Star Wars: For All Your PT, OT, ST, & AT-AT/ST Needs

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The ST breaks down because there is really no movie-spanning concept, no plan into which direction the story is going - that wasn't the case with the OT either - and even in the PT many details were made up as they went along (although it was clear that Anakin would become Darth Vader, Palpatine the Emperor, and the Jedi would die ... which are significant plot points).

TFA was just a derivative remake of ANH, working with a completely stupid setting, in my opinion, and wasting an entire movie on a stupid question: Where is Luke Skywalker? But the next movie made things much worse by ignoring most of the established characters and their relationships with each other in favor of introducing new characters and changing the established ones (at times completely around) while still drawing heavily on TESB and ROTJ.

Then there is the fact that the movies look like the OT. I don't want movies in the 2010s look like movies from the 1970s or 1980s. Especially not Star Wars movies.

But the worst thing is just the obviousness of them having new plan. Luke wasn't running away from responsibility in TFA - just as he wasn't later, with the TROS retcon - back in TFA it was clear we had another Emperor-enforcer-like relationship among the villains, which was then turned on its head with TLJ ... only to return back to Emperor-enforcer in TROS.

On a personal level Rey and Finn had a thing in TFA ... which they sort of lose in TFJ in favor of that ridiculous Ren-evil guy thing ... and then completely drop anything on that front for both Finn and Rey in the last movie.

That is all just shit. And, of course, the fact that the Star Wars villain had to return for the last movie shows how shitty their conception is. I mean, I didn't like babyface would-be Vader at all - I find the character and his motivation completely ridiculous - but to replace this guy as the big villain with fucking Palpatine of all people really hammers home the fact.

Something I never understood about the ST: Where is the New Republic? After the Empire's defeat, there must presumably have been something to take its place. Are they not interested in defeating the first order? Why is General Leia not leading a massive army of the republic instead of what looks like the same scrappy band of rebels from the OT?

I heard something that sounds almost too good to be true.  Maybe someone could confirm:

Post TLJ, JJ Abrams and George Lucas worked on a treatment for episode 9 that had as its main antagonist "the Son" from the Mortis story arc in the clone wars.

Is there anything to this? 

[Werthead]

12 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Post TLJ, JJ Abrams and George Lucas worked on a treatment for episode 9 that had as its main antagonist "the Son" from the Mortis story arc in the clone wars.

Is there anything to this? 

That would be highly unlikely. Abrams has almost zero respect or interest in canon or continuity unless it's something he's done. Otherwise he does not give one flying shit. Hence how he just came up with a new criminal backstory for Poe in TRoS despite there being quite extensive "new canon" materials in the books and comics about his backstory.

[polishgenius]

JJ Abrams is a storytelling incompetent and TROS would have been far better off directed by Zack Snyder.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

JJ Abrams is a storytelling incompetent and TROS would have been far better off directed by Zack Snyder.

Yes to the former, no to the latter. For all Abrams' multitude of faults, he is at least vaguely competent in scene-to-scene direction in a way Snyder is not (nothing even in TRoS comes as close to being as breathtakingly shit as Kevin Costner's inordinately long death scene in Man of Steel).

Give Abrams a decent script written by someone else - as TFA was up to a point - and he can deliver at least a somewhat competent film, very much unlike Snyder.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That would be highly unlikely. Abrams has almost zero respect or interest in canon or continuity unless it's something he's done. Otherwise he does not give one flying shit. Hence how he just came up with a new criminal backstory for Poe in TRoS despite there being quite extensive "new canon" materials in the books and comics about his backstory.

That's a bit harsh. Everything about TRoS screams "film by committee". No director driven film comes out being that kind of random, jumbled mess. Abrams has aptly demonstrated in the past that he is capable of coherent storytelling.

12 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

JJ Abrams is a storytelling incompetent and TROS would have been far better off directed by Zack Snyder.

I agree (with the second part). Though Snyder has actually weighed in on this. He's not interested.

Edit: "this" being directing a star wars film.

[Vaughn]

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Like, did something happen to Lucas which made him so completely delusional and out of touch with reality that he really couldn't (and probably still doesn't) understand the disaster he brought forth.

This is both a feeling I share but it's also, objectively, insane.

He had carte blanche to make the movies he wanted and did. Those movies then made $2.5B dollars (!) in box office alone, never mind merchandising. The depth of the franchise then in part allowed him to sell Lucas Films for $4B. If we are to afford  creative talents ownership of their art, it's disappointing that we don't like the results but it's not a disaster. I've not read that he was unhappy with the films as his creative output, only in their reception by the public. So a huge financial success and as I understand it, a satisfying creative result for him - why should he care? Since the prequels came out, there have been multiple, critically and popularly acclaimed Star Wars things come out (TFA, Rebels, Mando, last Clone Wars, etc...) - his universe is still ticking along nicely. I mean, we're all excited to watch (or watched) a brand new episode of high quality TV set in the SWU literally today!

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Snyder is not (nothing even in TRoS comes as close to being as breathtakingly shit as Kevin Costner's inordinately long death scene in Man of Steel).

 

That scene was shit, for sure, and Snyder does also suffer the same JJ Abrams problem of having no respect for or understanding of the source material when adapting things which came out in a big way both in that scene and in his DC stuff in general, but imho MoS is a better film than anything Abrams has made apart from MI:III. 300 is also perfectly competently made for what it is, although what it is is very lowest common denominator stuff.


I was being slightly facetious, admittedly. BvS isn't a great deal better than TROS and does some things much worse, and Sucker Punch is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'll give Snyder this though: when he fails at least it's in attempting to do interesting things, and he usually understands action better than Abrams does, even if it's in quite a basic way. Abrams can do good spectacle, on his day, but even in MI:III and Star Trek the actual action itself was competent but largely uninteresting. I feel like a Snyder directed Jedi fight might overely on the overcrank but give us some stuff Abrams really can't.
I'm also almost certain that Snyder wouldn't fail to understand the size of space the way Abrams does.

 

Admittedly, this is pointless speculation since as Deadlines points out, Snyder's not interested.


 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

31 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Yes to the former, no to the latter. For all Abrams' multitude of faults, he is at least vaguely competent in scene-to-scene direction in a way Snyder is not (nothing even in TRoS comes as close to being as breathtakingly shit as Kevin Costner's inordinately long death scene in Man of Steel).

Give Abrams a decent script written by someone else - as TFA was up to a point - and he can deliver at least a somewhat competent film, very much unlike Snyder.

This is the first time I've ever that criticism of MOS ( That Costner's death scene was too long).

19 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I was being slightly facetious, admittedly. BvS isn't a great deal better than TROS and does some things much worse, and Sucker Punch is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'll give Snyder this though: when he fails at least it's in attempting to do interesting things, and he usually understands action better than Abrams does, even if it's in quite a basic way. Abrams can do good spectacle, on his day, but even in MI:III and Star Trek the actual action itself was competent but largely uninteresting. I feel like a Snyder directed Jedi fight might overely on the overcrank but give us some stuff Abrams really can't.
I'm also almost certain that Snyder wouldn't fail to understand the size of space the way Abrams does.

 

Admittedly, this is pointless speculation since as Deadlines points out, Snyder's not interested.


 

The theatrical cut of BvS was trimmed to fit a studio mandate just before the release. The Ultimate Cut is miles better than TRoS.

There was a rumor circulating in the entertainment press a while back that Snyder had pitched a stand-alone "team of Jedi", seven samurai adaptation to Lucasfilm.  Presumably this was set in the old republic. Snyder's publicist put out a statement saying no such pitch was made.  

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

and then completely drop anything on that front for both Finn and Rey in the last movie.

Well, there was the scene near the beginning where they're sinking in quicksand and it seems like Finn almost tells Rey he loves her.  ...Of course, it's never really revisited the rest of the movie beyond Poe nagging Finn about it.  And, of course, apparently that's not what Finn was going to tell her.  Instead, right before dying, he really needed to inform Rey that he was force-sensitive.  Priorities.

37 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

TROS would have been far better off directed by Zack Snyder.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!  Let's not get crazy here.

To respond to the thread in general, I'm not complaining or trying to be that guy, but I feel like the main problems with the ST are incredibly obvious and have been discussed ad nauseam.  The whiplash between all three films was heavily anticipated before TROS even came out - basically once it was announced Abrams was (re)taking over.  The stupidity - and complete undercutting of the OT - of the restored Republic apparently being the weakest and most incompetent intergalactic government in the history of a long time ago and far far away was glaring from that first Third Reich rally scene with the First Order in TFA.  When watching it for the first time in theaters, I recall turning to my brother and whispering, "I know we just got really high but Luke, Leia, and Han won at the end of Jedi, right?"

One thing I do agree with that isn't mentioned much is one of my biggest problems with TLJ is its criminal negligence in developing the new main characters and their interrelationships.  TFA might have been a remake and stupid, but one thing that did give me hope (heh) was I did like the new team of Rey, Finn, and Poe and cared about what was gonna happen to them.  That was completely sabotaged in TLJ.

Anyway, I suppose it is therapeutic to collectively rehash all of this at least once a year.  Apparently, arguing about Star Wars over the internet is now a holiday tradition.

[Heartofice]

38 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

This is both a feeling I share but it's also, objectively, insane.

He had carte blanche to make the movies he wanted and did. Those movies then made $2.5B dollars (!) in box office alone, never mind merchandising. The depth of the franchise then in part allowed him to sell Lucas Films for $4B. If we are to afford  creative talents ownership of their art, it's disappointing that we don't like the results but it's not a disaster. I've not read that he was unhappy with the films as his creative output, only in their reception by the public. So a huge financial success and as I understand it, a satisfying creative result for him - why should he care? Since the prequels came out, there have been multiple, critically and popularly acclaimed Star Wars things come out (TFA, Rebels, Mando, last Clone Wars, etc...) - his universe is still ticking along nicely. I mean, we're all excited to watch (or watched) a brand new episode of high quality TV set in the SWU literally today!

While I'm sure Lucas has quite a bit of interest in the movies doing well commercially, I also get the sense that he wants them to be a success creatively as well. I think the prequels managed to succeed in terms of profits, almost despite their enormous flaws. The sheer brand of Star Wars, the huge marketing engine behind it, did more to propel those movies than anything creatively within the movies. Maybe Lucas is right, and all kids wanted to see was some funny looking aliens treading in poop, some zappy space battles and a couple of cool looking light sabre fights. Maybe that's all he had to get people to watch his shitty movies. 

 

[Ran]

56 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but imho MoS is a better film than anything Abrams has made apart from MI:III. 300 is also perfectly competently made for what it is, although what it is is very lowest common denominator stuff.

Mileage does vary. MoS is actually a worse film in my book than anything Abrams has made -- including Star Trek Into Darkness. Snyder is all flash and no substance and has not made a good film since Dawn of the Dead, or a decent film since 300, which is an incredible feat given the properties he has been handed and the fact that Watchmen was visually pitch-perfect and (mostly) well-acted but he completely did not understand the material beyond the basest surface level.

Personally, I rate TRoS a lot higher than most here seem to, but admittedly it's because I rate TLJ a lot worse than most here seem to.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA!  Let's not get crazy here.

Lets.  Seeing the heads past and present access media alumni explode; that alone would make it worth it.

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

One thing I do agree with that isn't mentioned much is one of my biggest problems with TLJ is its criminal negligence in developing the new main characters and their interrelationships.  TFA might have been a remake and stupid, but one thing that did give me hope (heh) was I did like the new team of Rey, Finn, and Poe and cared about what was gonna happen to them.  That was completely sabotaged in TLJ.

I agree. Although TFA was more derivative than stupid.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

That scene was shit, for sure, and Snyder does also suffer the same JJ Abrams problem of having no respect for or understanding of the source material when adapting things which came out in a big way both in that scene and in his DC stuff in general, but imho MoS is a better film than anything Abrams has made apart from MI:III. 300 is also perfectly competently made for what it is, although what it is is very lowest common denominator stuff.

Abrams has definitely fallen a long way from his best, but at one point he was a perfectly capable writer-producer-director in television (Alias was great, at least for its first couple of seasons; Lost was great, then bad, then great again before ending oddly; Fringe was excellent, but that's the one Abrams had the least involvement with after the pilot, so eh). He's also capable of producing perfectly adequate work when he rises to the task. He did "try", to some extent, with Mission: Impossible III (his cinematic debut), Star Trek '09 (his big-budget serviceable practice run for Star Wars) and The Force Awakens (inoffensive popcorn cheese). Into Darkness is proper bullshit, though, easily his worst film (including TRoS).

Snyder I don't think has ever remotely come close to producing anything that could be called "decent." Watchmen and 300 are serviceable but are so slavish to the original source material that it's hard to credit him much for that, whilst their weaknesses, resulting pacing issues and too much slow-mo, are down to Snyder alone, and Lindelof has since shown how you can do Watchmen properly and do it justice. When Snyder was allowed to have free reign with Man of Steel he produced easily the worst comic book adaptation of all time (Howard the Duck and Corman's Fantastic Four included) up to that moment. I haven't watched either Batman v. Superman or Justice League because of that, and have no interest in doing so. I've also only heard horrendous things about Sucker Punch. I have heard his Dawn of the Dead movie was quite good though.

It's annoying that Whedon has become so toxic and polarising (his fault, of course), because he's a much better writer and director than either, weaknesses included, and could probably make a decent Star Wars if given the opportunity. I doubt that will ever happen now (although there are rumours he's kissed and made up with Feige on a personal level, I can't see Disney working with him given his series of problems in the last few years).

[Heartofice]

Jeez, Man of Steel gets some really unfair treatment some times!

[polishgenius]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Into Darkness is proper bullshit, though, easily his worst film (including TRoS).

 

I actually think Super 8 is his worst film but I also can't remember anything about why I think that. I just remember finding it utterly, utterly risible for some reason.

 

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

When Snyder was allowed to have free reign with Man of Steel he produced easily the worst comic book adaptation of all time (Howard the Duck and Corman's Fantastic Four included) up to that moment.

 

See this is where we kinda sorta disagree- MoS is imo a dreadful Superman movie, but quite a good movie in its own right and a fantastic spectacle movie- certainly streets better than Fantastic Four in my book, and better than quite a lot of the MCU.

BvS was bad, but the badness mostly came in the second half, there was interesting stuff in the first hour, it had potential. Not seen the extended. Justice League is woeful but I don't think it's fair to blame that mess entirely on him, although the disrespect to the characters and mythos is from him and I don't have great hopes of the Snyder cut.


 

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

It's annoying that Whedon has become so toxic and polarising (his fault, of course), because he's a much better writer and director than either, weaknesses included, and could probably make a decent Star Wars if given the opportunity.

 

Yeah, Whedon is probably out of that conversation. I could imagine James Gunn getting a go now he's back in with Disney, though he might also decide it's too close to GotG. The director I really want to see do Star Wars is Matthew Vaughn, as long as he doesn't go Kingsman-2 style over-indulgent I think he'd be a perfect choice.

Also: Steven Moffatt. I'd never hand him the keys to the franchise because he has many of the same self-indulgence plot-control problems as Abrams and some of the same obliviousness problems as Whedon (without having, at least yet, gone full toxic in the same way), but a one-off SW film from him could be great stuff for also similar reasons to why we'd want Whedon to do it (albeit we have less proof Moffatt can do genuine action).

[Ran]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It's annoying that Whedon has become so toxic and polarising (his fault, of course), because he's a much better writer and director than either,

Writer, yes. Director, I'm not sure of that. He's serviceable and workmanlike, IMO, when it comes direction, with little to no particular visual flair. Snyder is all visual flair and no substance, OTOH, which is worse. Abrams, IMO, is a better director than Whedon and Snyder, but as a writer ... well, he rarely writes anything alone these days, and is more of an idea factory and guiding hand than a real writer at this point.

A Whedon Star Wars movie would be something I'd be willing to watch, but IMO right now the House of Mouse is on my shit list over that royalties situation with authors and creators. 

[mormont]

12 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Empire is surely a case of that, and Indiana Jones movies there must be a lot of credit to Spielberg for reining him in.

My understanding is that it was the other way around on those movies, actually.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Abrams has definitely fallen a long way from his best, but at one point he was a perfectly capable writer-producer-director in television (Alias was great, at least for its first couple of seasons; Lost was great, then bad, then great again before ending oddly; Fringe was excellent, but that's the one Abrams had the least involvement with after the pilot, so eh). He's also capable of producing perfectly adequate work when he rises to the task. He did "try", to some extent, with Mission: Impossible III (his cinematic debut), Star Trek '09 (his big-budget serviceable practice run for Star Wars) and The Force Awakens (inoffensive popcorn cheese). Into Darkness is proper bullshit, though, easily his worst film (including TRoS).

Snyder I don't think has ever remotely come close to producing anything that could be called "decent." Watchmen and 300 are serviceable but are so slavish to the original source material that it's hard to credit him much for that, whilst their weaknesses, resulting pacing issues and too much slow-mo, are down to Snyder alone, and Lindelof has since show how you can do Watchmen properly and do it justice. When Snyder was allowed to have free reign with Man of Steel he produced easily the worst comic book adaptation of all time (Howard the Duck and Corman's Fantastic Four included) up to that moment. I haven't watched either Batman v. Superman or Justice League because of that, and have no interest in doing so. I've also only heard horrendous things about Sucker Punch. I have heard his Dawn of the Dead movie was quite good though.

It's annoying that Whedon has become so toxic and polarising (his fault, of course), because he's a much better writer and director than either, weaknesses included, and could probably make a decent Star Wars if given the opportunity. I doubt that will ever happen now (although there are rumours he's kissed and made up with Feige on a personal level, I can't see Disney working with him given his series of problems in the last few years).

I think it's unfair to compare the mini series to the film.  Different stories told in different formats.  I love them both. I have criticisms of both. 

The media takes on the TV series were interesting. It involved a lot of "this scene" or "that line" from the series was Lindelof throwing shade at the 2009 Watchmen film adaptation.  That is until Lindelof himself debunked it.

1 minute ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Because it’s a steaming turd that shits in the mouth of Superman fans while also raping them.

Oh, relax.

I sense a spirited debate about life and death coming on...

14 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

See this is where we kinda sorta disagree- MoS is imo a dreadful Superman movie, but quite a good movie in its own right and a fantastic spectacle movie- certainly streets better than Fantastic Four in my book, and better than quite a lot of the MCU.

BvS was bad, but the badness mostly came in the second half, there was interesting stuff in the first hour, it had potential. Not seen the extended. Justice League is woeful but I don't think it's fair to blame that mess entirely on him, although the disrespect to the characters and mythos is from him and I don't have great hopes of the Snyder cut.

Watch the extended. 

Whedon supposedly re-wrote 80 pages of a 120 page script and even re-shot previous scenes. The only reason Snyders name is on that film is because the contracts said it had to be. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Something I never understood about the ST: Where is the New Republic? After the Empire's defeat, there must presumably have been something to take its place. Are they not interested in defeating the first order? Why is General Leia not leading a massive army of the republic instead of what looks like the same scrappy band of rebels from the OT?

They is not supposed to be there, so they never care about that. I mean, their take on politics turned Star Wars to the level of some 80s shit movie where just some dudes/'the people' showed up in the end in TROS to save the day. What kind of shit plot was that, if you think about it?

I mean, why wasn't the Empire overthrown just by some dudes back in TESB or ROTJ, or Palpatine's plans foiled by nobody giving a rat's ass about him calling himself Emperor or being granted emergency powers.

Basically, there is nothing of substance in the ST. Everybody lives in the wilderness, there are no societies, no species with their own proper civilizations, just people running around.

And, of course, the biggest problem is that none of the old gang from the OT developed in any way - Leia was stuck forever in the 'rebel general' role, Han devolved back to shitty smuggler-for-hire - which is a disgrace if you consider Ford's age - and Luke basically became a disillusioned Yoda.

Why did we bother watch the OT if those people would suck this hard once the Empire was overthrown? I mean, that's like the OT being about Darth Vader constantly whining in the OT and Emperor Palpatine having to deal with his re-election in ANH.

And, of course, the old guard had to face problems in the new era. But they shouldn't have been exactly the same people.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, there was the scene near the beginning where they're sinking in quicksand and it seems like Finn almost tells Rey he loves her.  ...Of course, it's never really revisited the rest of the movie beyond Poe nagging Finn about it.  And, of course, apparently that's not what Finn was going to tell her.  Instead, right before dying, he really needed to inform Rey that he was force-sensitive.  Priorities.

Oh, I know about that scene, but we would all agree that TFA hinted at much more in that direction. I mean, the Luke-Leia-Han triangle was also not really planned, but that worked really nicely at the end of ROJ, no? If you didn't know that it wasn't planned you wouldn't realize it - it was the fact that Luke and Leia were siblings that caused their original attraction, etc.

In the ST you have nothing even remotely like this. And that stretches to all levels - with the main characters, with the old gang, and with the villains.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I know about that scene, but we would all agree that TFA hinted at much more in that direction.

Yeah I was agreeing with you.  And in the process making fun out of the ridiculousness of Finn wanting his dying words to Rey to be that he's force-sensitive.