Star Wars 9

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Guess what? You claimed "no one" wanted Boba Fett in the prequels. I can assure you that's not true.

The stuff about Anakin's lightsaber isn't something execs forced Abrams forced to put in there. If anything, they'd prefer a new lightsaber because they'd probably sell more toys with an entirely new design.

I find it hard to believe that the specific line concerning the lightsaber wasn't put in there to appease people who were triggered by Luke throwing it off a cliff.

No one wanted a kid Boba, that much is certain.

I think JJ was triggered by it being thrown off a cliff. Who else was triggered by that scene? Like 10 guys in a basement? If anything, I think people were more triggered by the milking scene, for some reason. I saw that one brought up quite a bit in angry video rants, yet hardly any mention of the lightsaber toss.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, I was really shocked by ROS wasting time to overtly decry the line from TLJ. Like... srsly? I remember being a lot more put off by the milking scene too -- it just felt so tonally out of place and purposefully just trying to troll the audience / raise hackles for no reason. I mean, the milk scene is just dumb either way... dumb to do it, dumb to waste time refuting it if people felt like doing so.

People really wanted to see Boba Fett though, although probably not as a kid.

I know, what a sh*tshow that was... I remember rolling my eyes when I watched that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

No one wanted a kid Boba, that much is certain.

I think JJ was triggered by it being thrown off a cliff. Who else was triggered by that scene? Like 10 guys in a basement?

A lot of people? I don't argue with you about the Khan thing because that's not my wheelhouse, but you're not going to convince me that a vocal segment was not triggered. Yes, it was probably a minority, especially considering the reactions of other people I've talked to in real life, but it was a very loud, vocal minority that essentially drowned out everything else. You know what they say about squeaky wheels.

If anything, I think people were more triggered by the milking scene, for some reason. I saw that one brought up quite a bit in angry video rants, yet hardly any mention of the lightsaber toss.

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have something bizarre and alien in a space movie that we didn't already see in previous space movies. And heaven forbid we derive any sort of humor from that weirdness.

 

[Totenkindly]

And what were the membership numbers? Several thousand active members? It was likely a drop in the bucket as far as number of overall SW fans are concerned.

GEtting back to the "fanbase" briefly -- I feel like a lot of the "fans" who liked ROS are casual SW fans who remember the films as a kid or enjoyed the rollicking nature of the prequels. Like, they don't actually take the films "seriously" in the sense this discussion is, where we discuss plotting and character motivations and rational consistency as essential elements of what the films should be. (Like, we actually seem to want to view them as "legitimate films" rather than pop culture events.)

My eldest kid saw the film a few days after release. He had the same opinion as I did, pretty much verbatim (we spent a few hours debating/ridiculing the film when he arrived, without even planning to). He's INxP, likely T.

He went with one of his best female friends and HER father (who worked for conservation/environmental agencies -- so he's not dumb by any means, but he's in his 60's).

His friend (INFP?) had a lot of issues with the film as my son did, but her FATHER (ISTJ I think) actually loved it. And not because of anything we're discussing, but because "they put R2D2 back in the X-wing where he was supposed to be" and similar remarks belying a longing for the nostalgic influences, his reference point is the original trilogy and he just wants to see everything reflecting that experience. He's not a guy who would even go to a Star Wars website. he just didn't like Johnson's departures because it made SW unfamiliar to him.

Meanwhile, the people online who seem to like it seem to be again the casual fan who just view it as a pop culture experience to be immersed within without really caring about consistency or depth. it's like "Lifetime for science fantasy" channel at best.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, something is never "wholesale." it's always a combination of influences.

So all that nostalgic throwback (esp considering we already saw Abrams do a throwback to ANH with TFA) belongs at Abram's feet. He did it in STID too. Anything where he decides to 'redo' old films and throws in familiar items just like a Stranger Things "Oh isn't this great because you remember this, don't you" throwback is his influence.

Meanwhile, Disney did lip service to Johnson (I think Kennedy didn't diss him during all the criticism, but the cracks were showing shortly before ROS released) but now wanted a film harkening back more to old SW and TFA.

Meanwhile, all the messy dialogue and plotting figures a lot like (1) Chris Terrio's hacky scripting, (2) plot elements from fan base drawn out of hat, and (3) ingredients by committee. Everyone had their fingers in the pot, so there was no vision. It's just mad scientists tossing in every ingredient in the kitchen because they personally like it, resulting in BLECH.

After all, can anyone truly believe that

Kylo didn't originally die in that pit where Palpatine threw him? And then Rey was going to live? And then someone said, "Hey, we can kill Rey for more drama!" And then someone said, "We can't have Rey die, so let's have Ben crawl out of the hole and kiss her back to life!" Yeah! "And then Ben can die! because of redemption and someone has to die to add severity!"

That whole end was like a group of little kids cobbling together some crazy doll playtime.

You know, that's very acurate. That also explains

having a new lightsaber for Rey but having her always use the one that was destroyed in the past movie. It's like a favorite toy that he just had to work in there.

That bit with the magic kiss is so bad. Maybe Rey actually is a skywalker... she inherited the inexplicably dying thing from her grandma. I don't get why she actually died, and they never bothered to actually explain that. It's not like she was using an extremely rare but extremely powerful force ability that I could accept the idea that it's life draining... she just used lightsabers to deflect the lightning.

There is literally no reason why the "dying" thing just to be resurrected by Ben should be in there, other than the fact that they wrote a script that needed a few more passes.

 

[Totenkindly]

You know, that's very acurate. That also explains

having a new lightsaber for Rey but having her always use the one that was destroyed in the past movie. It's like a favorite toy that he just had to work in there.

That bit with the magic kiss is so bad. Maybe Rey actually is a skywalker... she inherited the inexplicably dying thing from her grandma. I don't get why she actually died, and they never bothered to actually explain that. It's not like she was using an extremely rare but extremely powerful force ability that I could accept the idea that it's life draining... she just used lightsabers to deflect the lightning.

There is literally no reason why the "dying" thing just to be resurrected by Ben should be in there, other than the fact that they wrote a script that needed a few more passes.

yeah, and

Rey didn't fade when she "died" but Ben did. Even though neither of them were trained by any Force ghost to know how to fade -- remember that this is a power that Qui-Gon learned in the prequels or something and Yoda tells Obi-Wan (RotS?) to talk to his ghost to learn how to fade and become a Force ghost. Anyway, Ben faded so she couldn't try to bring him back, probably. And she didn't fade because they decided to let him resurrect her. Don't ask me. It was all so sloppy and dumb and obviously just a fan service. It's the stuff that should get edited out on pass #2.

EDIT: I'm feeling like he is really detached from the actual film he wrote. Like, intention and outcome just are not jibing...

‘Star Wars’ Writer Chris Terrio on Rey’s Parentage, the Big Villain, and That Final Scene — Spoilers

Did any of you think [you know who] WASN'T going to live on Tattooine now, at the end of the film?

Obviously he thinks a lot but he's really self-unaware of how the writing translates on screen.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I don't think even JJ really pays that close of attention to things like Jedi abilities, I think he just has a vague notion of things he thought were cool in the OT and from there proceeds to find ways to work said cool things in, regardless of continuity or in-universe logic. In that sense, he is very good at making these movies for casual fans. Trek '09 was lauded by casual fans who didn't really spend a lot of time thinking about the film after leaving the theatre. Like, sure, let's promote Kirk straight from cadet to captain, because gotta get his ass in that captain's chair pronto.

 

[Totenkindly]

I guess looking back at stuff he actually wrote....

Super 8, I enjoyed the idea of, and pretty much liked through the train wreck + the last ten minutes. But that whole middle section was kinda boring. Like, the whole middle hour of the film (which reminded me of other films and/or like a story in search of a plot). here are comments about that film (I'm spoilering those because they're long)

Super 8 received positive reviews from critics. On the film-critics aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film received a score of 81%, based on 284 reviews, and a rating average of 7.35/10, with the consensus that: "it may evoke memories of classic summer blockbusters a little too eagerly for some, but Super 8 has thrills, visual dazzle, and emotional depth to spare."[17] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score from 1–100 to reviews from critics, assigned the film a Metascore of 72 based on 41 critics, signifying "generally favorable reviews".[18]

Chris Sosa of Gather gave the film an A rating, calling it, "a gripping and exciting tale of finding one's place in the world amidst tragedy". His review concluded, "While the genre-bending occasionally unsettles, the film's genuine and emotionally gripping nature make its journey believable."[19]

Roger Ebert gave the film 3½ stars out of 4 and said, "Super 8 is a wonderful film, nostalgia not for a time but for a style of film-making, when shell-shocked young audiences were told a story and not pounded over the head with aggressive action. Abrams treats early adolescence with tenderness and affection."[20] Richard Corliss of Time gave it a similarly positive review, calling it "the year's most thrilling, feeling mainstream movie".[21] He then named it one of the Top 10 Best Movies of 2011.[22] Jamie Graham of Total Film gave the film a perfect five-star rating, saying, "like Spielberg, Abrams has an eye for awe, his deft orchestration of indelible images – a tank trundling through a children's playground, a plot-pivotal landmark framed in the distance through a small hole in a bedroom wall – marking him as a born storyteller".[23] Christopher Orr of The Atlantic called it a "love letter to a cinematic era", while Claudia Puig of USA Today praised it as "a summer blockbuster firing on all cylinders".

Critics and audiences alike were polarized on the film's ending. Some found it to be emotional, powerful, and satisfying while others found it rushed and forced. For example, writing for MUBI's Notebook, Fernando F. Croce alleged that "no film this year opens more promisingly and ends more dismally than J.J. Abrams' Super 8."[24] Other critics commented negatively on the film's frequent homages to early works of Spielberg, particularly in its depiction of broken families (a theme Spielberg has explored in nearly all of his films). For example, CNN's Tom Charity felt that "Abrams' imitation [was] a shade too reverent for [his] taste."[25] David Edelstein, of New York magazine, called it a "flagrant crib," adding that "Abrams has probably been fighting not to reproduce Spielberg's signature moves since the day he picked up a camera. Now, with the blessing of the master, he can plagiarize with alacrity."[26]

He also solo-wrote Forever Young and Regarding Henry.

Regarding Forever Young:

Critically, Forever Young met with mixed reviews, Roger Ebert noted, "[Forever Young] is not one of the most inspired (of the time travel movies), even though it has its heart in the right place."[6] Box Office characterized it as "gooey sentiment and melodrama", playing on Gibson's name.[7] Rita Kempley from the Washington Post dismissed the film as "A pablum of schmaltz and science fiction ..."[8] As of December 2018, the film holds a 57% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 23 reviews.[9]

Sounds like our JJ, right?

Initial critical reception was mainly lukewarm to negative. Vincent Canby of The New York Times described the film as "a sentimental urban fairy tale" that "succeeds neither as an all-out inspirational drama nor as a send-up of American manners."[4]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times rated the film two out of four stars and commented, "There is possibly a good movie to be found somewhere within this story, but Mike Nichols has not found it in Regarding Henry. This is a film of obvious and shallow contrivance, which aims without apology for easy emotional payoffs, and tries to manipulate the audience with plot twists that belong in a sitcom." Ebert also described the way it makes a connection between Ritz Crackers and the Ritz-Carlton hotel (which reveals that Henry's affair had in fact been deeply embedded in his apparently lost memories) as "especially annoying", apparently regarding it as comic.[5]

Rita Kempley of The Washington Post called the film "a tidy parable of '90s sanctimony"[6] while Peter Travers of Rolling Stone described it as a "slick tearjerker" that "has a knack for trivializing the big issues it strenuously raises." However, he praised Ford's performance.[7]

Variety, however, called the film "a subtle emotional journey impeccably orchestrated by director Mike Nichols and acutely well acted."[8]

The film currently holds a 41% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 29 reviews with the consensus: "Although Harrison Ford makes the most of an opportunity to dig into a serious role, Regarding Henry is undermined by cheap sentiment and cliches."

Same kind of thing. Basically, lots of heart and callback to nostalgia in the writing, with resonant imagery (for example, that opening shot for Super 8, where the guy is resetting the"# Days since Accident" sign in the mill, STILL resonates for me). But can get way off track and not have substance. That's why he's typically had a cowriter. Super 8 did the best and it was 15-20 years after the earlier two mixed/negative films.

he wrote a lot of Felicity and Alias, but only three episodes of Lost (the first two episodes + the opener to Season 3... and had help for each) -- Cruz and Lindleof handled most of the lifting there.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

yeah, and

Rey didn't fade when she "died" but Ben did. Even though neither of them were trained by any Force ghost to know how to fade -- remember that this is a power that Qui-Gon learned in the prequels or something and Yoda tells Obi-Wan (RotS?) to talk to his ghost to learn how to fade and become a Force ghost. Anyway, Ben faded so she couldn't try to bring him back, probably. And she didn't fade because they decided to let him resurrect her. Don't ask me. It was all so sloppy and dumb and obviously just a fan service. It's the stuff that should get edited out on pass #2.

EDIT: I'm feeling like he is really detached from the actual film he wrote. Like, intention and outcome just are not jibing...

‘Star Wars’ Writer Chris Terrio on Rey’s Parentage, the Big Villain, and That Final Scene — Spoilers

Did any of you think [you know who] WASN'T going to live on Tattooine now, at the end of the film?

It felt that way to me, although it doesn't really make any sense except as a way of pushing nostalgia buttons.

 

[Totenkindly]

George Lucas Worked on the Story for The Rise of Skywalker
The Source: Rise of Skywalker director J.J. Abrams

Probability of Accuracy: While J.J. may hedge his bets or mislead to protect story points, he's hardly going to outright lie about something like this.

The Real Deal: For those curious just how faithful The Rise of Skywalker will be to the vision of Star Wars creator George Lucas, a new interview with cowriter and director J.J. Abrams has the answer fans were undoubtedly looking for: Very. "This movie had a very, very specific challenge, which was to take eight films and give an ending to three trilogies, and so we had to look at, what is the bigger story?" Abrams told IGN, before dropping a piece of information that might not have snuck out previously: "We had conversations amongst ourselves [and] we met with George Lucas before writing the script." That fact that Lucas dropped by the set of The Mandalorian came out during Star Wars Celebration, but the fact that he consulted on the screenplay for The Rise of Skywalker is something altogether new—and a sign that the Skywalker Saga will have an ending that should make die-hard fans very happy indeed.

Star Wars News: George Lucas Worked on the 'Rise of Skywalker' Story | WIRED

Can we blame Lucas too? Sure!

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

That's a fair assessment of Regarding Henry. It's a film that rests on the strength of the performers (specifically Ford, Bening, and Bill Nunn) otherwise it would play like a sentimental lifetime TV movie and probably be largely forgotten today. But then that's true about a lot of Harrison Ford movies. I used to think he was a mediocre actor, but there's a lot of films he made that if you removed him from the equation would completely suck or not be nearly as memorable. That speaks to his skills. Shit, imagine how terrible Indy would have been with Selleck. Selleck's OK but I just can't see him portraying Indy as anything more than a one-dimensional swashbuckling playboy. Ford conveyed a depth of character as Indy that wasn't even necessarily present in the screenplays of those films.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'd rate Forever Young similarly. Works because of strong performances from Curtis, Gibson and Wood. I think it shows Gibson has better acting chops than people have given him credit for, since the majority of films he'd done up to that point had been run-of-the-mill action movies. Remove those good actors from the film and you've got a forgettable romantic drama

 

[The Cat]

That's a fair assessment of Regarding Henry. It's a film that rests on the strength of the performers (specifically Ford, Bening, and Bill Nunn) otherwise it would play like a sentimental lifetime TV movie and probably be largely forgotten today. But then that's true about a lot of Harrison Ford movies. I used to think he was a mediocre actor, but there's a lot of films he made that if you removed him from the equation would completely suck or not be nearly as memorable. That speaks to his skills. Shit, imagine how terrible Indy would have been with Selleck. Selleck's OK but I just can't see him portraying Indy as anything more than a one-dimensional swashbuckling playboy. Ford conveyed a depth of character that wasn't even necessarily present in the screenplays of those films.

I think Selleck would have played it more like a cowboy. Indy wouldnt have the same world weariness without Ford.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's a fair assessment of Regarding Henry. It's a film that rests on the strength of the performers (specifically Ford, Bening, and Bill Nunn) otherwise it would play like a sentimental lifetime TV movie and probably be largely forgotten today. But then that's true about a lot of Harrison Ford movies. I used to think he was a mediocre actor, but there's a lot of films he made that if you removed him from the equation would completely suck or not be nearly as memorable. That speaks to his skills. Shit, imagine how terrible Indy would have been with Selleck. Selleck's OK but I just can't see him portraying Indy as anything more than a one-dimensional swashbuckling playboy. Ford conveyed a depth of character as Indy that wasn't even necessarily present in the screenplays of those films.

Totally agreed. And a film can still be enjoyed if the actors sell it convincingly. The little bit I remember from Regarding Henry is all Ford.

I mean, he's also in one of the best scenes in this film, which would be a great scene if it wasn't structurally on shaky ground. He is far better than he needs to be in most of his films.

I'd rate Forever Young similarly. Works because of strong performances from Curtis, Gibson and Wood. I think it shows Gibson has better acting chops than people have given him credit for, since the majority of films he'd done up to that point had been run-of-the-mill action movies. Remove those good actors from the film and you've got a forgettable romantic drama

Gibson has rather tarnished his image over the last decade, veering towards weird extremisms, but yeah -- despite a lot of his stuff being more mainstream/popular, he's got the chops in general. Heck he was way too old for the cinematic/idealized version of William Wallace but had the energy and presence to make the performance believable.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I think Selleck would have played it more like a cowboy. Indy wouldnt have the same world weariness without Ford.

Yeah. Though I do like Selleck in High Road to China, which borrows heavily from Indy. I mean we'll never really know. Maybe people would have loved Indy even more with Selleck. Just hard to imagine it working, at least not the same. Ford definitely is more believable as a nerdy professor who is a closeted adventurer. I can't see Selleck being believable as that role, they'd have to rewrite it to his strengths.

 

[The Cat]

Yeah. Though I do like Selleck in High Road to China, which borrows heavily from Indy. I mean we'll never really know. Maybe people would have loved Indy even more with Selleck. Just hard to imagine it working, at least not the same. Ford definitely is more believable as a nerdy professor who is a closeted adventurer. I can't see Selleck being believable as that role, they'd have to rewrite it to his strengths.

I'm glad Selleck did Quigley Down Under instead of Raiders. But sometimes I imagine a parallel earth where Ford and Selleck had each other's rolls. and that's the only difference.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Gibson has rather tarnished his image over the last decade, veering towards weird extremisms, but yeah -- despite a lot of his stuff being more mainstream/popular, he's got the chops in general. Heck he was way too old for the cinematic/idealized version of William Wallace but had the energy and presence to make the performance believable.

It is a shame Gibson went off the rails and turned into some weird anti-Semitic bible thumper. I mean, I assume he was always that and just hid it better back in the day.

But for an actor with a somewhat limited range, he had a certain charisma and presence that went a long way in his movies. I bet playing Mad Max in The Road Warrior was a lot harder than people realize. Having to convey Max's torment and inner conflict only with slight facial expressions and just a handful of speaking lines... I'd rank him in the same tier as Robert Redford...a pretty boy who can adequately convey emotion in a believable way, but generally shows a limited range and tends to take roles within a certain comfort zone. I actually might rank Ford over Redford and Gibson, slightly.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Star Wars News: George Lucas Worked on the 'Rise of Skywalker' Story | WIRED

Can we blame Lucas too? Sure!

What do you think were his contributions? I'm not so sure that Palpatine returning wasn't him. Sure, he told Ian McDiarmid he died in ROTJ when filming Episode III, but at that time, he also said there would be no sequel movies, and that Star Wars was just the story of Anakin Skywalker. We know he wrote some scripts for sequels before Disney came on the scene, so he either changed his mind or was just misdirecting people.

I always thought that stuff in Episode III about him talking about creating life and "saving people from dying" seemed kind of weird, but it actually makes sense if it was laying the groundwork for him to come back later.

The line "he could save people from death, but not himself" is kind of goofy on the surface, but makes more sense if he actually did have the ability to resurrect himself from the dead.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'm glad Selleck did Quigley Down Under instead of Raiders. But sometimes I imagine a parallel earth where Ford and Selleck had each other's rolls. and that's the only difference.

Ford as magnum PI. That would be cool


By the way, ever seen Selelck in the film In And Out? It's great. The movie itself is kind of dated and meh though. He shoulda gotten an Oscar nomination for that role. Completely unlike any other role he's done. But he makes it work.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

What do you think were his contributions? I'm not so sure that Palpatine returning wasn't him. Sure, he told Ian McDiarmid he died in ROTJ when filming Episode III, but at that time, he also said there would be no sequel movies, and that Star Wars was just the story of Anakin Skywalker. We know he wrote some scripts for sequels before Disney came on the scene, so he either changed his mind or was just misdirecting people.

I always thought that stuff in Episode III about him talking about creating life and "saving people from dying" seemed kind of weird, but it actually makes sense if it was laying the groundwork for him to come back later.

The line "he could save people from death, but not himself" is kind of goofy on the surface, but makes more sense if he actually did have the ability to resurrect himself from the dead.

I know it's blasphemy, but I'd love to see the sequel trilogy they'd have made if they'd followed the outline he wrote for 7-9. It would probably be shit but I'm still curious.