Chen G.

Its trying to have a character story. It just got away from itself in the first half or so. Afterwards, it is the story of Dave Bowman (in the sense that its told through his eyes).

I don't recall being terribly fond of it. It also feels like something so specially-engineered for a huge screen that it wouldn't work on TV, and since I don't happen to own a theater... All good drama is about the human condition.

They were quite frequent, but its important to remember they were distributed in a completely different manner to films nowadays, starting with a roadshow that toured different cities and showed the films for months on end (which is how films like Gone With the Wind or Doctor Zhivago made such obscene amounts of money: they were on for years!) with pricier tickets, before it started trickling down to standard theaters, where it was usually cut down a size. Also, the films were usually structured in two parts which were relatively standalone, with an intermission that helped alleviate the length: you never actually sat down for longer than 140 minutes at a time, at the very most. There absolutely is, but I personally rarely mind length in movies. Pacing is a different thing, though.

Just because a choice is deliberate doesn't mean its good.

Ah, yes, that face of realization one makes when ones realizes the end of "The Hidden Valley" and the diegetic "The Valley of Imladris" are the same theme!

Well, it was pre-blockbuster-era so I suppose the "blame" goes to Jaws rather than anything from the 2000s. But in terms of movies being long? We've got nothing on the 50s/60s.

Doctor Zhivago sends its regards.

The 50s and 60s say hey.

No, its not foolish. Williams involvement with these films begins and ends with the spotting sessions and the actual scoring. He doesn't ask prodding questions, read the scripts or anything of the kind. In the prequel trilogy, when Lucas remarked that Duel of the Fates could be useful "for the third film", Williams said "I don't quite know what he means by that" and a similar thing happened with Across the Stars, where Williams didn't bother asking Lucas where this romance was going.

You’re acting as though John Williams is the writer of the films: he isn’t. He’s a man who comes in to see a cut of the film and write music, and that’s all he does. He can’t be bothered to ask where the story is going. He even put some Imperial March under the Jedi Steps, as if to ask, going into VIII: “is Luke going to go evvvvvvil?” This should give you a sense of the extent to which he knows what’s going to happen, which is nil. He just doesn’t care.

...and suddenly, all the previous films magically become good!

The Last Jedi really doesn't belong in this category. If nothing else, its a much better executed movie (by which I mean, better shot, rendered, performed, designed) than the others.

As much as I do like the concept of a Superman film being told in a serious fashion, I should add I did have issues with that portion of the film, as well. Snyder's obvious response to tell the story "in a serious fashion" was a) ape the structure of Nolan's Batman Begins and b) film the scenes with hand-held cameras, "documentary-style". Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of either of those two decisions, and obviously when we reach the climax both are left by the wayside because "we got to blow sh*t up!"

Kathleen Kennedy said it was "in the cards for a long time" - not from the beginning. Chris Terrio had been very clear that it was concieved in story meeting when he was brought on-board, which by the time of the trailer's release could be considered "for a long time."

That's different though. That man is a pathological liar.

JJ never said they had a roadmap, per se. Rian Johnson was explicit in saying he was given no story stipulations, Chris Terrio shared when most of the plot points for The Rise of Skywalker were hatched, and it was while he and Abrams were working on the script, and Kathleen Kennedy was upfront in saying they're "making it as we go along." Seems definitive enough for me.

...and the admission of every single filmmaker involved with the trilogy, as well the executive producer.

My issue exactly. I will always appreciate a serious story over a lighthearted one, and the attempt to make Superman fit into that mould was at the very least an admirable attempt. But then the final fourty minutes come up, and all the pretense of seriousness drops in favour of carnage. In a truly serious film, Superman would have done his utmost to try and take the fight away from human settlements.

But why is that okay with the classic trilogy, and not okay with the sequel trilogy?

I still think its something of a statement of theme for his film. Not that I mind it at all, I just think it could have been a bit better.

You can't open a trilogy with a film as open-ended as The Force Awakens and not set-up certain threads on certain traejectories. For instance, the filmmakers revealed that they always wanted for Kylo Ren to be redeemed at the end. In fact, I'm pretty sure when Abrams said VIII didn't derail anything for him, its that he's talking about: that Johnson never shut the door too expliciltly on the possibility of Kylo turning good. Also, like we were talking about, that Luke would be consumed by guilt and unwilling to rejoin the struggle was also in the cards for VIII. It wouldn't take a genius, either, to assume in 2015 that Ben and Rey would cross sabers somwhere in IX. None of this counts as a "plan": its just inevitable in terms of storytelling. Its just like how the classic trilogy was always going to end with the defeat of the Empire (Lucas said it will in 1975) even without a plan: its just the natural conclusion of the story begun by Star Wars. But as far as setting-up something more specific, like the return of Palpatine? Hell no; there's no evidence of that, and in fact Chris Terrio (who, say what you will, at least he's outspoken about the behind-the-scenes!) spoke to the opposite being true.

Its not "miserable", but yeah, I never got what people were expecting instead. It was crystal clear Luke was going to spend the bulk of Episode VIII consumed by guilt and grief, and even without the flashback it was very compelling.

JJ provided him with a fairly legitimate reason: "One boy, an apprentice, turned against him [and killed everyone else]. Luke felt responsible. He just walked away." Johnson just went along with that (plus the added "twist" of Luke having contemplated killing Kylo - which I like). But the set-up is all Abrams'.

That's a very supeficial reading. I like The Force Awakens because its like the original Star Wars...until it isn't. At the end, instead of the villain having a conveniently-placed change-of-heart, he goes the opposite direction to Vader and carries through with the deed. If that's not descontructing Star Wars tropes I don't know what is. The lack of a roadmap is an element in all three Star Wars trilogies. Even in the prequel trilogy - the most preplanned of the bunch - only the main threads were foredoomed, and everything else was left to the making of each film. I think he just caved in the face of fan expectations following the film. Personally, I put some of the blame on Rian Johnson for bringing the issue up to begin with, even if he did only do so in order to show that Rey's parents were nobodies. It would have been even more subversive to just treat it as a non-issue to begin with.

I personally put a lot of the blame on this preconcieved notion that the story must conclude with Kylo Ren being redeemed. According to Chris Terrio, Kathleen Kennedy was quite keen on that, so she must bear some of the responsibility for that rotten, deriviative and corrupt story choice. John Boorman once said: "making a film is closer to writing a poem than a novel. Its about stripping away." Often, rushed projects are more convoluted because one doesn't have time to organise one's own thoughts and streamline the thing. What? Where did you get that? Rey's character arc in The Force Awakens is her overcoming of her own delusions regarding her parents. Once she (figuratively) leaves her parents behind, their identity is irrelevant, and I certainly never got the impression that they were of any significance. The whole point of Rey is that she's a lowly orphan: its a rags-to-riches story, which would be diminished if she did come from an important lineage. Likewise, that Luke was in self-imposed exile and consumed by guilt over what happened with Kylo is entirely explicit in The Force Awakens.