Jump to content

Star Wars IX The Rise of Skywalker (JJ Abrams 2019)


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Wait, Rian doesn't even ask his editor to re-edit each scene seventy-eight times? That's not how movies are made! JJ understands the true craft of filmmaking! It's important to constantly change every scene up until the release, even if it means removing crucial plot points so the audience doesn't understand what's happening, making an incomprehensible mess of the narrative by completely restructuring the first two reels in the last days of post, while accidentally leaving in fragments of deleted subplots and removing closure for a bunch of pointless new characters who we wasted runtime establishing, rather than focusing on the existing ones."

- Mary Jo Malarkey, at some point... probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, crumbs said:

At least Rian Johnson and everyone involved in TLJ has the dignity not to come out and call TROS the embarrassing dumpster fire it is.

Hey, not admitting that what you made is a mess that was hacked together from a bigger uninspired mess and instead blaming someone much better is totally the grownup thing to do.

 

BTW 9 disregards 8's developments and setups 100 times more than 8 does 7's (though it really doesn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Holko said:

BTW 9 disregards 8's developments and setups 100 times more than 8 does 7's (though it really doesn't).

 

Yeah, but, Palpatine was alive! Or something. Cloned? Or, his body was... a corpse. Wait, no, it's a faulty clone, which looks like a reanimated corpse, but it's inhabited by the SPIRIT of Palpatine. Oh what, it's not? Oh well. It's not like we needed any of this explained in the film.

 

Fortunately we had a pair of genius editors who rightly understood that none of these meaningless details should be explained to viewers; it's more important that people are left completely perplexed and bewildered by the events unfolding on-screen before their very eyes. They should be so proud of their work. After all, Rian made such a terrible movie with the Last Jedi, what, with the way he constantly introduced a bunch of baffling, unexplained story points that left audiences totally confused.

 

Oh. Wait, he didn't? Well, fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

You fellas are obviously way more into these movies than I am.

 

I'm really not. I just take beef with the editors of TROS of all movies (an incomprehensible mess, easily the worst edited Star Wars film and probably the worst Star Wars film outside AOTC) publicly bagging out Johnson's film.

 

Just totally disrespectful. I'm glad Rian and his team are above such classless comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Holko said:

BTW 9 disregards 8's developments and setups 100 times more than 8 does 7's (though it really doesn't).

 

Hmmm, lets think about this.

 

THE LAST JEDI

  1. Followed up on Luke Skywalker: that Luke had turned away from the state of the Galaxy and the Jedi way was all but guarenteed by The Force Awakens, so Rian Johnson very much picked up on that.
  2. Followed up on Kylo Ren: realizing that even if he were to turn good (yuck) it would have to be at the crux of the trilogy and certainly couldn't be a token change-of-heart, so instead, Johnson's film, while playing with his torment over the killing of his father, ended up bolstering Kylo's place on the Dark Side.
  3. Dropped Snoke, which I don't mind since those dark-overlord-type characters rarely merit from having much of a backstory.
  4. Dropped Phasma.
  5. Dropped Hux, in the sense that his scenes got played for laughs.

THE RISE OF SKYWALKER:

  1. Partially-dropped Rey's lineage: I say partially because while her lineage is in complete reverse to the the description given in The Last Jedi, its is meant to reinforce a similar idea: in both films, the statement is that Rey's lineage doesn't define her.
  2. Followed up on Rey, in the sense that the question of "will Rey turn evil?" was first brought up in The Last Jedi, and Abrams and Terrio clearly latched unto that and turned it up to 11.
  3. Dropped Rose, which partially feels more the result of whatever part she may have played being cut for time. Anyway, her love interest in Finn is completely dropped in favour of Jannah (even though that relationship never materializes either, so...) and possibly Rey.
  4. Partially-Dropped Hux in the sense that we got a new commander. The tension between Hux and Kylo, established in the last third of The Last Jedi, is present but like so much in this choppily-edited film is payed lip-service to at best.
  5. Partially-dropped Kylo, in the sense that The Last Jedi clearly set him on the path of being the main antagonist of IX, and that its strengthening of Kylo's stand on the dark side is all but nulified when his turn to the light ends-up being such a token as him appearantly having mummy issues. Two films ago he was totally fine with letting Starkiller Base blow her to bits.
  6. Followed up on Poe, in that he was being groomed by Leia to lead the Resistance.
  7. Followed up on the Force Connection between Rey and Ren, not just in in their psychic connection and ability to transfer objects, but also in that he still wants her to join him and that they end up kissing (yuck). Also, the "Force dyad" concept clearly derives from a quote of Snoke's: "I told my apprentice that as he grew stronger, his equal in the light will rise."
  8. Followed up on the Jedi Texts.

 

So its split down the middle, I'd say. Both films are partially subversive of the ones that came before them, while also paying-off some elements.

 

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Wait, Rian doesn't even ask his editor to re-edit each scene seventy-eight times? That's not how movies are made! JJ understands the true craft of filmmaking! It's important to constantly change every scene up until the release

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep polishing your edit. As far as we know, the issue of reshoots in The Rise of Skywalker was really not significant as it may appear: the one scene we know was added whole-cloth in pickups was the relatively incosequential and harmless one with Luke Skywalker. Its unlikely that JJ completely overhauled the edit at any point: he just kept polishing what was there. Sadly, what was there wasn't any good.

 

Its just the pace in which it was cut, and some of the contents present in Abrams and Terrio's script that's to fault. To me it stems mostly from the limited amount of time they had to craft this film, being that they were brought-in very late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:
  • Dropped Snoke, which I don't mind since those dark-overlord-type characters rarely merit from having much of a backstory.
  • Dropped Phasma.

 

How is killing off a character "dropping" them? Rian followed up on their story and ultimately decided the best conclusion to their arc was to remove them from the equation, as part of the evolution and character arc of more significant players (in this case, Ren and Finn). Snoke's departure sets up Kylo Ren as the ultimate villain for the final film by making him the leader of the First Order, and fuels a building rivalry between Hux and Ren (which JJ completely wasted). That shot of Hux slowly reaching for his blaster while Ren is passed out was such an inviting moment for film 3, a reward for repeat viewings. Subtlety totally lost on JJ.

 

And Rian wasn't even obliged to bring back Phasma, considering her apparent off-screen departure in TFA. JJ could have brought her back in TROS as a running joke if he felt so inclined (frankly I'm shocked he didn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Dropped Snoke, which I don't mind since those dark-overlord-type characters rarely merit from having much of a backstory.

You mean expanded greatly on a big piece of nothing and gave him a cool satisfying ending before he could get stale? That's totally in the followed through category.

 

14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Partially-dropped Kylo, in the sense that The Last Jedi clearly set him on the path of being the main antagonist of IX, and that its strengthening of Kylo's stand on the dark side is all but nulified when his turn to the light ends-up being such a token as him appearantly having mummy issues. Two films ago he was totally fine with letting Starkiller Base blow her to bits.

Or, fully drops the determined Supreme Leader Kylo who wants to kill the past, by having one single boardroom meeting and having no clue what he does or what the FO does or how big it it, and by him letting Palpatine live in the first scene of the movie for whatever goddamn reason.

 

TROS also drops Luke, I can't remember a single mention of his sacrifice having been a great source of inspiration or anything. Lando just goes off and gathers thousands of ships out of nowhere.

 

It also drops the setup to a finally diferent finale with no big ancient greater evil tempting the heroes and instead brings Palps back out of fucking nowhere.

 

You just listed a couple random things and acted like that's proper quantification and comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed what immediately came to mind. Usually, whenever I try to think critically on a film, I watch it twice. But it couldn't stand The Rise of Skywalker enough to endure it a second time, so maybe my memory of it is a little sketchy. Given how its cut together, its very hard to remember the finer plot-points of that film very well.

 

Still, there's no doubt there absolutely are threads that The Rise of Skywalker picked-up from The Last Jedi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crumbs said:

set Ren on the path to lead the First Order and not follow in the failed footsteps of Vader.

 

This entire setup was completely ignored in TROS, with the film opening on some inexplicable quest to find Palpatine

 

To me this seems like a natural result of the filmmakers wanting to end with Kylo being redeemed.

 

Its much harder to do when he's the big bad, even though that's clearly the path The Last Jedi carved for him (without necessarily shutting the door on his redemption, though). But if there is someone else - whether it is Snoke or a surrogate in the form of Palpatine - its easier to manufacture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, Rian set up Hux's resentment, make there be a split in the FO, Hux and Kylo.

 

 

TROS did follow through on Hux's setup... for about a minute before he gets killed off, and he's only there to rescue the heroes in the stupid useless Chewie fakeout plot which shouldn't have been in there at all except it's the only bit where Rey has any thoughts and emotional reflections about anything, which she should have rather had towards her Palpsness to which she doesn't react at all in the final cut, and even then in the stupid useless Chewie fakeout lot the heroes unly get captured for 2 seconds only because their luck runs out and only so that they can be rescued by Hux who is then killed anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Holko said:

TROS did follow through on Hux's setup... for about a minute

 

Everything in The Rise of Skywalker lasts for no more than a minute, though, regardless on whether its a payoff from The Last Jedi (hux), from The Force Awakens (the Knights of Ren) or a new plot element.

 

That movie was on fast-forward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Rian clearly wanted to set the trilogy on a path of no-redemption for Kylo

 

I don't think Johnson completely shut the door on Kylo's redemption, certainly not intentionally. I thought he was just, in his mind, adding complications to IX's eventual quest to get Kylo redeemed. Its noteworthy that, in Johnson's film, Kylo hesitates to shoot his mother down, and its noteworthy not just because he himself doesn't do it, but also because he can then order an assault on the Rebel base without knowing that his mother is actually in there, and that sets-up her reaching out to him being the impetus of his change-of-heart. We do know Kathleen Kennedy and Abrams were adamant that Kylo be redeemed at the end, so I doubt Johnson could have gone against that and got to keep his job.

 

But yeah, that redemption is a really poor idea. The thing I liked in The Force Awakens is that it is a remake of the original Star Wars...until it isn't anymore, and I absolutely credit this to JJ Abrams. The one beat that turns the film on its head by taking a route diametrically-opposite to that of the classic trilogy, was when Kylo follows through and kills Han Solo.

 

Its in many ways the tragic climax of the film, and that alone makes it qualitatively different to Star Wars. By contrast, even if The Rise of Skywalker's plot was nothing like Return of the Jedi, by ending it with Kylo's redemption, its qualitatively the same movie.

 

But even in that moment in The Force Awakens, there's a cut to a closeup of Kylo, the music goes sad and on the commentary track Abrams remarks: "and I think, the moment that he does it, he regrets it", so the potential for Kylo Ren's redemption was always there, and that he would be redeemed wasn't rendered impossible by Johnson's film.

 

I don't think Abrams is a bad filmmaker. I just think he was a) brought-in too late and b) had to make a film where Kylo being redeemed was a given, mandated by both the executive producer and by fan expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

But yeah, that redemption is a really poor idea. The thing I liked in The Force Awakens is that it is a remake of the original Star Wars...until it isn't anymore, and I absolutely credit this to JJ Abrams. The one beat that turns the film on its head by taking a route diametrically-opposite to that of the classic trilogy, was when Kylo follows through and kills Han Solo.

 

 

Really? It's true that it doesn't have the same emotional weight (just because the original film doesn't get too emotional at any point), but Vader killing Obi-Wan is literally the same storybeat as Kylo killing Han. 

The main difference is that we see the struggle of Kylo from the beginning of the trilogy, whereas we don't get to see Vader's struggle until the very end. 

In that sense, Kylo's redemption has a better set-up than Vader's (although I agree it would've been a much better idea to keep him as a bad guy until the very last moment, and not redeem him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Force Awakens is a remake of Star Wars, but its also an amalgamation of plot-points from other Star Wars films, namely The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and bits from the "fans-christened-it-the-'okay'-prequel-so-we-can-reference-it-and-not-be-burnt-at-the-stake" Revenge of the Sith.

 

The whole idea that the villain of the piece is at all conflicted is from Return of the Jedi. In that film, Vader can't bring himself to kill his own son. In this film, Kylo fears that he won't manage to bring himself to kill his own father, a concern even brought-up by Snoke: "Even you, master of the Knights of Ren, have never faced such a test." He prays to Vader's helmet for the strength to do it. Rey later reprimands him, clearly hitting a nerve when she says: "You're afraid that you will never be as strong as Darth Vader" - clearly in reference to this act. Heck, in his confrontation with Han Kylo specifically says: "I know what I have to do, but I don't know if I have the strength to do it."

 

At the end of the film, had it gone the path of the classic trilogy, Kylo would have likewise been unable to carry out the deed. But the tragic irony is that he does: he actually surpasses Vader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oierem said:

 

Really? It's true that it doesn't have the same emotional weight (just because the original film doesn't get too emotional at any point), but Vader killing Obi-Wan is literally the same storybeat as Kylo killing Han. 

 

 

It is on a surface, plot structure level, but sets up Kylo Ren on the exact opposite path than Luke Skywalker, who struggled with the dark side and was only able to shut it down by not killing his father. Rian greatly expanded on this dichotomy. TROS is just an useless film. Easily the worst Star Wars movie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, on an article about the same topic: http://www.premiere.fr/Cinema/News-Cinema/La-monteuse-de-JJ-Abrams-se-lache-sur-Les-Derniers-Jedi

 

Quote

His collaborator, Maryann Brandon, then took the floor to temper, explaining that The Last Jedi was "from a completely different vision of the Star Wars saga. To Rian's credit, he stayed true to what he wanted to do. He wanted to deconstruct the saga and open it up to go in a different direction. This is the movie he made. I know it's controversial. But in a way, it's pretty good, right? new elements. This is why I say that, in my view, and with hindsight, this latest trilogy needed only one vision. "

 

 

OH FOR _ _ _ _ SAKE! You don't say! Does this means a trilogy should be fleshed out from the beginning? Does it mean maybe, just MAYBE it should have a cohesive vision, some sort of shared knowledge? Maybe even the same team?

 

I'm so sad for John Williams right now. I'm sure he does not care that much, but look what we could have had if this trilogy had been done either completely by JJ or Rian (my choice, but that's another debate).

 

fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, this trilogy shouldn’t have had three different directors and three different writers, as well as different editors, three different cinematographers, a different wardrobe designer for the third film...oops, that’s not the Disney trilogy I’m describing, it’s the classic trilogy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Right, this trilogy shouldn’t have had three different directors and three different writers, as well as different editors, three different cinematographers, a different wardrobe designer for the third film...oops, that’s not the Disney trilogy I’m describing, it’s the classic trilogy....

 

That's a valid point, and I'm sure if the OT was released today, it would've been criticised using many of the same arguments against the ST (sadly, it's much cooler nowadays to hate something than to like it).

 

However, there are a few arguments against it:

 

-The OT always intended to be a simple tale of good guys against bad guys. It was meant to be simple, inocent, without going in a dark direction (back then, "this sequel is darker than the previous film" wasn't said as a good thing). Therefore, the narrative stays simple, with the Big Bad Empire againts the Brave Underdoog Heroes. That doesn't need much planning.

-Even though each film of the OT went on a diferent direction (Vader is just a bad guy, Vader is the father, Vader is actually the hero), none of them tried to course-correct films, going against what was set-up in the previous film (such as Kylo the Supreme Leader becoming Palpatine's servant). And the ultimate bad guy didn't appear out of nowhere, he was always set up as the ruler of the Empire at least (and clearly as Vader's master in Empire).

-DIfferent directors and writers aside, it's clear that Lucas was the man in charge througout the whole trilogy, so even if his vision changed, he at least stayed true to his intentions and dreams. He wanted a simple moralistic tale of good against evil, and he got it. (And yes, all three stories came from him).

 

And anyway, even if the OT was as improvised as the ST, that's not a reason to say it's a good way of creating a trilogy. The fact that you struck gold once doesn't mean you will again. I think it's clearly wiser to map out a whole trilogy first, instead of deciding the plot of each film on the fly, making it up as you go. (there is a reason why Lucas always claimed that he had the whole thing writen from the beginning: it's clearly a better way of creating a trilogy).

 

When people now attack the ending of Game of Thrones (or Lost, a decade ago), they often use the lack of previous planning as an "evidence" against the quality of those series. You could say that it's not necessary to plan it beforehand to create a good story, and that's true. It is possible to make things up as you go and create something great (the OT). But it's also true that it's safer and wiser to have a plan and stick to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, oierem said:

DIfferent directors and writers aside, it's clear that Lucas was the man in charge througout the whole trilogy, so even if his vision changed, he at least stayed true to his intentions and dreams.

 

Not really. The Empire Strikes Back credits Lucas as neither director nor writer, only a "story by" credit. The truth is a bit more complex than that: Lucas began development on the film by having a series of story conferences with Leigh Brackett, so even the story itself should be at least in part accredited to her.

 

She then wrote the first draft and sadly perished, at which point Lucas rewrote a couple of drafts himself. In looking through those, its clear that Lucas' claim that none of Brackett's contributions survived is ridiculous: the main differences between Lucas' drafts and Brackett's was a different ending - not just in the sense that there was no "I am your father reveal" but also in that the film did not originally end in a cliffhanger. Lucas also added Boba Fett: otherwise their drafts are very, very similar. Then Lawrence Kasdan came in, and again Lucas' claim that he only joined at the very end to polish dialogue is incorrect: he wrote several drafts of the script by himself.

 

As far as directing, Lucas was said to have barely been present on the set of The Empire Strikes Back. He was busy setting up his companies and ranch as well as overseeing some of the recreation of the special effects. In post-production, he tried to lobby for a new cut of the film, but was overruled by the director. So no, calling Lucas "the man in charge" is really belitteling the work of Brackett, Kasdan and especially Kershner, who are the prime authors of the film. It shows, too: Empire is the Star Wars film that feels the least George Lucas.

 

Return of the Jedi had more of Lucas' hand in it, but I still don't feel right attributing the film to Lucas over Richard Marquand and Lawrence Kasdan.

 

43 minutes ago, oierem said:

There is a reason why Lucas always claimed that he had the whole thing writen from the beginning: it's clearly a better way of creating a trilogy.

 

Lucas is something of a pathological liar, though. A non-exhaustive assortment of his lies include:

  • That he wrote all the Star Wars films (of which at one time there were said to be as many as twelve) in advance.
  • That he wrote all three Indiana Jones films in advance, as told to Spielberg.
  • That, in spite of his box office successes, he's really an arthouse guy who wants to make experimental short films.
  • That he always wanted for Jabba to be a creature.
  • That Vader wore a mask in the original because he was burnt, instead of it being a remnant of a design made to a draft of the film in which Vader wore a spacesuit to enter the blockade runner through the void of space.

 

Quote

I'm sure if the OT was released today, it would've been criticised using many of the same arguments against the ST [...] even if the OT was as improvised as the ST, that's not a reason to say it's a good way of creating a trilogy. The fact that you struck gold once doesn't mean you will again. I think it's clearly wiser to map out a whole trilogy first

 

Oh sure, Star Wars should have kept up with the times. But its still not a huge issue in my mind, given that it was the case with the classic trilogy and, partially, with the prequel trilogy as well. In some ways, I feel like some fans are harping on this now only because they've been conditioned by Lucas to believe the previous trilogies were planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Lucas is something of a pathological liar, though. A non-exhaustive assortment of his lies include:

 

You misunderstood what I meant. I know that Lucas is lying when he says he had planned the whole thing beforehand (and about many other things, although calling him a "pathological liar" is too much, imho). 

What I meant is that he says he had it planned because he thinks that's a better way of creating a trilogy than making it up as he goes. He lies because, from his perspective (and from the perspective of a lot of fans and viewers), not planning things out from the start is a mistake. 

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Not really. The Empire Strikes Back credits Lucas as neither director nor writer, only a "story by" credit. The truth is a bit more complex than that: Lucas began development on the film by having a series of story conferences with Leigh Brackett, so even the story itself should be at least in part accredited to her.

 

She then wrote the first draft and sadly perished, at which point Lucas rewrote a couple of drafts himself. In looking through those, its clear that Lucas' claim that none of Brackett's contributions survived is ridiculous: the main differences between Lucas' drafts and Brackett's was a different ending - not just in the sense that there was no "I am your father reveal" but also in that the film did not originally end in a cliffhanger. Lucas also added Boba Fett: otherwise their drafts are very, very similar. Then Lawrence Kasdan came in, and again Lucas' claim that he only joined at the very end to polish dialogue is incorrect: he wrote several drafts of the script by himself.

 

As far as directing, Lucas was said to have barely been present on the set of The Empire Strikes Back. He was busy setting up his companies and ranch as well as overseeing some of the recreation of the special effects. In post-production, he tried to lobby for a new cut of the film, but was overruled by the director. So no, calling Lucas "the man in charge" is really belitteling the work of Brackett, Kasdan and especially Kershner, who are the prime authors of the film. It shows, too: Empire is the Star Wars film that feels the least George Lucas.

 

Return of the Jedi had more of Lucas' hand in it, but I still don't feel right attributing the film to Lucas over Richard Marquand and Lawrence Kasdan.

 

We will have to disagree about the importance of Lucas' contribution to Empire. I know how the process of creating that films went (as you do), yet I disagree about your interpretation of many things:

-About the genesis of the story: before Brackett's draft, there's Lucas' handwritten story treatment, in which the story of the film is already in place, and really close to the final film (so obviously, Brackett's draft could not be totally different).

-As far as I know, the initial story conferences were basically Lucas laying out the story for Brackett. Of course, she may have contributed to some degree, but Lucas had the story already in his mind (as his stoy treatment shows). If you read the transcriptions of the story conferences for Raiders of the Lost Ark, you can see how Lucas has the story in his mind... and then is reworked by the three of them. 

-Kasdan came in after Lucas' draft (Lucas only wrote one draf for Empire), in summer 1978, and his three drafts have no substantial differences from Lucas'. Instead, I'd say his contributions to Jedi were much more significant, since they affected the structure of the film itself.

-Lucas was present on the set of Empire for two months (out of six), which is a third of principal photography. That's hardly "barely present". Although clearly, Kershner was the director of the film.

-About the edit: I have not read any documented evidence about Lucas and Kershner's supposed fight about the edit, and in any case, it doesn't add up. First, Lucas couldn't have been overruled by Kershner, because Lucas had the final cut right. Second, Lucas edited the first third of the film before Kershner started working on it, while Kershner was still filming. Third, Williams spotted the film in early November 1979, and recorded the music in late December. By that time, the picture was essentially locked in the final edit. Therefore, somehow Lucas and Kershner were able to have the film edited in just about two months! Were there disagreements? Of course. But as I said before, the whole story of Lucas being angry about Kershner's cut and trying to rework it... is not documented and isn't even logical. Lucas had every right to edit the film the way he wanted, period.

 

There are facts, and there are opinions. I think we both know enough about the facts. Based on them, we create our opinions, and our opinions differ. So be it. I don't think it's relevant for this discussion, anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas' treatment was the result of the story conferences, so I do think the story needs to be credited to Brackett, as well. Plus, a lot of Lucas' contributions to the story include regurgitated plot elements from scripts to the original film - a lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader, a chase into an Asteroid field, a city in the clouds and a quirky, old mentor figure - as well as elements hammered with Alan Dean Foster for a sequel novel a few years prior.

 

2 hours ago, oierem said:

I have not read any documented evidence about Lucas and Kershner's supposed fight about the edit, and in any case, it doesn't add up. First, Lucas couldn't have been overruled by Kershner, because Lucas had the final cut right.

 

Maybe saying "overruled" was inaccurate on my part. Lucas actually made an alternate cut of the film, but it was belitteled by Kasdan, Kershner and Kurtz, and Lucas eventually conceded that it was the inferior cut, and Kershner got to edit the film to his liking. The point is, there was room to argue with Lucas and he certainly didn't shape the edit himself, even if he did work on it.

 

I'm NOT saying all of this to illustrate (as a lot of Lucas' detractors do) that the Star Wars series was somehow succesful in spite of Lucas or anything like that. Surely, he had an important part in shaping The Empire Strikes Back. But I think its totally unfair to Kershner to say that George Lucas was steering that ship in any way. It would be like saying the Indy films were Lucas' creation: they weren't; they were Spielberg's and his writers' creation. Mapping out story beats as simple enough: getting them to work on the page as a script and finally on the screen as a film is where it counts.

 

At the end of the day, the proof's in the puddin'. when I watched The Empire Strikes Back for the first time, after having sat through four Lucas-helmed entries - not knowing anything of who directed or wrote which film - I remember thinking: "wow, this feels totally different." I wasn't just referring to the retconning going on: it was the style of the film, its tempo, the look of it, the way the director guided the actors to perform their roles, etcetra. It doesn't AT ALL feel like a George Lucas film, and that's what counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

EDIT: I'll reword what I posted last night. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

I saw The Rise of Skywalker on D+ for the first time since the cinemas and I have no intention of ever seeing it again. 

 

One of my gripes about what The Rise of Skywalker gets wrong is the power struggle between Hux and Kylo Ren. The final shot of Hux glaring at Ren in The Last Jedi says everything to me as to where that dynamic was headed. Unfortunately, Hux is killed off quickly and half of his lines go to a couple of one-dimensional replacements. Meanwhile, Kylo Ren plays hide-and-go-seek with the corpse (literally dead and creatively dead) of Palpatine. A real wasted opportunity for two great characters played by two great actors to go at it. 

 

And while Kylo Ren's reforged mask does look kind of cool, we get much more out Driver's performance when he isn't wearing, which is why The Last Jedi was a bit more of an eye opener than The Force Awakens in that respect.

 

Also nice how one of the last lines of the saga comes across as Lando hitting on Jannah (his daughter???).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Someone clearly has a thing for mass-murdering neurotics.

 

Apparently there's a whole section of the fandom that is in love with Ben Solo and his relationship with Rey. They wanted the saga to end with the two characters married, and since that didn't happened, they whine all day on Twitter.

 

It's one of these weird sub-fandoms of the internet, like the Snyder Cut cultists or the Tony Stark worshippers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spike killed a shitload of people for over a hundred years and everyone still loved him. I think a lot of the nerd fanbases sympathize with these reprehensible sinful characters for whatever reason. The good guys tend to be boring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Þekþiþm said:

So what was everyone's favourite bit in tros?


Lando talking some inspiration into Poe.

 

Easily the best scene in the movie, although much too short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pellaeon said:

TFA is markedly prettier than TLJ, I thought. Compare the way Ahch-To is shot at the end of TFA vs. the beginning of TLJ.

TLJ has a more refined color palette/grain structure.  TFA in comparison is a bit fuzzy, high contrast, and strong-color-bleedy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And every light is so overly bright and coloured and surfaces so distractingly shiny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the Han/Kylo stuff. Rey/Kylo stuff, while certainly not as interesting as in TLJ, keeps my minimal interest in the film. I like to watch some isolated Palps scenes. But it’s still quite terrible..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.