Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (SPOILERS) 0

[Mr Sneeze]

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

[Gatsby77]

6 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Disagree that Marvel doesn't always let people follow their passions.

Perfect examples of this?

James Gunn with Guardians of the Galaxy and Taika Waititi with Thor: Ragnarok.

The latter, in particular, was a *huge* risk in that it deviated so much from the traditional portrayal of Thor in the comics. And yet it worked - and reinvigorated the character after a weak paint-by-numbers entry with The Dark World.

[Comics4All]

33 minutes ago, tv horror said:

However it worked for the Harry Potter series of films.

Star Wars franchise could have learned a thing or 2 from the HP series!

Although Fantastic Beasts has been a big let down...

[Gatsby77]

16 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Was the three different directors idea a reaction to Abrams declining Episode 8, or was that the original plan?  My memory from 2016 is that they didn't announce that Abrams wouldn't return for a few months after Episode 7, and given the massive critical and box office success of the film it didn't make sense at the time not to bring Abrams back if he would have actually agreed to do it.

No - it was the original plan.

They announced Trevorrow as the director of Episode 9 at D23 in August 2015, more than two months before The Force Awakens was released.

Similarly, Rian Johnson was announced as the director of Episode 8 in June 2014, well over a year before The Force Awakens was released.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Gatsby77

[@therealsilvermane]

9 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

[XXX] - a Family Feud reference

You don’t honestly think Jon Favreau (initially) or James Gunn or Ryan Coogler or the Russos are following their passions with their Marvel films and aren’t being alllowed to write their own scripts? Answer: They are. Marvel just happens to make a lot of money at the same time. Maybe the Marvel method is a successful example of actually allowing filmmakers to follow their passions. 

And yes, I understand the now defunct Marvel Creative Committee limited some storytelling in earlier movies but not every Marvel movie and they’ve been gone since before Guardians 2.

[fantastic_four]

24 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Welp, you just got exactly that--Rian with one idea and then Abrams ret-conning it.  Working out great, eh?  

The auteur theory works for single releases or if the director or screenwriter is going to stay for the long haul.  But what's the long haul for Star Wars--another decade or two?  A century?  It's unrealistic to let every director have complete creative control for an ongoing universe.

[Mr Sneeze]

4 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

13 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Disagree that Marvel doesn't always let people follow their passions.

Perfect examples of this?

James Gunn with Guardians of the Galaxy and Taika Waititi with Thor: Ragnarok.

The latter, in particular, was a *huge* risk in that it deviated so much from the traditional portrayal of Thor in the comics. And yet it worked - and reinvigorated the character after a weak paint-by-numbers entry with The Dark World.

Those are good examples and two fun movies, no doubt, but the weakest parts of those movies are the adherence to advancing the overall marvel plot so to speak. I have little doubt personally that Taika Waititi would have done better without restrictions - and he did a great job with them.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with being a professional and doing the job a studio hired you to do.

I'm speaking from a point of principal as a movie fan that the best - and worst - come from the heart.

[fantastic_four]

There's an open story point I was expecting Abrams to insert something into in Rise, but he didn't.  And now I'm expecting someone else to eventually do it.  How was Anakin conceived?  Shmi said she doesn't know, and Qui-Gonn hypothesized that he was conceived by the Force itself.  After I heard Palpatine say he created Snoke, I was wondering if Abrams would have him say he created Vader, too.  I bet he considered it but didn't do it fearing a fan backlash.

Probably doesn't make much sense anyway, but where Anakin came from is still an open question I bet someone tackles.  If he had created him, why would Palpatine let Anakin get raised under semi-random, non-ideal conditions as a slave on Tatooine who ended up joining the Jedi?  Seems more ideal to raise him quickly and under controlled conditions similar to the way clone troopers are, and to create lots of him instead of just one.

[Mr Sneeze]

24 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

50 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Welp, you just got exactly that--Rian with one idea and then Abrams ret-conning it.  Working out great, eh?  

The auteur theory works for single releases or if the director or screenwriter is going to stay for the long haul.  But what's the long haul for Star Wars--another decade or two?  A century?  It's unrealistic to let every director have complete creative control for an ongoing universe.

I've come to really like Rian's movie, so yeah, I'll go with what I said.

I value art over product any day. I realize that's a black and white statement and there is all kinds of grey involved here.

[@therealsilvermane]

31 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

Those are good examples and two fun movies, no doubt, but the weakest parts of those movies are the adherence to advancing the overall marvel plot so to speak. I have little doubt personally that Taika Waititi would have done better without restrictions - and he did a great job with them.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with being a professional and doing the job a studio hired you to do.

I'm speaking from a point of principal as a movie fan that the best - and worst - come from the heart.

So basically you're against the whole MCU expanded universe thing which is what makes the MCU so great and revolutionary to begin with. Got it. Moving on...

[Mr Sneeze]

12 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

44 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

Those are good examples and two fun movies, no doubt, but the weakest parts of those movies are the adherence to advancing the overall marvel plot so to speak. I have little doubt personally that Taika Waititi would have done better without restrictions - and he did a great job with them.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with being a professional and doing the job a studio hired you to do.

I'm speaking from a point of principal as a movie fan that the best - and worst - come from the heart.

So basically you're against the whole MCU expanded universe thing which is what makes the MCU so great and revolutionary to begin with. Got it. Moving on...

i'm glad you find the world so neatly delineated. Enjoy your day.

[fantastic_four]

1 hour ago, Mr Sneeze said:

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

2 hours ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Welp, you just got exactly that--Rian with one idea and then Abrams ret-conning it.  Working out great, eh?  

The auteur theory works for single releases or if the director or screenwriter is going to stay for the long haul.  But what's the long haul for Star Wars--another decade or two?  A century?  It's unrealistic to let every director have complete creative control for an ongoing universe.

I've come to really like Rian's movie, so yeah, I'll go with what I said.

So you're also fine with Abrams ret-conning him then?  One guy saying anyone can be a Jedi, and the next guy reversing it?

I'm fine myself with either one of those ideas, but I'm NOT fine with every director choosing back and forth which one they prefer.

Edited December 23, 2019 by fantastic_four

[Mr Sneeze]

5 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

1 hour ago, Mr Sneeze said:

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

2 hours ago, Mr Sneeze said:

I would rather see creative people have licence to follow their passions rather than the Marvel method which is mainly concerned with profit.

Welp, you just got exactly that--Rian with one idea and then Abrams ret-conning it.  Working out great, eh?  

The auteur theory works for single releases or if the director or screenwriter is going to stay for the long haul.  But what's the long haul for Star Wars--another decade or two?  A century?  It's unrealistic to let every director have complete creative control for an ongoing universe.

I've come to really like Rian's movie, so yeah, I'll go with what I said.

So you're also fine with Abrams ret-conning him then?  One guy saying anyone can be a Jedi, and the next guy reversing it?

I'm fine myself with either one of those ideas, but I'm NOT fine with every director choosing back and forth which one they prefer.

Your point is well taken. I appreciate what both directors did in their respective movies and I can live with the slight misalignment of plot points. In a perfect world, they would have had a plan but we've known for a long time they were just winging it, so this is what we got. If I want to hate either or both movies, it's easy enough. There are elements in the last two movies that draw me in and I guess that's been enough. Far from prefect? Absolutely but let's hope they get there. Remembering Star Wars as a fairy tale (not sci-fi) forgives a great many sins.

[fantastic_four]

3 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

In a perfect world, they would have had a plan but we've known for a long time they were just winging it, so this is what we got.

We didn't know that.  Supposedly Pablo Hidalgo and/or Kathleen Kennedy were reigning these guys in, but now we know they either mostly weren't or that they weren't doing it very well.

I didn't enjoy seeing the Solo directors getting fired because it's just chaotic, but at least it looked like Kennedy was trying to be a curator.  And it seemed to work out in Rogue One with all of the reshoots they did in that, so I withheld judgement when she said in her public statement that they weren't sticking to the Star Wars feel and mythos.  But at the same time my initial reaction was that you didn't want the Lego Movie guys to introduce weird and/or wacky humor into Star Wars, so you hired them...why?  

Let's set both Star Wars and Hidalgo/Kennedy as well as Marvel and Feige aside for a second.  We both agree that the auteur theory of letting directors have control works really well, and given your "perfect world" comment above it looks like we both also agree that for serial fiction that defines a universe like Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, or whatever, there needs to be a set of consistent rules that a director can't break.  Can't there be a fairly loose set of rules that gives the director 95% control within any given universe?  If so, is that 5% restriction really that limiting?

You mentioned Taiki Waititi as an example of a director that would have done even better without the yoke of Kevin Feige and Marvel continuity around his neck.  What I saw was a great Marvel film that was unique from virtually all others in its bizarre Taiki Waititi humor that was extremely similar to the same sense of humor I saw previously in the "What We Do in the Shadows" film.  By far the most common complaint I heard here in these forums in the Ragnarok thread was that people didn't like his sense of humor...which I get, but I enjoyed it myself.  And I like the fact that Feige both chose him and let him be himself within the bounds of Marvel's characters.  What restrictions did you perceive that you objected to, or did you not notice any and just assume that he hypothetically had some--which I agree he almost certainly did--and that they just held him back in principle?

[fantastic_four]

I actually haven't seen Last Jedi since release weekend.  I want to re-watch it now, but perhaps my memory is off...didn't Rian suggest in the film that being a Jedi is something anyone can do and wasn't necessarily just genetic?  Or am I mis-remembering or reading too much into that in the film?  Just because Rey had "nobody" parents doesn't mean she didn't still have genetic predisposition to Force sensitivity, as is also possibly true of that kid at the end swabbing the deck.

Edited December 23, 2019 by fantastic_four

[Rip]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

So you're also fine with Abrams ret-conning him then?  One guy saying anyone can be a Jedi, and the next guy reversing it?

I'm fine myself with either one of those ideas, but I'm NOT fine with every director choosing back and forth which one they prefer.

While I agree the movies didn't always flow very well, I'm not so sure about this point. Anyone can be a Jedi no matter what. I mean Jedi can't have kids, they come from all over not just from a powerful family line.

Using the force isn't the same as being a Jedi.

However it (TRoS) does help explain Rey vast powers. Even in the Last Jedi there are many hints to Rey being from something possibly more. Luke even talks about how Rey went straight to the darkness, there were other clues as well which is why I've thought she had something to do with Palpatine. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Rip

[Mr Sneeze]

4 minutes ago, Rip said:

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

So you're also fine with Abrams ret-conning him then?  One guy saying anyone can be a Jedi, and the next guy reversing it?

I'm fine myself with either one of those ideas, but I'm NOT fine with every director choosing back and forth which one they prefer.

While I agree the movies didn't always flow very well, I'm not so sure about this point. Anyone can be a Jedi no matter what. I mean Jedi can't have kids, they come from all over not just from a powerful family line.

Using the force isn't the same as being a Jedi.

However it does help explain Rey vast powers. Even in the Last Jedi there are many hints to Rey being from something possibly more. Luke even talks about how Rey went straight to the darkness, there were other clues as well which is why I've thought she had something to do with Palpatine. 

As well IIRC it's only Kylo who tells her her parents were nothing and maybe that's all he knew. 

[fantastic_four]

1 minute ago, Rip said:

Using the force isn't the same as being a Jedi.

However it does help explain Rey vast powers. Even in the Last Jedi there are many hints to Rey being from something possibly more. Luke even talks about how Rey went straight to the darkness, there were other clues as well witch is why I've thought she had something to do with Palpatine. 

Yea, sorry, I meant Force sensitive, not necessarily a Jedi.

[Mr Sneeze]

19 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

We didn't know that.  Supposedly Pablo Hidalgo and/or Kathleen Kennedy were reigning these guys in, but now we know they either mostly weren't or that they weren't doing it very well.

I didn't enjoy seeing the Solo directors getting fired because it's just chaotic, but at least it looked like Kennedy was trying to be a curator.  And it seemed to work out in Rogue One with all of the reshoots they did in that, so I withheld judgement when she said in her public statement that they weren't sticking to the Star Wars feel and mythos.  But at the same time my initial reaction was that you didn't want the Lego Movie guys to introduce weird and/or wacky humor into Star Wars, so you hired them...why?  

Let's set both Star Wars and Hidalgo/Kennedy as well as Marvel and Feige aside for a second.  We both agree that the auteur theory of letting directors have control works really well, and given your "perfect world" comment above it looks like we both also agree that for serial fiction that defines a universe like Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, or whatever, there needs to be a set of consistent rules that a director can't break.  Can't there be a fairly loose set of rules that gives the director 95% control within any given universe?  If so, is that 5% restriction really that limiting?

You mentioned Taiki Waititi as an example of a director that would have done even better without the yoke of Kevin Feige and Marvel continuity around his neck.  What I saw was a great Marvel film that was unique from virtually all others in its bizarre Taiki Waititi humor that was extremely similar to the same sense of humor I saw previously in the "What We Do in the Shadows" film.  By far the most common complaint I heard here in these forums in the Ragnarok thread was that people didn't like his sense of humor...which I get, but I enjoyed it myself.  And I like the fact that Feige both chose him and let him be himself within the bounds of Marvel's characters.  What restrictions did you perceive that you objected to, or did you not notice any and just assume that he hypothetically had some--which I agree he almost certainly did--and that they just held him back in principle?

I'm at work now so I will get back to you on this one.

[fantastic_four]

Just now, Mr Sneeze said:

As well IIRC it's only Kylo who tells her her parents were nothing and maybe that's all he knew. 

He explicitly says that everything he knew came from looking at her own memories.  So as ret-cons go--assuming it even was one, which I'm unsure of--it works to have Rey's father be Palpatine's son.