Rey Skywalker Star Wars movie (Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy directing, Stephen Knight writing)

[JTN 2,046]

I just wrote in my comment why this director was hired. Tokenism over merit. How is an activist documentary filmmaker with no experience qualified to direct a friggin’ Star Wars movie? 
There are literally dozens of great directors with numerous big budget films under their belt who are way more qualified for the job. Why is Disney taking risks now by giving a Star Wars film to an activist who has a clear political agenda, right when Star Wars has lost most of its fanbase, and they haven’t had a major financial success since 2019? 

[HunterTech 994]

How were two Community directors qualified to direct an MCU movie, let alone four?

 

I just do not think these are particularly well conceived arguments once you go outside the parameters in which sociopolitical factors are considered.

[JTN 2,046]

Let’s stay on this particular subject, shall we? We’re talking about Star Wars, not the MCU. 

[HunterTech 994]

Even within SW: who the fuck was Richard Marquand before RotJ? All I know about him is being one of the first to do a Beatles biopic, and that's really it. Hell, while I admire him as a filmmaker, Rian Johnson didn't really have much showing he could do as something as grand as SW, even if he had tackled sci-fi beforehand.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that you never quite know who might be qualified to do a project until you give them the reigns. The real issue is that Lucasfilm (and by extension much of Disney) seem to have jumped into this particular tactic too much, since we are seeing the natural limitations of such a concept within a couple of their works (Obi-Wan being a particular example). Hell, even well established directors like Robert Rodriguez and Guy Ritchie have had their style sucked out of them when working within the system, so really the real issue lies somewhere else.

[Edmilson 7,473]

2 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

I didn't think directing Shrek of all things really made Andrew Adamson qualified to direct Narnia... and yet he made two very good Narnia movies!

 

Shrek 1 and 2 are better than Narnia 1 and 2 though (not that there is is any demerit on that, Shrek and Shrek 2 are absolute masterpieces )

 

As for the Narnia movies, I don't care for the first one, not even when I was a kid, but Prince Caspian is pretty good. A much more solid movie than TLTWTW. Saw it in theaters with a few friends from high school back in 2008, all of which were fantasy book nerds and Harry Potter diehards 

 

But yeah, Adamson is a good director. Dude has been missing since Prince Caspian 15 years ago.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

LOL, you guys arguing, after the year Disney just had, like this movie is actually going to happen.

 

[mrbellamy 6,291]

5 hours ago, JTW said:

There are literally dozens of great directors with numerous big budget films under their belt who are way more qualified for the job. 

 

Like who, JJ Abrams? Nobody ever presents a list...

 

I think this argument is like "There are dozens of hot singles in your area!" for movies. It's true in a way but not really. The best writers and directors are the best because they have a reputation for not taking jobs like Star Wars sequels and spin-offs, and they can still get great stuff made for big budgets with more creative control and fewer built-in expectations. They're too smart for this and realize that taking on Star Wars, especially for Disney, is a lose-lose proposition. David Fincher knew it and was the first to say fuck no to Episode 7. If they do something different, they'll be hated. If they do the same shit over again, they'll be hated and probably hate themselves even more. Either way, they just risked their profile on Star Wars instead of something new. At least younger directors have something to prove and are either more likely to play ball or they're more willing to put up with pushback from Disney and fans for a chance to pull their ideas off on a big scale. 

 

Tony Gilroy so far is the most sophisticated industry veteran they've nabbed who's apparently been able to do what he wants on his terms, and those circumstances arose basically by accident. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,804]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

LOL, you guys arguing, after the year Disney just had, like this movie is actually going to happen.

 

As well as being a money-making enterprise (allegedly, if we judge by 2023), Disney's in the business of making statements...so I don't see them walking back this big announcement to the press of shattering a glass ceiling.

 

 

[JTN 2,046]

7 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

 

Like who, JJ Abrams? Nobody ever presents a list...

 

I think this argument is like "There are dozens of hot singles in your area!" for movies. It's true in a way but not really. The best writers and directors are the best because they have a reputation for not taking jobs like Star Wars sequels and spin-offs, and they can still get great stuff made for big budgets with more creative control and fewer built-in expectations. They're too smart for this and realize that taking on Star Wars, especially for Disney, is a lose-lose proposition. David Fincher knew it and was the first to say fuck no to Episode 7. If they do something different, they'll be hated. If they do the same shit over again, they'll be hated and probably hate themselves even more. Either way, they just risked their profile on Star Wars instead of something new. At least younger directors have something to prove and are either more likely to play ball or they're more willing to put up with pushback from Disney and fans for a chance to pull their ideas off on a big scale. 

 

Tony Gilroy so far is the most sophisticated industry veteran they've nabbed who's apparently been able to do what he wants on his terms, and those circumstances arose basically by accident. 

Yep, all those directors you listed are far better and more competent directors than the one that got the job.

7 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

LOL, you guys arguing, after the year Disney just had, like this movie is actually going to happen.

 

Unfortunately it will. Don’t you know good ol’ KK by now? 

9 hours ago, HunterTech said:

Even within SW: who the fuck was Richard Marquand before RotJ?

He was under the strict supervision of George Lucas, who was overseeing the entire project, the shooting up to the point that some say he was directing parts of the film. So all due respect to Mr. Marquand, even a monkey could be the director of RotJ, while GL was there to tell everyone what to do. He was in charge of everything Star Wars, it was his baby, everything went down as he wanted. 

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

You really just avoided most of HunterTech's points...

 

This kind of thing happens every time in the industry, hell, only watching THX and American Grafitti one wouldn't imagine George Lucas could tackle a space opera. And it seems there's some conflating between writer and director, though there's some overlapping, Sharmeen isn't the one writing the movie. 

[Chen G. 3,950]

51 minutes ago, JTW said:

He was under the strict supervision of George Lucas, who was overseeing the entire project, the shooting up to the point that some say he was directing parts of the film. So all due respect to Mr. Marquand, even a monkey could be the director of RotJ, while GL was there to tell everyone what to do. He was in charge of everything Star Wars, it was his baby, everything went down as he wanted. 

 

Yes, all the evidence is Lucas was pretty hands-on on Return of the Jedi. But I think this description is exaggerated: if the film was really directed-from-the-back-seat by Lucas (which Marquand, as well as his DP, denied), it would have a more Lucas-like sensibility than it does. Lucas still needed a competent director who knew how to work with actors, and how to block a scene and edit a movie.

[Tom Guernsey 2,287]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yes, all the evidence is Lucas was pretty hands-on on Return of the Jedi. But I think this description is exaggerated: if the film was really directed-from-the-back-seat by Lucas (which Marquand, as well as his DP, denied), it would have a more Lucas-like sensibility than it does. Lucas still needed a competent director who knew how to work with actors, and how to block a scene and edit a movie.

He should have hired one then*

 

 

 

*insert appropriate “this is a joke” gif meme here 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

12 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

As well as being a money-making enterprise (allegedly, if we judge by 2023), Disney's in the business of making statements...so I don't see them walking back this big announcement to the press of shattering a glass ceiling.

 

Maybe. They cancelled Patty Jenkins' Rogue Squadron, and she was the first, first female director of a Star Wars movie, so we'll see. Granted, Patty Jenkins isn't primarily known as an activist, just an experienced filmmaker who happens to be a woman, which is obviously not enough to shatter glass ceilings in a galaxy far, far away.

 

Jenkins is also the daughter of a fighter pilot who, in her words, "lost his life in service to his country" but oddly makes no mention of enjoying making men uncomfortable. She also said she was excited to direct a movie that would make people "love what fighter pilots do" as much as she does, with nothing about wanting to anger fans or subvert their expectations, which also made her clearly unsuitable for Star Wars.

[JTN 2,046]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

it would have a more Lucas-like sensibility than it does.

Well it kinda does. The story is his, the ewoks, not letting Han die, etc. Again, SW is George’s baby, everything was his decision, nothing could happen without his final approval. 
 

 

I wish the biggest news regarding a new Star Wars movie wasn’t that it will be directed by a woman and a person of color. Because honestly no one cares about that, no one should care. Man, woman, white, black, doesn’t matter as long as they’re telling a good story. So if the most important thing about a SW movie and its director is her race and political views, it’s wrong and drives people away. 
 

At this point the best thing Disney could do is to re-release the OT in its original form in theaters and on physical format. More people would show up than to this Rey movie. Because people want great Star Wars movies, not being lectured by feminist political activists. 
And if people won’t go see her film, they will be called misogynists and racists. So convenient. 

[Chen G. 3,950]

8 minutes ago, JTW said:

not letting Han die, etc.

 

Lando. The character Kasdan tried to kill off was Lando, not Han.

 

And yes, the story is Lucas'. He wrote two drafts of it - pretty close to the finished film - before even inviting Kasdan for a story conference. But in terms of the mise-en-scene, I'm pretty sure he let Marquand at the very least deal with the day-by-day logistics of it.

[JTN 2,046]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

Lando. The character Kasdan tried to kill off was Lando, not Han.

Harrison Ford wanted Han to die in Jedi. Lucas wouldn’t let it, he wanted a happy ending.

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 minute ago, JTW said:

Harrison Ford wanted Han to die in Jedi.

 

Yes. I don't think George asked him, frankly: it was just Ford's own personal fancy.

 

But Kasdan, in the story conferences and in one of his drafts, activelly lobbied to kill-of Lando. Lucas considered it, but ultimately didn't let it pass. He was really getting into Bettelheim's book at the time and became enamoured with the idea of the fairytale happy ending and "everyone lives happily ever after and nothing bad ever happens to anyone."

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

29 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

"everyone lives happily ever after and nothing bad ever happens to anyone."

 

Clearly that rule didn't apply to Nanta the brave Ewok.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,950]

46 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Clearly that rule didn't apply to Nanta the brave Ewok.

 

And Vader (Lucas' original idea was he and Ben would return in the flesh at the end). The infatuation with Bettelheim (actually, with Disney) only went so far: even the Ewok films have a body count...

[JTN 2,046]

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Clearly that rule didn't apply to Nanta the brave Ewok.

 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

I don't think Bettelheim cared if bad guys died.

 

49 minutes ago, JTW said:

Harrison Ford wanted Han to die in Jedi.

 

If only he wanted to die in Dial of Destiny.

[JTN 2,046]

4 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

If only he wanted to die in Dial of Destiny.

He looks pretty dead in the film.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

A final shot of Indy bleeding out, with a smile on his face, while watching the Siege of Syracuse unfold before him might have even made that film worth it. 

 

And a nice little pay-off to Belloq's words in Raiders..."we are only passing through history."

[Jurassic Shark 12,090]

5 minutes ago, JTW said:

He looks pretty dead in the film.

 

Have you seen it now?

 

4 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

A final shot of Indy bleeding out, with a smile on his face, while watching the Siege of Syracuse unfold before him

 

...with Helena coming and stitching him up.

[JTN 2,046]

20 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

A final shot of Indy bleeding out, with a smile on his face, while watching the Siege of Syracuse unfold before him might have even made that film worth it. 

 

And a nice little pay-off to Belloq's words in Raiders..."we are only passing through history."

Then one of the most optimistic heroes in film history could've ended the most depressing way. Honestly him actually dying at the end would have been the only worse thing that happened to him during the film. Another reason why classic heroes should be left alone. 

 

I hope they won't make a Back to the Future sequel with a 70-year-old poor Marty McFly hardly being able to stand just to have him "one last hurrah". 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

6 minutes ago, JTW said:

Then one of the most optimistic heroes in film history could've ended the most depressing way. Honestly him actually dying at the end would have been the only worse thing that happened to him during the film. Another reason why classic heroes should be left alone. 

 

They should have just well enough alone. But if they had to make the film they did, then I think him dying witnessing history would be preferable to being stuck in a dingy NYC apartment and wanted for murder. Preferable for the audience, and for Indy.

 

There's nothing depressing about dying after a life well lived, especially if you die doing what you love.

 

Though again, I agree they should have left Indy riding off into the sunset.

[JTN 2,046]

2 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

There's nothing depressing about dying after a life well lived, especially if you die doing what you love.

 

Though again, I agree they should have left Indy riding off into the sunset.

Agreed. And Indy had not one, but two great endings, a perfect one with TLC, and a very satisfying one with KOTCS. Only Hollywood can't stop the milking of a franchise even after two good endings. 

[Chen G. 3,950]

Just now, JTW said:

Only Hollywood can't stop the milking of a franchise even after two good endings. 

 

A-propos the Rey film, which is clearly Episode X in all but name....

 

Its incredible that we had a series of film, which for all intents and purposes ended pretty definitively in 1983, then had a kind of victory lap in 2005. AND THEN somebody (George Walton Lucas Junior) said: "Well, you know what, that wasn't the end" and Disney proceeded to drag out three more films, ending on the most pathetic whimper of all time, AND NOW they're effectivelly saying: Hang go, actually that still wasn't the end: now THIS is the end."

 

Its like a farce.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

AND THEN somebody (George Walton Lucas Junior) said: "Well, you know what, that wasn't the end" and Disney proceeded to drag out three more films, ending on the most pathetic whimper of all time

 

The only reason Lucas started writing stuff for a sequel trilogy was to try to drive up the selling price to Disney. It wasn't a creative decision. And of course Disney used little of Lucas' ideas in their films, and never intended to.

[Chen G. 3,950]

14 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The only reason Lucas started writing stuff for a sequel trilogy was to try to drive up the selling price to Disney.

 

Oh, I agree. But he still approved the idea of it, was party to the public announcement of it, roped the old cast in, and helped write and design it: there's more of Lucas' outline in the finished film than some people give credit: https://medium.com/@Oozer3993/george-lucas-episode-vii-c272563cc3ba

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

26 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh, I agree. But he still approved the idea of it, was party to the public announcement of it, roped the old cast in, and helped write and design it: there's more of Lucas' outline in the finished film than some people give credit: https://medium.com/@Oozer3993/george-lucas-episode-vii-c272563cc3ba

 

I've seen this. Some of his ideas are worse than what Disney did, and some are better. But, like the Prequels, if nothing else they're certainly more creative and ambitious than what we ended up getting. 

 

In any event, I think most of what they ultimately used is pretty peripheral, for better or worse.

[Chen G. 3,950]

33 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Some of his ideas are worse than what Disney did

 

I'd put less faith into all the stories about how his sequel trilogy was going to revolve around the microscopic world of the Midichlorians and/or the crime world of the New Republic under Darth Maul...both are from AFTER The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi had been released, and smack to me of apocrypha.

 

But the basic premise -- young girl from a backwaters planet, with sidekick in tow, undertake a quest to find the reclusive Luke Skywalker, while being menaced by pirates and a masked "Jedi killer"  and their overlord, and with the son of Han and Leia being thrown somewhere into the mix - does read quite close in premise to The Force Awakens, to me.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

But the basic premise -- young girl from a backwaters planet, and sidekick, undertake a quest to find the reclusive Luke Skywalker, while being menaced by pirates and a masked "Jedi killer"  and their overlord, and with the son of Han and Leia being thrown somewhere into the mix

 

Yeah, but most of that stuff, in some form, I think would have been in almost any version of the sequels. I think a female lead/Jedi was (appropriately) inevitable for a third trilogy, as were children of Han and Leia. Yes, they used the reclusive Luke Skywalker, but how they used him ended up being significantly different than I believe Lucas would have. Again, I think this is mostly window dressing, and the devil is in the details. A Lucas ST would have been a much different beast...as he's said himself.

[Chen G. 3,950]

Right.

 

I personally believe Lucas would have never given us a sequel trilogy: I think its scarcely a coincidence that virtually all the details that have come out on his treatment, concern themselves with Episode VII, and not with VIII and IX. Lucas was never one to plan ahead in much detail, and I see little reason to assume it would be any different here.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

I agree he probably wouldn't have made them. And if he had, Episode VII certainly wouldn't have been a virtual remake of Episode IV. Would it be a better movie? Who knows. Maybe not. But again, I do think it would have at least been more ambitious.

[Mr. Hooper 1,804]

Wow, this thread has been busy!

 

On the subject of Richard Marquand, yeah, he was picked because he was more open to collaboration with Lucas than Irvin Kershner perhaps was, but I don't believe he was his puppet and that 'Jedi' was ghost-directed by Lucas.

 

7 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

And it seems there's some conflating between writer and director, though there's some overlapping, Sharmeen isn't the one writing the movie.

Whatever Steven Knight writes will be subject to approval, and I'd think that the director will have her say in that.

 

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Granted, Patty Jenkins isn't primarily known as an activist, just an experienced filmmaker who happens to be a woman, which is obviously not enough to shatter glass ceilings in a galaxy far, far away.

 

Yep. Obaid-Chinoy checked more boxes.

 

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

(Jenkins) also said she was excited to direct a movie that would make people "love what fighter pilots do" as much as she does, with nothing about wanting to anger fans or subvert their expectations, which also made her clearly unsuitable for Star Wars.

It would appear that way. Being antagonistic towards the fan base seems to be Disney's continued strategy.

 

3 hours ago, JTW said:

And if people won’t go see her film, they will be called misogynists and racists. So convenient. 

It's sheer lunacy, isn't it?

 

Disney acquires 'Star Wars' to beef up its male-centric properties, then Kathleen Kennedy attempts to make it female-centric with a feminist edge and tramples on the male legacy characters in the process, and the predominantly male fan base mostly rejects it, and the blame is put on them for not loving it.

 

Entitlement at its finest.

 

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Clearly that rule didn't apply to Nanta the brave Ewok.

 

 

 

Oh why did you have to tell me that ewok's name? Now I'll be even sadder when I see it die!

 

"Thank you, brave Nanta!"

 

51 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Some of his ideas are worse than what Disney did, and some are better. But, like the Prequels, if nothing else they're certainly more creative and ambitious than what we ended up getting.

I'd take an ambitious failure from the creator of 'Star Wars' over hot garbage made by anybody else.

[JTN 2,046]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Its like a farce.

It is. Star Wars has become a parody of itself. To paraphrase The Dark Knight: You either end as a legendary franchise or you stay around long enough to ruin your own legacy and become completely irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And of course Disney used little of Lucas' ideas in their films

Little? None! 

[Chen G. 3,950]

Just now, JTW said:

It is. Star Wars has become a parody of itself.

 

It has.

 

Also with all the spinoffs properties: at first glance, the idea of films between-the-films like Rogue One seemed like a pretty succesfull idea. But now, there's so much content shoved in between the "story" entries...its like a feast that's 80% entremets and 20% actual food.

[JTN 2,046]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

But he still approved the idea of it, was party to the public announcement of it, roped the old cast in, and helped write and design it

Because Iger and Kennedy made him believe that his story treatments were going to get made. 

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Also with all the spinoffs properties: at first glance, the idea of films between-the-films like Rogue One seemed like a pretty succesfull idea.

Yes, at first glance. But telling a story between the story of two already existing films is like telling nothing. There was a reason why those stories weren't told in the first place. Because no one gave a sh.t about them, not even Lucas himself. The extent of his interest in R1's "story" was giving it one sentence in ANH. It was worth maybe a comic book series or an EU novel, or a video game, nothing more. 

50 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I personally believe Lucas would have never given us a sequel trilogy

Honestly, Lucas should've made the sequel trilogy in the 90s, while the cast was relatively young, if ever. Since the prequels, and moreso since the disney era I believe that there never should have been a sequel trilogy at all. Or a prequel trilogy. I'm beginning to think that Star Wars was meant to be a trilogy and that's it. Not even Lucas could make the other films great. If the maker of that universe can't make good SW films, then how could anyone else? 

So I think that we'll never get another truly great SW movie. Simply because those movies were the products of a certain bygone era, made by a certain group of people that can never be repeated. If this IP wasn't so valuable and wasn't in the clutches of Disney, it should be left alone forever, only nurturing the OT or the 6 films, and make endless amount of merch, re-release them on every single physicial format, in the theater, make comic books, books, video games and animated series forever and celebrate its universe. Because I think that as a film franchise it has no future. 

44 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Whatever Steven Knight writes will be subject to approval, and I'd think that the director will have her say in that.

And the Producers.

46 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I'd take an ambitious failure from the creator of 'Star Wars' over hot garbage made by anybody else.

Absolutely!

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

18 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

The best writers and directors are the best because they have a reputation for not taking jobs like Star Wars sequels and spin-offs, and they can still get great stuff made for big budgets with more creative control and fewer built-in expectations.

 

If that's the case, Disney only has themselves to blame. The cancelled or never greenlit potential Star Wars films from established filmmakers like Patty Jenkins, Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank, Joss Wheedon, Zack Snyder, Kevin Feige and Benioff & Weiss. Every one of those filmmakers has had success directing big budget genre films, and they all were attached to, or expressed interest in, directing Star Wars. That's to say nothing of throwing Gareth Edwards and Lord & Miller under the bus. And there's strong likelihood that Rian Johnson's & Taika Waititi's Star Wars films will never see the light of day.

 

Chad Stahelski (John Wick) recently said he'd love to do Star Wars, and other name directors have hinted at it. And there are plenty of talented, creative, experienced directors who work in other countries, outside the Hollywood system, who would jump at the chance.

 

Would all of these abandoned projects made for good Star Wars? Maybe not (look at Snyder's Rebel Moon). But we'll never know.

 

But if indeed, as you said, Disney is having trouble attracting such talent, it's at least partially because of the way they're treated the talent they've attracted.

 

18 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

At least younger directors have something to prove and are either more likely to play ball or they're more willing to put up with pushback from Disney and fans for a chance to pull their ideas off on a big scale. 

 

I have no problem with younger, inexperienced directors being given a chance. The MCU has done this to great success. But its well-known that MCU films are very, very tightly managed and supervised, and are largely created in post. And in any event, say what you will about the MCU, but unlike Star Wars, it's a well-oiled machine (or, it was) with excellent management and a strategic vision for where they want to take the stories.

 

And if a young director is given a chance, personally I'd hope it was because someone saw something special in their work that suggested they could make a good Star Wars movie, and not to tick a box.

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,804]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But if indeed, as you said, Disney is having trouble attracting such talent, it's because of the way they're treated the talent they've attracted.

Studio interference is of course nothing new, and unless you're Steven Spielberg, directors often have to bend the knee to the people holding the purse strings. That's why Lucas self-financed Star Wars after the first movie. He didn't want to answer to anyone but himself.

 

But with all these firings and production woes, we're seeing a new level of project interference—or a tight-fisted control, if you prefer—from Lucasfilm under Disney in the way they've handled Star Wars.

 

They also seem to want creatives that align with their views, and if not, are at least willing to go along to get along. Those who don't, leave the project and "creative differences" are cited as the reason.

[HunterTech 994]

13 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

This kind of thing happens every time in the industry, hell, only watching THX and American Grafitti one wouldn't imagine George Lucas could tackle a space opera.

 

I hesitated to mention Lucas because I know little about THX, so there could've been a possibility that it was only a sample of the sort of sci-fi George would've liked to have worked on (which I guess it wasn't).

 

9 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Granted, Patty Jenkins isn't primarily known as an activist, just an experienced filmmaker who happens to be a woman

 

Jenkins is another great example of someone who really didn't show much indication of being able to tackle a superhero movie prior to WW. And yet this is one instance where her limitations likely ended up being on display, given the sequel lacked a lot of the input from Snyder and DC/WB to shape the movie like she had with the first one. This led to action that was generally considered much weaker (since it apparently had a different second unit that hadn't worked on ZS productions prior), and a story rife with questionable choices and some seriously unfortunate implications (a couple of which make you question its attitude regarding men). So it's really up in the air over how she might've worked with Lucasfilm, had the project gone forward.

 

9 hours ago, JTW said:

I wish the biggest news regarding a new Star Wars movie wasn’t that it will be directed by a woman and a person of color. Because honestly no one cares about that, no one should care. Man, woman, white, black, doesn’t matter as long as they’re telling a good story. So if the most important thing about a SW movie and its director is her race and political views, it’s wrong and drives people away. 

 

At this point the best thing Disney could do is to re-release the OT in its original form in theaters and on physical format. More people would show up than to this Rey movie. Because people want great Star Wars movies, not being lectured by feminist political activists. 
And if people won’t go see her film, they will be called misogynists and racists. So convenient. 

 

It's incredible how much one line ("no one should care") is one in which two people agree with, and yet for vastly different reasons.

 

We lived (and for some still live) in a time when because certain groups have had it harder in life that, for decades, their opportunities were much scarcer as a result. To be on big budget projects like these would be a huge accomplishment for anyone, let alone those who had to work harder to get to the position they have (or at least are grateful it's reached a point where they can be considered just as qualified as everyone else). It's a few ways off, but we're getting closer to the point where it won't be a roadblock for you to do what you love because of how your identity is perceived.

 

So it pisses me off when people suggest that the hiring of diverse talent is purely so an ideology can be pushed onto the masses, since I'll be perfectly blunt: what ideology? Because so far, there's really little in the way of consistency in terms of what nu SW has presented in its sociopolitical messaging. There's certainly things you could read into the movies as a result of what it does decide to push (which is just have more people that aren't white males), but what the hell is an audience divorced from online discourse going to actually think? "Too derivative, too subversive, too hackneyed" is what you heard them say with the ST, and are probably what they'll continue to think about them for the time being.

 

Oh, but those whose news headlines that are only about how x director is all about smashing the patriarchy? Yeah, get back to me when it's Lucasfilm themselves highlighting those facts, and how they'll incorporate them. Last I checked, James Cameron going on about how testosterone is a toxin that men should purge from their bodies didn't end up informing the content of Avatar 2. I am aware we had things like "the force is female," but did that actually go further than a T-shirt someone wore?

 

Look, is Disney really bad about incorporating these things? Absolutely. Should I blame the hired creatives for it? I wouldn't be entirely certain, since we often never really know what happens behind the scenes for these projects. I'd just rather look at the positives, since ultimately this is all stuff future filmmakers will learn from going forward.

 

6 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Being antagonistic towards the fan base seems to be Disney's continued strategy.

 

Disney acquires 'Star Wars' to beef up its male-centric properties, then Kathleen Kennedy attempts to make it female-centric with a feminist edge and tramples on the male legacy characters in the process, and the predominantly male fan base mostly rejects it, and the blame is put on them for not loving it.

 

I really don't understand this line of thinking, since the only real examples I've seen of them being toxic against the fan base is in the times when they've had to stand up to actors getting harassed on social media. Hell, if anything, they seem too committed to staying within a cycle of incredibly safe fan pandering with how they've treated legacy characters and certain concepts/stories post the ST.

 

The Rise of Skywalker is even more of an enigma then if the intent wasn't to please every possible vector of the fan base after its predecessor allegedly killed cinema. Is there passive aggressiveness in what LF made afterwards that I'm missing here?

 

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

If that's the case, Disney only has themselves to blame. The cancelled or never greenlit potential Star Wars films from established filmmakers like Patty Jenkins, Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank, Joss Wheedon, Zack Snyder, Kevin Feige and Benioff & Weiss. Every one of those filmmakers has had success directing big budget genre films, and they all were attached to, or expressed interest in, directing Star Wars. That's to say nothing of throwing Gareth Edwards and Lord & Miller under the bus. And there's strong likelihood that Rian Johnson's & Taika Waititi's Star Wars films will never see the light of day.

 

Chad Stahelski (John Wick) recently said he'd love to do Star Wars, and other name directors have hinted at it. And there are plenty of talented, creative, experienced directors who work in other countries, outside the Hollywood system, who would jump at the chance.

 

Would all of these abandoned projects made for good Star Wars? Maybe not (look at Snyder's Rebel Moon). But we'll never know.

 

But if indeed, as you said, Disney is having trouble attracting such talent, it's at least partially because of the way they're treated the talent they've attracted.

 

4 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

But with all these firings and production woes, we're seeing a new level of project interference—or a tight-fisted control, if you prefer—from Lucasfilm under Disney in the way they've handled Star Wars.

 

I think within here lies the more prominent reasons for Lucasfilm struggling so much, since they seem so willing to flip the switch the moment a person they want to work with suddenly has one dud, which should really suggest a serious lack of proper vision for the company. Sure, they have had a tighter grip on a lot overtime, but to what real end that isn't more tired fanservice and half baked stories/filmmaking?

 

Kevin Feige had worked on enough Marvel movies prior to the MCU to get a real good feel for what they should be going forward. Kathleen Kennedy simply was a producer and associate on several Spielberg pictures. Two very different backgrounds that serve to fundamentally show why the latter struggles so much. She simply has stretched herself too thin trying to be a proper creative force for so many projects, when her expertise lied in basically letting a friend do whatever he wants.

 

If anything, it makes The Last Jedi more tragic, since it essentially was the closest any of these got to matching her filmmaking experiences prior to being at Lucasfilm. Trust seems to have completely evaporated for Kathleen Kennedy.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

1 hour ago, HunterTech said:

Kevin Feige had worked on enough Marvel movies prior to the MCU to get a real good feel for what they should be going forward. Kathleen Kennedy simply was a producer and associate on several Spielberg pictures. Two very different backgrounds that serve to fundamentally show why the latter struggles so much. She simply has stretched herself too thin trying to be a proper creative force for so many projects, when her expertise lied in basically letting a friend do whatever he wants.

 

I wish more people understood this. Every bit of criticism of Kennedy elicits a response with a litany of all the ultra-successful, iconic films she's worked on. And it's all true, she is undoubtedly one of the most successful in Hollywood history, her record speaks for itself. And she deserves every bit of credit for what she's done. 

 

But being a producer is a very different job than the one she has now. And frankly, she lacks the grand vision to lead something as sprawling as Star Wars. The films and TV shows have been all over the place in terms of quality and performance, and her tenure has seen Star Wars fans become disillusioned & bitterly divided. While she's certainly not responsible for everything that's gone wrong with Star Wars (lots of people, mostly men, share the blame), there's no cohesion or unified theme behind what's going on with the franchise. It's all disjointed and scattershot, all over the place in terms of story. Add to that the graveyard of abandoned projects, and Star Wars has paid the price for her lack of vision.

 

1 hour ago, HunterTech said:

We lived (and for some still live) in a time when because certain groups have had it harder in life that, for decades, their opportunities were much scarcer as a result. 

 

I certainly agree that it's a good thing that historically marginalised groups be given more opportunities in the entertainment industry. Frankly women should be directing Star Wars movies, and I was happy when Patty Jenkins got the nod.

 

1 hour ago, HunterTech said:

To be on big budget projects like these would be a huge accomplishment for anyone, let alone those who had to work harder to get to the position they have (or at least are grateful it's reached a point where they can be considered just as qualified as everyone else).

 

But is Obaid-Chinoy, who is first and foremost a self-described activist, and has directed primarily documentaries and small animated films, really "just as qualified as anyone else" to direct as Star Wars movie? Really?  When you have a CV that doesn't show you have remotely the kind of experience to pull something like this off (as far as I know she hasn't even directed a feature film), of course people are going to suspect you're being hired for other reasons. I mean, why isn't Bryce Dallas Howard being given this opportunity?

 

And not for nothing, while we're all talking about how good it is, to quote Obaid-Chinoy incorrectly talking about herself, "for a woman to finally shape a story in a galaxy far, far away", can we finally give some credit to Marcia Lucas, who was literally the first woman to do so? 

 

 

[Edmilson 7,473]

49 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Jenkins is another great example of someone who really didn't show much indication of being able to tackle a superhero movie prior to WW. And yet this is one instance where her limitations likely ended up being on display, given the sequel lacked a lot of the input from Snyder and DC/WB to shape the movie like she had with the first one. This led to action that was generally considered much weaker (since it apparently had a different second unit that hadn't worked on ZS productions prior), and a story rife with questionable choices and some seriously unfortunate implications (a couple of which make you question its attitude regarding men). So it's really up in the air over how she might've worked with Lucasfilm, had the project gone forward.

 

Yeah, but at least Hans Zimmer's score was great 

[Mr. Hooper 1,804]

4 hours ago, HunterTech said:

So it pisses me off when people suggest that the hiring of diverse talent is purely so an ideology can be pushed onto the masses, since I'll be perfectly blunt: what ideology? 

 

I can't point to some unified "ideology" being pushed through 'Star Wars', but I think that anyone paying attention—and even those not familiar with the discourse online—will have noticed that there's been a push to make Star Wars more female-centered. And I'm stating this as a fact without judgement.

 

It's not just Kathleen Kennedy wearing a "The Force is Female" T-shirt... Male characters have been sidelined or played down in favour of female ones. The proof is in the content, and we're seeing it happen in Marvel, too...so we may surmise that it's a Disney thing. And there's nothing controversial about this. It's rather plain to see.

 

Why have they done this with two traditionally male-centric properties whose audience is predominantly male? This is the million dollar question...

 

As you say, we're not privy to what actually goes on at these companies, but it's a fair question to ask and I'm curious to know the answer.

 

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And frankly, she lacks the grand vision to lead something as sprawling as Star Wars.

I imagine Lucas had many extensive conversations with Kennedy before appointing her head of Lucasfilm... He probably naively thought he could still shepherd it from the outside, and that she'd come to him for advice and heed it.

 

But what I really can't understand is how—as an experienced producer—she dropped the ball so badly on the sequel trilogy, which was to be the flagship for "Disney Star Wars", and the first horse out of the gate...

 

How is it that they didn't have a bullet-proof story and plan for the three movies to stick to, and had to bring Abrams back to sweep up Johnson's debris, and literally decide important plot points like Rey's identity whilst shooting the film? It's gross incompetence.

 

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

and Star Wars has paid the price for her lack of vision.

 

[Holko 9,531]

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Why have they done this with two traditionally male-centric properties whose audience is predominantly male? This is the million dollar question...

Because using a preestablished successful IP is much easier than putting in the time, creativity and lot of work to build up a competing one for real equality.

[HunterTech 994]

Not to mention conveniently easy for some to either forget or simply never acknowledge the few times when it does manage to be successful in any capacity (which is admittedly reasonable if you're someone above a certain age threshold).

 

Or, rather unfortunately in the case of Steven Universe and Owl House (which is a proper Disney property), they get hastily concluded once they reach the point they push things far enough that the company simply can't sell them to every foreign market anymore. SW only has to deal with background lesbian kisses they edit out in China, so something like this would be an easy thing to miss.

 

There absolutely is truth to Disney using minorites purely for profit, and it definitely is right to be cynical about the ways in which they decide to use them. The issue for me is that it can get so muddled in trying to find things to blame for the sterilization of modern media that some tend to get inclined to blame certain demographics even existing at all for why a thing went bad, which I find gets a bit too close to that territory at times in the discussion (while acknowledging that phrasing + my own reading comprehension can often get in the way here).

[Edmilson 7,473]

Kathy Kennedy planning the next Lucasfilm projects 

 

[Courtney Sees Ghosts 269]

On 05/01/2024 at 7:54 PM, JTW said:

I just wrote in my comment why this director was hired. Tokenism over merit. How is an activist documentary filmmaker with no experience qualified to direct a friggin’ Star Wars movie? 
There are literally dozens of great directors with numerous big budget films under their belt who are way more qualified for the job. Why is Disney taking risks now by giving a Star Wars film to an activist who has a clear political agenda, right when Star Wars has lost most of its fanbase, and they haven’t had a major financial success since 2019? 

Woman gets job = politcal agenda. Lol grow up.

Also we haven't had a movie since 2019 so what have they lost money on? Lol

[Mr. Hooper 1,804]

9 hours ago, HunterTech said:

The issue for me is that it can get so muddled in trying to find things to blame for the sterilization of modern media that some tend to get inclined to blame certain demographics even existing at all for why a thing went bad

 

I don't know how many fans think 'Star Wars' has gone bad simply because it's aiming for more female representation or viewership. The "problem" doesn't lie there for me, it's in the way it's being done.

 

If we cut through the vitriol and noise and take the time to listen to the fans, they're mostly saying that Rey, for example, is a poorly developed character with no real arc or "Hero's Journey", and that in their view, male characters were disrespected to make her look good and put her front and centre. And this is coming from female fans as well.

 

The stoic, strong female character that aims to show that women can do it as well as—if not better than—the men, is simply not that interesting, and it's a tired trope at this point. And again, there are female fans that share in this viewpoint.

 

These, I think, are legitimate complaints which Disney/Lucasfilm should listen to instead of taking a standoffish stance...especially when they're voiced by a considerable part of their audience.

 

But then you have all-but-confirmed Disney shills attempting to smear the fan base in hit piece articles or YouTube videos by calling them "misogynists" for disliking Rey or other female characters. And, well, it's become the usual shouting match online of "I'm right and you're wrong."

 

That being said, even if they feel disrespected by Disney, some of these fans need to tone down their language for decency's sake...

 

It would serve their goals better to present their arguments in a reasonable and respectful way. Some YouTubers do it, which I've subscribed to, but it's apparently more popular to present an angry viewpoint and stoke the fires of discontent. But in the meantime, nobody's really listening to each other, and it's an example of what's going on at large in societal discourse.