Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Old 09-10-19, 05:06 PM
  #1701  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,029
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
I do love how all the "shiny" tech of the Prequels goes completely in the shithouse in less than 20 years.
Is this really that difficult?

The prequels show the center of the freakin' universe at the height of it's power. We see technology belonging to an elite group of warrior monks, and several spaceship flown by the power elite. Yeah, it's pretty nice stuff. In the original trilogy we see backwater shitholes and a smuggler's junkheap ship. The Rebellion is a rag tag collection of whatever they can beg, borrow or steal. And the Empire is a military organization, where function is all that matters.
Jason is offline  
Old 09-10-19, 06:17 PM
  #1702  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,549
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Mike86 View Post
I think so much of the problem with the prequels is knowing that the story was basically there and just had to fill in some of the gaps but fell flat in so many ways. There’s some good things in the films and a lot of good ideas.
Some of the good ideas:
-showing how from Anakin's point of view, the Jedi weren't completely in the right, like when Mace wants to just kill Palpatine instead of brining him to face justice.
-demonstrating how Palpatine was this surpreme evil genius. No matter what path the Jedi and Republic goes in, he wins.
-showing how things got the way they are via political stuff.
Originally Posted by Draven View Post
There are scenes where he says it multiple time back to back. It's so stupid and poorly written. That and Anakin's constant "m'lady"'s to Padme are the worst
Apparently Lucas wasn't happy with what he described as a the "Lethal Weapon" style of dialogue that the OT had and he wanted the acting to be more "theatrical" than realistic.

Eh, I used to think ROTS was the best of the three, just rewatched it recently and it's far worse than I remembered. Everything with Palpatine is ridiculous, old men leaping around fighting with lightsabers looks stupid and Grevious is laughable at best. McGregor's Kenobi is the only worthwhile thing in that movie. Thank goodness he's getting a series - he's the only worthwhile thing to come out of the prequels.
McGregor as Kenobi was only decent in The Phantom Menace. Everything else seems like an impersonation of Alec Guiness.

I think bringing him back is the worst thing they can do with a trilogy I have thoroughly enjoyed. He's so over the top in the PT - I was reminded how stupid it looked when he somehow lightninged himself into old age
One of the cheesier villains out there. You'd think by the 2000s that the cartoon villainy of the Emperor would get a little more nuanced but no. He just wants "powaaaaaa."
The lightning himself is actually a good idea of Lucas's. In the OT we think he's the decrepit, ancient dude who's running the Empire, but if we see him as a regular dude in the first two OT films, 20 years is not enough to turn him into the cryptkeeper.

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Is this really that difficult?

The prequels show the center of the freakin' universe at the height of it's power. We see technology belonging to an elite group of warrior monks, and several spaceship flown by the power elite. Yeah, it's pretty nice stuff. In the original trilogy we see backwater shitholes and a smuggler's junkheap ship. The Rebellion is a rag tag collection of whatever they can beg, borrow or steal. And the Empire is a military organization, where function is all that matters.
It's the Republic at the height of its power, not the universe.
And if the discrepancy in technology and aesthetic is because the Republic is at the height of its power, how do you explain a 1950s American diner in Attack of the Clones? Why don't we see any beat up, ragged Nabooian star ships in the OT?
The real reason is that the production design team was inspired by the look of spaceships from 1930s science fiction pulp magazine covers and just went with it. The in-universe explanation came after.
Just like how Queen Amidala and Darth Maul are two completely different characters and species but both look like some Japanese Kabuki actors. Yeah, there’s two different in-universe explanations for why they look that way but something kind of feels off about it. A lot of talent and hard work went into the PT but I don't feel like it ever gelled together successfully.

Last edited by brayzie; 09-10-19 at 08:54 PM.
brayzie is offline  
Old 09-10-19, 07:13 PM
  #1703  
TGM
DVD Talk Legend
 
TGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 15,652
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

for the "the prequel ships and tech looked so much more advanced than the OT" crowd... I give you a car from the 30s, and a jeep from the 40s. tell me which one looks more advanced.



TGM is offline  
Old 09-10-19, 08:59 PM
  #1704  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,549
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by TGM View Post
for the "the prequel ships and tech looked so much more advanced than the OT" crowd... I give you a car from the 30s, and a jeep from the 40s. tell me which one looks more advanced.
so is the reason for the visual discrepancy because the technology stagnated once the Empire took over, or is it because the one starship is for wealthy civilian consumers and the OT starships are all for the military?

Last edited by brayzie; 09-10-19 at 11:44 PM.
brayzie is offline  
Old 09-10-19, 09:35 PM
  #1705  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,287
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

I can kind of dismiss that the aesthetics don’t look exactly the same to be truthful. I mean in the span between the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy it’s easy to believe that technology would have change and yet at the same time a lot of the ships and whatnot being used by the Rebels in particular would be worn down from use and since they’re a smaller group wouldn’t have the means to get or build more advanced ships.

As far as aesthetics of the different locales we saw planets in the prequels that weren’t in the originals so I can accept different planets would have different looks/technology. Tatooine looked essentially the same, we just saw more of it.
Mike86 is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 12:03 AM
  #1706  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 6,026
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Yes, because Marvel wasn't under a "1 film per year" mandate, and had a deep well of possible characters to pull from, not to mention producing sequels of characters already with movies. As Edgar Write notes in this timeline of Ant-Man production, Ant-Man “isn’t one of [Marvel’s] biggest properties, it’s not like a tentpole deadline.” Marvel had a bit more wiggle room to figure things out in pre-production, instead of Lucasfilm's situation where they had to greenlight a lot of films fast, and hope for the best. Still, they did eventually fire Edgar Wright specifically because his "different spin" turned out to be too different from what they wanted or expected, and couldn't reconcile the differences even after 8 years.
I appreciate the further evidence but I already conceded that your point of the one film a year mandate is what really hurt Star Wars the past few years. However, as the head of Lucasfilm she is held responsible for Solo's issues. You stated Ant Man as a comparison to Solo in terms of using a different director for a different vision. And you're right but that's further evidence that KK, knowing that she's under a one movie a year mandate shouldn't have gambled with "unknown" talent. Marvel had the ability and time to explore a different path.

Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
I'm not sure I'd call Ant-Man a "surprise hit," since it's the 3rd lowest grossing MCU film, at least domestically. Worldwide its... 4th lowest grossing. Solo actually performed better than Ant-Man domestically. What probably saved Ant-Man is that it had nice foriegn revenue, and Marvel saw potential with the character and cross-over capabilities.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franch...d=avengers.htm
Perhaps domestically, it made $519 million and $623 million overall. I'd say that's some pretty huge numbers for a third tier Marvel character that talks to ants. Meanwhile Solo made $393 million. Even worse form comparison, Rogue One made a billion.

Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
I really find if baffling that people think that planning out the story before filming would've meant a trilogy they liked better, especially before they even see the conclusion. Lucas was crafting the story for the OT and the PT on the fly as the OT was being produced (the PT story was the backstory in OT). There's lots of inconsistencies in the OT films, and what we know now as a lot of retconning of plot points and characters in later films from what was originally "planned" or conceived. However, the whole came together well enough that people overlook the flaws. Meanwhile, the PT had the basic story handed to it pre-planned based on the development during the OT, and it was a trash fire.

Say they did plan the ST ahead of time. Who's to say they wouldn't have brought in Rian Johnson for that planning, and he lays out an Ep 8 storyline that's largely the same as TLJ, and Lucasfilm love it, and since he's not busy filming, have Rian craft Ep 9 as well. Now, maybe Ep 7's story gets tweaked, but if RJ/Lucasfilm like the Snoke/Rey's parents twists enough they maybe just keep them as "mysteries" in Ep 7. So in this "plan ahead" scenario, Lucasfilm is committed to Ep 9 following RJ's vision. Would that be preferable to you?


And you don't think adding a scene or two of very loose connectivity is much easier than crafting a movie trilogy? Hell, the most MCU has done is a two-parter.
No it doesn't automatically mean that it will be better. NO ONE has said that it would automatically make the ST a great trilogy. And we are all aware of the fact that the OT was basically fortuitous that it turned out so great with little planning and the PT had all the planning in the world and turned out to be crap. But you're arguing like it was the reason for their success and failure. It's not. But when a lot of the problems that people have with TLJ are the lose threads that were ignored from TFA or an inconsistent characterization from TFA to TLJ then yeah of course it's ridiculous that they didn't plan out the biggest trilogy of movies before making them. Personally I am still optimistic that it will work out and all come together as a cohesive trilogy so I will wait to pass judgement then. For me personally yeah if there is a justification for the "plot twists" in TLJ with a satisfying payoff that would be awesome. When I stepped out of the theater for TLJ I felt a bit confused but excited to see what they had planned for the next movie since they took a lot of twists with the plot...until I found out there was no plan (seemingly). That all those subversions were just gotchas.

And that is exactly my point with the Marvel vs. Star Wars comparison. It is much easier to add a scene or two to loosely connect several movies together but guess what they planned it out and they did it and the results are nothing short of spectacular. There were even MORE expectations with Star Wars at the time and it would be a way more difficult task to craft a follow up to one of the most beloved franchises ever. But instead of facing that challenge head on and really "crafting" that trilogy they said screw it we're just going to wing it and make it up as we go along. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't we shall see in a few more months.

tanman is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 02:43 AM
  #1707  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,969
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

I will always contend that Lucas needed someone to work out his PT with; my main beef is that Qui Gonn should not have died but rather been maimed by Maul, thus replacing the count dooku character who does not side with the emperor but is killed by anakin and obi wan because of the emperor.
gmanca is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 05:38 AM
  #1708  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 31,288
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by brayzie
The lightning himself is actually a good idea of Lucas's. In the OT we think he's the decrepit, ancient dude who's running the Empire, but if we see him as a regular dude in the first two OT films, 20 years is not enough to turn him into the cryptkeeper.
The Dark Side eating away at him over decades until the OT is much more understandable then lightning somehow making his skin wrinkly. Also the makeup looks stupid. Always felt it gave off a rubbery “Power Rangers” vibe. Lucas didn’t need to do that. Palpatine putting his hood up was enough to “get it”. Lucas didn’t need to throw an anvil of an explanation on why he looks older in the OT.

Just one more thing the PT didn’t need to do (see also: midichlorians, Anakin building C3PO, Padme dying only because the movie was over).
Draven is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 05:42 AM
  #1709  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,287
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

I mean Mace was wielding the lightning back at him during their fight. Easy to believe that he’d come away scarred somehow from that.
Mike86 is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 07:17 AM
  #1710  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,627
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
...but that's further evidence that KK, knowing that she's under a one movie a year mandate shouldn't have gambled with "unknown" talent.
So your advice for creative works is "don't take chances/risks."

Kathleen Kennedy had some words about that in an article I already linked to:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...r-exit-1016619
... just a year ago, THR did a Q-and-A with her that sheds light on her thinking. Kennedy discussed her belief that within major franchises, it is possible to “take artistic license and creative risks.” She added, “If all you're doing is playing it safe — trying to make the same movie over and over again — that's when the audiences say, 'Oh, this is just a moneymaking machine.’ But if it's genuinely in service to the art form, then the franchise concept is being used in a way that's exciting.”
Lucasfilm was arguably "playing it safe" when it hired JJ Abrams to make TFA, and we all know how that turned out. They played it safe again hiring Ron Howard for Solo and re-hiring JJ for TRoS. We know how Solo turned out, and we'll see how TRoS turned out in a few months.

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
Perhaps domestically, it made $519 million and $623 million overall.
This math looks wrong. Ant-Man made $519 million worldwide. Where did you get the $623 million number from? That's the wordwide total for its sequel, Ant-Man and the Wasp.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=antman.htm
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies...andthewasp.htm

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
I'd say that's some pretty huge numbers for a third tier Marvel character that talks to ants. Meanwhile Solo made $393 million. Even worse form comparison, Rogue One made a billion.
Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America were all considered third tier, or at least "B-list" characters before Marvel made them major starts of their own movies.
Iron Man? Thor? Which B-List Superhero Has The Brawn To Make It Big? - MTV
Which of these B-list heroes have what it takes to become A-list movie stars?
https://archive.fortune.com/magazine...4246/index.htm
Can Marvel prevail with a slate of characters - Thor, the recently deceased (but sure to be resurrected) Captain America, Ant-Man - that, beloved as they are to longtime comics fans, are mostly unknown to today's kids?
All of those did better than Ant-Man. Even worse from comparison, Black Panther, featuring a third-tier character, made over a billion.

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
No it doesn't automatically mean that it will be better. NO ONE has said that it would automatically make the ST a great trilogy...
All the people suggesting that Lucasfilm "should've" planned the storyline ahead of time, and that they were stupid not to, seem to be implying it. If that's not a variable that would've affected quality, why do they keep insisting it should've been different than what it was?

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
But when a lot of the problems that people have with TLJ are the lose threads that were ignored from TFA or an inconsistent characterization from TFA to TLJ...
There's loose threads and inconsistencies in the OT, and I disagree about "inconsistent characterization". TLJ answered number of the mysteries from TFA, so they weren't ignored. Some people just didn't like the answers given, especially since they had spent the last two years nursing their pet theories.

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
I felt a bit confused but excited to see what they had planned for the next movie since they took a lot of twists with the plot...until I found out there was no plan (seemingly). That all those subversions were just gotchas.
Did Lucas have a plan for the Vader twist in ESB? Did he know exactly how that would play out? What about the "there is another" line? The evidence is whatever loose "plan" they had for that was thrown out the window.

Originally Posted by tanman View Post
]And that is exactly my point with the Marvel vs. Star Wars comparison.
What about a DCU vs Star Wars comparison. WB did have a plan for the DCU, building to Justice League. Hell, the entire cast of Justice League was cast years in advance for Batman v Superman. They even had a consistency of vision, with one filmmaker overseeing everything. How'd that work out?

Sure, a plan is great, when it works. But even with a plan, sometimes you're going to have to throw it out midway through because, surprise, your plan sucks.
Jay G. is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 07:50 AM
  #1711  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Rob V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: On the lake
Posts: 10,398
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Every day I come to this thread hoping to read something about Ep IX... nope, not today.
Rob V is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 10:30 AM
  #1712  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,352
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Rob V View Post
Every day I come to this thread hoping to read something about Ep IX... nope, not today.
It's ironic that the TLJ lovers are the same one who complained that the haters could never move on and stop bashing the movie (which they were right), yet they are the ones have been bashing and utterly shitting on the PT for the last few pages.

Last edited by coli; 09-11-19 at 01:38 PM.
coli is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 11:10 AM
  #1713  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,549
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Draven View Post


The Dark Side eating away at him over decades until the OT is much more understandable then lightning somehow making his skin wrinkly.

Yes because wouldn’t lightning to the face just burn your flesh off or at the very least give your Freddy Kruger burns? And not symmetrical wrinkles and a caveman brow?

But I don’t like the idea of advance aging being a byproduct of using the dark side of the Force. It should corrupt you morally, not physically.

Also the makeup looks stupid. Always felt it gave off a rubbery “Power Rangers” vibe. Lucas didn’t need to do that. Palpatine putting his hood up was enough to “get it”. Lucas didn’t need to throw an anvil of an explanation on why he looks older in the OT.
I used to like it but yeah, the original look is better. And he wore the cloak to cover up his deformed face? I just thought ROTJ Emperor didn’t give a fuck and was walking around in the equivalent of just a bathrobe. He rules the galaxy, he doesn’t need to impress anyone.
brayzie is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 12:25 PM
  #1714  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 17,349
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Mike86 View Post
I can kind of dismiss that the aesthetics don’t look exactly the same to be truthful. I mean in the span between the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy it’s easy to believe that technology would have change and yet at the same time a lot of the ships and whatnot being used by the Rebels in particular would be worn down from use and since they’re a smaller group wouldn’t have the means to get or build more advanced ships.

As far as aesthetics of the different locales we saw planets in the prequels that weren’t in the originals so I can accept different planets would have different looks/technology. Tatooine looked essentially the same, we just saw more of it.
In one sense the technology became less sleek and more utilitarian between PT and OT, but the technology still improved. Number 1 example of this is all the small X wings and Y wings have hyperspace ability. In the PT all those little ships needed help.
Mabuse is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 01:11 PM
  #1715  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 30,844
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Rob V View Post
Every day I come to this thread hoping to read something about Ep IX... nope, not today.
At least you learned how much money Ant-Man made.
Josh-da-man is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 01:13 PM
  #1716  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 30,844
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by coli View Post
It's ironic that the TLJ lovers are complained that the haters could never move on and stop bashing the movie (which they were right), yet they are the ones have been bashing and utterly shitting on the PT for the last few pages.
And the OT, too. Any criticism of TLJ is immediately refuted by claiming that the OT did it worse.

Josh-da-man is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 02:16 PM
  #1717  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 8,620
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America were all considered third tier, or at least "B-list" characters before Marvel made them major starts of their own movies.
Iron Man? Thor? Which B-List Superhero Has The Brawn To Make It Big? - MTV
Captain America was a B-List character? Who were the A-List characters, then? To be honest, I didn't really read Avengers stuff as a kid, preferring X-Men. Is Spider-Man THE Marvel A-Lister, and it branches out from there? Please don't tell me the Fantastic Four are the A-List characters. Because Y-A-W-N.

Originally Posted by Rob V View Post
Every day I come to this thread hoping to read something about Ep IX... nope, not today.
Star Wars - Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker is coming out on December 20, 2019 and it will be amazing.

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man View Post
And the OT, too. Any criticism of TLJ is immediately refuted by claiming that the OT did it worse.
Sometimes when people make empty claims, other people make empty claims, too. Human beings are weird like that.
story is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 04:12 PM
  #1718  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 12,982
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Mabuse View Post


In one sense the technology became less sleek and more utilitarian between PT and OT, but the technology still improved. Number 1 example of this is all the small X wings and Y wings have hyperspace ability. In the PT all those little ships needed help.
For a government that's been around for like 10,000 years, the amount of technological progress and change in just 30 years should have been extremely small. Anakin and Obi-Wan and all the clones should have been in ships far closer to X-Wings and TIE fighters than what we got. The changes to those ships we saw in the sequels make much more sense for a civilization of that age. Tweaks around the edges not wholesale re-designs.


Anyways, I saw some news that the TROS trailer that's expected to release in OCT has been rated by the BBFC at a slightly higher rating than the first teaser, possibly hinting at some more intense imagery. Maybe Rey takes Force lightning to the face so that's why she looks off in that scene with red lightsaber.

milo bloom is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 05:32 PM
  #1719  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
stvn1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,836
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Jar Jar Binks > Sad Sack Of Shit Luke Skywalker

Nothing out of the Prequels is as bad as the Poe stuff from the beginning of TLJ.

If Rey does go to the Dark Side in The Rise Of Skywalker I hope it isn't as ham fisted as Anakin's turn in the Prequels. The acting from Christensen while Anakin is going back on forth of what he should do when Mace Windu is attacking Palpatine is just cringe worthy. And then after he lops his hands off his realization that he now has to follow the Emperor is just as bad. "I just helped murder the second in charge member of the Jedi council so sure I will go kill some kids for you".
stvn1974 is online now  
Old 09-11-19, 05:54 PM
  #1720  
TGM
DVD Talk Legend
 
TGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 15,652
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/...-wars-trilogy/

don't recall this being mentioned before... not sure about the validity of the news either.
TGM is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 05:57 PM
  #1721  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
stvn1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,836
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

From everything that I have read/seen Daisy Ridley seems done with Star Wars. If she does come back I don't see it anytime soon. She seems to want to move on to other things but I guess the almighty $ can swing things.
stvn1974 is online now  
Old 09-11-19, 08:14 PM
  #1722  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,627
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man View Post
And the OT, too. Any criticism of TLJ is immediately refuted by claiming that the OT did it worse.
If this is directed at me, I never said "OT did it worse." My point was that on many things, the OT did it too. The OT often did it well, and thus arguably maybe even better than the ST. I also argued the Marvel did some things well, or better, even if they weren't perfect and had their own issues.

I'm disputing the logic that seems to run "ST did X, and I don't like ST, so therefore X is the problem, and they should've known better than to do X." The ST wasn't planned in advance, sure, but neither were the OT, or Godfather Trilogy, or Terminator and T2, or most original film series. And to compare Marvel's initial production of standalone films with loose continuity on a relaxed schedule vs Lucafilm's rush to produce a film trilogy in 6 years, with movies in-between isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Likewise with the choice to use lesser-known, newer directors: it's worked for Marvel and other franchises, although even Marvel has had issues in certain cases.

Movies are complicated things to create with a lot of people involved in a lot of various, constantly shifting parts. There's no single right or wrong way to make one, and that goes doubly so with a franchise. People are armchair quarterbacking and claiming that Lucasfilm should've "obviously" done things differently, but that's only really obvious in hindsight. Should Lucasfilm not have hired Phil Lord and Chris Miller for Solo? In hindsight, it's easy to say no, but at the time it looked like a way to bring a fresh creative view to the franchise. I'd rather have a Lucasilm that takes risks like that and sometimes fails than one that just tries to "play it safe," and just deliver warmed-over OT reruns to satisfy the member-berries.

Originally Posted by story View Post
Captain America was a B-List character? Who were the A-List characters, then?
Basically nearly everything Marvel had sold the movie rights to already, so Spider-Man, X-Men, and yes, Fantastic Four. Fox may have seriously botched the films, but the Fantastic Four was a far more well known property than Iron Man when Marvel started the MCU.

But in some way, you're right that Spider-Man was king. In 1998, while Sony was negotiating for the rights to Spider-Man, Marvel offered to sell their entire roster to Sony.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/02...-million-1998/
Mr. Landau took the offer back to his bosses at Sony, whose response was quick and decisive, he recalled in an interview: “Nobody gives a sh—about any of the other Marvel characters. Go back and do a deal for only Spider-Man.”
Jay G. is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 08:22 PM
  #1723  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,627
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by stvn1974 View Post
From everything that I have read/seen Daisy Ridley seems done with Star Wars. If she does come back I don't see it anytime soon. She seems to want to move on to other things but I guess the almighty $ can swing things.
Hey, after the OT, Harrison Ford was clearly done with Star Wars as well, and didn't want to do anymore. But time can change things, as well as a shift in role in the films .

My impression from Daisy isn't that she's unhappy with Star Wars in any way, but wants to move on and be able to do more other things. 5 1/2 years in one roll is a lot of time. If the roll is reduced to supporting and takes a lot less time, and maybe starts up after a good gap between, then it seems possible.

I'm thinking of how RDJ seemed done with doing standalone Iron Man movies after 3, but was fine appearing in other Marvel films in a more supporting role. Sometimes just dialing back the commitment can keep someone in a role.
Jay G. is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 09:48 PM
  #1724  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,287
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

I think the validity of the Original Trilogy wasn’t planned out argument is lessened by the fact that when those films released there was a lot less lore attached to them. There was just the film that came prior to the last one and a few books.

The Sequel Trilogy on the other hand has had forty years of established lore to base things off of. Countless novels, comics, video games, and of course the films. There’s a lot more out there that fans are aware of which is why certain expectations were in place by many of us.
Mike86 is offline  
Old 09-11-19, 10:12 PM
  #1725  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 43,401
Re: Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (12/20/19, W/D: J.J. Abrams)

Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post

I'm thinking of how RDJ seemed done with doing standalone Iron Man movies after 3, but was fine appearing in other Marvel films in a more supporting role. Sometimes just dialing back the commitment can keep someone in a role.
Plus $75M paychecks help.
Decker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.