|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jun 4, 2013 18:18:29 GMT -5
Nah, he just said he'd be interested if asked. There's no casting going on at the moment aside from the original three. Patience young padawan
|
|
|
Post by Bruno on Jun 4, 2013 22:19:09 GMT -5
Just read online that Daniel Radcliffe might be in the next Star Wars film. All I gotta say is this: They should take Emma Watson instead. Great actress and looks fantastic Too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 7:00:40 GMT -5
Emma Watson is a great actress, no surprise she's doing quite well for herself now as well with Perks of Being a Wallflower and a cameo in Seth Rogen's new film she's pretty talented. I always thought Rupert Grint who played Ron in Harry Potter was underrated as well, I think he'd be good in Star Wars. Daniel Radcliffe only gets film roles because he was the face of Harry Potter and the filmmakers want to sell tickets, he went from being a promising child actor in the first few Harry Potter movies to suddenly becoming really wooden in the last few, I find it quite awkward to watch him in the later Harry Potter films now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 7:04:12 GMT -5
its been pretty quiet lately on episode 7 news. anybody heard anything?
|
|
|
Post by Bruno on Jun 5, 2013 7:07:04 GMT -5
Emma Watson is a great actress, no surprise she's doing quite well for herself now as well with Perks of Being a Wallflower and a cameo in Seth Rogen's new film she's pretty talented. I always thought Rupert Grint who played Ron in Harry Potter was underrated as well, I think he'd be good in Star Wars. Daniel Radcliffe only gets film roles because he was the face of Harry Potter and the filmmakers want to sell tickets, he went from being a promising child actor in the first few Harry Potter movies to suddenly becoming really wooden in the last few, I find it quite awkward to watch him in the later Harry Potter films now. Rupert Grint is a very talented actor for sure, this one is my favourite of his non-Potter roles. Great film! Emma Watson is AWESOME! Perks Of Being A Wallflower was actually the movie that made me realize that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 7:33:36 GMT -5
Emma Watson is a great actress, no surprise she's doing quite well for herself now as well with Perks of Being a Wallflower and a cameo in Seth Rogen's new film she's pretty talented. I always thought Rupert Grint who played Ron in Harry Potter was underrated as well, I think he'd be good in Star Wars. Daniel Radcliffe only gets film roles because he was the face of Harry Potter and the filmmakers want to sell tickets, he went from being a promising child actor in the first few Harry Potter movies to suddenly becoming really wooden in the last few, I find it quite awkward to watch him in the later Harry Potter films now. Rupert Grint is a very talented actor for sure, this one is my favourite of his non-Potter roles. Great film! Emma Watson is AWESOME! Perks Of Being A Wallflower was actually the movie that made me realize that! I can't really say, I've never watched it because the trailers and posters made out to be just a college rom-com type film which a lot of the critics alluded to and then said it's a lot more than just your bog-standard college film. It's been received very well so I'll give it a watch if it every comes on the TV... I am a massive fan of the Harry Potter books though and I always thought her portrayal of Hermione was true to the books which can't be said for Radcliffe imo... What was the Rupert Grint movie mate, the picture didn't come up?
|
|
|
Post by Bruno on Jun 5, 2013 7:48:13 GMT -5
I can't really say, I've never watched it because the trailers and posters made out to be just a college rom-com type film which a lot of the critics alluded to and then said it's a lot more than just your bog-standard college film. It's been received very well so I'll give it a watch if it every comes on the TV... I am a massive fan of the Harry Potter books though and I always thought her portrayal of Hermione was true to the books which can't be said for Radcliffe imo... What was the Rupert Grint movie mate, the picture didn't come up? You should definitely watch The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, it's much more than a college rom-com. It's an excellent movie, great script, cast and acting. The Rupert Grint movie is called Driving Lessons, it's a nice little film where he's a college student and to earn a bit of cash he becomes this old lady's assistant/chauffeur/servant who is coincidentally played by the same lady who plays Mrs. Weasley in the Potter films. It's a very nice movie, I saw it about I can't believe it almost 5 years ago. It's not a big film but it's fun watch for sure. Definitely shows Rupert's great acting skills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 7:56:36 GMT -5
I can't really say, I've never watched it because the trailers and posters made out to be just a college rom-com type film which a lot of the critics alluded to and then said it's a lot more than just your bog-standard college film. It's been received very well so I'll give it a watch if it every comes on the TV... I am a massive fan of the Harry Potter books though and I always thought her portrayal of Hermione was true to the books which can't be said for Radcliffe imo... What was the Rupert Grint movie mate, the picture didn't come up? You should definitely watch The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, it's much more than a college rom-com. It's an excellent movie, great script, cast and acting. The Rupert Grint movie is called Driving Lessons, it's a nice little film where he's a college student and to earn a bit of cash he becomes this old lady's assistant/chauffeur/servant who is coincidentally played by the same lady who plays Mrs. Weasley in the Potter films. It's a very nice movie, I saw it about I can't believe it almost 5 years ago. It's not a big film but it's fun watch for sure. Definitely shows Rupert's great acting skills. Oh yeah I've heard of that Julie Walters is great as well. I'll give a Perks of Being a Wallflower a go as well...
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jun 5, 2013 13:51:42 GMT -5
its been pretty quiet lately on episode 7 news. anybody heard anything? Script isn't finished yet. No one is cast yet and shooting doesn't start until early 2014 in England.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 30, 2014 8:31:08 GMT -5
So..................they announced the cast of Episode VII yesterday. Very excited the old gang is back (Harrison, Hamill, Fisher) and some lesser known actors are in. Thank fuck no Zack Efron or any other pretty boys. Very pumped Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson and Max von Sydow are involved. Early predictions.... - Adam Driver is the villain. - Oscar Isaac plays Han Solo's son. - Domhnall Gleeson plays Luke's son. - Max Von Sydow plays an old Jedi Knight. insidemovies.ew.com/2014/04/29/star-wars-episode-vii-meet-the-new-cast/
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Apr 30, 2014 11:27:08 GMT -5
I'm a bit disappointed that Billy Dee won't be joining his cast mates, at least, not for anything beyond a cameo appearance. I suppose there are 2 other movies he can play a role in though.
|
|
|
Post by fabulousbakers on Apr 30, 2014 18:20:01 GMT -5
Nice to see the old faces back.
After the awful prequels I now refuse to get too excited about these new films but hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. The last STAR TREK film by the same director doesn't inspire much confidence.
|
|
|
Post by Binary Sunset on Apr 30, 2014 18:24:06 GMT -5
Nice to see the old faces back. After the awful prequels I now refuse to get too excited about these new films but hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. The last STAR TREK film by the same director doesn't inspire much confidence. I thought Into Darkness was really good...
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Apr 30, 2014 18:53:54 GMT -5
Nice to see the old faces back. After the awful prequels I now refuse to get too excited about these new films but hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. The last STAR TREK film by the same director doesn't inspire much confidence. Honestly, I hail Attack of the Clones as being better than Return of the Jedi. And Revenge of The Sith I think is better than both Return of the Jedi and A New Hope. The Phantom Menace probably shouldn't exist, I wish I hadn't watched that one. A good fight at the end, that's about all that was good about it. Well aside from Liam Neeson and the manipulation by the senator/chancellor Palpatine. I usually skip it when I watch the series. If I had to order them from best to worst: Empire Strikes Back Revenge of the Sith A New Hope Attack of The Clones Return of The Jedi The Phantom Menace. I thought both Star Treks were decent for what they were, action space-adventure movies. Maybe they're a little too long. But I never got into Star Trek at all. I think in general, the films lack depth. But this is of no fault from Abrams, it's just that the movies are based a collection of episodes and movies that already established that depth. I think Star Wars is in good hands.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 1, 2014 6:46:43 GMT -5
Nice to see the old faces back. After the awful prequels I now refuse to get too excited about these new films but hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. The last STAR TREK film by the same director doesn't inspire much confidence. Honestly, I hail Attack of the Clones as being better than Return of the Jedi. And Revenge of The Sith I think is better than both Return of the Jedi and A New Hope. If I had to order them from best to worst: Empire Strikes Back Revenge of the Sith A New Hope Attack of The Clones Return of The Jedi The Phantom Menace. That's just silly.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 1, 2014 8:49:34 GMT -5
I still haven't gotten over the my disappointment of the prequels. They were made for little kids and toy manufacturers. Most of the plot lines felt rushed and the acting, man oh man, was it terrible with the exceptions of McGregor and Neeson.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 1, 2014 10:44:57 GMT -5
Nice to see the old faces back. After the awful prequels I now refuse to get too excited about these new films but hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. The last STAR TREK film by the same director doesn't inspire much confidence. The thing Abrahms has done better with the Star Trek reboot that Lucas couldnt do with the prequels is that no one in the prequels is likable. Who are you supposed to root for? The characters in Star Trek are likable and funny. Id rather spend time with them than any of the character in the prequels. Have you seen Super 8? The man can make a good movie.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on May 1, 2014 11:30:25 GMT -5
Honestly, I hail Attack of the Clones as being better than Return of the Jedi. And Revenge of The Sith I think is better than both Return of the Jedi and A New Hope. If I had to order them from best to worst: Empire Strikes Back Revenge of the Sith A New Hope Attack of The Clones Return of The Jedi The Phantom Menace. That's just silly. Is it now? How come?
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on May 1, 2014 12:01:15 GMT -5
I still haven't gotten over the my disappointment of the prequels. They were made for little kids and toy manufacturers. Most of the plot lines felt rushed and the acting, man oh man, was it terrible with the exceptions of McGregor and Neeson. Every Star Wars film, aside from A New Hope was like that. It was marketed towards kids, teens and young adults. Then that generation grew old by the time the prequels started coming out, naturally they wouldn't still appreciate the marketing if they're no longer young. Lucas took the marketing towards kids a step further with The Phantom Menace, managing to introduce a character more annoying than fish people, strange Italian looking aliens and Ewoks, lovely Jar Jar Binks, much to everyone's dismay, except for the new generation of children who quite liked him. Attack of The Clones toned it down a notch, as did Revenge of The Sith, but the damage had already been done, opinions had already been set by The Phantom Menace. In the prequels, plot lines are rushed at times, the main point is to follow Anakin's decent into darkness, which wasn't so much of a descent, but rather a leap off a cliff. They could have focused more around this, but instead gave time to other characters. This is certainly a flaw within the prequels. But it's minor considering we already knew what Anakin would become. Hayden and Portman have demonstrated that they can act in other films, so I think it was more due to Lucas's attempt to create complicated, Shakespeareanesque dialogue that made it come off so wooden and cheesy at times. He should have kept it simple. But lets be honest, even with the simple dialogue in the original trilogy, the acting is hit and miss. The reason it's tolerated is because of the nostalgia factor. And it wasn't the acting that drew fans to the series in the first place, it was the story, the uniqueness of it all.
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 1, 2014 12:17:55 GMT -5
Because the prequels are just horrible movies made to sell toys. It's the reason jedi isnt as good as the other originals too. Lucas added the ewoks to sell more shit. Are the originals a little dated? Yes but there is nothing enjoyable about the prequels. They turned one of the best movie villains of all time into a bratty teenager. Made the Jedis into a bunch of buffoons. Made giant plot holes for the original trilogy. Obi Wan aged forty years in twenty. The CGI characters look horrible. Racial stereotypes. Lucas thinks hes funny but his attempt at humor is cringe worthy (Jar Jar, putting C3PO's head on a droid, etc). heres a short video to show you why they are horrible taken from an hour and 30 minute review of AOTC. The correct order is Empire Star Wars-I dont know what a new hope is Jedi Sith Clones Phantom
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 1, 2014 12:47:54 GMT -5
The prequels sucked. Why?: Jar Jar. Midichlorians. The most badass villain being a whiny emo.
Basically, if you haven't seen Red Letter Media's reviews of the prequels, you need to change that, stat. They're 150% on point, hilarious and more entertaining than the prequels combined.
By the way, I hope that Disney getting the rights to the Star Wars franchise leads to them rereleasing the original versions. Good lord I hope that happens.
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on May 1, 2014 12:49:40 GMT -5
In the prequels, plot lines are rushed at times, the main point is to follow Anakin's decent into darkness, which wasn't so much of a descent, but rather a leap off a cliff. They could have focused more around this, but instead gave time to other characters. This is certainly a flaw within the prequels. But it's minor considering we already knew what Anakin would become. The reason it's tolerated is because of the nostalgia factor. And it wasn't the acting that drew fans to the series in the first place, it was the story, the uniqueness of it all. So because we know he turns into Vader its ok his "jump off the cliff" happens in the last act of the last movie. He's a hero but wants to save his wife from dying. So he kills Windu and then the emperor says. "I dont know how to save her we will find out together go kill some little kids and the rest of the jedi" Im paraphrasing. Doesnt have to do with nostalgia. My kid hates the prequels and likes the originals. It appears he jumped off a cliff. He didn't really. This is because what was important wasn't focused on. His late training, his separation from his mother. His prophetic dreams. His murder of the sand people. His relationship with Padme. And all the while, the chancellor filling his head with hate and slowly, but effectively walking Anakin closer to the dark side for over 10+ years. All this sort of fell into the background amongst everything else. Palpatine lies and manipulates to get what he wants, for instance, allowing himself to get zapped and for Windu to strike him down. Palpatine was in full control in that moment, Windu didn't beat him. Palpatine was using that moment to force Anakin to make a choice. From the moment Anakin attacked Windu, Anakin was gone. He belonged to Palpatine, no matter if Palpatine had the actual power to save Padme or not. Your kid may not like the originals, but this could be due to indoctrination. Regarding Star Wars, you seem to have no problem showing your hate and disgust for the prequels, as noted by your posts above. You also mocked me for liking them. That sort of bias will rub off on your children, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on May 1, 2014 12:50:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 1, 2014 12:50:25 GMT -5
In the prequels, plot lines are rushed at times, the main point is to follow Anakin's decent into darkness, which wasn't so much of a descent, but rather a leap off a cliff. They could have focused more around this, but instead gave time to other characters. This is certainly a flaw within the prequels. But it's minor considering we already knew what Anakin would become. This shows Anakins "jump off the cliff" to the darside in the last act of the last movie and why its ridiculous. Cued for the explanation but you should watch the whole thing Start at the 51 minute mark if it doesnt cue up correctly
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on May 1, 2014 13:04:38 GMT -5
Because the prequels are just horrible movies made to sell toys. It's the reason jedi isnt as good as the other originals too. Lucas added the ewoks to sell more shit. Are the originals a little dated? Yes but there is nothing enjoyable about the prequels. They turned one of the best movie villains of all time into a bratty teenager. Made the Jedis into a bunch of buffoons. Made giant plot holes for the original trilogy. Obi Wan aged forty years in twenty. The CGI characters look horrible. Racial stereotypes. Lucas thinks hes funny but his attempt at humor is cringe worthy (Jar Jar, putting C3PO's head on a droid, etc). heres a short video to show you why they are horrible taken from an hour and 30 minute review of AOTC. The correct order is Empire Star Wars-I dont know what a new hope is Jedi Sith Clones Phantom I am well aware of all the arguments against the prequels. I often find these arguments hypocritical and incredibly biased. The arguments usually stem from an emotional response, not an honest evaluation of the mechanics of both trilogies. "Yes but there is nothing enjoyable about the prequels." Interesting claim. I enjoy them as do millions of others. We certainly don't enjoy them just for the hell of it. " They turned one of the best movie villains of all time into a bratty teenager. " As opposed to what? Vader was always an intelligent adult then? Teenagers tend to be bratty, it's the hormones. And Anakin didn't exactly have an easy life. "Made the Jedis into a bunch of buffoons." Bufoons how? "Made giant plot holes for the original trilogy. Obi Wan aged forty years in twenty." Films aren't allowed to have plot holes then? How many films can you name that are perfect without any holes? Not many, not even the Original Trilogy can claim that. But if Obi-Wan in Menace was about 25-30 and by Sith he was about 35-40, that would make him around 55-60, and lets not forget he lived in a hot desert for 20 years. Ever been to a desert community? They age horribly. So this probably isn't a plot hole. " The CGI characters look horrible. " They don't look the best, but they aren't horrible. I like them a lot more than the costumes and prosthetic and muppets used on the original trilogy. Now that, in my opinion always looked horrible. "Racial stereotypes" Also present in the original trilogy. Just a bit more exaggerated in the prequels. " Lucas thinks hes funny but his attempt at humor is cringe worthy (Jar Jar, putting C3PO's head on a droid, etc)." You missed the part where I think The Phantom Menace, where Jar Jar is prevalent on screen, is the worst Star Wars movie.
|
|