Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1576 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:45 pm

Some of you inadvertently bring up a good point: we've only seen 2/3 of the new trilogy, why are so many people convinced these "problems" or "issues" as they see them won't be addressed/resolved by the final part? How many movies have any of us seen that we're lacking or iffy for an hour and then ended up being redeemed in the last act? It's not an unreasonable expectation

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1577 Post by Big Ben » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:57 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:45 pm
Some of you inadvertently bring up a good point: we've only seen 2/3 of the new trilogy, why are so many people convinced these "problems" or "issues" as they see them won't be addressed/resolved by the final part? How many movies have any of us seen that we're lacking or iffy for an hour and then ended up being redeemed in the last act? It's not an unreasonable expectation
You raise a succinct point but there's always a variety of answers depending on how people feel about what's already there.

In the case of the most extreme examples it's not really about how something is resolved it's about how certain individuals feel about what's already there. It doesn't matter how something is resolved now because the simple existence of certain plot points has made the new series irredeemable in the eyes of said people. No one on this forum that I've seen has acted with this level of ferocity though. Nothing the next film does will redeem what's happened.

As for myself and others in here of a far more reasonable sentiment I think it's just interesting to see to spitball about open threads that be resolved in satisfactory ways. Some people take Star Wars far more seriously than I do however and I imagine they'll be far harsher than I will. I imagine we'll get a fairly standard ending because anything too extravagant simply isn't necessary.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1578 Post by RIP Film » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:10 am

I’m adamantly against films not being self-contained, I would think this forum more than others would get that. You shouldn’t need a sequel or outside reading material to understand a film, especially popcorn entertainment like Star Wars. It seems more and more we accept this kind of serialization. I’m sure Disney has considered making this a quadrilogy to make all the questions last longer.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1579 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:18 am

I understand the films perfectly well. I think the arguments people made against them here and elsewhere are almost wholly asinine and childish. Doesn't change my point one iota when people talk out against perceived finite motivations for characters who haven't finished their arcs

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1580 Post by RIP Film » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:35 am

It’s hard to care about arcs when the characters themselves are barely of substance. Kylo is like Anakin if he underwent a lobotomy, and Rey is Luke Skywalker with a question mark.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1581 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:41 am

How so?

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1582 Post by RIP Film » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:10 am

I’m just saying they borrow heavily from previous characters, and the writers use this as a crutch/excuse not to develop them. Kylo is the most interesting but his motives are deranged and illogical even for the dark side. And Rey is positioned to be the hero savior from a desert planet, but after two films is still a mystey. If the greater conflict is between these two, it calls to question what is at stake, because I’m not sure.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1583 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:18 am

In what ways did we know more about Luke after the first two films of the original trilogy than we do Rey?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1584 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:48 am

RIP Film wrote:I’m adamantly against films not being self-contained, I would think this forum more than others would get that. You shouldn’t need a sequel or outside reading material to understand a film, especially popcorn entertainment like Star Wars. It seems more and more we accept this kind of serialization. I’m sure Disney has considered making this a quadrilogy to make all the questions last longer.
So you've invented an arbitrary rule and had the bad sense to treat it as an absolute. The problem here is any resulting problems are the fault of the rule, not the films.

Firstly, nothing is ever self contained. Otherwise every work of art is burdened with reexplaining the world to you each time you watch it it, and that's both impossible, exhausting, and luckily unnecessary. Some films, like books, require more knowledge, experience, or wisdom from their audience than others. Some literary works for example require a decent knowledge of the bible to be comprehensible, some need you to know greek or roman myth, and others need you to have a grasp of philosophy and history before they can begin to make sense. This is a given. On some level, even a general cultural one, you've accepted that works of art do not expect to be educating blank slates. Each artwork has an ideal audience in mind, and pitches at a certain level of knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, and willingness to work.

Secondly, genre films especially are never self contained. They explicitly rely on your understanding of previous genre films to work. You're expected to be familiar with the conventions, archetypes, and styles not just for your enjoyment, but precisely so that films don't have to sink themselves by explaining everything anew. By and large, books can afford to be mini encyclopedias because at no time is the audience expected to consume them in a sitting. If they feel like explaining absolutely everything, they can. Films can't. As genre films like sci-fi and fantasy use invented worlds, they're forced to explain a lot of things other films wouldn't need to, requiring them to rely even more on familiar tropes to communicate quickly and without wasted time. For every new creature, concept, or piece of technology, that's one more bit of character or plot the film hasn't time to explain and needs to evoke through the audience's understanding of genre tropes.

The other thing is: there's a difference between making something comprehensible and making something explicit. Kylo Ren's motivations and past aren't made explicit, by and large, but they are suggested enough to be comprehensible (a combination of fear and resentment towards parental figures and their expectations coupled with far too much power and responsibility at a young age). We know enough about how these fears and resentments manifest themselves in the real world not to need their development in this particular case made explicit in the way you're demanding. Between our knowledge of the world, Driver's performance, and the choice details we're given, we can figure out what happened with Kylo Ren. This is actually nice: films that explain even those things we can figure out ourselves are tedious and have no trust in their audience. Films that require a bit of knowledge and imagination in their audiences are good things.

People are demanding unreasonable things of these Star Wars sequels, deliberately I think. There's some need for them to fail, for reasons I don't think I understand. But the need is strong enough that if good reasons aren't there, bad ones will do.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1585 Post by RIP Film » Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:55 am

I’m not sure my post deserved that long winded and comprehensive, if pedantic, response. I’m simply saying the movies, particularly the first one, suffer from the JJ Abrams ‘mystery box’ syndrome... whereby the aspects people generally enjoy about going to the movies, such as being able to emphasize with characters and see them develop, is locked away behind some faux-cleverness of the filmmaker. We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.

People act like the third movie will raise the curtain and offer reveals that will correct everything that’s been lacking in this new trilogy; it reminds me of those who thought Revenge of the Sith would be the saving grace to the prequels, when really it was just more of the same.
Mr Sausage wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:48 am
People are demanding unreasonable things of these Star Wars sequels, deliberately I think. There's some need for them to fail, for reasons I don't think I understand. But the need is strong enough that if good reasons aren't there, bad ones will do.
Aside from the alt-right idiocy, I think many people just aren’t satisfied with the direction they are taking, and so, take to criticising the particulars of the story they are telling. Should Star Wars really be so decisive? For me what’s missing is a sense of imagination, wonderment, going to new places, seeing new characters, but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil, and that’s exactly what Disney has been trying to do (Rogue One, Solo, Bobba Fett and Obi-Wan movies). Anyway I’m tired of debating Star Wars, nothing I say will have any effect on the course of this franchise nor do I really care, but I do think something has been lost that Lucas imparted, even in his modern creative senility.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1586 Post by tenia » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:27 am

What's interesting about some people's rebuttal regarding the very recent SW directiion under Disney is some kind of fatigue, but Disney merely is Marvel-ising Star Wars. I suppose people are seeing these new SW movies as less interesting and more quickly fatiguing than the Marvel movies, but as someone who thinks most of the Marvel movies are mediocre at best, it looks like double-standards to me.

As for the unreasonable demands, I'm not sure if it's deliberate, even less because they want it to fail. I don't doubt some people see Disney as a huge Evil that is taking away their Proust madeleine, but I think people have been waiting some time for these new movies, so much that they've had the time to imagine what they focus on, how they would look, the action scenes in it, etc, and no matter what would happen in them, it's different from what they imagined so it must be bad. To me, this is just how human beings are.

I had the issue myself with LOST (no direct link to JJ Abrams intended, though). During the first season, there was this mystery surrounding the light in the trap door. It was fascinating, because they built lots of individual emotional events around it and let you for 2 half seasons imagining what it could be, what it could mean. And in the end, it's just Desmond turning the lights on to go to the loo.
My little brother always asked me "but, what would have satisfied more ? What did you imagine it could be ?"
The truth was : nothing. I had no clue what could be better than this but still be fitting with the whole background story.
I just knew the given answer wasn't as interesting as the build up, and it felt like a let-down.

I believe many people are like this with the new Star Wars movies, and the fact that they aren't especially exceptional movies and are getting released on a much more recurring agenda certainly isn't helping.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1587 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:55 pm

RIP Film wrote:I’m not sure my post deserved that long winded and comprehensive, if pedantic, response.
Maybe it didn't. I know my argument needed it. The pedantry, as you call it, was just the necessity of laying out all the ways that you already implicitly disagree with your premise in order to arrive, I'd hoped, at the idea that maybe you shouldn't be so adamant and confident about it, that maybe there were enough avenues and complexities to get you to reconsider taking such a fixed position. That involved saying a lot of things your premise obviously wasn't addressing, but I needed to drag you along with a bunch of things I didn't expect you to disagree with in order to get you to accept that maybe there were some further ways my principle was true that ought to be considered.

But more importantly, I thought you deserved to be taken seriously and responded to with thought and care. You've been here long enough to've noticed there are a number of members (none currently in this thread) who prefer to make small, dismissive posts that sneer at you and try make you a figure of mockery for not having the right opinion or the right way of saying it (or both). I don't want to be one of those members, and if that occasionally makes me seem long-winded and pedantic, so be it I guess.
RIP Film wrote:I’m simply saying the movies, particularly the first one, suffer from the JJ Abrams ‘mystery box’ syndrome... whereby the aspects people generally enjoy about going to the movies, such as being able to emphasize with characters and see them develop, is locked away behind some faux-cleverness of the filmmaker. We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.
It's at this point I start to get frustrated, because the problem you claim to've found in the film is more an assumption you brought to the material. "JJ Abrams 'mystery box' syndrome" is basic delayed plot revelation, something that's been around for centuries (and I mean that literally). You're attributing it negatively to Abrams because you're carrying around baggage about the filmmaker and not, I assume, because standard delayed plot and character revelations are your hobby horse.

The handling of Rey is a centuries old genre trope. You find its origin in every Romance whose hero grows up in a lowly station unaware of his/her own high parentage and has to reclaim their lost identity over the course of the story. Now in these Romances the audience already knew who the hero was, so it was dramatic irony only. But as the tradition went on and become more sophisticated, that changed, and authors began to surprise readers by revealing this or that unnamed character to've secretly been a hero from legend all the while. You see that in Chretien de Troyes The Knight with the Cart, where the dogged unnamed hero unknown to Gawain is revealed at the end to be Lancelot. Or take the first book of Spenser's The Faerie Queen, in which the unnamed Red Crosse Knight turns out to actually be St. George. If you want a modern example, look how long it takes for J.R.R. Tolkien (the originator of modern SFF and someone who never met a story he thought should stand on its own) to reveal that the mysterious Strider is Aragorn, heir to Gondor and a bunch of other things.

Having a character of uncertain origins whose mystery you plan to pay off later in the narrative is a traditional fantasy/sci fi trope. That's all. And funnily enough, Rian Johnson went on to toss it out the window, so it's hardly worth complaining about.
RIP Film wrote: We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.
This makes no sense to me. The Phantom Menace and the following movies are nothing but explanations for characters we're already familiar with.

A real point of comparison is Luke in Star Wars. What do we learn about him? He's a farm boy, wants to go adventuring with his friends that we never see, his father participated in a war we learn nothing about besides the name (what was that about being self-contained?) and was killed by the villain in circumstances we're never told. And that's it. In fairness, we don't need any more, because Luke isn't really a character, he's a collection of genre attributes meant to involve an audience. He's an audience stand-in, ie. mostly empty. When he stands and looks longingly into the distance in that early scene, we're meant to see our own longings and desires reflected in it. That's good, it's effective, it's what it should be--but it's not real character interiority or anything. It's all surface; it's efficient short-hand.

Rey, conversely, is more a real character, and we learn all we need to know about her in that first film. We learn where she grew up, how she spends her days, how she engages in the community, and how her position makes her feel (lonely and abandoned, enough to befriend lost droids quickly). We found out what stories she treasures, what skills she's developed, and what skills she never knew she had. We also find out what and who she values, and what her primary motivations are. All of that is properly revealed. All we don't know is who her parents are and why she can use the force. Everything after that is character development, watching her change.
RIP Film wrote:but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil,
As I've been at pains to show in this thread: Star Wars has been doing exactly that for forty years. It's a monument to how to successfully wring every last ounce out of long-depleted soil for profit. And now we have more talented filmmakers having a go at it.

User avatar
What A Disgrace
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1588 Post by What A Disgrace » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:30 pm

With regards to Solo's box office failure in particular, I think it has less to do with any sort of fatigue with Star Wars (a subject which is often brought up as an explanation), and more to do with the fact that the film is devoted to Han Solo - a single character who, unlike the Marvel films's roster of magicians, psychics, Black Panthers and deities, does not, on its own, derive as much audience intrigue and excitement as the aura and mythos of the SW franchise does on its own. And it was that very character - more than the franchise itself - that the movie was sold on. Audiences looked at "Han Solo the Movie", and were either turned off or disinterested by a story which seemed comparatively light, potentially dumpy and small in scale and scope (something which isn't considered very Star Wars-y), and a character who did not have a cool costume or super powers, or save the world, getting his own movie. So it sold about as much as a small scale movie whose only big draw was "its Star Wars related" would sell on its own - which would have been okay if the movie had a budget of, say, $50 million, and not five times as much and then some. Rogue One, meanwhile, appealed directly to the audience's curiosity, promising a large scale, action packed endeavor of weight, with new characters whose natures and outcomes were not known to us and, of course, they never ceased to remind people that it was S T A R W A R S, in suitable glory, as far as advertisement went.

This is just a personal feeling, based on only two movies and their respective success, but I'm expecting all other
SpoilerShow
dead, probably all of them
character-based Star Wars side-stories to do similarly middling-to-poor business, and I think they should instead focus on big concept movies, because that one about how they stole the Death Star plans worked out to a billion dollars worldwide and the 22nd highest selling Blu-ray in the US market (a little above the original freaking trilogy).

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1589 Post by MoonlitKnight » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:00 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:06 am
It's to my understanding that Snoke's identity may be elaborated on in future media. I'll concede that that leaves the real formation of The First Order a mystery but I'm unsure if it needs any more explanation than the Empire did in the original six films?
The Empire was a little easier to accept given that it was the beginning of the story (or so we thought at the time), but when something like the First Order suddenly pops up two thirds of the way through what is supposed to be a continuous saga without much explanation, no, it needs to explain itself a little more -- ditto how the New Republic apparently became unraveled so soon... and how they apparently couldn't be bothered to hunt down most of the remaining fierce Imperial loyalists and prosecute them.
RIP Film wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:02 am
DarkImbecile wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:38 am
There is absolutely nothing in the original movies that would give a viewer this shading on that character; the double standards people apply to these films never ceases to amaze me.
He didn’t need it, as I said he was an archetypal image of evil. But Anakin did need such shading in the prequels. These are basically two different characters, their role in each trilogy is dramatically different.
Indeed, people reactively complained about Vader's NOOOOOOOOO!!! moment at the end of ROTS, even though he was still very much Anakin at that point, and had not yet evolved into the bitter, jaded cyborg of the OT who had nothing left to live for but continuing to pursue his quest for power alongside his master. After all, there's roughly a 20-year gap between the end of ROTS and the beginning of ANH (and notice Lucas had nothing of significance happen in that interim that would be considered integral to fully understanding the OT story :| ).
RIP Film wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:34 am
I tend to feel like people are making excuses for the screenwriters when it’s their job to fill in the gaps. The problem, again and again, is that the screenwriters rely on viewer familiarity to fill in the holes without taking the time to flesh out these characters.
And you know if we were led to believe that Lucas had written these scripts, people would almost certainly be all over them just as they were with the prequels. :roll:
RIP Film wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:55 am
Aside from the alt-right idiocy, I think many people just aren’t satisfied with the direction they are taking, and so, take to criticising the particulars of the story they are telling. Should Star Wars really be so decisive? For me what’s missing is a sense of imagination, wonderment, going to new places, seeing new characters, but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil, and that’s exactly what Disney has been trying to do (Rogue One, Solo, Bobba Fett and Obi-Wan movies). Anyway I’m tired of debating Star Wars, nothing I say will have any effect on the course of this franchise nor do I really care, but I do think something has been lost that Lucas imparted, even in his modern creative senility.
As I've been saying ad nauseum over the last 3 years, the basic story/concepts/design were NOT the core problem with the prequels; rather, the execution of them was. I only wish Lucas had been able to get the legitimate help he needed with the screenwriting and directing them. Then maybe we wouldn't have to keep having these discussions. At the end of the day, the prequels and sequels each have the exact opposite problems. The prequels have great concepts, attempted something new, and attempt to really build the universe, but suffered from Lucas's clunky/overly perfunctory dialog and his directing failing to guide even great actors. But overall, at least Lucas cared about connecting stuff and making the two trilogies align... and, nonetheless, the majority of its issues could've been easily made more palatable by the employ of a more gifted screenwriter and a more actor-friendly (co-?)director. The sequels, while having had directors much better at getting the most out of their actors and far snappier dialog (even if it often abandoned the '30s/'40s movie speak of the first 6 movies for more anachronistically contemporary-sounding lines) have virtually no world building or lore expansion -- they're just a repackaging of old ideas and SJW messages for undertones. The writers of the sequels don't seem to care about the prior two trilogies thematically-- just how they can use it to make money and push their story and not continue the characters' narrative logically, as well as using shock value-style twists. It just seems to me most of the new regime's decisions have been made in direct (over)reaction to the prequels' reception -- except they've ended up over-correcting as a result. Again, Lucas' storyline/ideas themselves were not their main problem; it was the fact that they just needed to be run through some sort of filter. I just wish they'd realized that. Consult with him directly in order to properly hammer it all out, just as Kasdan did on TESB and ROTJ.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1590 Post by RIP Film » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:59 pm

MoonlitKnight wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:00 pm
As I've been saying ad nauseum over the last 3 years, the basic story/concepts/design were NOT the core problem with the prequels; rather, the execution of them was. I only wish Lucas had been able to get the legitimate help he needed with the screenwriting and directing them.
I agree with that, however I didn't see it as a matter of Lucas not having help but his own creative isolationism. His attitude made it seem as if he was just making these movies for himself, which is especially conceited when you have a franchise that is recognized worldwide and so ingrained in popular culture: is it really yours at that point?

But yes the original vision for the prequels was honorable. I loved the idea of these movies taking on a childlike perspective, giving an almost an Old Testament larger than life quality to the Jedi, the movies almost come across as oral tales passed on but put to film... well that is until the actors speak. Like you said the execution was botched, thanks to Lucas wanting to do everything, or people not questioning him enough, who knows. But I do see glimpses of what these movies could have been here and there, mostly when it's just Ewan McGreggor or Liam Neeson on screen.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1591 Post by Brian C » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:35 pm

RIP Film wrote:His attitude made it seem as if he was just making these movies for himself, which is especially conceited when you have a franchise that is recognized worldwide and so ingrained in popular culture: is it really yours at that point?
Yes. Or, at least as much as it’s anyone else’s.

Who else’s is it? Yours? Talk about conceited.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1592 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:44 pm

MoonlitKnight wrote:The Empire was a little easier to accept given that it was the beginning of the story (or so we thought at the time), but when something like the First Order suddenly pops up two thirds of the way through what is supposed to be a continuous saga without much explanation, no, it needs to explain itself a little more -- ditto how the New Republic apparently became unraveled so soon... and how they apparently couldn't be bothered to hunt down most of the remaining fierce Imperial loyalists and prosecute them.
What about this needs explanation, tho'? None of the particulars on this point would change the central story. Plus too much background detail in an already packed adventure story is a bad idea, as Brian de Palma rightly shouted at Lucas following a screening of the first cut of Star Wars, prompting Lucas to remove and/or streamline the unnecessary and confusing background detail.

It sounds mostly like you just have a hard time believing the situation, like it stretches credibility and needs to account for itself. I don't see why. This outcome is what you would expect. Toppling an empire leaves a power vacuum, and power vacuums entice formerly small, unknown, or overlooked ideological groups that festered in secret to emerge and jockey for position. Parties in power also fracture, eg. the bolshevik/menshevik split and resulting civil war following the Russian revolution. And then there are loyalist factions who regroup and return to power, eg. the restoration of the monarchy in England following the civil war and interregnum (all of which happened in 11 years). There are a lot of things that can go on. Hearing about any of this at length in an adventure melodrama would be boring, just like the prequel trilogy is boring, droning on and on about trade disputes, senate hearings, and other things that even history books are wary of spending too much time on. It's the type of stuff better left to ancillary tie-in material. Because who cares, really? As long as it's not violating the logic of the universe it's inhabiting, it's incidental.

It's enough to know that a far-right group organized around martial ideals and backed by a strong leader arose in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire and gained enough power to rival the newly reconsituted republic (not surprising: republics are vulnerable, difficult to maintain, and inefficient given that they rely on agreement among nations with often different or competing motivations). Forty years is more than enough to produce the situation we see in the movie. I mean, hell, the rebellion toppled an Empire at the height of its powers in like a year or two.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1593 Post by RIP Film » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:58 pm

Brian C wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:35 pm
RIP Film wrote:His attitude made it seem as if he was just making these movies for himself, which is especially conceited when you have a franchise that is recognized worldwide and so ingrained in popular culture: is it really yours at that point?
Yes. Or, at least as much as it’s anyone else’s.

Who else’s is it? Yours? Talk about conceited.
What an odd post. I’m saying some works of fiction grow beyond their creator, and the wise thing to do is surround oneself with talent when tackling collective expectations... which ironically, is sort of what he did with the first trilogy.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1594 Post by MoonlitKnight » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:46 pm

RIP Film wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:58 pm
I’m saying some works of fiction grow beyond their creator, and the wise thing to do is surround oneself with talent when tackling collective expectations... which ironically, is sort of what he did with the first trilogy.
To be fair, from various tidbits I've read/heard over the years, Lucas did try to get other outside talent to direct and write the prequels. The original plan was apparently to have Ron Howard direct TPM, Robert Zemeckis AOTC, and Steven Spielberg ROTS, with Frank Darabont writing (or co-writing) all three scripts. But they all turned him down, evidently claiming the task would be too daunting (though I'm sure Hollywood politics also played a role in their decisions), and that he should really just shake off the rust and do them himself. And we all know how that turned out...

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1595 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:50 am

Image

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1596 Post by R0lf » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:40 am

For the people complaining that Kylo Ren lacks any character motivation: is it too subtle a point that authoritarian regimes actually don't rely on any common sense or philosophy beyond maintaining power for a limited few and that the people who are indoctrinated into it live in a constant state of having no actual autonomy or self identity?

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1597 Post by MoonlitKnight » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:31 pm

Except, he was acclimated to the Jedi first. (...or was he? Again, this is where some actual backstory would come in handy in this trilogy -- and you shouldn't have to look to supplemental media in order to get it.)

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1598 Post by R0lf » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:50 am

Maybe watch the movies again. There is that whole exposition between Han and Leia where they discuss that there is too much of Vader in Kylo and that's why he was sent to Luke.

You're basically just ignoring all the dialogue.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1599 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:52 am

Which is typical of the uncharitable and hostile approach these detractors take towards the films

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1600 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:49 pm


Post Reply