Two different movie franchises. One monolithic conglomerate.
Marvel and LucasFilm are now owned by Disney. While the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been rolling along the last several years, churning out story after story and learning from creative mistakes, the Star Wars series has laid dormant with the aftertaste of the prequel trilogy and the failed 3D release. That being stated, much has been learned from the success of Marvel, and is being applied to the next installment of the Skywalker saga.
But, with so much content being pushed so close together by Disney, will one project over shadow the other?
Two subsidiaries in competition for the same audience - Marvel and LucasFilm. Two movies similar in genre - Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars: Episode VII. In my opinion, it's Lucas Film at the disadvantage. It's Star Wars with everything to prove. It's Guardians of the Galaxy that will capture the torch.
Well, in my mind anyways...
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2014
"Guardians of the Galaxy" VS. "Star Wars: Episode VII"
Labels:
bar,
blog,
Cinematic,
disney,
epic,
film,
george lucas,
guardians of the galaxy,
J.J. Abrams,
James Gunn,
lucasfilm,
Marvel,
money,
movie,
movies,
production,
space,
Star Wars,
universe
Friday, May 17, 2013
Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"
Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.
Can such a headache be excused in time?
Labels:
blog,
blogger,
film criticism,
headache,
Into Darkness,
J.J. Abrams,
movie,
movie review,
movies,
sequel,
Star Trek,
Star Wars,
Twitter
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Review: "Oblivion"
I have great affection for David Lynch’s Dune. It’s a movie that barely explains itself, but keeps throwing stuff at you anyways. Sure, The Original Star Wars Trilogy didn’t feel the need to spell everything out either, but it would at least establish and ground things to make the audience comfortable. Dune, on the other hand, expects you to have done some reading beforehand. Despite that problem, I really dig the flick. It’s a classic sci fi adventure with a weirdo modern (at the time) edge. It has a real “you just had to be there to understand” feel to it, and, knowing that I can never go back and “understand”, makes me love it even more.
The latest Tom Cruise movie Oblivion works well as a classic sci fi adventure, but without the special “you had to be there” feel. Actually, it’s really up to you if you want to go at all.
Labels:
cult,
David Lynch,
Dune,
Earth,
film critic,
Joseph Kosinski,
memory,
movie,
movie review,
movies,
oblivion,
sci fi,
slick,
space,
Star Wars,
tom cruise
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Review: "Cleanflix"
There is a great website with a great community of video editors called FanEdit.org. They encourage the re-imagining, re-organizing and re-editing of popular movies and TV shows - like, for example, a Grindhouse style version of "Star Wars".
To avoid any legal troubles, the site makes it clear that edits using sources not legally obtained will not be allowed. Of course, they mean torrents and bootlegs, but even software that rips video off of DVD's can be attacked. If I pay $20 for a Julia Roberts film, I should be able to remove her from it, right?
We own it, so why can't we change it?
Hollywood and major music labels are so far behind the times. As proof, all you have to do is watch "Cleanflix". In this documentary, we witness the rise and fall of video stores in Utah (and a few other states) that offered rentals for movies that have been edited for family viewing. If you wanted to see "Titanic" minus Kate Winslets' nude body, they had a copy.
I remember reading about Ted Turner wanting to colorize "King Kong", and I'm very familiar with George Lucas constantly changing "Star Wars" while holding back the theatrical versions. There is a difference between those actions and the ones in "Cleanflix". It's called demand. People actually wanted slightly censored versions of popular movies, and they were willing to pay money for them. They weren't owners of those properties like Turner and Lucas, meaning that the original films with their original intent would remain intact for other people to view.
The customers just wanted another option, is all. It's interesting how this battle could be boiled down to self censoring repressive customers vs. oppressive rights holders and artists. Which side does one take, huh? The store owners just wanted to sell a product. No ideological agenda necessary for them, just the joy of providing a service and giving people movies (even if watered down). The legal challenges from California and the religious beliefs of the local community would take such a toll on this niche market that chain stores would close and owners would struggle and crumble under the pressure of it all. That such drama could come from video rentals is amazing.
Now, most stores have been replaced by kiosks and on demand services. It's funny watching someone outside of a grocery, trying to rent a movie while blocking out the glare from the sun to see the screen. Digital downloads are more my thing, but some come encoded to avoid "piracy". What if I wanted to make an amusing youtube clip? To those that break on through and make re-purposed videos, I salute you.
4/5 *s
To avoid any legal troubles, the site makes it clear that edits using sources not legally obtained will not be allowed. Of course, they mean torrents and bootlegs, but even software that rips video off of DVD's can be attacked. If I pay $20 for a Julia Roberts film, I should be able to remove her from it, right?
We own it, so why can't we change it?
Hollywood and major music labels are so far behind the times. As proof, all you have to do is watch "Cleanflix". In this documentary, we witness the rise and fall of video stores in Utah (and a few other states) that offered rentals for movies that have been edited for family viewing. If you wanted to see "Titanic" minus Kate Winslets' nude body, they had a copy.
I remember reading about Ted Turner wanting to colorize "King Kong", and I'm very familiar with George Lucas constantly changing "Star Wars" while holding back the theatrical versions. There is a difference between those actions and the ones in "Cleanflix". It's called demand. People actually wanted slightly censored versions of popular movies, and they were willing to pay money for them. They weren't owners of those properties like Turner and Lucas, meaning that the original films with their original intent would remain intact for other people to view.
The customers just wanted another option, is all. It's interesting how this battle could be boiled down to self censoring repressive customers vs. oppressive rights holders and artists. Which side does one take, huh? The store owners just wanted to sell a product. No ideological agenda necessary for them, just the joy of providing a service and giving people movies (even if watered down). The legal challenges from California and the religious beliefs of the local community would take such a toll on this niche market that chain stores would close and owners would struggle and crumble under the pressure of it all. That such drama could come from video rentals is amazing.
Now, most stores have been replaced by kiosks and on demand services. It's funny watching someone outside of a grocery, trying to rent a movie while blocking out the glare from the sun to see the screen. Digital downloads are more my thing, but some come encoded to avoid "piracy". What if I wanted to make an amusing youtube clip? To those that break on through and make re-purposed videos, I salute you.
4/5 *s
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Related Posts
loading..