Oh come ON.
People are freaking the hell out about these reshoots.
Why are people freaking the hell out about these reshoots?
This pervasive internet myth that a standard Hollywood practice heralds UNTOLD CATASTROPHE is getting really tiring.
I think it’s less about the fact they’re happening and more about why they’re (supposedly) happening.
I've read other reports that its not Reshoots perse but just additional shooting days that were scheduled including a placeholder for Young Han when he was eventually cast.
The claim that they're being done to make the movie more "fun" sounds like the Suicide Squad ones all over again.
Reported "inaccurate" by the already in-shambles PR department in WB.
Making it less like a war movie.
Its a funny note because watching Half in the Bag stuff on Star Wars and hearing their critique during streams. Making it more like a war movie would be a better tone giving the sides and the conflicts involved.
Word now is the shoots were in planning from the start of production.
Don't most movies made by Disney do? I remember the Marvel movies having a similar "controversy" during the Feige-Perlmutter split fiasco. Bleeding Cool tried to claim the MCU movies were so horrifically financially mismanaged and misdirected that they needed last-minute reshoots but a bunch of other articles pointed out it's been known for years most of these movies have planned reshoots along with a section of the budget for them. Same with Suicide Squad most likely.
Yea I think sometimes it's filming placeholder scenes and then the full ones later.
Finally saw Force Awakens. Pretty solid felt like a good continuation like the next set of a trilogy of books. New Characters carrying on from the old with some reference to them and a little of their inclusion.
Yea I think that was one thing stated long ago that the story group would just look through and get the good ideas out.
Hope we get the Maw Instillation back and the Corporate Sector Authority.
Way too much Sith lore was put into Old Republic to think they'd abandon all that with that becoming more a focus.
I think I saw Dark Troopers. Maybe they can bring back Kyle Katarn after all.
Someone also noted what looked like a YT-2400 Freighter. So maybe even some Dash in the future.
Clone Wars still cannon so Black Sun is already in.
All it took was cutting out the bad parts. So the Vong get banished to the trash pile.
ooof, a really "what might have been" Situation. You know if Palpy hadn't earmarked Anakin and just ignored his masters machinations about a "chosen one". Later Clone Wars Season Obi-wan would have been prime turning material.
Lost the love of his life, Jedi Council consistently getting into more shadowy control things. I think Palpy could have appealed to him that the system is broken (rotting and decaying) And that there needs to be something new to stabilize things.
I don't know... the way I always saw it, Anakin was created in the first place to be the most powerful apprentice for the Sith.
After the nightmare the reshoots caused Suicide Squad I'm scared for Rogue One again.
Suicide Squad's reshoots were the result of WB's "oh fuck" reaction to BvS’s assfucking from critics. I doubt Disney has the same "we need to save the franchise" fears about Rogue One.
I think it'll be fine. Disney won't panic and throw something out that is a shit edit that is connected to their tentpoles.
And this doesn't have Squads problem with about half the cast being obsessed trying to do method acting.
The full trailer for Rogue One has arrived:
Man Whitaker is just not doing it for me. I hope he's not like that all the time.
Kenny Baker (you know him as the guy inside R2D2) just passed away. RIP.
Damn that's a shame. Read he consulted on Episode VIII as they've gone with using a dude in the suit again for some scenes with Artoo.
How many “lightsaber battle” fan films need to exist before everyone realizes how shallow they are? A fight in and of itself isn't a conflict, but a mechanism for solving a conflict—and there's no conflict here beyond the surface level "Jedi vs. Sith" conflict. I was given no reason to care about the Jedi (or Kylo Ren, for that matter); as a result, the Jedi's death didn’t come off as meaningful or sad or whatever effect the filmmakers were going for. If anything, the length of the fight and the lack of anything meaningful in the film gave me more of a feeling of “finally!” once the Jedi was killed.
I’d love to see one of these fan films put a Sith against a Jedi in what you might call a philosophy debate—having them each talk about why they use the Force they way they do—before they go at it in a lightsaber battle. Give me opposing perspectives, justifications for their actions, an actual conflict deeper than the kind of “good vs. evil” conflict that a six-year-old could write. If a fan film can give me a reason to give a shit about its characters beyond “they can swing a sword in a neat way”, I’ll care more about that fan film.
I’m well aware of that. More power to ’em. Doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the lack of depth in such fan films.
(And the ridiculousness of the lightsaber battles themselves, for that matter. I’m surprised someone hasn’t gone full wuxia with the concept, which might be the only way of really making these kinds of films worth watching. I mean, if you’re gonna do all this over-the-top swordfighting, go fully nuts or go home, yo.)
Doing things for fun is alright, but Mr Stone is right in that fan films like these are al flashy glitter with no substance, nothing to set them apart beyond the basic "lol lightsabers so cool". I mean, this one is titled Kylo Ren - The Awakening, which made me think the makers of the film would try to say *something* about the character, but in the end it was just a well done lightsaber fight against a random Jedi that appears with no explanation.
OTOH, It's been almost 20 years since Troops was released, and people still fondly remember that fanfilm because it did something different. I can't remember the name of any "lol lightsabers so cool" SW fan-made shorts released last year, much less twenty.
>a well done lightsaber fight
I'd argue that it wasn't even well done—it was just a hollow action scene that was more about putting on the affectation of “cool” than trying to use the action as a vehicle for characterization. Anyone can choreograph a lightsaber battle like the one in that fan film, but it takes talent far beyond that to make that battle tell a story about which people can give a shit. Like I said, a fight isn’t a conflict, but a means to solve a conflict; why should I give a shit about a fight if I don’t give a shit about the underlying conflict (if there even is one)?
Well, at least there was SOME moves that were neat, gotta give credit to the makers of that short, they used the concept of a light-crossguard in a more interesting way than the actual movie.
And yeah, no conflict. Who is that Jedi? Why should we care? If I had to guess and do the writer's work (one thing is to fill the blanks, but here there isn't even any blanks), the Jedi perhaps was one of Luke's apprentices and Kylo's buddy and he is there to regrettably put a stop to his fall to the dark side, but it could also be easily constructed that he was just some guy Luke left to live with the Ewoks, to watch over his dad's charred remains. Now THAT'S a shitty assignment if there ever was one.
An excellent point and a good reason why I could never get into that Darth Maul fan film everyone was lapping up last year. It's a little mystifying why Star Wars fan films concentrate almost exclusively on fully-fledged Jedi and kewl lightsaber fights when a: the mainline films already have those covered, and b: they're amongst the least interesting aspect of Star Wars.
Troops was a damn fine exception to the fan film norm. A more recent one that broke the mould (I feel) was "Kara," by Whitelist. It has emotion, heart, character, a proper arc, and while it does feature a force-sensitive, it actually uses force-sensitivity to tell a metaphorical story about adolescence and loss (there's shades of Carrie to how Kara's powers manifest) rather than treating it as an excuse to do 'bzew bzew' mouth noises:
>It's a little mystifying why Star Wars fan films concentrate almost exclusively on fully-fledged Jedi and kewl lightsaber fights when a: the mainline films already have those covered, and b: they're amongst the least interesting aspect of Star Wars.
I’d argue something along the lines of Film Crit HULK’s “tangible details” theory, in that those kinds of things are the most visible and thus easiest-to-replicate aspects of the Star Wars franchise. It’s relatively easy to put together a choreographed swordfight, toss in a few lightsaber sounds and effects during editing, and call it a day. But breathing life into the swordfight beyond its surface is a far harder task. It requires knowing character motivations and perspectives, figuring out what kind of conflict would require this fight to resolve, and a sense of dramatic structure—in other words, it requires knowing how to tell a story.
I mentioned wuxia a few posts back, and CinemaFix loves to bring this scene up (see //youtube.com/watch?v=t3_d5Y0Gr3c for their best take on it), so I’ll point to this specific fight scene from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as an example of what I mean: //youtube.com/watch?v=DFH6lXJ6c4k
People concentrate on Jedi and lightsabers because it's easier, the cruise control for cool. It's a guaranteed crowd pleaser, plus most of the creative work is already done, like Stone mentioned you don't need to know how to tell a story for that.
Guess nobody remembers what certain greenskinned midget said about taking the easy path.
Thing is, you don't even have to look outside Star Wars. Both times Luke and Vader tussle in the OT are wonderful examples of a fight being there to help tell the story, and not just to be cool. The choreography itself tells you about the characters (love when Vader just starts pummeling Luke by flinging random debris at him) and what they are feeling.
Mr. Plinkett's The Star Wars Awakens Review
So! Having watched the new Plinkett review, I can tell you this: He had more criticism for the state of the Star Wars franchise and Hollywood’s risk aversion by way of “soft reboots” and storytelling clichés than he did for The Force Awakens. But what criticism he had for TFA seemed pretty on the rolling robot ball—especially the bits about an over-reliance on comedy and the film’s lack of any kind of sex/“heart”.
Yeah, that whole bit about diversity was just…ugh. This review was easily one of their most underwhelming, especially when taking the Prequel Trilogy reviews into account. And I get it—TFA wasn’t an outright horrible film like the Prequel films were, so there wasn’t much they could rag on here. But of all the hills to die on, the diversity issue was one they actually chose?
He actually very specifically says that the diversity bit was a good thing.
I mean RLM are a bunch of fucking weirdos that hang out with Landis and say dumb shit sometimes, but in this case he's absolutely on point: It's good that they did it, and they did it well, but kids wouldn't have given a shit either way, only us adults.
>kids wouldn't have given a shit either way
And how does he know that? How can he know that?
>He actually very specifically says that the diversity bit was a good thing.
Considering how he talked about the cast’s diverse makeup all but being a corporate mandate from Disney—who he railed against earlier in the video as a bland, soulless, risk-averse corporate machine that sucks the life out of anything it touches (Star Wars included)—I don’t get the impression that he believes it was a good idea.
>Considering how he talked about the cast’s diverse makeup all but being a corporate mandate
Which it probably was. That doesn't make it a bad thing. His comments on Disney-As-Machine are accurate, they totally are risk averse and they've got Star Wars on an assembly line (hopefully a more solid one than the Marvel line).
>And how does he know that? How can he know that?
He doesn't and neither do you. It's a guess. A guess I agree with. Kids will like Star Wars because it's Star Wars. That's not an insane statement.
He says he thinks it's a good thing that it's there. It is. He also says it's a product of Disney that Lucas would have never done. It's also that. Kids probably wouldn't have cared if it wasn't there (though they'll subconsciously process it probably, normalization and all that), but WE would have so it's there for us.
You can get after them for busting out a hot "SJW" awhile back about something or other because that's pandering to fuckers but on this they're more or less on point and also make a point to single out and shit on said fuckers.
>but kids wouldn't have given a shit
Kids don't give a shit about diversity in the sense that they don't care for adults' preconcieved notions on it.
ie they didn't dislike Korra because it didn't feature a man - they were ambivalent on the protagonist.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect or that kids don't see gender or race.
To say Star Wars didn't have any identity politics just because it was white is a pretty ignorant assumption for good ol Mike to make. But that speaks more on him than it does the Star Wars franchise.
>they were ambivalent on the protagonist
And that's what I'm saying and I think what he was trying to say, albeit in the most roundabout way possible. Kids don't like or dislike things based on that. It affects them in a different way. That doesn't mean (speaking for myself since he didn't get into this) that it's not important to have it in stuff for kids since it normalizes it for them (media being a form of socialization like anything else is), but it's not something that they are cognizant of in the same sense.
As for saying that star wars didn't have any identity politics, he addresses that it did by talking about Lucas' white Californian world I feel.
I'm so glad the alt-right has taken up to championing the criticisms of TFA in the comments section so that my dislike and criticisms of the movie's themes and story, which I think is actually weaker than any of the Prequels, can now be completely written off as "lol mysogonistic basement-dwelling nerds lol XD."
TFA has better acting and special effects than the Prequels. And those are the easiest things for laymen to grasp. But it is far, /far/ weaker in story structure, internal logic, pacing, characterizations, and world building than any other Star Wars film, and these are things that they failed to really touch upon. I think this video underscores the weakness of Red Letter Media as film reviewers and their ability to only grasp the very obvious. Also, by including "lol political correctness cast" as one of their key arguments in their critique, they damage the critique as a whole. There's a saying for debates: you're only as good as your weakest argument. And while they may be right with their speculations about the motives of the politically-correct casting, this does nothing to actually critique how the film functions as a movie, and only adds fuel to an already inane internet flame-war.
I should stress that I think that the reason why I think this is a relevant point for him to bring up is that the review is less a review of the film and more a review of Star Wars as a Thing. It's a complete cutting of ties with any notion of SW as being Lucas' thing or anyone else's and a transition to it being the output of well oiled machine. As to using it as a criticism of the film itself, it's a useless point.
>it is far, /far/ weaker in story structure, internal logic, pacing, characterizations, and world building than any other Star Wars film, and these are things that they failed to really touch upon
As I mentioned to Film Crit HULK via Twitter: Captain Phasma’s near-worthless role in the movie, despite all the hype surrounding the character and the casting of Gwendolyn Christie in the role, could’ve been a whole segment of the review on its own. Not just to discuss how the film could’ve made the character better (which the review sorta touched on), but how she was a transparent attempt to recapture “the magic” behind Boba Fett, and how the character wasn’t given anything of importance to do in the film (other than “look badass” and “get caught by the rebels”). The whole review came off as RLM not really wanting to rip into TFA because they thought it was at least “good”, so they went after Prequel apologists, the Ring Theory guy, Lucas, and Disney instead—and it’s not that those entities don’t deserve to have their cages rattled, so to speak, but it’s just not the same thing as the Prequel deconstructions, and it shows.
Abrams is always a good subject to go after. Star Trek '09 was his resume for the Star Wars gig showing he could handle space epics.
Thing is a lot of the script for The Force Awakens feels a lot closer to some kinda fan fiction he wrote and didn't really want to part with. Almost as bad as Solo Lucas type writing cept at least Lucas did a bit more to establish things and not just recycle a whole movie pretty much beat for beat.
Sure we've got setups on how things will deviate going forward but the movie itself...eh. Its good but its not something I'm going to buy the Blu-Ray at t full price for.
So how pissed will be people at next film and Rey having a heel turn. Snoke dropping Benny like a hot potato because Rey has a much deeper anger and hate to exploit.
I’d be all for that, personally. The New Trilogy shouldn’t just be a repeat of the Original Trilogy. A double turn with Kylo and Rey—provided it’s done well—would be the kind of risk that could give the New Trilogy its own identity and a solid direction to go in for Episode 9.
There's literally nothing less interesting than the notion of Kylo switching place with Rey short of just having Christensen back again.
If Rey goes Dark Side, holy shit, that would mean Luke really sucks at being a Jedi master.
Nah, it actually makes sense for Luke not being *that* good at the job. I mean, at best he got a few months of training under Obi-Wan and Yoda (and that's being generous with the timeline). As great as Yoda's intensive course may have been, and as gifted as Luke was, that's not enough to learn all the ins and outs of being a Jedi and how to resist the Dark Side.
Kylo isn't Zuko so much as he's like if Lin murdered Toph and drove Aang into hiding for 20 years.
If Toph's contract negotiated her to get killed off in the first movie, that is.
But I see your point.
I'd like to see him try and be good, though. He's got an interesting character design, but I do imagine it would be hard to redeem him after laser-shanking pops.
Well if he comes back from the Dark Side and Luke accepts that then I could see frayed relations between Jedi and the Republic.
Which I kinda like that idea. Republic knows they are needed as mediators and protectors. But that one event keeps them from ever being trusted.
The entire interesting thing about Kylo is that he rejected redemption where Vader accepted it, I don't want him, I like Rey as the hero.
Audiences in general are also not liable to embrace the kid that patricided fucking Han Solo either.
For the time being. I got the feeling he still felt regretful after he did it, and the novelization (which reflects an earlier version of the movie so it might not be entirely canon at this point) is very explicit about it. He's still capable of going face later on or at least not fully embracing the whole Sith thing, even if I doubt he'll ever be a full hero.
You know, I'd like to see how they would convince Chewie to forget what happened and not break Kylo in half upon seeing him.
Snoke keeps trying to catalyst Ben into a true sith but he just doesn't have that deep well of hate to draw on.
Now Rey. I bet he can make her go full sith with just a bit of isolation and digging into her abandonment issues.
I want Chewie to throw Ben into a volcano like it's fucking Tekken.
It's like you want Kyo to crawl back out. You have to go Mortal Kombat on the bugger and have Chewie rip his spine out.
But nah he's gotta throw him into the volcano. At which point he suffers almost no damage. Because he's still a loser compared to his grandpa.
I can see that. Boy so wanted to be like Grandpa, but couldn't ever get it right. So Snoke just Palpy'd him and just jerked him around for kicks until someone worthy came along.
“We have hope. Rebellions are built on hope!”
So Donald Glover has been cast as Lando Calrissian in the Han Solo prequel film.
Will he be able to pull off that silky smooth conman gambler persona?
Will we see him play a game of Sabbac
Novelization says he got saved by a rando who sent him off in a ship before Finn came to.
So much for Jyn being Rey's mother[ I'm glad it's quashed because it was a stupid theory anyway.
Man, that was an emotional rollercoaster.
Also, Disney may have stumbled upon a way of avoiding giving away a movie's most impactful moments in the trailer. Just shoot another movie after the trailer comes out.
Anyone afraid that the reshoots were intended to lighten the movie's mood can rest easy. It was fucking brutal holy shit my heart.
Maybe one of the movies can show us the Battle of Taanab as that was where Lando gets his bona-fides as a general. Also the Battle of Nar Shadda (where afterwards the Falcon changed hands from Lando to Han) would be a neat addition.
In an indescribably awesome way, IMHO, but I'm wary about colouring people's perceptions.
I can understand a defense of the Prequel Trilogy's few good points. I cannot, however, understand how someone who writes such a defense can also excuse the quality of those movies.
Rogue One is a real masterpiece. Masterfully written, masterfully acted, masterfully executed. It builds upon the original movies, while doing its own exciting, and often new things. Characters from previous movies come back (through CG magic or actual people) for all the right reasons, and are handled with utmost respect. Apparently the idea to make Rogue One came about before the Disney buyout, and the story was mostly a one man vision, so that probably helped with the quality. Will happily accept this movie as the grand finale for Rebels.
Don't care much for the new trilogy, but will always care for this one.
>Characters from previous movies come back (through CG magic or actual people) for all the right reasons, and are handled with utmost respect.
I have heard more than a few objections to the CGI Tarkin because of how people believe it could result in future CGI “resurrections” of dead actors.
They believe it "could"? It's going to happen sooner or later, most likely much sooner than we think, now that the tech is kinda getting there. No way around it, hell it's probably become a great bussiness for the estates of dead actors, selling their likenesses.
Hollywood has been gearing up for that for a long time. Being able to digitally recreate dead actors was always going to be a thing eventually.
Heck I was a bit weirded out seeing '90s edition RDJ in Civil War.
Yeah, back when Final Fantasy was released (15 years ago, right?), there was plenty of buzz about digital replacements of actors.
Yea, though when interlaced with real actors it seems to be less jarring than full CGI, though that may just be because the tech is better now.
Thing is, something like RDJ’s de-aging, the unused footage of Marlon Brando used in Superman Returns, the farewell to Paul Walker that was Fast & Furious 7, or the CGI Tarkin worry me, but they do not make me fear for the replacement of live actors or the full-on resurrection of dead actors. All those things made sense in context. The possibility of another Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow situation is what scares me. That movie used archival video and audio of Sir Laurence Olivier to insert him into a movie that was filmed more than a decade after his death and had no connection to his body of work as a living actor. If Hollywood resurrects actors this way — to appear in movies that have no context to the actor’s body of work, just to answer a “wouldn’t it be cool if…” question — we will have on our hands an issue that only financial boycotts can resolve.
New technology can be used for great good, or..... for great eeeeeeeeeeevil.
You know, while the CGI Tarkin was fine, I did find the CGI Leia a bit distracting. I guess it is because Peter Cushing already had some uncanny facial features? Dunno.
Oh you are very much limiting yourself in how far they'll go. They won't just digitally insert or recreate. We will get Replicants since digital still has some limitations that cannot be met from a natural environment
Nah it's not just you, her face was oddly shiny and plastic looking compared to Tarkin even in still moments.
I think a big factor was that Tarkin's scenes were all in relative darkness, whereas Leia was shown in a brightly lit room.
I must say this: I liked Rogue One better than TFA, but I liked the leads in TFA *much* better. Especially Daisy Ridley, her Rey was all around much interesting and fun to watch than Felicity Jones' Jyn.
You can understand perfectly well how someone can "excuse" the quality of TFA. You're just pretending not to because your sense of self-worth is built around starting pointless arguments with complete strangers on the internet.
Very much this
Jyn felt very flat. She didn't really have anything going on while all the characters around her were much more interesting. By gods did Alan Tudyk kick ass.
Beyond that, the story WAS tons better than TFA.
I wouldn't say *tons* better. I mean, it takes ages for the actual plot in Rogue One to start rolling, which would have been fine if they had used that time for character development, but we didn't get much of that either.
TFA and Rogue One each did their own thing and both did them extremely well. It's not like it's a competition or anything, they both make Disney massive shedloads of dosh. It's good that the mainline Episodes like TFA stay fun and light-hearted and adventurous with recurring characters we fall in love with, but Rogue One is a triumphant validation of Disney's plan to explore other genres inside the enormous breadth of the Star Wars universe to tell good stories.
I'd say TFA fulfilled its role as ANH remake extremely mehwell.
I agree MT, how COULD a woman ever learn to fight?
Yesss, not loving unconditionally TFA means you hate them women, imrite or imrite.
>You can understand perfectly well how someone can "excuse" the quality of TFA.
I actually cannot. The Prequels got raked over the coals, they were the punchlines for jokes, nearly everyone and their goddamn brother pointed me towards those Red Letter Media video editorials. TFA was worse than each of the Prequel movies (even the Phantom Menace) from a story standpoint, and to me story is king when it comes to movies. Characters need to progress in a logical sense, scenes should have a meaning behind them when they are included, and most of all there needs to be some level of a satisfactory resolution to events. Yet I see people claim TFA is better than Return of the Jedi despite failing at each and every one of those elements. So no, I don't actually understand how people enjoy The Force Awakens.
Older fans enjoy it because it is just like the very first Star Wars movie they seen, the one they fell in love with.
Younger fans enjoy it because it is an entertaining fast paced action movie with a female protagonist who actually looks believably strong, even if her writing is bullshit.
Also, do not forget that for a good half of the SW fanbase the movies are just escapism. They turn their brains off when watching them.
Guys, bad news: Carrie Fisher had a heart attack while in flight to Los Angeles, and apparently her condition isn't good. Let's hope for the best.
Damn you 2016, you had to be an asshole to the very end.
I was trying to have a nice Friday with a little bit of checking-in on my usual Internet haunts before I went fully offline to enjoy Christmas. But between >>47483 and the news of Carrie Fisher having a heart attack, this is not a nice Friday. So now I have a few things to say.
The Prequel Trilogy received loads of negative criticism for reasons related to story and characterization. Look at the absolute mess that was “The Phantom Menace”. Take a moment to remember the awkward, wooden romance sub-plot of “Attack of the Clones”. Remind yourself of the “oh shit we have to do Vader in this movie” pacing of “Revenge of the Sith”. The entire Prequel Trilogy has structure, characterization, and (especially) dialogue problems that not even George Lucas’s ex-wife could edit away. If they were metaphorically shat upon by audiences and critics, the movies earned that treatment.
By comparison, “The Force Awakens” is, at worst, a mediocre re-tread of “A New Hope” with new characters replacing the older ones. The movie may have problems with characterization and structure — and with trying to be “a ‘Star Wars’ movie” a little too much — but those flaws do not rise to the levels of the Prequel Trilogy’s flaws. Those flaws do not make “The Force Awakens” unwatchable on its own.
And this is where I had planned to bow out and leave things at that and go enjoy the rest of my Christmas weekend…but then>>47484 had to make a post, so now I have something else to say.
If you want to think of Rey’s writing as “bullshit”, you are free to do so. But before you turn that opinion into personal dogma, remember this: In the span of a day (at best), Luke Skywalker went from driving a hovercraft on the desert to piloting an X-Wing in an attack on a heavily fortified space station without any visible training. “A New Hope” gives us no reason to believe Luke has any formal training or experience in piloting anything more than a hovercraft, but he somehow manages to do it — and do it well — on his first try. “The Force Awakens” at least gives us the pretense of Rey being knowledgable of starships and their inner workings through years of scavenging. I can believe she would have at least some basic-level knowledge of how to fly a starship if necessary.
Before you talk about how the writing for Rey is “bullshit” again, ask yourself if any criticism you can levy against her writing can also be applied to any other character in the franchise prior to “The Force Awakens”.
Oh, and one more thing while I have the time: Twister, “mehwell” is not a word. Stop trying to make up words; you are not Shakespeare.
Now let us all go get drunk on eggnog.
Well, it seems that the doctors managed to stabilize her condition and Carrie Fisher is better and considered out of emergency.
>TFA was worse than each of the Prequel movies (even the Phantom Menace) from a story standpoint
It objectively wasn't.
> “A New Hope” gives us no reason to believe Luke has any formal training or experience in piloting anything more than a hovercraft
There actually is a line of dialogue that he knows how pilot some sort of flying ship (I think the name is T16), and that he has good aim with it.
Also, while it is true that he was flying an X-Wing, he didn't take a lightsaber to an actual combat and didn't outright start using force powers unassisted in that short time span. I don't think Rey is a mary sue or something like that, but saying that she wasn't quite above the level of competence as Luke simply isn't true.
Goddammit, did Carrie really have to have a brush with death just before 2017?
Fucking Hell, man.....
Looks like someone paid attention while watching ANH. Yes, they said but not showed, that Luke was known as a great pilot with great aim.
Wish they showed. But on on that budget...
He way playing with a model of a T-16 in his garage and had that long rifle that the Sand People broke.
So we got a few good bits.
>comparing A New Hope to Manos
>saying A New Hope is bad storytelling because they refer to a skill using dialogue
Hey, here's a fun exercise, why does Rey initially reject her call to the hero's journey? You know, that essential stage that communicates the risks involved in the Journey by illustrating what the Hero will have to sacrifice or make changes to? Luke has an actual reason that the audience can relate to, his ties to his family farm, the only home he's ever known. Sure he wants to leave with Ben and go on a crazy amazing space adventure, but he also feels the weight of responsibility. Rey has... uhhhhhhh.....!??!??? She might ACTUALLY find out what happened to her parents after they left her on Not-Tatooine? Maybe she just really fucking liked that not-bread they paid her in? And before one of you fuckers say "We'll find out in the next film!" NO. FUCKING STOP. You include at least a fake reason for the audience to latch onto or something that you plan to introduce a twist on later, you don't just have FUCKING NOTHING.
You don't even have to have a Refusal of the Call. They included it in TFA because they were badly aping A New Hope without understanding the underyling Hero's Journey theory that went into the story. That's the major problem with TFA. It is a surface-level copying of storytelling mechanics, with no understanding of WHY you include them.
If her parents come back to Jakku and she's not there, she might never know who she is or where she came from. That you actually said this before the stale bread quip shows that TFA handled its exposition and its refusal of the call perfectly well.
Again, it's not a competition. They're not better or worse than each other, enjoying one doesn't obligate you to hate the other, they're just different, and that's fine.
No matter how profile an artifact of culture might be, it's not above criticism. The fact is that they used showing rather than telling to establish a character's skill in an area that would be vital later, and that's sloppy, no matter how many nerds have masturbated to Princess Leia in a slave outfit. The fact that you're so quick to go to bat to it with no actual defense for it other than that "It's A New Hope!" is pretty strong evidence that you're blinded by nostalgia rather than arguing from a good faith position.
Clearly I shouldn't post this late at night. It's supposed to be "no matter how high profile", and "The fact is they used telling rather than showing."
Risking joining the argument but... in what manner did they "show not tell" that Rey could be a skillfull starship pilot, before she took the helm of the Falcon and started doing all those crazy maneuvers and outsmarted actual trained pilots? If A New Hope is bad because of it, then the same applies to TFA.
Funny enough, this is actually averted in Phantom Menace. Lil' Anakin IS shown to possess some skill (being a racing pilot in a very hostile circuit, as opposes to just using a hover vehicle for transportation like Luke and Rey do), and when he does get his hands in a fighter... he doesn't really do anything THAT extraordinary with it.
In TFA, if my memory serves me correctly, Rey says she never flown a SPACEplane before.
Which means no prior experience.
But who needs experience when you can have THE FORCE?
Rey's starship piloting skills weren't key to the climax of the movie. The scenes where they showed off her piloting skills were the sorts of scenes Luke needed to have in ANH before doing the Death Star run.
why did the scene involving her doing absurd stunts in the star destroy graveyard exist in the first place?
Oh yeah, cuz "we need an action beat" here.
It adds all sort of ridiculous incoherent elements to the story too. What, they sent two tie fighters after an escaping ship and then... nothing? Huh? What? They don't even make the jump to light speed after leaving the planet. What on earth is Kylo Ren or the first order even /doing/ during that time? At least in A New Hope they just avoid any entanglements other than ground troops and then blow out of the area at light speed before the Empire can send a TIE fighter squadron off at them.
>If her parents come back to Jakku and she's not there, she might never know who she is or where she came from.
That motivation makes absolutely no fucking sense, unless Rey is the reincarnation of Seymour. Good grief. Nobody is going to be able to relate to that motivation. It's nonsense.
So in your universe, adoptions don't exist and no child has ever had an absentee parent. Okay, gotcha.
I kinda get what he means, plus she could simply leave a holo-thingie at home or tell somebody in Jakku "if some fellows ask for me, tell them i'll be at X". It's an universe with FTL communications and where everybody can go to one side to the other of the galaxy with ease, that sort of problem should be a non-issue.
Personally, I simply take Rey's refusal as her being afraid to leave home, shitty as Jakku was that's all she knew.
Interesting you bring that up because Luke has both of those, but his backstory is crafted in a way to explain how he's been able to survive in such a harsh climate (Taken in by his uncle and aunt) and develops what few ties he has to his adoptive home. Rey has ffffffffffuuuuuucking nothing. I would love to have seen some more development and some explanation of how she ended up on Jakku, who took care of her (or how on earth she took care of herself), maybe develop what gave her the seemingly unwaveringly belief that her folks were coming back for her, and gladly sacrificed a useless action beat of the Falcon flying with TIE fighters or Han Solo being chased by giant alien squids to get such information.
Any kind of Parental figure seeing her off or knowing Abrams massive fanfiction bent being killed off by first order would have sufficed. Hell even something showing them and just information that that died a few years prior would have worked.
>some explanation of how she ended up on Jakku, who took care of her (or how on earth she took care of herself)
we saw all of these things
With only a few days left, 2016 still doesn't stop.
Well......... she did say "certain politician only wins over my dead body"........... did she curse her fate?
So with all her scenes already shot for the next film. What now?
Hearing some sources that she never regained consciousness after the incident which is never a good sign. Damn shame. Wish them the best and all.
Twister, you can be a complete imbecile at times. This is one of those times.
Don't worry, I laughed, Twister.
and before you guys come at me for saying I'm /pol/ or Trump or whatever, I voted Hillary, I just have a sense of humor.
I bet somebody involved thought "CGI" upone considering that question.
Hopefully, that very same person slapped him/herself hard afterwards.
I assume they'll do what was done with Oliver Reed in Gladiator, using clever editing and digital inserts to grant her a heroic death scene. As with Heath Ledger's Joker they'll want to preserve as much of her performance as possible.
Disney literally did that in "Rogue One" for Tarkin and Leia.
Rey and Luke snap to attention, sensing through the force Leia has died, their training had finished and Rey was already trying to convince Luke to return. This provides the push he needed.
They go back for the giant multiple planets wide celebration of her life/mornful funeral and through out the movie we hear Rebel forces speak of her saintly work and how she never recovered from the grief of Han's death.
Somewhere on Tatooine, those who had been loyal to Jabba the Hutt hear word of the Huttslayer's demise and celebrate.
Kylo Ren feels the pull of the light side even stronger as he secretly grieves the destruction he's caused while cursing himself for being so weak.
I did not mean it as a complete joke, you know. "Huttslayer" is a canonical nickname for Leia as of this year.
I am not entirely sure "loyal to Jabba the Hutt" is something that actually existed in the SW universe. I mean, in context, Leia's Hutt-Slayer moniker is congratulatory.
Well not on Tatooine as other crime lords flowed into fill the gap but if she went into Hutt controlled space that would be a different.
To that note I'd liked to see Nar Shadda and Nal Hutta
Maybe get a little of that in the Solo film.
New Star Wars Rebel trailer.
Getting hype for Old Obi-Wan
I did not want that, but guess I don't mind if they execute it well.
Judging by their track record, I say they most likely will.
I know this is supposed to be straight up Star Wars The Series
But man its ugly.
I'm slowly burning through cgi Clone Wars. I am still amazed at how season 1 was bad, but had a good finale. And season 2 has been on average, good. I was not expecting a really well done Godzilla parody. That came out of nowhere.
After finally seeing Rogue One in the cinema, had a weird conversation with a human being who believes that Star Wars movies don't have to make sense, and you just turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle. Cause "that's what fiction is really about". When I told them "Well, that's just how you see it", got a response "No, it is a fact".
That human being was much older than me.
It's a matter of perspective, really. And his is all wrong.
Going to the movies with elemetary schoolers is just asking for problems.
But in all seriousness, I'm doubtful this person watched Empire Strikes Back.
Every movie has inconsistencies, your capacity to forgive them is directly proportional to the movie's aesthetic quality. If you're spending inordinate energy nit-picking a movie, it's because the movie failed to grab you on an emotional level and you're looking for reasons why in the plot itself rather than the cinematography framing it.
Which isn't to say that your colleague was 100% correct, since nothing in critical analysis ever is, but creating a spectacle that an audience will happily switch their brains off for is a lot harder than it sounds.
>If you're spending inordinate energy nit-picking a movie, it's because the movie failed to grab you on an emotional level and you're looking for reasons why in the plot itself rather than the cinematography framing it.
Or you are part of the team behind CinemaSins. [ding]
The person in question thinks Empire is the best.
And if asked why, would probably give me a logical explanation, which would frame them as a hypocrite (which they probably are).
Is this friend of yours aware that you are calling him/her an hypocrite over Star Wars?
No, not really a friend, a much older person who thinks they're very smart when in fact they are quite dumb.
Okay, really tired of THEYing, might as well stop now.
Why are people still bitching about the Star Wars EU no longer being canon? Those stories aren't going away. People care way too much about what's canon instead of what's good. There are people around me who watch the individual DC cinematic shit not because they like it, but because of how it ties into the overall universe, so they feel like they HAVE to watch it.
Let's just say this:
If they "add back in" the Thrawn Trilogy (with some cosmetic rewrites), and KOTOR 1&2, that would please me very much.
I liked that people were griping that Thrawn didn't seem as artistically minded as before. Till it was pointed out he had a the bottom of his Star Destroyer painted up with a mural.
Also Timothy Zahn is writing a book that will be in new canon so that'll catch everything up.
>Also Timothy Zahn is writing a book that will be in new canon so that'll catch everything up.
If it does not retcon TFA, I am not interested.
>retcon a critically-acclaimed movie that's made Disney more money than god
What on earth made you think that was even a prospect?
I never said I believe that would happen.
Doesn't stop me wanting for that.
"Episode VIII" has a title: "The Last Jedi".
Plus a sinister-looking red font instead of the traditional gold, hearkening back to those "Revenge of the Jedi" teaser posters.
Luke confirmed for dying before he can train Rey and Kylo gets no redemption.
Also, what is the possibility that Disney hard reboots the prequel trilogy? I think after they get done with the new trilogy and Boba Fett they have a pretty high chance going back to the prequels.
>what is the possibility that Disney hard reboots the prequel trilogy?
None. They cannot go back in time and undo the creation of the Prequel Trilogy. They cannot undo the canonicity of the Prequel Trilogy, shitty as it is, without enduring the wrath of "Star Wars" fans over yet another major change to the canon. They probably already have vague plans for continuing the franchise after Episode IX, too. Why would Disney try to remake the Prequel Trilogy when there is little-to-no benefit in doing so?
"Jedi" is both a singular and a plural, so the title doesn't necessarily have to mean that.
>Also, what is the possibility that Disney hard reboots the prequel trilogy?
I won't give a fuck.
>They cannot go back in time and undo the creation of the Prequel Trilogy.
Yes, but they can always reboot it. I don't want to start another long discussion about reboots, but reboots are done for a reasons and I think that Disney could explain it off as "cleaning house" or "rebuilding Star Wars for the fans".
>They cannot undo the canonicity of the Prequel Trilogy
Ah, but I thought that the prequal trilogy was already tossed in the Legends bin, not that I care/know about current canonicity. And if JJ can toss midiclorians out, why not more?
>without enduring the wrath of "Star Wars" fans over yet another major change to the canon.
"Star Wars" fans have already survived the prequel trilogies and the whole Legends... thing, I doubt that fans will not go to a Star Wars film with the rebooting of the much maligned/panned prequel trilogy.
>Why would Disney try to remake the Prequel Trilogy when there is little-to-no benefit in doing so?
While I agree that just moving forward with just running with the franchise and not looking back, it's Star Wars. If the prequel trilogies made more money [in the box Office] than the original trilogy [source http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Wars#tab=summary ] then remaking the prequel trilogy can only result in more money, right? I'm a little surprised you didn't slippery slope me with something about Disney remaking the original trilogy. All Disney has to do is out live enough Star Wars fans that care about the integrity of the OG trilogy
>they can always reboot it
You mean "remake" it. There is no "reboot" to be had here. And Disney will neither reboot nor remake the entire goddamned Skywalker storyline just so Episodes 1 to 3 of the main "Star Wars" storyline do not suck.
>I thought that the prequal trilogy was already tossed in the Legends bin
The last time I checked, the Prequel Trilogy still exists, and I have not heard of the new Grand Poobahs of "Star Wars" saying the movies are not canon and should not "count". (They may be ignored by future filmmakers and storywriters, but that is not the same as saying they are not canon.) If you have proof that Disney has completely disavowed the Prequel Trilogy to the point of disowning all three movies, feel free to offer that proof. Until you can do that, you can consider the Prequel Trilogy as canon.
>remaking the prequel trilogy can only result in more money, right?
You do realize that the Prequel Trilogy movies had higher box office takes because of a rise in ticket prices and the franchise's increased prominence in pop culture, right?
And yes, there is a distinct possibility that a Prequel Trilogy remake could make more money for Disney. But again: What the hell would be the point besides pure corporate greed? (And that would be the only reason for a Prequel Trilogy remake.)
You can wish and hope and pray and suck every Disney executive's dick for the next decade, but none of that will make any wish for a Prequel Trilogy remake come true. If Disney had any plans for remaking the Prequel Trilogy, why have they not announced such plans already? I mean, if you really believe "Star Wars" fans are aching — begging, even! — to see a Prequel Trilogy remake and Disney would want to make those fans happy no matter what, why would Disney start their dips into the "past" with "Rogue One" or the Young Han Solo movie?
Only a comparative handful of "Star Wars" fans might — might — want a Prequel Trilogy remake. What sucks for them is how the opinions of that handful of fools are not nearly enough to sway the plans of a multi-billion-dollar international media conglomerate.
And Disney will never remake the Original Trilogy. No one will. Those movies are like "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather", in that their reputation and importance to pop culture will ensure that they will never get a direct remake. This was, in part, the reason why "Ghostbusters" withstood so many different attempts at reboots and remakes until the one we got — and, in part, why the "Ghosbusters" rebake was widely reviled by general audiences. Some movies just cannot and should not be remade, and some franchises cannot and should not be rebooted. "Star Wars" is one of the latter, and the Original Trilogy are three of the former. The major roles of those films may be recast for movies set during the time of the Original Trilogy and the New Trilogy, and that would be both understandable and acceptable — but the Original Trilogy is too culturally "untouchable" to ever be remade.
I guess I should have said "remake" over "reboot", but you understood what I was trying to say. I guess the prequel trilogy being tossed was me just remembering stuff wrong. I don't really want the prequel trilogy remade as badly as you think I do, it was just a though I had after remembering that Young Han Solo, Yoda and Boba Fett are all getting movies. Disney has the final say on canon, but I think they might allow directors and writers a little wiggle room. But as I said earlier, I never cared about what is and isn't canon.
Source for JJ's opinion on midichlorians ==> http://www.slashfilm.com/jj-abrams-midi-chlorians/
>I will just say this: I would never presume to question anything George Lucas says is canon in Star Wars. And our job was not to negate or undo. A lot of people who are critics of our Star Trek, and I respect all of them, said we destroyed what they loved and negated everything. And we worked hard to clarify that we are not saying that our Star Trek over-rides a thing of the original Star Trek — it was a parallel timeline. I never wanted to negate canon that fans held so dear. And because I love Star Wars and have for too many years… … And having said all that and meaning it — I don’t want to presume over-write or change what George says the rules are.
>I’m not someone who quite understands the science of the Force. To me Star Wars was never about science fiction — it was a spiritual story. And it was more of a fairytale in that regard. For me when I heard Obi-Wan say that the Force surrounds us and binds us all together, there was no judgement about who you were. This was something that we could all access. Being strong with the force didn’t mean something scientific, it meant something spiritual. It meant someone who could believe, someone who could reach down to the depths of your feelings and follow this primal energy that was flowing through all of us. I mean, thats what was said in that first film!
>And there I am sitting in the theater at almost 11 years old and that was a powerful notion. And I think this is what your point was, we would like to believe that when shit gets serious, that you could harness that Force I was told surrounds not just some of us but every living thing. And so, I really feel like the assumption that any character needs to have inherited a certain number of midi-chlorians or needs to be part of a bloodline, it’s not that I don’t believe that as part of the canon, I’m just saying that at 11 years old, that wasn’t where my heart was. And so I respect and adhere to the canon but I also say that the Force has always seemed to me to be more inclusive and stronger than that.
Yes, this is pretty much what I was talking about: The new films cannot override the canonicity of the Prequel Trilogy, but that does not mean new filmmakers will be forced to reference Episodes 1 to 3. I would imagine that, since the Skywalker saga appears to be nearing its end, references to the Prequel Trilogy will be few and far between, if they even happen at all.
And I doubt the films will ever get into "the science of the Force" again. That was one of Episode 1's biggest missteps, and it is telling that the following two films never really reference midichlorians again.
I didn't mind the concept of the Midichlorians as much as the sillyness of sticking numerical numbers to signify less and more powerful Jedi, DBZ style.
>Disney has the final say on canon
Which is why I don't care anymore. Once Rebels is over, I'm off the ride.
The last arc of The Clone Wars made a conscious effort to "re-mystify" the Force, Midichlorians and all. I believe the implication was that the Jedi had grown so technocratic and bureaucratised in the last days of the Republic that they'd grown to see the Force in the same terms. Yoda came to see the error in this, which is why the Midichlorian talk fell into disuse in the original trilogy.
This is…this is actually a little depressing. I mean, yeah, I disliked Jar-Jar and all, but good lord.
It's kinda pathetic. Yes, nobody likes the character, but that was almost 18 years ago. Just forget it, no amount of shitting on Jar Jar will make "right" him being part of the franchise.
On a whim, I looked up the Darth Vader bit from "Rogue One", and the film's ending was in the "related videos" sidebar.
Even in a camrip (though admittedly a damn good one), the uncanny valley nature of CGI Leia was all too apparent. If that shot had been maybe a couple seconds shorter, the effect might not have been as noticeable.
But hey, judge for yourself (while the video is still up): //youtube.com/watch?v=TfcHJw-6sHk
Oh, and incidentally:
Foreign-language versions of "The Last Jedi" subtitle have confirmed that "Jedi", in this context, is indeed a plural.
Wasn't that evident in english? Palpatine reffers to the whole bunch of them as "the Jedi", not "Jedis"
It was not. "Jedi" is both singular and plural, and Luke seems to be the last remaining (proper) Jedi in the galaxy. Thus, the number of Jedi referred to in the subtitle — one or at least two — was a minor mystery until people learned about the foreign-language subtitles.
By the way if you guys aren't in the mood for eating right now go look up the "Decraniated".
Yea and people thought Lobot had it bad.
Also new book is bringing in some stuff about Sheev along with that Jar Jar. Bringing back his hidden bases that he had all over the place in EU along with a listening post for things in the unknown regions
>we killed Han
>but don't worry, we'll give you more Han!
I wonder who the guy in the upper right of the pic could be playing.
Guessing one of those gals will be the Rebel Predecessor he had a thing with for a bit back in the day.
The entire misstep of resurrecting Maul was worth it just for this one scene.
The entire episode is buildup to the encounter between Obi-Wan and Maul around the campfire. Obi-Wan begins in his traditional stance, then shifts into the stance Qui-Gon took in TPM. Maul moves to counter it with the same trick he pulled on Qui-Gon, only for Obi-Wan to slice through Maul's sabre and stab him in the chest. You're expecting some big choral-backed climactic shit but the entire fight is literally two swipes and it's done. Obi-Wan cradling dying Maul in his arms lasts longer, as Maul alludes to the young Jedi Obi-Wan is protecting and says "he will avenge us."
It's like poetry, it rhymes.
See, never liked that rationale, that death isn't bad and should be fully accepted because it's natural. Rain is also natural, and yet people invented umbrellas! Someday we will also invent a way to get around it, and I doubt that many won't take it just because mom nature says they should die.
Yeah, and when you come up with this fancy immortality thing that lets people survive everything from car accidents to The Sixth Extinction, you let us know, okay? Until then: Everything that has a beginning has an end.
And that is not even touching the overpopulation that would happen speedily.
First trailer for The Last Jedi has dropped y'all.
Who wants to bet that last line turns out to be a total fakeout?
I'm guessing Luke's come to the conclusion that building a "Jedi Order" is on a hiding to nothing - there's more to the Force than hiding away in a monastery being all superior and shit. That doesn't mean "no more light side Force users," just that that's no longer synonymous with "Jedi."
Well Bioware Austin is rebooting the series so we'll see what comes of that stuff.
Not a KOTOR reboot, actually some sort of Destiny-esque spinoff set in the new canon.
They better announce the animating of the unmade season of The Clone Wars on the 4th, or else I will be less happy than I could potentially be.
Wonder what the shake down was on this. They just wanted to make up a whole lotta things unconnected to the rest of the films. Which would work with a project like Rogue One but not something tied into direct canon. Course that's just an assumption based on their prior work.
And now an update. They've tapped Ron Howard to replace them.
And the whole rundown of the situation to cap it. Lord and Miller went off script in direction of the Han Solo film ignoring the direction of the film as a Wild West /Heist film going with a lot of improv and angling towards their more comedic tone material.
They tried to keep this on the down low from Disney until Lawrence Kasdan the screenwriter had enough and went up the ladder to Kathleen Kennedy who ordered a rough cut of the finished material. Upon that review, Lord and Miller were fired and now Ron Howard is heading things.
Midnight's Edge gives a good synopsis as well.
As someone who actually didn't care for The LEgo Movie's style of humor that much, good riddance.
Sounds like the right decision. I liked “The Lego Movie”, but a Young Han Solo movie does not need that movie’s style of humor. Ron Howard directing it should turn out an interesting result, though.
Maybe they can get a step towards that Spaghetti Western style that Hollywood keeps chasing and never fully realizing.
I'd say depending on how much of the Lord and Miller material will be scrapped they should look into Once Upon a Time in the West or My Name is Nobody. The latter uses a bit more humor so maybe that and other Terence Hill Westerns could give them something. Or if they just scrap the last four months and it only ever exists as that rough cut then go full Sergio Leone.
Oh no, I love space weasterns, but I don't want to have high expectations for young Han Solo. Going into the new Star Wars movies with low expectations has given me great success in actually enjoying them.
Also, I would suspect that the increase of comedy in young Han Solo might have been a response to complaints about Rogue One being too serious and dark. Have some complaints about Rogue One, but it's dark and serious tone were more beneficial for my enjoyment than detractors.
Well, that, and the “charming rogue” archetype that defines Han Solo’s character would feel a bit more at home in a more lighthearted film than one with a serious tone.
Then we'd look towards the Terence Hill Trinity westerns. Where he's an aloof wiseass drifter with a quick hand and a heart of gold.
He'll rob bandits blind but help out those in need.
Be a great scene to emulate parts of for a game of Sabacc with Lando and Han.
The problem with Rogue One is that Star Wars is a children's movie franchise and it pretty was explicitly the older, nerdy audience. Which means it's becoming less like Star Wars and more like Star Trek. And directed by the same guy. A homogenization of the two major space opera franchises is not a good thing for people who like both series for different reasons, unless someone manages to revive Stargate SG-1 or Farscape into serious contenders.
Which is pretty unlikely.
>Star Wars is just for kids my man
Don't take George's words as gospel. Half of it is perfectly child-friendly, but to say SW is "for kids" is fucking lying.
The problem with Rogue One is that the character's were not worth crap. Forest Whitaker (I don't even recall his character's name) dies and I was like "so what". Then Jyn's dad dies and the same reaction, who gives a shit. Then everybody else dies in quick sucession, and I still got 0 emotional response because the movie never bothered giving me any reason for me to care.
Nope. I cared quite a bit when Han died in Force Awakens. Also, even if they may not be my absolute favorites characters in the series, if any of the power trio died in the Last Jedi the movie would get at least a "awwww shucks" from me. It was a problem with Rogue One, not on my side.
>Don't take George's words as gospel. Half of it is perfectly child-friendly, but to say SW is "for kids" is fucking lying.
It's not *just* for kids, but it is certainly for kids. You are lying to yourself if you think Star Wars was ever anything but a children's movie with crossover appeal. That's like thinking Avatar: The Last Airbender wasn't "for kids."
I'd still go with George over Abrams. And from the looks of things most of the production also is leaning towards that.
They've apparently asked George for all his notes and what his plans were and are compartmentalizing "working around" Abrams trash.
This was a common complaint about Rogue One by critics, actually--darkness-induced viewer apathy, and the fact that the narrative didn't actually give you any REASON to give a shit about any of the people who died. They gave us scenes that are "supposed" to gain sympathy for characters from the audience, without actually putting in the story work to earn that sympathy. Which isn't even a question of time, it's just a question of the skill and heart of the people writing it--Pixar, for example, managed to create huge sympathy for Carl and Ellie in Up in the course of about three minutes just by showing a quick series of scenes of them being happy together so that we appreciated what had been lost and why it should be emotionally devastating.
Killing a few characters isn't enough to give a story emotional torque. You have to show who that character was, make the audience care about them, like them if possible, and then show the emotional devastation their death makes on survivors. To be fair, it's not like Star Wars has done a fantastic job of this even in the classics--Obi Wan's death wasn't particularly saddening, and while Yoda's was a little bit sadder because of how much more human his death was (and because we had come to actually care about the Jedi Traditions and the fact that Luke's training would now never be complete), it was really only Vader's death that had any real emotional torque from a character perspective--and that's because Vader's redemption had become at least 80% of Luke's character arc at that point. If we had not been made to care about Luke's quest to prove his father's humanity by seeing why he came to do so and why it was important to him, the fact that Vader turned on the Emperor would've been tedious.
Which is why they're going to have to be awfully careful with how they handle Kylo Ren's character in the new trilogy. He doesn't deserve redemption based on his own character--the only way to make the audience actually give a shit about seeing him redeemed (other than the random fans that every edgy "bad boy" gets) is to tie his redemption into the arc of someone we actually care about. Which means probably either Luke's or Chewbacca's arcs, since real life has written the plot on Leia's involvement, sadly, and the actual focus characters of the arc, Rey, Finn, and Poe, have no reason to give a shit about Kylo.
>Killing a few characters isn't enough to give a story emotional torque.
This is the kind of moment where I like to bring up the Eight Deadly Words of Storytelling: “I don’t care what happens to these people.”
Damn Skippy. Wish they hadn't nixed the 4 inch Black Series for those "Retro" style figures.
I'd have loved a highly articulated figures for those vehicles.
…why is Han Solo now a furry animal of some sort?
If the leak is true then Anakin reincarnated in a Force Sloth, then perhaps Han came back as a Force Hamster
Looks like they got rid of Colin Trevorrow for IX. Good riddance based on what I've heard about his newest film.
Not yet, but I have to wonder: How will this affect the future of other white male directors in Hollywood?
>Good riddance based on what I've heard about his newest film.
Book of Henry? I watched that, and it was indeed quite shit. The film starts with a strange kinda-cutesy-but-there-is-rape premise, but quickly goes into edgy nonsense, and ends in an anti-climax that makes you question what the fuck was the point of the whole thing.
One popular suggestion on Twitter: The Wachowskis.
If I were in charge of the whole shebang, I would try to hire back whoever is directing The Last Jedi for continuity’s sake—but I would sure as fuck give a spinoff movie to the Wachowskis.
Why do people still want the Wachowskis to do anything? It's been 18 years since The Matrix, and they haven't managed to make anything that gets even close to that mark. I think it's time to accept that perhaps, they managed to catch lighting in a bottle ONCE, and won't ever do it again.
After Jupiter Ascending? HELL NO.
Seems like they're pretty happy with The Last Jedi so far so I like the idea of Rian Johnson just staying on, same way Marvel hired the Russos back for Civil War and the next Avengers.
The same could be said of M. Night Shyamalan and he still gets to direct feature films.
Hire George Lucas to direct one of the spin-off films. I would like to see how he fares without being the supreme emperor in charge of everthing, and not being surrounded by yes-men.
Well, that settles that.
George "The Idea Man" Lucas cannot fix the situation.
The only way to do, is to declare TFA non-canon and start over.
OH WAIT CARRIE IS DEAD AND HARRISON IS DONE WE CANNOT DO IT THEN.
>George "The Idea Man" Lucas cannot fix the situation.
…the fuck are you talking about? Nobody was saying anything like that, especially in that post. Th’fuck is wrong with you?
Good. I hope he finishes the mystery box stuff he set up. But what do I know. I have such low expectations for Star Wars now. My one wish us that the new trilogy ends up finding it's owne identity in Last Jedi.
> Abrams Directing and Writing Episode 9
So yea the jokes about it being RoTJ redux have already started.
Because it fucking will be.
Whole system is just Death Stars or some such nonsense with their sun being an incomplete but functioning one built out of ancient sith tech or something.
Harrison doesn't want to think about there being another person out there that he owes money to.
Harrison and Arnold's bastard spawns take over the Action Movie business.
Arnold's can and wants to and has been hanging out with dad. Because his legit kid is...yea.