logo Sign In

The Rise of Skywalker box office results: predictions and expectations — Page 7

Author
Time

Valheru_84 said:

I think you just nailed it perfectly Dre with “cinematic inbreeding” being the most efficiently accurate way of explaining the ST’s constant borrowing and repurposing of the OT along with a near constant appeal to nostalgia in so much that the latest trailer uses pretty much half of its runtime for actual OT and PT footage with the OT footage itself making up around a third of the total runtime.

Disney are pushing a very mixed message in obviously wanting to sell their new, young cast of characters (often at the expense of the old beloved OT characters), even pushing a literal 4th wall message in TLJ with “let the past die…” but are so afraid of not getting enough bums on cinema seats that they’ll use the OT at every chance they get, knowing it is what everyone already loves and gets people’s attention. So you get this weird circular behaviour of “forget about your old, tired and failed heroes and look at our new awesome young and diverse heroes out to actually save the day” all the while playing out the same plot points of the OT with a few jumbled up for good measure and shoving all this imagery and references of the OT in your face while someone like Rian claims to be breaking new artistic ground because he shoehorned some manufactured bait and switches into Star Wars.

Because the ST is so referential of the OT, in many ways it is literally a pale shadow of the originals that has been lazily twisted and skewed to try and make it look different.

Let the past die is not the message of any of this. That came from the Jaded Luke and Kylo Ren, neither of them expressing the main focus of the films at the time they said it.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.

If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.

Well, if you want to bring music into this for comparison, there are only so many variations to music. There are limited patterns, limited chords, etc. So a modern artist taking an actual recording from another is neither new or unusual. And while the song you bring up is not one I really care for, it was a #1 hit. Queen’s original is a very cool song, but didn’t hit #1 in all the same places. Madonna did it more recently with Hung Up (with a sample from Abba’s 1979 hit Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)) that was a much bigger hit. And the examples throughout the music world of one song building on another are everywhere. The original Star Trek them starts with a section that Brahams has used from something even older.

Well, I think you’re being way too kind to TFA in this sense. The important question is, whether the many elements that TFA reuses in the long run are to its benefit, or to its detriment. While I would say some of the reused elements work, however, many such as another desert planet, the Starkiller base, another trench run only reinforce the derivative nature of the story without really adding something of significance. They rekindle feelings of nostalgia in the moment, but in the long run lose their power. They are elements, that could have been removed, and replaced with an original setting, an original McGuffin, or weapon of sorts, an original resolution to a space battle, and the movie would be better for it.

And as a student of both history and literature I can tell you that this happens all the time. Historical events that mirror other and literature that borrows from older stories is common place. So much so that I don’t usually pay attention to that. I look for what they did that was different and fresh. I have two films that I consider what not to do - Pearl Harbor and Avatar. I felt those two films sucked because they didn’t just pull beats or sub plots from other films, but basically pulled their main character’s stories right out of other films. I felt I’d seen both those films before. TFA did not give me that feeling. It is not the same as ANH. It has some of the same beats but takes things in a different direction.

I think pointing to history is often a poor excuse. Fiction more often than not isn’t meant to mirror reality. There’s a reason many stories have a lasting and final resolution, or end with a happily ever after. It’s the same reason why one of these versions works better than the other:

The “live action” Lion King went for realism, and it’s a pale copy of the original in all except some technical aspects. In storytelling events, and characters are often exaggerated, simplified, or embellished by the author to highlight certain archetypes, and themes.

Now, many stories in film, and literature borrow from older stories. However, these stories often have a very different setting, visuals, tone, etc, etc. The idea of writing new Star Wars in my view, is to give us very different story, plot, and characters in a similar setting with similar visuals. The story may be adapted from another work of fiction, or use elements from them, but to continue to extensively borrow and repurpose elements from previous Star Wars stories in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.

Whether it works or not has a lot of personal opinion to it. I think it does. I think the only flaws in TFA lie in editing and continuity, not in echoes from the OT. And you may see it as cinematic inbreeding, but evidently Lucas saw it as poetry and has been on board with what they are doing in TROS. From the little I’ve been able to gather from what Lucas’s original ST ideas were, the story as it has unfolded is petty similar. Abrams may have leaned a little more to the familiar that Lucas would, but not too much. Remember, he is the one who decided that ANH cut off his original story so he gave us the rest in two parts and reused the Death Star and gave us more of his original Death Star/Endor battle. He’s the one who changed wookies to ewoks. So Star Wars is really based on repeating themes and events from the outset. I think that is one thing it has done well in all 8 films so far.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.

If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.

Well, if you want to bring music into this for comparison, there are only so many variations to music. There are limited patterns, limited chords, etc. So a modern artist taking an actual recording from another is neither new or unusual. And while the song you bring up is not one I really care for, it was a #1 hit. Queen’s original is a very cool song, but didn’t hit #1 in all the same places. Madonna did it more recently with Hung Up (with a sample from Abba’s 1979 hit Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)) that was a much bigger hit. And the examples throughout the music world of one song building on another are everywhere. The original Star Trek them starts with a section that Brahams has used from something even older.

Well, I think you’re being way too kind to TFA in this sense. The important question is, whether the many elements that TFA reuses in the long run are to its benefit, or to its detriment. While I would say some of the reused elements work, however, many such as another desert planet, the Starkiller base, another trench run only reinforce the derivative nature of the story without really adding something of significance. They rekindle feelings of nostalgia in the moment, but in the long run lose their power. They are elements, that could have been removed, and replaced with an original setting, an original McGuffin, or weapon of sorts, an original resolution to a space battle, and the movie would be better for it.

And as a student of both history and literature I can tell you that this happens all the time. Historical events that mirror other and literature that borrows from older stories is common place. So much so that I don’t usually pay attention to that. I look for what they did that was different and fresh. I have two films that I consider what not to do - Pearl Harbor and Avatar. I felt those two films sucked because they didn’t just pull beats or sub plots from other films, but basically pulled their main character’s stories right out of other films. I felt I’d seen both those films before. TFA did not give me that feeling. It is not the same as ANH. It has some of the same beats but takes things in a different direction.

I think pointing to history is often a poor excuse. Fiction more often than not isn’t meant to mirror reality. There’s a reason many stories have a lasting and final resolution, or end with a happily ever after. It’s the same reason why one of these versions works better than the other:

The “live action” Lion King went for realism, and it’s a pale copy of the original in all except some technical aspects. In storytelling events, and characters are often exaggerated, simplified, or embellished by the author to highlight certain archetypes, and themes.

Now, many stories in film, and literature borrow from older stories. However, these stories often have a very different setting, visuals, tone, etc, etc. The idea of writing new Star Wars in my view, is to give us very different story, plot, and characters in a similar setting with similar visuals. The story may be adapted from another work of fiction, or use elements from them, but to continue to extensively borrow and repurpose elements from previous Star Wars stories in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.

Whether it works or not has a lot of personal opinion to it. I think it does. I think the only flaws in TFA lie in editing and continuity, not in echoes from the OT. And you may see it as cinematic inbreeding, but evidently Lucas saw it as poetry and has been on board with what they are doing in TROS. From the little I’ve been able to gather from what Lucas’s original ST ideas were, the story as it has unfolded is petty similar. Abrams may have leaned a little more to the familiar that Lucas would, but not too much. Remember, he is the one who decided that ANH cut off his original story so he gave us the rest in two parts and reused the Death Star and gave us more of his original Death Star/Endor battle. He’s the one who changed wookies to ewoks. So Star Wars is really based on repeating themes and events from the outset. I think that is one thing it has done well in all 8 films so far.

Well, I continue to disagree with the notion, that Lucas’ “poetry” concept as he used it to highlight some of the story developments in the OT and PT are comparable to the ST. Lucas’ story didn’t centre on a seemingly instoppable military organisation fighting a band of rebels, nor did it predominantly feature a main antagonist, that had fallen to the dark side, and was instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. Additionally Lucas deliberately went for a different aesthetic, and showed us environments and worlds substantially different from the OT. The mirroring of the ST thusfar is on a wholly different scale from Lucas, recycling the aesthetic, basic story premise, plot, scenes, and locations from the OT. TROS looks more promising in this respect.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Let the past die is the flawed viewpoint, at least according to Yoda. He advises that failure is the greatest teacher. So you need the past and all those failures to pass on the lessons learned in life. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I don’t want to insult anyone personally, and I’m not talking about anyone specific, but some Star Wars fans, the most vocal ones it seems, are a lot like Goldilocks. This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. I’ve seen people complain the new movies are too similar to the OT and just feed off nostalgia, but then those same people complain that anything new isn’t real Star Wars. There’s this narrow thin line they expect the filmmakers to walk. This just shows how making a Star Wars movie in this climate is no sure thing, and any financial success is indeed earned.

I think they have done a great job. Are the movies perfect? Of course not. No movie ever has been in the history of movies. They’ve succeeded in introducing new exciting characters while bringing the original characters back in supporting roles the same way having Alec Guinness in a supporting role benefited the cast of the originals. I find the character arcs very compelling. There are entirely new ships along with advanced versions of previous ships. John Williams has made new music. Everything that makes a great Star Wars movie to me is there.

I have absolutely no idea what will happen in TRoS and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Combine all this with supporting stories from the animated series, novels, comics and live action series that are coming soon, and to me you have a great time to be a Star Wars fan!

Did I mention the theme parks? You’re telling me I can walk around a Star Wars village and drink blue milk, build a lightsaber, buy all sorts of unique Star Wars items, eat from a Star wars themed menu, take pics with a full size Millenium Falcon, fly said Falcon, and soon the main Rise of the Resistance ride will be in full gear? Nirvana I say!

It may not be a popular view, but I still believe social media, youtube, and websites just looking for clicks have found that negativity gets the most clicks, and there’s only so much negativity that can be put out there before it actually starts to affect people. I honestly believe we are in a hate-first nitpicky society as it pertains to entertainment. They go into movies on a seek-and-destroy mission to find everything that is wrong with something and join the online backlash. The truth is we are spoiled rotten with how good we have it right now. Movie theaters have better screens, sound, and seats than ever before. Home theater technology is simply amazing. There is so much content being created to suit every taste, but the mentality is to seek out what you don’t like and focus on that. What a waste. This all of course just leaves the door open for trolls, disguised as fans, who just like to incite arguments for fun.

I’m going to enjoy The Rise of Skywaker like there’s no tomorrow. I’m going out for Force Friday and putting on my finest Jedi robe and donning my best lightsaber for the premier. Is that silly? Yes, but in a world full of people killing each other, I think the world would be a better place if we were just silly for a few hours now and then.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.

If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.

Well, if you want to bring music into this for comparison, there are only so many variations to music. There are limited patterns, limited chords, etc. So a modern artist taking an actual recording from another is neither new or unusual. And while the song you bring up is not one I really care for, it was a #1 hit. Queen’s original is a very cool song, but didn’t hit #1 in all the same places. Madonna did it more recently with Hung Up (with a sample from Abba’s 1979 hit Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)) that was a much bigger hit. And the examples throughout the music world of one song building on another are everywhere. The original Star Trek them starts with a section that Brahams has used from something even older.

Well, I think you’re being way too kind to TFA in this sense. The important question is, whether the many elements that TFA reuses in the long run are to its benefit, or to its detriment. While I would say some of the reused elements work, however, many such as another desert planet, the Starkiller base, another trench run only reinforce the derivative nature of the story without really adding something of significance. They rekindle feelings of nostalgia in the moment, but in the long run lose their power. They are elements, that could have been removed, and replaced with an original setting, an original McGuffin, or weapon of sorts, an original resolution to a space battle, and the movie would be better for it.

And as a student of both history and literature I can tell you that this happens all the time. Historical events that mirror other and literature that borrows from older stories is common place. So much so that I don’t usually pay attention to that. I look for what they did that was different and fresh. I have two films that I consider what not to do - Pearl Harbor and Avatar. I felt those two films sucked because they didn’t just pull beats or sub plots from other films, but basically pulled their main character’s stories right out of other films. I felt I’d seen both those films before. TFA did not give me that feeling. It is not the same as ANH. It has some of the same beats but takes things in a different direction.

I think pointing to history is often a poor excuse. Fiction more often than not isn’t meant to mirror reality. There’s a reason many stories have a lasting and final resolution, or end with a happily ever after. It’s the same reason why one of these versions works better than the other:

The “live action” Lion King went for realism, and it’s a pale copy of the original in all except some technical aspects. In storytelling events, and characters are often exaggerated, simplified, or embellished by the author to highlight certain archetypes, and themes.

Now, many stories in film, and literature borrow from older stories. However, these stories often have a very different setting, visuals, tone, etc, etc. The idea of writing new Star Wars in my view, is to give us very different story, plot, and characters in a similar setting with similar visuals. The story may be adapted from another work of fiction, or use elements from them, but to continue to extensively borrow and repurpose elements from previous Star Wars stories in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.

Whether it works or not has a lot of personal opinion to it. I think it does. I think the only flaws in TFA lie in editing and continuity, not in echoes from the OT. And you may see it as cinematic inbreeding, but evidently Lucas saw it as poetry and has been on board with what they are doing in TROS. From the little I’ve been able to gather from what Lucas’s original ST ideas were, the story as it has unfolded is petty similar. Abrams may have leaned a little more to the familiar that Lucas would, but not too much. Remember, he is the one who decided that ANH cut off his original story so he gave us the rest in two parts and reused the Death Star and gave us more of his original Death Star/Endor battle. He’s the one who changed wookies to ewoks. So Star Wars is really based on repeating themes and events from the outset. I think that is one thing it has done well in all 8 films so far.

Well, I continue to disagree with the notion, that Lucas’ “poetry” concept as he used it to highlight some of the story developments in the OT and PT are comparable to the ST. Lucas’ story didn’t centre on a seemingly instoppable military organisation fighting a band of rebels, nor did it predominantly feature a main antagonist, that had fallen to the dark side, and was instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. Additionally Lucas deliberately went for a different aesthetic, and showed us environments and worlds substantially different from the OT. The mirroring of the ST thusfar is on a wholly different scale from Lucas, recycling the aesthetic, basic story premise, plot, scenes, and locations from the OT. TROS looks more promising in this respect.

See, I feel the PT story has more in common with the OT story than either one does to the ST story. The ST has borrowed more from the settings of the OT than it has from the story. You have to remember, even though Han died in TFA, he is not the mentor figure. He is a guide to find the mentor (who is Luke). And what little story the ST has in common with the OT, it reverses. Much the way the entire PT centered on Anakin who then falls and the OT on Luke who is able to resist. But when you think about the settings, the ST makes them similar, not identical. We didn’t go back to Tatooine (like the PT did). We have fewer repeating characters and more new characters. We have more mysteries woven in that may or may not be answered. But if you want to sit there and focus and the few things that are the same because you feel there are big enough then by all means. But I prefer to focus on the characters and how their journey’s are unique and how this is going to lead to the finale.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.

If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.

Well, if you want to bring music into this for comparison, there are only so many variations to music. There are limited patterns, limited chords, etc. So a modern artist taking an actual recording from another is neither new or unusual. And while the song you bring up is not one I really care for, it was a #1 hit. Queen’s original is a very cool song, but didn’t hit #1 in all the same places. Madonna did it more recently with Hung Up (with a sample from Abba’s 1979 hit Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)) that was a much bigger hit. And the examples throughout the music world of one song building on another are everywhere. The original Star Trek them starts with a section that Brahams has used from something even older.

Well, I think you’re being way too kind to TFA in this sense. The important question is, whether the many elements that TFA reuses in the long run are to its benefit, or to its detriment. While I would say some of the reused elements work, however, many such as another desert planet, the Starkiller base, another trench run only reinforce the derivative nature of the story without really adding something of significance. They rekindle feelings of nostalgia in the moment, but in the long run lose their power. They are elements, that could have been removed, and replaced with an original setting, an original McGuffin, or weapon of sorts, an original resolution to a space battle, and the movie would be better for it.

And as a student of both history and literature I can tell you that this happens all the time. Historical events that mirror other and literature that borrows from older stories is common place. So much so that I don’t usually pay attention to that. I look for what they did that was different and fresh. I have two films that I consider what not to do - Pearl Harbor and Avatar. I felt those two films sucked because they didn’t just pull beats or sub plots from other films, but basically pulled their main character’s stories right out of other films. I felt I’d seen both those films before. TFA did not give me that feeling. It is not the same as ANH. It has some of the same beats but takes things in a different direction.

I think pointing to history is often a poor excuse. Fiction more often than not isn’t meant to mirror reality. There’s a reason many stories have a lasting and final resolution, or end with a happily ever after. It’s the same reason why one of these versions works better than the other:

The “live action” Lion King went for realism, and it’s a pale copy of the original in all except some technical aspects. In storytelling events, and characters are often exaggerated, simplified, or embellished by the author to highlight certain archetypes, and themes.

Now, many stories in film, and literature borrow from older stories. However, these stories often have a very different setting, visuals, tone, etc, etc. The idea of writing new Star Wars in my view, is to give us very different story, plot, and characters in a similar setting with similar visuals. The story may be adapted from another work of fiction, or use elements from them, but to continue to extensively borrow and repurpose elements from previous Star Wars stories in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.

Whether it works or not has a lot of personal opinion to it. I think it does. I think the only flaws in TFA lie in editing and continuity, not in echoes from the OT. And you may see it as cinematic inbreeding, but evidently Lucas saw it as poetry and has been on board with what they are doing in TROS. From the little I’ve been able to gather from what Lucas’s original ST ideas were, the story as it has unfolded is petty similar. Abrams may have leaned a little more to the familiar that Lucas would, but not too much. Remember, he is the one who decided that ANH cut off his original story so he gave us the rest in two parts and reused the Death Star and gave us more of his original Death Star/Endor battle. He’s the one who changed wookies to ewoks. So Star Wars is really based on repeating themes and events from the outset. I think that is one thing it has done well in all 8 films so far.

Well, I continue to disagree with the notion, that Lucas’ “poetry” concept as he used it to highlight some of the story developments in the OT and PT are comparable to the ST. Lucas’ story didn’t centre on a seemingly instoppable military organisation fighting a band of rebels, nor did it predominantly feature a main antagonist, that had fallen to the dark side, and was instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. Additionally Lucas deliberately went for a different aesthetic, and showed us environments and worlds substantially different from the OT. The mirroring of the ST thusfar is on a wholly different scale from Lucas, recycling the aesthetic, basic story premise, plot, scenes, and locations from the OT. TROS looks more promising in this respect.

See, I feel the PT story has more in common with the OT story than either one does to the ST story. The ST has borrowed more from the settings of the OT than it has from the story. You have to remember, even though Han died in TFA, he is not the mentor figure. He is a guide to find the mentor (who is Luke). And what little story the ST has in common with the OT, it reverses. Much the way the entire PT centered on Anakin who then falls and the OT on Luke who is able to resist. But when you think about the settings, the ST makes them similar, not identical. We didn’t go back to Tatooine (like the PT did). We have fewer repeating characters and more new characters. We have more mysteries woven in that may or may not be answered. But if you want to sit there and focus and the few things that are the same because you feel there are big enough then by all means. But I prefer to focus on the characters and how their journey’s are unique and how this is going to lead to the finale.

Mmm, let’s see the PT brought us back to Tatooine, but it also gave us Naboo, the Gungan city, Coruscant, Kamino, Geonosis, Utapau, Kashyyyk, Mustafar, and a few others. So, at least 8 wholly new and original environments, and one recycled one. Meanwhile most environments in the ST thusfar have evoked the OT, by either being a direct clone, like Jakku (Tatooine), and Hosnian Prime (Coruscant), a mix like Starkiller Base (Hoth/Death Star), or an OT location with a twist like Crait (Hoth with salt for snow), and some admittedly cool red crystals. The most original locations seen in the ST thusfar have been Canto-Bight, which still has some PT vibes, Ahch-To, and Crait, which as stated still bairs similarities to Hoth, especially given that it’s also used for another walker assault.

I also don’t see how a story, that is about a politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation is more similar to the OT, than the story of a group of rebels fighting an Empire, led by a former Jedi student, who betrayed his master, and destroyed the Jedi order. I think you are being very selective in what you focus on in the PT, namely a few delibirate similarities between Luke and Anakin (although I don’t remember Luke slaughtering an entire village), whilst ignoring the ton of similarities that exist between the story, plot, and the settings of the OT, and PT.

I think we should start a separate thread to discuss the similarities, and differences between the various trilogies. Let’s get back on the topic of box office predictions for TROS.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

I also don’t see how a story, that is about a politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation is more similar to the OT, than the story of a group of rebels fighting an Empire, led by a former Jedi student, who betrayed his master, and destroyed the Jedi order. I think you are being very selective in what you focus on in the PT, namely a few delibirate similarities between Luke and Anakin (although I don’t remember Luke slaughtering an entire village), whilst ignoring the ton of similarities that exist between the story, plot, and the settings of the OT, and PT.

I mean you can be selective anyway you want. Both the OT and the PT are stories about young men from desert worlds coming of age, becoming Jedi, and choosing either light or dark with the balance of the galaxy at stake (with the outcomes being opposite, and the factions inverted). The story being about a “politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation” is a fair bit inaccurate, considering it’s subtext at best in the first two thirds of the trilogy. Hmm, interesting, maybe we shouldn’t be claiming what an entire trilogy is about when we’ve only seen two thirds of it?

Regardless, I’m not sure what this has to do with the supposed topic at hand.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

I also don’t see how a story, that is about a politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation is more similar to the OT, than the story of a group of rebels fighting an Empire, led by a former Jedi student, who betrayed his master, and destroyed the Jedi order. I think you are being very selective in what you focus on in the PT, namely a few delibirate similarities between Luke and Anakin (although I don’t remember Luke slaughtering an entire village), whilst ignoring the ton of similarities that exist between the story, plot, and the settings of the OT, and PT.

I mean you can be selective anyway you want. Both the OT and the PT are stories about young men from desert worlds coming of age, becoming Jedi, and choosing either light or dark with the balance of the galaxy at stake (with the outcomes being opposite, and the factions inverted). The story being about a “politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation” is a fair bit inaccurate, considering it’s subtext at best in the first two thirds of the trilogy. Hmm, interesting, maybe we shouldn’t be claiming what an entire trilogy is about when we’ve only seen two thirds of it?

Regardless, I’m not sure what this has to do with the supposed topic at hand.

Well, I wouldn’t consider it subtext, given that Palpatine, and Sidious are obviously the same person, and Palpatine uses the first crisis to have himself elected Chancellor, and uses the second crisis to give himself emergency powers to create an army, that he will use in a conflict, that we learn by the end of AOTC, he himself has started, whilst controlling both sides. Darth Sidious is obviously set up as the main villain from the start, and so his machinations are integral to the plot, and thus hardly subtext. The factions also aren’t inverted, as there are still only two Sith in the OT, whilst the Jedi have mostly been taken out of the equation, such that the Jedi vs Sith conflict of the PT, has been largely replaced by Empire vs rebels with the Jedi vs Sith conflict reduced to a personal conflict between a father and a son. Anyway, as I said, this is probably a debate for a different thread.

Author
Time

adywan said:

Valheru_84 said:

I think you just nailed it perfectly Dre with “cinematic inbreeding” being the most efficiently accurate way of explaining the ST’s constant borrowing and repurposing of the OT along with a near constant appeal to nostalgia in so much that the latest trailer uses pretty much half of its runtime for actual OT and PT footage with the OT footage itself making up around a third of the total runtime.

So a 9 film saga trailer (even though its more of a sizzle reel exclusively for D23), that shows clips from the films in release order (ending with new clips from Ep9) , uses a third of its runtime to show the OT (3 films out of 9 turns out to be a third 😉 ) and this is supposed to show how Disney is constantly trying to appeal to nostalgia?

Yes as generally trailers for movies mostly show footage for the actual movie it’s for. It’s been obvious from the start that Disney are leaning extremely heavily on OT nostalgia and this is just the super obvious cherry on top.

Regarding the 1/3 argument (3 out of 9 movies), the PT would also need to take 1/3 of the runtime if that were the case instead of just 1/10. The actual footage lengths are around:

OT - ~43sec (including the opening OT music)
PT - 12sec
ST - 1min ~5sec (excluding “DECEMBER”)

If this was a “saga trailer” as you term it and not a massive appeal to nostalgia then it would indeed make sense to split the footage somewhat equally but such is not the case with the feature film taking the largest piece with the OT not far behind and the PT getting a cursory glimpse.

I understand Dre wants to get this thread back on topic so Ill keep replying in another thread if one is started.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Here’s your problem buddy, it’s not a “trailer” at all. Just a convention sneak peek. Love that we’re timing videos now to figure out how much “nostalgia” is included.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Here’s your problem buddy, it’s not a “trailer” at all. Just a convention sneak peek. Love that we’re timing videos now to figure out how much “nostalgia” is included.

I clearly have not ever been your “buddy” since we crossed paths long ago so maybe drop the condescending pretense and just keep replies neutrally on point so as not to make the discussion personal?

The video contains new footage of the unreleased movie and ends with the title and a release month. Id term that a trailer like many others reposting it on Youtube and referencing it are. You could say it’s a sizzle real combined with a new teaser trailer if you wanted but my points about appealing to nostalgia to try and build interest for the final installment still stands.

And yes, I need to provide timings if I want to refute someone’s assertion that my initial general comments on the runtime proportions are just down to the saga trilogy proportions which the timings clearly show a major discrepancy in this logic. I didn’t initially sit there and count it out but watching a new 2min video about TROS where nearly the first minute is just all OT and a bit of PT footage just screams of having no faith in the new trilogy being able to stand on it’s own to generate a safe level of interest to make the kind of profit they’re after.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

FYI, last time this saga had a “final installment,” this is what the first actual teaser trailer looked like:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=opfJIo__ANQ

(time it out if you want, you’ll just be missing the point in a rush to prove your deluded nonsense)

Author
Time

THAT trailer definitely brings back some memories! I remember thinking, “Chewbacca is there when Anakin becomes Darth Vader?!?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

You’re the one continuing to debate attack the person instead of arguing the point.

If anyone else wants to continue down the line of “it’s not a trailer”, you’re pretty much arguing semantics at this point as with new footage ending with the title and release month it services exactly as a teaser trailer either way even if not officially released as one.

Edit: To update my post after you updated yours.

DominicCobb said:
(time it out if you want, you’ll just be missing the point in a rush to prove your deluded nonsense)

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

THAT trailer definitely brings back some memories! I remember thinking, “Chewbacca is there when Anakin becomes Darth Vader?!?”

All time favorite of mine. Watched it approximately a million times.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

You’re the one continuing to debate the person instead of the point.

Don’t mind me.

If anyone else wants to continue down the line of “it’s not a trailer”, you’re pretty much arguing semantics at this point as with new footage ending with the title and release month it services exactly as a teaser trailer either way even if not officially released as one.

Yeah, that’s not the point. It’s a marketing reel. Who gives a shit. The forensic analysis is asinine.

Author
Time

A friendly reminder to play nice, kids.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

You’re the one continuing to debate the person instead of the point.

Don’t mind me.

If anyone else wants to continue down the line of “it’s not a trailer”, you’re pretty much arguing semantics at this point as with new footage ending with the title and release month it services exactly as a teaser trailer either way even if not officially released as one.

Yeah, that’s not the point. It’s a marketing reel. Who gives a shit. The forensic analysis is asinine.

Before I attempt to stave off filling this thread with any more completely off topic replies, I will simply point out that it was yourself who came out of the woodwork just to specifically have a go at me.

So are you saying Disney would not use OT nostalgia AT ALL to try and bolster interest in the franchise they now own? That would be extremely naive and points more to you just needing to be opposed to anything I say despite what is an obvious given in terms of prudent business practice.

My point is that the level of nostalgia is far beyond what is logically and obviously expected, such that it points to other reasons to bait people’s interest in these movies through heavy use of nostalgia and the cinematic inbreeding Dre so concisely articulated has and continues to happen.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

A friendly reminder to play nice, kids.

Noted and Ill refrain from replying to him anymore as it’s obvious again he can’t help himself due to prior “entanglements”.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

What’s wrong with nostalgia?

Absolutely nothing mate.
 

For some it is “cinematic inbreeding” apparently - Disney are doing it wrong again. Using too much OT or something in their sizzle reels.

For others it was fine, okay, great, superb, piqued their interest, got them talking about the film - or maybe even looking forward to seeing it.

Or sizzle reel? Sizzle reel? Release the official damn trailer!!! It’s less than four months to go before the release and they’re still giving us sizzle reels!!! 😉 😃

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Valheru_84 said:

SilverWook said:

A friendly reminder to play nice, kids.

Noted and Ill refrain from replying to him anymore as it’s obvious again he can’t help himself due to prior “entanglements”.

No, it wasn’t obvious at all.

You brought up your past with the poster into the conversation and took issue with him calling you ‘buddy’ as ‘condescending pretense’ - instead of simply discussing/debating the points made - as well as the dig above.

Knock it off. Thank you.
 

DominicCobb said:

(time it out if you want, you’ll just be missing the point in a rush to prove your deluded nonsense)

‘deluded nonsense’?

Knock it off. Thank you.
 

If either of you have an issue or any questions with this, or would like to discuss it further, feel free to PM me - as to not further derail the thread.
 

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

You’re the one continuing to debate the person instead of the point.

Don’t mind me.

If anyone else wants to continue down the line of “it’s not a trailer”, you’re pretty much arguing semantics at this point as with new footage ending with the title and release month it services exactly as a teaser trailer either way even if not officially released as one.

Yeah, that’s not the point. It’s a marketing reel. Who gives a shit. The forensic analysis is asinine.

Before I attempt to stave off filling this thread with any more completely off topic replies, I will simply point out that it was yourself who came out of the woodwork just to specifically have a go at me.

oojason has already touched on this so I won’t.

So are you saying Disney would not use OT nostalgia AT ALL to try and bolster interest in the franchise they now own? That would be extremely naive and points more to you just needing to be opposed to anything I say despite what is an obvious given in terms of prudent business practice.

That’s not what I said at all.

My point is that the level of nostalgia is far beyond what is logically and obviously expected, such that it points to other reasons to bait people’s interest in these movies through heavy use of nostalgia and the cinematic inbreeding Dre so concisely articulated has and continues to happen.

If that’s what you want to believe, I don’t think I can convince you otherwise.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Valheru_84 said:

I think you just nailed it perfectly Dre with “cinematic inbreeding” being the most efficiently accurate way of explaining the ST’s constant borrowing and repurposing of the OT along with a near constant appeal to nostalgia in so much that the latest trailer uses pretty much half of its runtime for actual OT and PT footage with the OT footage itself making up around a third of the total runtime.

Disney are pushing a very mixed message in obviously wanting to sell their new, young cast of characters (often at the expense of the old beloved OT characters), even pushing a literal 4th wall message in TLJ with “let the past die…” but are so afraid of not getting enough bums on cinema seats that they’ll use the OT at every chance they get, knowing it is what everyone already loves and gets people’s attention. So you get this weird circular behaviour of “forget about your old, tired and failed heroes and look at our new awesome young and diverse heroes out to actually save the day” all the while playing out the same plot points of the OT with a few jumbled up for good measure and shoving all this imagery and references of the OT in your face while someone like Rian claims to be breaking new artistic ground because he shoehorned some manufactured bait and switches into Star Wars.

Because the ST is so referential of the OT, in many ways it is literally a pale shadow of the originals that has been lazily twisted and skewed to try and make it look different.

Let the past die is not the message of any of this. That came from the Jaded Luke and Kylo Ren, neither of them expressing the main focus of the films at the time they said it.

I think the problem is that even when the messages are spelled out (i.e. Kylo is the bad guy his view is wrong) people want to take the wrong idea away. A lot of this thread is just conjecture and ideas about why it’s going to fail just because people think it should, rather than because it realistically could.

Author
Time

Sides being judged by their strawmen has to stop, for the most part everyone has been pretty even keel sharing their perspectives, I think the state of heated conjecture comes from a real place and I wouldn’t dismiss it by pointing to the most extreme ends that neither even believe in (IX will flop/ST hasn’t polarized some fans).

This stuff is like predicting the weather, we’re all pouring over our information, we’ll all have a slightly different idea of what it means for the future, none of us will know (always in motion is the future) what the true results will be until we see it. I’d add if this were a board room meeting of executives and market research consultants nobody would be calling heresy when a member raised concerns.

Anyway back to the numbers, I want numbers! I haven’t seen them since page 3. Going for opening weekend here,
based on TFA ($247mil) and TLJ’s ($220) openings I want to say TRoS will find itself right between them at around $235 million.

“The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.” - DV