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

JohnFalstaff

david75 wrote: »

like youd pitch to a bank.

Kathleen kennedey left disney to helm LFL.
She doesnt get bossed around by anyone. Its her that LFL answer to and she has massive creative input of her own as executive producer on these films and look at her CV of films shes produced...theyre all heavy hitter box office and creative successes.

George hired KK in part of the sale to disney in ordr to leave control with her, not disney.

there's no focus group screenings, disney investors only get shown the behind the scenes reels we eventiually see during production.

Disney are mad hands off with this and all their franchises and thats why it works.

More like how you'd pitch to the head of a studio. Who, if he/she likes your pitch, will greenlight your film. And give you some notes about how you need to strengthen your second act.
A film pitch. Happens all the time.

Turtyturd

Who ordered the reshoots of Rogue One, and removed the ‘Solo’ directors?

falinn merking

Turtyturd wrote: »

Who ordered the reshoots of Rogue One, and removed the ‘Solo’ directors?

Don't be asking awkward questions.

Tony EH

Disney bought Lucasfilm. They own it. They have a say over what LFL does and how it spends Disney money.

radonicus

Turtyturd wrote: »

Who ordered the reshoots of Rogue One, and removed the ‘Solo’ directors?

These are not the questions we are looking for, etc etc.

radonicus

On second viewing I see my initial reaction was justified. The opening exchange between Gleeson and Poe turned me off straight away and was compounded by the weird scene with the milking, and then Leia episode.

Being prepared for that this time I could take in the rest of the film properly. Some really good aspects to it - visually excellent scenes with the star destroyers etc, and on Luke's hideaway, and the scene with Rey and Ren, which I didn't appreciate the first time around. I also thought the (final) scene with the young kid was very nicely done, powerfully captures the spirit of the originals.

Still very flawed, and probably the point at which the Disney influence is made clear (they didn't shell out the money for nothing).

irishthump

david75 wrote: »

absolutely. But they dont get involved in any of the creative decisions though in any of their subsidiaries. They keep their hands off the wheeland let the marvels and lucasfilms do their own thing..thats why the films are successful in part..

unlike DC which has its studios hands all over it and they keep screwing up making terrible films out of what is amazing content.
if they left the creators alone and stopped interfering we'd see hugely successful films.

I can’t believe that Rian Johnson made this film without a heap of excectitive decisions being made without his input.

brevity

Just on the casino part, I thought at the time that it felt a bit like the casio scene in the second Indiana Jones movie.

johnny_ultimate

I've been exceedingly cynical about the way Disney has cast off directors in Star Wars, much the same way Marvel appear to have done. I felt Rogue One really gave the impression of a film that had been 'interfered with' or compromised with, and the Solo mess seemed like another chapter in a grim corporate saga. Abrams did fine, but he's the safest pair of hands in Hollywood - a non boat-rocker if ever there was one.

TLJ, in contrast, leaves me more optimistic about the ability of directors to express themselves in the corporate machine. I mean it's a film that goes out of its way to deconstruct and even actively undermine much of the series' safe, established mythology, and turns the last film's

epic dramatic cliffhanger into a brilliantly cruel punchline

. It has strong, consistent visual motifs running through it: the shot/reverse shot

'Force skype'

; the dominating red; the allusions to cinema & Star Wars history. It has strong, well-defined thematic throughlines that determine the direction of both characters and the various plots. It even takes time to reflect on class inequality and some kind of goddamn galactic military-industrial complex. It's a middle chapter in a trilogy that

treats what could have been envisioned as series-long 'mysteries' as cheeky anti-climaxes (because the anti-climaxes are what makes the whole thing make sense).

Let's not mistake this as even in the same league as Haneke or equivalent auteur: this is still a big-budget blockbuster with clear corporate checkboxes ticked. But it's a film from a writer/director who clearly has lots to say, and he manages to say it. Hopefully it's not a once-off.

falinn merking

brevity wrote: »

Just on the casino part, I thought at the time that it felt a bit like the casio scene in the second Indiana Jones movie.

Yes putting the casino in was a bit of a gamble.

I will get my coat.:)

tony stark

radonicus wrote: »

On second viewing I see my initial reaction was justified. The opening exchange between Gleeson and Poe turned me off straight away and was compounded by the weird scene with the milking, and then Leia episode.

Being prepared for that this time I could take in the rest of the film properly. Some really good aspects to it - visually excellent scenes with the star destroyers etc, and on Luke's hideaway, and the scene with Rey and Ren, which I didn't appreciate the first time around. I also thought the (final) scene with the young kid was very nicely done, powerfully captures the spirit of the originals.

Still very flawed, and probably the point at which the Disney influence is made clear (they didn't shell out the money for nothing).

Luke drinking the milk was absolutely genius I thought. That's the kind of weird subtle humour that was missing. The big stilt for catching g the fish was also great. It looked "otherworldly "(if that's a word)

i loved the movie i have to say, enjoyed the story, the jokes, the rey reveal, the visuals like with the crystal critters, etc

the line about 'no one is ever really gone' was very touching when thinking of carrie fisher

radonicus

tony stark wrote: »

Luke drinking the milk was absolutely genius I thought. That's the kind of weird subtle humour that was missing. The big stilt for catching g the fish was also great. It looked "otherworldly "(if that's a word)

There nothing subtle about it, but it was weird.

Each to their own I suppose but I think it was ridiculously out of place, and unnecessary, as was the fishing thing.

tony stark

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've been exceedingly cynical about the way Disney has cast off directors in Star Wars, much the same way Marvel appear to have done. I felt Rogue One really gave the impression of a film that had been 'interfered with' or compromised with, and the Solo mess seemed like another chapter in a grim corporate saga. Abrams did fine, but he's the safest pair of hands in Hollywood - a non boat-rocker if ever there was one.

TLJ, in contrast, leaves me more optimistic about the ability of directors to express themselves in the corporate machine. I mean it's a film that goes out of its way to deconstruct and even actively undermine much of the series' safe, established mythology, and turns the last film's

epic dramatic cliffhanger into a brilliantly cruel punchline

. It has strong, consistent visual motifs running through it: the shot/reverse shot

'Force skype'

; the dominating red; the allusions to cinema history. It has strong, well-defined thematic throughlines that determine the direction of both characters and the various plots. It even takes time to reflect on class inequality and some kind of goddamn galactic military-industrial complex. It's a middle chapter in a trilogy that

treats what could have been envisioned as series-long 'mysteries' as cheeky anti-climaxes (because the anti-climaxes are what makes the whole thing make sense).

Let's not mistake this as even in the same league as Haneke or equivalent auteur: this is still a big-budget blockbuster with clear corporate checkboxes ticked. But it's a film from a writer/director who clearly has lots to say, and he manages to say it. Hopefully it's not a once-off.

I waned to see all the above but didn't. Did you not feel it was completely disjointed in tone and plot? Yes visually it looked similar until bad cgi( Rey on acto- check out the green screen at one stage, super leia, 1st minute of yoda) . I'm 100% not seeking argument or even debate. I want someone to convince me I missed something even beyond the god awful comedy sketches. As i said before Luke, Rey, Kylo were great in parts but the rest was a mess

tony stark

radonicus wrote: »

There nothing subtle about it, but it was weird.

Each to their own I suppose but I think it was ridiculously out of place, and unnecessary, as was the fishing thing.

Maybe it was a relief to me after every word Poe or Finn spoke, literally anything they said. Maybe not subtle humour but for 5 min I thought I was watching a different world instead of a "friends" episode

Osmosis Jones

I thought the milk thing was funny, he was trying to be crass and vulgar.

radonicus

tony stark wrote: »

Maybe it was a relief to me after every word Poe or Finn spoke, literally anything they said. Maybe not subtle humour but for 5 min I thought I was watching a different world instead of a "friends" episode

Fin was wasted in this, a missed opportunity to develop him as a strong character. And the less said about his turn in that rehab suit the better.

AnneFrank

Rey looks pretty chubby

Turtyturd

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

I thought the milk thing was funny, he was trying to be crass and vulgar.

Funny thing is if those scenes weren’t in it you’d have people complaining about Luke surviving on an island for years with no source of food.

server down

Tony EH wrote: »

Way to miss the point spectacularly.

Feel free to explain better then.

bennyineire

Just back from watching it with my 2 young fella's. They though it was great but not as good as R1.

I liked it too, great cinematography and acting for the most part, have to say though I thought

Domhnall Gleeson's portrayal of General Hux was way over the top again (as it was in TFW). I don't think this is his fault as I think he is a fine actor, I'm that's the way he was directed to do it.

david75

irishthump wrote: »

I can’t believe that Rian Johnson made this film without a heap of excectitive decisions being made without his input.

if thats true, they would have made the most non offensive broadest appeal film ever..but they didnt

Disney dont get involved inlucasfilm affairs, they just dont. they dont have to.

lucasfilm runs its own ship and disney only market.

server down

My guess is the rt audience scores will increase as the “ruined my childhood” guys are replaced by normal punters.

Brief_Lives

So after setting up this thread years ago...
I finally saw the movie...

Confusing emotions, after it ...

May the force be with us all..

Wibbs

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've been exceedingly cynical about the way Disney has cast off directors in Star Wars, much the same way Marvel appear to have done. I felt Rogue One really gave the impression of a film that had been 'interfered with' or compromised with, and the Solo mess seemed like another chapter in a grim corporate saga. Abrams did fine, but he's the safest pair of hands in Hollywood - a non boat-rocker if ever there was one.

True enough. Abrams, the cut price yellow pack Spielberg.

TLJ, in contrast, leaves me more optimistic about the ability of directors to express themselves in the corporate machine. I mean it's a film that goes out of its way to deconstruct and even actively undermine much of the series' safe, established mythology, and turns the last film's

epic dramatic cliffhanger into a brilliantly cruel punchline

.

Oh I would be willing to bet good money that's exactly what the "corporate machine" were happy with and encouraged. The fact is and anyone in the industry will tell you, that at that cost level of filmmaking - unless you're an aforementioned Spielberg, or indeed Lucas and are independent with an unassailable track record and have final cut(very few directors do at that level, inc Abrams, even Eastwood and Scorcese have to pitch projects) - the directors "vision" details may be left mostly alone, but the story and direction of the story is most certainly combed over to serve precisely what they want to say/want the direction to go/what will hit the tills. There is no way that all that wasn't all signed off at the script level, before a single light was lit and frame shot. Johnson might have been replaced and the look may have changed, but the overall arc would have remained.

And why would they deconstruct the mythos of the saga in plain sight? A few reasons; the main one being out with the old and expensive faves and in with the new and cheaper and more eager ones and the option to take the saga to new places and characters. Take out the old main characters and that makes it so much easier to do.

They did more than deconstruct

Luke. They pretty much threw out what we knew of the man. It was essentially a hero assassination. And one that Hamill himself has hinted was a WTF? for him. Aside: Mark has been a loose cannon on deck, a man not afraid to speak his mind, however couched in jokiness. Not a party line tower.

Anyway what we know of Luke over the arc of the story is that he is someone that represents the hero's journey, someone who often failed and took missteps but grew into the hero he was destined to be. Someone who disregarding his own journey and safety(and Yoda) is willing to fight for his friends and in real fear of his own life turns his own father from the dark side and helps defeat the Sith.

Fast forward to this flic and it turns out he was an amateur who screwed up and who tried to kill his own nephew, a child, in his sleep. Never mind that said nephew was able to engage with him, Luke Skywalker, the son of the most powerful force user ever(who bested and saved same. When he was decades younger and still learning) and force blast him away, kill all the other apprentices and get away scot free to kick off the new order of dark side. Only for Luke to run away and hide like a coward. If there was ever a case of an example of post modernism hero deconstruction for the sake of it, it was up there on the screen. Never mind that Rey Sue, who only picked up a light sabre and the force a New York minute ago has the measure of Luke effin Skywalker and Rylo.

Consider this. Let's imagine in Empire back in the day, Luke shows up to Yoda's gaff and proceeds to have Yoda in automatic awe of his abilities and outshines Yoda and then later on is able to equal, even best Vader in a fight. It would have been laughed out of the cinema and no way would ESB be rightfully seen as a high water mark for the saga. But this is what we see in both the Farce Awakens and The Lost Jedi. And for me it's more than a bit sad to see that the main woman character is so very badly written and unbelievable. Like I said before it's down to Ridley's natural charisma that makes it even close to work on the surface and fair play to her. She deserved better(as do many actresses in similar roles). It's like a stupid reversal of the old days where some "heroes" where that way just because they were men. And that was just as bloody dumb.

It's really crappy writing and characterisation and plotting and makes no sense. Rylo is for me the only character that does make sense. His abilities come from his lineage, his skills have come with years of training first under Luke and then Snoke. His internal dynamic makes sense too(though is a tad one liner a performance; petulant, edgy and scowl. Repeat, while chewing the scenery). Though because his backstory is on the page and realistic and believable he's about the most interesting character in the current story.

It has strong, consistent visual motifs running through it: the shot/reverse shot

'Force skype'

; the dominating red; the allusions to cinema & Star Wars history. It has strong, well-defined thematic throughlines that determine the direction of both characters and the various plots. It even takes time to reflect on class inequality and some kind of goddamn galactic military-industrial complex.

On a very simplistic level. Look we're not expecting David Lean here to be fair, but the tonality within the film jars in more than a few places. There is most certainly a mixture of vision that suggests committee

The casino subplot for one, never mind Phasma being wheeled out to basically die because the character didn't;t have a future, or didn't sell enough toys.

.

AnneFrank wrote: »

Rey looks pretty chubby

WTF? She's built like a stripped down racing whippet? Please be trolling...

TBH I didn't mine the jokey bits. Quite enjoyed the milking and fishing and Chewie going vegan And the Ewok penguins were a helluva lot less irritating than the actual Ewoks. TBH I did not like RITJ when it came out.

On recollection(though it is me...) I did find the last battle on Hoth, sorry Salt Red world jarring. Namely that they're only a half dozen ships that make it to the surface, but are able to assemble a rebel army and cannons and speeders in what would be a matter of an hour at most. And then after Magical Rey Sue shows up a full force Yoda level wielder who can move all the rocks with ease(of course) the entire rebel forces can fit on the Falcon. WTF?

Though I didn't like the

Casino subplot,

I did like Del Toro, even with his usual acting twitches by way of character. Though to be fair he's bloody brilliant at that, so is always watchable, even in beer ads.

Wibbs

david75 wrote: »

if thats true, they would have made the most non offensive broadest appeal film ever..but they didnt

The above post...

server down wrote: »

My guess is the rt audience scores will increase as the “ruined my childhood” guys are replaced by normal punters.

is explained by this post. They're looking to keep the franchise going with whizzes and bangs for a new audience.

faceman

Well it was better than TFA but was 45 minutes too long and chaotic.

HATED some of the dialogue.

Cops
Spunk
Crystal critters
Godspeed

Total Americanisms.

It’s very clear that there is no vision for this trilogy. They’re making it up as they go. It’s going to hurt them for the final film. They’re devoid of a real villain and the resistance is what, 20 people? Episode 9 might just be a courtroom drama.

Was it entertaining? Yes. Was it an entertaining Star Wars film for fans. No.

Chris_Heilong

This is getting torn apart by some people online, Even though I enjoyed the film it is full of epic scenes mixed with terrible writing, ill-timed slapstick humor and things that just make little scenes based on what had already been established. One for the mass market, less so for the fans.

kdevitt

Random semi-spoilerish thought

Surely with Yoda, Obi-Wan, and Anakin all floating around in the force somewhere, one of them would have popped up and explained to Luke that going in to murder his nephew was a bad idea?

buzzinfly83

Really enjoyed the film. I wasn't expecting much after reading some of the bad reviews on here but enjoyed it from start to finish. Thought Luke was great. Kylo and Rey stole the show and it's set up nicely for the next movie. I'm surprised at a lot of the hate for it. I thought it was a solid addition to the Star Wars series.