|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Aug 20, 2024 1:47:44 GMT
Disney should just apologize and stop making Star Wars. I would pay for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 20, 2024 1:57:07 GMT
Disney should just apologize and stop making Star Wars. I would pay for that. They haven't been making Star Wars. They've been making some ugly golem and slapping the name "Star Wars" on top. It'd be good if corporate hubris ended and genuine creativity opened back up. But I'm not banking on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 20, 2024 9:46:53 GMT
For something given that level of marketing and coalesced PR push? Huh. I was also under the impression that its ratings were at least solid, though I never followed the data myself. Man, Disney's Star Wars. On pure impulse I'm reminded of that moment from 2005 War of the Worlds...
 |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Aug 20, 2024 22:12:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 21, 2024 2:28:13 GMT
Like I said, the series has its fans. There's freshness to "The Acolyte", perhaps, but a lot of the packaging is stale. Or, should I say, pro forma? The problem, in some ways, is less with the individual shows or the people behind them, and more with the cookie-cutter, assembly-line feel. I mean, the aesthetic of them all is, fundamentally, the same. Monoaural digital blandness: same-y sets, same-y costumes, same-y lighting. What Ingram missed above, in his relatable bemusement, is that "The Acolyte" cost a lot of coin to make -- and yet, as many people noted, it looked pretty darn cheap. And even if it hadn't, it'd still look Disney. And by that, I mean 2024 televisual streaming Disney. Also, yeah, from the lengthy clips I saw online (didn't want to pay to actually stream it in full on DisneyPuke), other aspects -- y'know, little things like acting, screenwriting, directing -- left a little to be desired. Having dipped back into the wacky waters of the Uncharted Territories (i.e., the 25th anniversary of the now cult classic "Farscape"), I was quickly reminded of why I freakin' loved that show back in the day. It's genuinely funny, goofy, touching, and a blast to watch. And much more organic and imaginative in its look. Unlike all this modern streaming filth, it was actually shot (like the legacy Star Trek shows) on 35mm film. Such a thing wouldn't even be attempted today. Digital is much cheaper and easier to use, even if every fucking show looks the same. More than that, "Farscape" had stupendous art direction (for a television show) and very ballsy puppetry work that completely and utterly blows the crap out of all these forgettable and painfully retarded Disney characters. On a technical level alone, "Farscape" was incredibly accomplished and brought a much more immersive texture to its storytelling. Just check out the beautiful lighting and puppeteering in any given episode of the show. It helps that the makers of the show weren't playing around in somebody else's sandbox; or -- shudder -- trying to appease focus groups or line the pockets of shareholders. They went completely in their own direction from Day One and made something, a la George Lucas, that felt vaguely familiar (the show is stashed full of references and allusions to other genre classics), yet completely new and unknown. Hence the apt name "Uncharted Territories" denoting the unexplored regions of spacetime the show takes place within. Then there's the fact that "Farscape", produced in Sydney, Australia, stocked with actors from Australia and New Zealand, but featuring an American lead, has a driving tension about it that keeps it entertainingly off-kilter. In fact, it overlaps with the prequels nicely in this regard, being produced at pretty much the exact same time (conceived in the early 1990s, like the prequels, and made between 1998 and 2004), and in the "same" location (big chunks of Episodes II and III were filmed at Fox Studios in Sydney, Australia). You could even say that "Farscape" and the PT really helped put Australia on the map, right at the same time "The Lord Of The Rings" was selling cinemagoers and fantasy movie fans on New Zealand. The Disney shows don't really offer anything like this. Although they contain a decent mix of on-screen faces and voices, they're all generically American. Everything resolves to the same plane. Also, shockingly, many people on "Farscape" could actually act. And there was an insane level of chemistry between the lead actors (Ben Browder and Claudia Black). Scorpius was a brilliant villain, super charismatic and devilishly compelling in every episode in which he appeared (played with tremendous frisson by Wayne Pygram, who was cast as Tarkin for the end of ROTS; and with that odd makeup that emphasised his cheekbones, almost a deliberate homage to his "Farscape" character, I think). Spend five minutes with "Farscape" and you'll see how much more punch and wit resides in the writing, never mind the actors pulling it off. None of that drab lugubriousness of the Disney shows. The series was made by people with a vision who carved out a special niche in the annals of sci-fi/fantasy television. It's frankly insulting to put any random streaming garbage on the level of "Farscape" -- it's just head and shoulders above the sort of bumfluff churned out now. That's the core issue here: you can't fall in love with any of this streaming tripe (or steaming tripe), because that's basically all it is. There isn't the sort of intelligence, passion, or love put into it that there was with long-form television series like the various Star Trek shows (the earlier ones, not the hideous ones passing themselves off as Star Trek now), or the aforementioned "Farscape". Those days are long gone. And I, for one, don't want a quick and easy one night stand. I want to actually be in love. Mediocrity just won't do. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Aug 21, 2024 9:35:22 GMT
Man, Disney's Star Wars. On pure impulse I'm reminded of that moment from 2005 War of the Worlds...
"I hope right you are." |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Oct 8, 2024 21:18:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Oct 9, 2024 21:49:11 GMT
is that "The Acolyte" cost a lot of coin to make -- and yet, as many people noted, it looked pretty darn cheap.
Two weeks ago I heard it was $180 million to make; I was shocked. Last week I heard it was $230 million; I was laughing. Now I'm hearing $300 million and I'm struggling to put two and two together.
It's like money grows on trees at Disney Lucasfilm. Meanwhile Kenobi has to make do with a $90 million budget, when it is being fronted by the two biggest characters outside of Luke Skywalker in the entire mythology.
Leaving aside all the complaints about bad writing and political agenda-pushing at Disney, one has to point out that big budgets need big audiences. And If you're not certain of that, why go ahead, unless loosing money is the goal?
Every film studio head is entitled to make a few mistakes, it's a human thing, we all do it. So we can perhaps forgive them for thinking running a movie every year was a good idea. But can we forgive them for green-lighting a Hallmark channel fanfic with a giant Hollywood movie budge on an era nobody cares for?
With the sequel trilogy I was aghast and alienated. Now I feel like I'm observing a farce.
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 2, 2024 20:29:42 GMT
WTF? It looks nothing like Star Wars. It does, however, look like a contemporary cash-in, some lame, denatured blend of "The Goonies", "The Hobbit", "Guardians Of The Galaxy", and "Spy Kids". I mean, genre-wise, that sounds like a fun mashup, but the whole aesthetic is so un-Star Wars. Just get a load of these innovations in visual stylings and cutting-edge art direction: - kids in Earth clothes, circa 2024 - a test taking place in an empty gymnasium - a school bus or tram system - concrete roads and underpasses - leafy suburbs Then all that other knockoff fantasy-movie shit: - a yellow lamp in a garage hanging on a scissor bracket Oh, sorry, we did that part already... - a meaningful close-up shot of someone walking through grass - a washed out sun-flare image of people walking through a forested glade - orange-and-teal abandoned/hidden-world exploration scenes - hyper-teal "Mass Effect" ship dock scene - a four-shot still of four characters looking posed and purposeful, eyeing the Unknown World they're about to enter - a character turning their head sharply, as if reacting to a loud fart - some goofy/weirdass-looking character, probably an ally, doing some "come at me bro" gesture ("This is tense!") - a money shot image of ships being shredded/dinosaurs fighting/volcanoes erupting/an Ewok cumming - a motherfucking owl- a helper robot redolent of K2SO, plus Dumbo, and Wolfman (cannibalising existing Star Wars/Disney hits -- but remember: "Jar Jar is waaaaacist") - a prison scene, a rusty old key, and characters turning with astonishment and trepidation to... Wait! Jude Law? It simultaneously looks like the coolest and the dumbest of all the Star Wars TV shows. Which is an accolade I'm not ready to process. Instead, my neurons are collectively sighing at the sight of more indecipherably so-bad-it's-good rubbish from Disney. We've truly passed through the looking glass at this point. Nothing fazes or amazes me anymore. I'm like THX in his little apartment, mindlessly zoning out to flickering tripe, with not even the strength to jerk off, just sitting there while a machine does the deed for me. New Trailer! Disney D23 on X: "On December 3, a new Star Wars adventure awaits. Watch the new trailer for #SkeletonCrew and don't miss the two-episode series premiere, streaming December 3, only on @disneyplus. t.co/qFP2vIX6B5" / X |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 3, 2024 7:21:41 GMT
WTF? It looks nothing like Star Wars. It does, however, look like a contemporary cash-in, some lame, denatured blend of "The Goonies", "The Hobbit", "Guardians Of The Galaxy", and "Spy Kids". I mean, genre-wise, that sounds like a fun mashup, but the whole aesthetic is so un-Star Wars. Just get a load of these innovations in visual stylings and cutting-edge art direction: - kids in Earth clothes, circa 2024 - a test taking place in an empty gymnasium - a school bus or tram system - concrete roads and underpasses - leafy suburbs Then all that other knockoff fantasy-movie shit: - a yellow lamp in a garage hanging on a scissor bracket Oh, sorry, we did that part already... - a meaningful close-up shot of someone walking through grass - a washed out sun-flare image of people walking through a forested glade - orange-and-teal abandoned/hidden-world exploration scenes - hyper-teal "Mass Effect" ship dock scene - a four-shot still of four characters looking posed and purposeful, eyeing the Unknown World they're about to enter - a character turning their head sharply, as if reacting to a loud fart - some goofy/weirdass-looking character, probably an ally, doing some "come at me bro" gesture ("This is tense!") - a money shot image of ships being shredded/dinosaurs fighting/volcanoes erupting/an Ewok cumming - a motherfucking owl- a helper robot redolent of K2SO, plus Dumbo, and Wolfman (cannibalising existing Star Wars/Disney hits -- but remember: "Jar Jar is waaaaacist") - a prison scene, a rusty old key, and characters turning with astonishment and trepidation to... Wait! Jude Law? It simultaneously looks like the coolest and the dumbest of all the Star Wars TV shows. Which is an accolade I'm not ready to process. Instead, my neurons are collectively sighing at the sight of more indecipherably so-bad-it's-good rubbish from Disney. We've truly passed through the looking glass at this point. Nothing fazes or amazes me anymore. I'm like THX in his little apartment, mindlessly zoning out to flickering tripe, with not even the strength to jerk off, just sitting there while a machine does the deed for me. New Trailer! Disney D23 on X: "On December 3, a new Star Wars adventure awaits. Watch the new trailer for #SkeletonCrew and don't miss the two-episode series premiere, streaming December 3, only on @disneyplus. t.co/qFP2vIX6B5" / X Joe, two things: First, when you're going to link to a trailer, a clip, anything video-based, stick with YouTube. It's a far more streamlined and efficient way of streaming video material than platforms like X/Twitter that aren't native video-sharing platforms and instead merely embed videos within their own user interface. Along with that, we have a button on Naberrie Fields for properly incorporating a video within a post (yes, this is also, technically speaking, embedding, but it works well within this homogeneous environment: i.e., no clicking and redirecting to external pages in order to view video content). Second, please read the last paragraph of my most recent post again: Like I said, the series has its fans. There's freshness to "The Acolyte", perhaps, but a lot of the packaging is stale. Or, should I say, pro forma? The problem, in some ways, is less with the individual shows or the people behind them, and more with the cookie-cutter, assembly-line feel. I mean, the aesthetic of them all is, fundamentally, the same. Monoaural digital blandness: same-y sets, same-y costumes, same-y lighting. What Ingram missed above, in his relatable bemusement, is that "The Acolyte" cost a lot of coin to make -- and yet, as many people noted, it looked pretty darn cheap. And even if it hadn't, it'd still look Disney. And by that, I mean 2024 televisual streaming Disney. Also, yeah, from the lengthy clips I saw online (didn't want to pay to actually stream it in full on DisneyPuke), other aspects -- y'know, little things like acting, screenwriting, directing -- left a little to be desired. Having dipped back into the wacky waters of the Uncharted Territories (i.e., the 25th anniversary of the now cult classic "Farscape"), I was quickly reminded of why I freakin' loved that show back in the day. It's genuinely funny, goofy, touching, and a blast to watch. And much more organic and imaginative in its look. Unlike all this modern streaming filth, it was actually shot (like the legacy Star Trek shows) on 35mm film. Such a thing wouldn't even be attempted today. Digital is much cheaper and easier to use, even if every fucking show looks the same. More than that, "Farscape" had stupendous art direction (for a television show) and very ballsy puppetry work that completely and utterly blows the crap out of all these forgettable and painfully retarded Disney characters. On a technical level alone, "Farscape" was incredibly accomplished and brought a much more immersive texture to its storytelling. Just check out the beautiful lighting and puppeteering in any given episode of the show. It helps that the makers of the show weren't playing around in somebody else's sandbox; or -- shudder -- trying to appease focus groups or line the pockets of shareholders. They went completely in their own direction from Day One and made something, a la George Lucas, that felt vaguely familiar (the show is stashed full of references and allusions to other genre classics), yet completely new and unknown. Hence the apt name "Uncharted Territories" denoting the unexplored regions of spacetime the show takes place within. Then there's the fact that "Farscape", produced in Sydney, Australia, stocked with actors from Australia and New Zealand, but featuring an American lead, has a driving tension about it that keeps it entertainingly off-kilter. In fact, it overlaps with the prequels nicely in this regard, being produced at pretty much the exact same time (conceived in the early 1990s, like the prequels, and made between 1998 and 2004), and in the "same" location (big chunks of Episodes II and III were filmed at Fox Studios in Sydney, Australia). You could even say that "Farscape" and the PT really helped put Australia on the map, right at the same time "The Lord Of The Rings" was selling cinemagoers and fantasy movie fans on New Zealand. The Disney shows don't really offer anything like this. Although they contain a decent mix of on-screen faces and voices, they're all generically American. Everything resolves to the same plane. Also, shockingly, many people on "Farscape" could actually act. And there was an insane level of chemistry between the lead actors (Ben Browder and Claudia Black). Scorpius was a brilliant villain, super charismatic and devilishly compelling in every episode in which he appeared (played with tremendous frisson by Wayne Pygram, who was cast as Tarkin for the end of ROTS; and with that odd makeup that emphasised his cheekbones, almost a deliberate homage to his "Farscape" character, I think). Spend five minutes with "Farscape" and you'll see how much more punch and wit resides in the writing, never mind the actors pulling it off. None of that drab lugubriousness of the Disney shows. The series was made by people with a vision who carved out a special niche in the annals of sci-fi/fantasy television. It's frankly insulting to put any random streaming garbage on the level of "Farscape" -- it's just head and shoulders above the sort of bumfluff churned out now. That's the core issue here: you can't fall in love with any of this streaming tripe (or steaming tripe), because that's basically all it is. There isn't the sort of intelligence, passion, or love put into it that there was with long-form television series like the various Star Trek shows (the earlier ones, not the hideous ones passing themselves off as Star Trek now), or the aforementioned "Farscape". Those days are long gone. And I, for one, don't want a quick and easy one night stand. I want to actually be in love. Mediocrity just won't do.Anything going forward from Disney, as far as I'm concerned, is, at best, well-made horseshit, including this new series. In fact, calling it a "series" is a plain insult to the term, as it was formerly conceived and understood. The much-watched millennial sitcom "Friends" was a series. The classic Star Trek television shows were series. These short-form streaming projects are more like scaled-down feature films with flattened aesthetics to get people addicted to a platform for revenue: i.e., subscriber-bait. They're about as compelling as a car advert. These... things... aren't where my attention is at. I only enjoy big and iconic TV shows and films with opulent conceptuality. I've never been big on forgettable, novella-like shows to merely pass the time. For that, there's browsing photos on Flickr or listening to music. Star Wars under Disney (call it Diswars or Starney or something else) is like a hamster under a Tesla Cybertruck. I hope I don't need to supply a diagram. Star Wars has become disenchanted. Its Maker abandoned it. We had paradise and now we've lost it -- condemned to live in sorrow and anguish amidst the thorns and thistles of the world. There is no longer a sacred parasocial bond, or covenant, between "George" and "the fans". The paradigm is now one of corporation and consumer: managers and clientele. Additionally, since turning 40 last year, I find myself less and less interested in "entertainment", per se. No doubt, there is some kind of feedback loop, or personal lens, through which my negative attitude toward Disney/Star Wars is prefigured by my advancing age -- not because I'm dramatically older or just recently a bitter cynic or anything, but perhaps due to a low-key, and somewhat nebulous, "mid-life crisis", or simply shifting priorities, in which I no longer find discussing Star Wars or treating it as a some kind of cybertext (or adjunct or substitute for religion) as compelling as I used to. In fact, the more "Star Wars" that is made, the longer Disney has ownership of the brand, the more watered down it's not only becoming, but the more perilous and meaningless (and pointless) the original films (PT and OT) appear to be. For me, that is. I'm chasing different rainbows now. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 3, 2024 9:03:56 GMT
I've taken up Crystal Healing. I collect them, talk to them. Been recalibrating my living room aura for the past six weeks now.
Before, it was taxidermy. But that didn't work out: a neighbor ended up calling the police and it was...it was just this whole thing. Point is, there's indeed life outside of Star Wars. I think I've already forgotten what the first Skeleton Crew trailer looked like anyways. Wasn't it, like, kids rummaging the fridge for name-brand orange juice or something? Oh well. Fuck it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Nov 3, 2024 11:54:45 GMT
To Cryogenic's point about entertainment, I've taken up watching more movies, as a way to educate myself, trying to study foreign languages, and chanting Hare Krishna. I don't enjoy most of the things that used to motivate and thrill me, and the things that do occasionally, like music or food and drink, seem more and more pointless and temporary, but I carry on through most activities with a sense of duty. To be well-informed or at least helpful to someone else. If I could guess, the alleged future of Star Wars like the Mandalorian movie or the Rey Skywalker movie may not make it to the big screen and become streaming exclusives themselves. The Clone Wars series had a genuine following and its own kind of identity. In the 5+ year gap since Rise of Skywalker, Mandalorian became a viral sensation literally overnight but has already lost steam and seems to be going nowhere fast like the sequels.
My interest in Star Wars continues in things like Eastern religion, and in Indiana Jones with my meager attempts at higher learning. I'm reminded of the old SubGenius saying: Will you go where the finger points or be content to just suck the finger?
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 7, 2024 21:07:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Nov 7, 2024 21:50:11 GMT
Simon did an okay job on the first season of Rebels, so we could do worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 8, 2024 8:26:54 GMT
Future ST Trilogy Inheritor #38
I was gonna type #138, but that would be a silly exaggeration. It's just 38.
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 12, 2024 23:52:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 13, 2024 7:28:42 GMT
|
|
