Chen G.

Yeah Right... George Lucas was always full of it. He didn't have this series planned out. At best he had vague ideas, mostly a recycling of the lesser ideas found in earlier drafts of his screenplay to Star Wars. What little we know of these ideas is that his original intention was for the sequel trilogy to form a sextet with the first three films, with episode IX essentially being what Return of the Jedi ended up being.1 By the time Return of the Jedi took shape, any and all plans for a sequel trilogy were in effect abandoned, because the story had reached its conclusion. And, as much as I'm not a big fan of Return of the Jedi, I still think his idea for a nonet was stupid: You'd watch only a half of Luke's story only to go back to hear Anakin's and than return to see the second half of Luke's story? _____________________________________________ 1 Interview with Gary Kurtz (IGN: 2002), p. 4.

Isn't there a rule against quoting Attack of the Clones?

Dubbing live action movies was never a thing in Israel. I remember being appaled with its use in European broadcasting of films. I don’t see anything wrong with subtitles - I often write new ones for some of the movies I like.

The visual assault I would say is still very much present on the small screen: I’m not talking so much about the explosions and such but just about the Michael Bay camerawork: there’s way too much movement throughout the entire runtime of any of his films (which are anything but short) such that it burns me out. It literally gives me a headache, even in simple dialogue scenes.

It isn’t awful, just embarrassing. This series has made well upwards of a billion dolars per each of its three entries thus far, and is expected to do the same with its fifth entry, as well. Even before the Disney era, these films always performed very, very well. I never imagined Solo doing as bad as it did.

Kylo is NOT lost in The Last Jedi. He is only fooling Rey so that she’s there at his side when he kills Snoke, so as to help him do away with the guards.

They’ll barely break even, if at all: not all the box-office money returns to the studio, not by a long shot. Its not the worst bomb out there, but it’s very, very embarrasing.

To make something truly dramatic, you have to have significant low points where the story is downright grim, so the catharsis of the end is that much more impactful. Specifically, in the case of Braveheart, the tragedy that looms over so much of the narrative is balanced with humor that's just insanely funny, to me. Not to mention that its always delivered in just the right spots for the audience to never too deep into the harrowing nature of the story - so there's that going for it, as well. It really is a marvel of editing, because the script is much different to the final edit.

The Avengers.

That's just it: on average, we each have different strengths and weaknesses. Biologically, we are not the same, and that (again, on average) manifests itself in our personalities and behavior. Its not a social construct. That's why equality-of-outcome is such a flawed idea, in front and behind the camera.

That we don't have equal outcomes in most work environments doesn't mean that the concept doesn't affect our lives and may very soon start to affect our films.

I think it is a discussion worth having here, as long as we limit our focus to the issues relevant to this thread: Diversity within the cast and whether or not (and/or how) it affects the film. Diversity within the production crew. And on both accounts, equality-of-outcome, mascareding as "diversity" or "social justice", should be discouraged. Whether or not Kathleen Kennedy believes in such notions of equality, is unknown and really isn't in any way appearant from the movies she produced, as of now.

Social justice isn't a bad thing; but equality-of-outcome, with which its often being confused, is a very bad one.

Ahhh! That's the scariest thing I've seen! and I've been in a war!

Ew, movie quotes!

"No one hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans do."

I don't care. We don't learn anything in that movie about the passage of time (really, in most of them) so as to arise our suspicion as we're watching it: rationalizing it after-the-fact doesn't count. Rather, in watching The Empire Strikes Back, the audience is just swept away in the energy of the film.

Hux is dreadful. Really, all the villains in the film are. BB-8 and the Porgs are delivered in such small doses that they're really a none-issue. I had a small issue with the comedy surrounding the caretakers, though. Nothing too major, but still. I would disapprove of a feminist agenda infused into tentpole blockbusters as much as the next guy, but I really don't see your case when it refers specifically to these latest Star Wars films. There are three female characters in a film with quite a big cast. Its really not an issue. Oh, there are storytelling issues with all these films all right, but for me personally none of them are that substantial.

I've said it many times, but filmmaking is one the least consistent professions out there: one day you churn out a masterwork, the other day - a mediocre film. Its just too complex and interdisciplinary an artform for one to be genuinely on-top of it throughout.

One flop in what has been thus far one of the most lucrative series in recent memory will surely be troubling, but I don't for a second feel that it will hurt Kennedy's carreer; again, because of that by-and-large highly lucrative nature of the franchise.

Which is why it works so marvelously in one the series' darkest entries. But than, Kasdan co-wrote Return of the Jedi where that counter-balancing of humor and suspense isn't nearly as effective; although I guess I can't blame him when his co-writer was George Lucas.

Is he though? If you take a good look at Empire Strikes Back it has quite effective humor. Granted, Leigh Bracket might have been responsible for a lot of that - namely, the interaction between Leia and Han.

He kind-of has a point...

As much as I am a fan of examining each film on its own terms, it only goes so far: sometimes, what a movie is just isn't enough, from the outset. That seems to be the case with Solo. Having not seen it, I wouldn't presume to pass judgment, but I've only heard things that range from bad, to faint praise. I think that critics can be swayed by the "zeitgeist", as it were. i.e. when a franchise like Disney's Star Wars earns their good faith with a strong entry or two, that favorable impression can carry over to films of this franchise that don't necessarily deserve the praise: Solo, as well as portions of The Last Jedi, being such a case. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is Marvel who, having earned critics and audiences' trust, can shell out quite vapid content and still be looked at favorably.

The Last Jedi did well enough, commercially, for Lucasfilm to not get too discouraged. Its Solo, the safe-choice, that's failed; and that wasn't because it was safe or innovative but because it (appearantly) sucked.