Star Wars Episode VIII - The Last Jedi *spoilers from Post 2857*

fryup

i thought the new star wars series would return to real time effects? but with this one they CGI'ed it to death

Wedwood

Of the two sequel trilogy movies, I preferred Force Awakens, so by that reckoning, Episode 9 in better hands with Abrams.

Will be interesting to see how they finally tie up the whole saga some 42 years after that Star Destroyer first flew over our heads and changed movies forever.

Tony EH

A mate told me that there's scuttlebutt going around that there might be an episode X after IX.

I don't know how solid that is, of course, but it would make some sense. 'The Last Jedi' ended stupidly, for my money, leaving Abrams painted into a corner for episode IX. There's far too much untold story left for everything to be wrapped up in, any way approaching, a convincing manner in the next two hours. In fact, you could say we're still on the first bloody chapter, because Johnson didn't advance any of the ideas - what few there were - set up in 'The Force Awakens'.

Two films in and we still know next to nothing about Rey, Poe has been reduced to the butt of subplot "lessons" from his betters and Finn is completely redundant. Everything else around them has been almost totally destroyed, from the OT characters to the nouveau rebellion. It'll be a monumental task, and one I'd say Abrams is incapable of, to suddenly turn all of that around in one film.

Honestly, I don't know how to feel about this, assuming it's true. I wouldn't be the greatest fan of the sequels, and on the one hand, I'm torn between wanting it to be over an done with, which would allow room to put energy into other Star Wars films. On the other hand, perhaps two more films would help make something coherent out of the whole mess?

Conall Cernach

Unless they go all out to subvert the original series and have Kylo Ren emerge victorious at the end of IX. I could honestly go for that as the latest batch of heroes don't do it for me at all.

DrWu

Tony EH wrote: »

A mate told me that there's scuttlebutt going around that there might be an episode X after IX.

I don't know how solid that is, of course, but it would make some sense. 'The Last Jedi' ended stupidly, for my money, leaving Abrams painted into a corner for episode IX. There's far too much untold story left for everything to be wrapped up in, any way approaching, a convincing manner in the next two hours. In fact, you could say we're still on the first bloody chapter, because Johnson didn't advance any of the ideas - what few there were - set up in 'The Force Awakens'.

Two films in and we still know next to nothing about Rey, Poe has been reduced to the butt of subplot "lessons" from his betters and Finn is completely redundant. Everything else around them has been almost totally destroyed, from the OT characters to the nouveau rebellion. It'll be a monumental task, and one I'd say Abrams is incapable of, to suddenly turn all of that around in one film.

Honestly, I don't know how to feel about this, assuming it's true. I wouldn't be the greatest fan of the sequels, and on the one hand, I'm torn between wanting it to be over an done with, which would allow room to put energy into other Star Wars films. On the other hand, perhaps two more films would help make something coherent out of the whole mess?

The problems began with Abrams. Ren and Rey were introduced as fully fledged characters with hidden backstories. The plot was also in mid flow, with the 1st order and resistance already established.

I'm not saying JJ should have done something as literal as Lucas by following the main character from childhood. But it would have been really interesting to see the 1st order and resistance in a race for dominance, piecing together the remnants of the empire and rebellion - with each venturing into the unknown regions to make powerful allies.

It would also have introduced new races, factions technology, ships etc etc. Some maybe more powerful and sinister than the 1st order or resistance themselves. The whole sequel trilogy was built on barren ground imo.

Tony EH

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Unless they go all out to subvert the original series and have Kylo Ren emerge victorious at the end of IX. I could honestly go for that as the latest batch of heroes don't do it for me at all.

Mmmm, just can't see that happening though. It's Disney, they're not going to complete the Skywalker story with a victory for Kylo and the baddies.

Probably, what will happen is Kylo will find redemption of a sort in IX and everything will turn around in the blink of an eye.

Bish, bash m bosh...wasn't that great kids?

Personally, I wouldn't care either if this new trio were all left dead or destroyed at the end of IX and Kylo's New Order completely triumphant. After all, with what the sequels have shown up so far, it's remarkably easy to take over an entire galaxy.

J Mysterio

I hope there is a new trade federation, but that they can sort out the tax mechanisms in a fair and equitable way.

Tony EH

DrWu wrote: »

The problems began with Abrams...

Agree completely. The just "add boiling water" approach, coupled with Johnson taking the ball and running off of the pitch has made for a really difficult position for the sequels now and I just don't think Abrams has the talent to pull off a satisfactory conclusion. He's magpie/reboot merchant and what's needed here is a director that's proven he/she can stand on their own two feet. Someone that can conclude a story.

So, yeh, the problems, absolutely, began with Abrams and it's now up to him to tie everything together. Good luck with that JJ.

As far as Ren and Stimpy are concerned, I just don't know where they're going to go. I suppose as characters, they're still as empty as a vacuum, so there's room to play with there. But, when you're on your final film in a trilogy, it's all a bit late. Finn is a busted flush, but his story was over once he defected from the First Order, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As for Poe, god knows what stupid crap there is planned for him. Maybe he'll team up with Lando on some other pointless sideplot.

Tony EH

J Mysterio wrote: »

I hope there is a new trade federation, but that they can sort out the tax mechanisms in a fair and equitable way.

:pac:

Imagine that's how it all ends. The Trade Federation turn up to help the Resistance and right the wrongs they set off in 'The Phantom Menace'.

"Sorry for everything guys...but we're all cool now, yeh?"

Brofist...

End titles....

Sal Butamol

Old Luke to wake up in old Ben's hut, having been in a coma since he was attacked by the sandpeople.

3PO and R2 kept him alive

Everyone else dead, except Vader and Palpatine, who are still finding new ways to motivate people.

Christ Disney really ****ed Star Wars in the ass.

I'm not even going to bother with any of the new films, no interest in seeing them butchering what's left of the carcass. Last Jedi was an abomination.

tony stark

It’s doesn’t even feel like Star Wars with the jarring humour. To me even if I could have overlooked flying leia, annoying coked up Poe and Finn and terrible humor if they got Luke’s character correctly. The guy throws his defense down against the emperor in Jedi and stays true to the force only to become a hideaway after he catches his nephew listening to The Cure and going full Emo. Anyone my age wanted to see Luke the Jedi master not Luke the muppet.

DrWu

Apparently Joss Whedon was a whisker away from getting the gig for Ep 8 but Kennedy scuppered it because she thought he was too risky. Classic.

Tony EH

Thank christ. A Joss Whedon Star Wars would be awful.

pixelburp

Sounds like the right move here too. Joss Whedon's not a good director, his output is TV bland - and TBH his writing has become stale and hackneyed at this stage. Parachuting him into another big-ticket franchise was just going to result in more 'generic Whedon'.

Shakey_jake

So did anyone hear if Rain's new trilogy is cancelled??

Such a shame if it is, i really liked the last jedi

Hes a talented guy and giving him clean slate would have been really fun

nix

Tony EH wrote: »

Thank christ. A Joss Whedon Star Wars would be awful.

pixelburp wrote: »

Sounds like the right move here too. Joss Whedon's not a good director, his output is TV bland - and TBH his writing has become stale and hackneyed at this stage. Parachuting him into another big-ticket franchise was just going to result in more 'generic Whedon'.

lol, wtf you guys waffling about..

He's done 4 movies, 3 of them are fantastic and the other isnt even that bad

He would have done a far better job than Rian in terms of getting the feel of star wars right and hitting the comedy on the head. He would have also, y'know, developed the characters instead of turning the majority of them into slapstick side shows :rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Shakey_jake wrote: »

So did anyone hear if Rain's new trilogy is cancelled??

Such a shame if it is, i really liked the last jedi

Hes a talented guy and giving him clean slate would have been really fun

There is zero indication it has been cancelled, outside ****ty clickbait sites.

pixelburp

nix wrote: »

lol, wtf you guys waffling about..

He's done 4 movies, 3 of them are fantastic and the other isnt even that bad

Joss Whedon is a boring, mediocre director: he does nothing interesting with composition, colour, framing, anything. He's a point-and-shoot kinda guy, and the only thing that separates him from (say) John Moore is that Whedon comes with readymade fan worship that arguably gets people in the door. It's not that uncommon for writers or actors to start dabbling with directing, but more often than not they're ... OK. Grand if you're shooting an episode of TV - but it's not asking much to bring something else to a cinematic table.

Last Jedi had problems but for me they were nearly all in the script, whereas the cinematography and directing was consistently, aesthetically great: there's no way in hell Whedon would have come up with something like that Throne Room battle, precisely because it demonstrated the difference having a keen, creative eye makes to the final scene. It wasn't just a thrilling action scene, it was legitimately a beautiful composition as well; take any frame and it was gorgeous to look at.

nix

pixelburp wrote: »

Joss Whedon is a boring, mediocre director: he does nothing interesting with composition, colour, framing, anything. He's a point-and-shoot kinda guy, and the only thing that separates him from (say) John Moore is that Whedon comes with readymade fan worship that arguably gets people in the door. It's not that uncommon for writers or actors to start dabbling with directing, but more often than not they're ... OK. Grand if you're shooting an episode of TV - but it's not asking much to bring something else to a cinematic table.

Last Jedi had problems but for me they were nearly all in the script, whereas the cinematography and directing was consistently, aesthetically great: there's no way in hell Whedon would have come up with something like that Throne Room battle, precisely because it demonstrated the difference having a keen, creative eye makes to the final scene. It wasn't just a thrilling action scene, it was legitimately a beautiful composition as well; take any frame and it was gorgeous to look at.

Not exactly the kinda stuff id be looking for in a star wars movie mate, as pretty as the throne room was, it made zero sense, Jedi/sith shoulda wafted those guards away. For this type of movie (action adventure) Id take better story telling over how well someone can frame a rainbow.

pixelburp

nix wrote: »

Not exactly the kinda stuff id be looking for in a star wars movie mate, as pretty as the throne room was, it made zero sense, Jedi/sith shoulda wafted those guards away. For this type of movie (action adventure) Id take better story telling over how well someone can frame a rainbow.

You asked why I don't rate Whedon, and I've told you. Composition and narrative aren't mutually exclusive concepts and good movies find a way to marry both - good cinema uses the screen to tell the story, that's ... kinda its thing. It shouldn't need to have its characters standing around a room talking about the plot like...oh I dunno, just to pick a COMPLETELY RANDOM example, The Avengers. In cinema, action is the character.

In fact, I'd say that 'action adventure' needs good directing MORE than other genres, precisely because there's an emphasis and increase of action, movement, and potential disorientation. You need a director who can convey the important information visually, whether thats physical info, or yes, emotional. This isn't posh, ivory tower stuff, this is basic filmmaking seen from James Cameron right up to Chris McQuarrie's recent MI:Fallout. It's not always there, but the good directors understand it.

When action's directed well, with flourish and creativity - you get John Wick. When action's directed badly, using surface-level tricks without any understanding of the why - you get Taken 3 (I choose it only 'cos I saw it recently and holygodmyeyes it's a Brown Standard for me.)

nix

pixelburp wrote: »

You asked why I don't rate Whedon, and I've told you. Composition and narrative aren't mutually exclusive concepts and good movies find a way to marry both - good cinema uses the screen to tell the story, that's ... kinda its thing. It shouldn't need to have its characters standing around a room talking about the plot like...oh I dunno, just to pick a COMPLETELY RANDOM example, The Avengers. In cinema, action is the character.

In fact, I'd say that 'action adventure' needs good directing MORE than other genres, precisely because there's an emphasis and increase of action, movement, and potential disorientation. You need a director who can convey the important information visually, whether thats physical info, or yes, emotional. This isn't posh, ivory tower stuff, this is basic filmmaking seen from James Cameron right up to Chris McQuarrie's recent MI:Fallout. It's not always there, but the good directors understand it.

When action's directed well, with flourish and creativity - you get John Wick. When action's directed badly, using surface-level tricks without any understanding of the why - you get Taken 3 (I choose it only 'cos I saw it recently and holygodmyeyes it's a Brown Standard for me.)

Yeah taken 3 is trash, part 2 also

But yeah of course, id rather both, but if anything the last jedi taught me, it would be one over the other. TLJ has some great scenes, but they take up like 1/4 of the movie and alot of it is bumpy, by that i mean poor humour, Invincible Leia, two jedi struggling with some guards, lets not even mention casino planet.

The rest is progressing story very poorly, and the likes of Joss would have done a much better job overall.

And its been nearly 4 years since Joss has done any behind the camera work, maybe hes learned and improved a lot

I'm just saying, I think he's earned the right to not be tossed aside :pac:

DrWu

I think Whedon would have done a very decent job. The characters would have been more fully fleshed out and realized. I'm going way back to the Buffy days. Anyone who can turn out quality like that has proved themselves as more than capable. I don't think he's suited to working within too many constraints and I think some of the drops in quality have been more down to that than any inherent deficiencies in his own abilities as a writer/director. Properly supported he could turn out a humdinger of a SW movie.

I'm not Last Jedi hater btw. I don't love it but it's by no means in my bottom 3 SW movies. My main gripes are with TFA. It was a horrible way to start a trilogy and was far more insulting to fans than TLJ. The lack of imagination and nostalgia was awful. I went in hoping for a new part of the galaxy to explore, new bad guys rising from the ashes of the empire, cool new ships, great characters put in terrible dilemmas etc. It was all a bit of a sham in the end.

pixelburp

nix wrote: »

And its been nearly 4 years since Joss has done any behind the camera work, maybe hes learned and improved a lot

We'll agree to disagree on the rest, but to be pedantic, Whedon was behind the reshoots and rewrites of 2017's Justice League; it's unclear how much of the final cut was Whedons or Synder, and to be fair doing an uncredited patch job isn't exactly a highlight in anyones CV, but you could certainly tell the Whedon bits vs. the Synder (not to mention the infamous CGI moustache giving some clue)

nix wrote: »

I'm just saying, I think he's earned the right to not be tossed aside :pac:

Well away from the discussion of his directing ability, I think Whedon as franchise parachutist is a little played out; I said it elsewhere but I'd like to see him take a backseat, step away from being this High Priest of geek culture and just do something new and fresh (which he seems to be doing at HBO).

nix

pixelburp wrote: »

We'll agree to disagree on the rest, but to be pedantic, Whedon was behind the reshoots and rewrites of 2017's Justice League; it's unclear how much of the final cut was Whedons or Synder, and to be fair doing an uncredited patch job isn't exactly a highlight in anyones CV, but you could certainly tell the Whedon bits vs. the Synder (not to mention the infamous CGI moustache giving some clue)



Well away from the discussion of his directing ability, I think Whedon as franchise parachutist is a little played out; I said it elsewhere but I'd like to see him take a backseat, step away from being this High Priest of geek culture and just do something new and fresh (which he seems to be doing at HBO).

Haha, c'mon now, anybody coming in to do a patch job on Snyder's work would be hard pushed, what was he supposed to do, shoot superman from very far away? I'm sure the mustache we got was probably all the remaining budget could squeeze

But yeah overall, thinking about it, id prefer he not do the star wars thing, its a sticky web for any director wanting to spread their wings I'm sure, heck im surprised he had any interest in going back to the Disney machine considering his reasons for dropping the Avengers reigns..

But eh, whats he doing at HBO? I'm off to google with that one :pac:

pixelburp

nix wrote: »

Haha, c'mon now, anybody coming in to do a patch job on Snyder's work would be hard pushed, what was he supposed to do, shoot superman from very far away? I'm sure the mustache we got was probably all the remaining budget could squeeze

But yeah overall, thinking about it, id prefer he not do the star wars thing, its a sticky web for any director wanting to spread their wings I'm sure, heck im surprised he had any interest in going back to the Disney machine considering his reasons for dropping the Avengers reigns..

But eh, whats he doing at HBO? I'm off to google with that one :pac:

Whedon's next original work:

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/hbo-joss-whedon-the-nevers-1202872854/

Goodshape

Could never understand the love for Joss Whedon. I feel like his popularity coincided with the commercialisation of "geek culture". It's manufactured, ready-made and shrink-wrapped, "cult status", TV fluff.

Buffy, Angel, and Firefly were not very good.

pixelburp

Goodshape wrote: »

Could never understand the love for Joss Whedon. I feel like his popularity coincided with the commercialisation of "geek culture". It's manufactured, ready-made and shrink-wrapped, "cult status", TV fluff.

Buffy, Angel, and Firefly were not very good.

I think Whedon as a writer now somewhat suffers from being the progenitor of a style not only heavily aped, but superseded by those coming after. Once upon a time, his sarky, self-aware writing was genuinely original, a breath of fresh air, but this form has kinda become the standard of mainstream TV (and lately, Blockbuster) scriptwriting. Buffy & co. absolutely kickstarted, perhaps not a genre unto itself, but definitely a technique & fashion you still see today.

And I agree, Firefly was overrated, IMO its fame more down to cancellation and mishandling by Fox than any actual quality. Oh but dear god when I went through college it was the Rick & Morty of it day: its fans insufferably obsessive about the show, and couldn't sit still without telling you how amazing it was, and wrong you were for not sharing equals paroxysms of joy.

Uh. Star Wars!

Sal Butamol

First requirement should be that they actually understand the Star Wars story.

Johnson made a complete balls of just about everything in that regard.

Luke and Yoda were completely out of character.

Don't even get me started on the force.

The trilogy is ruined. It's even worse than the prequels in terms of the story.

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

Once upon a time, his sarky, self-aware writing was genuinely original

And it's a style I never appreciated much. I like my sci-fi and fantasy played out with a straight face, not with a knowing wink to the audience, plus special guest stars Wil Wheten and Nathan Fillion.


The setting can be as out-of-this-world ridicules as it needs or wants to be, but if the characters occupying that world can't take it seriously then I don't know why I should bother.


The Marvel films certainly suffer from this most of the time. Also sneaking into Star Wars with The Last Jedi (although I didn't hate it), and even the JJ Abrams' Star Trek films.

thegreengoblin

Sal Butamol wrote: »

First requirement should be that they actually understand the Star Wars story.

Johnson made a complete balls of just about everything in that regard.

Luke and Yoda were completely out of character.

Don't even get me started on the force.

The trilogy is ruined. It's even worse than the prequels in terms of the story.

Yeah, I still salivate over a whiny brat and midichlorians and the taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems...rivetting stuff.