Undermining fan theories isn’t the same thing as undermining the preceding film.
For that to be true, TLJ would’ve had to “undermine” TFA, which is not even remotely the case.
One could (many have) easily make the argument that TLJ undermined or at the very least disregarded a lot of what was set up in TFA. So what you say is not even remotely “not even remotely the case.”
I can’t think of a single example.
It’s plan is to make good movies. It’s worked so far.
That’s a completely subjective statement. I think their output has been a very mixed bag. Also “make good movies” isn’t a very good plan when you’re making three films that should be supporting each other as a cohesive trilogy.
I don’t see how they aren’t.
‘Star Wars: Episode IX’ Casts Matt Smith in Key Role
From the Whoniverse, to Buckingham Palace, to a galaxy far, far away.
Sources tell Variety that “The Crown” star Matt Smith is joining “Star Wars: Episode IX,” which is currently in production in the U.K. It’s unknown at this time whether the “Doctor Who” alum will be on the side of the rebels or the evil empire.
Cue more “Rey’s Mom” speculation.
‘Star Wars: The Last Plinkett Review’ - Mr. Plinkett examines Star Wars Episode 8 The Last Jedi.
We can only hope they remain true to the title of the video.
Surely not, as that would be comically “take turns telling a story.”
That would be comical. With each film undermining the one that came before it.
For that to be true, TLJ would’ve had to “undermine” TFA, which is not even remotely the case.
Though it wouldn’t surprise me. Lucasfilm has proved it has no plan for Star Wars.
It’s plan is to make good movies. It’s worked so far.
Every time someone is cast in a new Star Wars, everyone assumes that they are playing either an existing canon character or a character related to another character. Of all of these additions, it’s only ever been true once each (Saw and Kylo, respectively). People need to give it up.
Looks great.
Disney is probably going to focus on Episode IX for now. Once Galaxy’s Edge opens in the theme parks they have the perfect opportunity to cross promote or announce new movies.
Funny how Solo has made more money than Ant-man & The Wasp and nobody is calling that a bomb. 😉
Solo didn’t make more money than the new Ant-man and it was 100 million-ish dollars more expensive.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=untitledhansolostarwarsanthologyfilm.htm
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ant-manandthewasp.htmA film needs to make 2 - 2.5 times its budget to only break even.
Solo budget - 275 millions, needs 550 - 687.5 millions to break even, made 213 millions.
Ant-Man and the wasp - budget 162 millions, needs 324 - 405 millions to break even, made 211 millions.So in the case that the numbers I just googled are correct, both movies bombed, but Solo lost more money.
Not necessarily true as you aren’t factoring in worldwide grosses were Ant-Man made a decent bit more.
Ultimately the bigger failure for Solo was the foreign grosses (which is what tentpoles moreso rely on there days). SW has always had a predominantly American fanbase - perhaps the fact that this was a film made specifically for a fan favorite character hurt perceptions. People in China don’t have any real allegiance to Han Solo, so maybe there was a failure in marketing there to make it seem not just for the hardcore fans.
I’d be very surprised if RJ is kept aboard. The trilogy might still go forward—but I’ll bet it’s with a different director.
The trilogy only exists because of Johnson, and as a way to give Johnson more to do for the franchise, so I doubt that would make any sense.
Not to mention, TLJ has been the smoothest production any of these films have had thus far, and resulted in a big commercial and critical success for the company. Obviously the film has been divisive for fans (to what extent is up for debate), but I’d wager that A) 80% of people going to see these movies have no idea who directs them, and B) most of what made TLJ divisive was his treatment of legacy characters, which presumably wouldn’t factor into his new trilogy anyway.
They could still cancel, but I’d be pretty surprised if it had anything to do with Johnson.
I don’t know. I haven’t seen it in so long but the scene where Anakin is alone in the council chamber and Padme is at their apartment and they stare out of their windows is probably the best scene of the whole PT. I know that in a lot of ways that’s a low bar, but I think it’s great and I’m being serious when I say that that scene is as well done as anything in the OT.
It’s actually better than most of the OT.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. No scene can be truly great without solid context to back it up.
That is a good sequence. And not a CGI creature in sight.
No dialogue in the script either.
Unfortunately Palpatine has an unnecessary VO that kills it.
JEDIT: beat by snooker
The only bad part of that scene is the added V.O of Palpatine.
Unpopular opinion:
Battle of the Heroes is a fine song, but it’s too bombastic and out of tone for the scene it’s in.
I agree completely.
My last words on the topic is that there will always be such issues from time to time because, as you say, film makers borrow all the time from each other. It is my hope that they will take a little extra time to minimize the potential problems their creations can produce.
It’s my hope filmmakers set those concerns aside rather than compromise their creativity in order to satisfy white people who see racism everywhere.
I’ll defer to Dom since he’s the OP, but perhaps this discussion is better suited to the culture/politics thread than this one:
https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Culture-politics-and-diversity-in-Star-Wars/id/61333
It’s definitely not just “white people,” but you’re right, this is way off topic now.
Thankfully it seems people have moved on.
Tickets purchased to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm IMAX later this month!
This happened the other day and it was nothing short of magnificent.
0
TL;DR
Intention matters, but the end result also matters.
Pretty much this. It’s silly to ignore one and focus entirely on the other, and vice versa.
It’s interesting that you criticize Qui-Gon’s death and bearing on the story, when Lucas ultimately managed to better flesh out Qui-Gon’s character, motivations, and relationships with Obi-Wan, and Anakin over the course of a single movie than Snoke was developed over the course of two movies in the ST. I would say Snoke is to Ben Solo what Qui-Gon is to Obi-Wan and to a lesser degree Anakin, only Snoke has far less scenes, and Snoke and Ben Solo’s relationship is far less developed obscuring Ben Solo’s character motivations.
Let’s try not to get too far off topic with the ST talk, especially when the comparison is so labored and irrelevant to the discussion.
The problem is Qui-Gon is basically the closest thing to a main character in TPM, and then he’s gone. There are two things that went wrong - he should have been far more in the background in a mentor role, and his influence on Obi-wan and Anakin should have been more clearly conveyed in the other films (which is to say more than not at all, which is the case).
Anyway, I’m going to give this as half a point in favor of ROTS.
I used the example to point out a possible double standard, but I might have used ANH as an example as well. Tarkin serves as one of the main antagonists in that film, and after ANH he’s gone, never to be mentioned again.
My criticism of Qui-Gon has nothing to do with him dying. In fact, that he dies in TPM is one of the few things I would not change about him.
However, Tarkin serves a purpose beyond his apparent role as the villain. Firstly, ANH is far more political than TESB and ROTJ. For one the political situation is mentioned or discussed on numerous occasions, between Leia and Vader early on, in the Death Star conference room, and again between Tarkin and Leia before the destruction of Alderaan. The more personal story of Luke, Obi-Wan, and Vader is very much in the background, and used as a McGuffin to get Luke to join the fight against the Empire.
Saying ANH has more politics than TESB and ROTJ doesn’t say much, because those two films have practically zero politics. And I’m not saying these films shouldn’t have galactic politics in them, they just shouldn’t be at the forefront. If you think Tarkin’s politicking is the focus of ANH while Luke’s story is in the background, you need to watch that film again. The Death Star scenes are asides to Luke’s story, with the galactic politics featured therein minimal (and succinctly presented in direct relation to the stakes of the story at hand), and nothing near the extent of what is portrayed in the PT.
Qui-Gon’s character serves a number of purposes. For one he is the mirror that exposes the Jedi order’s dogmatism, a dogmatism that would continue to plague them in subsequent films. Secondly, without Qui-Gon’s involvement Anakin would never have been trained. Qui-Gon’s actions in the story directly impact the further development of the main characters, and the development and outcome of Lucas’ six part story. Thirdly, Qui-Gon’s death is a stark reminder to the Jedi order that the Sith are still at large and as dangerous as ever.
When did I ever say Qui-Gon was pointless? The problem is TPM puts too much focus on the one off character, while Obi-wan stands around in the background, and Anakin isn’t introduced until halfway through the film.
The death of a main character reminds us of the stakes,
You’re suggesting that Lucas made Qui-Gon a main character, so that his death could raise the stakes more significantly? The stakes in a series of films where we already know the outcome? Not to mention, the threat that kills him is also dispatched immediately thereafter.
The main purpose of killing the mentor is not to simply raise the stakes. It is to affect the protagonist’s journey, and leave them to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, though Lucas obviously had it in mind, the impact of Qui-Gon’s death is not touched upon in a meaningful way in the later films.
and also conveys the idea that Anakin has lost a father figure who might have steered him on the path of the righteous. That void is filled by Palpatine who would take over the role of father figure in subsequent films to the detriment of the entire galaxy.
Except we only see Palpatine talk to Anakin once in AOTC, while in the same film he says that Obi-wan is like a father to him… but then in ROTS they’re “brothers”… The truth is Lucas had an interesting idea with the dueling father figures, but completely fucked it up in terms of what actually made it on screen (where Anakin and Obi-wan bicker half the time, and we only know Anakin and Palpatine are friends because he tells us such, not because we actually see it). Good ideas that are practically nonexistent in the finished product due to poor execution - the prequels in a nutshell.
So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.
That’s pretty obviously not how recognizing stereotypes actually works (and is kind of insulting). I don’t think there are many who think Lucas consciously included characters that resemble racist caricatures in his films (and, indeed, one should note that much of Jar Jar is Ahmed Best’s creation).
Personally I had no idea of the resemblance when I first saw the film, because I was a kid. But the similarities are obviously there when you compare Jar Jar to historical caricatures such as Stepin Fetchit and the like. I don’t think it’s enough of a similarity to be a significant criticism of the film (and hell if that film’s critics need anything more to criticize), but it’s disingenuous to say there’s no comparison to be made and then to also claim stereotyping of those making the comparison.
He largely did away with the political structure when he abolished the Senate in ANH in favor of regional governors.
Notably this all happened offscreen and was quickly summed up in a couple lines of dialogue.
i think i’ve said this before and i’ll say it again - i see Qui-Gon as the perfect jedi, and i’m pretty sure Anakin saw him as the perfect jedi too. and i think that that’s very important to the overall saga.
Qui-Gon was the jedi Anakin really looked up to and wanted to be like, while other jedi in the PT such as Obi-Wan and Windu represented a lot of what was wrong with the order (a factor that ultimately ended up pushing Anakin over to the dark side). i also think that, during RotS, Anakin lost the notion of what was right and wrong (obviously) and ended up painting jedi and sith with the same brush - meaning that in his head both groups were equally bad - and so he chose to join the faction that could save his wife and didn’t condemn passion. and i think that, in the end, Qui-Gon was the only jedi he ever saw as a truly good man.
with that in mind, i think that RotJ Luke is a very similar character to Qui-Gon in TPM in terms of how they act and their moral standards. i think Vader saw that too, and that seeing it made him see hope in the jedi once again, since the only living jedi was, then, as good a man as Qui-Gon, the man he looked up to his whole life. and i think that was one of the main factors that made him save Luke (besides Luke being his son, the most important factor imo), which ultimately means that from my understanding Qui-Gon is a very important character overall.
As with many elements of the PT clearly Lucas had a great idea in his head that didn’t translate properly on screen. Qui-Gon is supposed to be a sort of especially independently minded Jedi, which that much at least is clear, but I think his problems with the Jedi ideologies and his distaste for many of the rules could have done with a good deal more emphasis. This way it could nicely dovetail with Anakin’s similar mindsets toward the Jedi order and his eventual turn. As is, this thread is subtext at best. Even when Anakin falls it’s only very minorly only maybe because he has a problem with a rule or two, and he of course never even mentions Qui-Gon after he becomes Hayden Christensen, let alone speaks fondly of his influence (not that that’s the only way to portray such influence, but you get what I mean).
The theory that Qui-Gon is the only Jedi Anakin ever saw as a “truly good man” is a nice theory, but ultimately just that - a theory. There’s evidence that could potentially support it, but at the end of the day nothing like that is ever clearly (or even subtly) communicated in the films.
It’s interesting that you criticize Qui-Gon’s death and bearing on the story, when Lucas ultimately managed to better flesh out Qui-Gon’s character, motivations, and relationships with Obi-Wan, and Anakin over the course of a single movie than Snoke was developed over the course of two movies in the ST. I would say Snoke is to Ben Solo what Qui-Gon is to Obi-Wan and to a lesser degree Anakin, only Snoke has far less scenes, and Snoke and Ben Solo’s relationship is far less developed obscuring Ben Solo’s character motivations.
Let’s try not to get too far off topic with the ST talk, especially when the comparison is so labored and irrelevant to the discussion.
The problem is Qui-Gon is basically the closest thing to a main character in TPM, and then he’s gone. There are two things that went wrong - he should have been far more in the background in a mentor role, and his influence on Obi-wan and Anakin should have been more clearly conveyed in the other films (which is to say more than not at all, which is the case).
Anyway, I’m going to give this as half a point in favor of ROTS.
Is the plot really that convoluted and irrelevant though? TPM has very few Palpatine scenes, and mostly sticks to the action-plot and eventually Anakin’s story (which ties in with Qui-Gon’s story). There’s not too much going on character-wise, but it is supposed to simply set the stage and establish the characters.
The problem isn’t just “Palpatine scenes,” although TPM does suffer from far too much bickering scenes between Sidious and the Trade Federation, which really bogs the film down and tend to be largely unnecessary (both in the macro and micro sense).
If the purpose of the film was to set the stage and establish characters, it failed. It sets a stage that is merely a semi-tangential preamble to the primary conflict of the trilogy (the Clone Wars). Of the characters introduced, Qui-Gon is killed and has little bearing on the rest of the trilogy, Obi-wan does nothing whatsoever except show up, and Anakin is so changed by the ten year gap that he might as well be a different character entirely. Padme is really the only one that follows through, but even then there’s the fact that her story is partially obscured in TPM (and also much of the bandwidth of the rest of her story for the trilogy is spent on her romance with Anakin, which let’s just say wasn’t set up in TPM for fear of the alternate).
The only PT film where I find that the politics/plot gets out of hand is AOTC. Though even it stays very focused on both Anakin and Obi-Wan, mostly using the politics as part of the “mystery-plot” that Obi-Wan has to solve, while Anakin is off having his awkwardly written emotional conflicts. AOTC is a very clumsy story in many ways, but I’d say the fault mostly lies in awkward characterization and simple technical execution). The important thing is Anakin’s development, which despite its weird execution, it does communicate quite clearly.
Ironically AOTC handles the politics the best in some ways. There it tends to be mostly the backdrop. Except because of this we run into some confusing shenanigans in terms of why they want Padme assassinated in the first place. In addition to all the otherwise character related problems you mention.
ROTS has a lot of politics and Palpatine scenes, but all of it relates to Anakin’s story and character development, and clearly follows up on what was established in AOTC. I don’t see how the Palpatine scenes can be considered irrelevant to Anakin’s story, when his whole plot relates to Anakin in one way or another. There’s hardly any Palpatine scenes in ROTS that doesn’t directly or indirectly affect Anakin and move his character forward.
Again, the problem isn’t merely the existence of “Palpatine scenes.” The problem for me with ROTS is focusing on minute, pesky squabbles between Palpatine and the Jedi council, which Anakin just happens to be in the middle of. Anakin’s fall and disillusionment with the Jedi should be due to factors grander and more mythic than that (which in fairness Lucas tried to accomplish with the saving Padme stuff, but that’s only one half of the equation).
It’s far from perfect, but I’d hardly say Lucas forgot he was making a trilogy about Anakin as the main character and just focused on the world-building.
He didn’t forget, he just did it poorly, in part because the interests of the films were split.
(Plus, in many ways, but to a slightly lesser degree, it’s also Obi-Wan’s story. Which in-of-itself is very important to Anakin’s story.)
I agree. If only he had fleshed that out in a meaningful way.
I’m with chyron here. The focus is essentially misplaced which muddles the entire story. Too much time is spent on the machinations of the villain (which are obfuscated and convoluted beyond reason most of the time anyway) and not enough time is spent with the actual protagonists of the story, which is of great detriment to the films overall, and not in keeping with the spirit of the series.
After a (not much needed) break, I’ve decided it’s time to get back to finishing up ROTS for good(ish) and move on to the other two in earnest.
While I’m addressing notes and things on ROTS, there’s one small (but somewhat unusual) change I made that I haven’t been able to quite get a consensus on (I myself am of two minds about it). So here it is, hopefully I can get some additional eyes on it and thoughts on if it works or if I should nix it:
That’d be like saying “My Star Wars would feature a galaxy at peace where occasionally there’ll be a light battle here and there but no all out wars.”
So the new canon period between the OT and the ST. =P
Thing is I don’t see a problem with what DE described being a Star Trek spin-off show (DS9 isn’t about exploring either, from what I understand). But we’re talking about the original, quintessential Star Trek here.
I am getting dangerously close to the 10,000 posts mark. I might have to take a step back and reevaluate my life choices when I hit that.
So wait…I was right the first time? This is a safe space thread?
No. Hush.
This is a thread where we discuss toxicity in the Star Wars fanbase, fanbases in general, and by extension society in general. What is wrong with that?
“Safe space” indeed. -.-
I would classify this as a safe-space thread that doesn’t really encourage discussion. We’re really only allowed to discuss “toxicity” as narrowly defined by the original poster, which is fine if that’s what he wants, but makes the thread pretty limited in scope.
OP: “if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it.”
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with “safe spaces”, but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
I think the term “safe space” in this sense is rather derogatory.
Suffice it to say, complaining about this thread being a “safe space” feels to me like a complaint about not being given license to be an asshat.
I understand that some people genuinely do not like the direction of the new films,or the decisions of those making them , and have some ligitimate criticisms,but this is not the place to heir those concerns , you probably SHOULD start your own topic to express your views
Sounds like the the original poster didn’t want legit criticism here either. So it is not just about not being given license to be an asshat.
Now, if the OP doesn’t want legit criticism here. Fine. But I agree lets call a spade a spade. This is a safe space.
In general I’ll admit that I don’t see the point of this thread. But you’re completely misrepresenting what he said.
How am I misrepresenting what he said? He says plainly that this is not the place for legitimate criticism.
He doesn’t want this thread to be about criticizing the new films. Which is 100% fair on two accounts - firstly, every other thread on this site already has those discussions, and secondly, whatever you think of the new films there is no excuse whatsoever for harassment (which, of course, is what the thread is actually about). Criticizing the films wouldn’t be “invading the safe space” or whatever. It’d simply be irrelevant and off topic.
I agree there is no excuse for harassment. But harassment and legit criticism are two different things and neither are allowed in this thread. Lets face it: In some regard, this is a safe place.
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. Criticism of the films is off topic in this thread. If that makes this a safe space, then I guess a lot of threads are safe spaces. Is the General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread a safe space because I can’t criticize Donald Trump in there?
But you said
Nothing about the series in general would change.
You wanna know how I would’ve handled TOS if I’d been in charge? What the premise would’ve been? How I would’ve executed it? All the ins and outs?
Alright.
Here goes.
I’m going back to the '60s, now. . . .
***
The Federation would be over 1000 years old, but Mankind itself would’ve been exploring space for over 4000 years. In those thousands of years, humans spread throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy. Due to various extenuating circumstances — war, plague, etc. — a fair number of these colonies became separated & isolated, forgotten. Some of these isolated colonies diverged significantly from baseline humanity, culturally and/or physiologically. Some, like the Vulcans, were peaceful & friendly and had little problem resuming contact with humanity. Others, like the Klingons, become warlike xenophobes. So on, so forth.
The series would be set in the late 7th millennium — 6745-6749 CE. At the beginning of the series, the Federation would not have yet made verified first contact with intelligent species of extraterrestrial origin. Ruins & relics of extinct alien civilizations have been catalogued, and spacers tell tall-tales of encounters with mysterious entities at the fringes of known space, but there’d be no confirmed sightings or encounters with living, breathing aliens.
Kirk’s five-year mission would primarily consist of
- Patrolling the borders with the Klingon & Romulan Empires.
- Delivering supplies to outlying outposts & colonies.
- Dealing with pirates & smugglers.
- Doing light exploration into areas of space which have been charted but not quite explored yet.
Most of the “new civilizations” Kirk & co. would encounter would be isolated human & near-human cultures. Eventually, however, genuine aliens would surface — truly bizarre critters like the Horlas & Excalbians & Salt Vampires & Melkot. They would remain few and far between, however, due to budgetary/SFX limitations.
And that’s my Star Trek.
P.S. – I’d also like to do ongoing character & story arcs, if the executives don’t mind deviation from the standard episodic storytelling formula. A full five seasons would be swell, too.
What you’re describing is a different show entirely. Star Trek is literally all about exploring the stars and finding new life forms.
That’d be like saying “My Star Wars would feature a galaxy at peace where occasionally there’ll be a light battle here and there but no all out wars.”
So wait…I was right the first time? This is a safe space thread?
No. Hush.
This is a thread where we discuss toxicity in the Star Wars fanbase, fanbases in general, and by extension society in general. What is wrong with that?
“Safe space” indeed. -.-
I would classify this as a safe-space thread that doesn’t really encourage discussion. We’re really only allowed to discuss “toxicity” as narrowly defined by the original poster, which is fine if that’s what he wants, but makes the thread pretty limited in scope.
OP: “if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it.”
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with “safe spaces”, but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
I think the term “safe space” in this sense is rather derogatory.
Suffice it to say, complaining about this thread being a “safe space” feels to me like a complaint about not being given license to be an asshat.
I understand that some people genuinely do not like the direction of the new films,or the decisions of those making them , and have some ligitimate criticisms,but this is not the place to heir those concerns , you probably SHOULD start your own topic to express your views
Sounds like the the original poster didn’t want legit criticism here either. So it is not just about not being given license to be an asshat.
Now, if the OP doesn’t want legit criticism here. Fine. But I agree lets call a spade a spade. This is a safe space.
In general I’ll admit that I don’t see the point of this thread. But you’re completely misrepresenting what he said. He doesn’t want this thread to be about criticizing the new films. Which is 100% fair on two accounts - firstly, every other thread on this site already has those discussions, and secondly, whatever you think of the new films there is no excuse whatsoever for harassment (which, of course, is what the thread is actually about). Criticizing the films wouldn’t be “invading the safe space” or whatever. It’d simply be irrelevant and off topic.