Chen G.

Is the film's problem in the editing bay, though? I mean, I know its quite a running time (a friend said he watched it last night, and fell asleep somewhere in the first hour) but isn't the problem just the fact that this film exists?

It isn't necessary. As it stands, its completely extraneous in the grand scheme of things. That's not a slate against the quality of the films when viewed individually: they're good movies. But as part of what's supposed to be one large story? Completely redundant. Return of the Jedi never offered a terribly good conclusion, but its a conclusion nonetheless.

Ha! If they really want to push the bounderies, they can do another text crawl at the end of the film. Earlier drafts of Star Wars featured that concept.

Ideally, yes. But even with that aside, I actually think that its unrealistic to expect JJ Abrams to deliver a satisfying conclusion to the entirety of the series. Its just too much to ask for within the available timeframe. But even as just the conclusion of this trilogy, it'd be tricky.

I'm willing to give Abrams more credit and expect an original film. That doesn't mean I'm terribly optimistic, namely because of the fact that it is a concluding film, and those are unbelievably tricky to craft.

But in the grand scheme of things its perfectly excusable. Its not the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but it is for the most part a joy to watch.

And genuinely questioning why Bond even exists, and whether or not he's obsolete. Its also not unheard of for deconstructive films (which Casino Royale and Skyfall very much are) to kill a franchise or genre. Didn't Unforgiven turn the Western genre into a ghost-town for the better part of a decade?

Exactly! It has the aesthetics and the continuity of a television series. But what makes it all worthwhile with Marvel is that its (almost) all tongue-in-cheek. They're essentially making fun of themselves, and as such you can't be too mad at their shortcomings. They're comedies.

<super-pedantic mode> well, technically the first act doesn't end until the introduction of Snoke (and the first view of Starkiller Base) and the reveal of the identity of Kylo Ren's father. </super-pedantic mode> But yeah, its damn fine filmmaking. Namely, because its action-packed. There's something to be said for having more than one action setpiece in your first act. On paper, the first act is excruciatingly long, but the action alleviates that. But I do really like that Kylo is praying to the helmet. There's real gravity there, regardless of the reference.

Almost all franchises "wing it". The only way not to wing it, is to script and film the whole thing from the outset, and I think its quite understandable why Marvel doesn't follow that route.

When you have to follow up Casino Royale and Skyfall? Yes, considerably hard.

And yet, as much as it is a crowd pleaser, it also has moments that truly carry weight. I'm thinking especially about the scene where Kylo Ren is ostensibly praying to Darth Vader's helmet.

That! Still the best Disney Star Wars film, deriviative though it may be.

If this film will have the same kind of production value as The Force Awakens, than I'm not worried. If it looks good - it looks good, no matter where it was shot. I'd be much more worried about the story: final installments don't have the best track record.

I think what people mean in terms of "needed" is that it doesn't forward the overarching story of the series. There are two types of film series: Episodic series' where the individual films don't amount to one unified story, but do share a main character or core cast and certain iconographical and narrative elements. Think Indiana Jones. A series with a unified story, whether it was premeditated or emerged spontaneously. Think Middle Earth. Disney's Star Wars is a hybrid of sorts, in that it has a central, unified story which is that of the conflict between good and evil in the Galaxy; but its also trying to dabble in episodic entries that only use this conflict as a backdrop, and audiences are having a hard time adapting to that. If you look at Rogue One (a film I'm not overly fond of, but still), there's a spinoff that nevertheless fits into the overarching story: its basically episode 3.5. Solo? That it is in the Star Wars universe is just about incidental.

I know. I actually have doubts it would happen but at, but the idea that this film was at all green-lit for release after Infinity War, shows just how much of a joke this cliffhanger ending really is. There's also a Spiderman 2 in the making, just sayin'...

It really depends on how the frame is populated. A succesful long-take is one that the audience doesn't realize is a long take. The Force Awakens strikes a very nice balance.

Of course it will be put back to normal. Guardians of the Galaxy Vo. 3 is in the works - which would be impossible unless the outcomes of the Avengers are undone

Doctor Strange is okay. I do like the craziness of some of the visuals. But story-wise, its an Iron Man retread.

O, there are plenty of long-takes in blockbusters. Leastways, not in the Michael Bay-directed ones. Whedon had them in his two Avengers films. Peter Jackson had them. I seem to recall a couple of long-ish takes in Mad Max. Spielberg usually has a long-ish oner in each of his films. Hell, even Revenge of the Sith opens with a long-take, albeit one completely fabricated in a computer. Its not like The Force Awakens' takes were that long (insert continuation of a Braveheart quote here). I believe the longest (going to Maz Canata) was about a minute, and that was CGI-assisted. If that sounds like I'm complaining - I'm not. Its all too tempting to be "art-sy" ands have sequences play out in a single take, but it isn't necessarily warranted: the point of a good long-take is that its short enough that you don't notice it, and just take the film in all the more, and that was certainly true to me with The Force Awakens, unlike the stylized camerawork of The Last Jedi. They're just the right length. I'm wondering if that style of photography will return in IX by virtue of the fact that it sort of lends itself more to the first film in a trilogy more than the third. Again, the point being to allow the audience to take the world of the film in. Its worth remembering that Abrams generally favors very lively camerawork. I dunno.

Ha! Makes me wonder if he'll go the long-take route like he did with The Force Awakens: it was wonderfully effective.

I really like Prisoner of Azkaban, but its not THAT great, to be held anywhere near the standard of Children of Men. That film is a textbook example of catharsis, in the best possible way. Truly deserving of the title masterpiece.

Children of Men might want to have a word with you about that...

I understand its your first day on JWFan, then? 😉

I seem to recall that Shore has a dislike to the term cue, and instead concieved his score in longer pieces of music.