Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
I liked Solo.

And you’re being silly by missing out on Endgame.

Hoping that RoS will be good - I think it probably will be...

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I feel no inclination to be shamed over this.

 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!

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.

 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.

https://www.inverse.com/article/59157-star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-death-star-endor-ewoks-theory-based-on-novel

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Endor_Holocaust

https://movieweb.com/star-wars-therapy-ewoks-life-debt-book/

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

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.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/10/23/was-that-merry-from-lord-of-the-rings-in-the-star-wars-trailer/

excuse the old edited for TV language replacement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44610244

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.

 warboss wrote:

 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.

"Admiral Space Horse, we really need your battle fleets if we are going to defeat the first order."

"My Space Horse-men have only one condition."

"Name it. The Resistance will grant it."

"Ride us."

"Wh--I'm sorry, I must have misheard."

"You didn't mishear. If you want our battle fleets, you must ride us."

"Uh..."

"Naked."

"..."

"Into battle. On the hull of a Star Destroyer."

"...I believe we can arrange that...Just please stop licking your space horse teeth."

 Azreal13 wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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.

So yes.... stick it on charge.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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:

 warboss wrote:

 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?

Yes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes.

Azreal13 isn’t ever really wrong!

 Captain Joystick wrote:

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?

I'll take anything that invalidates the dumpster fire that was TLJ, and I'll take it with a smile.

 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.

To tie this back in nicely to Star Wars, this argument also happened when they were big and new. My favorite critic, and alleged real-life jerk Roger Ebert along with the still-living Siskel, responded:

Siskel and Ebert took offense.

"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."

 Ouze wrote:

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.

.. clearly they should've used "Gimme Shelter" instead of " Immigrant Song" -- juvenile error.

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.

Perhaps this will end with them finally getting those power converters from Toschi station and the audience will have the closure it needs.

 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.

 Ouze wrote:


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>.

Wonder if Rey will disappear into the desert(Jakku), much like the ending they considered for Luke in Return of the Jedi.

Voss wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


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. “

In terms of predictable plots.

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.