- Time
- Post link
That’s why the OT sucks. My favorite Star Wars movie is Flash Gordon.
Rogue One * Spoilers * Thread — Page 129
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
You’re just describing Alderaan and impscum’s arguments.
XD
Lord Haseo said:
… whereas Bodhi only had like one scene where he sufficiently states who he is and what his motives are. They could have least made his personality more colorful so that he could have made an impression in another way. Anything is better than having him doing nothing for most of the film.Right, it needed time for him to be introduced, see what the plans are, and bond with Galen before escaping. But there’s no time for that in this plot structure.
He could have easily talked about himself and his motives with Jyn. It’s not a stretch to assume that she would want to pry more information about Galen out of him.
Character arcs are not rocket science, but I felt like the first act needed way more development or less team members who have more chemistry.
I definitely wouldn’t have minded more backstory for Jyn and scenes with Galen in the first act. Would have strengthened the core of the film.
They could scrap Bodhi, Baze and Cassian and bring in Chirrut earlier while not killing off Saw for a better sense of clashing ideology while allowing Jyn to grow more.
I would keep Cassian but would have the conflict between him and Jyn be prolonged instead of being dropped instantly. They really had something there.
EDIT:
@SilverWook
I knew that
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story “Darth Vader” Featurette [HD]:-
Ok, at this point I’m a little nervous.
Ever since the movie opened, I’ve noticed various (badly filmed) clips of the Darth Vader end scene over on YouTube. The quality of them differed greatly from each other of course, but they generally seemed to show a certain consistency where the colouration of the scene was concerned, and Darth’s lightsaber looked great. However, some recently uploaded versions (in better quality) by these naughty folk seem to show quite a difference in the colour grading to the earlier clips on there…
So at this particular stage, I’m hoping the look of Darth’s red lightsaber hasn’t been effed-up yet again for the official home release…especially in that final shot of him watching the Tantive IV escape.
I’m cautiously waiting to see how this scene now looks in it’s final HD release, as I don’t trust any Blu-ray release to get things looking right these days.
(Note - the footage colouration in the video above looks different to some of the earlier YouTube uploads, and I’m not going to just assume that it shows the exact final grading - I just hope Vader’s lightsaber ends up more RED than pink throughout, when it’s released)
- Time
- Post link
The recent articles about K2SO’s death and the Vader featurette show that there were alternate scenes filmed, despite the claims that no real deleted scenes existed to be put on.
Also, it is my understanding that the Vader scene in the hallway was added on very late in the production and that a different actor had to be called in to film it? Well, I just read another article that said Vader’s final scene in one of the late cuts was to kill Krennic for his failures. Was this filmed?
Basically, I want ALL THE VADER FOOTAGE! ALL OF IT!
- Time
- Post link
There was the Krennic and Vader clip in the trailers.
I wonder if the Vader slaughter scene came about because the fans creamed themselves over the rumor Vader would slaughter some rebels and Kennedy wanted to please. That would explain it being done so late.
It seems like people are really embracing the new characters. In fact, the big question people ask me now about Star Wars is, “Are Finn and Poe gay lovers?” And really how the f*ck would I know? My second husband left me for a man, so my gaydar isn’t exactly what you’d call Death Star level quality. ----Carrie Fisher
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Walt Disney Pictures made Beauty and the Beast. Lucasfilm made TFA and RO. Walt Disney Studios distributed both. Maybe some day people will learn the difference (spoiler: they won’t).
You speak as though Disney’s overall strategy does not influence the direction of their subsidiary studios. Spoiler: It does.
He has a point that they do seem to be on a major member berry kick lately. Not a whole lot of original content coming out. Between the infinite Star Wars fan service films they have lined up, the Marvel movies that are just stale copies of one another, and recreating their own animated classics with live action and CGI, they are pretty clearly following a strict formula to appeal to as many people as possible and thereby make as much money as possible. Hard to fault a company for that, but it’s also ridiculous to deny that is in fact what they are doing. And it’s the opinion of myself and many others that, as successful as this lowest-common-denominator appeal to nostalgia is, and as fun as it can be for a while, it is ultimately detrimental creatively and artistically.
Fox took major risks that paid off with Deadpool and Logan, and that was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Those two are the first blockbusters I can recall seeing in quite a while that really stood out and drew me in. I literally fell asleep during Civil War. I’m just getting sick of the same old shit, movies with the same basic plots that run together so seamlessly that I can’t even remember which one is which. Disney really is becoming the McDonald’s of film. Everything is the same every time.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Apologies for forgetting the obvious overall Disney strategy of “make everything a stale copy of something else.”
Yeah, of course they have a say in what stuff gets made, but they’re not really dealing with the intricacies of how, at least not for the most part. They have nothing to do with the fact that Marvel’s movies are to an extent formulaic, for instance. I mean seriously, what’s the prerogative for that? There’s literally no reason why a studio would want everyone of their movies to have the same plot, despite what many people here have convinced themselves. If two Marvel films have similar plots it’s because of lazy writers (or ones with not enough time), it’s not because some devious studio exec walked into the writer’s room and said hey make sure to copy the plot note for note or whatever.
All the studios have the same shit. Look at Fox’s recent and upcoming slate and you’ll find all the same stuff - sequels, reboots, adaptations, etc. You can cherry pick two recent “different” films to show their range, but you could just as easily point out X-Men: Apocalypse, one of the laziest superhero films I’ve seen recently that probably deserves the critique of “same old shit” more than any recent Marvel film; and then of course there’s Fant4stic which speaks for itself.
Disney’s obviously on a recent kick of remaking their animated classics because surprise! they make a lot of money. But they’re not all mindless fan service. Pete’s Dragon is very different from the original and also happened to be one of the best films last year.
As for the stupid South Park member berry bullshit, I don’t know what to say but that yeah people like seeing things they like? There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia if done properly. Obviously sometimes it works better than others but the idea that ~nostalgia~ is this brain numbing intoxicant that studio execs mix up and spit out to the mindless masses is just tiresome.
Basically, too long didn’t read version: ALL studios like using existing properties because they know people like them and will give moneys. The quality of the end product, however, is ultimately up to the filmmakers. If they can’t find a way to work with the nostalgia in a way that satisfies you, blame them.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
to talk over or discuss again
to present or use again in another form without substantial change or improvement
You’re just describing Alderaan and impscum’s arguments.
We are all repeating the same things when it comes to TFA. In fact, I usually just reply to you when you repeating the same thing. The difference is that I repeat the truth.
真実
- Time
- Post link
And Imp’scum continues to furiously do his taxes to his own reflection.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
They have nothing to do with the fact that Marvel’s movies are to an extent formulaic, for instance. I mean seriously, what’s the prerogative for that?
Exactly the same as the reason McDonald’s food is the same everywhere: People like consuming the same shit over and over again. When you go into a Marvel movie, you know exactly what to expect. A lot of people like this. As for the business end, they found a formula that works so they’re going to keep using it until it stops working rather than deviate from it and potentially risk a bomb. It’s just basic business.
There’s literally no reason why a studio would want everyone of their movies to have the same plot, despite what many people here have convinced themselves.
You think only people here think this? That’s not the case, at all, but whatever. It’s just basic logic and business like I explained above.
If two Marvel films have similar plots it’s because of lazy writers (or ones with not enough time), it’s not because some devious studio exec walked into the writer’s room and said hey make sure to copy the plot note for note or whatever.
You’re trying to make it sound like some kind of conspiracy theory but it’s not. It’s just business strategy. It’s not some kind of secret or anything. They don’t literally stand over the shoulders of the writers, but in a number of ways they do ensure that the films do not stray too far from the formula. Big blockbusters cost shit loads of money, and the people investing that money want to make sure it will return a profit. So they go with the tried and true, in terms of the tone they set, who they hire to direct and write the script, post-production decisions, etc. These are assembly line films, essentially. It’s business more than it is art. Nothing inherently wrong with that, it’s just how it is.
All the studios have the same shit. Look at Fox’s recent and upcoming slate and you’ll find all the same stuff - sequels, reboots, adaptations, etc. You can cherry pick two recent “different” films to show their range, but you could just as easily point out X-Men: Apocalypse, one of the laziest superhero films I’ve seen recently that probably deserves the critique of “same old shit” more than any recent Marvel film; and then of course there’s Fant4stic which speaks for itself.
I didn’t say Disney was alone in this. They certainly aren’t. The DC shit for example is the same except it’s a ripoff of inferior quality, making it much worse. And yeah, Apocalypse sucks and I didn’t even see F4ntastic, but even going back as far as, say, X-Men First Class, I think they’ve on the whole done more different and interesting things with their blockbuster properties than Disney has with Marvel despite being hit-or-miss. I’ll take hit-or-miss with the hits being real gems over a higher batting average but everything is just OK and samey.
Disney’s obviously on a recent kick of remaking their animated classics because surprise! they make a lot of money. But they’re not all mindless fan service. Pete’s Dragon is very different from the original and also happened to be one of the best films last year.
Did I say I blamed them for doing this to make money? No, in fact I said the exact opposite. You’re arguing just to argue here. I also didn’t say it’s all mindless fan service. I said some of it can be fun, just tiresome after a while and not particularly original. Being original or not is not inherently good or bad. It just is. Something unique can suck, something derivative can be great. But if you do nothing but derivative stuff, even if it’s all pretty good, it melts together.
As for the stupid South Park member berry bullshit, I don’t know what to say but that yeah people like seeing things they like? There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia if done properly. Obviously sometimes it works better than others but the idea that ~nostalgia~ is this brain numbing intoxicant that studio execs mix up and spit out to the mindless masses is just tiresome.
I thought it was a pretty unique idea actually, not tiresome at all. Now the movies themselves, they’re tiresome.
Are you really not sick of remake after reboot after soft reboot after sequel after prequel and on and on it goes? You know they’re making a fucking Baywatch movie right? Baywatch. That’s a thing that will exist. They’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. No that’s not Disney; like I said they’re not the only offenders but they’re some of the worst. The occasional nostalgia flick is fine, but Hollywood’s fixation in recent years on practically nothing but either a member berry movie or a sequel to an ongoing franchise has grown beyond tiresome. Even if one of these movies is great and not just pointless and stupid like the majority of them are, it’s still just appealing to the lowest common denominator. It’s still potentially keeping an original film from being made in its place. It’s possible Star Wars would never have existed if in 1977 the studios followed the same play it safe mentality they do today, so Fox wouldn’t have taken a chance on George.
Basically, too long didn’t read version: ALL studios like using existing properties because they know people like them and will give moneys. The quality of the end product, however, is ultimately up to the filmmakers. If they can’t find a way to work with the nostalgia in a way that satisfies you, blame them.
Did I not say pretty much the exact same thing? Pretty sure I did. Though you are wrong as to how much control the filmmakers have. The production companies trust some with much more than others, and many are just yes men who see themselves as employees doing a job rather than auteurs making art. Others have gotten upset when the studio changes their vision. Don’t kid yourself into thinking it’s all on the filmmakers. The formula is specifically designed so that their films are indistinguishable from one another. Quick, without cheating, who directed Captain America: Civil War? You don’t know and you don’t care because it doesn’t matter. It’s a product first and a film second.
- Time
- Post link
Do you think people who like TFA and R1 think these movies are high art and in no way products? Of course they are products but that doesn’t mean they are bad products.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
- Time
- Post link
Do you think people who like TFA and R1 think these movies are high art and in no way products? Of course they are products but that doesn’t mean they are bad products.
TFA definitely is a bad product.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Do you think people who like TFA and R1 think these movies are high art and in no way products? Of course they are products but that doesn’t mean they are bad products.
They’re movies. That’s all I see them as.
- Time
- Post link
Don’t kid yourself into thinking it’s all on the filmmakers. The formula is specifically designed so that their films are indistinguishable from one another. Quick, without cheating, who directed Captain America: Civil War? You don’t know and you don’t care because it doesn’t matter. It’s a product first and a film second.
Not that you were asking me but the Russo Brothers. I know that because I do care and so do they. They’re doing far greater things with Marvel than Joss Whedon did with the characters.
Marvel puts a lot of faith in their filmmakers. They’ve had hiccups in the past (Edgar Wright) but on the whole they rely a lot on the directors they hire to set the tone and direction of their individual films.
Guardians of the Galaxy is without a doubt, a James Gunn film. Thor: Ragnarok is shaping up to be a thoroughly Taika Waititi film with all the funny quirks that entails.
Likewise, the Russos are proving to be very capable at creating Action Thrillers.
There are the occasional paint by the numbers productions that pop up but to say that all of the MCU is the same is patently false.
- Time
- Post link
Did I say I blamed them for doing this to make money? No, in fact I said the exact opposite. You’re arguing just to argue here. I also didn’t say it’s all mindless fan service. I said some of it can be fun, just tiresome after a while and not particularly original. Being original or not is not inherently good or bad. It just is. Something unique can suck, something derivative can be great. But if you do nothing but derivative stuff, even if it’s all pretty good, it melts together.
Did you see Moana? Zootopia? Finding Dory?
- Time
- Post link
Did I say I blamed them for doing this to make money? No, in fact I said the exact opposite. You’re arguing just to argue here. I also didn’t say it’s all mindless fan service. I said some of it can be fun, just tiresome after a while and not particularly original. Being original or not is not inherently good or bad. It just is. Something unique can suck, something derivative can be great. But if you do nothing but derivative stuff, even if it’s all pretty good, it melts together.
Did you see Zootopia?
To be fair, Zootopia might be a bit derivative…
.
- Time
- Post link
I don’t know what this says about me, but I feel like TFA - while a little too fast-paced - consistently entertained me throughout its running time whereas Rogue One didn’t pick up for me at all until they reached Eadu. Like I said back in December the projection truly sucked at the theater I saw it at (first and last time I’ll ever go there) so maybe that had something to do with it. I’ll definitely rewatch it eventually, but not any time soon.
As for the corporation vs auteur debate, Rogue One is pretty much the definition of “art by committee” whereas TFA is a J.J. Abrams film through and through. It probably sounds naive of me to say that, especially when we know there was a tug of war between Abrams and Kennedy over the script and the trajectory of the franchise, but it certainly seems like the director’s vision (such as it is) won out on TFA while Rogue One ended up co-directed by Tony Gilroy.
- Time
- Post link
What are the specific points of contention that JJ and Kathleen had?
- Time
- Post link
@Density first of all yes I could tell you who directed every Marvel film off the top of my head because I’m dumb like that.
Second of all, I wrote that late at night so maybe my points weren’t entirely clear. The main thing is, there’s a big difference between a studio executive and a producer, the latter of which I consider filmmakers. Marvel movies are formulaic because of Kevin Feige and Marvel studios, not Disney. Again, it’s the delineation between studio and production company that goes back to my initial post. Marvel studios, the production company might have a prerogative to make everything follows a similar structure or style, but Disney studios doesn’t. What’s in their strategy is more “this Marvel movie on this date, and that one on this date.”
What I think is silly is the idea that Disney told LFL they needed another Death Star in TFA and such. I mean do we think Bob Iger or Alan Horn have any idea what a Ponda Baba is? Blame LFL, not Disney.
We both agree that there’s probably too much existing properties getting made. However, I tend to be of the mindset that if they’re bad, oh well I won’t watch, and, if they’re good, that’s awesome! There’s nothing inherently wrong with nostalgia or fan service, despite what many here seem to think (and no I’m NOT saying only people here).
- Time
- Post link
What are the specific points of contention that JJ and Kathleen had?
Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can speak to it, but there were rumors swirling during pre-production that JJ was going to leave the project because he and LFL weren’t seeing eye to eye.
- Time
- Post link
What are the specific points of contention that JJ and Kathleen had?
Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can speak to it, but there were rumors swirling during pre-production that JJ was going to leave the project because he and LFL weren’t seeing eye to eye.
As far as I know this had to do with the release date.
I’d be very interested to read a history of the production of Rogue One whenever LFL is willing to release that info. I’m not sure I completely buy the general idea of what caused the reshoots - LFL/Disney didn’t like that the movie was too weird or too un-Star Warsy or whatever so they hired Gilroy to replace Edwards. I think, more likely than not, the film simply wasn’t good, and Edwards knew it as much as Kennedy or anyone else. A lot of the changes were deep seeded character and plot things, so it’s probable that the main issue pre-reshoots was that the story wasn’t tracking. Edwards has worked with Gilroy on reshoots before so I think that was very much a collaborative process, and I’m pretty sure the only reason Gilroy directed anything at all was because Edwards simply didn’t have the time to direct all the reshoot material by himself. Now, is it possible that there was an attempt to make things “more Star Warsy”? Sure and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why Desplat left, for instance. But I don’t think that was the primary goal and I don’t think it was really “made by a committee” other than the fact that a bunch of people sat down in a room and thought “how can we fix this story?”
- Time
- Post link
Did I say I blamed them for doing this to make money? No, in fact I said the exact opposite. You’re arguing just to argue here. I also didn’t say it’s all mindless fan service. I said some of it can be fun, just tiresome after a while and not particularly original. Being original or not is not inherently good or bad. It just is. Something unique can suck, something derivative can be great. But if you do nothing but derivative stuff, even if it’s all pretty good, it melts together.
Did you see Moana? Zootopia? Finding Dory?
I loved Moana and Finding Dory but surprisingly found myself really disappointing with Zootopia. The sloth scene was the only memorable scene for me.
- Time
- Post link
Did I say I blamed them for doing this to make money? No, in fact I said the exact opposite. You’re arguing just to argue here. I also didn’t say it’s all mindless fan service. I said some of it can be fun, just tiresome after a while and not particularly original. Being original or not is not inherently good or bad. It just is. Something unique can suck, something derivative can be great. But if you do nothing but derivative stuff, even if it’s all pretty good, it melts together.
Did you see Moana? Zootopia? Finding Dory?
I loved Moana and Finding Dory but surprisingly found myself really disappointing with Zootopia. The sloth scene was the only memorable scene for me.
I’ve never actually seen Zootopia, I just listed some highly-rated Disney films from 2016.
- Time
- Post link
Do you think people who like TFA and R1 think these movies are high art and in no way products? Of course they are products but that doesn’t mean they are bad products.
Star Wars films to me have always been B-Movie/Serials with high production values. The “high art” films for the most part bore me to death.
It seems like people are really embracing the new characters. In fact, the big question people ask me now about Star Wars is, “Are Finn and Poe gay lovers?” And really how the f*ck would I know? My second husband left me for a man, so my gaydar isn’t exactly what you’d call Death Star level quality. ----Carrie Fisher
- Time
- Post link
The only one that can really be considered high art is ESB and that’s not to say that SW and TFA aren’t great films but if we compare those films to some of the all time greats they won’t hold up nearly as well as ESB would. Then if we bring Rogue1 and ROTJ into the fold any kind of argument for why those are as great as ESB (or the other all time greats) would wither and die very swiftly.