Didn't really get any feels from that trailer. I'll go see it, but i'm pretty glad this is finally coming to an end. So maybe we can move on to something more well thought out.
Too little, too late. I'll probably end up watching it on red box dvd... eventually... maybe after I watch the most recent Avengers movie. The trailer itself isn't bad but I just can't get excited about it after TFA/TLJ with Luke turned into a murderous Hobo, Han a deadbeat dad, and Leia a zombie Mary Poppins while simultaneously doing nothing interesting or consistent with the new characters. The Mandalorian is about the only thing that stirs a glimmer of hope in my Star Wars fanboy heart at this point. About the only thing that will change my mind would be if amateur fan reviews consistently give it positive reviews (regardless of what the supposed professional reviewers say).
There was an interesting video I saw a while back talking about the use of leitmotif in Star Wars and the particular themes they were opting to use in their trailers for the sequel movies. The central thesis being that the main fanfare of Star Wars (you know, the one that plays during the opening crawl) is also prominently Luke's personal theme and that they were deliberately avoiding it in these slow bombastic trailer orchestrations for some purpose, sinister or otherwise. Now we have it, complete with overextended brass section and drums, and it's definitely got this uplifting quality to it.
Some quick observations:
-The Tri Fighters from the Force Awakens concept art book have been confirmed.
-We see a Y-Wing shoot a couple down, that old grey mare is still kicking.
-Tightly packed fleet shots remind me of Abrams' Star Trek, hopefully we get an explanation or they spread out.
-Loooots of background ships from other media, looks like we're getting a proper sequel space battle and they're doubling-down on how Rogue One handled theirs
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how they wrap this up, and what state the galaxy is going to be in afterwards.
insaniak wrote: Yup, aside from some slight misgivings that Abrahms is going to try to cram too much stuff into too little movie again, this is looking awesome.
Definitely felt packed. I'm sure there will be internet videos to unpack it, but the saber fight (on the bridge over the roiling ocean) seemed... ponderous. Dunno if they were supposed to be exhausted, or if the fight choreographer wanted something very different from the prequels, but it looked like they were laboriously swinging heavy things, which looks very odd with light sabers.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how they wrap this up, and what state the galaxy is going to be in afterwards.
Hmm. I'm actually utterly disinterested in the state of the galaxy, since none of the new films made any attempt to establish what it was before. ? to ? isn't an interesting progression.
In any case, I'm expecting a RotJ party at the end where they celebrate winning and do none of the work or heavy lifting required to actually fix anything at all. [Head of State is dead doesn't mean the political system falls apart], though obviously that isn't a real consideration here, since the new government died in the first film and it was never a problem, just a random aside.
Definitely felt packed. I'm sure there will be internet videos to unpack it, but the saber fight (on the bridge over the roiling ocean) seemed... ponderous. Dunno if they were supposed to be exhausted, or if the fight choreographer wanted something very different from the prequels, but it looked like they were laboriously swinging heavy things, which looks very odd with light sabers.
Yeah, I took it as them either being exhausted, or trying to balance on a moving surface.
Although 'heavy' sabers would hark back to the original trilogy - Lucas specified that the sabers needed to be wielded two-handed, and when you watch the way Luke, Vader and Obi-Wan use them, they use heavy, deliberate swings. Partly that was just to avoid breaking the props, but it was also intended to convey weight - despite the blade itself not having any weight, lightsabers were supposed to be heavy and take considerable effort and concentration to use well. This had the added benefit of making it look that much more impressive when Vader winds back and hurls his around the room.
The Prequels moved to a much lighter-looking style, with single-handed grips not being uncommon, supposedly to help convey that the Force users of that era were at the height of their power. Although from a practical point of view, it was also quite possibly just because it looked more flashy and by that time they had props that could better handle being whacked against each other, with the 'power' justification just added in to explain that visual shift...
The Sequels seem to have gone for a middle ground, so far. The sabers aren't as ponderous as the OT, but Kylo Ren in particular, while still using a single hand a lot of the time, makes it look like it's hard to swing that thing.
Thargrim wrote: Didn't really get any feels from that trailer. I'll go see it, but i'm pretty glad this is finally coming to an end. So maybe we can move on to something more well thought out.
Looks like we might be in for a decent space battle as well, something I for one always consider welcome.
Yep. This trilogy has been lacking in a great space battle so far for sure.
I’m going to watch it for sure. But will pass judgement once I’ve seen the film, wonder what the chances are of coming out of the cinema grinning like a small boy after watching it like I did after Rogue One.
Looking like a retread of Return of the Jedi, but that was an excellent trailer. I like how Rey venturing into the wreakage is a throwback to her introduction in Force Awakens.
Looks like we might be in for a decent space battle as well, something I for one always consider welcome.
Yep. This trilogy has been lacking in a great space battle so far for sure.
I’m going to watch it for sure. But will pass judgement once I’ve seen the film, wonder what the chances are of coming out of the cinema grinning like a small boy after watching it like I did after Rogue One.
To be honest, the only really good space battles to date are Return of the Jedi and Rogue One, both of which for me set the bar.
Yes, ANH has the Death Star attack, but that was too small scale for my tastes, excellent though it is. I needs to see capital ships dukeing it out as well!
Simply not hyped, I'm afraid. It's not that I don't care about Star Wars stuff any more (Clone Wars and Mandalorian have me hyped as all hell!), but I just have no investment in this trilogy.
One particular comment on the trailer summed it up well for me: "says the saga is ending, but I watched the first two movies of this trilogy, and I have no idea if it's even begun yet!" I simply still don't feel any stakes, any journey for this particular story. And unfortunately the trailer has seemed to just imply that with JJ at the helm, he's just ignoring TLJ and going bigger and bolder.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Simply not hyped, I'm afraid. It's not that I don't care about Star Wars stuff any more (Clone Wars and Mandalorian have me hyped as all hell!), but I just have no investment in this trilogy.
One particular comment on the trailer summed it up well for me: "says the saga is ending, but I watched the first two movies of this trilogy, and I have no idea if it's even begun yet!" I simply still don't feel any stakes, any journey for this particular story. And unfortunately the trailer has seemed to just imply that with JJ at the helm, he's just ignoring TLJ and going bigger and bolder.
Ah well. Will still see it anyways.
I think ignoring TLJ isn’t the worst plan in the world for him. After all, he set something up and RJ dumped all over that. He’s just returning the favor and giving this movie a chance. Also, the trailer did actually excite me.
Captain Joystick wrote: There was an interesting video I saw a while back talking about the use of leitmotif in Star Wars and the particular themes they were opting to use in their trailers for the sequel movies. The central thesis being that the main fanfare of Star Wars (you know, the one that plays during the opening crawl) is also prominently Luke's personal theme and that they were deliberately avoiding it in these slow bombastic trailer orchestrations for some purpose, sinister or otherwise. Now we have it, complete with overextended brass section and drums, and it's definitely got this uplifting quality to it.
IIRC, they used a remix in the trailer for TFA also, and I wish they'd use them in the actual films. Makes it sound fresher and updated. Obviously some fans would complain, but hopefully those people will stay home for this one anyway. (They won't.)
Anyway, good trailer. Looks fun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The fact it's got a lot of ground to cover is what's piqued my interest.
Resurrection of the Resistance/Rebellion, something to do with Palpatine, conclusion of Rey's journey, and, theoretically, defeat of the First Order.
My hope is that more people will walk into this one with an open mind and not worry about how it has to hit these beats and resolve those stories and have that ending.
Voss wrote: Hmm. I'm actually utterly disinterested in the state of the galaxy, since none of the new films made any attempt to establish what it was before. ? to ? isn't an interesting progression.
In any case, I'm expecting a RotJ party at the end where they celebrate winning and do none of the work or heavy lifting required to actually fix anything at all. [Head of State is dead doesn't mean the political system falls apart], though obviously that isn't a real consideration here, since the new government died in the first film and it was never a problem, just a random aside.
Obviously. That's not what the movies do.
But by wrapping up the trilogy I suspect Lucasfilm will be free up to expand this era in the expanded universe lore - it naturally becomes easier to introduce new ships and ideas when they're not worried about being retconned by the film.
I'm especially interested for purposes of running games - if the FO is heroically vanquished the galaxy could potentially be left fractured amongst many smaller states with FO military surplus cropping up everywhere - would be great for eote stories.
Captain Joystick wrote: There was an interesting video I saw a while back talking about the use of leitmotif in Star Wars and the particular themes they were opting to use in their trailers for the sequel movies. The central thesis being that the main fanfare of Star Wars (you know, the one that plays during the opening crawl) is also prominently Luke's personal theme and that they were deliberately avoiding it in these slow bombastic trailer orchestrations for some purpose, sinister or otherwise. Now we have it, complete with overextended brass section and drums, and it's definitely got this uplifting quality to it.
IIRC, they used a remix in the trailer for TFA also, and I wish they'd use them in the actual films. Makes it sound fresher and updated. Obviously some fans would complain, but hopefully those people will stay home for this one anyway. (They won't.)
You may be thinking of the Binary Sunsets theme, used prominently during Han's 'It's all true' bit in the second trailer?
Prior to this, I'm pretty sure the only use of the main Star Wars theme was in the very first teaser with the Falcon doing a flip. - Maybe during a couple of title cards?
Captain Joystick wrote: There was an interesting video I saw a while back talking about the use of leitmotif in Star Wars and the particular themes they were opting to use in their trailers for the sequel movies. The central thesis being that the main fanfare of Star Wars (you know, the one that plays during the opening crawl) is also prominently Luke's personal theme and that they were deliberately avoiding it in these slow bombastic trailer orchestrations for some purpose, sinister or otherwise. Now we have it, complete with overextended brass section and drums, and it's definitely got this uplifting quality to it.
IIRC, they used a remix in the trailer for TFA also, and I wish they'd use them in the actual films. Makes it sound fresher and updated. Obviously some fans would complain, but hopefully those people will stay home for this one anyway. (They won't.)
You may be thinking of the Binary Sunsets theme, used prominently during Han's 'It's all true' bit in the second trailer?
Prior to this, I'm pretty sure the only use of the main Star Wars theme was in the very first teaser with the Falcon doing a flip. - Maybe during a couple of title cards?
I was talking about the new arrangements in general and not that specific theme. It'll be interesting to see how they handle the music in future films.
At first I was a bit disappointed with this trailer as it doesn't appear to really reveal anything. But then I realized, "Hey, it doesn't reveal anything" i.e. nothing is spoiled.
Normally, I get so hyped before the movie that I end up not resisting the lure of the dark side and read up on all the plot points before even seeing the movie. I'm not overly bothered by spoilers, but as this is the "finale" of the Saga, I might try to go in a bit more blind than usual so I get more of an experience
And maybe that's what they intended with this trailer since it really seems to do a good job of not really showing anything but generic "yep that's Star Wars" imagery.
Although, I do have 1 speculation. I'll put it in spoilers just in case:
Spoiler:
I think 3PO is going to "die" in this one. Or rather they'll have to turn on his "combat mode" or something like that, but in order to do so, his personality will be lost forever. This would put 3PO's "lifespan" perfectly within Ep1-9 as we see him "activated" in Ep1 and may see him finally "deactivated" in Ep9.
gorgon wrote: I was talking about the new arrangements in general and not that specific theme. It'll be interesting to see how they handle the music in future films.
Oh, I see.
Yeah, the trailer arrangements of the Williams themes have been very on point. I'd love for them to be collected in an album.
Looks good. I do fear its going to have the same time crunch created by VIII taking place immediately after VII the way it did. The ending of VIII left me wanting some time between it and IX for an oppressive new status quo to catch up on, but it feels like it will pivot pretty quickly into the finale. I'd rather not the whole trilogy take place over a weekend.
Hoping they use the Emperor well. The bits of dialog here sound interesting but I fear JJ will mostly add "something, something Dark Side" over something meaningful to the idea. Snoke's use of mind reading and future sight to dominate Kylo in the last one is the first time I've really seen the Dark Side presented better than "angry and throws lightning". I'd like to see more along those lines.
Watching the newest trailer, it looks even more like another Marvel Avengers movie with a star wars texture pack slapped over the top, which isn't really what I'm looking for. None of the story hook stuff is doing anything for me, the characters I had emotional investment in have been shown off in unsatisfactory ways already, and I just am not interested in any of the new ones they have introduced.
My inner 10 year old *wants* to be excited about this, but it just isn't hitting the spot.
Although, I do have 1 speculation. I'll put it in spoilers just in case:
Spoiler:
I think 3PO is going to "die" in this one. Or rather they'll have to turn on his "combat mode" or something like that, but in order to do so, his personality will be lost forever. This would put 3PO's "lifespan" perfectly within Ep1-9 as we see him "activated" in Ep1 and may see him finally "deactivated" in Ep9.
-
FWIW, that jives with one of the many supposed nesting doll leaks from a month or two ago that may just be educated guesses. I don't know if you're aware of that or it's just a guess from the trailer.
Spoiler:
We've also long ago previewed 3P0 toy armed with chewie's bowcaster. The leak in question said that 3p0 has his programming altered by some sort of sith combat programming necessary to find the maguffin that leads the heroes to Palpatines secret lair. That's supposedly why the little alien is working on his head.
I also get the idea there's gonna be a kylo & rey team up to take down the emperor. One of them will probably be mortally wounded in the process, prolly Kylo. Then happy endings ensue.
Although, I do have 1 speculation. I'll put it in spoilers just in case:
Spoiler:
I think 3PO is going to "die" in this one. Or rather they'll have to turn on his "combat mode" or something like that, but in order to do so, his personality will be lost forever. This would put 3PO's "lifespan" perfectly within Ep1-9 as we see him "activated" in Ep1 and may see him finally "deactivated" in Ep9.
-
FWIW, that jives with one of the many supposed nesting doll leaks from a month or two ago that may just be educated guesses. I don't know if you're aware of that or it's just a guess from the trailer.
Spoiler:
We've also long ago previewed 3P0 toy armed with chewie's bowcaster. The leak in question said that 3p0 has his programming altered by some sort of sith combat programming necessary to find the maguffin that leads the heroes to Palpatines secret lair. That's supposedly why the little alien is working on his head.
Actually, my first thought was the Falcon was somehow damaged and L3-37 was lost, so they needed to download a new consciousness unit the ship so it can go do a thing, but that doesn't explain red eyes.
Although, I do have 1 speculation. I'll put it in spoilers just in case:
Spoiler:
I think 3PO is going to "die" in this one. Or rather they'll have to turn on his "combat mode" or something like that, but in order to do so, his personality will be lost forever. This would put 3PO's "lifespan" perfectly within Ep1-9 as we see him "activated" in Ep1 and may see him finally "deactivated" in Ep9.
-
FWIW, that jives with one of the many supposed nesting doll leaks from a month or two ago that may just be educated guesses. I don't know if you're aware of that or it's just a guess from the trailer.
Spoiler:
We've also long ago previewed 3P0 toy armed with chewie's bowcaster. The leak in question said that 3p0 has his programming altered by some sort of sith combat programming necessary to find the maguffin that leads the heroes to Palpatines secret lair. That's supposedly why the little alien is working on his head.
Actually, my first thought was the Falcon was somehow damaged and L3-37 was lost, so they needed to download a new consciousness unit the ship so it can go do a thing, but that doesn't explain red eyes.
Expecting EU stuff to be relevant in films is generally a pretty good route to disappointment. Main line films are not about rewarding people for reading obscure comics.
Looks good, but likely plot outline doesn't look particularly exciting and also, where are the Knights of Ren?? That's one thing I was actually looking forward for.
I am sure they try to put in some twists, but my confidence on JJ Abrams is at all-time low.
Just watched the trailer again for the 3rd time in a row. Despite my feelings about the last Jedi, my inner child is running around it’s living room on melt down over this one.
Please Disney bring it back from the brink and finish the saga on a good note.
Or a desperate attempt to pull the old ships out of mothballs.
There's a shot of a Corvette taking off from a planet that looks like its been abandoned there for a while. I'd assume its more of the mothball factor. Likely the salvager gets a chance to do some salvaging.
I honestly thought that Corvette was crashing on the planet.
The camera POV is underneath and absurdly close, and the ship is coming closer
Galef wrote: At first I was a bit disappointed with this trailer as it doesn't appear to really reveal anything. But then I realized, "Hey, it doesn't reveal anything" i.e. nothing is spoiled.
Well, nothing new, anyway.
Old uncle Palpatine could have been a hell of a shock moment. Instead, well... its advertising buzz that will probably be a let down.
Of course the other possibility is, like the first two, it is a bland, 'check the boxes' type movie that doesn't have anything to spoil.
And it also kind of spoils that C3PO is going to do something something (which we're supposed to take as 'noble suicide'), which is something of a spoiler because the two droids have been pure window dressing for these films. Even if 'something' is 'be gratuitously killed because the writers don't want to do interesting things with old characters'
Or a desperate attempt to pull the old ships out of mothballs.
TLJ mentioned bunch of allies Resistance was counting on to fight on their side (none of whom responded to their blight). I presume somebody gives a big inspirational speech and the Galaxy has a change of heart and gathers a ragtag fleet to stop First Order.
Giving it some thought and wonder if they are taking some influence from Timothy Zahn's Empire trilogy.
You have DJ - a slicer - who gave the hint that someone is dealing weapons to both the resistance and new order, and he had access to their ship. With the resistance reduced to just a handful of survivors on the Falcon, the resistance fleet could be made up of smugglers who are fed up with the New Order's heavy handedness - especially with Kylo in change and having little patience.
The Fleet of older Star destroyers might also be a nod to the Katana Fleet, and the big battle might be to win control of it.
The emperor died in ROTJ and in these trailers he comes across as a ghost - or "Phantom"? - and I wonder if he might use Rey or Kylo in a similar fashion to Mara Jade.
Could Lando be filling Talon Karrde's role? Maybe DJ introduces the new resistance gang to him - maybe even works for him?
Canto Bight is a bit of a nod to the gambling dens and "neutral factions" in Zahn's trilogy.
In Last Jedi, Rey visits a Jedi Master for guidence when there are no other known Jedi in the galaxy, and he believes things that are strongly contradicting the Jedi ways. Hes also overseeing something of great importance. In Zahn's trilogy its "left over tech from the clone wars" but in Last Jedi its the sacred Jedi texts.
Obviously we haven't got the Empire trilogy as we read it back in the 90s and before the Prequels, but it seems to be being used as a rough guide...
Could Threepio - with his red eyes - be a hint that a droid army is involved somehow? The Clone Wars part of the prequels were the most welcome part, and I think those who grew up in that era would delight at their return.
I think it'll be a fakeout like Sith Rey. The conclusion of red eyes= evil Threepio/combat mode is just too obvious to put in the trailer and it be what it appears.
I'm curious about why they didn't actually show Palpatine, other than a brief glimpse of the side of his hood on the throne... We know what Palpatine looks like, so there seems little point in not showing him unless -
- it's not actually Palpatine
or
- it's not as simple as 'Hey, Palpatine's back, baby!'... and showing him would give something about that away.
Either of which might dovetail into the earlier rumours that Matt Smith is in there playing a 'younger' version of Palpatine, which would be either a clone or Palpatine's spirit possessing someone else.
Then again, there was a pic released a few days back showing an alien that was supposed to probably be Matt Smith in lots of makeup, so who knows.
Also, the Falcon has its round sensor dish back. Yay!
Looks good. I do fear its going to have the same time crunch created by VIII taking place immediately after VII the way it did. The ending of VIII left me wanting some time between it and IX for an oppressive new status quo to catch up on, but it feels like it will pivot pretty quickly into the finale. I'd rather not the whole trilogy take place over a weekend.
It doesn't. It was mentioned a while back that there's a bit of a gap between the end of TLJ and the start of this one. Presumably time for Rey to get in some training and for what's left of the Resistance to do some recruiting.
insaniak wrote: I'm curious about why they didn't actually show Palpatine, other than a brief glimpse of the side of his hood on the throne... We know what Palpatine looks like, so there seems little point in not showing him unless -
- it's not actually Palpatine
or
- it's not as simple as 'Hey, Palpatine's back, baby!'... and showing him would give something about that away.
I suspect there are a number of fakeouts in the trailer. Some scenes might not even be in the film, since that's such a thing now.
Thing is, I don't know if that helps or hurts. Some fans are going to try to 'figure out' the movie from the trailers no matter how vague you make them, so maybe it's just better to be honest and show what you can so they aren't butthurt when their expectations are wrong.
SamusDrake wrote: Could Threepio - with his red eyes - be a hint that a droid army is involved somehow? The Clone Wars part of the prequels were the most welcome part, and I think those who grew up in that era would delight at their return.
Supposedly one of the big galactic lessons of the prequel's droid armies was that the galaxy learned they were rubbish and they weren't worth bothering with.
Though that was a Lucas bit, and I doubt that the current studio/writers/directors care about some of the minor takeaways from the prequels.
insaniak wrote: I'm curious about why they didn't actually show Palpatine, other than a brief glimpse of the side of his hood on the throne... We know what Palpatine looks like, so there seems little point in not showing him unless -
- it's not actually Palpatine
or
- it's not as simple as 'Hey, Palpatine's back, baby!'... and showing him would give something about that away.
There's a scene where it looks like Rey and Kylo team up and strike down a black cloak. Haven't rewatched it for details. I think at this point its very likely that Palpatine won't be a physical entity but some kind of raw manifestation of the Dark Side. That would tie into the way Maz describes it in Ep7, but I try not to assume anything JJ puts in his dialog necessarily has any meaning so I wouldn't put a lot of stock in any sort of foreshadowing.
Easy E wrote: So, where did all those rebels come from?
I guess I would have to watch the movie to find out.....
You believe the movie will answer this question?
well given the First Order is even dumber than The Empire sploding those planets in FA with your latest bad idea was going to cause a bit of pushback, especially once word gets out it got kaboomed just like the other ones
It doesn't. It was mentioned a while back that there's a bit of a gap between the end of TLJ and the start of this one. Presumably time for Rey to get in some training and for what's left of the Resistance to do some recruiting.
I'm glad, because I don't think that story has to be told in the film. The crawl can cover it. I also don't think it has to end with the absolute and total defeat of the First Order/New Empire (and don't think that it will). For one thing, they'll want to make more movies in that universe, and why rid the franchise of its only good villain(ous entity)? For another, I think it's genuinely enough to end it roughly where ROTJ did.
Don’t forget that the Tarkin Doctrine wasn’t a bad plan. Just poorly executed.
If it wasn’t for Galen Erso tipping off the Rebel Alliance, they’d have had time to double check the completed plans. That wasn’t possible at the time, as to keep construction a secret it was proper Batman - lots of different peeps building innocuous bits and bobs.
With victory over Scarif, and Tarkin’s hubris, The Emperor’s hand was tipped prematurely.
It was the loss of the Death Star, not its deployment, that screwed things up.
gorgon wrote: Some scenes might not even be in the film, since that's such a thing now.
And I for one really wish film producers would stop doing this. It's bloody annoying, particularly when it's a cool shot (like the tie fighter pop-up from Rogue One).
insaniak wrote: I'm curious about why they didn't actually show Palpatine, other than a brief glimpse of the side of his hood on the throne... We know what Palpatine looks like, so there seems little point in not showing him unless -
- it's not actually Palpatine
or
- it's not as simple as 'Hey, Palpatine's back, baby!'... and showing him would give something about that away.
There's a scene where it looks like Rey and Kylo team up and strike down a black cloak. Haven't rewatched it for details. I think at this point its very likely that Palpatine won't be a physical entity but some kind of raw manifestation of the Dark Side. That would tie into the way Maz describes it in Ep7, but I try not to assume anything JJ puts in his dialog necessarily has any meaning so I wouldn't put a lot of stock in any sort of foreshadowing.
I *think* that's Vader's mask on top of a pedestal. However, I think it's possible that the scene is a fakeout or dream sequence or something. The scene wants to suggest the two of them working together, but Ben wearing his Kylo mask suggests that he isn't reformed.
gorgon wrote: Some scenes might not even be in the film, since that's such a thing now.
And I for one really with film producers would stop doing this. It's bloody annoying, particularly when it's a cool shot (like the tie fighter pop-up from Rogue One).
At least that one has the excuse of extensive reshoots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Are you suggesting it was three Ewoks stacked up in a cloak all along?
Looks pretty forgettable, which is not at all surprising considering this is coming from the same guy that gave us An Even Newer Hope. Dragging Palpatine out of the grave is a huge indicator of how creatively bankrupt the people running this franchise are.
Frazzled wrote: So if all the Skywalkers are dead why is this called the Rise of Skywalker again?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Leia is still alive at the beginning of the film, Luke will probably be around as a Force ghost, Kylo Ren is a Skywalker, you never know who Rey may turn out to be, maybe the film will explain it, etc.
Though that was a Lucas bit, and I doubt that the current studio/writers/directors care about some of the minor takeaways from the prequels.
I don't believe we could call the Clone Wars TV show a minor takeaway, of which the droids were the main antagonists. So popular they bought them back for an episode in Rebels.
Kylo also entertained the thought of using a clone army in Force Awakens...
creeping-deth87 wrote: Looks pretty forgettable, which is not at all surprising considering this is coming from the same guy that gave us An Even Newer Hope. Dragging Palpatine out of the grave is a huge indicator of how creatively bankrupt the people running this franchise are.
Frazzled wrote: So if all the Skywalkers are dead why is this called the Rise of Skywalker again?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Probably the rise of Anakin Skywalker, as there is a shot where Rey is backing away from a mechanical, black cloaked figure***.
Also, The Last Jedi ended on the note that the galaxy is inspired by Lukes final act on Krait. Perhaps giving rise to him as a legendary figure and symbol to unite the resistance.
*** My mistake - its the emperor. Looks like its just Luke being a bit of a symbol.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Looks pretty forgettable, which is not at all surprising considering this is coming from the same guy that gave us An Even Newer Hope. Dragging Palpatine out of the grave is a huge indicator of how creatively bankrupt the people running this franchise are.
EU would never have stooped to such nonsense....
The EU was mostly garbage too, don't recall ever saying otherwise.
gorgon wrote: Some scenes might not even be in the film, since that's such a thing now.
And I for one really wish film producers would stop doing this. It's bloody annoying, particularly when it's a cool shot (like the tie fighter pop-up from Rogue One).
On that we agree. I really missed that scene as well as (to my own shame) the part where she says to the rebels that she rebels. I know that second one is cringey but I liked it... and both were missing from the actual film after the reshoots.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Are you suggesting it was three Ewoks stacked up in a cloak all along?
This would completely redeem the Ewoks.
Indeed... for a visions comics issue though! A old friend of mine cut up the old Star Wars WOTC mini of the Emperor to glue his force lighting onto a Jawa that he repainted into a dark lord of the sith. I wouldn't have done that with my own (at the time) $40 ultrarare but I'll admit it was entertaining.
Though that was a Lucas bit, and I doubt that the current studio/writers/directors care about some of the minor takeaways from the prequels.
I don't believe we could call the Clone Wars TV show a minor takeaway, of which the droids were the main antagonists. So popular they bought them back for an episode in Rebels.
'We' aren't calling the cartoon any such thing. Just the idea that using a droid army is ineffective because they aren't very good.
Kylo also entertained the thought of using a clone army in Force Awakens...
A clone army is not a droid army, so I'm not clear on the relevance of this statement.
I just don't have any attachment to these characters or their story and given how much of a curveball/asspull Palpatine's maybe-return is combined with JJ's predilection for "mystery box" gotcha BS, I can't assess the actual stakes of the film because we don't know if he'll be the baddie or it's a misdirect.
At this point, all I can bring myself to hope for is that RoS ends up being as inoffensively dull as TFA and doesn't gak too much on established characters.
Hope everyone likes a big ole space battle where everyone dies, and we don't see rian johnson for this one. The last movie was shot gorgeously but written poorly. If it had a team of writers that were extremely comptent that would've been a great film. I hope they give Star wars movies a break for a bit... (they aren't) but hey I can dream.
This series was pretty disappointing and pretty bland, if I do say so myself, and i hope the latest film is better and brings a bit more risk to the table and not play safe bets the entire movie.
Still not a clue as to what this movie was about. Normally big movies get one "story" trailer to at least give the basic premise. We know nothing about this.
Anyway, I'm curious about this because it'll be the first time JJ has had to end something. That alone will be worth the price of admission.
And if they can retcon anything from TLJ whilst they're at it, then that'll be nice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Still not a clue as to what this movie was about. Normally big movies get one "story" trailer to at least give the basic premise. We know nothing about this.
Anyway, I'm curious about this because it'll be the first time JJ has had to end something. That alone will be worth the price of admission.
And if they can retcon anything from TLJ whilst they're at it, then that'll be nice.
Yeah I can't get a read out of this movie at all, which is really wierd which might mean.. its a complete an absolute mess. Or its going to be run of the mill.
In two minds about this, on the one hand it looks like we are going to get a nice big space battle with the Imperials returning and loads of new/old ships (including the Ghost!) which will be cool.
On the other hand whilst that is going on we have people riding horses along the hull of an Imp Star deuce, which is... uhm? Hopefully it makes sense in the film but I really have my doubts. Perhaps they are the freed slaves from TLJ coming to save the day in one last glorious charge?
Not because I'm going to go and see it, of course. These things have gotten progressively more cringe-inducing and taking $20 and lighting it on fire while I ate microwave popcorn would be a better source of entertainment.
I'm excited because, well- hopefully this God-awful dumpster fire is burning down to its last embers and we can shove this trilogy directly into the budget bin at Wal-Mart and in a few years, we can lump it together with that mythical "fourth Indiana Jones movie" that doesn't exist, and look at people like they're insane when they bring these movies up.
The only thing these movies have done for Star Wars is make the prequels look better.
And that's like saying "that experience made my colonoscopy more appealing by comparison".
Good riddance, and once this movie is in the past with its two ugly siblings... we can "kill the past, burn it if we must".
H.B.M.C. wrote: Still not a clue as to what this movie was about. Normally big movies get one "story" trailer to at least give the basic premise. We know nothing about this.
Anyway, I'm curious about this because it'll be the first time JJ has had to end something. That alone will be worth the price of admission.
And if they can retcon anything from TLJ whilst they're at it, then that'll be nice.
Yeah I can't get a read out of this movie at all, which is really wierd which might mean.. its a complete an absolute mess. Or its going to be run of the mill.
Run time is apparently confirmed at around 2 1/2 hours, which is supposedly the longest SW movie ever. It would be difficult to give a clear indication of what are clearly several threads in a short trailer. I suspect we'll have Luke.. er Rey on the Death Star, Han.. er Finn and Poe on Endor and Lando flying the Falcon to follow separately
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I’d even bet that Frazz has already bought his day one tix!
I got disillusioned with the MCU after the lead up to Captain Marvel and have yet to see the last Avengers movie after being with the MCU since the very beginning (opening weekend for Iron Man) and only missing one movie in the whole lineup in theatres until that point. Unless fan reviews tell me that it's a true return to form and not a rehash (like TFA) or a disgrace (like TLJ) or just plain ok (like Rogue One) or utterly forgettable (like Solo which I paid for another movie and walked into), I won't be seeing it. I'm under no grand illusion that somehow my patronage will make or break the movie but my tiny wallet contribution is literally the only direct power I have to wield.
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I’d even bet that Frazz has already bought his day one tix!
Considering I haven't purchased a movie ticket since Guardians of the Galaxy was in theaters, and still refuse to... I think it'd take a lot more than Star Wars to convince me to spend that absurd amount of money on a movie ticket.
It's overall too expensive, even for things that somewhat interest me. I'm not kidding, over $20.00 for tickets here at the theater that doesn't have crack dealers shuffling around in the parking lot. That's like, 2/3 of a Primaris Lieutenant, man!
Hoping that RoS will be good - I think it probably will be...
I don't think standing up for what you believe in is silly but YMMV. Regardless, I'll see it eventually. At some point, Disney will likely offer a free week or month on their streaming service and I'll sign up and binge it along with the Mandalorian or just borrow a friend's dvd (although honestly none have reported getting it yet but that's likely because of streaming moreso than a specific statement on the movie). Initially I did think about renting it on redbox for a dollar but honestly I haven't had the urge to see it that much.
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I mean, how can I not? As a kid, SW was my main jam and that was with barely any mass marketing beyond the movies getting a VHS release. This series has been super important to me for decades. If SW ever gets to the point where even fans like me can’t even be bothered to go see new films then I doubt anyone would bother making them in the first place.
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I mean, how can I not? As a kid, SW was my main jam and that was with barely any mass marketing beyond the movies getting a VHS release. This series has been super important to me for decades. If SW ever gets to the point where even fans like me can’t even be bothered to go see new films then I doubt anyone would bother making them in the first place.
Exactly!
It is more or less how they’ve ‘got’ most of us here. At least for one more ride.
Manchu wrote: If they told us, we might not go see it.
That's cute, but my point was that trailers generally give an idea of what the film is about. Teaser is just that, teaser, then you get two more trailers. One is wizz-bang money shots using some newly completed FX to get people excited, and maybe hit on some character beats, and the second should give some indication of the story.
These trailers have both been the former. We're still in the dark about any element of the narrative other than "Rey will probably be awesome at everything she does without needing to try or be trained or anything".
No matter how many of us refuse to spend money on a ticket, no matter how bad we put down and criticize the movies- they won't stop.
We only needed one damned Cinderella, Aladdin, Lilo & Stitch... and Disney will drag their corpses out of the tomb and squeeze them for every single buck they can make.
Afternoon low-budget live-action Marvel and Star Wars direct-to-Disney TV movies will be the norm.
It's been THE END for a while, man. A lot of us don't like what they do.
And they don't care.
So, people like me? I'm content to just... not spend my money.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Afternoon low-budget live-action Marvel and Star Wars direct-to-Disney TV movies will be the norm.
Low budget? You seen the budgets for Mandalorian? The budget for Hawkeye is going to be $200m.
They're not making low-budget stuff.
Yet. That's the word you left off. Yet.
You seem to underestimate Disney's habit of "milking it dry of all that made it interesting and turning it into something cheap for a quick buck by parading its dead husk around in a mockery of its former glory".
At this rate, they'll have to do some significant mending and improvement to keep things afloat. And the superhero craze is slowly but steadily declining toward the end.
Remember, this is Disney. Some of us have been around long enough to know their routine.
Nice that you're optimistic, and the Mandalorian does look pretty decent... but I see Disney like that girl that many people warned you about, but you refused to listen. And she was a cheating hoe. And a clepto. And she had an STD. And cut you with a razor. And got a DUI and wrecked your car. And ruined your credit. And broke your stuff. And you've been dumped by her, but now she wants you back and you seem to think she's changed... while she stuffs your sunglasses into her purse while you're away...
Well the trailer looks like they're killing c3p0 and I for one am not looking forward to the hateful fun the trolls will have with that. I mean we all know that trolls have made fun of 3p0 for being "gay" for a long time now. So I can imagine the homophobic hate that will be spewed if the "gay droid" dies.
(And for the mods here try to grasp the idea that I amnot gay bashing here, I am slamming hateful trolls who do that and saying I don't like a scene that gives them ammunition to make more hateful troll memes. You guys clearly can't understand jokes, so maybe explaining what i'm doing here will help. )
As to the rest, I'm very sure the took a carefully concealed public opinion poll and market test to see what mainstream aw character couild be killed off with just the "right" balance of fan empathy against fan alienation.
I really think that star wars reflects what's wrong with modern Hollywood. A writer can't just write a good story anymore. I mean sure a writer can pour his passion, his skill, his heart and soul into a strory.
Then its taken to a room full of heartless, soulless creatures in suits who have no storytelling talent called a "market research department" that demand a plethora of changes to appeal to group x and not offend group y and to pacify group z.
Next it's taken to another group of creatures whose humanity is possibly open to question called a "merchandizing department" that demand a new cool vehicle or robot or weapon they can have toys of on the shelves in time for Christmas.
Naturally it must then be submitted to the review of the clearly inhuman "legal department" that demands ten thousand tiny changes for "legal reasons".
Oh, and of course finally it has to pass the Chinese governmental censorship board nowadays.
When star wars was made you could just make the best damn movie you could and let history decide if it was a great movie or not. Now people who wouldn't know creativity or anything else that can't be reduced to figures on a profit\loss column have dictatorial control over every character, word, image and idea in a movie...
That's why movies like star wars can't be made any more.
Manchu wrote: If they told us, we might not go see it.
That's cute, but my point was that trailers generally give an idea of what the film is about.
Yeah I get it. I’m being serious. I don’t think they want to let us know what this film is about.
I think you're reading too much into a Star Wars trailer. They've almost always been fairly vague on what the story was actually about, focusing instead on broad story brushstrokes and visuals.
This one tells us that the Resistance is rebuilding, Rey confronts Kylo again, and somehow or other they both wind up confronted by some version of Palpatine. That's more than enough information for a Part III movie trailer.
Sobekta wrote: Well the trailer looks like they're killing c3p0 and I for one am not looking forward to the hateful fun the trolls will have with that. I mean we all know that trolls have made fun of 3p0 for being "gay" for a long time now. So I can imagine the homophobic hate that will be spewed if the "gay droid" dies.
I mean, there's a bit of a trope about the whiny sissy dude, and C3PO is kind of that- which is kinda funny. As far as 'gay' goes, I'm not really sure. Now, R2 is the one that goes around shoving his droid probe into every socket he finds, that little slut...
Sobekta wrote: As to the rest, I'm very sure the took a carefully concealed public opinion poll and market test to see what mainstream aw character couild be killed off with just the "right" balance of fan empathy against fan alienation.
Well, so far they killed Han and Luke. I'm not shocked or particularly upset that they're killing Threepio... its just more like, "Well, at this point they would, I guess. Why not?" Because there seems to be a theme of "that old thing you like needs to die and go away" through the movies, and I guess they may as well. Hell, let's just shave the damned Wookie and wreck the Falcon while we're at it. Why not?
I
Sobekta wrote: really think that star wars reflects what's wrong with modern Hollywood. A writer can't just write a good story anymore. I mean sure a writer can pour his passion, his skill, his heart and soul into a strory.
I know how you feel here. I have always been a big horror fan. And that genre is suffering. Badly.
After "Scary pale chick with long dark hair doing weird stuff" movie #1034049, sometimes they change it up with some good old fashioned gore/torture porn. Boy, let me tell you I certainly say "how chilling, my goodness" when I see some horrid sexual mutilation/torture gore, I tell you what. Haunting, I say.
Sarcasm aside, it's like there's a basket of cheap tropes and they just say "screw it, I got nothin', grab one outta the basket" and just go with it. 'Noble Sacrifice of a fan favorite staple of the series' must have been in there quite a few times... and I guess they don't realize that doing something 'shocking' stops having an effect when you do it over and over again.
Sobekta wrote: Oh, and of course finally it has to pass the Chinese governmental censorship board nowadays.
"You gotta lower your ideals of freedom if you wanna suck on the warm teat of China."
Well part of killing han and Luke was likely due to aging actor syndrome. It might have been better to kill the characters than best caught in a situation like the one with Carrie Fischer, see?
Also, in a sw movie a guy who dies isn't always dead, see? Force ghost time.
The issue you cited with horror movies goes to my bit about all these departments determining the story, not a good writer.
I'm with you on Hollywood bowing to china, it makes me sick.
I couldn't help noticing Jar Jar Abrams foul presence in the trailer. The scene of star destroyer rising slowly, dramatically out of the sea struck a sick cord in me as i recalled the times he used the same scene in his cinematic abominations thst were relased with the words "star trek" plastered on them...
In truth, I kind of want to see what happens with the Mandalorian.
My 'here is your last chance' offer for Disney is this: "Do something Star Wars and stay the Hell away from the classic trilogy canon".
It's literally an open sandbox to them, they erased all the Expanded Universe- so it's Free Real Estate. Do something with it. No need to "kill the past" by just killing off everyone's favorite characters to make some weird point about how what we love needs to go away. No need to get combative with fans that hate how you made something that directly contradicts what was shown before. No reason to try and make loose connections for nostalgia and hope that's enough for people to think it's 'real Star Wars'. It's a whole opportunity to write something original, with none of those restrictions or concerns.
If they can manage that, there's possibly hope for Star Wars in the future. And it's an open book, they just gotta make it work with good, fun stories that can stand on their own- which means they'll have to look at this more recent trilogy and say, "Okay, let's not do this again" and lock Turnip-head and Jar-Jar Abrams out of the process completely.
I want them to do something new with the story, and if that means we get a firefly story in the star wars universe I am all in honestly.
Hell cast nathan fillion in charge of a random freighter or maybe Alan Tudyk finally gets a TV Show or movie where he isn't some disembowled baby robot or creature... please...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Still not a clue as to what this movie was about. Normally big movies get one "story" trailer to at least give the basic premise. We know nothing about this.
Anyway, I'm curious about this because it'll be the first time JJ has had to end something. That alone will be worth the price of admission.
Hah, you wish. He will not tie up anything. I predicted earlier that EpIX will end with some kind of cliffhanger. They even say in the trailer, "The story lives forever".
Something new with star wars? How about ending slavery for droids? I think it's pretty obvious droids would pass a turning test. They seem to even have personalities, they can function as independent beings. So what about them declaring a separate state and establishing a republic of their own?
Manchu wrote: If they told us, we might not go see it.
That's cute, but my point was that trailers generally give an idea of what the film is about. Teaser is just that, teaser, then you get two more trailers. One is wizz-bang money shots using some newly completed FX to get people excited, and maybe hit on some character beats, and the second should give some indication of the story.
These trailers have both been the former. We're still in the dark about any element of the narrative other than "Rey will probably be awesome at everything she does without needing to try or be trained or anything".
Well there are vague rumours - reliability unknown - that they're actually still reshooting and cutting and doing test screenings for the film with different endings, so it may be that the reason the trailers don't tell us anything about the story is they still haven't managed to nail down exactly what the story is yet even a couple of months out from release.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Looks pretty forgettable, which is not at all surprising considering this is coming from the same guy that gave us An Even Newer Hope. Dragging Palpatine out of the grave is a huge indicator of how creatively bankrupt the people running this franchise are.
EU would never have stooped to such nonsense....
Say what you like about TLJ, it didn't have a cyborg with lightsabers in his knees.
Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.
Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?
In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.
When a new installment of an ongoing trilogy comes out, the audience usually has a general idea what the plot needs to cover going forward from the last episode.
TLJ failed to meaningfully advance anything established by TFA and instead spent its load undermining the plot hooks JJ set up in that film. So it’s pretty difficult to guess what we should expect this upcoming film to be about.
Sure, the white hats will fight the black hats. That’s setting rather than plot.
In order to have that setting, we could guess JJ needs to show us the rebuilding of the Resistance. But the trailer doesn’t reflect that, other than a buncha extras mobbing Billy Dee — which looked more like footage of him meeting cosplayers at Celebration than a scene in an adventure movie.
Instead, Disney gives us the most generic shots possible, almost as if they are not confident that we’ll remember who any of these characters are or what they did in previous films. They all look essentially the same as when they were introduced. They are all shown doing the same kinds of things they, or rather any character inna Star Wars movie, generally do. Remember Rey? Me neither.
More importantly, remember Rey’s story arc? Me neither.
This reminds me of Revenge of the Sith, where somebody realized that after two movies almost no story had been told and they better go ahead and put all the plot stuff they bizarrely cut from Eps 1 and 2 in favor of podracing and other video game cutscenes.
Except we all knew what Revenge of the Sith needed to be about. With Rise of Skywalker, it might as well be a literal reboot of TFA.
Ugh.... dakka. Why can't I just quit you.... Didn't watch the SR video. Appologies if the following doesn't pertain to it, but that Thumbnail reminds me I'm utterly tired of YouTube pushing self inflicted misery on what has been one of the consistently greatest eras of geek film ever. I should be happier than I've ever been but it seems misery is the only real only currency.
FWIW, Disney isn't going to kill theaters. It just owns enough varied properties to promote that it's better to use other outlets for smaller projects. When its got a Frozen, or Avengers or mainline Star Wars or Pixar or whatever; great, theaters, but there are tons of projects that will better reach their intended audience via other avenues.
What we're seeing is other companies catch up with what Netflix has been doing. Between Cloverfield Paradox and Roma, they've proven that smaller projects that would have been a risk in theaters can find an audience. Particularly in an era where box office sales have people on such a "if you're not first, you're nothing" mindset when it comes to going to movies, it makes a lot of sense to focus on shifting things like Solo to a better fitting distribution model.
None of this is new. Direct to video films have always been lesser projects looking to provide something to a more niche audience. TV series have always been about providing a way for super fans to continue to engage with characters they love in a disposable means.
This whole "keepers of the cannon" culture is just miserable and toxic. Sins Past is a terrible, terrible comic. The Night Gwen Stacy Died is a great one. That's all there is to it. The Little Mermaid is a great film regardless of how you feel about her daughter going to Ursulas sister or whatever to get fins to learn about her mom's family. Treating these fictional worlds as immutable realities tied to real rules is just.... just enjoy the good; discard the bad. Enjoy life. It's too short to worry so much about this nonsense.
Galef wrote: I found this quite interesting and could very well be true, especially if people continue to "boycott" these movies.
Spoiler:
-
I'll gladly suffer Disney being one of our dystopian corporate overlords if it means they finally kill off the movie theatre industry in its current form. People will say that if Disney lead us to a future where movie theatres don't get their 6-18 month timed exclusivity, ticket prices will go up a lot and still many theatres will have to close for lack of business - I say good(apart from the job losses, obviously). If your business model relies on being an exclusive outlet for something to remain viable, then it never really was viable in the first place. Level the playing field, let consumers access content in whatever way they choose, and structure the costs for each way accordingly. Will that mean people who prefer the "cinema experience" will end up paying loads more money? Sure, because their preference will no longer be subsidised by the tickets of people who don't share that preference. And hey, if the "cinema experience" is so great, they shouldn't have a problem paying what it's actually worth.
Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.
Captain Joystick wrote: Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.
Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?
In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.
And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.
Manchu wrote: Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.
Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.
Though that was a Lucas bit, and I doubt that the current studio/writers/directors care about some of the minor takeaways from the prequels.
I don't believe we could call the Clone Wars TV show a minor takeaway, of which the droids were the main antagonists. So popular they bought them back for an episode in Rebels.
'We' aren't calling the cartoon any such thing. Just the idea that using a droid army is ineffective because they aren't very good.
Kylo also entertained the thought of using a clone army in Force Awakens...
A clone army is not a droid army, so I'm not clear on the relevance of this statement.
Basically - in a nutshell, I was referring to a possible hint that the Droid vs Clone war thing might rear its head once again in Episode 9; I assumed you were suggesting that the clone war part of the prequel era was a "minor takeaway".
Captain Joystick wrote: Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.
Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?
In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.
And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.
This does honestly happen all the time here. I would have thought the masses would be happy nothing was given away. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I’m unhappy with RJ, but I have faith in JJ. He isn’t giving me the SW trilogy, but he gives enjoyable Sci-Fi flicks.
Sobekta wrote: I really think that star wars reflects what's wrong with modern Hollywood. A writer can't just write a good story anymore. I mean sure a writer can pour his passion, his skill, his heart and soul into a strory.
Then its taken to a room full of heartless, soulless creatures in suits who have no storytelling talent called a "market research department" that demand a plethora of changes to appeal to group x and not offend group y and to pacify group z.
Next it's taken to another group of creatures whose humanity is possibly open to question called a "merchandizing department" that demand a new cool vehicle or robot or weapon they can have toys of on the shelves in time for Christmas.
Naturally it must then be submitted to the review of the clearly inhuman "legal department" that demands ten thousand tiny changes for "legal reasons".
Oh, and of course finally it has to pass the Chinese governmental censorship board nowadays.
When star wars was made you could just make the best damn movie you could and let history decide if it was a great movie or not. Now people who wouldn't know creativity or anything else that can't be reduced to figures on a profit\loss column have dictatorial control over every character, word, image and idea in a movie...
That's why movies like star wars can't be made any more.
So that's your take coming off TLJ? That it was a lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise?
Because I don't know where to even start with that. I don't think even TLJ's loudest detractors would say that was the case. That film was the clearest individual vision from a director in the series since Lucas himself. Had executives dictated all the beats, the result would probably have been a less divisive film.
Captain Joystick wrote: Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.
Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?
In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.
And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.
Yeah, I don't think they can win with trailers anymore. Fan bases are at once too cynical and too obsessive. Show too much and it's 'they've given away the whole movie' and people go in with the whole movie 'worked out' in their heads. Keep things under wraps and it's 'what is this even about' and 'it looks like a mess', and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.
Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.
If you get the chance to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in theaters, it's worth the time. It was a different experience on the big screen compared to the TV.
Just to be clear, neither HBMC nor I asked for the trailer to give everything away. The issue is, it gives nothing away. I have no clue whatsoever what this film will even be about, except in the broadest, most meaningless sense that the characters who fight each other will continue to do so, some with lightsabers, others not. So in other words, I know it is a Star Wars film but how it relates to the larger trilogy it is supposed to wrap up? This trailer isn’t interested in that.
and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.
You forgot "and then criticise the movie because it didn't fit those expectations, even though it hadn't done anything to create them outside of their own head."
Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.
Oh it's been like this since at least Empire strikes back (for Star Wars "fans") - some of whom wanted "Splinter of the mind's eye" as the "proper" sequel (it was written to be one, but one that could be shot if the first one HADN'T been as big a success as it had been. It could be shot on one soundstage for a fraction of the budget. Mimban got recycled years later for one scene in Solo.)
Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.
Oh it's been like this since at least Empire strikes back (for Star Wars "fans") - some of whom wanted "Splinter of the mind's eye" as the "proper" sequel (it was written to be one, but one that could be shot if the first one HADN'T been as big a success as it had been. It could be shot on one soundstage for a fraction of the budget. Mimban got recycled years later for one scene in Solo.)
Yeah, these things have always been around. What's largely changed is the ability for individuals to dominate the conversation through raw dedication to doing so. Being able to shout opinions without actually engaging with people creates discussions that are largely about shouting past one another. Extreme opinions draw attention and in a global shouting match, getting attention is really the only goal. I mean, who's ever replied to "that was great!" or "not as good as the last one"? You get responses from it actively ruining your life and explaining how you saw the movie out in the street kicking puppies. The comments section is probably the worst innovation the internet has seen unfortunately. I cannot recall a meaningful conversation I've seen in one. Just a mix of mindless versions of "Great!" and 1 or 2 people making absolute certain that their negative opinion is the final word on the matter.
While I have no faith in JJ Abrams, I have to admit he learned and corrected one big mistake he made in TFA: there looks to be a plethora of new or obscure ship designs, and apparently a large enough space battle not to feel like a sub-brush fire skirmish.
I am just here hoping the ninth movie is satisifying and doesn't feth up. TLJ wasn't horrible, it was just poorly paced, and had some questionable decisions. Overall the movie was beautifully shot and almost every shot could be a screen cap for a desktop background, I think it high merits of artistic value but very little story beats that made the audience happy. Like the last fight between Luke and Ben was a fantastic fight and beautifully well shot and directed. It seems to me that Ryan was better with shooting action than telling a story. Which honestly he should've of been both the principal director and then the writer, that just colored it a bit too much, he doesn't nearly have the experience to do so as a writer or a director.
Azreal13 wrote: Oi, show some respect, that's Martin Scorsese you're talking to!
"Old Man yells at Cloud"
Yeah, on the one hand, I see where he was coming from, but on the other hand he's essentially been making variations of the same movie for like 30 years so who is he to judge?
Manchu, I really don't think people understand what we were getting at. I mean the replies have gone from "But we don't want the trailer to give everything away!" (which we never said) to "But if they gave stuff away you'd just be complaining about that!" (which has to be some kind of logical fallacy). I say we just cut our losses, wave out little Disney flags, and be happy consumers.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, on the one hand, I see where he was coming from...
Really? Because it seems to me like they are comments from a man who forgot history. They've called it an 'invasion', as if comic book/superhero movies are taking over and pushing everything out of the cinema. It's absolute nonsense. Around 30-ish films are coming out in the US in October. One of them is a comic book film (Joker).
And as I said, they're forgetting history. They're forgetting that between 1930 and the end of the 1950's we got well over one thousand Western films and there were, at times, over one hundred Western TV shows on air.
A year with 6 comic-book films? That's nothing.
gorgon wrote:.. TLJ... was a lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise?
Because I don't know where to even start with that. I don't think even TLJ's loudest detractors would say that was the case. That film was the clearest individual vision from a director in the series since Lucas himself. Had executives dictated all the beats, the result would probably have been a less divisive film.
Hi. I'm one of those loudest detractors and, you're right, I would never characterise TLJ as a "lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise". I also completely agree with you that it was the most individual vision from a director since Lucas himself.
Of course, that's the bloody problem in the first place!
TLJ is so singular, and so set-apart from the film that came before it, that it's clear that there was no plan at Lucasfilm. Kathleen "The Force is Female" Kennedy doesn't have the same creative vision and organisational skills as Disney's other big studio head, Kevin Feige. Without a "Kevin Feige of Star Wars", everything Disney has made for Star Wars has been basically random. The fact that they've managed to turn out some actual good (Rogue One, Rebels) seems less by design and more by the "broken clock is right twice a day" notion.
So we just have to wait until Disney comes to it senses and puts Dave Filoni, the heir apparent to Lucas, who actually cut his teeth working under Lucas, to become the one running the show.
Yodhrin wrote:Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.
I've never seen someone so against the entire concept of cinema releases. Cinema releases is how movies make their money, and whilst I can certainly see the argument that people should be able to choose the method in which they engage with entertainment, I don't really mind that "going to the movies" is the first point of entry for most movies. I've never looked at it as timed exclusivity.
And I also look at it from the perspective of what we used to have. What we used to have was a movie that came out, and then anywhere up to 3 years later you'd be able to rent it at a video store, and then after that window was over you could buy something. Now most movies are on sale within 6-8 months of their initial box-office release. Endgame came out earlier in the year and I already own it on Blu-Ray. Far From Home was out a few months ago it's released on Blu-Ray today. This is an improvement.
And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former...". Can you elaborate?
and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.
You forgot "and then criticise the movie because it didn't fit those expectations, even though it hadn't done anything to create them outside of their own head."
Hi. I'm one of those loudest detractors and, you're right, I would never characterise TLJ as a "lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise". I also completely agree with you that it was the most individual vision from a director since Lucas himself.
Of course, that's the bloody problem in the first place!
TLJ is so singular, and so set-apart from the film that came before it, that it's clear that there was no plan at Lucasfilm. Kathleen "The Force is Female" Kennedy doesn't have the same creative vision and organisational skills as Disney's other big studio head, Kevin Feige. Without a "Kevin Feige of Star Wars", everything Disney has made for Star Wars has been basically random. The fact that they've managed to turn out some actual good (Rogue One, Rebels) seems less by design and more by the "broken clock is right twice a day" notion.
So we just have to wait until Disney comes to it senses and puts Dave Filoni, the heir apparent to Lucas, who actually cut his teeth working under Lucas, to become the one running the show.
I actually think the issue isn't just Kathleen Kennedy and more of "These writers don't write too well." That and not having a plan as you say, TLJ was well shot, but it lacked subsistence. If they had a good leader and had planned out how the story would go it wouldn't be so up and down for star wars... I can name on my one hand (check the names) who could lead the effort but even then thats wishlisting. The Reawaken series has so far been a blunder.
Its the same issue that was with ghostbusters 2016, they tried to be a reintroduction flagship series, but it failed because the directors, writers were poorly chosen as were the heads.
In terms of good directors, you have Denis Villeneuve, Tajiti Wataka, Edgar Wright, and James Gunn, all proven directors who have exceptional writing skill organizations.
Kennedy could be doing a great job if she chose the right
Manchu wrote: Just to be clear, neither HBMC nor I asked for the trailer to give everything away. The issue is, it gives nothing away. I have no clue whatsoever what this film will even be about, except in the broadest, most meaningless sense that the characters who fight each other will continue to do so, some with lightsabers, others not. So in other words, I know it is a Star Wars film but how it relates to the larger trilogy it is supposed to wrap up? This trailer isn’t interested in that.
It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.
I actually think the issue isn't just Kathleen Kennedy and more of "These writers don't write too well." That and not having a plan as you say, TLJ was well shot, but it lacked subsistence. If they had a good leader and had planned out how the story would go it wouldn't be so up and down for star wars... I can name on my one hand (check the names) who could lead the effort but even then thats wishlisting. The Reawaken series has so far been a blunder.
Its the same issue that was with ghostbusters 2016, they tried to be a reintroduction flagship series, but it failed because the directors, writers were poorly chosen as were the heads.
In terms of good directors, you have Denis Villeneuve, Tajiti Wataka, Edgar Wright, and James Gunn, all proven directors who have exceptional writing skill organizations.
Kennedy could be doing a great job if she chose the right
IMO issue is lack of strong hand at the helm of production. TFA was made as safe as possible. They chose a director who had name recognition and made the movie as close to the original as they could without being a complete knock-off and script is like straight off a market research committee. Then the pendulum went to other direction and they gave lots of artistic freedom for director of TLJ but not enough time to smooth out the kinks because they wanted to put these movies out ASAP to make money. So instead of being super-safe, TLJ took risks everywhere, not all of which paid off because much of the dialogue was so draft-like.
I don't see 'lack of planning ahead' necessarily such a big deal. I don't know if they did map out whole story progression for the trilogy but based on what I have read about process of writing TFA, they did not. But Lucas also made most of the OT on the fly. Similarly, Tolkien had no idea what he was doing when he began to write sequel for his fairytale hit 'Hobbit'. Hey, Bilbo found this magic ring, maybe there is something more to it. Sometimes you just need the story grow and find itself. But it's a process which takes time.
Backfire wrote: It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.
It is immediately obvious that you are wrong for the simple reason that anyone could have “deduced” (read: assumed) that about the movie with or without seeing any trailer because “the good guys try to stop the baddies” is the basic, generic plot of every Star Wars film.
Yodhrin wrote:Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.
I've never seen someone so against the entire concept of cinema releases. Cinema releases is how movies make their money, and whilst I can certainly see the argument that people should be able to choose the method in which they engage with entertainment, I don't really mind that "going to the movies" is the first point of entry for most movies. I've never looked at it as timed exclusivity.
I suppose it depends on whether you enjoy going to the cinema. For me, with a spectrum disorder, it's almost always a torture session; no control of the volume, no control over how many people are there even if I carefully pick a showing that should be fairly empty, and that's just the "me stuff' - Solo was also a dire experience simply because of how modern multiplexes work(they shove a queue of movies on the digital projector and then the minimum wage till-jockey goes back to the concessions stand, which is a problem when some films need specific brightness and lens considerations). The whole affair was just about tolerable back when there was maybe one or two movies a year I actually wanted to see, and before the internet became such a ubiquitous and unavoidable part of life that seeing spoilers before the home media/streaming release are a virtual certainty unless you become a digital hermit, but these days it's rubbish. To give a topical example - if I actually gave a gak about RoS, my choices would be to go and see it in the cinema, or stop participating in any of the Star Wars-related tabletop and RPG groups I enjoy until next summer, or to accept I'd know the whole film inside & out before actually getting to see it. None of those options are ones I'd take given an actual choice.
And I have no problem with cinema releases, they can release all the films in cinemas they like - so long as they release them on other formats at the same time, and let people choose how to consume the product.
And I also look at it from the perspective of what we used to have. What we used to have was a movie that came out, and then anywhere up to 3 years later you'd be able to rent it at a video store, and then after that window was over you could buy something. Now most movies are on sale within 6-8 months of their initial box-office release. Endgame came out earlier in the year and I already own it on Blu-Ray. Far From Home was out a few months ago it's released on Blu-Ray today. This is an improvement.
See above; that reduction has been accompanied by the rise of the internet, so while you don't have to wait as long between the cinema release and the home media/streaming release, the chances you'll have the story spoiled in the meantime has risen dramatically unless you're willing to shut down social media and avoid anywhere where the film might be discussed for those 6-8 months. Some people don't care about spoilers, but plenty do.
And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former...". Can you elaborate?
Sure. A lot of people, myself included(though I accept not typically with my level of vehemence), don't care for the cinema. Right now, we still often have to force ourselves to go to the cinema anyway, or else people who do like the cinema will go and then ruin the story for us by just casually dropping spoilers all over the place based on what they consider to be a reasonable timeframe after the film's release(typically a week or two in the cinema). That means ticket prices are based on a volume of attendees that doesn't accurately reflect the number of people who want to buy a movie ticket. If films were available on streaming etc at the same time as they are in the cinema, I would wager that the number of people who actually bother to go to the cinema and pay over the odds for a ticket when they could simply fire up their streaming service and watch it at home on a nice big telly would plummet, and so cinemas would have to radically raise ticket prices.
So, right now, people who don't want to attend the cinema but are "incentivized" to by the timed exclusivity are subsidising the ticket prices of people who actually do prefer going to the cinema, keeping their ticket prices artificially low.
I'm sympathetic to Yodhrin's point, for most movies I far prefer to watch them at home where I can be more comfortable etc.
There are some 'event' films that I'm glad I saw on the big screen but unless I'm really motivated to avoid a film being spoiled then I'm always able to convince myself to wait.
This year in the cinema I've only seen Captain Marvel (right at the end of the run to get it out of the way before Endgame), Endgame, Far From Home (big Spiderman fan etc) and will see Episode 9. Anything else I'll get round to eventually.
Backfire wrote: It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.
It is immediately obvious that you are wrong for the simple reason that anyone could have “deduced” (read: assumed) that about the movie with or without seeing any trailer because “the good guys try to stop the baddies” is the basic, generic plot of every Star Wars film.
The space horse cavalry charge across the outside of a Star Destroyer was inconceivable though! Consider my expectations subverted yet again.
We never needed to see how the Rebellion got the team back together between movies so I don't feel the need to do that for the Resistance, that's strictly comic book and novel faire, and it just so happens comic books and novels are coming out right now to cover it.
Manchu wrote:True. Also inconceivable: C-3P0 calling a bunch of strangers his friends.
I'm pretty sure we've established that he considers BB-8 a friend, he's been fighting alongside the rest of the resistance kids in the intervening year since TLJ, and even before that he heard Poe, Finn, and Rose discuss their casino getaway vacation and didn't out them to Holdo. Surely, you don't mean R2?
warboss wrote:The space horse cavalry charge across the outside of a Star Destroyer was inconceivable though! Consider my expectations subverted yet again.
I can absolutely buy a space horse cavalry fight on the surface of a first order star warship, presuming they're close to that ice outpost and there's some kind of atmosphere.
What I need though, is some explanation as to why they thought to bring space horses to a fleet battle.
What I need though, is some explanation as to why they thought to bring space horses to a fleet battle.
Two words. Rose. Tico. While the rest of the 11 remaining rebels have been busy trying to free the galaxy from the tyranny of the First Order, she's been busy doing more guerrila raids for SpacePETA.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Still not a clue as to what this movie was about. Normally big movies get one "story" trailer to at least give the basic premise. We know nothing about this.
Anyway, I'm curious about this because it'll be the first time JJ has had to end something. That alone will be worth the price of admission.
And if they can retcon anything from TLJ whilst they're at it, then that'll be nice.
Ideally with a "Luke wakes up from a terrible dream" cut right at the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I’d even bet that Frazz has already bought his day one tix!
It would take some truly stellar reviews from whichever of my friends see it to get me to see it in the theater. It would have to be right up there with the OT or Wrath of Khan. If it's just 'entertaining' I'll wait for someone to rent it to show me.
Alpharius wrote: And yet, what are the odds that everyone in this thread will see it no longer then one month after release?
I’d even bet that Frazz has already bought his day one tix!
I have day one tickets. I've never not seen a SW movie on day one, stretching back to the '97 Special Editions.
But I'm telling myself this will be the very last time they're an 'auto' purchase and I'll be more circumspect on future films. And if the Rian Johnson trilogy ever actually goes ahead I'll probably just swerve that entirely.
Edit:
Hey look at that, 2000 posts! I've been promoted to a Nisse!
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
I could put you in for a therapy Ewok, instead. Some of the native Endor creatures have agreed to travel offworld to help veterans like you recuperate. As a matter of recompense for saving their home."
or maybe they're looking for fresh food sources eh ?
what did happen to all those fallen stormtroopers and imperial navy guys eh ...?
meanwhile
Spoiler:
Dominic Monaghan, who played Meriadoc “Merry” Brandybuck in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Charlie Pace on the ABC series Lost is in Star Wars and the story of how he got there is a wild ride.
As reported by Inverse, director J.J. Abrams and Dominic nerded out on the set of Lost about Star Wars, and so it was natural that they’d talk about a role for Monaghan when J.J. got the nod to direct his first movie Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Unfortunately for Dom, the studio was looking to cast mostly unknowns for the new trilogy, so there wasn’t a part for him.
When Colin Trevorrow left The Rise of Skywalker and J.J. took over, Abrams was able to consider adding him to the cast. He was watching a World Cup soccer game between England and Columbia and got an email:
At the start of that game, because J.J. is a melonfarmer in the best way possible, he emailed me and he said, ‘I think I have a Star Wars part for you.’ And I wrote back and said, ‘Brilliant, I won’t bother you but let me know if there’s anything I can do or what I can say.’ He wrote back and said, ‘If England beat Colombia, you’re in.’ I was like, oh mate, you bastard.
England won the game and Monaghan had his speaking role in a Star Wars movie.
England won a World Cup penalty shootout for the first time on a night of high drama in Moscow, overcoming Colombia to secure a quarter-final meeting with Sweden.
Amid a fevered atmosphere inside Spartak Stadium, Eric Dier scored the winning kick after Jordan Pickford's brilliant save from Carlos Bacca.
TBH "us" winning a poxy penalty shoot-out at a tournament was even more unlikely than any conceivable event that might occur in a Star Wars film, so literally anything could happen in this film and the English will just have to shrug and accept it could happen.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
Your sense of humour is at 1%, better stick it on charge.
warboss wrote:Two words. Rose. Tico. While the rest of the 11 remaining rebels have been busy trying to free the galaxy from the tyranny of the First Order, she's been busy doing more guerrila raids for SpacePETA.
I could totally buy the FO using them as abusbale animal labour on the asteroid and Rose being all like "I have an idea!" about it. That is actually very cute.
Vulcan wrote:Ideally with a "Luke wakes up from a terrible dream" cut right at the beginning.
This old retcon joke of yours seems a bit beat up. You want a new one?
warboss wrote:TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
That was an escape/animal mayhem sequence, completely different.
Azreal13 wrote:I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
I contend that heroic horses have no place in science fiction.
To settle our differences, I suggest we duel. The field is Warhammer 40k, our weapons: two 2000 point IG rough rider lists.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
Your sense of humour is at 1%, better stick it on charge.
On rewatch I think the charge is actually what needs to be kept and the subplot would be better often shortened in its more serious moments. That sequence is honestly pretty fun and well done and moves things on well. What would help a lot more is removing the soap boxes and inserting their ideas a little more organically. The ideas of DJ's indifference and the hope of the slaves are both done well, but the movie doesn't manage to get into the gambling and war profiteering without stopping the story for characters to talk to the audience.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
Your sense of humour is at 1%, better stick it on charge.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
TLJ had a cavalry charge of sorts with the heroes riding the beasts through the casino in their escape... I don't think that helped the movie overall or the useless casino side quest in particular though. If anything, I'd say it made them worse even if only by virtue of extending that subplot.
Your sense of humour is at 1%, better stick it on charge.
I got the joke and rather enjoyed it. Actually my initial response had a retort about how a cavalry charge could improve a sombre movie like Philadelphia but thought better of it and chose not to include it.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
Return of the King. Would that be improved by a fourth cavalry charge?
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, there is no movie in history that wouldn't be improved by the addition of a cavalry charge, and I'll fight anyone who says different.
Return of the King. Would that be improved by a fourth cavalry charge?
You kidding? In the book there was the charge of the hobbits against saurmen in hobbiton. And i still love that scene. Shame the movie didn't include that.
Starwars space battle hope it looks cool and it doesn't end as a bummer like the last film.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Manchu, I really don't think people understand what we were getting at. I mean the replies have gone from "But we don't want the trailer to give everything away!" (which we never said) to "But if they gave stuff away you'd just be complaining about that!" (which has to be some kind of logical fallacy). I say we just cut our losses, wave out little Disney flags, and be happy consumers.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, on the one hand, I see where he was coming from...
Really? Because it seems to me like they are comments from a man who forgot history. They've called it an 'invasion', as if comic book/superhero movies are taking over and pushing everything out of the cinema. It's absolute nonsense. Around 30-ish films are coming out in the US in October. One of them is a comic book film (Joker).
And as I said, they're forgetting history. They're forgetting that between 1930 and the end of the 1950's we got well over one thousand Western films and there were, at times, over one hundred Western TV shows on air.
A year with 6 comic-book films? That's nothing.
I see where he is coming from in that for one thing, a great deal of the MCU movies feel kinda same-y. I do believe I've seen the all, and none of them really stay with you in the way a truly great movie can. Look at the biggest ones so far that aren't big ensembles - Black Panther, Captain Marvel. You know what I remember? I thought the fight in the subways was not great looking, and that it was cool looking when Captain Marvel punched through the battleships. I thought both of them were great movies but by and large I think the plots are often interchangeable in a lot of ways.
Lets go to the bigger point, though. I think, generally speaking not all movies can be "art" period and the comic book genre does not lend itself to them.
"What is art" is obviously subjective and doesn't have a definitive answer, and the fine parsing of it is beyond this forum. For the purposes of this, lets just stipulate that some movies rise to the level of art/high cinema (Citizen Kane) and some movies do not (Suicide Squad). No controversy there, right?
Going from there, and this is where it gets sticky, I think some genres - for a variety of reasons - tend to fall firmly into the latter. Horror movies are often bad. They often have bad writing, bad special effects, and are poorly reviewed. Are all horror movies bad? Surely not, it's my favorite genre and Halloween is a absolute triumph of filmmaking on several levels - but as a genre it, like comic book movies, lends itself more towards entertainment than art.
The real problem with their argument I think isn't whether or not these movies are really "cinema", but whether there is anything wrong with movies that don't aspire to be and simply are meant to entertain. Sometimes you want a steak... but sometimes you want doritos. I like horror movies and comic book movies and godzilla movies and none of these things are likely to win awards other than the technical variety, and that's OK. Not every movie needs to examine the human condition and people who want to go see Endgame aren't struggling with whether or not to see the new indie arthouse flick or Endgame.... and vice versa. There is room for steak and doritos both.
"I totally disagree with Mr. Simon," began Ebert, long-time critic for the Chicago Sun-Times. "I don't know what he did as a child, but I spent a lot of my Saturday matinees watching science fiction movies and serials and having a great time and being stimulated and having my imagination stimulated and having all sorts of visions take place in my mind that would help me to become an adult and to still stay young at heart."
He added the jab, "I wouldn't say that I am childlike, but that [Simon] is old at heart."
Siskel, long-time critic for the Chicago Tribune, talked about his experience watching Jedi in a theater packed with children, all of whom were immersed in the film and having a great time.
"I feel bad, honestly, I feel bad this critic, John Simon, didn't have a good time at these pictures," Siskel said, adding "I don't think [Jedi] is campy fun. I think this is well-made fun. This is very good of its kind."
While Simon never said the words "not cinema," he drove that specific point by saying the films lacked "flesh and blood."
"So, what you're left with is something Walt Disney could have done with a drawing board and pencils and colors," he said.
That is the moment Ebert predicted the future, decades down the road, when the Walt Disney Co. would purchase Lucasfilm.
"These are the sorts of movies the Disney people should be making and the kind of movies that Disney made 20, 30 years ago," Ebert said. "I think all movies are special effects. Movies are not real. They are two-dimensional. It's a dream. It's an imagination. So, as to whether this film is good or not, it excited me. It made me laugh. It made me thrilled. And that's what a movie like this is for."
Ebert continued, "I also enjoy films by Ingmar Bergman and people like that. I share that taste with Mr. Simon, but I try, I think in my own moviegoing taste, to be broad enough to try and understand why a bunch of people would want to get together and see a Star Wars movie and enjoy it."
I see where he is coming from in that for one thing, a great deal of the MCU movies feel kinda same-y. I do believe I've seen the all, and none of them really stay with you in the way a truly great movie can. Look at the biggest ones so far that aren't big ensembles - Black Panther, Captain Marvel. You know what I remember? I thought the fight in the subways was not great looking, and that it was cool looking when Captain Marvel punched through the battleships. I thought both of them were great movies but by and large I think the plots are often interchangeable in a lot of ways.
Lets go to the bigger point, though. I think, generally speaking not all movies can be "art" period and the comic book genre does not lend itself to them.
"What is art" is obviously subjective and doesn't have a definitive answer, and the fine parsing of it is beyond this forum. For the purposes of this, lets just stipulate that some movies rise to the level of art/high cinema (Citizen Kane) and some movies do not (Suicide Squad). No controversy there, right?
Going from there, and this is where it gets sticky, I think some genres - for a variety of reasons - tend to fall firmly into the latter. Horror movies are often bad. They often have bad writing, bad special effects, and are poorly reviewed. Are all horror movies bad? Surely not, it's my favorite genre and Halloween is a absolute triumph of filmmaking on several levels - but as a genre it, like comic book movies, lends itself more towards entertainment than art.
Maybe it is because even badly made horror movie, or action movie or Western still might have like action or special effects which still will modestly entertain viewer even if everything else sucks. By contrast, a badly made family drama is just bad all around, who would want to watch it? So anyone who makes a drama movie must make an effort to ensure at least some level of quality.
Extreme example is of course porn. They are usually truly awful but hey, nude people!
Any way, almost no genre embodies "throwaway entertainment" more than Westerns, yet some of the most celebrated movies all-time are Westerns. So I find the idea that superhero movies can't be 'art' preposterous. Often only perspective of time raises some art pieces above others. When Leone's famed Westerns came out, for the most part they were not instantly hailed as all-time classics.
Best athlete in the world is not ten or five or two times better than the next best. He is only like 0.1% better. I think it's pretty much same thing with 'art'. But because art does not have similar objective criteria to determine best art, only test of time will weed out the crappier art to be forgotten and better ones elevated as masterpieces. In his own time, Shakespeare was just some dude who wrote plays amongst dozens of others who were seen more or less just as good. But nowadays nobody has time to see, read and evaluate all Tudor era theatre (most of which was crap anyway), so only some very best works, those who were just a cut above others, are chosen as representatives of the era. And so it will happen with superhero films too, in like 15 or 20 years time.
I mean it's not really a mystery where these guys are coming from, right? It's base snobbery. Probably with a healthy dollop of jealousy and sour-grapes.
They make art daaahling, not some mere grubby piece of entertainment. The idea that the vast, vast, vast majority of people would rather be entertained - at least, most of the time - than sit through some dry, ponderous, self-regarding, cynical, depressing slog of a film in the name of "art" is surely offensive to them, but that's a problem with them not audiences. Not a problem unique to them of course, art of all forms is rife with pretentious snobs.
It's particularly hilarious coming from Scorsese right at the moment though, considering the only reason he was able to make his most recent droning epic at all is the work that Marvel and ILM have done in recent years driving forward CGI faces and de-aging.
It's really less about snobbery and more about frustration. At this point in his career, Scorsese should essentially have a blank check to make what he wants, but his latest movie had to be funded by Netflix because the theater business is really only interested in things that can be spun off into a franchise these days. It's resentment at a brand that leaves him feeling downgraded to direct to video status, which isn't entirely what Netflix Originals represent, but if you're not keeping with the times is probably your best frame of reference. This whole thing has essentially been "I want my favorite table, but the restaurant gave it to that new pop star".
You're arguing that a Pacino/De Niro film directed by Scorsese and with Pesci out of retirement couldn't find enough of an audience to get funded through "normal" channels?
That's essentially a franchise film in and of itself, and if you're right then perhaps Scorsese should consider making a new film, rather than remaking the same base concepts repeatedly.
I mean, outside of the huge salaries those names would pay themselves (I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that all three big names have producer credits too) the movie wouldn't even *need* much financing.
LunarSol wrote: It's really less about snobbery and more about frustration. At this point in his career, Scorsese should essentially have a blank check to make what he wants, but his latest movie had to be funded by Netflix because the theater business is really only interested in things that can be spun off into a franchise these days. It's resentment at a brand that leaves him feeling downgraded to direct to video status, which isn't entirely what Netflix Originals represent, but if you're not keeping with the times is probably your best frame of reference. This whole thing has essentially been "I want my favorite table, but the restaurant gave it to that new pop star".
Well, no, not really. It's more "I want to be funded to make my Extremely Serious Dramas, but they are not currently as popular as I think they should be and so that is proving difficult, WAAAAAAHHH ALL GENRE MATERIAL IS DESPICABLE TRASH!". It's a tantrum, and the reason behind it is that these "auteurs" believe their work is Important and worthy and valuable in a way that other people's work isn't, and should be entitled to a bigger audience and an easier time navigating the movie production industry. It's textbook snobbery.
Azreal13 wrote: You're arguing that a Pacino/De Niro film directed by Scorsese and with Pesci out of retirement couldn't find enough of an audience to get funded through "normal" channels?
That's essentially a franchise film in and of itself, and if you're right then perhaps Scorsese should consider making a new film, rather than remaking the same base concepts repeatedly.
I mean, outside of the huge salaries those names would pay themselves (I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that all three big names have producer credits too) the movie wouldn't even *need* much financing.
A Pacino/De Niro film directed by Scorsese with Pesci out of retirement? No that would have no trouble at all getting funded the usual way.
A Pacino/De Niro film directed by Scorsese with Pesci out of retirement that wants to spend a HUEGMUNGUS amount of money on CGI de-aging the cast into several different period-specific versions of each of them? Yeah that's when any sane producer expecting to utilise a traditional distribution model for the final product would have begun making excuses about running late for another meeting...
That's not an expensive process, relatively speaking, these days though, is it? It's been kicking around since at least the Tron sequel, which was, what, 2010?
In fact, a bit of light Googling reveals a budget of $159m, compared to $97m for Gangs Of New York in 2003 or $100m for Wolf Of Wall St in 2013.
So Scorsese has historically had no trouble getting broadly equivalent sums of money for his pictures. I'd say, if anything, the reason he may have struggled this time is that Silence (no, me neither) made a thumping loss on a modest ~$45m budget and consequently people might have been afraid he's not the banker he used to be.
I see where he is coming from in that for one thing, a great deal of the MCU movies feel kinda same-y. I do believe I've seen the all, and none of them really stay with you in the way a truly great movie can. Look at the biggest ones so far that aren't big ensembles - Black Panther, Captain Marvel. You know what I remember? I thought the fight in the subways was not great looking, and that it was cool looking when Captain Marvel punched through the battleships. I thought both of them were great movies but by and large I think the plots are often interchangeable in a lot of ways.
That's not really surprising though, or unique to superhero films. MOST film plots are interchangeable. Even some of the 'all time great films' of cinema don't sound great if you just summarize the plot.
Most, in fact, sound like MadLibs, with keywords like <protagonist>, <macguffin>, <villain/corporation/government>, <x> days, save the <world/country/city/home/girl>.
I see where he is coming from in that for one thing, a great deal of the MCU movies feel kinda same-y. I do believe I've seen the all, and none of them really stay with you in the way a truly great movie can. Look at the biggest ones so far that aren't big ensembles - Black Panther, Captain Marvel. You know what I remember? I thought the fight in the subways was not great looking, and that it was cool looking when Captain Marvel punched through the battleships. I thought both of them were great movies but by and large I think the plots are often interchangeable in a lot of ways.
That's not really surprising though, or unique to superhero films. MOST film plots are interchangeable. Even some of the 'all time great films' of cinema don't sound great if you just summarize the plot.
Most, in fact, sound like MadLibs, with keywords like <protagonist>, <macguffin>, <villain/corporation/government>, <x> days, save the <world/country/city/home/girl>.
One of my favorite Twitter threads.
“Father tried to convince estranged son to take over the family business. “
Shakespeare is often credited with the base line plot of all drama. And even he almost certainly didn't invent them (remember, being the best preserved works, don't make them the best works. I'm more a Chaucer man myself. Cannae whack a bit of baudiness!)
The novelist John Gardner said that there are only two stories - a person goes on a journey, or a stranger comes into town. And formula filmmaking has been part of Hollywood since the beginning. Elvis films come to mind, but there are many examples.
That being said, many MCU films can hardly be remembered for days, let alone decades like the work of the aggrieved filmmakers. Of course there's a place for that kind of entertainment, but I think LunarSol is completely on point about the theater business mostly ONLY having a place for that anymore -- familiar blockbuster franchises with great brand recognition. Like I'm sure I've said here before, what the MCU has done best IMO is align itself to audience viewing habits. Big, special-effects laden episodic stuff will bring audiences. People are staying home more often to watch the small thoughtful works, rom-coms, etc. on their enormous televisions.
I'm willing to give it a chance. Last Jedi retroactively made Force Awakens worse so it's possible (however unlikely) that this final entry can redeem and wrap things up somewhat acceptably.
Well I've ridden this train this far, may as well ride it all the way. Even if it almost completely derailed with Episode 8. I can say I am not looking forward to pulling into this station.
Azreal13 wrote: You're arguing that a Pacino/De Niro film directed by Scorsese and with Pesci out of retirement couldn't find enough of an audience to get funded through "normal" channels?
Big studios were not going to put the money into the film because of the de-aging stuff. It is a lot of money for that, and they did not see much of a potential return.
Netflix on the other hand seems destined to spend themselves into the damned grave, so they jumped at the chance.
I wonder if Disney will delay the 2022 next movie now that the Games of Thrones creators are out of Star Wars and they were responsible for the next trilogy. I suppose that might be the real reason they suddenly announced Feige's involvement as an emergency move over to the other big franchise. I haven't watched the final couple of seasons of GOT but from everything that I heard (I followed the spoiler reviews for each episode online) the ending was about as well received as Last Jedi was so I don't know if their depature will be a good or bad thing ultimately. I wonder if we'll see a push back in the release date for the film after Rise.
Well, regardless of the outcome, I'm excited for this. I will probably always be excited about Star Wars, at least the bigger films. With Disney+, there could be a shift in the way content is shown (i.e. no more big blockbuster events), but that makes this all the more special. It would actually be interesting if Ep9 was the last big SW event movie shown in theaters alone with all other big event movies. Streaming services could end up killing the movie theater in general, which may be fitting since the first Star Wars movie kinda made the industry what it is in the first place. Correct me if wrong, but I believe the term "blockbuster" was coined shortly after SW, Jaws and other movies at the time had lines around the block, which was unusual at the time
In any case, my sons and I are ready for the premiere:
Turnip Jedi wrote: the chuckle dunces are out of the Wars ?, oh happy days indeed, shame Netflix threw them a lifeline mind
Even if it means that Rian Johnson's trilogy will be brought back to life like Anakin after Mustafar? I'm not sure the franchise can survive three more films filled to the brim with subverted expectations.
Turnip Jedi wrote: the chuckle dunces are out of the Wars ?, oh happy days indeed, shame Netflix threw them a lifeline mind
Even if it means that Rian Johnson's trilogy will be brought back to life like Anakin after Mustafar? I'm not sure the franchise can survive three more films filled to the brim with subverted expectations.
the greatest subversion Rian pulled was by making a passable movie with the millstone of Bruce Willis to lull us in, and I'm still not convinced TLJ wasn't a tad forkwittery by committee
still will be at cinema week 1 for Rise as for some unexplicable reason my corner of the shire has a cinema with a proper gurt screen (even if the sound needs a tune up)
Turnip Jedi wrote: the chuckle dunces are out of the Wars ?, oh happy days indeed, shame Netflix threw them a lifeline mind
Even if it means that Rian Johnson's trilogy will be brought back to life like Anakin after Mustafar? I'm not sure the franchise can survive three more films filled to the brim with subverted expectations.
Pretty much my worry. I didn't have an opinion on B&W really so not too fussed. I'm still reasonably certain that RJ won't be allowed anywhere near the franchise again (last month it seems he gave another public 'I'll be available to make movies soon guys' notice to try to stay on the radar).
Turnip Jedi wrote: the chuckle dunces are out of the Wars ?, oh happy days indeed, shame Netflix threw them a lifeline mind
Even if it means that Rian Johnson's trilogy will be brought back to life like Anakin after Mustafar? I'm not sure the franchise can survive three more films filled to the brim with subverted expectations.
There has never been any indication that Johnson's trilogy had been axed, but ok, let's go with this. I'd still take the imaginary version of Rian Johnson you like to scapegoat over the auteurs who drove GoT off a bridge when they got bored of it.
I'd still like to see Disney flex that Marvel talent though: I'd love to see the Russos do something in the universe.
Turnip Jedi wrote: the chuckle dunces are out of the Wars ?, oh happy days indeed, shame Netflix threw them a lifeline mind
Even if it means that Rian Johnson's trilogy will be brought back to life like Anakin after Mustafar? I'm not sure the franchise can survive three more films filled to the brim with subverted expectations.
There has never been any indication that Johnson's trilogy had been axed, but ok, let's go with this. I'd still take the imaginary version of Rian Johnson you like to scapegoat over the auteurs who drove GoT off a bridge when they got bored of it.
I'd still like to see Disney flex that Marvel talent though: I'd love to see the Russos do something in the universe.
See, that's odd to my mind. They didn't drive GoT off a cliff because they got bored, they did it because their strength is in adapting existing material and they ran out of material to adapt. So long as they were given an existing, fleshed-out story to make into a film - KotOR, Tales of the Jedi, Thrawn, any number of the better EU works - they would have done a bangup job I think.
Rian made TLJ the way he did because he's a pretentious donkey, and he's going to continue to be a pretentious donkey because that's both his personality and his "brand". If you give him more Star Wars movies, you'll get more TLJs.
I'd much rather have a solid adaptation of an existing work than another effort by Rian "my opinions about storytelling stopped maturing in my first year of film school" Johnson. Sadly it seems Lucasfilm don't agree, unless the Feige thing is a lot more significant of a shakeup than they're willing to admit publicly, which I'm not enough of an optimist about SW anymore to believe now.
GRRM is the sole fault in GoT. All the time they had solid plot to adapt, it was great.
The further they moved from such, the ropier the show got.
I think its worse than that. The books themselves get incredibly ropy starting with book 4. I think the end of the show is pretty much exactly what the series needed to stay true to itself, but it got completely lost in Meereen trying to keep all the plates spinning while some neglected arcs played out. Too many side plots crop up trying to mine new twists as the series entered the age where the internet could rapidly untie them and its all just kind of a mess. Book 5 wants to be a gotcha so bad but its clear to anyone reading that the plot doesn't actually work without him at this point. I really don't think the series suddenly fell apart in the last couple episodes or anything like that. I think the 4th story wasn't steady enough to support anything above it.
Yodhrin wrote: See, that's odd to my mind. They didn't drive GoT off a cliff because they got bored, they did it because their strength is in adapting existing material and they ran out of material to adapt. So long as they were given an existing, fleshed-out story to make into a film - KotOR, Tales of the Jedi, Thrawn, any number of the better EU works - they would have done a bangup job I think.
To be clear, I don't fault them for the difficulties that naturally arise as you run out of source material or the general decline in seasons 6 and 7 (and portions of 5). I'm talking about the sudden and remarkable collapse that is season 8. The one that doesn't require you to be a military genius to see that charging all your cavalry straight into the massive oncoming undead horde is a bad idea, the one that doesn't require you to dissect the battle scene in slow motion to notice the same character got dragged to certain death by the same undead horde three times already, the one that doesn't require you to pour over years of obscure lore to recognize that hiding in a crypt from an army that raises the dead is a bad idea.
And all of that came after the announcement that they'd be working on Star Wars, after they were confident they had a post-GoT career. Better they be off doing what they want to do then making Star Wars while distracted by what they'd rather be doing.
Edit: I'm of the same mind regarding GRRM, if he isn't enthused enough to finish the books then he shouldn't. No ending is infinitely preferable to a shoddy one.
Rian made TLJ the way he did because he's a pretentious donkey, and he's going to continue to be a pretentious donkey because that's both his personality and his "brand". If you give him more Star Wars movies, you'll get more TLJs.
I can agree on the principle that more and more varied directors across the franchise is preferable to the same approach as an existing movie - but I haven't seen any other movie by him except Looper so I can't really say I've noticed a 'brand' of his.
Does anyone else dress up for premieres? It's a personal tradition of mine for all main Star Wars films. If Ep9 is indeed the conclusion, I'll have to dress up for one more film
Posting this again as it seems to have been lost in the on-going conversation
Galef wrote: Does anyone else dress up for premieres? It's a personal tradition of mine for all main Star Wars films. If Ep9 is indeed the conclusion, I'll have to dress up for one more film
Posting this again as it seems to have been lost in the on-going conversation
Spoiler:
-
I don't but appreciate it when others do (as long as they're not going full on annoying method actor onto unwilling fellow moviegoers). The closest I did was joke about it. When I went to see Last Jedi with a younger cousin, I stopped halfway across the parking lot on the way to the front of the theatre and said we had to turn back because I forgot my lightsaber and costume in the car. The look of fear/embarassment on his teenage face was priceless.
I wore my Deadpool Halloween costume for the release of Deadpool. Went to an Alamo Drafthouse. Was quite fun. I kept getting “all hot and bothered” when Bea Arthur came on screen for the Drafthouse’s previews. Made the guy next to me very nervous (and he was a friend).
Rian made TLJ the way he did because he's a pretentious donkey, and he's going to continue to be a pretentious donkey because that's both his personality and his "brand". If you give him more Star Wars movies, you'll get more TLJs.
TLJ was apparently based on George Lucas' original plan.
But hey, this is about Episode IX.
I'm genuinely torn between seeing the triple bill (starting at 6pm with TFA), and just seeing Episode IX.
On one hand, Triple Bills are grate. And this could be the last time I can do it for Star Wars when I haven't seen the third.
On the other, it's a helluva long time in the Cinema, and I could do it from home, then go see IX. Also, it'd require me to work from both days, or take one as annual leave. And as I'm out of annual leave, that requires volunteering for a Saturday shift - aka four hours on the phones being whined at.
I'm genuinely torn between seeing the triple bill (starting at 6pm with TFA), and just seeing Episode IX.
On one hand, Triple Bills are grate. And this could be the last time I can do it for Star Wars when I haven't seen the third.
On the other, it's a helluva long time in the Cinema, and I could do it from home, then go see IX. Also, it'd require me to work from both days, or take one as annual leave. And as I'm out of annual leave, that requires volunteering for a Saturday shift - aka four hours on the phones being whined at.
Rian made TLJ the way he did because he's a pretentious donkey, and he's going to continue to be a pretentious donkey because that's both his personality and his "brand". If you give him more Star Wars movies, you'll get more TLJs.
Galef wrote: Does anyone else dress up for premieres? It's a personal tradition of mine for all main Star Wars films. If Ep9 is indeed the conclusion, I'll have to dress up for one more film
Posting this again as it seems to have been lost in the on-going conversation
Spoiler:
-
Didn't disney already announce 3 movies? They ain't concluding anything while it can be made to money. Sequel of sequel. Or reboot. Well 7-8 were already basically reboots. Reboot of a reboot
Galef wrote: Does anyone else dress up for premieres? It's a personal tradition of mine for all main Star Wars films. If Ep9 is indeed the conclusion, I'll have to dress up for one more film
Posting this again as it seems to have been lost in the on-going conversation
Spoiler:
-
Saw an old print showing of Aliens that was introduced by a unit of Colonial Marines. I was ordered to switch my phone off - which went off by accident...
"Sorry Sarge!"
...which gave everyone a good chuckle. Even funnier was the warped sound through out the movie!
Galef wrote: Does anyone else dress up for premieres? It's a personal tradition of mine for all main Star Wars films. If Ep9 is indeed the conclusion, I'll have to dress up for one more film
Posting this again as it seems to have been lost in the on-going conversation
Spoiler:
-
Didn't disney already announce 3 movies? They ain't concluding anything while it can be made to money. Sequel of sequel. Or reboot. Well 7-8 were already basically reboots. Reboot of a reboot
Rise of Skywalker is the conclusion of the main Skywalker story thread, not the Star Wars franchise as a whole. It'll be new heroes and villians going forward.
I can't say anymore than that otherwise Kathleen will be after me...
Didn't disney already announce 3 movies? They ain't concluding anything while it can be made to money. Sequel of sequel. Or reboot. Well 7-8 were already basically reboots. Reboot of a reboot
They've announced other trilogies are happening, but Ep9 is the conclusion of the 'Skywalker Saga'.
Didn't disney already announce 3 movies? They ain't concluding anything while it can be made to money. Sequel of sequel. Or reboot. Well 7-8 were already basically reboots. Reboot of a reboot
They've announced other trilogies are happening, but Ep9 is the conclusion of the 'Skywalker Saga'.
I believe it when i see it. Ep6 was already supposed to conclude that until disney got hand of rights and went for reboot in all but name.
Ep6 was more when they decided to quit pushing the movies, but it was far from the end. I think the original plan was 12(?) including an Ep0 and old man Luke passing the baton.
Lucas' original plan for Episodes 7-9 was to concentrate on microscopic world of Midichlorians and Whills. He did mention this idea to Disney when he sold the franchise, but they weren't excited. Can't really blame them. Lucas dryly noted that "I'm sure everyone would have hated my saga".
Lucas in turn was big time disappointed with TFA, and really can't blame him either.
In EU stories, Palpatine was of course resurrected at least in 'Dark Empire' and maybe some others, don't know.
Backfire wrote: Lucas' original plan for Episodes 7-9 was to concentrate on microscopic world of Midichlorians and Whills. He did mention this idea to Disney when he sold the franchise, but they weren't excited. Can't really blame them. Lucas dryly noted that "I'm sure everyone would have hated my saga".
Lucas in turn was big time disappointed with TFA, and really can't blame him either.
In EU stories, Palpatine was of course resurrected at least in 'Dark Empire' and maybe some others, don't know.
I am curious if we're ever going to see more of the world Ezra enters towards the end of Rebels. That was kind of a big deal to just kind of casually insert into the cannon like that.
Azreal13 wrote: Isn't there a confirmed series for that? Announced about the same time as the new CW season? Or was that just speculation?
Not that I recall, just speculation.
TBH if they do make that show, they could do with making it the Sabine & Ahsoka vs Thrawn Show(with very occasional guest appearance by That Other One). Nobody needs much more Ezra in their life, surely.
I'm not talking about wherever the whales jump to with him and Thrawn. I'm talking about when the temple lets them enter some kind of time singularity that seems to be how Force adepts are able to get glimpses of the future. Ezra uses it to have already rescued Ahsoka from Vader in season 2.
I believe it when i see it. Ep6 was already supposed to conclude that until disney got hand of rights and went for reboot in all but name.
Lucas was already working on movies 7-9 when he sold the brand to Disney.
Way back in the day, he used to say that he had plans for 12 movies. Somewhere along the line that changed to 9, and then when he made the Prequels the story suddenly changed to him only 'ever' intending there to be 6 movies, as it was apparently 'always' supposed to be the story of Anakin's rise, fall and redemption, and that story was now complete. And then he decided to make another three anyway, went as far as writing up a draft, got the principle actors on board, and then sold it all to Disney.
So the sequel trilogy was always going to happen, Disney just chose to go in a different direction to what Lucas had planned... which, honestly, sounds like it was for the best.
Way back in the day, he used to say that he had plans for 12 movies. Somewhere along the line that changed to 9, and then when he made the Prequels the story suddenly changed to him only 'ever' intending there to be 6 movies, as it was apparently 'always' supposed to be the story of Anakin's rise, fall and redemption, and that story was now complete. And then he decided to make another three anyway, went as far as writing up a draft, got the principle actors on board, and then sold it all to Disney.
It's worth noting that of the original 12, there were actually supposed to be 4 prequels. The proper 1-3 story arc of the fall of the Republic and an Ep0 prelude that more or less ended up becoming The Phantom Menace. That's a big part of why 1 is so disconnected from 2-3.
Way back in the day, he used to say that he had plans for 12 movies. Somewhere along the line that changed to 9, and then when he made the Prequels the story suddenly changed to him only 'ever' intending there to be 6 movies, as it was apparently 'always' supposed to be the story of Anakin's rise, fall and redemption, and that story was now complete. And then he decided to make another three anyway, went as far as writing up a draft, got the principle actors on board, and then sold it all to Disney.
It's worth noting that of the original 12, there were actually supposed to be 4 prequels. The proper 1-3 story arc of the fall of the Republic and an Ep0 prelude that more or less ended up becoming The Phantom Menace. That's a big part of why 1 is so disconnected from 2-3.
Its mostly just the big time skip, and the child actor. Episode 1 is just completely unnecessary in every way. Padawan Anakin assigned to protect Peace Party senator Amidala would've covered everything relevant in 2 & 3 with no trouble, and then they could have had a movie between 2 and 3 that actually covers some of the war parts of the 'Clone Wars' and develops Grevious and the other throw-away characters that aren't developed at all, so we know who they are for movie 3.
Voss wrote: Its mostly just the big time skip, and the child actor. Episode 1 is just completely unnecessary in every way. Padawan Anakin assigned to protect Peace Party senator Amidala would've covered everything relevant in 2 & 3 with no trouble, and then they could have had a movie between 2 and 3 that actually covers some of the war parts of the 'Clone Wars' and develops Grevious and the other throw-away characters that aren't developed at all, so we know who they are for movie 3.
I totally agree with this.
Ep1 should have been teen Anakin being discovered during the eve of the Clone Wars.
Ep2 could then have been the Clone Wars itself with a more grown, but still teen Anakin
Ep3 then is adult Anakin and his fall as the Clone Wars end
That arc would have allowed the use of the same actor for Anakin for all 3 movies and could have developed Anakin and Obi-wans relationship as the main 2 Protagonists.
Then you still with the SAME baddie/baddies for all 3 movies. Maul/Dooku/Grevious easily could have been condensed into 2 main Antagonists working for Sidious.
Ep1 Could introduce Maul, who gets defeated, but not killed
Ep2 Maul is back with robo legs, but because of his "failure" Sidious has a new General, which could be a former Jedi like Dooku
Ep3 both get defeated for good
I hope these are made up, because otherwise- I was content to say "I don't like the new Star Wars" and "It's not my Star Wars, I'll pass".
If these leaks are true, this is outright vandalism of the Star Wars canon and an absolute middle finger to everyone who enjoys the classic trilogy.
Yeah, there have been a series of big supposed insider leaks... some of which build on each other (whether because of veracity or sequential BSing I don't know) and others conflict. What I have seen though is that actual picture leaks that came out a week or two ago jive with some of the leaks as well so there may be some truth to some of them. Part of the inaccuracy as well might be due to (again rumored so ) significant multiple rounds of late reshoots.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: What kinds of spoilers we talkin’ ‘bout here? Time travel? Possessed Ewoks?
As already written, it's probably best to keep the thread spoiler free. If you go to youtube and search star wars spoiler and list the results by date, the last day or two will be chock full of videos that explain the latest round of spoilers.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: What kinds of spoilers we talkin’ ‘bout here? Time travel? Possessed Ewoks?
In a nutshell: "Let's do everything we can to make people hate Rey even more, and maybe make people who like her actually hate her. Because we're just not quite ready to go out, take this entire franchise and throw it in a pile, and then just curl off a big meaty cable of feces right on top of it before we take a flamethrower to the whole damned thing."
I can't even comprehend the mindset that would assume malicious intent rather than just that Disney's vision for Star Wars is different to your personal preference.
insaniak wrote: I can't even comprehend the mindset that would assume malicious intent rather than just that Disney's vision for Star Wars is different to your personal preference.
You know, people are allowed to dislike things- right?
Yes, it's not to my liking.
Provided these rumors are true, I'll question the dignity of any human being that does.
You know, people are allowed to dislike things- right?
Sure. My point was that not liking something doesn't mean that thing was specifically made to annoy you personally. More likely, it just means that different people like different things.
You know, people are allowed to dislike things- right?
Sure. My point was that not liking something doesn't mean that thing was specifically made to annoy you personally. More likely, it just means that different people like different things.
I'd be flattered if someone made something awful just to annoy me. Especially Star Wars. It'd be the most ego-inflating thing that anyone has ever done for me.
Unfortunately, the scary part is- if these spoilers are true (and I hope not)- "We did this specifically to ruin it and make people angry" would be a response that would bring me comfort, and make me at least have some closure. If they're true, it's... well, it's a really bad direction and it almost seems disrespectful to the canon.
So, fingers crossed.
And please, Insaniak- don't act like my hyperbolic criticism was anything out of the ordinary for this site. You and I have both seen people talk about Primaris Marines and Codex changes like someone took their toddler and cast it into a bonfire made of their life savings and treasured possessions. Apparently, GW is the supervillain that other supervillains don't admit to working with.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: . You and I have both seen people talk about Primaris Marines and Codex changes like someone took their toddler and cast it into a bonfire made of their life savings and treasured possessions
Yes, people get a bit over the top with their complaints sometimes. Assuming that a release you don't like was made because a company is trying to sabotage its own IP is way beyond hyperbole and into crazy conspiracy theory territory, though.
If you honestly feel better assuming deliberate sabotage than simply that the people making the movie like different things to you, then you do you.
I'm just expecting an action movie with lightsabers and spaceships. I suspect that one of us is going to be significantly more disappointed than the other...
Adeptus Doritos wrote: . You and I have both seen people talk about Primaris Marines and Codex changes like someone took their toddler and cast it into a bonfire made of their life savings and treasured possessions
Yes, people get a bit over the top with their complaints sometimes. Assuming that a release you don't like was made because a company is trying to sabotage its own IP is way beyond hyperbole and into crazy conspiracy theory territory, though.
If you honestly feel better assuming deliberate sabotage than simply that the people making the movie like different things to you, then you do you.
I'm just expecting an action movie with lightsabers and spaceships. I suspect that one of us is going to be significantly more disappointed than the other...
Rumor has it- and I don't know how reliable it is, but I indulged the explanation.
Sabotage might be the goal- supposedly, there's no future big cash in the classic stuff. Carrie is dead, Hammil is old, Ford is done with it and old, and the store itself is pretty much tapped out. So they might be doing exactly what they said, letting the past die and killing it if they must. Also, supposedly Lucas still has some degree of royalties or something from the old characters, so Disney kinda wants to be done with all of that.
Again, that's the rumor. I can't validate it and I don't care to.
I don't like the movies. I really don't like the way the canon has been handled.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
And for me, at best, this franchise has become stupid.
Mandalorian might be the only decent thing they crank out for a long time- and already I feel like I'm watching a toddler reach into my miniatures case.
That's exactly the same 'rumour' that's been floating around since TLJ came out. And the existence of Solo and the upcoming Kenobi series make the idea that they're trying to remove all of the old characters something of a nonsense.
insaniak wrote: That's exactly the same 'rumour' that's been floating around since TLJ came out. And the existence of Solo and the upcoming Kenobi series make the idea that they're trying to remove all of the old characters something of a nonsense.
Solo sucked, and actually performed the worst of all the Star Wars movie.
And I was under the impression the Kenobi series was canned.
The kenobi series is apparently a real thing now. The issue I had with Solo is they are telling a story that I didn't really feel was worth telling. The appeal of Solo as a character for me was solely based around Harrison Ford kind of just being himself with his charisma. It wasn't a story worth telling, and not everything needs to be explained away. When nothing is left to imagination or mystery things get boring. I never wanted or cared to know about what he did pre ANH. And they used the film to insert a horrendous cameo of maul, confirming one of the worst character arcs to come from the cartoons.
I feel like Solo's biggest problem was in (poor) marketing. It wasn't ground breaking, but it was entertaining, and excellent eye candy. But it was coming off the back of the negative reactions to TLJ, had all the buzz about problems in production, and then for some reason received very little promotion - probably damage control, which would also be why all the major events were crammed in, just in case the other two movies didn't end up happening.
Regardless, though, if Disney's intent was to remove all of the old characters from the franchise, this is a movie that just wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Solo also broke the "Star Wars movies are gonna release on Christmas" rule. It came out like 4 months after the most divisive star wars film of all time. If they had kept it to the "once a year every December" schedule it probably would have performed much better than it.
It also wasn't helped by the projection issues in a lot of chain cinemas, which led to some folk who did see the film and like it telling people to wait for home media.
It's a shame, if Disney had held it back until the anticipated Christmas slot and given it some modest marketing, I think it would have done all right for itself.
LunarSol wrote: Ep6 was more when they decided to quit pushing the movies, but it was far from the end. I think the original plan was 12(?) including an Ep0 and old man Luke passing the baton.
That doesn\t really giive much reason to think disney stops at 9 either. And just because lucas might have been willing to do more filler movies after conclusion doesn't mean disney would stop after 3 more filler movies.
As it is the 7-9 are just retelling of 4-6 with new actors and new cgi so can't really conclude anything. You would actually need to tell new story to conclude original. Not just rehash old one. As it is no reason to believe disney to not stop it. Just retell the same story over and over and over again. 7-9 already proved it works. Makes it easy movies for them to tell the same story and make millions out of it There's always another apprentice to fall to dark side, another hero from tiny desert planet to be taught light side, another super weapon to be destroyed and another palpatine to be killed on 3rd movie.
And disney's coffins keep getting millions.
If there was room after ep6 for movies it would have been to show what happened between emperor dying and the celebration scenes at the end of ep6 as logically they would have to be time wise quite far apart. And even then from story point of view that wasn't needed any more than in LOTR it was important to know what happened in the lonely mountains during war of the ring.
balmong7 wrote: Solo also broke the "Star Wars movies are gonna release on Christmas" rule. It came out like 4 months after the most divisive star wars film of all time. If they had kept it to the "once a year every December" schedule it probably would have performed much better than it.
This was probably the strangest bit. I get they didn't have Christmas faith in the film, but its release window fatigue incarnate. Not only was TLJ fresh in everyone's minds but they were also reeling from Infinity War. Absolutely no one was hungry for Solo.
Voss wrote: Its mostly just the big time skip, and the child actor. Episode 1 is just completely unnecessary in every way. Padawan Anakin assigned to protect Peace Party senator Amidala would've covered everything relevant in 2 & 3 with no trouble, and then they could have had a movie between 2 and 3 that actually covers some of the war parts of the 'Clone Wars' and develops Grevious and the other throw-away characters that aren't developed at all, so we know who they are for movie 3.
I totally agree with this.
Ep1 should have been teen Anakin being discovered during the eve of the Clone Wars.
Ep2 could then have been the Clone Wars itself with a more grown, but still teen Anakin
Ep3 then is adult Anakin and his fall as the Clone Wars end
That arc would have allowed the use of the same actor for Anakin for all 3 movies and could have developed Anakin and Obi-wans relationship as the main 2 Protagonists.
Then you still with the SAME baddie/baddies for all 3 movies. Maul/Dooku/Grevious easily could have been condensed into 2 main Antagonists working for Sidious.
Ep1 Could introduce Maul, who gets defeated, but not killed
Ep2 Maul is back with robo legs, but because of his "failure" Sidious has a new General, which could be a former Jedi like Dooku
Ep3 both get defeated for good
-
It's kind of infuriating, because in a lot of ways TPM is the best structured movie of the bunch. I'd actually make very few changes to it:
- Anakin is played by Hayden Christensen as more of a Han Solo role who offers to help them out by winning the race if they get him off this rock.
- The debate in the senate is whether or not to deploy the clone army to break up the blockade of Naboo. Clones arrive at the end to save the day but the use of force prompts several worlds to declare independence (per the opening crawl of Ep2)
There's a lot of tonal things worth reconsidering, but those are honestly the only two things I think the film really needed to do differently. It's the only one with solid bones.
For TPM, it’s mostly just wasted screen time. Overall, we don’t need to see Anakin that young.
And given Darth Tyranus describes Qui Gon Jinn as a friend, expressing he might’ve understood, I’d prefer to have seen some kind of dissent with the Jedi Order.
Not in a particularly political way, more philosophical. Such as ‘we’re meant to be peace keepers, we can’t just wade in’ contrasting with ‘we need to take action now to prevent things escalating which will only cost more lives’.
Such a split would’ve given Palpatine more an ‘in’ to manipulate things.
But having said His name, Palpatine remains the best character in the prequels.
Yodhrin wrote: It also wasn't helped by the projection issues in a lot of chain cinemas, which led to some folk who did see the film and like it telling people to wait for home media.
That was very strongly my personal experience with the movie. It was incredibly, unwatchably dark - and it opened with scenes in caves or sewers or whatever which didn't help. When they revealed whatever they revealed in the dark, I still have no idea what it looked like.
Even in bright scenes, like in the mountains, the movie never went above "dark grey".
As willing as the director and cinematographer were to shift blame onto theater management, the fact remains that I think the onus of responsibility is on the former for not having a grasp of what the realities they could expect in visual range - if I buy a sandwich at a gas station at 2 am, I don't decry the lack of michelin stars, and when almost a thousand movies a year are released theatrically without this problem...
Yodhrin wrote: It also wasn't helped by the projection issues in a lot of chain cinemas, which led to some folk who did see the film and like it telling people to wait for home media.
That was very strongly my personal experience with the movie. It was incredibly, unwatchably dark - and it opened with scenes in caves or sewers or whatever which didn't help. When they revealed whatever they revealed in the dark, I still have no idea what it looked like.
Even in bright scenes, like in the mountains, the movie never went above "dark grey".
As willing as the director and cinematographer were to shift blame onto theater management, the fact remains that I think the onus of responsibility is on the former for not having a grasp of what the realities they could expect in visual range - if I buy a sandwich at a gas station at 2 am, I don't decry the lack of michelin stars, and when almost a thousand movies a year are released theatrically without this problem...
Nah that's BS man, filmmakers shouldn't be forced to make an inferior/compromised product just because the late-stage scumbags who run cinemas have found every little shred of costs to cut even where that ruins the experience of watching actual movies because, in the end, their business model is selling gakky food not films.
To torture your analogy a bit; what they made was a gourmet sandwich, what you ordered was a gourmet sandwich, but what you got was a gourmet sandwich that had been sat in a hot warehouse for a week. The person at fault there is the delivery company who failed to deliver the sandwich promptly, not the people making the sandwich for choosing to make the product both they and you wanted rather than a cardboard & preservatives gas station job that could survive the delivery company's incompetence.
The fact is these films get sent to the theatres with instructions on how to show them properly, which they are no doubt contractually obligated to obey, and many of the theatres just ignore them because either they're not willing to pay one of their wagies to show up and actually do the work, or because they pay their wagies so badly that they don't give even a teeny-weeny gak about their jobs and so just slack it.
And yet again, the 800 other movies released that year didn't run into that issue. Adjusting lighting conditions to what the market is actually going to experience isn't producing an inferior product; releasing 2 hours of a movie that appeared to be shot in the dark did.
It's a poor director who doesn't in any way understand and adjust for the actual experience the overwhelming majority of moviegoers are going to see.
It's a poor director who doesn't in any way understand and adjust for the actual experience the overwhelming majority of moviegoers are going to see.
The overwhelming majority are going to watch it at home, where (at least going by my Bluray copy) the lighting is fine.
Indeed. And also, it's utterly bizarre to me that someone would blame the artist for making art in a style cinemas are perfectly capable of accommodating, rather than the cinemas for doing a shoddy job of presenting the art purely out of greed and lack of any concern for quality.
It's not like we're talking about some kind of onerous burden being placed on cinemas, literally all they have to do is input a couple of settings on the digital projector's control software and actually bother to switch the projector lens out when they go between 2D and 3D showings, which is what they should be doing anyway for every movie they show. The fact that this particular movie made stylistic choices that highlight a deficiency in cinemas that is always present just not as noticeable would, to any reasonable person, be an opportunity to highlight what a shoddy business cinema chains are, rather than a stick to beat a director with.
It's a poor director who doesn't in any way understand and adjust for the actual experience the overwhelming majority of moviegoers are going to see.
The overwhelming majority are going to watch it at home, where (at least going by my Bluray copy) the lighting is fine.
Indeed. And also, it's utterly bizarre to me that someone would blame the artist for making art in a style cinemas are perfectly capable of accommodating, rather than the cinemas for doing a shoddy job of presenting the art purely out of greed and lack of any concern for quality.
It's not like we're talking about some kind of onerous burden being placed on cinemas, literally all they have to do is input a couple of settings on the digital projector's control software and actually bother to switch the projector lens out when they go between 2D and 3D showings, which is what they should be doing anyway for every movie they show. The fact that this particular movie made stylistic choices that highlight a deficiency in cinemas that is always present just not as noticeable would, to any reasonable person, be an opportunity to highlight what a shoddy business cinema chains are, rather than a stick to beat a director with.
And yet it was the only movie to have this issue pretty much ever that I can think of and it was an issue in multiple countries and different chains so really it seems to be an issue with the product sent out rather than where it was played.
It's a poor director who doesn't in any way understand and adjust for the actual experience the overwhelming majority of moviegoers are going to see.
The overwhelming majority are going to watch it at home, where (at least going by my Bluray copy) the lighting is fine.
Indeed. And also, it's utterly bizarre to me that someone would blame the artist for making art in a style cinemas are perfectly capable of accommodating, rather than the cinemas for doing a shoddy job of presenting the art purely out of greed and lack of any concern for quality.
It's not like we're talking about some kind of onerous burden being placed on cinemas, literally all they have to do is input a couple of settings on the digital projector's control software and actually bother to switch the projector lens out when they go between 2D and 3D showings, which is what they should be doing anyway for every movie they show. The fact that this particular movie made stylistic choices that highlight a deficiency in cinemas that is always present just not as noticeable would, to any reasonable person, be an opportunity to highlight what a shoddy business cinema chains are, rather than a stick to beat a director with.
And yet it was the only movie to have this issue pretty much ever that I can think of and it was an issue in multiple countries and different chains so really it seems to be an issue with the product sent out rather than where it was played.
No, it's an issue with the way the places playing the product operate because while it was an issue in many places, it was not an issue everywhere(even within the same chains in the same countries) - this isn't some grand mystery, the problem is specific and was identified at the time; in order to minimise staffing costs, chain cinemas cue up whole days, even whole weekends' worth of showings as a playlist. If they do that and also A; show both 2D and 3D movies on the same projector, but refuse to switch out the 3D lens, and/or B; don't bother to input the specific projection settings that are provided with the film(because most films don't need specific settings, they fall within a range that is presented adequately enough with the defaults that your typical cinemagoer won't notice a difference), then you got a gakky Solo showing.
Seriously, that people are actually trying to defend this nonsense is just bizarre to me. It wasn't that long ago that loads of films had to come with specific instructions for projecting them off their reels, and if they weren't followed and the viewing experience was gak as a result the idea you would blame the filmmaker and not the people you're literally paying to project the film for not properly projecting the film would have been laughable.
The cinema chains were provided with everything they needed to show Solo correctly, and many failed to do so because it would have required a non-zero amount of effort on their part. Case closed.
AegisGrimm wrote: The Phantom Menace was entirely to get a new crop of kids interested in Star Wars. Need to get all those young Anakin-age kids buying action figures.
There's no other reason for it to have a child main character, or such cartoonish situations.
Lucas wanted us to see Anakin as an innocent child so we'd get behind him as the hero of the story. My gut says that he was a little too married to the Ep0 idea for some reason and shoved it in even though it really wasn't intended to be part of the prequel story arc.
Yodhrin wrote: The cinema chains were provided with everything they needed to show Solo correctly, and many failed to do so because it would have required a non-zero amount of effort on their part. Case closed.
And yet Black Panther, Infinity War, Deadpool 2, Into the Spider-Verse, Ready Player One, Aquaman, and 800+ other movies didn't have this problem that same year. Solo's unwatchability contributed in part to a $50 million dollar loss and Disney being forced to slow the pace of Star War movies. Arguing "but achtually" is really just being contrarian for the sake of arguing.
And yet it was the only movie to have this issue pretty much ever that I can think of and it was an issue in multiple countries and different chains so really it seems to be an issue with the product sent out rather than where it was played.
Except it wasn't the only movie with this issue. Movies being too dark on the big screen is one of the most common complaints about cinemas, anywhere, particularly since cinemas starting moving towards more automated systems. It was more obvious with Solo than with many other movies, because the movie featured a lot of dimly lit scenes... in a brighter movie, the fact that it's being shown too dark isn't always as noticeable, but that doesn't mean that the audience isn't missing the 'proper' visual experience as a result, and it doesn't make it a problem with the movie.
AegisGrimm wrote: The Phantom Menace was entirely to get a new crop of kids interested in Star Wars. Need to get all those young Anakin-age kids buying action figures.
There's no other reason for it to have a child main character, or such cartoonish situations.
Lucas wanted us to see Anakin as an innocent child so we'd get behind him as the hero of the story. My gut says that he was a little too married to the Ep0 idea for some reason and shoved it in even though it really wasn't intended to be part of the prequel story arc.
But... he wasn't at any point the hero of the story. Any of the stories.
Even anti-hero would be a stretch.
If Lucas ever thought that Anakin's actions in the prequels fall under the category of 'heroic' he has severe problems in judgement.
Movie theaters are staffed by minimum wage kids who are paid to push a button and get yelled at while cleaning all the stuff people dump on the floor rather than bother carrying 20 feet to the door where the garbage is. They should strive to be better if they want to stay relevant but at times I'm surprised they're not worse.
On that note, I REALLY need to watch Thor again. I've only seen it once and the chunk was projected in 3D in a showing where no one paid for or had glasses for it.
But... he wasn't at any point the hero of the story. Any of the stories.
Even anti-hero would be a stretch.
Wins the Pod race for Qui-Gon, blows up the trade ship ending the occupation of Naboo, thwarts an assasination attempt on padme's life, Leaps valiantly to Obi-wan's defence when Dooku is about to strike, saves the Chancellor while carrying Obi-Wan on his back, gets an attractive, older woman pregnant with twins, saves Lukes life and destroys the emperor ending his reign of galactic terror.
But... he wasn't at any point the hero of the story. Any of the stories.
Even anti-hero would be a stretch.
Wins the Pod race for Qui-Gon, blows up the trade ship ending the occupation of Naboo, thwarts an assasination attempt on padme's life, Leaps valiantly to Obi-wan's defence when Dooku is about to strike, saves the Chancellor while carrying Obi-Wan on his back, gets an attractive, older woman pregnant with twins, saves Lukes life and destroys the emperor ending his reign of galactic terror.
Now where did we put those Clone Wars dvds?
Indeed. He wasn't particularly likeable... but the prequels very clearly made it all about Anakin, and sparked Lucas' rebranding of Star Wars as the 'Skywalker Saga'.
Again today heard that rumor about Lucas being legally entitled to some of the royalties for the original characters, and spurring Disney to purge them all.
Not going into the spoiler rumors I heard, but if true the spoilers... well, don't hope for a happy future for anyone from the classic trilogy. Looks like they're getting 66'd.
Once again, if the issue was royalties over existing characters, we wouldn't have had Solo. We wouldn't be getting the Obi Wan series. Darth Vader and Princess Leia wouldn't have appeared in Rogue One. And the latest movie most certainly wouldn't be called 'The Rise of Skywalker', because Disney would be doing everything they could to back away from that name.
Given that most of the Original Trilogy actors are in their 70's, it's really not too surprising that they might get killed off. Seriously, it's not some big conspiracy. Just people getting old.
Given that most of the Original Trilogy actors are in their 70's, it's really not too surprising that they might get killed off. Seriously, it's not some big conspiracy. Just people getting old.
Theme park is entirely focused on the new trilogy as well.
Definitely a lost opportunity. Disney backed the wrong space horse.
I kind of wish Disney never revisited any of the original characters, even if it meant we got no Rogue One and no Solo. Better to leave them off celebrating with Ewoks than show them all end up as miserable failures or whatever.
I kind of wish Disney never revisited any of the original characters, even if it meant we got no Rogue One and no Solo..
That's exactly what would have happened if Doritos' conspiracy theory were true. TFA would have just been a hard reboot of the setting. Which, in hindsight, would have been a much cleaner way to do it, as then we wouldn't have the current uncertainty about how much of the old EU material is still canon...
That's exactly what would have happened if Doritos' conspiracy theory were true. TFA would have just been a hard reboot of the setting. Which, in hindsight, would have been a much cleaner way to do it, as then we wouldn't have the current uncertainty about how much of the old EU material is still canon...
I don't want to speculate on how poorly that would have performed. I think Disney needed to tie their direction to the old characters.
Honestly, they went too far with it. Had they been brief cameos, and maybe a better swan song for Luke... it could have been more tolerable. But the way it seems, like I said elsewhere: "This new things is awesome, look how awesome it is- it's beating the crap out of all the old stuff you liked!"
Star Wars is a sandbox. They could do a lot, at any point in the Galaxy, and be less restricted had they just avoided this one particular time period and group of characters. And with that, they could have gauged the fans' reaction and made adjustments without tooling around with classic characters and pissing a lot of fans off. And if people didn't like it, it didn't feel like it meddled too much with something classic.
As for 'conspiracy', well- Lucas to some degree could very well hold some rights or otherwise be entitled to royalties. Something about the Writers Guild Minimum Basic Agreement, which I haven't read in full. As I understand, you can still get royalties to something you create- selling the rights doesn't mean you lose that always, it just means you're legally selling the property to someone else to use as they see fit.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: But the way it seems, like I said elsewhere: "This new things is awesome, look how awesome it is- it's beating the crap out of all the old stuff you liked!"
You mean like how Kylo Ren 'beat the crap' out of Luke by letting the old jedi outwit him, outfight him without even being in the same solar system, and letting the remains of the Resistance escape out the back door?
Or like how Kylo Ren beat the crap out of his mother, who subsequently woke up in space and used the Force to pull herself back into her ship?
It seems more like you're seeing what you expect to see, to be honest.
As for 'conspiracy', well- Lucas to some degree could very well hold some rights or otherwise be entitled to royalties. Something about the Writers Guild Minimum Basic Agreement, which I haven't read in full. As I understand, you can still get royalties to something you create- selling the rights doesn't mean you lose that always, it just means you're legally selling the property to someone else to use as they see fit.
You've misunderstood. Lucas having (or not) royalty-entitlement to the old characters wasn't what I was referring to by the 'conspiracy theory' reference. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he's entitled to writer's royalties for the characters that he created. What I was dismissing as conspiracy theory was the idea that Disney is actively killing off those characters to avoid paying royalties... because that theory makes no sense. Aside from the things I mentioned earlier, if they didn't want to put Luke Skywalker on the screen, they could have, you know, just not. They even gave themselves the perfect setup for it: Luke is missing. Nobody knows where he is. All they had to do was leave off the last 5 minutes of TFA, and leave Rey chasing around the Galaxy following an always-cold trail and never actually finding him.
They could have had R2 missing with Luke. They could have killed Chewie off when Kylo killed Han - it would have made perfect sense for the wookie to go out in a blaze of glory taking revenge for Han's death. They could have just left Leia floating in space.They could have had C3PO standing on the bridge beside her when it blew into space. And they sure as hell wouldn't be introducing more old characters in the next wave of movies and books.
Honestly, what's more likely - that Disney is actively trying to sabotage the property that they paid a swimming pool full of money for and continue to throw truckloads of money at, in an effort to avoid paying some royalties to the original creator... or that some characters died, because in a story setting where the galaxy is in an almost constant state of war, sometimes people die?
Honestly, what's more likely - that Disney is actively trying to sabotage the property that they paid a swimming pool full of money for and continue to throw truckloads of money at, in an effort to avoid paying some royalties to the original creator... or that some characters died, because in a story setting where the galaxy is in an almost constant state of war, sometimes people die?
Considering this is the company that squeezed out the sequels to Aladdin and Snow White that no one asked for, and is notoriously meticulous about the money they have to spend vs. the money they make... also if I'm not mistaken, Lucas owns a good chunk of stock, too. Not sure how that'd play out.
Personally, I think it's for narrative reasons. Tie up all the loose ends and do what you want, people won't be arguing about canon or challenging your direction. Disney's not trying to drain their account and creative minds wrapping this whole Skywalker saga up, and probably going to focus on bigger things after. Also, I'm pretty sure the future is in streaming services rather than theaters (read an interesting article about that not long ago).
Look, I get it. You like the movies, which is cool- I'd be more bothered if you actually wasted your money. It's hard for you to see the flaws, or you focus a lot more on the good parts. I'm just a bitter old grump, that's mad because [insert your reason]- whichever one you like, go ahead.
I think they're bad movies. Worse than the prequels. Why? Lots of reasons, and the prequels were painful to watch.
And to compare them to movies from the 70's as an excuse for... bombs falling in the vacuum of space and other nonsense, well...
It's not my Star Wars, and I'm fine with that. The Mandalorian looks promising, and maybe it'll be what brings some of the fans around and serves as Disney's apology.
Also, the old Jedi that outwit Emo Ren got a better death than he deserves for being a coward and abandoning the Jedi and his Nephew over a bad dream. The heroic Empire should have stomped him with an AT-AT.
Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?
Even just Grav Plating (which all ships must have, given none are shown to be zero-g environments not another equally plausible explanation?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Every Star Wars bomber has a WWII Emulator Field. The fools in TLJ turned theirs to maximum.
As does every other ship in Star Wars, perhaps the complaint about gravity has more to do with the bombs not slowing to a stop due to whatever space friction that requires ships to provide constant thrust to maintain speed?
But yes, I thought the whole idea of the Starfortress' launching mechanism was that its using the artificial gravity it generates (much Paige Tico's chagrin) to drop the bombs out of its extended bay.
And also a very blatant reference to the B-52 Stratofortress.
Edit: apparently the official techsplanation is that the bomb let's are propelled down the rail by magnets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, jeez. 1048 proton bombs per clip. Each of these things is carrying 52 Y-Wings worth of kaboom.
If there was one awesome thing about Last Jedi it was the Starfortress bombers!
Apart from them being picked off too easily, it was a cool space opera nod to Memphis Belle. I have a bit of a connection to that film( the fortresses used in the film flew over my house, on the way to Duxford for filming ) and that scene bought back wonderful memories. It also made up for the missed opportunity that was the ROTJ:Special Edition where B-Wings are there to blow up star destroyers(gotta be some reason why the rebels hold out against a numerically superior force AND a Death Star)...instead we got that bloody horrible music number that nobody asked for.
Speaking of B-Wings, theres one in the recent Rise of Skywalker trailer!
Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?
Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?
Can't get much less safer than that.
_________
Look the long and short of it is RJ wanted some ww1 action in his movie and got it.
Scrabb wrote: Look the long and short of it is RJ wanted some ww1 action in his movie and got it.
Which, to be fair, is very much what George Lucas did in the first Star Wars. Most of the model shots/movements of X-wings & Tie Fighters were carbon copies of old WWII dogfight footage
Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?
Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?
Can't get much less safer than that.
A ship with a dead pilot dives into an explosion and its the launching mechanism's fault?
JJ's aerial choreography is one of the things I think was really overlooked in Ep7. In no small part because there was never a real plot focus on space combat, but there's some beautifully done shots throughout the film involving the X-Wings.
Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.
Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.
Of course they kept falling. Why would they stop falling in space?
Very clearly. They were (eventually) released from their racks, fell and kept falling. And left to explode on the surface of armor and shields, which is the least efficient way to blow something up- a missile with some kinetic penetration would be much more effective.
Of course they kept falling. Why would they stop falling in space?
Because nothing is 'falling' in space. It has a vector consisting of speed and direction.
And since they're leaving the 'inertial dampers' magical field, and suddenly have a lot more forward momentum (relative to the direction of the bomber) than they had a second ago (alternately none, because magic inertia field), and their new vector won't necessarily match the ship they're leaving nor necessarily intersect the vector of the ship 'below' them- or be at a useful speed (which if they were just falling fifteen to thirty feet, they definitely don't have a useful speed for space combat). Best case, they dribble out the back of the ship and slowly wander off as an irrelevance to the battle. Worst case the 'higher' ones are slightly faster (because they fell further and had more time to accelerate) and bump into the lower ones, exploding right after leaving the bomber.
tl;dr- WWII bomber designs don't work in space. Missiles/torpedos are a far superior model.
Or, given anti-gravity is common place, to the point Luke’s clapped out speeder, can we instead reasonably assume the racks in the bomb bay had similar, not least to ensure safer launching, as one getting stuck could prove problematic?
Safer launching? Is this not the bomber that blew itself to kingdom come with a successful ordinance drop?
Can't get much less safer than that.
A ship with a dead pilot dives into an explosion and its the launching mechanism's fault?
Huh. I sought said scene out because I distinctly remembered the bomber running parallel to the dreadnaught.
The bombs fell straight down, then exploded ahead of the ship in the next shot as the ship nosedived into said explosion ahead of it. Not exactly better, but decidedly different than I claimed. So yeah.
As for the bomb racks? When you’re dealing with a likely anti-grav launch system, not too much of a stretch to arrange for it to deliver each at the same velocity.
And once launched, turn on magnetic or something (magnetic bombs confirmed from ROTJ in the bunker) and they’ll be drawn to the strongest source. And to ensure that’s not the launching craft, just ensure some kind of polarity trickery.
Sorted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Great googly moogly and heavens to murgatroyd!
I just read about a SW Theory that is interesting, but no way it's gonna happen (at least I hope not).
I'm not gonna spoiler it because it really doesn't seem likely to happen, buuuuut…
Basically time travel is canon (Ezra in Rebels did it, apparently), so the theory is that Rey is sent back in time, changes her name to Shmi Skywalker and is Anakin's mom, hence "Rise of Skywalker"
Galef wrote: I just read about a SW Theory that is interesting, but no way it's gonna happen (at least I hope not).
I'm not gonna spoiler it because it really doesn't seem likely to happen, buuuuut…
Basically time travel is canon (Ezra in Rebels did it, apparently), so the theory is that Rey is sent back in time, changes her name to Shmi Skywalker and is Anakin's mom, hence "Rise of Skywalker"
insaniak wrote: And now that you mention it, Rey could pass for a younger version of Shmi...
Daisy Ridley also has a resemblance to Natalie Portman and Keira Knightly (who played a decoy of Amidala in EpI), so there's basis to say she's a Skywalker descendant that takes after her grandmother. But I'm rather against the time travel theory just because it's never been a part of the major saga. Avengers can get away with time travel because the MCU is built around individuals doing incredible, often science/tech-base things which time travel can be.
Personally, I'm hoping for Rey to be revealed as an actual skywalker and the whole "you're a nobody" nonsense was a lie that Snoke planted in Kylo's mind Even better if Rey is Luke's daughter (that he may not have known about or thought was dead) and Obi-wan's granddaughter (i.e Luke married Obi-wan's long lost daughter and they had Rey)
Ben would then be the son of Anakin's daughter while Rey is the daughter of Anakin's son. There's some good symmetry there and can more easily tie into the Chosen One prophecy.
I mean, if JJ wants this to be the end of the Skywalker saga, even going so far as resurrecting the main baddie, it would make sense for the Protagonist of said saga to be, ya know, an actual Skywalker
It would have continuity issues, too. Rey doesn't talk like Shmi, for starters. And her conversations with Qui Gonn would probably have gone somewhat differently.
Rey, a character who went from desert planet scavenger to mastering the force and both lightsaber and starship combat in just a matter of hours after being introduced to each, going back in time just to become a slave? No, that doesn't sound empowering/likely at all.
AegisGrimm wrote: As long as this one doesn't have Poe prank calling Hux, I'll be fine. That scene was uncomfortably stupid and theme-breaking.
Many Bothan spies died in order to place the whoopie cushion under his chair cushion on the bridge of his Star Destroyer. Their sacrifice will not have been in vain in Episode 9.
Honestly, I find it odd that people would think it didn't fit the setting. What it reminded me of the most was the pilot banter that runs through the old X-wing novels. Which isn't too surprising, since Poe was quite clearly meant to be a replacement for Wedge Antilles' character, and that 'prank call' was right up the EU Wedge's alley.
Oh yeah, those Rogue books were full of those sort of pranks and silly things, I thought it was quite in keeping with Star Wars (especially Rebel) pilots
A old friend of mine cut up the old Star Wars WOTC mini of the Emperor to glue his force lighting onto a Jawa that he repainted into a dark lord of the sith. I wouldn't have done that with my own (at the time) $40 ultrarare but I'll admit it was entertaining.
