be and they were just essentially making it up as they went along". Either theory would have an ironic appeal to me.
-
Quote:Yeah the TV show was going to be based around a completely different set of characters, with maybe a cameo or two of the "main" characters from Ep.I-III. It seemed like a reasonable idea that would at least explain what was going on during that period of the timeline.Originally Posted by mousedroid
Yeah, I've known about the possibility of a live action TV show for years now, but supposedly it wasn't going to include any of the main characters, except possibly Fett. I've also known about the 9-part saga since I was a kid, I think George even mentioned the possibility of 12 movies at one time, though he's vehemently denied both possibilities for decades.
Post-Jedi films could be good, if done right, but bringing back Vader and/or recasting all the main characters with younger actors would ruin it for me, so my idea is the only one I can think of that would work for me.
And I agree I don't think it would be a very good idea to do to Star Wars what Abrams did to Star Trek - have a bunch of new actors playing the roles of the original trilogy cast. That worked for Abrams because he was "rebooting" Star Trek. Star Wars is a different situation. I think it would be better for the Ep.VII-IX trilogy to be set far enough in the future that pretty much all of the original trilogy characters would be dead, except for Luke which could be explained by him being a very old Jedi master. In this new trilogy Luke could end up serving the same role Yoda did to a new batch of young Jedi. -
Quote:A few years ago there was talk of a Star Wars TV show that would cover the "16-18 years between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope" that you mentioned. Now that this Disney deal has happened I don't know if something like that would still be in the works or not.Originally Posted by mousedroid
((Cross posted from the "Hasbro" thread because I posted it there by mistake...))
If Disney wants to use Vader in a new movie there is a very easy and acceptable way to do so - don't call the movie Episode VII and instead set it a few years after Episode III.
There's a span of 16-18 years between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope that has never been touched. This material is ripe for development and you can use Vader, Boba Fett, Yoda, Obi-Wan, younger versions of Han and Lando, etc., without resorting to any kind of goofy (no pun intented) plot twists to explain how fan favorites who either apparently, or obviously, died are back.
Hell, in Lucas' tradition of changing things to make them fit, you could even relable ANH, TESB and ROTJ as Episodes VII, VII and IX, and call the new trilogy Episodes IV, V, and VI.
I think this would make much more sense and would be far more readily accepted than trying to continue the story post-ROTJ with a new cast, etc.
Anyway the concept of a post-RotJ Ep.VII, VIII and IX trilogy is not exactly a new idea. There was talk of having a "trilogy of trilogies" happening as far back as the late 1970s. I suspect it has been part of Lucas' Grand Scheme for decades now. *shrugs* -
Quote:The continuing irony here of course is that Sylar was kind of like an evil Sith Lord trying to gain as much power as possible.Originally Posted by Jaso
The empire will chase down Leia through a wormhole that goes back in time to the start of III, Leia will be stuck on an ice planet where she meets a young Han Solo - they blow up the empire ship from the future but now they can retell the whole franchise - Zachary Quinto will be Darth.
-
Quote:Again I'll agree that the Star Wars setting (with it's mix of sci-fi tech and ancient Jedi/Sith magic) could allow for pretty much any kind of "Darth Vader's alive again" twist. I just hope they come up with a better storyline for the new movie than that. Vader's cool and all, but in the immortal words of Dr. McCoy, "He's dead Jim"... They should leave him that way.Originally Posted by GadgetDon
Actually, I was serious with the idea, rocking it, this could be cool, yes it's a way a new Sith Lord could operate without coming into the open. It's only when i got to the point where they unmasked him that the dialog sprung into my head.
As for being unrealistic - first, I think "The Emperor is dead" spreads a lot faster than "Darth Vader is dead". More importantly, this is a universe of superscience and magic (yes, the ways the Force is manipulated might as well be magic). Maybe Vader was flash frozen like Han was and only recently thawed out. Maybe it's a clone. Some will think "OK, it's probably not Anakin Skywalker, but a new incredibly powerful Sith Lord wearing that really scary costume" - and find that's not a great comfort.
All that said, I hope they avoid the temptation. What's great about the story of Darth Vader is that he was the hero, fallen into dark corruption, who at the end finds his soul again. This greater story really got started in Empire Strikes Back (in A New Hope, Vader was pretty much "evil magician from central casting"). It's possible that there could be a story that expands on that journey, possibly dealing with something Vader had done in the time between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, with flashbacks.
But I'm actually hoping that it's mostly a movie with new heroes and new villains. Luke, Leia, and Han have minor roles and are mostly there to hand the reins to the new generation of heroes.
Speaking of Dr. McCoy I'm personally hoping this new movie will borrow directly from ST:TNG and connect to the original trilogy with the appearance of a -single- very old actor from the originals (just like they had the super-old Dr. McCoy talk to Data in the first episode of ST:TNG). The obvious choice to serve this purpose would be Mark Hamill as an old Jedi Master. Like you said he'd be in the movie long enough to "hand over the reins" to the new cast of characters who'd could then have their own trilogy free-and-clear of the previous movies. Sure it might be nice to see more than Luke from the originals, but they really only need one actor to serve that purpose. -
Quote:I'm not going to say it would be impossible for some new villain to emerge who could start calling himself Darth Vader. I'm just having an amazingly hard time reconciling how that kind of "plot twist" would be reasonable or cool in any way, shape or form.Originally Posted by GadgetDon
This was my thought in terms of how it could happen. It would be a real point of confusion for Luke, at least until the confrontation. And Leia - remember, Vader tortured her to try to get the location of the rebel base.
And of course if you are secretly a Sith Lord, hiding in plain sight, it would be a great disguise to go do your villainy without revealing exposing your secret.
Which of course would mean that at some point there would be an revealing where the captured Vader's mask was removed.
"Look! It's Senator Smithers!"
"And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling Jedi."
Consider the obvious: News would spread of Vader's death pretty quickly around the galaxy. Just about the only way a villain could legitimately convince everyone that Vader's "still alive and kicking" would be for him to start acting as Vader within a few days or weeks after the end of RotJ. That way he could personally "dismiss the rumors of his own demise" and rally what's left loyal to the Empire. If the timeframe of this new movie is set to be any longer after Ep.VI than that then I don't think it would be plausibly believable. I mean if Ep.VII is set like 25 or 50 years after RotJ then who's going to believe any version of Vader would be alive after having been known to be dead for 25 or 50 years?
As you implied I think this kind of thing would only be cute in a Scooby-Doo style setting. *shrugs* -
Quote:I honestly find it hard to believe this game was ever worth -that- much but I don't really know offhand so I'm willing to accept your number as much as any. *shrugs*Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Actually. 80 million. And that may or may not have included the customer list.
I simply used $10 million as an arbitrary figure - the actual amount wasn't really relevant to my post. Sadly if CoH was at one time worth $80 million (perhaps before the announcement of the shutdown) I suspect that as of today (a couple of weeks before the shutdown) this game is now only worth something closer to my figure. Once the game shuts down completely the property will ultimately be worth even less... -
Quote:They could probably save the all the character data for the entire playerbase of this game on something like a few terabytes of diskspace give or take. It wouldn't be that difficult to store that on a few hard drives that could be locked in a safe somewhere. My guess is that they'll keep an image of the latest live/beta server builds and those too could be kept on a relatively few hard drives. The server hardware could then be re-used for whatever else they wanted after the shutdown.Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man
I think that legally they have to archive the data for something like 2 or 5 years, but I think you're right otherwise. NCSoft wants this swept under the rug ASAP.
Whatever skeleton crew is currently running the servers now is probably tasked with creating those final archives. Of course the question is whether any of it would ever be used again... -
All we really need is for some eccentric billionaire to drop a spare $10 million or so to buy this game outright from NCsoft - for what it's worth I heard that George Lucas just earned some extra cash recently. Ironically it'd be just that simple, but given that the odds of that happening are effectively nil I prefer to accept the reality that it's time to move on.
It's been a great 8.5 years and I wish everyone well. Good luck with whatever you find yourselves doing next... -
Quote:Maybe we'll learn that Vader actually split his soul among several horcrux that'll be used to bring him back. If it was good enough for Voldemort it should be good enough for Vader...Originally Posted by _Klaw_
Come on noone could be that stupid lol.
Wait.
All kidding aside I could see there either being a flashback that features Vader in the past or an appearance of Jedi-ghost Anakin. Bringing him "back from the dead" any other way would be relatively sad and/or dumb no matter how it's handled. -
Quote:Originally Posted by MentalMaden
The book was pretty forgettable so I'm not so sure this is really that much of a travesty.
But yeah I always pictured it as shot almost like an expose or documentary.Perhaps the movie will be shot as a huge flashback being told by Pitt's character to someone in the future as a story about what he did during the "war".Quote:Originally Posted by Smersh
Yes... it should have been, basically, Ken Burns presents The Great Zombie War.
I never read the book so I'm hoping if the movie is half-way decent then I can end up enjoying it on its own even if it does turn out to be some kind of "I Am Legend" rip-off. *shrugs* -
It's hard to judge if a series will be good with only roughly 23 minutes worth of material to see (the two YouTube "episodes" are only 11-12 minutes long). Still this preview does look promising.
Seems they are going for a straight action/war series without too much of the philosophical baggage that bogged down Caprica. If we could get a sort of BSG version of "Band of Brothers" out of this where we see the rookie William Adama gain the wisdom and experience he uses later as Commander Adama then this could be a pretty cool series. -
Quote:That's a cool bit of movie trivia and now that I know it I can commend him on the fine job he did for the complete portrayal of the Sonny character. But given the fact that it's completely -not- obvious he had anything to do with that movie would suggest that at the very least his voice acting career is not in danger in any way.Originally Posted by Father Xmas
He also mocap Sonny, green suited acted in the scenes opposite the other actors and wasn't just the voice.
I have nothing against Alan continuing his live-action acting career, even in movies or TV shows I've never bothered to see. Still it's quite clear he'd have no problem if he decided to become a more full-time voice actor. *shrugs*Quote:Originally Posted by Mental_Giant
He's also creepy friend to the dad on Suburgatory. I hope he stays doing regular acting gigs... he's a great villain! (He was one on the V reboot, in addition to the other roles mentioned). -
Quote:Originally Posted by Local_Man
I agree -- Wreck-It Ralph is a definite "go see." I'm not a fan of Sarah Silverman, but she was perfectly annoyingly cute in this film.I don't mind her too much, but most of the time Sarah Silverman's "character" is Sarah Silverman, as in she basically plays herself. In the case of this movie she actually had to a play a character that wasn't 100% identical to the way she is in real life so I can see how people might be able to tolerate her more that way.Quote:Originally Posted by Dark One
Sarah Silverman was actually tolerable in this movie. Normally, I can't stand her, but she was ok here.
Quote:Originally Posted by Local_Man
By the way, I was surprised to see that the voice of the Candy King was done by Alan Tudyk. You may remember him as the pilot from Firefly, or Alpha from Dollhouse. He seems to pop up a lot of different places and has an amazing range as an actor.Alan Tudyk has actually done a lot of voice acting work in the last few years. Sure it'll be great to see him do other live-action roles but it might turn out that he'll go the way of people like Mark Hamill and become equally well known as a great voice actor.Quote:Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Don't forget I, Robot, he played Sonny. -
Quote:The only ironic "problem" with Hamill doing more voice acting is that it might sound too much like the Joker...Originally Posted by Smersh
Me, what I want for Episode 7?
I want Thrawn.
And Hamill et al can provide voices for the Pixar-animated Brad Bird-directed Joss Whedon-scripted juggernaut.
Because voices age a lot more slowly than faces. -
Quote:Yeah... even if Luke Skywalker is dead already by the time the new trilogy starts he could always be a Jedi-ghost.Originally Posted by Smersh
Luke Skywalker in blue.
Obi-Wan style.
-
Quote:Leave it to Disney to know how to make a movie that can please both kids and adults. What was funny when we saw it was that there were obvious parts where you could tell the kids were laughing at the silly stuff and other times where you could hear the adults laughing at in-jokes that only they were getting. It was like watching two different movies meshed together.Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven
It is quite a fun movie... and packs in a TON of references to video games, most of which are 90s and before, actually. I loved it.
