Future and potential Star Wars films - news and speculation

johnny_ultimate

Homelander wrote: »

What lens is being applied to reach that conclusion, I would wager it comes primarily from being a passionate fan of film making first and Star Wars second?

Yep, I loved Star Wars as a kid but had grown out of it. I did love The Force Awakens when I first saw it on opening night, but on a second viewing when the thrill had worn off it was shaky for sure. Not only did The Last Jedi rekindle that excitement and hold up to scrutiny, but it also is a deeply cinematic pleasure - full of impressive aesthetic decisions, imaginative allusions to a rich tapestry of world cinema (similar in spirit to how Lucas himself originally drew on a variety of influences), and a thematically coherent yet classical narrative that reflects and respects on a series legacy while pushing it forward in new and exciting ways.

You don’t have to look far to see my general despair with blockbuster filmmaking in 2019... but the Last Jedi was the rare one I’ll always go to bat for

Spon Farmer

Homelander wrote: »

I can easily see why someone would think that about TLJ. What lens is being applied to reach that conclusion, I would wager it comes primarily from being a passionate fan of film making first and Star Wars second?

I liked the film and thought it was bold in a way Star Wars has never been before, but most equally I had some major problems with it too as a huge Star Wars fan. But I give it the thumbs up overall, a case of the good outweighing the bad for me personally. Most people I know feel the same. If you had to boil it down to a yes or no, it'd be a 'yes' from almost everyone I know, but most of my friends had issues with it and to be honest it's always the same issues that come up again and again.

I can see why someone would consider it pure gold even if I strongly disagree, but I can't really afford the same understanding to anyone claiming it was absolute crap or without any good qualities. The only 'crap' Star Wars films to me are probably Attack of the Clones, maybe Solo, even then both are very watchable. The rest, for me, are either excellent (IV, V, VI, Rogue One), good but disappointing despite excellent high points (Force Awakens, Last Jedi) or weak with some diamond material in the rough (I, III). That leaves II (just plain awful) and Solo (redundant, forgettable, unnecessary but watchable).

The negatives in The Last Jedi are the fact that Johnson had to work with Abrams clone of the Empire and Vader and Abram's dull and pointless heroes of Finn and Poe. Rose (and Kelly Marie Tran herself) is adorable but I honestly don't see the point of her character overall either.

However, the look of the film and the fact that Johnson did so much different and unexpected makes me wish he had been given the reigns of Episode VII instead of Abrams. Maybe if he was creating new characters and villains from scratch the Sequels would have been something special.

Spon Farmer

pixelburp wrote: »

It was the predominant topic when it came to the prequel, for all the obvious & mentioned reasons; leastways outside of the very kind of hardcore, fanboy forum you mention. Prequels are by their very nature potential victims of redundancy and Solo never marked himself out as being someone whose history was that mysterious or enticing. And even if it were, what we eventually got was so irrelevant and tickbox checking, I really don't think the final film deserves actual praise.

The thread in this very forum should give enough of a sense of the prevailing mood; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057623474 which was ... who cares?

That is weird because I encountered the opposite opinion from the start.

Han's history was a mystery though because we knew nothing of where he came from, how he became a criminal and what kind of adventures he had. He was the opposite to Luke who had a dull, monotonous life that is not worthy of a look at all. However, I had never given much thought to Han's background - he was just who he was. And it turns out I enjoyed the hell out of the story.:P

Spon Farmer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yep, I loved Star Wars as a kid but had grown out of it. I did love The Force Awakens when I first saw it on opening night, but on a second viewing when the thrill had worn off it was shaky for sure. Not only did The Last Jedi rekindle that excitement and hold up to scrutiny, but it also is a deeply cinematic pleasure - full of impressive aesthetic decisions, imaginative allusions to a rich tapestry of world cinema (similar in spirit to how Lucas himself originally drew on a variety of influences), and a thematically coherent yet classical narrative that reflects and respects on a series legacy while pushing it forward in new and exciting ways.

You don’t have to look far to see my general despair with blockbuster filmmaking in 2019... but the Last Jedi was the rare one I’ll always go to bat for

Pretty much my opinion on it too.

It took me longer and more viewings to lose the excitement TFA. Rey & BB-8 are great. Han & Chewie's relationship is wonderful and Han has a good death scene. Brendan Gleeson's young fella makes me consider shaving my head and running out to break a few windows. The story and rest of the characters are meh.

My only criticisms of TLJ are that most of the new characters are just nothing special and that killing Luke was a mistake., but at least it was great death scene.

There is also the criminal underuse of Threepio and Artoo in both films and that aliens are all background characters with no new alien primary character.

Dades

Spon Farmer wrote: »

You can out the drama llama back in it pen. There is no shambles here. Things are not perfect but the again how can they be when George Lucas is not in charge himself?

I think this highlights the rose-tinted helmets people wear in respect to Star Wars.

Lucas made huge blunders with the prequels, introducing all the tedious trade wars and politics. They were only watchable because, well, lightsabers, and some awesome set pieces.

So half the franchise before Disney took over were badly flawed. I can't even watch Attack of the Clones the dialogue is so awful.

Expectation management, is all I'm saying.

Spon Farmer

Dades wrote: »

I think this highlights the rose-tinted helmets people wear in respect to Star Wars.

Lucas made huge blunders with the prequels, introducing all the tedious trade wars and politics. They were only watchable because, well, lightsabers, and some awesome set pieces.

So half the franchise before Disney took over were badly flawed. I can't even watch Attack of the Clones the dialogue is so awful.

Expectation management, is all I'm saying.

This "tedious trade wars and politics" nonsense has been going since Episode One was released.:rolleyes:

Can somebody explain what the difficulty is with it? The politics and trade disputes amount to 10 minutes (if even that) across the three films.

Lucas needed a reason for the bad guys to attack the good guys. What reason would have you preferred? Palpatine comes to power and blindsides the Jedi using his brain and a bit of politics. What is wrong with that?

If you find the very, very brief mention of politics and economics in Star Wars to be "tedious" then you must be be posting here from a coma with all the brexit rubbish constantly droning on.:eek:

As to rose tinted view of George Lucas, whatever your views of the Prequels at least Lucas went in new directions, took risks, pushed the technology of filmmaking forward and expanded the mythology.

Dades

You clearly remember the prequels very differently to me if you if only recollect a "very, very brief mention of politics and economics".

My God, those Jedi Master loved to talk. Sit and talk. Walk and talk. Masters of Exposition, they were. And don't get me started on the Senate and votes of no confidence.

Credit to Lucas, he did some great stuff with the prequels (I'm a big fan of TPM), but he overindulged himself, big time.

manbitesdog

I liked how TLJ developed the Rei-Kylo relationship, particularly the throne room scene and the Rashomon-inspired sequence on Luke’s ‘betrayal’ of Kylo, and it had some really stunning visuals—speeders streaking red dust across the salt planet surface, the Resistance ship rending the Imperial cruiser apart in a kamikaze style attack—but it was a two and a half hour movie built around a slow speed chase. That is not the stuff of high drama.

Spon Farmer

Dades wrote: »

You clearly remember the prequels very differently to me if you if only recollect a "very, very brief mention of politics and economics".

My God, those Jedi Master loved to talk. Sit and talk. Walk and talk. Masters of Exposition, they were. And don't get me started on the Senate and votes of no confidence.

Credit to Lucas, he did some great stuff with the prequels (I'm a big fan of TPM), but he overindulged himself, big time.

I was very brief and not very complex (despite those that claimed so over the years).

Well who could avoid the temptation to indulge.

manbitesdog

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Lads, what is with all themelodramtaic doom and gloom?

Feige is putting together one Star Wars movie. He is not taking over.

Not yet anyhow. If his movie is a big hit I’m assuming they will try Marvelize if from there.

Foxtrol

manbitesdog wrote: »

Not yet anyhow. If his movie is a big hit I’m assuming they will try Marvelize if from there.

You just can't win with many Star Wars fans, which is why I struggle to take many complaints from them seriously.

Complaining there's too much chaos in the planning of the universe but then also not wanting their universe to be similar to the most successful example of this type of long term planning.

manbitesdog

Foxtrol wrote: »

You just can't win with many Star Wars fans, which is why I struggle to take many complaints from them seriously.

Complaining there's too much chaos in the planning of the universe but then also not wanting their universe to be similar to the most successful example of this type of long term planning.

The crossover model used for Marvel works we’ll because it’s also basically adapted from the comic book format. It’s not a good model for Star Wars. Having one movie a year wasn’t a good model and has already been abandoned. But now Feige is getting a shot at doing for Star Wars what he did with Marvel. I don’t think it will work commercially, and I’m sure it won’t work creatively.

Brief_Lives

The more I think about the Last Jedi, the angrier I get... what an utterly inept, useless movie...

Spon Farmer

manbitesdog wrote: »

I liked how TLJ developed the Rei-Kylo relationship, particularly the throne room scene and the Rashomon-inspired sequence on Luke’s ‘betrayal’ of Kylo, and it had some really stunning visuals—speeders streaking red dust across the salt planet surface, the Resistance ship rending the Imperial cruiser apart in a kamikaze style attack—but it was a two and a half hour movie built around a slow speed chase. That is not the stuff of high drama.

I think starship chase should have been a long battle (like 33 in Battlestar Galactica, everyone exhausted with escape, fight, escape) or like a submarine battle (two capital ships going cat and mouse with both planning boarding parties).

Although to be honest I'd love it if the opening crawl had declared the First Order financially crippled and in ruins due to the loss of Starkiller Base. A surprise Republic fleet wipes them out. Then a proper Big Bad turns up.:p

Foxtrol

manbitesdog wrote: »

The crossover model used for Marvel works we’ll because it’s also basically adapted from the comic book format. It’s not a good model for Star Wars. Having one movie a year wasn’t a good model and has already been abandoned. But now Feige is getting a shot at doing for Star Wars what he did with Marvel. I don’t think it will work commercially, and I’m sure it won’t work creatively.

Historically all the successful non-movie Star Wars materials (books, games, tv shows etc) have lived in an interconnected expanded universe. This is what Feige and the MCU has done extremely well. This doesn't mean SW movies have to directly crossover so I'm not sure why you see it as being a negative.

I don't think one movie a year was necessarily a bad model either, it was just planned poorly and they force fed the audience things that they had little interest in. Again, this is something that Feige and the MCU has done amazingly well at, having multiple movies and shows without saturating the market, even when they are properties the audience aren't clamoring for in advance

Spon Farmer

manbitesdog wrote: »

The crossover model used for Marvel works we’ll because it’s also basically adapted from the comic book format. It’s not a good model for Star Wars. Having one movie a year wasn’t a good model and has already been abandoned. But now Feige is getting a shot at doing for Star Wars what he did with Marvel. I don’t think it will work commercially, and I’m sure it won’t work creatively.

Star Wars is already a "shared universe" and it works.

Tony EH

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Where there really people who thought the film was pointless when it was announced?

EVERYBODY thought that. It's announcement was greeted with the loudest meh ever.

There were pictures circulated on the web of near to empty cinemas on its opening night.

Tony EH

manbitesdog wrote: »

Not yet anyhow. If his movie is a big hit I’m assuming they will try Marvelize if from there.

They've been trying to Marvelise it since day one, unfortunately.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

They've been trying to Marvelise it since day one, unfortunately.

Again, what is wrong with taking some elements of the Marvel formula? People say it like it is some form of dirty word. MCU is the best (possibly only) example of an expanded universe working on the big screen.

There are a group of Star Wars fans who don't want to see more Star Wars on big or small screens and I have no idea where they are coming from feeling that way. It is like they want to keep the originals as a childhood memory and no one else is allowed to enjoy.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, what is wrong with taking some elements of the Marvel formula? People say it like it is some form of dirty word. MCU is the best (possibly only) example of an expanded universe working on the big screen.

There are a group of Star Wars fans who don't want to see more Star Wars on big or small screens and I have no idea where they are coming from feeling that way. It is like they want to keep the originals as a childhood memory and no one else is allowed to enjoy.

Because Star Wars isn't Marvel and it never will be.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Because Star Wars isn't Marvel and it never will be.

Care to expand on this broad vague statement?

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Care to expand on this broad vague statement?

Star Wars is just not suited to the rinse/repeat cycle that the comic book superheroes of Marvel are. Although, you could say that it's been on rinse and repeat in its own tedious way. But that's a different story.

The origin/beat the bad guy/team up formula won't apply though.

They tried an origin story for Han Solo and it sucked balls. Hopefully that will be the end of that nonsense. We don't need to see origin stories for characters that we are already familiar with for 40 years. Especially ones that are so poorly done.

What needs to happen with Star Wars is for it to be opened up. Disney seems to have recognised this to a certain degree with the likes of 'The Mandalorian'. But that's just TV stuff at the end of the day.

They've yet to truly try it on the big screen and it's all up in the air as to what the next venture there will be, or when it'll be. But an absolute must is to get away from Skywalker et al, because they've hung the coats on that hook too much and they've ruined what made those characters compelling in the first place.

Make new characters that operate in the Star Wars galaxy. It's really not that hard to do.

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

EVERYBODY thought that. It's announcement was greeted with the loudest meh ever.

There were pictures circulated on the web of near to empty cinemas on its opening night.

Incorrect. "Everybody" did not think that.

I encountered many people online gagging for it. I don''t know anyone who didn't enjoy it.

Stop with the exaggeration that you know what "everyone" thinks.:rolleyes:

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, what is wrong with taking some elements of the Marvel formula? People say it like it is some form of dirty word. MCU is the best (possibly only) example of an expanded universe working on the big screen.

There are a group of Star Wars fans who don't want to see more Star Wars on big or small screens and I have no idea where they are coming from feeling that way. It is like they want to keep the originals as a childhood memory and no one else is allowed to enjoy.

There is quite a few of those.

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

Star Wars is just not suited to the rinse/repeat cycle that the comic book superheroes of Marvel are. Although, you could say that it's been on rinse and repeat in its own tedious way. But that's a different story.

The origin/beat the bad guy/team up formula won't apply though.

They tried an origin story for Han Solo and it sucked balls. Hopefully that will be the end of that nonsense. We don't need to see origin stories for characters that we are already familiar with for 40 years. Especially ones that are so poorly done.

What needs to happen with Star Wars is for it to be opened up. Disney seems to have recognised this to a certain degree with the likes of 'The Mandalorian'. But that's just TV stuff at the end of the day.

They've yet to truly try it on the big screen and it's all up in the air as to what the next venture there will be, or when it'll be. But an absolute must is to get away from Skywalker et al, because they've hung the coats on that hook too much and they've ruined what made those characters compelling in the first place.

Make new characters that operate in the Star Wars galaxy. It's really not that hard to do.

How has the Sequel trilogy ruined anything about the previous movies and characters?

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Star Wars is just not suited to the rinse/repeat cycle that the comic book superheroes of Marvel are. Although, you could say that it's been on rinse and repeat in its own tedious way. But that's a different story.

The origin/beat the bad guy/team up formula won't apply though.

They tried an origin story for Han Solo and it sucked balls. Hopefully that will be the end of that nonsense. We don't need to see origin stories for characters that we are already familiar with for 40 years. Especially ones that are so poorly done.

What needs to happen with Star Wars is for it to be opened up. Disney seems to have recognised this to a certain degree with the likes of 'The Mandalorian'. But that's just TV stuff at the end of the day.

They've yet to truly try it on the big screen and it's all up in the air as to what the next venture there will be, or when it'll be. But an absolute must is to get away from Skywalker et al, because they've hung the coats on that hook too much and they've ruined what made those characters compelling in the first place.

Make new characters that operate in the Star Wars galaxy. It's really not that hard to do.

From the way you post about Marvel it appears that you have your mind made up about them without taking a step back and acknowledging that they created pretty much exactly what you're asking for.

They built narratives and characters that live in different parts, even times, in the same expanded universe. This is why it is a bit ridiculous to turn your nose up at the opportunity to leverage the knowledge of one of the only people that has successfully achieved it.

Tony EH

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I encountered many people online gagging for it.

No you didn't.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

From the way you post about Marvel it appears that you have your mind made up about them without taking a step back and acknowledging that they created pretty much exactly what you're asking for.

They built narratives and characters that live in different parts, even times, in the same expanded universe. This is why it is a bit ridiculous to turn your nose up at the opportunity to leverage the knowledge of one of the only people that has successfully achieved it.

Won't work for Star Wars. It's very simple.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Won't work for Star Wars. It's very simple.

Again, can you give a bit more detail in your response as to why you feel the way you do?

One line answers that are shaped as you stating a 'fact' don't lead to a good discussion.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, can you give a bit more detail in your response as to why you feel the way you do?

One line answers that are shaped as you stating a 'fact' don't lead to a good discussion.

I've just given you a response, which you dismissed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, can you give a bit more detail in your response as to why you feel the way you do?

One line answers that are shaped as you stating a 'fact' don't lead to a good discussion.

Your not going to get any proper discussion there.

He has no actual opinion to talk about.

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

No you didn't.

I did and they were very like you.

So in fact there is unity in the fandom.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

I've just given you a response, which you dismissed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I explained how the MCU have already done exactly what you are hoping for for Star Wars. Like the Skywalkers, Iron Man has been intertwined in a lot of stories but they have had stand alone movies across earth, space, and even time periods.

I agree the 2 properties aren't the same and not all elements of the MCU would make sense to transfer (eg cross-overs and as many origin stories) but there are plenty skills used to create the MCU that could similarly be put to work to create the Star Wars movies that you are asking for.

Responding to that with more broad statements with no additional detail or expanding on your disagreement, like 'Won't work for Star Wars', leads me to believe your problem is more to do with some longstanding dislike for Marvel than any argument you can stand over in a discussion.

pixelburp

What is a fact is that the MCU could call on 80 odd years of characters, stories, arcs, rivalries, romances, deaths and everything in between so always only needed a steady hand to adapt the material with some degree of authenticity and respect. It also had an audience ready to embrace these adaptations.

Star Wars, despite outliers like Thrawn, has none of this, and any "extended universe" needs to happen from the ground up, in the most story / character hostile environment there is in media, the Hollywood blockbuster. The spin off media has always been a tangent, rather than source material (and often F'ing terrible)

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

What is a fact is that the MCU could call on 80 odd years of characters, stories, arcs, rivalries, romances, deaths and everything in between so always only needed a steady hand to adapt the material with some degree of authenticity and respect. It also had an audience ready to embrace these adaptations.

Star Wars, despite outliers like Thrawn, has none of this, and any "extended universe" needs to happen from the ground up, in the most story / character hostile environment there is in media, the Hollywood blockbuster. The spin off media has always been a tangent, rather than source material (and often F'ing terrible)

Agree on content differences but the same can be said for DC and X-men and those studios showed that they made repeated messes of their expanded universes.

Claiming Marvel had an audience ready to embrace their adaptations is a stretch. They were without their best known properties (X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic 4) and built the goodwill from the ground up. The amount of times people expected them to jump the shark when they pushed the boundaries, from Thor to GOTG, but they succeeded by creating a product that their audience enjoyed. Star Wars has a much larger natural fan base than the Marvel had similar fans of Iron Man, Captain America, or Thor when the MCU began.

I've repeated that this isn't like for like between MCU and SW but pushing back against Feige seems like at this point to be just for the sake of it based on being short sighted or an irrational dislike of the MCU.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

I explained how the MCU have already done exactly what you are hoping for for Star Wars. Like the Skywalkers, Iron Man has been intertwined in a lot of stories but they have had stand alone movies across earth, space, and even time periods.

I agree the 2 properties aren't the same and not all elements of the MCU would make sense to transfer (eg cross-overs and as many origin stories) but there are plenty skills used to create the MCU that could similarly be put to work to create the Star Wars movies that you are asking for.

Responding to that with more broad statements with no additional detail or expanding on your disagreement, like 'Won't work for Star Wars', leads me to believe your problem is more to do with some longstanding dislike for Marvel than any argument you can stand over in a discussion.

The MCU is extremely formulaic. It follows a very strict path, because of the nature of superhero comics that it is derived from. I'll repeat that this formula won't ever work for Star Wars in that the origin/fight/team up thing simply doesn't apply.

Star Wars's main draw is it's environments. It's the galaxy far far away, where any number of characters can be created an have their own adventures. They don't have to be, and I would argue shouldn't be "intertwined".

Marvel's main draw has always been it's superhero characters and the super villains they face. 90% of it is essentially the same story over and over. How Joe, or Josephine Blogs became Something Man or Woman and the bad guy they have to defeat who wants to blow up the world. It works for fans on superhero comics.

But that won't work for Star Wars.

This isn't hard to understand.

pixelburp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Agree on content differences but the same can be said for DC and X-men and those studios showed that they made repeated messes of their expanded universes.

Claiming Marvel had an audience ready to embrace their adaptations is a stretch. They were without their best known properties (X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic 4) and built the goodwill from the ground up.

I don't agree because the "geek dollar" was always there, it just needed, as I said, someone to treat the franchises with a modicum of respect. It's easy to forget just how BAD comic adaptations were pre Bryan Singer X-Men (and even then they weren't immediately brilliant afterwards), yet the by now adult audience of geeks and comic lovers were a demographic waiting for their childhood heroes to be adapted properly. Iron Man was a risk, but it was a calculated risk all the same, one that banked on the viability of a comics authentic Tony Stark.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I've repeated that this isn't like for like between MCU and SW but pushing back against Feige seems like at this point to be just for the sake of it based on being short sighted or an irrational dislike of the MCU.

I think it's a fair comparison because the common denominator here is Disney, who absolutely 100% will want to create the franchise as a repeatable cycle of films ala the twice-yearly MCU films. One would want to be naive to think they don't.

They have weaponised their own nostalgia with the endless stream of live action remakes - heck there were 4 in the space of 12 months alone - and you can bet your bottom dollar they want SW to be equally viable as an iterative franchise.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

The MCU is extremely formulaic. It follows a very strict path, because of the nature of superhero comics that it is derived from. I'll repeat that this formula won't ever work for Star Wars in that the origin/fight/team up thing simply doesn't apply.

Star Wars's main draw is it's environments. It's the galaxy far far away, where any number of characters can be created an have their own adventures. They don't have to be, and I would argue shouldn't be "intertwined".

Marvel's main draw has always been it's superhero characters and the super villains they face. 90% of it is essentially the same story over and over. How Joe, or Josephine Blogs became Something Man or Woman and the bad guy they have to defeat who wants to blow up the world. It works for fans on superhero comics.

But that won't work for Star Wars.

This isn't hard to understand.

I'd argue that you again have rose tinted glasses when it comes to Star Wars if you believe the movies don't involve origin stories and aren't based on a good guys trying to defeat bad guys before they blow up the world. Two of the OT include a 'death star' FFS, the OT cover the lead character initially realising he has powers and developing them, and the prequels is basically the origin story of the main villain.

I specifically said in the post you quoted that I agree that cross-overs and repeated origin stories wouldn't work as a regular tool in Star Wars for the future, so I'm not sure why you are still trying to knock down that Strawman.

You're still refusing to deal with my argument about the long term planning, the building of a consistent expanded universe, their ability to understand their audience in the MCU that SW can use in the future (and has clearly been missing so far since the Disney purchase).

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't agree because the "geek dollar" was always there, it just needed, as I said, someone to treat the franchises with a modicum of respect. It's easy to forget just how BAD comic adaptations were pre Bryan Singer X-Men (and even then they weren't immediately brilliant afterwards), yet the by now adult audience of geeks and comic lovers were a demographic waiting for their childhood heroes to be adapted properly. Iron Man was a risk, but it was a calculated risk all the same, one that banked on the viability of a comics authentic Tony Stark.

I agree but I'd argue that there is more of a Star Wars geek dollar there than there was an MCU geek dollar when they began. Look at the takings of all the Star Wars movies as an example.

I think it's a fair comparison because the common denominator here is Disney, who absolutely 100% will want to create the franchise as a repeatable cycle of films ala the twice-yearly MCU films. One would want to be naive to think they don't.

They have weaponised their own nostalgia with the endless stream of live action remakes - heck there were 4 in the space of 12 months alone - and you can bet your bottom dollar they want SW to be equally viable as an iterative franchise.

I fully accept that this is Disney's goal and to be honest it is what I hope for. I love the MCU and it would be great if they could turn out similar quality on a regular basis with Star Wars. I don't see more as being automatically a bad thing once it is planned right, which is why I think involvement of Feige will help. I wouldn't want to see pointless origin stories of characters we know or reboots etc.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'd argue that you again have rose tinted glasses when it comes to Star Wars

If you've read anything at all that I've written on Star Wars on these boards, you'll know just how silly that statement is.

Foxtrol wrote: »

if you believe the movies don't involve origin stories and aren't based on a good guys trying to defeat bad guys before they blow up the world. Two of the OT include a 'death star' FFS, the OT cover the lead character initially realising he has powers and developing them, and the prequels is basically the origin story of the main villain.

They aren't origin stories in the same way as superhero stories are. Luke's story in the original films is an adventure that the audience is dropped in on. He doesn't BECOME Something Man. He's still Luke Skywalker at the end of the film, albeit on a path to a "broader world".

'Solo' was an attempt at an origin story for Han and that failed miserably because it was a bad idea in the first place that nobody was asking for, which essentially turned Solo into a mere prop collector. Eve his name was prop to be given to him.

There's a case to be made about the origin of Vader in the prequels. But, that's one character and the prequels are specifically about that. Even then, they don't work, because it crippled that character completely.

Superhero stories are practically all the same beats. Somebody gets blasted by gamma rays or bitten by a spider or whatever and changes fundamentally. They then face off against another character who's been changed fundamentally and its a rinse and repeat cycle ad nauseam. Up until they need a reboot and these "character" origins are re-written for a new actor or comic book storyline.

None of that will work for Star Wars, as amply shown with the disaster that was 'Solo'.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I specifically said in the post you quoted that I agree that cross-overs and repeated origin stories wouldn't work as a regular tool in Star Wars for the future, so I'm not sure why you are still trying to knock down that Strawman.

It's not "strawman", it's the reason I don't think a Marvel approach to Star Wars will ever work.

Are you trying to tell me that you agree?

Foxtrol wrote: »

You're still refusing to deal with my argument about the long term planning, the building of a consistent expanded universe, their ability to understand their audience in the MCU that SW can use in the future (and has clearly been missing so far since the Disney purchase).

There's nothing to "deal with" here.

Long term planning has been sorely missing from Disney's handling of the franchise so far. It has been a slapdash exercise carried out in a haphazard way.

The point I am making, is that it cannot be done in the same way as the MCU has.

If Feige is going to try and straighten up the mess that is Disney's Star Wars, he won't be able to do in the same fashion as he's handled the MCU.

Again, this isn't hard to understand.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

If you've read anything at all that I've written on Star Wars on these boards, you'll know just how silly that statement is.

From what I've seen and a minor part in previous discussions I believe you very much have rose tinted glasses for the OT.

They aren't origin stories in the same way as superhero stories are. Luke's story in the original films is an adventure that the audience is dropped in on. He doesn't BECOME Something Man. He's still Luke Skywalker at the end of the film, albeit on a path to a "broader world".

He learns to use the force over the course of the OT. Just because he doesn't change his name doesn't mean it isn't an origin story.

Superhero stories are practically all the same beats. Somebody gets blasted by gamma rays or bitten by a spider or whatever and changes fundamentally. They then face off against another character who's been changed fundamentally and its a rinse and repeat cycle ad nauseam. Up until they need a reboot and these "character" origins are re-written for a new actor or comic book storyline.

None of that will work for Star Wars, as amply shown with the disaster that was 'Solo'.

Many are but there are exceptions. Guardians of the Galaxy is a prime example of a type of story that would fit in perfectly in the Star Wars universe. You're also ignoring all the sequels that obviously aren't origin stories, many of which could have been done without the need for origins if you could leverage super powers like you can the force/sith, for powers that are known and don't need to be explained.

It's not "strawman", it's the reason I don't think a Marvel approach to Star Wars will ever work.

It is the definition of a strawman, you're knocking down an argument I didn't make. This is made even worse in this case by the fact that I specifically said in the post you quoted that I wasn't making them.

Are you trying to tell me that you agree?

I agree that they shouldn't regularly leverage origin stories or cross-overs, however if you believe that this is all that MCU is than it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Long term planning has been sorely missing from Disney's handling of the franchise so far. It has been a slapdash exercise carried out in a haphazard way.

The point I am making, is that it cannot be done in the same way as the MCU has.

If Feige is going to try and straighten up the mess that is Disney's Star Wars, he won't be able to do in the same fashion as he's handled the MCU.

Again, this isn't hard to understand.

Again, your arguments show you know little about the MCU aside from your disdain for it. Of course he won't be able to help with Star Wars by carbon copying the approach for MCU, no one ever claimed he should. However his proven skill set of long term planning, assessing what the audience would like, and dealing with characters across an expanded universe put him in a great position to assist right the Star Wars ship.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

From what I've seen and a minor part in previous discussions I believe you very much have rose tinted glasses for the OT.

Well, then you're ill informed.

Foxtrol wrote: »

He learns to use the force over the course of the OT. Just because he doesn't change his name doesn't mean it isn't an origin story.

He learns a few tricks and some skills, but he isn't a changed character in the same way that Spiderman is, or Batman, or The Hulk or any other superhero character you care to mention, outside of gods like Wonder Woman or Thor.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many are but there are exceptions. Guardians of the Galaxy is a prime example of a type of story that would fit in perfectly in the Star Wars universe. You're also ignoring all the sequels that obviously aren't origin stories, many of which could have been done without the need for origins if you could leverage super powers like you can the force/sith, for powers that are known and don't need to be explained.

GotG doesn't fit at all into the Star Wars universe. Astonishing that someone might think it would.

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is the definition of a strawman, you're knocking down an argument I didn't make. This is made even worse in this case by the fact that I specifically said in the post you quoted that I wasn't making them.

I'm not trying to knock down anything.

I am simply stating MY ARGUMENT that the formula employed in the MCU will not work in Star Wars.

You seem to have a strange blockage understanding this, while appearing to agree with it somewhat, as the quote below shows. At this point, it's becoming more and more obscure just what your problem is.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I agree that they shouldn't regularly leverage origin stories or cross-overs, however if you believe that this is all that MCU is than it just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Of course he won't be able to help with Star Wars by carbon copying the approach for MCU

So you agree then.

Dades

manbitesdog wrote: »

I liked how TLJ developed the Rei-Kylo relationship, particularly the throne room scene and the Rashomon-inspired sequence on Luke’s ‘betrayal’ of Kylo, and it had some really stunning visuals—speeders streaking red dust across the salt planet surface, the Resistance ship rending the Imperial cruiser apart in a kamikaze style attack—but it was a two and a half hour movie built around a slow speed chase. That is not the stuff of high drama.

Agree with all of this. The ill-conceived chase 'plot' was terrible. But the movie is somewhat redeemed (although not for everyone) by the Rey/Kylo/Luke scenes - together with some brilliant visuals.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

He learns a few tricks and some skills, but he isn't a changed character in the same way that Spiderman is, or Batman, or The Hulk or any other superhero character you care to mention, outside of gods like Wonder Woman or Thor.

What? You're saying Batman has more of a super-power based origin story than Luke Skywalker? There is a litany of characters who don't even have powers in the MCU and others who's abilities grow across movies, like Skywalker.

GotG doesn't fit at all into the Star Wars universe. Astonishing that someone might think it would.

I'm not saying drop it straight into SW, story, music, humour and all. You made the broad claim that all MCU has a basic origin story, when GoTG doesn't and is in fact quite similar to how the OT group came together in SW.

I'm not trying to knock down anything.

I am simply stating MY ARGUMENT that the formula employed in the MCU will not work in Star Wars.

The problem is your 'ARGUMENT' is against something that I'm not saying. I'm not claiming they should copy every element of your warped perception of the MCU.

You seem to have a strange blockage understanding this, while appearing to agree with it somewhat, as the quote below shows. At this point, it's becoming more and more obscure just what your problem is.

So you agree then.

It is possible to agree with you on certain elements of your argument while disagreeing with your overall point. Everything isn't an absolute black or white.

My problem is that you are turning up your nose at Feige being involved in SW, putting your fingers in your ear and saying 'Wont work for Star Wars' because you dislike MCU. You refuse to accept there are similarities between SW and MCU and that he has proved his skills in helping build exactly what you seem to want for SW.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is possible to agree with you on certain elements of your argument while disagreeing with your overall point. Everything isn't an absolute black or white.

Nothing is black and white.

But the approach that was taken with the MCU won't work with Star Wars.

This is something you agree with (in part or in whole) yet you've spent the last couple of pages arguing against that.

Bizarre, to say the least.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing is black and white.

But the approach that was taken with the MCU won't work with Star Wars.

This is something you agree with (in part or in whole) yet you've spent the last couple of pages arguing against that.

Bizarre, to say the least.

The only bizarre thing here is that you can only think in absolutes. How can you not wrap your head around that no one is saying to make a carbon copy of the MCU in the Star Wars Universe, is your petty hatred of MCU too hard to get past?

Once again you've completely ignored my examples of the skillset that I've repeatedly stated that Feige brings to this.

There's no point in discussing things with someone who believes everything is black or white, I'm out.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

The only bizarre thing here is that you can only think in absolutes. How can you not wrap your head around that no one is saying to make a carbon copy of the MCU in the Star Wars Universe, is your petty hatred of MCU too hard to get past?

Hang on, YOU came at me because I said that the MCU approach won't work with Star Wars because it isn't Marvel.

Which is actually something you agree with.
at least in part.

The rest of your posts have just been noise.

Drumpot

How did I miss this when it was released? I remember seeing the trailer a year before but totally missed it’s release. Why can’t anybody have a lightsaber battle like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to2SMng4u1k

Stop moaning ffs

Saw this. So good.
Fist interview is from three years ago. McGregor is a great actor. But he’s a terrible liar. He knew Four years ago and four years of being asked about Kenobi coming back he lied.
But the follow up videos of him talking about finally being able to talk about it are just gold. He’s giddy as a kid at Christmas.


Before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgqEx9aIfCQ

After

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jeq8la3kQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9ME8rxQMQ

Slydice

'Awards Chatter' Podcast — Kevin Feige ('Avengers: Endgame')
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/awards-chatter-podcast-kevin-feige-avengers-endgame-1253678

And, in something of a full-circle moment, Feige, who fell in love with superhero movies as a kid by watching Star Wars, has been invited into another Disney silo, Lucasfilm, to produce an upcoming installment of Star Wars. He gushes, "I love that world and I love the notion of exploring new people and new places in that universe."