I suppose for some people, "Star Wars" is just a brand, like Kellog's. Like the episodic elements of the saga, some suck, others don't... those of us that were alive when the movie first came out will have different perspective.
If someone asks if I've seen Star Wars or they say they've never seen Star Wars, or they say "Star Wars is my favorite movie of all time", or "the first film I ever saw in the theater was Star Wars", then I know they are referring to the debut science fiction film that most people have come to refer to as "Episode 4" or "A New Hope" or "the first one".
It wasn't always that way"
If you were unfortunate enough to have been subjected to experiencing the "Special Editions" as your first foray into the Star Wars universe, then you have been cheated of the pure joy of seeing a movie that had so much promise and majesty back in 1977, that has since been tinkered with and ultimately trashed by prequels that contained continuity failure after failure.
You cannot unsee what has been seen though, but for the purists that were alive to see Star Wars back in 1977, it will always be Star Wars and occasionally we may indulge others by referring to it as it has been retconned by Lucas & Co.
I thought so. I've only ever seen the film with "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the scroll. Even the old VHS tape jacket had that title & that was way back in the 80s. In fact, when I saw the SE in 1997, it definitely had the episode number.
So, I've been reading LuthorCorp will be similar to casual atmosphere of Google. Its employees will be very "diverse". And the feel will be along the lines of "a smart company with a stylish vibe, a youthful clash of rock & roll, preppy, and nerdy employees. Hipsters."
I'm still keeping an opened mind for this movie, but my enthusiasm is rapidedly decreasing. Not that I will turn my back on new & different interpretations, I'm just not overly excited by the description.
The 2004 in that image is likely just a label of that version's DVD release - possibly Blu-Ray; not meant to denote when the film had been subtitled "New Hope Episode Iv". It was merely an example of the differences I found online to demonstrate.
As far as when the title was altered, I understood that the subtitle was actually added in 1981, not 1979. Lucas added those subtitles starting with the film's theatrical re-release on April 10, 1981. Star Wars was re-released theatrically in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982 and with additional edits and effects in 1997. At least that's what sources such as the BBC and Wikipedia confirm.
From IMDB
When the film was originally released in 1977, it was simply referred to as Star Wars, though supposedly, George Lucas had intended to put Episode IV: A New Hope in the opening crawl, but 20th Century Fox didn't want Lucas to do so because they thought it would confuse audiences, since there were never any other episodes released before it. After the commercial success of the original Star Wars, Lucas was able to continue with the multi-film epic he originally envisioned. The Empire Strikes Back was released in 1980 and bore the full title of Star Wars, Episode V, The Empire Strikes Back in the title crawl, although it was referred to only as The Empire Strikes Back as the title of its commercial release. It was the "Episode V" appearing in the opening crawl which originally confused those members of the audience who had not been made aware of what Lucas was explaining, that the original "Star Wars" was now intended to be the 4th part of a nine-part series. The original "Star Wars" was re-released in 1981 with a new title: "Star Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope" in the title crawl. This title appeared on all subsequent re-releases and versions from then on (though the original version was released on DVD in 2006, which shows the title crawl in its original form). All subsequent Star Wars films have followed this new naming structure, although "Star Wars" often refers specifically to the 1977 film.
Glad no solo Batman movies projected anytime soon.
M
I'm not convinced of this rumored line-up. Not by a long shot. Think about it. B v. S is scheduled for 2016, but they've been prepping it already for one year (meaning pre production, casting and such). But we're supposed to believe a Shazam movie and a Sandman movie that we've heard nothing about is going to premiere the same year? Seems like we should have heard more than this by now.
Justice League only one year later? I don't really see that happening either, especially with presumably some of the same actors also working on solo movies of their own the same year (WW, Flash and Green Lantern?)
These are huge productions. They need time to work on them. To put it in perspective, Avengers was the ONLY Marvel movie of 2012. This outlines 7 movies in a two year period between May 2016 and May 2018. Again, to further put things in perspective, the Marvel Cinematic Universe took 5 years to make 7 movies. Not saying WB can't do something different, but like I said, these are huge productions. They take time to make. Its gonna take 3 years to make B v. S, but only 18 to make Justice League, Shazam, Sandman AND Wonder Woman?
I just don't buy it. I expect us to hear eventually that its B v S in 2016, Justice League in late 2017 or May 2018 along with a Wonder Woman movie in 2017 or 2018. Everything else on that list is subject to massive change.
Glad no solo Batman movies projected anytime soon.
M
I'm not convinced of this rumored line-up. Not by a long shot. Think about it. B v. S is scheduled for 2016, but they've been prepping it already for one year (meaning pre production, casting and such). But we're supposed to believe a Shazam movie and a Sandman movie that we've heard nothing about is going to premiere the same year? Seems like we should have heard more than this by now.
Justice League only one year later? I don't really see that happening either, especially with presumably some of the same actors also working on solo movies of their own the same year (WW, Flash and Green Lantern?)
These are huge productions. They need time to work on them. To put it in perspective, Avengers was the ONLY Marvel movie of 2012. This outlines 7 movies in a two year period between May 2016 and May 2018. Again, to further put things in perspective, the Marvel Cinematic Universe took 5 years to make 7 movies. Not saying WB can't do something different, but like I said, these are huge productions. They take time to make. Its gonna take 3 years to make B v. S, but only 18 to make Justice League, Shazam, Sandman AND Wonder Woman?
I just don't buy it. I expect us to hear eventually that its B v S in 2016, Justice League in late 2017 or May 2018 along with a Wonder Woman movie in 2017 or 2018. Everything else on that list is subject to massive change.
I believe they are piggybacking movies. This way they can start shooting multiple movies essentially at the same time.
Glad no solo Batman movies projected anytime soon.
M
I'm not convinced of this rumored line-up. Not by a long shot. Think about it. B v. S is scheduled for 2016, but they've been prepping it already for one year (meaning pre production, casting and such). But we're supposed to believe a Shazam movie and a Sandman movie that we've heard nothing about is going to premiere the same year? Seems like we should have heard more than this by now.
Justice League only one year later? I don't really see that happening either, especially with presumably some of the same actors also working on solo movies of their own the same year (WW, Flash and Green Lantern?)
These are huge productions. They need time to work on them. To put it in perspective, Avengers was the ONLY Marvel movie of 2012. This outlines 7 movies in a two year period between May 2016 and May 2018. Again, to further put things in perspective, the Marvel Cinematic Universe took 5 years to make 7 movies. Not saying WB can't do something different, but like I said, these are huge productions. They take time to make. Its gonna take 3 years to make B v. S, but only 18 to make Justice League, Shazam, Sandman AND Wonder Woman?
I just don't buy it. I expect us to hear eventually that its B v S in 2016, Justice League in late 2017 or May 2018 along with a Wonder Woman movie in 2017 or 2018. Everything else on that list is subject to massive change.
I believe they are piggybacking movies. This way they can start shooting multiple movies essentially at the same time.
M
Could be, but normally that's done for movies that are direct sequels. Like Harry Potter, Matrix 2 and 3, Superman I and II, movies that will be using most of the same actors, many of the same sets, a storyline that is really one story but too big for one movie.
Glad no solo Batman movies projected anytime soon.
M
I'm not convinced of this rumored line-up. Not by a long shot. Think about it. B v. S is scheduled for 2016, but they've been prepping it already for one year (meaning pre production, casting and such). But we're supposed to believe a Shazam movie and a Sandman movie that we've heard nothing about is going to premiere the same year? Seems like we should have heard more than this by now.
Justice League only one year later? I don't really see that happening either, especially with presumably some of the same actors also working on solo movies of their own the same year (WW, Flash and Green Lantern?)
These are huge productions. They need time to work on them. To put it in perspective, Avengers was the ONLY Marvel movie of 2012. This outlines 7 movies in a two year period between May 2016 and May 2018. Again, to further put things in perspective, the Marvel Cinematic Universe took 5 years to make 7 movies. Not saying WB can't do something different, but like I said, these are huge productions. They take time to make. Its gonna take 3 years to make B v. S, but only 18 to make Justice League, Shazam, Sandman AND Wonder Woman?
I just don't buy it. I expect us to hear eventually that its B v S in 2016, Justice League in late 2017 or May 2018 along with a Wonder Woman movie in 2017 or 2018. Everything else on that list is subject to massive change.
I believe they are piggybacking movies. This way they can start shooting multiple movies essentially at the same time.
M
Could be, but normally that's done for movies that are direct sequels. Like Harry Potter, Matrix 2 and 3, Superman I and II, movies that will be using most of the same actors, many of the same sets, a storyline that is really one story but too big for one movie.
To some extent, they could be doing that with these movies. BvS:DoJ was delayed to incorporate lead-ins for Justice League. Who's to say some of the sets, props, group of actors, etc. won't be used for the other movies?
I won't lie, every bit of news that has come out about this movie has filled me with dread. I stand by what I've said in the past, I'm going to go see it anyways. But I'm really scared DC/Warner is going to turn this movie into such a pile of crap that it might end up being a "final nail" (no pun intended) in the public's perception of how good a superhero movie featuring DC characters can be.
But I was thinking about it this morning. Awhile back, when they were "rebooting" Spidey, there was an argument that you didn't need to re-do the origin story. The general populace knew it, just proceed from there. There was a glimmer of logic in that argument. I'm wondering if the same can be said for this movie. Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman & Superman are such iconic characters...if they ARE in this movie, do we REALLY need origins? Or can we just go with the DC Animated Movie template of "It's the Justice League, you know who they are. Let's go"? Is everyone's problem with this movie (mine included) really so simple as the amount of characters in the movie strictly because we think they'll be doing origins for EACH ONE in the movie? And if it is, do you really think they NEED to do origins? Or is it truly possible for us (and the general public) to just go, "Here's a bunch of super powered people, here are there powersets. Ready? GO."? Can we START with the team movie and THEN work our way backwards? Does it matter?
I won't lie, every bit of news that has come out about this movie has filled me with dread. I stand by what I've said in the past, I'm going to go see it anyways. But I'm really scared DC/Warner is going to turn this movie into such a pile of crap that it might end up being a "final nail" (no pun intended) in the public's perception of how good a superhero movie featuring DC characters can be.
But I was thinking about it this morning. Awhile back, when they were "rebooting" Spidey, there was an argument that you didn't need to re-do the origin story. The general populace knew it, just proceed from there. There was a glimmer of logic in that argument. I'm wondering if the same can be said for this movie. Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman & Superman are such iconic characters...if they ARE in this movie, do we REALLY need origins? Or can we just go with the DC Animated Movie template of "It's the Justice League, you know who they are. Let's go"? Is everyone's problem with this movie (mine included) really so simple as the amount of characters in the movie strictly because we think they'll be doing origins for EACH ONE in the movie? And if it is, do you really think they NEED to do origins? Or is it truly possible for us (and the general public) to just go, "Here's a bunch of super powered people, here are there powersets. Ready? GO."? Can we START with the team movie and THEN work our way backwards? Does it matter?
I think Batman & Kent you can (and should) forego origins. Diana & Curry would need a little. Probably could forego GL (if its Hal). I think the rest would need some type of origin or flashback to cover it.
I too have more reservations about the movie with each new bit of information. I'll see the movie & keep an open mind for the interpretations, but my overall interest isn't really there.
I mentioned this to some friends the other day and the more I think about it, the more I feel like it holds true.
For years we would talk about how DC really should have the advantage in the transition to film - they're a separate division of a company that makes movies! They've managed to hold onto all of their properties and not pimp them out like wharfside doxies the way that Stan Lee did with the Marvel IPs. They actually made some good movies.
However, as I think of it, that also means that they have all of the baggage and expectations that go with having already been a movie company. They have movie execs that believe that they know better than the writers/creators/fans and are more than willing to make arbitrary changes because of that blind faith in their own superior viewpoint.
Marvel, on the other hand, has lots of experience witnessing what happens to their properties when they get licensed out... Corman FF, Italian Red Skull, Lundgren Punisher, Galactus-Cloud. End result, they go into the process having already been burned and know better as a result.
I kind of hate that that's the result as I'm far more invested in the DC universe (at least versions of the DC universe) than I am the Marvel universe (and especially the post-Bendis Marvel universe).
I'm not crazy about it either. Basically, it isn't Lex Luthor.
Well, to be fair, Hackman & Shea had hair during the majority of their scenes. Lex II had hair when he emerged from seclusion. Whose to say it is a Sam Malone fake or that he'll lose his hair in the movie?
I'm not crazy about it either. Basically, it isn't Lex Luthor.
Well, to be fair, Hackman & Shea had hair during the majority of their scenes. Lex II had hair when he emerged from seclusion. Whose to say it is a Sam Malone fake or that he'll lose his hair in the movie?
M
Being bald is the lest interesting thing about Lex Luthor.
So many people shave their heads currently, that it doesn't stand out.
What's important about Luthor is his brilliance., his complete sense of always being the smartest man in the room, and his personal gravitas being such that nobody ever doubts his brilliance.
It appears they're "reimagining" him as an arrogant little dotcom twerp. I apologize if I'm being size-ist, but if Lex Luthor can't stand eye-to-eye with Superman and be completely confident he's the better man, he'll be just another of the sad clowns the movies keep trying to pass of as Lex Luthor.
I'm not crazy about it either. Basically, it isn't Lex Luthor.
Well, to be fair, Hackman & Shea had hair during the majority of their scenes. Lex II had hair when he emerged from seclusion. Whose to say it is a Sam Malone fake or that he'll lose his hair in the movie?
M
Being bald is the lest interesting thing about Lex Luthor.
So many people shave their heads currently, that it doesn't stand out.
What's important about Luthor is his brilliance., his complete sense of always being the smartest man in the room, and his personal gravitas being such that nobody ever doubts his brilliance.
It appears they're "reimagining" him as an arrogant little dotcom twerp. I apologize if I'm being size-ist, but if Lex Luthor can't stand eye-to-eye with Superman and be completely confident he's the better man, he'll be just another of the sad clowns the movies keep trying to pass of as Lex Luthor.
I have my reservations, but I'll see what the interpretation will be. Some prefer the mad scientist, others the Legion of Doom interpretation. I always preferred the corporate raider best represented in the animated series & on Smallville. I see this as just being another variation like the real estate mogul.
Truthfully, unless you made him an old guy, using a dot com or Bill Gates kind of young genius that's going to update the character. A notion I know you're not a fan of, but making versions of these characters the way they were initially created wouldn't sell tickets except to a handful (I can't say I'd even be one of those.) They've already revised the character over the past several decades. This would just be another one.
With Eisenberg in the role, I keep picturing a Pollux Troy Lex:
Truthfully, unless you made him an old guy, using a dot com or Bill Gates kind of young genius that's going to update the character
Gates, as brilliant as he he, lacks gravitas. I cannot picture him standing toe-to-toe with a Superman. (Plot behind his back, sure.)
Other than the fact I enjoy debating this stuff with you, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my "virtual ink." The people in charge at Warners right now are trend-chasers, not trendsetters, and their products will continue to disappoint me.
Truthfully, unless you made him an old guy, using a dot com or Bill Gates kind of young genius that's going to update the character
Gates, as brilliant as he he, lacks gravitas. I cannot picture him standing toe-to-toe with a Superman. (Plot behind his back, sure.)
Other than the fact I enjoy debating this stuff with you, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my "virtual ink." The people in charge at Warners right now are trend-chasers, not trendsetters, and their products will continue to disappoint me.
I'd be lying if I said anything this far makes me joyous. I'll stay openminded until after I see it, but my plan right now is to see Cap 3 that opening weekend, not BvS:DoJ. Which should say something knowing I put Batman Galactus' head & shoulders above Cap.
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Typical of the way stupid people tend to perceive geniuses.
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Typical of the way stupid people tend to perceive geniuses.
Which part; full of himself or a douche to be around?
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Typical of the way stupid people tend to perceive geniuses.
Which part; full of himself or a douche to be around?
M
Both.
I've known plenty of genuine geniuses. They run the personality gamut just like "normal" people.
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Typical of the way stupid people tend to perceive geniuses.
Which part; full of himself or a douche to be around?
M
Both.
I've known plenty of genuine geniuses. They run the personality gamut just like "normal" people.
I've known people who've thought they were geniuses & were both. I really don't know anyone I would define as an actual genius. Highly skilled in a specific area or two, yes, but no geniuses.
Seems to me they are trying to make him more like Elon Musk, who is absolutely a genius, but also incredibly full of himself and most likely a total douche to be around personally.
Typical of the way stupid people tend to perceive geniuses.
Pander. Pander. Pander.
Are you calling me stupid? Are you familiar with Elon Musk? Even fans of his, which I am, would say he's full of himself. I've watched documentaries of him.
Of course geniuses run the personality gamut. But Elon appears to be on the full of himself part of the spectrum. I'd put Apple's Steve Jobs on that part too and I read his autobiography. I have a lot of respect for both men. But Jobs openly treated people like a TOTAL jerk and Elon can barely contain his arrogance and trashes anyone who he perceives as being in his way (ie: suing a car review program and waging a public relations war with the New York Times car reviewer).
That's what I'm saying. Not they are making their Lex some kind of stereotypical narcissist, but that they are specifically modeling him on someone like Elon. Someone who thinks they can do better than literally everyone. That seems like good qualities to have in a Lex Luthor.
Comments
M
I'm still keeping an opened mind for this movie, but my enthusiasm is rapidedly decreasing. Not that I will turn my back on new & different interpretations, I'm just not overly excited by the description.
M
As far as when the title was altered, I understood that the subtitle was actually added in 1981, not 1979. Lucas added those subtitles starting with the film's theatrical re-release on April 10, 1981. Star Wars was re-released theatrically in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982 and with additional edits and effects in 1997. At least that's what sources such as the BBC and Wikipedia confirm.
From IMDB
http://batman-news.com/2014/06/12/justice-league-is-coming-may-2017-warner-bros-dc-roadmap-revealed/
Glad no solo Batman movies projected anytime soon.
M
Justice League only one year later? I don't really see that happening either, especially with presumably some of the same actors also working on solo movies of their own the same year (WW, Flash and Green Lantern?)
These are huge productions. They need time to work on them. To put it in perspective, Avengers was the ONLY Marvel movie of 2012. This outlines 7 movies in a two year period between May 2016 and May 2018. Again, to further put things in perspective, the Marvel Cinematic Universe took 5 years to make 7 movies. Not saying WB can't do something different, but like I said, these are huge productions. They take time to make. Its gonna take 3 years to make B v. S, but only 18 to make Justice League, Shazam, Sandman AND Wonder Woman?
I just don't buy it. I expect us to hear eventually that its B v S in 2016, Justice League in late 2017 or May 2018 along with a Wonder Woman movie in 2017 or 2018. Everything else on that list is subject to massive change.
M
M
But I was thinking about it this morning. Awhile back, when they were "rebooting" Spidey, there was an argument that you didn't need to re-do the origin story. The general populace knew it, just proceed from there. There was a glimmer of logic in that argument. I'm wondering if the same can be said for this movie. Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman & Superman are such iconic characters...if they ARE in this movie, do we REALLY need origins? Or can we just go with the DC Animated Movie template of "It's the Justice League, you know who they are. Let's go"? Is everyone's problem with this movie (mine included) really so simple as the amount of characters in the movie strictly because we think they'll be doing origins for EACH ONE in the movie? And if it is, do you really think they NEED to do origins? Or is it truly possible for us (and the general public) to just go, "Here's a bunch of super powered people, here are there powersets. Ready? GO."? Can we START with the team movie and THEN work our way backwards? Does it matter?
I too have more reservations about the movie with each new bit of information. I'll see the movie & keep an open mind for the interpretations, but my overall interest isn't really there.
M
For years we would talk about how DC really should have the advantage in the transition to film - they're a separate division of a company that makes movies! They've managed to hold onto all of their properties and not pimp them out like wharfside doxies the way that Stan Lee did with the Marvel IPs. They actually made some good movies.
However, as I think of it, that also means that they have all of the baggage and expectations that go with having already been a movie company. They have movie execs that believe that they know better than the writers/creators/fans and are more than willing to make arbitrary changes because of that blind faith in their own superior viewpoint.
Marvel, on the other hand, has lots of experience witnessing what happens to their properties when they get licensed out... Corman FF, Italian Red Skull, Lundgren Punisher, Galactus-Cloud. End result, they go into the process having already been burned and know better as a result.
I kind of hate that that's the result as I'm far more invested in the DC universe (at least versions of the DC universe) than I am the Marvel universe (and especially the post-Bendis Marvel universe).
http://batman-news.com/2014/06/17/exclusive-lex-luthors-hairstyle-in-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-revealed/
M
Luthor could secretly be J'onn J'onnz, and I wouldn't go see it.
If Goyer's writing it, I ain't watching it.
M
Gaiman must be pissed.
M
So many people shave their heads currently, that it doesn't stand out.
What's important about Luthor is his brilliance., his complete sense of always being the smartest man in the room, and his personal gravitas being such that nobody ever doubts his brilliance.
It appears they're "reimagining" him as an arrogant little dotcom twerp. I apologize if I'm being size-ist, but if Lex Luthor can't stand eye-to-eye with Superman and be completely confident he's the better man, he'll be just another of the sad clowns the movies keep trying to pass of as Lex Luthor.
Truthfully, unless you made him an old guy, using a dot com or Bill Gates kind of young genius that's going to update the character. A notion I know you're not a fan of, but making versions of these characters the way they were initially created wouldn't sell tickets except to a handful (I can't say I'd even be one of those.) They've already revised the character over the past several decades. This would just be another one.
With Eisenberg in the role, I keep picturing a Pollux Troy Lex:
M
And you've listed most of the reasons Lex is my favorite Batman villain.
Honestly, I think Jeff Bridges was the best Lex Luthor I've seen on the big screen. (as Obadiah Stane in Iron Man)
Other than the fact I enjoy debating this stuff with you, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my "virtual ink." The people in charge at Warners right now are trend-chasers, not trendsetters, and their products will continue to disappoint me.
M
Pander. Pander. Pander.
M
I've known plenty of genuine geniuses. They run the personality gamut just like "normal" people.
M
Of course geniuses run the personality gamut. But Elon appears to be on the full of himself part of the spectrum. I'd put Apple's Steve Jobs on that part too and I read his autobiography. I have a lot of respect for both men. But Jobs openly treated people like a TOTAL jerk and Elon can barely contain his arrogance and trashes anyone who he perceives as being in his way (ie: suing a car review program and waging a public relations war with the New York Times car reviewer).
That's what I'm saying. Not they are making their Lex some kind of stereotypical narcissist, but that they are specifically modeling him on someone like Elon. Someone who thinks they can do better than literally everyone. That seems like good qualities to have in a Lex Luthor.