Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[jal76]

Yet Colin Trevorrow*was making a story that would have made the fans happy and that made mark really really excited and happy....

A story that mark was looking forward to making.... actually happy for the fans to see....

But...Colin Trevorrow though...

 

[crows]

Couldnt be worst than what we got

 

[morphosis]

But...Colin Trevorrow though...

yeah, the guy with a resume of:

Safety Not Guaranteed
Jurassic World
the Book of Henry

was going to write and direct the most amazing Star Wars movie we have ever ever seen

 

[crows]

yeah, the guy with a resume of:

Safety Not Guaranteed
Jurassic World
the Book of Henry

was going to write and direct the most amazing Star Wars movie we have ever ever seen

And....how much money did jurassic world made??

 

[morphosis]

And....how much money did jurassic world made??

Less than The Force Awakens, and slightly more than TLJ, but you don't like that movies since you bash them all the time.

If you seriously liked Jurassic World more than The Force Awakens or TLJ, then I just don't agree with your taste in movies at all.

 

[crows]

Less than The Force Awakens, and slightly more than TLJ, but you don't like that movies since you bash them all the time.

If you seriously liked Jurassic World more than The Force Awakens or TLJ, then I just don't agree with your taste in movies at all.

You were the one that brought up box office of the last jedi in the avengers thread....
U equal box office with quality


Also go back and find the force awakens thread and find my posts praising that movie... go ill wait
Go find my positive review of it. Go, ill wait.

 

[jal76]

Less than The Force Awakens, and slightly more than TLJ, but you don't like that movies since you bash them all the time.

If you seriously liked Jurassic World more than The Force Awakens or TLJ, then I just don't agree with your taste in movies at all.

Don't want to derail by turning this into a Trevorrow thread but...Safety Not Guaranteed was an amusing mumblecore movie that felt more like a TV pilot than a movie and no offense to anyone who liked it but I thought Jurassic World was a dumpster fire...to put it into perspective whatever Crows sees when he sees TLJ is what I saw when I saw Jurassic World on opening night...have NO reason whatsoever to ever see Book of Henry but if conventional wisdom is any indicator it made Jurassic World look like Godfather II. I will admit my love of Star Wars runs so deep that it is pretty much unconditional...I will forgive a lot...Trevorrow being announced as the Director (and worse writer) of Episode IX really pushed that love to its limits. That article announcing his removal was like Christmas morning for me.

 

[crows]

Don't want to derail by turning this into a Trevorrow thread but...Safety Not Guaranteed was an amusing mumblecore movie that felt more like a TV pilot than a movie and no offense to anyone who liked it but I thought Jurassic World was a dumpster fire...to put it into perspective whatever Crows sees when he sees TLJ is what I saw when I saw Jurassic World on opening night...have NO reason whatsoever to ever see Book of Henry but if conventional wisdom is any indicator it made Jurassic World look like Godfather II. I will admit my love of Star Wars runs so deep that it is pretty much unconditional...I will forgive a lot...Trevorrow being announced as the Director (and worse writer) of Episode IX really pushed that love to its limits. That article announcing his removal was like Christmas morning for me.

My only point is that mark was happy with his story.
As the person who played luke and loved the character, he was happy

 

[Ce Ilhuicamina]

yeah, the guy with a resume of:

Safety Not Guaranteed
Jurassic World
the Book of Henry

was going to write and direct the most amazing Star Wars movie we have ever ever seen

No idea what the 66% of that list is but I take JW over freaking looper any day of the week.

 

[jal76]

My only point is that mark was happy with his story.
As the person who played luke and loved the character, he was happy

I hear ya...but once again, love Mark, but he actually pitched to Lucasfilm his own idea that he spend half of the new Star Wars movie playing Luke's evil twin who spend the movie sowing carnage and even "killing a main character" until...surprise...Good Luke shows up and we find out that the Luke that we have been following for the whole movie was Luke's (gasp!) Evil Twin!!!! I'm more concerned about getting a Star Wars movie that makes me happy than makes Mark Hamill happy and Mark will be ok with the millions of dollars that he gets in the trade off.

 

[ironwez20]

Less than The Force Awakens, and slightly more than TLJ, but you don't like that movies since you bash them all the time.

If you seriously liked Jurassic World more than The Force Awakens or TLJ, then I just don't agree with your taste in movies at all.

Jurassic world is miles better than the new ST it managed to do something new with being nostalgic. It didn’t cater to old school JP fans or try and shove new dinosaurs down our throat. It was completely respectful to the old franchise

 

[morphosis]

Jurassic world is miles better than the new ST it managed to do something new with being nostalgic. It didn’t cater to old school JP fans or try and shove new dinosaurs down our throat. It was completely respectful to the old franchise

wow, well i’m glad i’m not you when it comes to movies i like. you couldn’t pay me to see JW again.

 

[morphosis]

Don't want to derail by turning this into a Trevorrow thread but...Safety Not Guaranteed was an amusing mumblecore movie that felt more like a TV pilot than a movie and no offense to anyone who liked it but I thought Jurassic World was a dumpster fire...to put it into perspective whatever Crows sees when he sees TLJ is what I saw when I saw Jurassic World on opening night...have NO reason whatsoever to ever see Book of Henry but if conventional wisdom is any indicator it made Jurassic World look like Godfather II. I will admit my love of Star Wars runs so deep that it is pretty much unconditional...I will forgive a lot...Trevorrow being announced as the Director (and worse writer) of Episode IX really pushed that love to its limits. That article announcing his removal was like Christmas morning for me.

yup same for me. glad he’s out.

 

[morphosis]

No idea what the 66% of that list is but I take JW over freaking looper any day of the week.

that’s all the movies he’s directed....3.

not including a couple of shorts, tv things.

JW over Looper? dear gawd, why am i even on this site???

 

[RavenEye]

that’s all the movies he’s directed....3.

not including a couple of shorts, tv things.

JW over Looper? dear gawd, why am i even on this site???

To B****?

 

[Ce Ilhuicamina]

that’s all the movies he’s directed....3.

not including a couple of shorts, tv things.

JW over Looper? dear gawd, why am i even on this site???

Reopening a park to watch prehistoric monsters > An organization of hitmen who kill their future old selves.

Casting JGL as a younger Bruce Willis was a crime against cinema.

 

[Vault Boy]

Film-wise, correct... just like Tim Burton, then later Joel Schumacher had Batman's entire film future in his hands for awhile too.



Excellent points.



Also excellent point. I think people in this discussion might be using ownership and "knowing someone" in slightly different ways, rapping it all up in a ball that is just confusing things. I need to get back to the painfully obvious, so forgive me:

Lucas created Luke Skywalker and had his intent for that character - personality, story arc, etc. Lucas knows his original intent for Luke.

Mark Hamill is hired to play Luke. George directs Hamill in trying to capture George's own intent to screen.

Hamill gives his interpretation of the character, based on George's direction and Hamill's own perceptions about the character.

Luke Skywalker is committed to film, created by Lucas, solidified in writing by all involved in that process, and interpreted by actor Hamill.

Fans create their own experience of Luke from the movie-going experience. Each fan knows what Luke means to them.

Then Lucas sold Luke to Disney. Disney can legally do whatever they want with him.

Rian Johnson is hired by Disney to create a new story with Luke. He is given the legal right to do this. He creates his interpretation of Luke, different from Lucas' own.

Some fans love it. Some fans hate it. The outcome (either way) is based on what Luke means to each fan.

One of the big factors of any relationship (friendship, etc.): do you really know the person? I've heard it more than once after a divorce, that someone says they never really knew the other person... just thought they did at the beginning. So much depends on perception, interpretation, or as Obi-Wan would call it, "a certain point of view".

I think people might be debating the wrong thing: who knows Luke best.

It's irrelevant at this point. The only thing left now is who interprets Luke, and if it's done well it will adhere to continuity (unless it's reboot, which has different rules).

It seems to me it's the continuity people are arguing over (i.e. - "Luke wouldn't do that" based on previous movies... but if it's explained in a logical, step-by-step manner then nothing for a made-up character is out of limits, it depends on how well those steps are revealed in the telling of the story). Would Luke really change that much in 40 years? Well, it's certainly possible. I don't argue that at all.

It's HOW they explain the change that I personally have an issue with...



This is what both TFA and TLJ feel like, to me. JJ said he had to reset things back to Return of the Jedi in order to do what he wanted to with Han dying. That's not progression, that's warping the characters and situations to tell the story that you want to tell, instead of letting the characters tell their story; new characters could have been created to tell different stories... And is it true that Kennedy had an actual plan to see Luke killed off? Then Rain chose to do it in the way that he did. To me this is the story dictating the character's "character", rather than the story happening and the character reacting as he or she would react.

To me personally, the last two movies don't follow a logical progression (based on my own perceptions), at least what they've shown of it. It feels to me like it has holes in it that need to be explained, that it wasn't explained to my satisfaction... and I don't buy it. I, as an audience member, can choose to accept or reject where it goes. Others have different experiences than me, see different things in the film, interpret the film according to their own experiences. Did I like some things about both films? Absolutely. But overall, to me personally, these two films have more issues than any other Star Wars films, and to me they feel agenda-driven, not character-driven, not story-driven, and THAT just doesn't work for me. Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm open to correction.

See, I could get frustrated or angry when other people are reacting differently to it (it could seem scary, I could start to feel out of touch, or it could seem to me that those who disagree with me are "all crazy"). I could go on the defensive, and attack. But what good comes from that? I would rather try to understand. That takes communication, patience, time... listening.

I'd say since people are communicating here now, we have a great start. Some people aren't interested in understanding, that's fine; their choice. I just find I grow by learning, and I learn by listening, asking questions. The day I know it all, is the day I commit intellectual suicide and betray honesty, that's just how I feel personally.

I wouldn't be surprised if more movies with Luke are eventually made some day... when, I can't say. Naturally it would go the way of Bond or Star Trek, everyone would have to be recast since they're not immortal... but the characters are iconic enough, I believe it's only a matter of time. Then the question becomes, how will Luke be interpreted by that future director? It will be subject to the audience of that time and their sensibilities, if that director want to make money. It might be like Lucas' interpretation, or Rian's... but most likely it will be different from both, because everyone is different.



I would love to hear you elaborate on this... I'm genuinely curious what your experience was. I'm guessing you didn't experience any story/character continuity issues - or none that ultimately derailed your experience?

As for Daffy and Buggs...



LOL, as long as we don't hear "That's all folks!"

I would argue that most people who like TLJ don't necessarily like how Luke was portrayed. They're either indifferent to it or they're in denial. That Luke was systematically destroyed is not debatable as far as I'm concerned. I won't even go there.

Anyways. Continuing from my previous post.



So it is not a Disney problem. It's solely a Kathleen Kennedy problem.

 

[morphosis]

on people who like JW over TFA or TLJ,

people who didn't like TFA their main complaint seem to be that it was too much like ANH, but JW was pretty much the same exact film as JP1. Same film. But with more sexism, a more modern park, and 2 annoying kids that you actually routed for the dinosaurs to eat them.

Plus the entire point of JW was completely idiotic. After having gone through the the previous 3 films and seeing the destruction the dinosaurs caused, they decide to build another park in the same exact spot as the first one? Except this time the main bad guy wants to train dinosaurs to be used for the military.

Look if you like JW better than TFA or TLJ that is totally your choice, but seriously I don't want to hear complaints the TFA was just like ANH anymore.

 

[morphosis]

Reopening a park to watch prehistoric monsters > An organization of hitmen who kill their future old selves.

Casting JGL as a younger Bruce Willis was a crime against cinema.

Well I am glad I don't have to believe in your math. Looper was far more creative writing and concept by a million miles, JW was a rehash of JP at best.

 

[jal76]

Film-wise, correct... just like Tim Burton, then later Joel Schumacher had Batman's entire film future in his hands for awhile too.



Excellent points.



Also excellent point. I think people in this discussion might be using ownership and "knowing someone" in slightly different ways, rapping it all up in a ball that is just confusing things. I need to get back to the painfully obvious, so forgive me:

Lucas created Luke Skywalker and had his intent for that character - personality, story arc, etc. Lucas knows his original intent for Luke.

Mark Hamill is hired to play Luke. George directs Hamill in trying to capture George's own intent to screen.

Hamill gives his interpretation of the character, based on George's direction and Hamill's own perceptions about the character.

Luke Skywalker is committed to film, created by Lucas, solidified in writing by all involved in that process, and interpreted by actor Hamill.

Fans create their own experience of Luke from the movie-going experience. Each fan knows what Luke means to them.

Then Lucas sold Luke to Disney. Disney can legally do whatever they want with him.

Rian Johnson is hired by Disney to create a new story with Luke. He is given the legal right to do this. He creates his interpretation of Luke, different from Lucas' own.

Some fans love it. Some fans hate it. The outcome (either way) is based on what Luke means to each fan.

One of the big factors of any relationship (friendship, etc.): do you really know the person? I've heard it more than once after a divorce, that someone says they never really knew the other person... just thought they did at the beginning. So much depends on perception, interpretation, or as Obi-Wan would call it, "a certain point of view".

I think people might be debating the wrong thing: who knows Luke best.

It's irrelevant at this point. The only thing left now is who interprets Luke, and if it's done well it will adhere to continuity (unless it's reboot, which has different rules).

It seems to me it's the continuity people are arguing over (i.e. - "Luke wouldn't do that" based on previous movies... but if it's explained in a logical, step-by-step manner then nothing for a made-up character is out of limits, it depends on how well those steps are revealed in the telling of the story). Would Luke really change that much in 40 years? Well, it's certainly possible. I don't argue that at all.

It's HOW they explain the change that I personally have an issue with...



This is what both TFA and TLJ feel like, to me. JJ said he had to reset things back to Return of the Jedi in order to do what he wanted to with Han dying. That's not progression, that's warping the characters and situations to tell the story that you want to tell, instead of letting the characters tell their story; new characters could have been created to tell different stories... And is it true that Kennedy had an actual plan to see Luke killed off? Then Rain chose to do it in the way that he did. To me this is the story dictating the character's "character", rather than the story happening and the character reacting as he or she would react.

To me personally, the last two movies don't follow a logical progression (based on my own perceptions), at least what they've shown of it. It feels to me like it has holes in it that need to be explained, that it wasn't explained to my satisfaction... and I don't buy it. I, as an audience member, can choose to accept or reject where it goes. Others have different experiences than me, see different things in the film, interpret the film according to their own experiences. Did I like some things about both films? Absolutely. But overall, to me personally, these two films have more issues than any other Star Wars films, and to me they feel agenda-driven, not character-driven, not story-driven, and THAT just doesn't work for me. Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm open to correction.

See, I could get frustrated or angry when other people are reacting differently to it (it could seem scary, I could start to feel out of touch, or it could seem to me that those who disagree with me are "all crazy"). I could go on the defensive, and attack. But what good comes from that? I would rather try to understand. That takes communication, patience, time... listening.

I'd say since people are communicating here now, we have a great start. Some people aren't interested in understanding, that's fine; their choice. I just find I grow by learning, and I learn by listening, asking questions. The day I know it all, is the day I commit intellectual suicide and betray honesty, that's just how I feel personally.

I wouldn't be surprised if more movies with Luke are eventually made some day... when, I can't say. Naturally it would go the way of Bond or Star Trek, everyone would have to be recast since they're not immortal... but the characters are iconic enough, I believe it's only a matter of time. Then the question becomes, how will Luke be interpreted by that future director? It will be subject to the audience of that time and their sensibilities, if that director want to make money. It might be like Lucas' interpretation, or Rian's... but most likely it will be different from both, because everyone is different.



I would love to hear you elaborate on this... I'm genuinely curious what your experience was. I'm guessing you didn't experience any story/character continuity issues - or none that ultimately derailed your experience?

As for Daffy and Buggs...


LOL, as long as we don't hear "That's all folks!"

this deserves a detailed response that I will get to regarding my own feeling about TLJ and why I truly loved it so much as a life long Star Wars fan...I can let you in on this though...and this will make some people crazy...the handling of Luke was one of my favorite things about the film. Luke was always a cool character for me but not necessarily my favorite. TLJ made Luke my new favorite character and his arc really helped the franchise move forward.