Movies you've recently watched

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Yeah, there was an opportunity with TFA to create likable new characters to take the torch from the old ones, but for some reason they tried to accelerate the process immediately and make a longterm problem, you can't keep running back the same old faces forever, into an immediate crisis. It's inexplicable to me they didn't error on the side of exploiting the shit out of Mark Hamill. Now they're purported new stars want nothing to do with it either... and nobody cares.
You know, the worst part is I actually think they did a great job casting Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver and John Boyega in their respectives roles. If the writing and directing had been handled better the franchise could be soaring to new heights right now. Maybe it's like you said and they wanted to go too fast, but I also think at the core of it there's a problem of competence. Abrams just went for the "big feels" without caring about constructing a coherent storyline that would actually support a trilogy. Looking back, I have a newfound appreciation for the kind of reverence and care Peter Jackson showed with The Lord of the Rings.

This has always been the Star Wars EU's problem; the only civilian occupation/creed is smuggler or bounty hunter. I'm strangely fine with that on this program because it's just scrawling in the margins to give me the old school, low stakes Star Wars adventure of the week rather than rehashing the already settled SKYWALKER SAGA and Palpatine for the umpteenth and least interesting time, likely with disastrously bad results.
Personally I have as much investment in any of these characters as I had in Phasma (I had to look the name up). And I find the premise of baby Yoda nonsensical, but I don't care enough to be bothered by it.
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
You know, the worst part is I actually think they did a great job casting Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver and John Boyega in their respectives roles. If the writing and directing had been handled better the franchise could be soaring to new heights right now. Maybe it's like you said and they wanted to go too fast, but I also think at the core of it there's a problem of competence. Abrams just went for the "big feels" without caring about constructing a coherent storyline that would actually support a trilogy.
Agreed, it's amazing they got the new cast right, arguably the hardest part, and squandered it anyway. Anyway, to me Abrams is "just" a director, and one with the good taste to at least bring on Kasdan when he knew he had nothing (putting the whole enchilada on him now for this movie is something even he clearly knew he wasn't up for). I've always put the failure of this project on the new Lucasfilm and the hilariously named "story group" that clearly didn't care about crafting a good, pleasing or even coherent story so seemingly did nothing to do so. I don't know what their purpose was other than casting more diverse characters because the movies are riddled with the type of incongruity and clash of visions you'd want a story committee to smooth over in the first place. That's how you end up doing a sequel trilogy without even reuniting the cast and putting Luke Skywalker in a story cage until he expires before the third movie even rolls around.

Now they basically have nothing after this. Their next two streaming shows star characters that are already dead! Even the GoT guys ditched them. Who's left in the stable? Rian Johnson!? They might end up making the prequel era look more viable considering all the Clone Wars content they milked out of it. Jon Favs and Kevin Feige will be running this thing by the time the next movie comes out, it's already in motion. I just wonder if the Marvelization of Star Wars will be an improvement or make these messy times look like more creatively credible efforts that simply didn't work out. If there's anything we've learned with Star Wars, it can always get worse.

Looking back, I have a newfound appreciation for the kind of reverence and care Peter Jackson showed with The Lord of the Rings.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Stop the presses! I should have just ignored everything else and just quoted this for posterity. =) But yeah, even though he went down his own dark road with the Hobbit movies I have to agree.

Personally I have as much investment in any of these characters as I had in Phasma (I had to look the name up). And I find the premise of baby Yoda nonsensical, but I don't care enough to be bothered by it.
Well, I like them particularly because I don't feel like I'm being asked to invest in them, Mando's just a repainted Boba Fett toy they didn't even bother making up a new name for and baby Yoda probably is a literal clone of Yoda, which will become so problematic they might as well bring in Luuke. Hopefully they won't ruin this for me when they do reveal both of them and act like I should feel something about it. I only like it as the Star Wars show about nothing. =)
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
Anyway, to me Abrams is "just" a director, and one with the good taste to at least bring on Kasdan when he knew he had nothing (putting the whole enchilada on him now for this movie is something even he clearly knew he wasn't up for). I've always put the failure of this project on the new Lucasfilm and the hilariously named "story group" that clearly didn't care about crafting a good, pleasing or even coherent story so seemingly did nothing to do so.
Agreed about Abrams. Regarding the "story group" thing, I have to admit I haven't bothered looking into how they worked behind the scenes so I know nothing about it. Well, except that whoever was on it clearly sucked at their job.

Now they basically have nothing after this. Their next two streaming shows star characters that are already dead! Even the GoT guys ditched them. Who's left in the stable? Rian Johnson!? They might end up making the prequel era look more viable considering all the Clone Wars content they milked out of it. Jon Favs and Kevin Feige will be running this thing by the time the next movie comes out, it's already in motion. I just wonder if the Marvelization of Star Wars will be an improvement or make these messy times look like more creatively credible efforts that simply didn't work out. If there's anything we've learned with Star Wars, it can always get worse.
Haha yeah Johnson seems out to prove The Last Jedi wasn't deeply flawed by making more Star Wars movies. Maybe doing his own thing from beginning to end will work better for him? Whatever. As for Feige, you know, I honestly think the new trilogy would have been less bad had he been in charge. Say what you want about him; he managed to make characters like Captain America and Thor relevant in theaters in the 21st century and pulled off an incredibly successful adaptation of the Infinity Wars. The Marvel formula might be stale by now but the guy is a miracle worker.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Stop the presses! I should have just ignored everything else and just quoted this for posterity. =) But yeah, even though he went down his own dark road with the Hobbit movies I have to agree.
Let's pretend the Hobbit adaptation doesn't exist. =)
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Agreed about Abrams. Regarding the "story group" thing, I have to admit I haven't bothered looking into how they worked behind the scenes so I know nothing about it. Well, except that whoever was on it clearly sucked at their job.
That's about all I know other than they exist, or at least they did (many have been canned/restructured since TLJ and Solo, naturally). The big article about them in the NYTs is all about increasing diversity, a lofty and noble goal, but one that won't be effective if you give those characters short shrift in the story department, like what happened to Finn in TLJ (Rey didn't get very meaty material either for that matter). Like Abrams, Kennedy is just a producer, so they have to rely heavily on their writers' judgement, and that's a problem if you trust the wrong one(s), especially when you have so many competing visions, voices and agendas that aren't necessarily, "do the best that can be done with Star Wars and its characters."

Haha yeah Johnson seems out to prove The Last Jedi wasn't deeply flawed by making more Star Wars movies. Maybe doing his own thing from beginning to end will work better for him? Whatever.
He actually strikes me as delusionally arrogant on the matter despite seeming like a personable fellow, and I believe in his talent too, I just thought TLJ was TOO MUCH his own personal preferences over what made sense. So, he'll be fine, I guess. He'll probably make an interesting Star Wars on his own if he ever gets there because he basically already made the mainline Star Wars his own thing. He did everything to make his movie definitive but kill Kylo Ren, that final scene was like the thematic ending to Star Wars. It goes both ways too, if Abrams was to properly follow up on that then Kylo Ren and co should be destroyed by a new generation of force adepts led by Rey, but it doesn't look like they're doing anything with that.

As for Feige, you know, I honestly think the new trilogy would have been less bad had he been in charge. Say what you want about him; he managed to make characters like Captain America and Thor relevant in theaters in the 21st century and pulled off an incredibly successful adaptation of the Infinity Wars. The Marvel formula might be stale by now but the guy is a miracle worker.
Yeah, and the thing is, a lot of the stuff in those movies is actually quite daring and inventive, but he makes it look easy.

Let's pretend the Hobbit adaptation doesn't exist. =)
I think that's what society is collectively doing. Speaking of which, given what we know that did survive Lucas' Episode VII treatment into the new trilogy, self-exiled Luke, his female padawan, a Solo offspring turned Jedi killer, it would be interesting to see those elements edited into an episode VII more like that vision; Episode VII: Recauterized! Ah, forget it. =)

Actually, one thing I am curious about is if they'll ever release those Lucas treatments sometime after the new trilogy is out or if they'll keep those in reserve or hidden forever. I'm guessing the latter. The best scenario, and something I could see Feige doing is letting Lucas actually make them under certain conditions. Their next streaming show should really be an anthology where they invite different top tier filmmakers to take their own crack at telling the best Star Wars story they can in about an hour. That'd potentially be a lot more interesting and successful than what they're currently doing with the property.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
The fact that we're even comparing latter-day Terminator movies with Star Wars' trajectory is a sobering legacy conversation to be having right before IX drops :ganishka:

The distinction Dark Fate has over Solo, or perhaps The Rise of Skywalker will prove a better comparison, is the return of the series original creator. This is the elephant in the room, because as much as George Lucas fucked up the prequels and Star Wars itself, it was his to do so, and what's the point of Star Wars, particularly a safe, mediocre Star Wars, if it's not coming from him somehow, even indirectly like the old EU? It's like, do I care about Terminator not made by Jim Cameron? Is there a compelling argument for it? Not really. I think the same is proving true with Star Wars, it just took a while because everybody was happy to kick Lucas to the curb after the prequels, but at this point I'd rather experience George's bad ideas than Disney's endless lack of them. Even if they sucked, at least they'd be interesting and have some sense of authenticity.
In practice, I completely agree. But ironically, speaking as the resident Disney Ruins Everything spokesperson, I don't agree with this in principle -- at least insofar as storytelling is concerned. Is Stan Lee the only person suitable to tell an authentic Spider-man story? Or Bob Kane for Batman (maybe Frank Miller, lol) ? Nobody is reading Detective Comics #938 and thinking: Oh my god, ANOTHER one?

In the case of Terminator and Star Wars, what makes them arguably different is that they were converted (by way of money and exhaustion) from auteur stories to franchise stories. Lucas and Cameron had finite stories to tell, they told them, and then money convinced them there was suddenly A LOT more to tell, just as long as they weren't involved anymore. This makes them structurally different from comics, whose natural order is torch-passing storytelling. But rhetorically speaking, I think the problem is in the execution, not the business arrangement. It's up to each and every shitty title by the team in charge to bring fresh and exciting meat to the old bones. How far removed each writer/director is from the source auteur shouldn't matter as long as the material itself is high quality.

If comics can make that process palatable, why not movies? I can't readily answer that.

But I do think that time-distance is a factor that influences how these franchise attempts are received, and where they are ultimately situated in pop culture. Take those ancient comic properties, for example. Indeed, no one is complaining about yet another issue of Detective Comics, but that's because after 80 years, it's riding along a worn, smooth (quiet) track in pop culture for expectations. It doesn't have to reinvent itself (citation needed). It can just be. By contrast, Star Wars is in the throes of attempting to reinvent itself, with each move incinerating nerds, and I think we can already see how that's going. Terminator ... well, I'd call that more of a death rattle at this point than a movement. But I wouldn't take any bets on Star Wars Episode 938.

This is a long way of saying I think — in principle — a great story is a great story, regardless of its DNA. I've just yet to encounter a movie iteration that doesn't choke on the stink of its own franchise-conversion money pit. But I'm open to the possibility.

The thing that's been off to me since the post-Lucas films started is how truly average they are as action adventure movies.
This has been genuinely surprising to me, since I thought you liked TFA and TLJ. Or is your basic position: They aren't bad, they're just fine? I kinda forgot.
 

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
He actually strikes me as delusionally arrogant on the matter despite seeming like a personable fellow, and I believe in his talent too, I just thought TLJ was TOO MUCH his own personal preferences over what made sense.
The very vocal people who've decided his movie is the ultimate Star Wars experience probably aren't helping him get back down to Earth.

Yeah, and the thing is, a lot of the stuff in those movies is actually quite daring and inventive, but he makes it look easy.
Yup.

I think that's what society is collectively doing. Speaking of which, given what we know that did survive Lucas' Episode VII treatment into the new trilogy, self-exiled Luke, his female padawan, a Solo offspring turned Jedi killer, it would be interesting to see those elements edited into an episode VII more like that vision; Episode VII: Recauterized! Ah, forget it. =)
Haha, earlier on I spent an hour imagining what my version of that story would have been. :iva:

Actually, one thing I am curious about is if they'll ever release those Lucas treatments sometime after the new trilogy is out or if they'll keep those in reserve or hidden forever. I'm guessing the latter. The best scenario, and something I could see Feige doing is letting Lucas actually make them under certain conditions. Their next streaming show should really be an anthology where they invite different top tier filmmakers to take their own crack at telling the best Star Wars story they can in about an hour. That'd potentially be a lot more interesting and successful than what they're currently doing with the property.
What if he went at it Avengers-style? Have 10 movies building up various characters then a 4 hours long monster mash super battle. :ganishka:

Take those ancient comic properties, for example. Indeed, no one is complaining about yet another issue of Detective Comics, but that's because after 80 years, it's riding along a worn, smooth (quiet) track in pop culture for expectations.
Let's be honest though: how many of these comics are actually worth reading? 5% of the total?
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
The fact that we're even comparing latter-day Terminator movies with Star Wars' trajectory is a sobering legacy conversation to be having right before IX drops :ganishka:
Yup, but it got your attention!

In practice, I completely agree. But ironically, speaking as the resident Disney Ruins Everything spokesperson, I don't agree with this in principle -- at least insofar as storytelling is concerned. Is Stan Lee the only person suitable to tell an authentic Spider-man story? Or Bob Kane for Batman (maybe Frank Miller, lol) ? Nobody is reading Detective Comics #938 and thinking: Oh my god, ANOTHER one?
Counterpoint: I'm doing SK.net's version of Godwin's Law when it comes to authorship and invoking: Kentarou Miura! Did the Flaming Dragon book just not get it right yet? Maybe the Skully one by some random dude will? =) Also, how many people ARE reading detective comics these days? These are not equally relevant properties, or industries unless you want to count the MCU, currently despite their historical significance, and maybe this is part of the reason why. As Aaz points out, when there's essentially no guaranteed quality control or credibility and most of the stories are forgettable... well, that's not a worthwhile ratio either.

But rhetorically speaking, I think the problem is in the execution, not the business arrangement. It's up to each and every shitty title by the team in charge to bring fresh and exciting meat to the old bones. How far removed each writer/director is from the source auteur shouldn't matter as long as the material itself is high quality.
But I do think that time-distance is a factor that influences how these franchise attempts are received, and where they are ultimately situated in pop culture.

...

Star Wars is in the throes of attempting to reinvent itself, with each move incinerating nerds, and I think we can already see how that's going.
Because of expectations and relativism there's so many more factors influencing one's mileage than objective quality, which is largely subjective itself. You almost have to make something contradictory, old and new, original and nostalgic, to satisfy an audience that wants new adventures of something they also want to adhere to a limited number of recognizable points. That's why I give TFA more credit as an offshoot sequel/revival. It's basically a tribute to A New Hope with a passing the torch plot on top, and maybe that's the best, most genuine and honest, thing you can do in this situation. They didn't even emphasize it as "Episode VII," which it really isn't by the way, it was "The Force Comes Alive" or whatever, and that's fine, we don't have to pretend this is something it's not. It's a new project.

If comics can make that process palatable, why not movies? I can't readily answer that.
If only there were a successful example of the comic book model being translated to film! =)

This is a long way of saying I think — in principle — a great story is a great story, regardless of its DNA. I've just yet to encounter a movie iteration that doesn't choke on the stink of its own franchise-conversion money pit. But I'm open to the possibility.
Like I said, I don't think it's that, because it's not like the writers don't care or aren't trying to do their best regardless of the money, it's just a very difficult proposition for reasons we're not consciously thinking about most of the time. Yes, trying to satisfy everyone or the lowest common denominator is a problem, but I don't know that they've done that either. In any case, how can these guys compete with me watching the original trilogy on VHS with my parents as a kid? How can new YA characters truly appeal to a middle aged man, or a bunch of fat old geezers to adolescents tuning in for the first time? What's the transcendent story that's going to cut through all that BS and won't get disqualified for, "not being a great Star Wars story, though." I don't think it's been done yet, but I'm also not sure we'd even fairly recognize if it was. Even the vague expectation of "a great story" is kind of unfair considering the classics weren't exactly original or brilliantly plotted, they were simple good vs evil takeoffs on pulp serials that we regard like Shakespeare now, at least compared to what's followed.

This has been genuinely surprising to me, since I thought you liked TFA and TLJ. Or is your basic position: They aren't bad, they're just fine? I kinda forgot.
Oh, I don't even know. I didn't like them coming out of the theater and bashed them on the pod, but I warmed up to them some later, at least TFA as a legacy/nostalgia act (seeing a bootleg in SD later, like an old VHS tape, helped =). So, conflicted is the word. I think the more they try to steer toward a new direction like TLJ, or insist "this is the genuine SAGA" like the latest movie, the more I reject it. For me this can only be successful as a separate reunion episode/trip down memory lane, because it is. It's like an old band getting back together; I don't care about your new album, just play the hits (and the band leader/main songwriter isn't even participating, red flag. =). TFA was the closest thing to getting the band back together to play something approximating their classic show. It's pretty literally true too, from the cast, writers, even the sound engineer. That was all different in TLJ because that was seemingly truly Rian Johnson's production, for better or worse.

I've said multiple times this entire sequel project is a fatally flawed mess, but I'm probably deluded to think the new adventures of old Mark Hamill and company was a viable model to pursue instead; how much more embarrassing could it have been to put that into practice? =) I should probably just appreciate I got new moments with Han, Leia, Luke, Vader, Lando and Palpatine at all, spread across these movies, as unlikely as that had become. Really, from that certain-point-of-view they've gone out of their way to please me and I'm still just bitching that these movies can't live up to something that exists only in my mind as an unattainable combination of high pop art and childhood bliss. Good luck sticking the landing, JJ!

The very vocal people who've decided his movie is the ultimate Star Wars experience probably aren't helping him get back down to Earth.
Plus, all the detractors are just toxic nazi chuds from the internet's sewer!

Haha, earlier on I spent an hour imagining what my version of that story would have been. :iva:
I already have, it's TFA minus Starkiller Base, plus Luke, and the fight between him and Ren is real. If they'd just had him appear earlier in the third act of TFA to help Rey put down Ren it'd have been pretty perfect.

What if he went at it Avengers-style? Have 10 movies building up various characters then a 4 hours long monster mash super battle. :ganishka:
"Whoa, Luuke and Vader Reborn are having a double duel-wielding lightsaber battle!!" It'll be the most badical fight since Guts vs. Zodd II. :zodd:
 
Last edited:

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Counterpoint: I'm doing SK.net's version of Godwin's Law when it comes to authorship and invoking: Kentarou Miura! Did the Flaming Dragon book just not get it right yet? Maybe the Skully one by some random dude will? =)
:shrug: It's not like I was unaware of examples of shitty authors stepping in on the turf of superior authors' territories and shitting the bed. There is no shortage of such material evidence. Look at what happened to Mass Effect and try not to cry :judo: .

But their existence doesn't negate the point I was making: These titles don't have to be shitty by nature of their distance from their creators. It's up to how the whole thing is executed. For instance, despite all evidence to the contrary, I think there is room for a well-executed Berserk novel, Kentarou Miura or otherwise. The Flame Dragon Knight just wasn't it—to a disastrous degree—and that doesn't bode well for the people in charge of green-lighting such projects. But that doesn't mean it's a brick wall of an opportunity.

Also, how many people ARE reading detective comics these days? These are not equally relevant properties, or industries unless you want to count the MCU, currently despite their historical significance, and maybe this is part of the reason why. As Aaz points out, when there's essentially no guaranteed quality control or credibility and most of the stories are forgettable... well, that's not a worthwhile ratio either.
Likewise, I'm aware of the inherent problem of the comparison. I even elaborated on the discrepancies. But I still think it's educational to question why the endless iteration of comic properties is tolerated where movies aren't.

I think the answer is multifaceted: Comics properties have 1) a more established, if diminutive, place in the market, 2) lowered expectations, and 3) a relatively controlled vision between artist and writer. Whereas for movie properties, 1) franchises are still trying to establish themselves as sustainably palatable, 2) expectations and constraints are juiced by the elaborate financial machinery surrounding the productions, and 3) there's a huge possible variance in quality given the size and scope of the team creating it.

If only there were a successful example of the comic book model being translated to film! =)
The fact that the MCU is among the only breakout successful formulas for adaptation likely isn't a fluke. Not only were they brands that have decades of sustainability on them, audiences were primed for the structure of endless franchise iteration that's inherent to comics. That's gold, Jerry. Armed with that, they sidestepped the "should this exist?" puzzle right out of the gate. Star Wars can't claim to have done that, and neither has Terminator. Hence this discussion.

You almost have to make something contradictory, old and new, original and nostalgic, to satisfy an audience that wants new adventures of something they also want to adhere to a limited number of recognizable points.
I disagree with this mode of thinking. People don't know what they want until they experience it. Anything that tries to tick all of those boxes is pure folly, and it's what's led us to the state that we're in with entertainment—everything for everybody is nothing for no one.

"not being a great Star Wars story, though." I don't think it's been done yet, but I'm also not sure we'd even fairly recognize if it was. Even the vague expectation of "a great story" is kind of unfair considering the classics weren't exactly original or brilliantly plotted, they were simple good vs evil takeoffs on pulp serials that we regard like Shakespeare now, at least compared to what's followed.
You're right, it's not just story. Story certainly didn't put Star Wars on the map. The lightsaber and hyperspace were far more influential than the story. But story encompasses the direction they're taking things, and I erroneously used that as shorthand to refer to the quality of the whole production.

how can these guys compete with me watching the original trilogy on VHS with my parents as a kid? How can new YA characters truly appeal to a middle aged man, or a bunch of fat old geezers to adolescents tuning in for the first time? What's the transcendent story that's going to cut through all that BS and won't get disqualified for, "not being a great Star Wars story, though."
Brass tacks, they can't compete with such a gilded memory, and shouldn't attempt it. But they ARE going to go down that route, and it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty. I just think adhering so closely to the grain of the original (TFA, for example) is the wrong first step to take. Franchises should identify the bones of what worked, then be brave enough to strike out and do something that feels new beyond the inertia of the old. You know, bold. Like The Last Jedi :troll:
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
But their existence doesn't negate the point I was making: These titles don't have to be shitty by nature of their distance from their creators. It's up to how the whole thing is executed.
Sure, it's possible, but usually doesn't turn out well, or is at least fraught and naturally unpalatable unless it's a series or medium meant to be communal, or continued and passed to others from the beginning, like Star Trek (I'm trying to think of a prominent counterexample besides Aliens, and we saw what happened after that). Also, as you point out numerous times, the franchise-zation or perception that something is a pure cash grab is a huge turn off unless it happens to be fantastic, and even then it can be a hurdle.

We've seen this done well with Star Wars in the old EU, most notably the (old, yeesh) Thrawn Trilogy, but the EU naturally occupied a space that was 2nd order of importance, no big deal if it wasn't great, but great if it was, more like the comics model.

The fact that the MCU is among the only breakout successful formulas for adaptation likely isn't a fluke. Not only were they brands that have decades of sustainability on them, audiences were primed for the structure of endless franchise iteration that's inherent to comics. That's gold, Jerry. Armed with that, they sidestepped the "should this exist?" puzzle right out of the gate. Star Wars can't claim to have done that, and neither has Terminator. Hence this discussion.
It took a long time and the right people to unlock that potential though (imagine us talking about video game movies this way someday; comic movies weren't in such a different place). I think another issue you touch on is Marvel is made up of hundreds of unique main characters and stories with tons of history to draw on while Star Wars and Terminator would be like one or maybe a few books they're trying to extrapolate into a universe. That's why the Marvel model didn't take off for Star Wars, though other than the aptly named Solo they didn't really try the solo film route for other popular characters.

It's the same reason Sony trying to do their own shared universe with just Spider-Man, Rhino: The Movie!, seemed so misguided and anemic from conception (if you don't have the universe you want, make a universe out of what you have?). Of course, then Venom happens so we're going to have to endure some form of this project.

I disagree with this mode of thinking. People don't know what they want until they experience it.
So we're told, I happen to be skeptical of that line because it's usually employed by writers that just presented something I know that I DON'T want. =) I agree though, the best work has to surprise you somehow, but not in an unearned, gimmicky way; it also has to be grounded, so it seems audacious but then makes complete sense and is even better the more you think about it (that's more the contradiction I mean, meticulous with flourish). You just didn't see it coming. Stories that can spin you around like that are the best, but too often this mindset leads to throwing random crap at the wall that doesn't stick (e.g. The Terminator franchise).

Anything that tries to tick all of those boxes is pure folly, and it's what's led us to the state that we're in with entertainment—everything for everybody is nothing for no one.
I don't know, I agree with that at the movies, it's all too big and universal now, or super small and indie, there's no more middle ground/class anymore. But elsewhere, particularly streaming television and movies, something for everyone has literally become like a specific show for everyone. There's probably a show about guys debating media on message boards in development as we speak (if not, call me, baby)! :badbone:

As for trying to tick every box, I mean that not so much to be universally appealing as to do something the best it can be done and more. To quote another cliche, anything can be done well. If you can tick all the right boxes AND surprise the audience with something even better than they imagined, basically meet expectations and then exceed them... Congratulations, you're probably Kevin Feige making billions off a bunch of C-list superheroes.

You're right, it's not just story. Story certainly didn't put Star Wars on the map. The lightsaber and hyperspace were far more influential than the story. But story encompasses the direction they're taking things, and I erroneously used that as shorthand to refer to the quality of the whole production.
Well, it's a pretty good dig because they pretty clearly didn't know where they were taking this and were just making it up as they went along, so I guess we'll see where JJ decides to land this thing and if it's going to be bumpy as hell. I'm scared of how he's going to try to surprise us, especially considering how much they're outwardly revealing. Like either it's going to get completely bonkers, or, "This is it, that's all we got."

What's worse, they safely thwart the re-heated Emperor and live happily ever, SAGA RESPECTFULLY CONCLUDED! Or we go all Luuke vs. Kylo Vader Resurrection and Rey is a gender-swapped Palpatine clone meant to be the Emperor's new host body but will travel back in time and become Anakin's mother instead? You just didn't know you wanted this! =)


Hmmm, based on these impressions it doesn't look like they're going the simple route at least.

Brass tacks, they can't compete with such a gilded memory, and shouldn't attempt it. But they ARE going to go down that route, and it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty. I just think adhering so closely to the grain of the original (TFA, for example) is the wrong first step to take. Franchises should identify the bones of what worked, then be brave enough to strike out and do something that feels new beyond the inertia of the old. You know, bold. Like The Last Jedi :troll:
So bold Rian Johnson wrote the whole script in ALL CAPS ARIAL BOLD on his computer! Kill the past, even if you have to repeat the throne room scene from the last Jedi (get it) again in the process, and JJ will literally just bring the past back to life anyway, "You killed my thinly veiled, off-brand Emperor knock off, huh? Well, how about this for killing the past, I'm bringing back the original fucking Emperor now! Revive the past, motherfuckers! This is me being BOLD!"

I've read that a lot of the incongruities in the direction and tone of the story were caused by disagreements between JJ and the Lucasfilm Story Group, there's basically a whole behind the scenes saga where he cut them and their ideas out of the first movie (and he was too big to control and backed by Iger), so then they gutted his vision with Johnson in the second movie, but now he's unexpectedly getting the last word, so it actually wouldn't be that surprising if he outright rebuked TLJ. It's a more interesting war than anything in the actual movies!
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

そうはいかぬ
Staff member
I've read that a lot of the incongruities in the direction and tone of the story were caused by disagreements between JJ and the Lucasfilm Story Group, there's basically a whole behind the scenes saga where he cut them and their ideas out of the first movie (and he was too big to control and backed by Iger), so then they gutted his vision with Johnson in the second movie, but now he's unexpectedly getting the last word, so it actually wouldn't be that surprising if he outright rebuked TLJ. It's a more interesting war than anything in the actual movies!
Shit, no joke I'd rather watch that movie than the Rise of Skywalker. And I'm somehow already rooting for Abrams even though I don't particularly like him. :ganishka:
 

Griffith

My posts are better.
Shit, no joke I'd rather watch that movie than the Rise of Skywalker. And I'm somehow already rooting for Abrams even though I don't particularly like him. :ganishka:
Yeah, he's probably the most relatable individual in this kabal anyway, but this certainly turns my perception of him as a company man on its head if on his own he was like, "Fuck your notes, Star Wars is likable force heroes, dark lords and death stars and I'm sticking to that." Plus, whether you like the results, he clearly has a better feel for the pulse of the fanbase, if not the material, "I don’t think that people go to ‘Star Wars’ to be told, ‘This doesn’t matter.’” He's not wrong. =)
 
Last edited:
I'm going to see Rise of Skywalker this Friday in Boston. I'm curious and a bit exciting to watch it on the big screen. It's never the same with meh/ mediocre movies when you watch them afterwards at home on a Blu Ray or streaming platform.

Uncut Gems - Really really good, and Adam Sandler deserves an Oscar nod. If you're not familiar with the Safdie Brothers, check out Good Time. Don't watch the trailer for Uncut Gems, go in blind. It has characters you love, hate, you'll be scratching your head at how annoying someone could be but also root for them at the same time. I watched it with someone who works in the same industry as Sandler's character and he said it was as authentic as it could get. He wondered whether his boss's would ever watch it because it's practically their lives on screen (good and the bad).
 
Joker - Finally watched this. As I'm not one to watch things in the theatre usually, this movie felt like a borderline mythological unicorn that everyone else had seen but eluded me entirely and I really wanted to see it (I'm not really a big movie buff so that says a lot for me). I went in as blind as I could too, having only seen random skits like the stair dance. Holy crap, it is not what I expected and damn did I enjoy it. I felt unnerved the entire time by him and his escalation into madness was downright eerie and weirdly cathartic a times. Loved it and really intrigued where they will go with the sequel. There's a lot of brilliant plot lines they could go with it and a lot of ways they can go ahead and immediately and totally fuckup this potential legacy.
 
Top Bottom