|
I mean, it's made very clear that Rey needs to fight to survive (thus explaining why she's able to fight better than Luke did at first, a good pilot, etc.) and that she wants desperately to be a part of something or find a place to belong. I don't think it's really the storytelling's fault in this case.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels. You can't control the big guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Yeah. The point is they don’t want to give someone full creative control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels. That's a long list of people who wouldnt have made a star wars movie or would have made a bad one
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 04:45
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels. Because Rian Johnson brings in the auteur cred, which I bet you can go back and see in this very thread pre-release. They want a fancy name to put on their poster, that's all.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
"Big time" directors are also probably turned off by the level of oversight Kathleen Kennedy and Disney will have on the project for the main trilogy movies. The stand-alones are probably looser. Personally I'm disappointed that Ron Howard wasn't allowed to do a movie from the ground-up.
Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Mar 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 05:26
|
|
|
Yeah I'm totally sure you'd get Fincher in a room to do a huge stand over your shoulder studio movie. It worked out so well for him in the past.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels. Why in the blue gently caress would a well respected director with a vision even consider directing a Star Wars movie?!? That poo poo is beneath them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
Wasn't Fincher literally on the short list for 7 and then he pitched a droid slavery thing straight from the mind of SMG and both parties basically just gave up. Re: Eastwood, Luke was Gran Torino in 8 anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:"Big time" directors are also probably turned off by the level of oversight Kathleen Kennedy and Disney will have on the project for the main trilogy movies. The stand-alones are probably looser. Personally I'm disappointed that Ron Howard wasn't allowed to do a movie from the ground-up. the studio literally wrested control from all the original director(s) they'd hired for their standalones, in what universe is the treatment "looser" for those movies
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:I played Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight when I was younger, and the main character in that is able to instantly master the Force and defeat seven Dark Jedi (one of whom was a former Jedi master who went over to the dark side) on the same day he picked up a lightsaber for the first time, so perhaps I am just inured to it. That's more because of Kyle Katarn's fabulous facial hair, which gave him a deeper connection to the Force than your average hairless Jedi Every living thing is connected to the Force, and hair is partially alive, so having more of it means more Force affinity Or maybe it's a video game, which usually means some things are exaggerated for the sake of gameplay Can't wait to find out he's a member of the Knights of Ren, even though he's already got two NuCanon counterparts in Cassian Andor and Kanan Jarrus/Caleb Dume
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:I just never understand why they don't go out of their way to get directors with a bit longer and better track records for all these big budget beloved franchises. I can see why they'd come up with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek reboot was surprisingly solid and Looper was a decent and fairly unique sci-fi movie too, but what studio exec looks at making the Star Wars sequels and doesn't go into the first meeting with a list of the best directors of the last couple decades? Offer Ridley Scott and David Fincher literally whatever the gently caress they want. Get the Wachowski's heads back in the game. Call Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood and tell them they can have total creative creative control. Break John McTiernen out of prison ffs. But before doing any of that have someone suggest to Trump that he should rendition James Cameron and waterboard him until he agrees to direct all the Star Wars sequels. There's your problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
Get Christopher Guest to direct/Eugene Levy to write a Star War
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:...get directors with a bit longer and better track records...the Wachowski's... Hmm, this doesn't track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
the watchowski's film history: - the matrix - a bunch of garbage
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
JJ is a high powered producer director tho. I mean yeah the off shoot movies like solo they seem to be clamping down and running them like old Hollywood movies but with the numbered movies the directors seem to have been established and had quite a bit of freedom. Johnson wrote the thing for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
I’m excuse me speed racer owns
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Speed Racer owns. Jupiter Ascending was surprisingly well done. Netflix, but sense8 was pretty amazingly crafted. It's me. I'm the one that likes the Wachowskis e: euphronius posted:JA was the worst movie I've ever seen 1. It was gorgeous and some of the shots were really composited well 2. It's worth watching for Giacchino's score alone. I actually only watched it after listening to the score and wanting to know how the score interacted with the movie. aBagorn fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
JA was the worst movie I've ever seen Maybe it had genre credibility but I don't know what the genre is .
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:23
|
|
euphronius posted:JJ is a high powered producer director tho. the impression i have is that abrams had a lot more freedom in TFA, then disney started clamping down from R1 onwards (possibly as a result of R1 being what it is). it's kind of like a double-edged sword. if johnson had all the freedom in the world to make a star wars and he came up with TLJ then, well... Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Mar 16, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
TLJ was fantastic and just what the series needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:JJ is a high powered producer director tho. They get some freedom to be artists... but not too much freedom, though. TLJ haters are sitting around like Rian single-handedly ruined Star Wars or something. Do they really think that any director in these days would get carte blanche on a multi-million dollar movie, like it was the 70s again? Everything in that script had to be approved. I wonder what stupid ideas Colin trevorrow had that were so bad that he had to be fired? I heard rumors that he wanted to bring Luke back from the dead or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
The only way a director gets complete freedom is if they self finance or it's a 10 million dollar job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 14:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:TLJ was fantastic and just what the series needed. How though, the end results are ok, but every plot point is underdeveloped , poorly paced and lacks details/scenes that make them matter in many cases. Like Finn and his sudden dead girlfriend. Po didn't need to be in the movie, the cruiser battle is very boring compared to other movies, and we have an unnecessary suicide bombing run that makes no sense. And the last movie had a bunch of planets blown up, where are the pissed off revenge armies who would help fight the first order, why would they be in the outer rim only ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Finn doesn't have a girlfriend in the movie
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Finally saw TLJ. Had a lot of fun. It's weird, most of the common complaints I'd read about weren't the things that rankled me most. Sure, those bombers are the most suicidally designed space ships ever, and dumb, but whatever. I thought the film could use a lot of editing, but tbh Canto Blight was probably the last place I'd edit. I enjoyed Finn's arc. Even if the casino was so...well, "HEY THIS IS A REAL WORLD CASINO WITH BASICALLY REAL WORLD GAMES...BUT SLIGHTLY WACKY!!!!!" in a disappointing way. Benicio was great. The second half of the film, once they get past Yoda, once Rey returns to the main space debacle, that's when it really got chugging for me and I was like "Wow I'm actually having a lot of fun." Most of the Luke island stuff, attempts at dramatic tension between Holdo and Poe, just most of the first half, kinda boring and didnt connect with me much. Just a lot of gibberish about balance. Yoda shows up, for no reason, looks goofy. Is like, "gently caress books. Except not." Except whatever, who cares about any of this stupid poo poo. Then the movie gets fun and dope. Enjoyed the second half a hell of a lot, and I was about to take a day long intermission before the film really started gripping me as a great blockbuster entertainment experience. I've realized, inasmuch as I enjoyed the original trilogy compared to the new Star Wars movies...(and I did, even if I only really saw them once or twice as a kid and never really considered myself "a Star Wars fan") that part of it is just the fact that the Star Wars films are all very much products of their times. And the 1970s were, well, a lot doper. Aesthetically, stylistically, cinematically, whatever. You've got Leia rocking the coke nail, you've got young Harrison Ford. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty cool about 2017-2018, but it's pretty loving wack in a lot of ways too. It's science fiction set in the future of the 1970s films, but it's unavoidably NOW if you get what I mean. It's very 2017, and well, 2017 was pretty wack in a lot of ways, especially compared to like, 1977. A character like Rose for example. It's very much a product of these lame times, the awkward socially inept fangirl/fanboy. Do we need that character? Do we need someone for those people to empathize with in the film? Gross. She exists so she can what, serve as a romantic foil because you need another minority for Finn, cuz there's no way he can end up with the white chick? Well, he didn't seem that interested in her one-sided hero worship. Get back to your pipes! I mostly tolerated her for most of the film, even enjoyed her, but then she has to ruin Finn's arc in the weirdest most selfish way. For a crush that doesn't even like her. This ain't the dope 70s. "NOW WE FIGHT FOR LOVE, WE CAN'T SACRIFICE OURSELVES ANYMORE!!!" "Wait, uhhh, but Holdo just sacrificed herself to save the Resistance...the whole point is that we have to save the sparks of the Resistance at any cost...and as you say that, they just blew the door open, which I was trying to stop in a heroic sacrifice...and now, presumably, we and the Resistance are all going to die? And you tried to save me in a way that could have very possibly just killed us both anyway, just without destroying the cannon..." It's not that I wanted Finn to die, but she really stifles what would have been a heroic moment and does so in a weird way considering the things happening around them at that moment and the Admiral's sacrifice moments before. but anyway, I had a lot of fun and I liked it more than the first one. I saw the first one in theaters cuz I had to take my lil cousins to a movie...sooo I was pretty much watching TLJ with no sense of "How will this succeed as a sequel??? I want all these plot threads from the first movie to blahblahblahblahblahblah." It was a fun cool movie, mostly for the second half, but for long enough to get my attention. Hell, with some editing and reshoots I'd have called it fantastic and equal to the original films even if I haven't seen them in ages. While people tell me it has a lot of the "same beats as Empire", it still felt less like "YOU'RE JUST DOING THE SAME FUCKIN MOVIE" as the JJ Abrams one did. I liked the willingness to do different poo poo. I liked the imperial steam iron. I liked the caretaker alien nuns and the weird milking walrus alien guys. I liked Luke throwing the saber, and I liked Leia floating through space (the Force is mysterious who cares), though I did think Rian Johnson could have done a better idea representing/executing those two ideas on screen. Silly internet gibberish like who is or isn't a "Mary Sue" I could care less about. Rey was dope. Save that poo poo for the Real World Roses to debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Finn’s death would’ve been pointless and useless so Rose was right to stop that dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Finn’s death would’ve been pointless and useless so Rose was right to stop that dumb poo poo. You're right, though I do wish the film had a clearer way of conveying that so people wouldn't have to keep having online arguments about something that should've been obvious. IIRC all his superiors were telling Finn "no," just like Poe was being told "no" at the start of the movie. I think what the movie's trying to say is that religious fervor and fanaticism isn't going to win a war and thought, strategy, and following orders is just as important. ...I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Again, I'm glad he didn't die but in the context of that scene wasn't that their last and final hope? Holdo sacrificing their own life for the greater good of the resistance is what saved their skins and got them to that rebel base, and then Rose is just like...the time for sacrifice is over? We were just shown that an individual sacrifice for a greater movement CAN be a meaningful and heroic gesture. It's not like they know Luke will "show up" or that there's an escape route. Like at the moment she's saying that poo poo they're breaking down the door and about to kill the entire Resistance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Fight for people you love Don't just fight against something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Why is Finn's sacrifice unacceptable and not fighting for people he loves (because in that scene it seemed to me Finn very much was fighting and about to sacrifice himself for the people he loves) while Holdo's was heroic and fighting for people she loved, is basically what I'm asking. Why is suicidal sacrifice in a moment of desperation acceptable in that context and not the other? Because in both cases they were being threatened with complete annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
johnson intentionally undercuts or inverts every theme he presents in the film
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
sassassin posted:You can't control the big guns. aBagorn posted:Yeah. The point is they don’t want to give someone full creative control. Wheat Loaf posted:There's your problem. Ok, that's fair, but then it prompts two questions... 1. Why would the studios so desperately need to be involved if they went out of their way to hire an actual great director? The logic follows that the entire point of hiring one of the big guns is that they all but assure that the studio ends up with a quality product. So the studio would have no need to watch them like a hawk and interfere, especially since it's that very behavior that precludes from getting these really good directors. 2. Does Disney really even give a poo poo if the films aren't great? As in, is a tepid, mediocre Star Wars film even a problem for their bottom line? We haven't had a truly *great* Star Wars film since the OT so it's not like we'd even know what one would look like these days, but if, just spit ballin, we did get one; a Star Wars film came out and blew everyone away like the originals did, would it actually even make Disney that much more money? Because it kind of feels like they really don't give that much of a poo poo either way. A mediocre Star Wars film makes them plenty of money anyway and they don't have to think too hard about it. TFA has 93% critic and 88% audience scores on RT so it's not like even mediocre garbage like TFA unquestionably is, isn't still going to have a ton of people thinking it's the greatest thing ever. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:
How do you quantify that? Both ST made a shitton of money and were very well reviewed by critics. They want a product that plays well and continues the star wars franchise ad a valuable, in demand property. Deep nerds or millennials overrated the original trilogy are basically irrelevant ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:johnson intentionally undercuts or inverts every theme he presents in the film I feel like he gets these jabs in and then Kathleen went "wow how nice, very creative Rian! But I have some notes..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Maybe all of the Mouse propaganda has done its job , but this notion that crops up in the threads occasionally that certain Star Wars films were cynical half-assed productions is really strange to me. Hell if I had to pick one to fit that bill it would be ROTJ
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
That scene just needed a line saying, "You'll never make a dent in that weapon" with Finn being determined to try for the scene to be more effective. Instead the same message loses its power because the audience is left wondering, "Wait, why exactly is his death pointless?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Why is Finn's sacrifice unacceptable and not fighting for people he loves (because in that scene it seemed to me Finn very much was fighting and about to sacrifice himself for the people he loves) while Holdo's was heroic and fighting for people she loved, is basically what I'm asking. holdo wasn't suicidal until she realized it was the only option and realized it was going to probably work. She was also always motivated by love. Finn went suicide dumbly and quickly and was motivated by anger towards the empire .
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:That scene just needed a line saying, "You'll never make a dent in that weapon" with Finn being determined to try for the scene to be more effective. Instead the same message loses its power because the audience is left wondering, "Wait, why exactly is his death pointless?" It was visually obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2018 00:53
|
|