Jump to content

Rian Johnson developing a fourth Star Wars trilogy... Oh my..


crocodile

Recommended Posts

Meh. There were people complaining when Empire came out that it wasn't Star Wars. Then the Prequel Trilogy.  What Star Wars is changes. Nothing is "cemented". Saying a story is "cemented" sounds like the opposite of growth & creativity to me.

 

And I'm saying this as someone who didn't like where they took the story in TLJ...that story didn't feel like what Stars Wars should be, to me. I thought they should have saved that kind of subversion for one of the spin offs. But that's just my opinion...it's still Star Wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLJ is neither episodic, nor is it a continuation of anything concerning the overarcing plot, save for maybe 15 minutes.

It's trying to hit all possible targets, and misses every single one of them, and by doing so, doesn't only render itself worthless and obsolete, but also its predecessor.

As an entry in a trilogy, it doesn't accomplish anything in a positive sense, except for holding the ship steady for part 3. And even then, it makes mindblowingly stupid mistakes like killing two of the three main villains, including the main villain.

 

It doesn't "grow" anything. It's daring and bold only in its determination to be as vanilla as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.

 

I don't think its a bad movie by any means. I enjoyed myself well enough, and I'll probably enjoy it even more on the small screen where the running time won't be as overbearing, but its not a particularly good movie, to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Deconstruction of Star Wars" ... when I read such things ... And uttered by people who probably read it somewhere else without knowing what it means, and take it into their rhetoric arsenal to defend the film because they like it, and don't know how to put it in words.

 

Deconstructing Star Wars. Star Wars is escapist adventure. There's no room to deconstruct things. If you do so, it results in a movie that is as awkward as it's boring. So, maybe TLJ does deconstruct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31-1-2018 at 7:58 PM, Nick1066 said:

There were people complaining when Empire came out that it wasn't Star Wars.

 

I was there but I don't recall that. Why wasn't it Star Wars? And where are these 'This Is Not My Star Wars' people now?

 

I do remember the ROTJ hate, however.

 

databank_ewok_01_169_747db03a.jpeg?regio

 

Even today it's the least popular movie of the OT. I'm sorry, Drax & family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

I do remember the ROTJ hate, however.

 

Even today it's the least popular movie of the OT.

 

Yeah, but Return of the Jedi really isn't a very good film, so that's warranted.

 

Whereas with Empire Strikes Back, its superior in every single conceivable metric to Star Wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Woj said:

It says it doesn't measure up to and may never top the original. Those are negative comparisons. 

 

Do your own damn research. 

 

Lol, so now you're peddling tenuous and vaguely connected testimonials on here then? Never had you down for that, Woj. 

 

Breaking News: review compares movie sequel to its predecessor! Man on internet forum seeks it out to make some sort of half arsed point! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowadays I only really ever think about one Star Wars movie, and its called Star Wars. I think I've lost interest in the saga side of things where this franchise is concerned. 

 

I think Star Wars '77 endures with me because it is simple and self contained, an innocent and optimistic adventure, unburdened by the franchise behemoth it would become. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Denise Bryson said:

Star Wars is better than Empire.

 

In what aspect?

 

Is it better acted?  Is it better shot? better structured? more dramatic?

 

The answer, in all those respects, and others, is no.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Denise Bryson said:

It's a more enjoyable movie.

 

Well, it is more "fun", I'll give it that, but that's exactly what traps it in the escapist, "kid's movie" label, whereas Empire almost feels like its aiming at a completely different demographic. By that token, Empire is more adult, grounded and dramatic, which I think is the central source of its superiority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Well, it is more "fun", I'll give it that, but that's exactly what traps it in the escapist, "kid's movie" label, whereas Empire almost feels like its aiming at a completely different demographic. 

 

I disagree. It's the mildly darker second half, so what? Do you think Temple of Doom was aiming at a different audience too? I suspect you're projecting meaning onto The Empire Strikes Back, not the other way around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said "almost feels like."

 

It was certainly still aiming at the same audience, but it did so in a far more adult way. And because of that, I feel like adults can watch it and enjoy it more for what it is, and not for the nostalgia of it. That was certainly true for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Denise Bryson said:

So a kids' movie may never be better than a supposedly more adult's film?

 

Given that they are both well made, yes.

 

They're just not playing in the same league.

5 minutes ago, Quintus said:

ds movie" Star Wars:

 

W6kEHsp.jpg

 

Star Wars has moments of gravity, yes. But those moments are only there to act as a contrast to the film's "fun" vibe, so it doesn't become a constant. What matters is what follows those moments: Both the death of Luke's aunt and uncle and the later death of Ben, are followed by action, which serves to undermine the drama in the same way that old Disney cartoons would cut away to a cheerful scene after something like the death of Bambi's mom.

 

In Empire, there's quite a bit of film after Vader reveals his identity to Luke, and its all informed by that grim revelation: look at the way Luke and Vader communicate after Luke is brought on board the Falcon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars and all of its sequels are definitely "kids' movies," as are all of the Marvel movies.  There's nothing inherently wrong with targeting your movie at kids, tweens, and teens.  There's also nothing that says adults won't find something to enjoy in children's entertainment.  For instance, you or I can glean a lot of enjoyment out of a children's book like The Hobbit.

 

When they take kids' material and try to make it solely for adults, a lot of the time it's a failure.  Zacky Snyder's DC movies and Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies (sorry Chen), for instance.

 

Kids' entertainment can be great and valuable to adults, or it can be awful and made to fill time.  You can see that gap in, say, a Toy Story or a Moana (a moving piece of entertainment that stands up with the best movies of their respective years) or Shrek 3 and The Emoji Movie (the poop talks!).  The target audience isn't the only audience, nor does it determine the quality of the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not here to argue which movie is better anyway, but just that I prefer Star Wars over the others these days. But I've always considered the OT to be family movies, along with the likes of E.T., Indiana Jones and BTTF. 

 

A kids movie would be Finding Nemo. Or Trolls (the ones with the pink hair!). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mstrox said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with targeting your movie at kids, tweens, and teens.  There's also nothing that says adults won't find something to enjoy in children's entertainment.  For instance, you or I can glean a lot of enjoyment out of a children's book like The Hobbit.

 

When they take kids' material and try to make it solely for adults, a lot of the time it's a failure.  Zacky Snyder's DC movies and Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies (sorry Chen), for instance.

 

There's nothing wrong with kids films, but they are an inferior product to an equally well-made film for adults. That doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy aspects of a kids' film, but it is a lesser product. Again, given that we are comparing equally well-made films. A good kids' film obviously outshines a bad film for adults.

 

Trying to rebrand a film to a demographic different to the source material can cause tonal inconsistencies, yes. The Synder DC example is very apt, although against those you can pit Nolan's entries which are very much movies for adults, and work quite well to my mind. Jackson's Hobbit films are much more of an adaptation of the appendix "Durin's Folk" than they are an adaptation of "The Hobbit", so in that respect they don't belong in this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally the only thing George Lucas has been consistent about when discussing Star Wars is that it's a throwback serial for kids.  I'd argue that all of the movies you cited as family movies are kids movies, and what makes them family movies is that they also don't suck for adults.

Just now, Chen G. said:

There's nothing wrong with kids films, but they are an inferior product to an equally well-made film for adults.

 

I don't think you or I will ever come to an accord on this, but my argument would be that a ten star children's movie like Star Wars or E.T. is not an inferior product to a ten star adult movie like, IDK, The Godfather.  If you say that they're "equally well made," that means they're equal, and neither is inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Literally the only thing George Lucas has been consistent about when discussing Star Wars is that it's a throwback serial for kids.  I'd argue that all of the movies you cited as family movies are kids movies, and what makes them family movies is that they also don't suck for adults.

 

SW fans enter adulthood but they're not prepared to admit the things they liked as kids were for kids, so they kid themselves into thinking they were for adults in order to appropriate them into their adulthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you work based off the premise that films should be evaluated for "what they are" - i.e. compare kids films to kids films, compare horror films to horror films, etcetra - than that would be untrue for you. To my mind, we got so caught up in that mindset (an attempt to import notions of equity into film criticism, if you will) as far as film criticism goes, that we forgot that films of different tones are not born equal.

 

14 minutes ago, mstrox said:

Literally the only thing George Lucas has been consistent about when discussing Star Wars is that it's a throwback serial for kids.  I'd argue that all of the movies you cited as family movies are kids movies, and what makes them family movies is that they also don't suck for adults.

 

They're four-quadrant films: they can be enjoyed by men and women, over and under 25 years of age. But within those four quadrants you always have a core demographic. In the case of Star Wars, that demographic is little kids. But Empire Strikes Back, while still very much a family film, feels more four-quadrant. And yes, George Lucas has been consistent with the demographic he was aiming at, but than he went and made Revenge of the Sith which, while it is tonally jumbled, at least features elements that are very much adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the metric is fairly easy to work out. It's about themes and whether or not children will relate to or grasp all of the various themes in a given picture. Plenty of kids movies fit this bill. Take a movie like Back to the Future however, a family film which some would also be quick to class as a kids movie, and it's isn't quite as straightforward. There's some stuff for the little kids in there, sure, but there's also sex. It's pretty clear and easy to define the movie as having a broader audience than something like The Jungle Book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'd be hardpressed or have never heard anyone describe BTTF as a "kids film". It's more like a typical 80's teen comedy, with a huge sci-fi twist, that as a result happens to appeal hugely to children, despite the fact that a lot of the content is not exactly appropriate for say six years old. 

 

The problem with defining something as a kids film, is that a kids film is usually a movie that appeals sorely to kids. Movies like Star Wars are much more broader with their audience, and aren't say sorely limited to "babysitting watching" or something. That's my two cents anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrie Fisher said it best: It's for all children between 6 and 66 (or at least that's what she wanted to say):

 

 

She's kinda cute too when she speaks French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

Well I'd be hardpressed or have never heard anyone describe BTTF as a "kids film". It's more like a typical 80's teen comedy,

 

To an old man like mstrox, teens are kids!

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.