|
It's the MCU slavery destroying hollywoods mind. You can have inconsistent stories in a larger frame. It's not a problem.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:We're reacting to a confirming report in Variety that specified the reshoots are being done to get the tone more in-line with ANH/TFA. Where are they saying that? I don't see anything about it on their site. http://variety.com/t/star-wars-rogue-one/ Actually wondering. If Variety is in print too and it's there but not on their site, fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-orders-reshoots-star-wars-898562 quote:Much of the cast and director Gareth Edwards will regroup in mid-June for another round of shooting. The move is happening after execs screened the film and felt it was tonally off with what a “classic” Star Wars movie should feel like. The pic has not yet been tested before audiences, but one source describes the cut as having the feel of a war movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Hollywood Reporter Interesting. Alright then, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
I guess we have our answer as to whether the Star Wars universe will be developed in unique ways outside of the main films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
How dare they reshoot the classic line "I rebel".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Well, gonna wait for the Assembly Cut 10 years down the line, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Hollywood Reporter I guess these new movies really don't bring anything new to Star Wars
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
quote:Much of the cast and director Gareth Edwards will regroup in mid-June for another round of shooting. The move is happening after execs screened the film and felt it was tonally off with what a “classic” Star Wars movie should feel like. The pic has not yet been tested before audiences, but one source describes the cut as having the feel of a war movie. Awwwwww crap. I thought that was the entire purpose of this movie? To break away from the norm and give us a different look at the Star Wars world? I personally would like to see a gritty war movie in a Star Wars setting. So Jar Jar Binks is going to be in this now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Something about a super dangerous covert mission to retrieve plans to a mega-weapon of ultimate mass destruction doesn't seem like it should have a ton of levity. Either way, I will remain optimistic about this until more reports begin surfacing. Re-shoots are so commonplace that they really don't mean that much, unless you have a situation like with that busted rear end Fantastic 4 movie last year (was it last year?) where reports had swirled for months about crazy shenanigans behind the scenes. The real tell-tale sign will be when Disney invites the press for screeners in Nov./Dec. If those reviews are embargoed, that's the signal that something went really wrong along the way. In the long term, even if the movie turns out flawed, I'm more excited about the anthology films than the main canon continuation. Doronin fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Teek posted:Historically for the modern series, at least since the prequels, re-shoots have largely been good. Lucas used them to flesh out character moments and iron out plot continuity. The flip side being that the re-shoots had infamously bad wig and beard work. It was fairly easy to identify those scenes by Obi-Wan suddenly having a bad fake wig or beard. Apparently TFA also had some amount of re-shoots, but thankfully they were on point with keeping everyone looking the same. The fact that TFA also had to take a several month break after Ford's injury helped them reevaluate how they wanted some of the character beats to go. That allowed them to incorporate those changes into the main shoot. The only prequel that really had full-blown "re-shoots" was Episode III. All three prequels did have pre-planned pick-ups built into the shooting schedule about a year out from principal photography. But in none of those cases was the fundamental tone of the film altered for blatantly commercial reasons, and none of it was imposed by a higher authority in a totally post-hoc way. Lucas explicitly made room in the schedule for that sort of thing, because he knew that was how he worked best. He approached each film with the full expectation that he would change and swap things around and straight up add scenes later on in the schedule after the initial cut. That doesn't sound like what happened here with Edwards and Disney. It's a different scenario. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
You're correct, it was more Lucas seeing what was needed to smooth things out. Though I would say it wasn't just III which got larger tweaking, the droid factory mess in II was all new content he came up with afterwards which they shot later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Teek posted:You're correct, it was more Lucas seeing what was needed to smooth things out. Though I would say it wasn't just III which got larger tweaking, the droid factory mess in II was all new content he came up with afterwards which they shot later. At the end of the day, all the droid factory addition had to do with was with one aspect of the pacing of one part of the movie. It wasn't a minor change, but it wasn't like he was upending his whole vision for the movie either. I wouldn't count it in the same category as Episode III's shift in emphasis for Anakin's motivations for turning to the dark side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
The problem with these types of tweaks, is we never know how the movies would have flowed originally. I'm not familiar with to what degree III adjusted that plot line. Did it improve things? We can't really tell at this point since we'll never see the original. Being largely unhappy with Anakin's reasoning for his heel turn, I wonder. As for Rogue One, hopefully they won't completely throw off the tone and disjoint the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Teek posted:The problem with these types of tweaks, is we never know how the movies would have flowed originally. I'm not familiar with to what degree III adjusted that plot line. Did it improve things? We can't really tell at this point since we'll never see the original. Being largely unhappy with Anakin's reasoning for his heel turn, I wonder. Dude, they literally said the purpose of the reshoots is to change the tone. Like...whatever Disney Plays It Safe in Giant Franchise is the least surprising thing ever & if u liked Force Awakens you'll probably like the results of this but it's silly to act like there's a ton of ambiguity about what this means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Teek posted:The problem with these types of tweaks, is we never know how the movies would have flowed originally. I'm not familiar with to what degree III adjusted that plot line. Did it improve things? We can't really tell at this point since we'll never see the original. Being largely unhappy with Anakin's reasoning for his heel turn, I wonder. I know at least for the ROTS reshoots, the Mace/Palpy duel was heavily modified; Anakin was supposed to be there for the entire duration, but observing from afar (presumably embattled over which side to support) in addition to Ian Mcdiarmid being almost completely replaced by a stunt double as opposed to the final version where it's actually him for most of the fight. Apparently, the same CG face method used for the Dooku duels wasn't working out with this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Dude, they literally said the purpose of the reshoots is to change the tone. Like...whatever Disney Plays It Safe in Giant Franchise is the least surprising thing ever & if u liked Force Awakens you'll probably like the results of this but it's silly to act like there's a ton of ambiguity about what this means. I know what it means? I'm not pretending like I don't. I'm just not going to worry about the sky falling yet, I'm also hoping the new material doesn't cause tonal whiplash. If they ruin the movie, they sadly ruin it. Hopefully they don't. I'm unhappy they're apparently walking back from what they promised with it, but again, they haven't even filmed the new material yet, maybe the large backlash which is coming out will moderate their stance a bit. Ultimately we'll see come December, not much we can do about it now except express dissatisfaction and hope Disney notices. Teek fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's the MCU slavery destroying hollywoods mind. God willing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
They always gotta butcher things to make it more light. Why can't we have a little bit of both? We'll have to reserve judgement but man, I was really looking forward to this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
drat, I was really hoping for a new Gareth Edwards movie too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I don't understand why they'd change it after the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the first trailer, which did show a different tone than Force Awakens. This move might hurt the movie more than help it in regards to audience expectations (if it wasn't a Star Wars movie and thus a sure-hit anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:I don't understand why they'd change it after the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the first trailer, which did show a different tone than Force Awakens. This move might hurt the movie more than help it in regards to audience expectations (if it wasn't a Star Wars movie and thus a sure-hit anyway). The best part is that the tonal contrast was reportedly the entire point of the movie. You know, the concept being that 'Luke Skywalker' doesn't exist yet (he's still Luke Lars), Vader is still resigned to being a servant, things are hopeless, and the apocalyptic death-machine is bearing down....
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'm not happy about it. It was just blindingly obvious that this was the direction things were going to take. It's the whole reason Lucas decided to just completely check out: Of George Lucas's many crimes against cinema, one of the most insidious is the fact that he proved beyond reasonable doubt that sometimes the artist should not have complete control to prevent them getting up their own rear end and releasing utter garbage that underperforms and destroys their own reputation. There is no question that the Star Wars prequels are unique and artist-driven. They are pure George Lucas: Focused on special effects, bloated, decaying, soulless, boring, lazy, baffling. It is true that we will never see their like again. Cnut the Great posted:Star Wars belongs to the fans now, and the fans are consumers who have very particular expectations that the product being delivered to them must meet. If we're happy, Disney will be happy. If we're disappointed, Disney will be disappointed. The horror
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Hearry posted:They are pure George Lucas: Focused on special effects, bloated, decaying, soulless, boring, lazy, baffling. It is true that we will never see their like again. Actually, this insidious Jew menace you perceive is the very heart of Star Wars. Efforts to cleanse the impurity can only lead to nerd frustration. You will never be clean, unless you truly embrace Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Lucas said that in the first edit of RotS that the rescue mission at the beginning took up almost an hour in his original cut, which led to Shaak Ti's death being moved from there to a later shoot. It's funny to look at these stories about Rogue One reshoots and how TFA turned out, and see that the only one who seemed interested in doing new things with Star Wars was George Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Actually, this insidious Jew menace you perceive is the very heart of Star Wars. This is phoning it in pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Hearry posted:This is phoning it in pretty badly. Says the rereg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
I'm rewatching the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji-BZ0oCwg And yeah, that's the thing that got people really hype for this movie, and it's not advertising a movie with lots of comic relief. It's framed as a tenser, more action-driven story. That's what people want!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I've never seen a goon get burned by over interpreting the importance of a trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Lucas said that in the first edit of RotS that the rescue mission at the beginning took up almost an hour in his original cut, which led to Shaak Ti's death being moved from there to a later shoot. There were plenty of people who wanted to do new things with Star Wars for decades now, mostly the better EU writers and videogame developers. Lucas largely suppressed these efforts when he felt they were too different from what he liked. And George Lucas is possibly the very last director you'd want to stand behind when denouncing things put in movies for soulless sales and marketing purposes - the difference between when Lucas made decisions in an attempt to optimize box office performance and merchandising and when Disney does it is mostly that Disney's efforts are largely agreeable and competent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Who are you a rereg of. I recognize this Lucas derangement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I've never seen a goon get burned by over interpreting the importance of a trailer. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
it's tezzor
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Hearry posted:the better EU writers and videogame developers Uh
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Hearry posted:Of George Lucas's many crimes against cinema, one of the most insidious is the fact that he proved beyond reasonable doubt that sometimes the artist should not have complete control to prevent them getting up their own rear end and releasing utter garbage that underperforms and destroys their own reputation. How delightfully authoritarian. Freedom of expression is actually a very very good thing, whether you end up personally endorsing the content of that expression or not, and I much prefer it to this increasing environment of total corporate control and mass cultural homogenization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Hearry posted:There were plenty of people who wanted to do new things with Star Wars for decades now, mostly the better EU writers and videogame developers. Lucas largely suppressed these efforts when he felt they were too different from what he liked. And George Lucas is possibly the very last director you'd want to stand behind when denouncing things put in movies for soulless sales and marketing purposes - the difference between when Lucas made decisions in an attempt to optimize box office performance and merchandising and when Disney does it is mostly that Disney's efforts are largely agreeable and competent. How many reregs have you been through now just to post about how much you hate George Lucas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
And here I was worried the disney hate had ran out of steam Maybe they were dissatisfied by the lack of droids, maybe they wanted a climactic space fight, maybe some of the expositive scenes were too long or forced I wouldn't shout doom and gloom over a vague "want it to feel more like other Star Wars films" statement
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Why was Darth Vader a mopheaded 8 year old in the first movie? I get that there was the intention to show he was not always bad, and that's fine, but was the 8 year old thing just the best idea, or was it a decision made at least somewhat in an attempt to sell the movie to small boys and move more backpacks and juice boxes? Being good and mostly uncorrupted at some point is not predicated on age. We could have met Anakin as a Walter White in his 40s. Now, you could make the argument that Disney made much the same decision about Rey being the protagonist of these new movies. Nerd men and boys are going to see Star Wars anyway, so our new character should appeal to women and girls. The difference here is that Disney is not incompetent. First, they're not incompetent conceptually: They knew little boys were going to see Star Wars anyway as long as it was fun and cool, so they didn't feel the need to put a child in the role. Second, they're not incompetent in execution: Daisy Ridley was fantastic. If Rey were played by an unlikable wooden bimbo people would have liked the film a lot less, and even dudes who call the character a Mary Sue have nothing bad to say about the actress herself. If you're going to make Darth Vader an annoying kid and whiney teen you probably shouldn't put some of the worst actors you can find in these roles because you think you can fix it in editing.Cnut the Great posted:How delightfully authoritarian. Freedom of expression is actually a very very good thing, whether you end up personally endorsing the content of that expression or not, and I much prefer it to this increasing environment of total corporate control and mass cultural homogenization. Nobody is removing Gareth Edward's "freedom of expression." It has never been easier to make your own films or, more generally, to deliver your work to a mass audience, especially if you already have name recognition. If he wants to make giant wide-release explosion films using someone else's intellectual property and someone else's money to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars then yes he should expect them to want to make the optimal amount of money and be liked by mass audiences. He can get a smaller amount of money or fund the film himself if he wants more creative control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
To illustrate my mindset: I thought the recent X-Files revival episodes written by Chris Carter were, by and large, complete dogshit. But as the creator of the series I think Chris Carter has earned the right to express himself with the series in the way he sees fit, and I would be appalled if that control were to be wrested away from him by corporate bean-counters interested only in ratings. Either let Chris Carter do his thing without interference or just give him the rights to the series back and tell him he has to do it on his own dime if he still wants to do it. That's what I think would be just and fair. Obviously, that's not how things work in reality, but that's how they would work in my ideal, impossible society. Also, this is a purely hypothetical scenario, because as far as I know the ratings for Chris Carter's episodes were quite good. To bring things back to Star Wars, my point is this: If people wanted to stop George Lucas from being able to freely express himself, they should have stopped patronizing him. They should have stopped making his Star Wars films profitable enough to justify sequels. It's your right to refuse to pay to see an artist's work, but I don't think it's your or anyone else's right to take someone's personal creative vision and forcibly warp it into something else in the name of profit. Hearry posted:Nobody is removing Gareth Edward's "freedom of expression." They literally are, actually, at least to an extent. I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm saying that I find it philosophically repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:34
|
|