or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Disney expands 'Star Wars' iOS franchise with 'Commander' real-time strategy game
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disney expands 'Star Wars' iOS franchise with 'Commander' real-time strategy game

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
After soft-launching in the Australian iOS App Store nearly two months ago, Disney Interactive's "Star Wars: Commander" saw wide release on Thursday, bringing real-time strategy "Rebellion vs. Empire" gameplay to Apple's mobile devices.




Set in the Star Wars universe during the "Galactic Civil War" (Episodes IV through VI for fans of the movie series), Star Wars: Commander lets players take sides with the Rebel Alliance or the Galactic Empire to lead familiar machines of war like AT-ATs and TIE fighters into battle.

Instead of the interactive, story-driven app Star Wars Scene Maker, or the exploration-style game Star Wars Journeys: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars: Commander is a blend of base defense and full-on assault game types. Interesting in-game mechanics like upgradable weapons and deployments join comics-inspired graphics to add to the game's style.

From the release notes:

  • Build and defend a base: Train unique troops specific to each faction, and fortify a base with deflector shields, turrets, heavy artillery, and other defenses.
  • Lead epic battles: Strategically deploy powerful armies, units, and vehicles against enemies and other players around the galaxy.
  • Travel to multiple planets and complete special missions: Play an all-new story as a valiant leader on the front lines of the Galactic Civil War.
  • Upgrade a strike team and its defenses: Strengthen forces with multiple levels of upgrades for each unit.




The app will be an iOS exclusive at launch and is Disney's third branded Star Wars title since the company took over Lucasfilm, and thereby LucasArts, in 2012.

Star Wars: Commander is available now as a free 56.9MB download from the iOS App Store.
post #2 of 41
Initial excitement replaced by disappointment when I saw that it was a freemium game.
post #3 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Initial excitement replaced by disappointment when I saw that it was a freemium game.

Ditto, thought it might finally be an iOS version of Galactic Battlegrounds.

 

This is pure suck.  Wish I could feed Mickey Mouse to a Rancor.

post #4 of 41
If it's like CoC it won't be bad. CoC is playable without spending money but I put in $10 since I enjoy it enough
post #5 of 41
This is really disappointing, sadly it seems the only way to try reversing this whole Freemium trend is people simply spending more money on regular titles. This includes being ready to pay around $10 for a game like this. Really sad that Freemium is still making more money.

I would have gladly paid a good price for a game like this in an unrestricted version, designed for fun and challenge rather than for time grind.
post #6 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynic View Post

This is really disappointing, sadly it seems the only way to try reversing this whole Freemium trend is people simply spending more money on regular titles. This includes being ready to pay around $10 for a game like this. Really sad that Freemium is still making more money.

I would have gladly paid a good price for a game like this in an unrestricted version, designed for fun and challenge rather than for time grind.

I wouldve paid $10 (Like I did Knights of the Old Republic).  Instead- I wont be downloading this.

 

Thanks Disney

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #7 of 41

I’m sick of Disney garbagizing everything they own. Rather, everything they’ve purchased and amalgamated.

post #8 of 41

Just face it people, freemium games are here to stay.

 

I'd rather pay for a game outright, but the situation is what it is. Freemium games make money for the developers.

 

I've been playing a few games that are freemium, and if you are good enough, then you will be kicking ass. You will even be kicking ass VS crappy players who lack talent but spend a lot of money.

 

I love RTS games and I've mentioned this before on this forum, but I've been playing World of Tanks Blitz a little bit, since it was released, and that game is freemium.

 

You don't need to spend anything to advance in that game, unless you want to. I've spent about $10 on that game so far, big deal. And I am kicking ass, and I am having fun while doing it.

post #9 of 41

Gotta love people who complain without actually trying the product.  Here's a review I found:

 

Quote:
There are the usual offers to purchase crystals in this game, as there are with similar games. Crystals can be used to speed along upgrades, buy more worker droids for building, or exchanged for alloy and/or credits. I haven't bought any crystals and really don't intend to at the moment - I haven't found the need.

This game rates a 7/10 - I enjoy Clash of Clans, so a Star Wars version of this was always going to be a winner with me. If the AI bugs and slow loading issues can be ironed out, this can be a great game!

 

It seems like a CoC clone which isn't bad.  It's the way a freemium game should be designed although the genre helps a lot.  Unlike say...RR3.  Using money helps but is not required.  If you pay what would have been fair anyway it's a wash.  I have spend enough time playing that the $10 I spent on gems to get my 3rd builder was what I think I would have paid for the game otherwise.  Compared to what I used to pay for a MMO it's cheap.

 

What will make or break SW:C is how many folks end up playing since CoC is a fairly social game.

post #10 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I’m sick of Disney garbagizing everything they own. Rather, everything they’ve purchased and amalgamated.

It does look like they're going to ruin the franchise somewhat. These mini-games are probably just serving to build interest in the franchise for the upcoming Episode VII:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/

You can see the photo there of Vader taking a selfie. They're just making a joke of the whole thing. Casting the same actors from nearly 40 years ago is going to be a challenge too:







If Disney had control of the franchise from the beginning, you can bet they wouldn't have cut Luke's arm off. I just wish they'd make a game like the one LucasArts was going to make:



It doesn't matter if it goes to another company to develop. Give it to Crytek and let them build it.



They can recreate the scenes flying through the trees on Endor. Disney already made an app like the Racing one they had on the Mac years ago but they always end up being watered down:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/star-wars-journeys-phantom/id796726213?mt=8
post #11 of 41
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
It does look like they're going to ruin the franchise somewhat. These mini-games are probably just serving to build interest in the franchise for the upcoming Episode VII:

 

From what I’ve seen of the sequel trilogy, I have a little faith that won’t be garbage. At most, however, it would only partially atone for the prequels. They could be very good movies, but they’d have to be extremely good to stand on their own right.

 

I have confidence in Abrams, and I’m happy they’re going back to PRACTICAL effects, but shooting on film instead of digital? That’s just idiotic. It’s not the medium that wrecked the prequels, it’s the effects. And acting. AND LETTING LUCAS BOTH DIRECT AND WRITE MY STARS IT’S LIKE HE’S STRAIGHT OUT OF EFFING FILM SCHOOL TALK, STAND UP, WALK THREE PACES, TURN AROUND TALK SOME MORE WHAT AM I WATCHING.

 

But no, regarding the original actors, Hamill looks like he’ll rock the role just fine. Jedi beard and all.

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 95

 

As for Leia, she needs to Leia-off the junk food. I don’t want an aging spinster, I want a svelte granny Organa in these movies.

 

That… that didn’t… 

 

Anyway, canceling 1313 was idiotic. Disney destroys everything they get their hands on. Pixar needs to buy their freedom. It’s noting but sequels from here on out. Yes, the movie with the girl and the stuff in her head–Disney has control over EVERYTHING they do. We don’t need a Finding Nemo 2. The story was over. Period. Monsters University surprised me; I didn’t think that they’d be able to go back to a world before laugh power, but they did a decent job.

 

Cars 2 was garbage only because they shoehorned the original characters into it. If it had been entirely new characters in the same world, it would have done better. Cars 3 doesn’t need to exist. WHY are they making a third if not to do what I just said before.

 

But in spite of all this, I’m quite happy for The Incredibles 2. I loved that world and am really happy to see more of it.

 

Anyway, Star Wars. Excited for the sequel trilogy, optimistic in its presentation (practical effects, etc), disgusted that Disney now owns the franchise and will whore it out to the lowest bidder anywhere in any situation. After the sequels, Disney said they’d be doing a new “movie” or “show” once every couple of years. Words that begin with V come to mind…

post #12 of 41

Wow, Leia looks like she could be playing Jabba the Hut!

post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Disney destroys everything they get their hands on. Pixar needs to buy their freedom. It’s noting but sequels from here on out. Yes, the movie with the girl and the stuff in her head–Disney has control over EVERYTHING they do. We don’t need a Finding Nemo 2. The story was over. Period. Monsters University surprised me; I didn’t think that they’d be able to go back to a world before laugh power, but they did a decent job.

 

Cars 2 was garbage only because they shoehorned the original characters into it. If it had been entirely new characters in the same world, it would have done better. Cars 3 doesn’t need to exist. WHY are they making a third if not to do what I just said before.

 

But in spite of all this, I’m quite happy for The Incredibles 2. I loved that world and am really happy to see more of it.

 

Anyway, Star Wars. Excited for the sequel trilogy, optimistic in its presentation (practical effects, etc), disgusted that Disney now owns the franchise and will whore it out to the lowest bidder anywhere in any situation. After the sequels, Disney said they’d be doing a new “movie” or “show” once every couple of years. Words that begin with V come to mind…

I disagree with this strongly.

 

They bought Marvel Films and made them substantially better.  The first films under the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures were:

Iron Man 3- their first foray in the Marvel world- was slightly better than Iron Man 2 (based on Rot. Tom)

The Avengers

Thor 2 was better than Thor

Captain America Winter Soldier was immensely better than the first Capt America- and probably the best Marvel film to date- with the exception of possibly.....

Guardians of the Galaxy- which was incredible.

 

Regarding the Marvel universe- Disney has done nothing but elevate their game and get better and better and better.

 

Maybe you think Columbia does it better with The Amazing Spider Man 2, and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.  ;)

 

 

 

Regarding sequels- most movies are almost always worse than their predecessor- Disney, if only on their live action- has gotten substantially better with sequels of movies they took over- so I feel comfortable with Star Wars.  Really, could it be any worse than Hayden Christensen?

 

 

 

As for Pixar- getting Catmull and Lasseter was the best thing Disney ever did for Disney Animated studios- with their influence, Disney, itself, is in the middle of a resurgence.  Their first film under their complete control was Princess and the Frog, then Tangled, then Winnie the Pooh, then Wreck-It-Ralph, and- of course- Frozen.

I love Pixar- and they changed the game.  But for Disney, even if Pixar fell off the map, and Disney keeps churning like they did back in the 30s, 40s, and 90s- it is a massive success for the world of animated film.  Its all about building the Disney name- not the Pixar one- and as much as you might hate it- the Disney name is way more important than Pixar.

 

Lets not forget that under Disney rule, Pixar has made Wall-E and Up (although they made Brave, which was solid- but not "Pixar quality")

Now, Disney's first "Pixar sequel" was Toy Story 3- which was absolutely incredible, and the best Toy Story to date.  That success/confidence led them to pen more sequels.  Cars 2- no clue what they were thinking except $$$.  Little boys love Cars.  That sucked.  Monsters U was ok.  But their next 2 films in 2015 are both originals- and Bob Peterson (Up) and Pete Docter (Up & Monsters Inc) are the two directors for those 2.

 

 

Disney is in a resurgence, and it's actually pretty awesome.  Just pretend Cars 2 didn't happen.  :)


Edited by Andysol - 8/21/14 at 12:01pm

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #14 of 41
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

They bought Marvel Films and made them substantially better.  The first films under the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures were:

Iron Man 3- their first foray in the Marvel world- was slightly better than Iron Man 2 (based on Rot. Tom)

The Avengers

Thor 2 was better than Thor

Captain America Winter Soldier was immensely better than the first Capt America- and probably the best Marvel film to date- with the exception of possibly.....

Guardians of the Galaxy- which was incredible.

 

I’ll agree with everything here except Thor. Really? The franchise itself is garbage, but the first one was at least marginally better than the second. I’ve heard CA2 was very good; haven’t seen it yet. Need to.

 

GotG doesn’t seem like it succeeded to me, but Jar Jar has devastated my view of animal sidekicks.

 
Maybe you think Columbia does it better with The Amazing Spider Man 2, and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.  ;)

 

I think Spider-Man didn’t need a reboot at all. 3 was horrible, but all it would have needed is a 4th done well.

 
Really, could it be any worse than Hayden Christensen?

 

These are questions that shouldn’t be asked, if only to not give people ideas.

 
As for Pixar- getting Catmull and Lasseter was the best thing Disney ever did for Disney Animated studios- with their influence, Disney, itself, is in the middle of a resurgence.
 

 

Oh yes; they’re certainly the best people for the job there. It’s just the ownership and marketing, whoring out everything they do. The Muppets showing up on Disney Channel shows, for example.

 

Look, I actually love cross-franchise cameos. But only when they’re separate companies doing it. Not the same company saying, “Hey, look what we also make buy our other stuff too!”

 

And no, that doesn’t mean I want to see Miss Piggy as a Jedi.

 

“The Force is strong with you…”
“CRAM IT, BUSTER; YOU’RE NOT GETTING MY FROG!”

 
…Tangled…

 

FAR, FAR better than Frozen.

 
Its all about building the Disney name- not the Pixar one.


Which is why Pixar needs to buy its freedom.

 
Lets not forget that under Disney rule, Pixar has made Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up (although they made Brave, which was solid- but not "Pixar quality")

 

Yes, but they were given free reign for that. I was disappointed with Brave only because the plot was too smooth. There wasn’t a resounding conflict that led to a change in characters’ beliefs. All the elements of plot were there except for that, and it was really jarring NOT to see.

 

But their next 2 films in 2015 are both originals- and Bob Peterson (Up) and Pete Docter (Up & Monsters Inc) are the two directors for those 2.

 

Have you seen their shorts La Luna or The Blue Umbrella? La Luna was warm and cute and beautiful, but The Blue Umbrella LOOKED REAL. My stars, I was absolutely blown away by that. It was 100% CGI. And then Toy Story of Terror apparently uses the same lighting engine, because the lighting in that is PHENOMENAL. Absolutely realistic. Can’t wait to see how their future movies look.

post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

GotG doesn’t seem like it succeeded to me, but Jar Jar has devastated my view of animal sidekicks.

GotG is greatness- its like 95% or so on Rotten Tomatoes.  I thought it would be "meh" but it is incredibly surprising.  Especially since i knew nothing about that comic.  Kind of like Hellboy 2 surprised me.

 
 And no, that doesn’t mean I want to see Miss Piggy as a Jedi.

What hasn't crossed over with Star Wars already?  

And Muppets Star Wars happened long before Disney considered buying Lucasfilms.

 

 

 

 FAR, FAR better than Frozen.

I thought Tangled was better too- I wouldn't say FAR FAR- but definitely better.  Although commercially, and with kids- it's not even a contest.

 
 Which is why Pixar needs to buy its freedom.

By Pixar- you mean who?  Lasseter?  Catmul? Brad Bird?  Who?  They're the orchestrators of a Disney Resurgence- basically what they dreamed about doing as kids- why would they want to leave?  They're literally living their dream and succeeding at it.

 
 Have you seen their shorts La Luna or The Blue Umbrella? La Luna was warm and cute and beautiful, but The Blue Umbrella LOOKED REAL. My stars, I was absolutely blown away by that. It was 100% CGI. And then Toy Story of Terror apparently uses the same lighting engine, because the lighting in that is PHENOMENAL. Absolutely realistic. Can’t wait to see how their future movies look.

I have- they're great!  Just watched Toy Story of Terror this morning- it was great lighting- didn't realize it was a different engine.  Those next 2 movies I have high hopes for.  Actually- I think they should have released one under the Disney name- whichever one would market better.

 

I was lucky enough to be born in 1983 and grow up with great Disney films.  Those who were born 10 years earlier or 10 years later had some crap they had to wade through.  It's so awesome to see them back on top of their game for my kids (oldest turns 5 in Sept)- and we can all thank the minds at Pixar for that.  And for the crew at pixar- the only thing better than making the best animated movies out there- would be to make the best animated movies out there for Disney.  It was a match made in heaven- for both companies.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #16 of 41
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

And Muppets Star Wars happened long before Disney considered buying Lucasfilms.


Oh yes, and that was wonderful. PIIIIIIIIGS IIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAACE. And Gonzo’s Dearth Nadir is always great.

 
Although commercially, and with kids- it's not even a contest.

 

Ehh…. there’s some… well, let’s not get too far off here.

 
it was great lighting- didnt realize it was a different engine.


Oh, I don’t know if it is; they may have just updated Renderman. I just notice that it’s incredibly accurate now.

 
…released one under the Disney name…

 

Speaking of which, I’m glad that Pixar declined making Planes under their name.

post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It does look like they're going to ruin the franchise somewhat. These mini-games are probably just serving to build interest in the franchise for the upcoming Episode VII:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/

You can see the photo there of Vader taking a selfie. They're just making a joke of the whole thing. Casting the same actors from nearly 40 years ago is going to be a challenge too:

 

When 57 years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hm?

 

To be more fair with the pictures she lost 35 lbs for the role:

 

 

Left is now, Right is before.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/star-wars-star-carrie-fisher-shows-off-35/story?id=23739240

 

They aren't going to "ruin the franchise" any more than George did.  If anything they might make it great again.

post #18 of 41
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Aha! Lovely. That’s exactly what I hoped.

 
They aren't going to "ruin the franchise" any more than George did.  If anything they might make it great again.

 

I forgot to mention before: Lucas having no role in this whatsoever outside ‘creative consultant’ is a really good sign. That’s where he excelled.

post #19 of 41

I like Star Wars, the early Star Wars films, not the newer ones, and I downloaded this game just to check it out quickly, and it's not bad at all. 

 

It's like CoC with a Star Wars Theme. I think that this game will do pretty good.

post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

They aren't going to "ruin the franchise" any more than George did.  If anything they might make it great again.

They might but J.J. Abrams is one to watch. He apparently submitted a script for Superman Returns that had a story where Krypton survived:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=jjabrams-review
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/trivia

"When offered the director's chair, Bryan Singer rejected J.J. Abrams script as too far a departure from the source material. Abrams story re-imagined Superman as a Kryptonian prince sent to earth as a baby to avoid an impending civil war between king Jor-El and his brother Kata-Zor. Raised as Midwestern teen Clark Kent, and in love with his high school sweetheart Lois, Superman becomes humanity's defender when Kata-Zor invades Earth, aided by CIA Agent Lex Luthor, who is actually a Kryptonian in disguise. The film ended with Superman returning to Krypton to rule over his people after the death of Jor-El. Singer disagreed with these changes to one of America's most well-known characters, and decided instead to pursue a storyline to act as both a sequel and a re-make which would honor the character's history, as well as the popular films by Richard Donner."

The people who rejected the script are the ones that cast this guy as Superman:



Just looks like a random guy in his underpants. They even got the hair the wrong way round - one of his disguises is he combs his hair from left to right as superman and right to left as Clark Kent. The 's' is also way too small. It's not just down to the costume either (although it was badly made), the person has to look the part:



Imagine if they had a combination of that bad casting choice and a script where Krypton doesn't blow up. You can't mess with the source material like that.

(skip down to the marker below if you don't want to read the following grievances about Superman) Ironically Singer said he cast Brandon because he thought he was more like Reeve but that's not the case:



They even superimposed Reeve's face in the newer movie:



The newer one wasn't perfect as Superman doesn't have Reeve's personality. He's supposed to be a nice, funny guy. The new character comes across as indifferent and there was no emotional connection. Superman's biggest weakness isn't really Kryptonite, it's Lois:



It works best if Superman is emotionally vulnerable but physically strong and Lois is the opposite:



The new one has Lois physically and emotionally vulnerable and so mostly replaceable. The next one will be a further departure from the original movies too:

http://www.knowitalljoe.com/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-teaser-trailer-video-plus-screenshots/
There's a parody here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G4Y8JtT1j0

(*skip to here) When it comes to the new Star Wars, the same applies. They need to maintain what made the originals great such as the characters. Like Hans Solo's feelings towards Leia:



But they can't. Hans and Leia are old. It's also set long after Vader dies. Vader makes Star Wars. The whole story is based around the fight between good and evil. Between Anakin and Luke, father and son. That's why the earlier ones weren't so good, it was only episode 3 that they start to build this up. Presumably in ep 7 Luke is going to have met someone he's attracted to besides his sister and they've had kids to continue the Skywalker family but who will the kids be up against?

When JJ Abrams did Start Trek, he was able to stick to the same setup mostly with the characters, just younger. I still don't think it works there though because the actors have different personalities.

They even have Andy Serkis in the new Star Wars. He said he's not playing Yoda and I very much doubt they'll bring Jar Jar back. Maybe there'll be a planet of apes that has turned to the dark side and Skywalker's kids/grandkids have to sort them out with their new lightsabres that can send text messages.

There comes a point in franchises where it doesn't make sense to make more. There shouldn't be a Back to the Future 4 for example. The reason these are being made has to be purely financial. Disney paid $4b to Lucas for the franchise, half cash, half stock. They need to find ways to recoup that and that's going to take a lot of sequels. It seems there's 12 parts in total:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/star-wars-7-8-and-9-are-most-exciting-says-george-lucas-biographer-exclusive-63006/

“It was originally a 12-part saga,” Pollock told TheWrap. “The three most exciting stories were 7, 8 and 9. They had propulsive action, really interesting new worlds, new characters. I remember thinking, ‘I want to see these 3 movies.’”

The next in the series, he said, involve Luke Skywalker in his 30s and 40s, but Lucas was unlikely to turn to Mark Hamill, who played Luke in the original but whose performance left the director dissatisfied."

I get the feeling the new episodes will turn out like the new Star Trek movies or Indiana Jones - they are close to parodies of the originals but they are lacking what made the originals iconic.
post #21 of 41
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
Vader makes Star Wars.

 

This is one of the very, VERY few things that Lucas says during the making of the prequels that isn’t completely bat-crap insane.

 

“This is Anakin Skywalker’s story. We see him as a kid, we see him grow up, be tempted, fall, and see his son redeem him. That was always the idea for the story; there isn’t anything else after it.”

 

Incidentally, he was saying this in response to the idea of a sequel trilogy, since, as you mentioned, the initial initial initial very rough outline behind Star Wars was four trilogies.

post #22 of 41
What the heck does all that superman junk have to do with Star Wars again? I saw an Abrams quote and then a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with Abrahams, Disney, or Star Wars. Lol


The new star treks were good- commercially and critically. And I'm all for a new Star Wars- why the heck not. The originally trilogy still holds up fine- if you look at the franchise itself- it's already ruined because of 1-3. This will do nothing but help it- if it's terrible- we do what we do now. We say "4-6 is all you should watch"

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

Iron Man 3- their first foray in the Marvel world- was slightly better than Iron Man 2 (based on Rot. Tom)

The Avengers

Thor 2 was better than Thor

Captain America Winter Soldier was immensely better than the first Capt America- and probably the best Marvel film to date- with the exception of possibly.....

Guardians of the Galaxy- which was incredible.

Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.

 

I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.

 

I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.

 

The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.

post #24 of 41
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken.

 

Yeah, that bothered me. What bothered me most was Tony getting the shrapnel taken out of his chest. That’s sort of… his thing.

 

Oh, first movie. Swapping out the cave reactor for the civilization reactor. Is there something I’m missing about anatomy, or were we just expected to believe that a person’s heart is SIX INCHES BELOW THE SKIN? The sheer depth of the fusion reactor assembly in his chest… you look at the scene and you go, “Okay, am I a freak or something? I can pull up my shirt and SEE my heart beating, yet Tony’s heart is apparently THAT deep in his body?”

post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

I’m sick of Disney garbagizing everything they own. Rather, everything they’ve purchased and amalgamated.

 

I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.

 

The only thing that actually is a plus is that we may actually see the pre-Special Edition OTs on Blu-ray finally. In truth though, I am not overly fussed about those versions. I just bought the DVD set with the Empire Of Dreams disc and skipped every other release.

post #26 of 41
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

The only thing that actually is a plus is that we may actually see the pre-Special Edition OTs on Blu-ray finally.

 

Pshh. Who needs DVD or Blu-ray?

 

 

Bigger discs means more data, of course. And yes, I have all three.

post #27 of 41

It looks to be an exact clone, probably just white-labeled version of the original.

post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

What the heck does all that superman junk have to do with Star Wars again?

The theme of the post was loosely around staying true to what made the originals iconic, there were a number of Superman examples, hence the skip note. The link was J.J. Abrams wanting to depart from the Superman story in Superman Returns and now working on Star Wars. He might try to do the same but it depends on if he's working from a script made a while ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

And I'm all for a new Star Wars- why the heck not.

You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_3#Production

Before Disney bought Pixar, they were going to make Toy Story 3 without them.

The risk is that they go in a direction that screws up the originals because it becomes official.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

The originally trilogy still holds up fine- if you look at the franchise itself- it's already ruined because of 1-3. This will do nothing but help it- if it's terrible- we do what we do now. We say "4-6 is all you should watch"

Is that what they say about Police Academy? There were only 8 of those. Star Wars could end up having 12 parts. At least when there's just 6, you can say to skip a few, when there's 12, new generations will only have seen the newer ones.

When it turns out well like they did with the first two Batman movies in the most recent series, it's all good but those aren't really changing things as they are reboots. When they add to franchises, it's more like Indiana Jones:



They make these 'everything wrong' compilations about loads of films but you can see the mentions about the use of clichés and references to existing movies in the franchise. It cheapens the whole thing. They even had a competition running on the new Star Wars movie where a fan gets to be in it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-7-lucky-fan-joining-cast-revealed-in-jj-abrams-tweet-along-with-prop-hint-9664218.html
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They even had a competition running on the new Star Wars movie where a fan gets to be in it:

 

So what?  It was for charity and raised $5M.  The lucky fan gets to be a slightly glorified extra.

post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
 

Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.

 

I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.

 

I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.

 

The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.

Like I said- critically- Iron Man 3 was better than 2.  Although I think they both were lacking.  IM3 was also Disney's first foray into the Marvel universe.  No one can argue that they haven't added to it since acquiring Marvel Pictures.  Financially and Critically- it is a win all the way around- and better than before.

This might not be your opinion, personally- but you are clearly in the vast minority if you think it's gotten worse.  Check the Box office numbers, critics ratings and fan ratings on Rotten Tomatoes if you think you're in the majority.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_3#Production

Before Disney bought Pixar, they were going to make Toy Story 3 without them.

Jobs also said he wasn't going to allow Disney to distribute any more Pixar films... then a year and a half later when he inked the Ratatouille deal.  It all seemed more like posturing than actually doing anything as they were having a big pissing match back in '04.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post
 

 

I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.

I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything.  All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.

I can see where they've greatly improved things- particularly with Marvel- the only other live-action "franchise" they've purchased.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I like Star Wars, the early Star Wars films, not the newer ones, and I downloaded this game just to check it out quickly, and it's not bad at all. 

 

It's like CoC with a Star Wars Theme. I think that this game will do pretty good.

 

Yah, I haven't paid a penny but have been playing it quite a bit.  Rough around the edges but decent.

post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything.  All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.



Disney has a certain way of putting across a story:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18589_7-classic-disney-movies-based-r-rated-stories.html

They sanitise storylines for kids and they are too mainstream. They were pitched Back to the Future:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future

"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."

Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?



Pretty selective on your incest preference Disney. There's a chance the Back to the Future decision being made in the 80s might have had something to do with it but I bet they'd have bought both franchises up after seeing how popular they were back then without any problem. That attitude stifles creativity before movies are made.

Disney's ownership of Marvel hasn't done much harm but it's not like the movies are anywhere near the DC Comics / Warner Brothers movies.

They own Indiana Jones now too so they'll definitely ruin that eventually:

http://www.hitfix.com/news/disney-says-new-indiana-jones-film-likely-2-or-3-years-away

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he's 72 now. Their only choice is to recast Indiana Jones or make some weird Indie Junior movie. Shia LaBeouf has gone nuts so it won't be him thankfully:

http://www.nerdist.com/2014/03/rumor-disneylucasfilm-to-recast-indiana-jones-with-bradley-cooper/

Maybe Disney deserves the benefit of the doubt here and maybe they'll make great movies out of these franchises but their company is driven towards making movies for kids, that's not who comic book movies are for.
post #33 of 41
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."

Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?


A point on this that may seem like splitting hairs, but which actually defines Disney’s business practices and has for decades.

 

“Under the Disney banner.” That’s an important distinction. Back to the Future, released with the Disney logo in front of it, may have been found inappropriate for that reason, but Lucasfilm properties, which won’t have that, will be treated differently. Disney’s child companies have absolutely no problem with all manner of questionable content. 

 

Miramax, for example, released these films under Disney ownership:

A movie about a woman being impregnated while drunk.

A woman who leaves her family, returns to have her children mock arrest her ex husband’s new girlfriend and generally causes emotional trauma all over, eventually committing suicide.

SAY WHAT AGAIN. SAY WHAT AGAIN, I DARE YOU. I DOUBLE DARE YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.

Gay Cuban communists

An NC-17 rated movie about sexually active early teenagers who abuse drugs, give each other HIV, and bait homosexuals

 

And that’s just one of their companies. So as long as it doesn’t have the word “Disney” and the castle logo at the front, they couldn’t care less the contents of anything but their wallets.

 

Oh, yes, who can forget. When Disney bought a controlling share of Viewer’s Choice–a channel that played comedies and action films–they decided to expand it into softcore pornography.

post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Disney has a certain way of putting across a story:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18589_7-classic-disney-movies-based-r-rated-stories.html

They sanitise storylines for kids and they are too mainstream. They were pitched Back to the Future:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future

"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."

Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?



Pretty selective on your incest preference Disney. There's a chance the Back to the Future decision being made in the 80s might have had something to do with it but I bet they'd have bought both franchises up after seeing how popular they were back then without any problem. That attitude stifles creativity before movies are made.

Disney's ownership of Marvel hasn't done much harm but it's not like the movies are anywhere near the DC Comics / Warner Brothers movies.

They own Indiana Jones now too so they'll definitely ruin that eventually:

http://www.hitfix.com/news/disney-says-new-indiana-jones-film-likely-2-or-3-years-away

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he's 72 now. Their only choice is to recast Indiana Jones or make some weird Indie Junior movie. Shia LaBeouf has gone nuts so it won't be him thankfully:

http://www.nerdist.com/2014/03/rumor-disneylucasfilm-to-recast-indiana-jones-with-bradley-cooper/

Maybe Disney deserves the benefit of the doubt here and maybe they'll make great movies out of these franchises but their company is driven towards making movies for kids, that's not who comic book movies are for.

Lol... So basically- no, you don't have an example of where they ruined anything.


As for Star Wars in disney land (and Disney World)- perhaps you should read the reviews on that. It was done to the 9s and was absolutely spectacular. It also clearly didn't ruin anything. It was better than any comic con- and yes, it was geared for the Tweens.... It's freakin Disneyland. Hah



Telling you- they deserve the benefit of the doubt for sure. I honestly don't understand where the massive hysteria is coming from. But, of course, it's Star Wars- so that comes with the territory. 1smile.gif

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


A point on this that may seem like splitting hairs, but which actually defines Disney’s business practices and has for decades.

“Under the Disney banner.” That’s an important distinction. Back to the Future, released with the Disney logo in front of it, may have been found inappropriate for that reason, but Lucasfilm properties, which won’t have that, will be treated differently. Disney’s child companies have absolutely no problem with all manner of questionable content. 


Miramax, for example, released these films under Disney ownership:
A movie about a woman being impregnated while drunk.
A woman who leaves her family, returns to have her children mock arrest her ex husband’s new girlfriend and generally causes emotional trauma all over, eventually committing suicide.
SAY WHAT AGAIN. SAY WHAT AGAIN, I DARE YOU. I DOUBLE DARE YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.
Gay Cuban communists
An NC-17 rated movie about sexually active early teenagers who abuse drugs, give each other HIV, and bait homosexuals

And that’s just one of their companies. So as long as it doesn’t have the word “Disney” and the castle logo at the front, they couldn’t care less the contents of anything but their wallets.

Oh, yes, who can forget. When Disney bought a controlling share of Viewer’s Choice–a channel that played comedies and action films–they decided to expand it into softcore pornography.

Slingblade is mirimax. Need we say more. 1biggrin.gif




What people need to be talking about is the Disney brainwash. They get you as a kid with their movies- frozen for girls and cars for boys- then you graduate to a tween and you're marvel heavy or Hannah Montana (or whatever it is now) Then you become an adult and they lock you in with ESPN or dancing with the stars. Have kids? Repeat the cycle.

That's one powerful company man....

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #36 of 41
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
Slingblade is mirimax. Need we say more.

 

Ah, yes, but that’s after Disney’s sale of the company.

 
...the Disney brainwash.

 

I’m less concerned about that, as I’m not a worthless pile of dreck like some parents seem to be*, but more about the brainwashing they do to their own employees. You mentioned Hannah Montana. Miley Cyrus has “graduated” to fellating blowup dolls on stage and doing fully nude music videos.

 

What values were instilled in her by her former corporation, would you say?

 

*To clarify, I am a worthless pile of dreck, just not as a parent.

post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Lol... So basically- no, you don't have an example of where they ruined anything.

I didn't make that claim and I'd expect most prior acquisitions to have been kid-oriented but I do think their comedic use of iconic characters ruins them a little as shown in the above ad and I expect future ruination by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

As for Star Wars in disney land (and Disney World)- perhaps you should read the reviews on that. It was done to the 9s and was absolutely spectacular. It also clearly didn't ruin anything. It was better than any comic con- and yes, it was geared for the Tweens.... It's freakin Disneyland. Hah



Yeah it looks ok, the robot at 1:10 is pretty cool. The voices sound odd but they can't have the same actors forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Telling you- they deserve the benefit of the doubt for sure. I honestly don't understand where the massive hysteria is coming from. But, of course, it's Star Wars- so that comes with the territory. 1smile.gif

LucasFilm wasn't a company geared towards kids, Disney is. As mentioned above, if it's run as a separate brand they'd allow more creative control but it doesn't look like that will be the case:

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Lucasfilm

"The present intent is for Lucasfilm employees to remain in their current locations. Future films will be co-branded by both the Disney and Lucasfilm names, much like Disney has done with Pixar."

No more incest, maybe no more horrible deaths or severed arms. Nothing too scary because we don't want to frighten the little kids before they go to bed. I want them to go dark like with the last Batman, lightsaber decapitations and all. They can make two different versions I suppose. Go ahead Disney, put Ashton Kutcher in the kiddie Disney one but make a violent Lucasfilm one for the grown ups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol 
What people need to be talking about is the Disney brainwash. They get you as a kid with their movies- frozen for girls and cars for boys- then you graduate to a tween and you're marvel heavy or Hannah Montana (or whatever it is now) Then you become an adult and they lock you in with ESPN or dancing with the stars. Have kids? Repeat the cycle.

That's one powerful company man....

Definitely, those characters never leave your head and you recommend them to your kids because there's nothing else that can so easily satisfy their incessant demands to be entertained. I've even read about there being paid membership sites making explicit images of Disney characters. They might not be officially Disney approved but there'll be some behind the scenes deals going on there.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/dirty-disney-the-subliminal-messages-hidden-in-kids-films/story-e6frfmvr-1226908909970
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

Just face it people, freemium games are here to stay.

 

I'd rather pay for a game outright, but the situation is what it is. Freemium games make money for the developers.

 

I've been playing a few games that are freemium, and if you are good enough, then you will be kicking ass. You will even be kicking ass VS crappy players who lack talent but spend a lot of money.

 

I love RTS games and I've mentioned this before on this forum, but I've been playing World of Tanks Blitz a little bit, since it was released, and that game is freemium.

 

You don't need to spend anything to advance in that game, unless you want to. I've spent about $10 on that game so far, big deal. And I am kicking ass, and I am having fun while doing it.

 

Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

 

Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.

You're right that there are some crappy ones, but all I'm saying is that there are some decent ones out there too.

 

If somebody comes across a game that they think is crappy, then don't play, problem solved. -)

post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

 
Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.
You're right that there are some crappy ones, but all I'm saying is that there are some decent ones out there too.

If somebody comes across a game that they think is crappy, then don't play, problem solved. -)

The freemium model itself isn't the problem but how people implement it. Some developers don't like taking the risk that not enough people will pay money and so they try to force people into paying for something and that's when people say they'd have been as well asking for an upfront payment if they were going to force the payment anyway.

They had this model years ago with software and it's used more in desktop software where they just have a demo that can be fully unlocked with a payment. I actually don't mind that model because the problem with standalone game demos is you have to do whatever you did in the demo all over again in the full game. The downside to this setup with games though is you can usually only play the first levels, which might not be as good as later ones and lead to poor reviews.

The problem with the upfront payment model is that a lot of the time you have to go by reviews and they aren't always accurate. Take Watch Dogs for example:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs

User reviews are very negative because the game is poorly optimized for the PC. It's a bit higher rating for the consoles:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/watch-dogs
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs

but the reason it's still low is because of the deluge of people that rate it as 0/10 to try and bring the score down because they didn't think it lived up to their expectations. If you have a fast enough GPU, it looks good and the gameplay is fine if you apply the right upgrades:




Skip to 16:00 in the second video to see the water effects. That doesn't deserve 0/10. It wouldn't work as a freemium game though because there's nothing they could force you to buy in-game that would come close to the game price. The silent spec-ops weapons are worthwhile so they could have made that a DLC but they wouldn't cost $60.

Freemium is going to cover these kind of mobile games that try to get you addicted to gameplay so you keep paying up and these developers are going to turn it into a dirty word, they pretty much have already. People now have a worse perception before a purchase of freemium games where they are forced to pay $0.99 in-game than games where they have to pay $60 upfront because the former is unexpected. When you download a freemium game, you are downloading a game under the assumption that it's free. When you pay for a game upfront, you are making your value judgement first and the only disappointment is if you feel you paid too much for it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Disney expands 'Star Wars' iOS franchise with 'Commander' real-time strategy game
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Disney expands 'Star Wars' iOS franchise with 'Commander' real-time strategy game