DominicCobb

3PO becomes the leader of the New New Republic.

Teaser I believe. Main poster will likely come around October with the full trailer.

Mocata said:

This is official? It looks like a fan poster with some videogame art of Palpatine slapped on.

It is official, and at least to my eyes it looks pretty cool.

Look up people complaining about Rian “subverting expectations” and I’m sure you’ll find plenty examples.

It’s funny because for so many years I couldn’t wait for a live action Star Wars TV show, but that’s only because I thought that’d be the only live action SW content we’d ever get. Ultimately I’m excited we can have pieces of media that live alongside the saga like this and take the franchise in different directions, but it’s hard for me to care about it as much at the main saga. As a movie/tv fan I don’t mind, because there’s always the potential it could be better than Star Wars as we know it - but as a Star Wars fan looking forward to more Star Wars, to me something like this isn’t really Star Wars, more like Star Wars adjacent.

RO was very okay, so I’m pleased that while Fraser is involved (easily the best part of that film), seemingly none of the rest of that movie’s creative team is (save Kennedy, naturally). Interested to see what Favreau and the rest do with it. At the moment, I’ve got high hopes.

Well, it’s official. Ewan’s back, shooting next year. Couldn’t be happier honestly.

Weird bit of trivia I thought I’d share…

I don’t know how common knowledge it is that Steven Spielberg worked on ROTS, it seems like something that people never talk about. I had always been under the impression that he only did animatics for the Utapau chase scene, so it made sense that it was never made into that big a deal. However, I’ve been reading the Making of Episode III book and watching through the film’s special features, and along the way there have been passing references to Spielberg directing the animatics for not just the Utapau chase, but also Order 66, the Yoda/Palpatine fight, and the Mustafar duel. Nowhere in the book or the bonus features do they ever comprehensively state everything he’s doing, they just vaguely say he’s working on animatics. So it’s probably fair to assume he did animatics for even more sequences than just those four. Found that interesting, his work was apparently pretty decently substantial.

ATMachine said:

Opening credits are a thing of the past on most TV shows nowadays. On US network broadcasting it cuts into the ever-expanding commercial time. The main reason Game of Thrones had one is it was the best place to stash the on-screen version of the books’ endpaper maps.

Even online-based shows like Star Trek Discovery just have a ten-second title card. I wouldn’t expect much more than that in The Mandalorian.

Actually a lot of shows still have title sequences these days. Certainly not the norm, but Game of Thrones is far from being the only one.

That said, it’s an interesting question what they’ll do regardless. Even if they only do a brief title card, will they have lower third credits that play throughout the opening few minutes (which is usually what happens in that case)? Or will they try to stick more to the Star Wars style and leave all the credits for the end? My guess would be the latter. But this being the first Star Wars live action show, it’s somewhat uncharted waters. We’ve only seen two examples of live action spin-offs before, both films. Makes me wonder about stylistic quirks - will there be wipes? will there be location titles? will each episode will begin with the GFFA card like the movies (or not, like the animated shows)?

I’m honestly completely lost in terms of what’s actually being debated at this point, so it’s probably as good a time as any to get back on topic.

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:
Didn’t say anyone was, I just mean there’s a lot of different aspects to any given film that contributes to the whole, and I think often people unfairly dismiss the whole just because of what is, in my personal opinion, a relatively minor aspect (repeated plot points).

I just don’t think that’s what anyone means when discussing plot points, that’s why I brought up Steve Yedlin to say even haters will distinguish their distaste for a story as separate from the other components of film making that make up a movie, the story is the discussion, and the piece people are taking issue with. I doubt there would be much if any animosity against RJ if he was only director.

There’s more to a film than the story sure, but most importantly to my point there’s also more to a story than plot beats.

Also going to push back on the no explanation Lucas method. I do think this was the idea but the truth is while ANH does drop you in the middle of a fantasy world it is packed with exposition, not everything but just enough to know who the characters are and what motivates them along with what’s at stake. ST been feeling more like the Kylo show and our new heroes are blank slates to be filled in later.

I don’t think that’s the case at all, re: blank slates, the characterization of the TFA leads is easily comparable to the ones in ANH.

Omni said:

OutboundFlight said:

If you look into it the lore of TFA isn’t all that confusing, there’s the New Republic which is dealing with Imperial Renamnt terrorists, the First Order, who even have their own ripoffs of Palpatine and Vader (one might ponder if their appearance is intentionally similar, to get more people remembering the OT). Leia wants to fight the First Order while the New Republic would prefer to let them be.

The problem is all in the presentation. In the thrill of the action, you don’t think like above. But they could have easily fixed this. Go to the Republic’s capital and listen in on a Senate meeting (like TPM). And properly build up Starkiller (like they did in Ep4 and 6 with the title crawls) instead of just showing up halfway through the movie and taking all the spotlight.

TLJ is guilty of ripping off OT stuff as well. Compare the way RotJ’s throne room scene is referenced in RotS and TLJ. RotS creates parallels by using similar visuals and angles to strengthen said parallels, and to contrast the decision Anakin takes to the one that Luke takes. It rhymes, and it’s a very nice and intelligent moment in the movie, IMHO. TLJ on the other hand, reutilizes lines of dialogue and the entire sequence of events (when Rey looked out the window I got so upset because it was the very same scene as ROTJ!!) with an outcome so similar that I was stunned at how not-creative the whole scene was, despite the awesome fight scene at the end…

They both look out a window so it’s “the very same scene”? They’re not even looking out the window for the same reason! And I don’t know anyone could say with a straight face that the outcomes of those two scenes are “so similar.” Ridiculous. I’ll just reiterate what I said before, we all know the OT like the back of our hands, so we all know when someone bullshits one way or the other about “similarities.” And I wish to god we could put to end the binary thinking of “similar=bad/not creative.” Ironically not a very creative critique if you ask me.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:
And so, to my point, I think there is a lot to TFA itself beyond what mysteries it sets up (if any), and I think people too easily forget that. Now, if you don’t care for what it offers beyond the “mysteries and fan service,” fair enough, but that’s not all that’s there.

I really don’t mean to be a jerk about this but could you articulate some examples? TFA had rathtars which is a little different, this thing of abandoned fallen star destroyers to be scavenged that’s new, I wish it were explored more but it’s unique to this trilogy, but sticking just to TFA I’m not sure what else isn’t from the past that also isn’t a mystery, I’m racking my brain a little trying to think of more honestly.

I’m talking about more than just in-universe elements. Story (characters and themes), music, locations, production design, costumes, action, humor, direction, acting, editing, etc. etc. In my mind there’s a lot more to a movie than plot points and lore. The movie is an experience in and of itself, separate from its place in the saga as well as a part of it - and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

I think one of the major elements, that makes TFA work, despite it’s derivative nature, is its energy. To me TFA always feels like Star Wars film with the energy and humor of an Indiana Jones film. I think that is one of Abrams’ great talents.

Absolutely.

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:

In my mind there’s a lot more to a movie than plot points and lore. The movie is an experience in and of itself, separate from its place in the saga as well as a part of it - and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

I’m not really talking about lore, though world building is appreciated, to me TFA feels like they decided not to deal with almost any exposition for the sake of keeping the ride moving, lot of flash and personality sure,

A tactic that, to me, is straight from Lucas. He’s got a lot of quotes about just dropping people into the world of SW with little explanation, and how at the time SW was seen as a very fast-paced film. So personally I appreciate that about the film, much as I do TLJ slowing things down to deepen the world, just like TESB did (which Lucas thought was too long and too slow).

And I don’t think anyone is deriding the production design or the John Williams score, same way that TLJ haters will still admit to the cinematic quality and fantastic work of Steve Yedlin.

Didn’t say anyone was, I just mean there’s a lot of different aspects to any given film that contributes to the whole, and I think often people unfairly dismiss the whole just because of what is, in my personal opinion, a relatively minor aspect (repeated plot points).

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:
And so, to my point, I think there is a lot to TFA itself beyond what mysteries it sets up (if any), and I think people too easily forget that. Now, if you don’t care for what it offers beyond the “mysteries and fan service,” fair enough, but that’s not all that’s there.

I really don’t mean to be a jerk about this but could you articulate some examples? TFA had rathtars which is a little different, this thing of abandoned fallen star destroyers to be scavenged that’s new, I wish it were explored more but it’s unique to this trilogy, but sticking just to TFA I’m not sure what else isn’t from the past that also isn’t a mystery, I’m racking my brain a little trying to think of more honestly.

I’m talking about more than just in-universe elements. Story (characters and themes), music, locations, production design, costumes, action, humor, direction, acting, editing, etc. etc. In my mind there’s a lot more to a movie than plot points and lore. The movie is an experience in and of itself, separate from its place in the saga as well as a part of it - and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

act on instinct said:

I knew I’d get caught citing from an anecdote, I don’t want to do that too much because we’ll get lost in the weeds, will say those I know that saw it twice also don’t regularly do that, and I understand not liking it the first time but later it grows on you that’s common. But I don’t think I’m just regurgitating memes that’s a little unfair, the mystery box thing is how JJ writes and he has spoken publicly about that, and for the first film I don’t even mind that, it isn’t like the case of ANH when they didn’t already know they’d have 2 more bites at the apple. I think the movie is a fun ride, the performances from the new characters are very endearing, but as far as what they’re doing there’s not much detail, all pretty boilerplate and I agree with others saying it really would have helped to have just those deleted scenes to establish the universe in more of its own specific context, I’m expecting TRoS to be flashback city.

Just trying to break out of the binary thinking many fans get into. JJ=mystery box, TFA=ANH, therefore not much to offer. It’s, simply put, reductive. JJ has obviously spoken about his mystery box approach in the past, but, besides the fact that people often misinterpret what that even means, it’s unfair to always assume that the only thing going on in a JJ movie is a mystery box. I call it a meme because that’s what it seems like, as a point of analysis it feels shallow - like how people say his visual style is lens flares, when obviously there’s a lot more to it than that one quirk. And so, to my point, I think there is a lot to TFA itself beyond what mysteries it sets up (if any), and I think people too easily forget that. Now, if you don’t care for what it offers beyond the “mysteries and fan service,” fair enough, but that’s not all that’s there.

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:

Yes, “similar” and “the same” are two different things. I think it’s safe to assume on this site we know ANH pretty well, so I’m sure we all were able to pick up on most if not all the similarities on our first viewing of TFA. No need to insult anyone’s intelligence either way by trying to make it out to be something it’s not, we all know what the fact of the matter is (and, at this point, should know that it was obviously intentional). So the debate should not be arguing back and forth about what the similarities are and how many there are, but rather whether or not they work in the film’s favor or are detrimental to it.

Personally, I like to take a more reasoned approach. I get why people don’t like TFA because it’s “too similar,” but I find often people don’t go beyond that, they just think similar=bad, therefore TFA=bad (I shouldn’t have to say this, but obviously not everyone is like this). That is frustrating thing to see, especially when this is a franchise that has always been built off preexisting parts, and has been including echoes of other films within this franchise for years. For me, you can’t take a binary look at it. For instance, the worst part of TFA (in my opinion) is the inclusion of Starkiller Base, not simply because it is a repeat of the Death Star, but because it is only really in the film to repeat the Death Star, and thus feels inorganic to the rest of the story - whereas other repeated elements fit far better and serve a more justifiable purpose in this narrative and actually work in the film’s favor.

I think “TFA is the same” reaction comes from JJ and all more or less confirming it was their intention to reboot the series, which for many seemed appropriate. Reliving ANH was a big part of the fun factor watching TFA. JJ’s big problem ultimately was those mystery boxes, makes it hard to rewatch and most people I know saw it twice and most enjoyed it less the second time, because underneath the fan service TFA doesn’t set up anything but more mystery boxes, so it feels like a bridge movie to TLJ.

See I wouldn’t say that is universal. Lot of people I know saw it more than twice, lot of them people who don’t usually do that. Simple explanation: the film is fun as hell. Truth be told, I liked the film the least the first time I saw it, all the clunky mechanics of the plot and the repeated beats and fan service moments stuck out to me, and made it hard to fully enjoy. But upon my second viewing, knowing exactly what to expect, I was able to just enjoy the ride. The film has a lot to offer beyond mere set up - it’s a great adventure in and of itself, and I think it’s a shame a lot of people get tripped up on the usual memes ‘rehash this, mystery box that.’

The problem with the Resistance is basically the result of editing. They were initially designed to be scrappy because the NR wasn’t supporting them, but once you cut out all the scenes where this is explored, essentially you’re left with the question - well, couldn’t they have just made them the New Republic, and they just become scrappy once the senate and fleet are wiped out? It’s a simpler explanation and easier to understand in a fast-paced 2 hour movie, so that’s what they went with. Problem is, even though the crawl suggests as much, at the end of the day the Resistance was not designed that way, and the expanded canon and really the film itself doesn’t support that reframing, so it’s just a little confusing. I wouldn’t say it’s terribly detrimental to the film, but it’s messy.

pleasehello said:

DominicCobb said:

For instance, the worst part of TFA (in my opinion) is the inclusion of Starkiller Base, not simply because it is a repeat of the Death Star, but because it is only really in the film to repeat the Death Star, and thus feels inorganic to the rest of the story - whereas other repeated elements fit far better and serve a more justifiable purpose in this narrative and actually work in the film’s favor.

Absolutely agree. The only purpose Star Killer Base serves is a big, flashy battle sequence at the end of the movie, which is a piss poor justification for its existence.

The original Death Star battle works well because it is a defining moment for the main protagonist. It brings Luke’s character arc to completion. The Return of the Jedi Death Star battle works not as well because the fighters are ancillary characters whom the story is not about, but is still symbolic of the Rebellion’s decisive and final victory against the Empire. The Star Killer battle has neither of these things and has almost no reason to exist and honestly the movie could be just as effective without it.

Pretty much.

The only other thing it accomplishes is destroying the New Republic, which is a pretty secondary plot point in that film and is really only important in regards to the macro level stakes for the trilogy as a whole.

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.

Yes, “similar” and “the same” are two different things. I think it’s safe to assume on this site we know ANH pretty well, so I’m sure we all were able to pick up on most if not all the similarities on our first viewing of TFA. No need to insult anyone’s intelligence either way by trying to make it out to be something it’s not, we all know what the fact of the matter is (and, at this point, should know that it was obviously intentional). So the debate should not be arguing back and forth about what the similarities are and how many there are, but rather whether or not they work in the film’s favor or are detrimental to it.

Personally, I like to take a more reasoned approach. I get why people don’t like TFA because it’s “too similar,” but I find often people don’t go beyond that, they just think similar=bad, therefore TFA=bad (I shouldn’t have to say this, but obviously not everyone is like this). That is frustrating thing to see, especially when this is a franchise that has always been built off preexisting parts, and has been including echoes of other films within this franchise for years. For me, you can’t take a binary look at it. For instance, the worst part of TFA (in my opinion) is the inclusion of Starkiller Base, not simply because it is a repeat of the Death Star, but because it is only really in the film to repeat the Death Star, and thus feels inorganic to the rest of the story - whereas other repeated elements fit far better and serve a more justifiable purpose in this narrative and actually work in the film’s favor.

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.)

Well, at the very least you can count on it making less than Endgame so I’d get over that sooner rather than later - there’s a lot of room under $858mil domestic and $2.8bil worldwide for a non-“modest exit.” Second place domestic at least is guaranteed but at this point you might even call it a win if it can get second place worldwide (Lion King and Frozen II will provide some tough competition for that).

act on instinct said:

Obviously just limited to domestic would put DC to shame against Star Wars, though with the poor numbers in China that’s a two way street.

When it comes to Disney’s perspective (which is all that really matters when discussing BO), they make a lower share of the money internationally, and an even lower share in China, from my understanding. So, for instance, Endgame is the biggest movie ever worldwide. But TFA is the biggest movie ever in the US. So it’s entirely likely that TFA actually made them more money, even if the overall total was lower. For whatever reason, as more and more big budget blockbusters become popular internationally, SW films specifically tend to have an above average US share of the worldwide grosses. In fact, this is the main reason Solo was a flop - it did decent (if disappointing) business in the US, but did even worse internationally. What this all means in terms of Disney’s strategy going forward, who knows, but it’s something to consider.

The part where it all burns to the ground could be the next cycle of trilogies, a risk I think they’d rather not take and just move it all to streaming which explains why even their highest profile anthology story everyone was begging for is now becoming a show instead of a movie. Disney is savvy about these things, they want to preserve their investment. Declining numbers is a way worse look than just not giving away your numbers and boasting about the success of your exclusive content streaming platform and new cash-flow of subscriber money.

I agree that the real test will be in what comes after TROS. Anyone who thinks IX is going to flop is essentially deluding themselves. But there’s no guarantee what comes after will hit. In an odd way, I think doing sequels with old characters might have hurt Disney in terms of other SW films. After a ten year wait, the audience was obviously hungry for any and everything SW, as evidenced by RO’s tremendous success. But I think when you have the genuine article come out so close to the new other thing trying to be it - like how we had Ford’s Solo in 2015 and Alden’s two and a half years later - audiences aren’t as likely to try out the new thing. It’s not hard to see how successful Solo could have been if there was no ST at all, and it was ten years after the PT and LFL was now making spin-offs like that. In that scenario it’s easy to see how Disney could have built up a Marvel-esque franchise, with a Solo film here, a Boba film there, a team up film, etc., especially considering they could afford to do lower numbers because they wouldn’t have the multiple billion dollar successes of the ST films to be compared to.

Now Disney is stuck, because why would general audiences turn out to see random whatever SW in 2022 when they just saw the epic conclusion of the Skywalker saga not three years before? Unlike Marvel post-Endgame, there’s no expanded universe of characters whose stories we are invested in seeing continue after the main characters of the ST have their arcs wrapped up. It’ll be tough to sell a brand new saga when they just did a new part of the saga everyone knows and loves. I can’t think of a precedent.

Again, it’s not so much that SW has failed as Marvel has succeeded in an insane way. 23 films in 11 years, and very quickly snatching up the highest grossing franchise title (which it will hold perhaps forever - or at least our lifetimes). The reason for this incredible success is obvious: The Avengers. Here’s really a mega franchise that collects multiple sub franchises and enriched them all. That series has grown exponentially more popular with each crossover because the concept of a crossover is unprecedented, and the desire to see a live action superhero team up film was a strong one for the preexisting Marvel fan base and for others alike - and it was a desire that had been pent up for decades before it ever happened. It’d be unreasonable to expect SW to match Marvel’s success, and perhaps that was actually the problem behind a failure like Solo, where Disney was trying to more closely follow their winning Marvel formula - not every series can be Marvel, and truthfully, as of yet it’s unclear if any series can ever be.

For me, again it goes back to “who cares.” I’ll always prefer Star Wars, I did when I was a kid and it wasn’t the most popular in school, I did when TFA came out and was the biggest movie ever (sort of), and I still do even though Marvel has obviously eclipsed it and everything else. For me, I never felt like I needed my love of Star Wars validated. So, personally, I don’t care if Marvel is more successful. Maybe if they can some day make a movie as good as TFA or TLJ (let alone SW or ESB) I’ll care more. But until then, I’ll love Marvel, but I’ll just love Star Wars a little more, and how much money either makes couldn’t matter to me less.

Now I’m going to sound hypocritical, but I am curious how Marvel toy sales are doing, mainly because part of me is curious if kids even play with toys at all these days (if I knew any kids I’d ask).

SilverWook said:

Not mention that Harry Potter kid…

Oh man, yeah my bad that arguably eclipsed both.

OutboundFlight said:

From what I’ve seen, kids of this generation are preferring marvel movies over Star Wars movies. Not that they dislike Star Wars by any means. They like it, but not as much as Marvel, hence it doesn’t have the priority like it did in the 80’s and 2000’s. No one’s fault.

I think it’s that simple.

I agree, although, as someone who was a kid in the 2000s, I’d argue LOTR was the priority before SW.

Mocata said:

I’m thinking of the music that plays while Luke is lost in the snow, and while the film cuts to the Echo Base and a new piece comes in, the score alone carries on. I just always remember it because they used it in the Shadows of the Empire game soundtrack.

There’s a lot of music from Empire that was cut out, particularly at the beginning (and in some cases new pieces were recorded instead). But the intention originally was in fact to include that music in the film.