g1orkatsos said:
This kind of thing has been talked about since the initial announcement in October of 2012. I'm not sure why it's such a shocker now.
g1orkatsos said:
This is lame. Other than Harrison Ford, what have the other 2 done acting wise the past 2 decades other than voiceovers?
Who cares about what else they've done? They've been in THESE movies.
They've been in three of the most popular films of all time, and those films are connected to this one. Are you worried that people who won't know they are?
g1orkatsos said:
Get over the OT already! MOVE ON! I wanna see something new.
Something new like the prequels? New isn't necessarily better.
And these movies are sequels to the OT. Of course they're not "getting over" it. That's not what sequels do.
If you want to see something new, then I don't think you really want to see a Star Wars sequel. That's your prerogative, but don't blame the filmmakers for trying to make an actual sequel rather than something that has no relation to the other films at all.
For instance,
Halloween III is not considered a masterpiece because Michael Meyers isn't in it. (Of course, the other
Halloween sequels aren't considered classics, either. But I think you get my point.)
g1orkatsos said:
Bring on the fresh blood. I don't wanna see some old farts fighting and running around while having the most screen time as well.
Yeah! Get rid of all the old people! Old people are worthless just because of their age! How dare they get old, anyway? Young people are inherently better just because they're young! Let's just get rid of all the old people on the planet so they can stop being so old and worthless! </sarcasm>
I kid, I kid. I know you're not saying that. But I really don't think the actors' age in and of itself makes a difference. I just want to see my old childhood friends back, in a manner of speaking, and doing new things.
g1orkatsos said:
I have seen their story, i dont wanna see it again.
This isn't a
remake. It's a sequel.
Sequels use actors from the previous films. At least, good ones usually do.
g1orkatsos said:
Stop relying on the same old stuff and try something new for a change.
Sequels are not about trying something new. The whole point of sequels is to relive a previous great cinematic experience. Many of them are bad because that kind of thing is so difficult to recapture. But the ones that work still carry on from the previous films.
Empire Strikes Back has new characters like Lando Calrissian and Boba Fett, but it doesn't tell a brand new story about these characters and ignore the characters from the 1977 film.
g1orkatsos said:
It wont matter if you take a risk with unknown actors as people will see the movie no matter what.
That's the same mentality that made the prequels so bad: "It doesn't matter what crap we put on the screen; people will pay lots of money for it anyway!" How can you suggest that would make any film
better? LOL!
g1orkatsos said:
Over-reliance on the OT was one of the problems with prequels for me.
I think that it was the complete lack of regard for the OT -- an outright contempt for it, in fact -- that made the prequels so bad.
g1orkatsos said:
This makes me much less excited now, if true. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease, dont be true....
You're entitled to that opinion, but I think most people (including myself) want to see a sequel featuring the principal actors from the new films, with new characters brought in gradually (as in the
Empire example mentioned above). I would have little to no interest in a film that starred Justin Bieber and Katy Perry as hot new young Jedi knights, and limited the original characters to just a passing cameo at most.
(Obviously, you didn't actually say Justin Beiber or Katy Perry. My point is that new or different isn't automatically better.)
Did
Toy Story 3 focus on a bunch of new toys, relegating Buzz and Woody to just cameos? Did it matter that Don Rickles hasn't been in any other major movies lately? Would the sequel have been better if it had taken place in some house other than Andy's in a new story that was completely unconnected to the other ones? If Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen had played the lead toys in TS3, would the movie have been better just because they're young and relatively new to the industry, and they've been in movies more recently than Wallace Shawn?
Because honestly, that isn't a sequel that I would ever want to see. Just the thought of it makes me break out in cold shivers.
Of course, I've comically exaggerated some of what you said just to make a point (and to hopefully be funny). And I hope that I haven't come off too harsh. But I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.
And TS3 has new characters like Bonnie (the human girl) and Mr. Pricklepants. Those characters were introduced to us slowly, and now they had even more of a part in the recent Halloween special
Toy Story of Terror, which had even
more new characters. The Toy Story universe expands and grows naturally. The filmmakers don't just give us all new characters and forget or minimize the old ones.
Naturally, you're welcome to have a different opinion than mine. This is a public forum, after all. But I hope I've made it clear why I have no interest in seeing the type of film that you were describing.
And to be fair, having the old actors back won't itself make the film good. Having Harrison Ford and Karen Allen back in Indy IV didn't save the film. But, IMO, that wasn't what hurt it, either. Having new actors in the SW prequels didn't help. The bottom line is that it needs to be a good story, well told, with good acting, good dialogue and good directing/editing. If it doesn't have those things, then it won't matter who is -- or isn't -- in the film.