Future and potential Star Wars films - news and speculation

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

Each and every episode of The Mandalorian contains references/easter eggs/nods/winks/memberberries to the Star Wars galaxy (I use galaxy loosely, because 'the galaxy' according to Disney is only the Skywalker era). I'm not talking about the big references like, Stormtroopers, the Force, etc., I mean the more subtle stuff like the Cantina from A New Hope, the Seismic Charges from Attack of the Clones, etc., etc. Unnecessary shoe-horning of things into the show for reasons none other than nostalgia. Would the episode with the Cantina have been negatively affected if it didn't contain THAT Cantina? Did Slave 1 have to have seismic charges to be used at that precise moment? Of course not. But 'the fans' will love those nostalgia hits and as long as we keep getting them, the show becomes more about how can they connect x with y, and how will they include references about The First Order, than about expanding on what currently exists. Disney thinks it has to answer questions nobody is asking, like where did Han Solo come from? How did he meet Chewbacca? Did Boba Fett really die? Who's running the Cantina in Mos Eisley these days? Can Seismic Charges be effective outside of asteroid fields?

I just don't get your complaints, it really seems to me to be just moaning about things for the sake of it. To turn your questions, would it really change your viewing experience if the went to a different Cantina on one of the very few times they've reused a location that was in another movie? I'd get the complaint if the next episode they were in Yavin and then Endor etc etc. but it hasn't been that. It seems like you're sitting there just waiting for anything to be referenced just so you can get frustrated by it.

I can't wait for the limited series about the band that plays in Jabba's Palace. I'd love to learn more about music production in the era of the Empire... :rolleyes: And let's not forget the inevitable Bothan heist film we can expect in 2028 - because many Bothans died and we need to know what happened there to somehow bring more gravitas to Return of the Jedi...

Nothing has blinded me. I have allocated enough skepticism for the possibility that Amazon do go down the nostalgia approach to their Second Age TV Show. I hope they don't, but I know there is a lot of great material about the Second Age to give us some substance other than what we have already seen in the Third Age films.

You seem to now have completely changed your tune about Amazon. In your first post you were lavishing praise on Amazon despite the fact that prior to it even being released it is widely known they are going to have more main characters at minimum cameo in the show, if not play a significant part, than the Mandalorian has seen over 2 seasons. Despite Fett being well known he had very little actual screen time or importance compared to those that will be appearing in the LOTR show.

You can choose to ignore the highly conservative approach Disney is taking with the Star Wars franchise all you like, but it is there and it's completely unnecessary for a franchise that has so much material far removed from the Skywalker era. If you are happy with Disney churning out the same memberberry Skywalker bland stuff, more power to you, but I want to be blown away by a world and period like how I was when I saw that Star Destroyer flying over head chasing down the Tantive IV. Star Wars post-Lucas has brought absolutely nothing new, fresh, daring, or creative to the table and for a franchise that opened up the possibility of what could be out there, it's a damn shame that it spends it's time reminding us of what it did rather than trying to push things forward.

I haven't chosen to ignore their approach at all, in just the last few pages I have accepted the sequel trilogy were laced with actual 'memberberries', not the twisted hyperbolic use of the term being thrown around here, and also that I'd prefer the them to put more effort into going further in the past than the likes of the Lando show.

The difference is that I can acknowledge the fact that they are actually taking the steps towards doing that with The Acolyte, which seems likely to be far more separate to the Skywalker Saga than that Amazon show will be from the the Baggins Saga (and even the Mandalorian has been so far).

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Like 'Ironman'.

Seriously though, the Force and Jedi don't have to be the centre of the story. They're just things in the Star Wars galaxy. 'Rogue One' gave only a passing mention to the Jedi and the Forcey stuff was limited. It's story had nothing to do with it really. In fact, the original 'Star Wars' had little to do with the Jedi and Force too. They were just parts of a greater whole.

It's certainly possible to make Star Wars stuff and not have it be entirely about those things. In fact, the Andor series and the Rogue Squadron film may contain even less references to the Force and the Jedi than 'Rogue One' did.

It's not impossible. It just takes a bit of balls on behalf of whoever's making it to not have to constantly hit the same notes.

TBH, I much prefer Star Wars when it isn't about Jedi's and the Force, which is probably why the OT suits me the best.

Haha, I meant more like an MCU movie call 'Man'. Punisher is probably the closest we get to it and that could be any random action show, just like Star Wars without anything we know that make it Star Wars is just any random sci-fi show.

I fully agree with you that they don't need Jedi/Force but without that they need to grounded in some fashion to the Star Wars universe we know. This is what Rogue One did and you're right that I'd be hopeful to see similar with Andor, Rogue Squadron, and likely Lando and Rangers of the New Republic.

Rogue One showed us that this non-Jedi can done well, I just don't see the need to try to do what some are calling for and try to make it set in some far part of the galaxy or time. Would Rogue One be any better if it was a similar narrative of stealing secret plans for a threat set 400 years earlier in Star Wars history? I don't believe so, it seems to me to be demanding something for the sake of it.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Haha, I meant more like an MCU movie call 'Man'. Punisher is probably the closest we get to it and that could be any random action show, just like Star Wars without anything we know that make it Star Wars is just any random sci-fi show.

I fully agree with you that they don't need Jedi/Force but without that they need to grounded in some fashion to the Star Wars universe we know. This is what Rogue One did and you're right that I'd be hopeful to see similar with Andor, Rogue Squadron, and likely Lando and Rangers of the New Republic.

Rogue One showed us that this non-Jedi can done well, I just don't see the need to try to do what some are calling for and try to make it set in some far part of the galaxy or time. Would Rogue One be any better if it was a similar narrative of stealing secret plans for a threat set 400 years earlier in Star Wars history? I don't believe so, it seems to me to be demanding something for the sake of it.

I don't see the need either Foxy. But I understand why others would. It's just a very easy way of jettisoning any possibility of having the Skywalker saga encroach on a new story.

Personally, setting a new Star Wars thing 100's years before the Battle of Yavin would do nothing for me and trying to tap the First Order period does even less. So, unlike some folk, I'm happy for Star Wars to keep mining the Imperial period, so long as the stories are good. It's what I was introduced to in 1978, so to that is Star Wars to me. The prequel period never got me and I won't go on about Disney's sequels.

That doesn't mean that Star Wars can't do "A long(er) time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away..." of course. All I really ask from any film/TV Show is that it's good. Something that Star Wars has had real trouble managing at times.

FunLover18

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, 100 year period isn't seen as 'small' when it comes to all the real world movies or basically every other franchise, sci-fi or not, so I don't understand the sudden different standard and demands for Star Wars.

I'm fine we agreeing to disagree but it becomes frustrating when posters make hollow claims like the universe being too small and it is hurting the content while not being able to back up the statement. They usually either ignore the content in the works (spread across the timeline of original 3 trilogies and then at least one set a hundred years earlier) or can't explain how it would allow for better story telling in the Star Wars universe.

For example, the core of the Mandelorian story could be set 50 years after TRoS but I see no benefit to doing so aside from some token newness or world building that some people with your mindset might feel. Both the period between the original and new trilogies and the period after the new trilogies are equally unexplored so I simply don't get the complaints or demands to go with the latter.

Compared to infinity it is small. The only other comparable is Star Trek and that universe feels so much bigger because they don't all crop up in each other's series and there isn't an over arching story connecting them all, unlike SW where they've deliberately chosen to put them under the same rebel v empire umbrella. If the ending of the The Mandalorian or Moff Gideon's plot doesn't somehow tie into the ST I will be truly shocked. It all connects and those strings bring everything closer together.

Darth Maul showing up in Solo, I think he shows up in Rebels too(?), Boba Fett in Mando, the Oshaka in Mando - I'm waiting to see if there will be a narrative reason why they chose those characters but I'm betting it was just for the nostalgia factor. I'm also willing to bet the jedi who answers Grogu's call is someone we've seen before. Even Rey turning out to be the emperor's daughter they couldn't have her be a no one, she had to be connected to the OT somehow. We're getting an Obi Wan series and they're even bringing back Hayden Christensen, we're getting a Lando series with Donald Glover, all characters we've seen before and in Obi Wan's case we know he ends of on Tatooine. Like I said the galaxy is huge and like you said 100 hundreds years is a long time and there's plenty to dig into but they're not digging into it, they're focusing on the same characters that everyone already knows. It hurts the content because it's allowing for new content or new characters.

I don't understand how you can call newness token, when they've clearly decided to set when they have for some token nostalgia. And no the period between either trilogy is not as equally unexplored as the period of the ST because they're bookended. There is nothing after the ST, it's an empty canvas. The periods between triologies whilst unexplored are limited by the events of the triologies that follow and the current slate suggests that there won't be any decent exploration.

We're going to be getting small factions of rebels versus small factions of the empire/first order or similar for the next 5/10 years without either side winning because they can't because they're hampered by the trilogies. And if they try to actually explore and tell a different story maybe I'll tune in but I can't see it happening.

Agent Coulson

Looks like another new series not named last week coming out of the season finale of The Mandalorian.

Spoilered as the finale just aired.

The Book of Boba

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't see the need either Foxy. But I understand why others would. It's just a very easy way of jettisoning any possibility of having the Skywalker saga encroach on a new story.

Personally, setting a new Star Wars thing 100's years before the Battle of Yavin would do nothing for me and trying to tap the First Order period does even less. So, unlike some folk, I'm happy for Star Wars to keep mining the Imperial period, so long as the stories are good. It's what I was introduced to in 1978, so to that is Star Wars to me. The prequel period never got me and I won't go on about Disney's sequels.

That doesn't mean that Star Wars can't do "A long(er) time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away..." of course. All I really ask from any film/TV Show is that it's good. Something that Star Wars has had real trouble managing at times.

I think the good thing is that with their current plans for shows/movies it looks like they'll be providing something for each of the periods you mentioned. How good they'll be we'll have to wait and see but the complaint that they aren't doing enough in the period certain people want at this point is kind of selfish.

FunLover18

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think the good thing is that with their current plans for shows/movies it looks like they'll be providing something for each of the periods you mentioned. How good they'll be we'll have to wait and see but the complaint that they aren't doing enough in the period certain people want at this point is kind of selfish.

I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who criticises Disney's approach to SW is just a selfish cry baby, with that attitude anyone who criticises anything is just being selfish. Disney are being lazy and they're pandering to an older generation of fan by giving them shows about the characters they know and love and in a time period they're familiar with.

Foxtrol

FunLover18 wrote: »

Compared to infinity it is small. The only other comparable is Star Trek and that universe feels so much bigger because they don't all crop up in each other's series and there isn't an over arching story connecting them all, unlike SW where they've deliberately chosen to put them under the same rebel v empire umbrella. If the ending of the The Mandalorian or Moff Gideon's plot doesn't somehow tie into the ST I will be truly shocked. It all connects and those strings bring everything closer together.

Darth Maul showing up in Solo, I think he shows up in Rebels too(?), Boba Fett in Mando, the Oshaka in Mando - I'm waiting to see if there will be a narrative reason why they chose those characters but I'm betting it was just for the nostalgia factor. I'm also willing to bet the jedi who answers Grogu's call is someone we've seen before. Even Rey turning out to be the emperor's daughter they couldn't have her be a no one, she had to be connected to the OT somehow. We're getting an Obi Wan series and they're even bringing back Hayden Christensen, we're getting a Lando series with Donald Glover, all characters we've seen before and in Obi Wan's case we know he ends of on Tatooine. Like I said the galaxy is huge and like you said 100 hundreds years is a long time and there's plenty to dig into but they're not digging into it, they're focusing on the same characters that everyone already knows. It hurts the content because it's allowing for new content or new characters.

I don't understand how you can call newness token, when they've clearly decided to set when they have for some token nostalgia. And no the period between either trilogy is not as equally unexplored as the period of the ST because they're bookended. There is nothing after the ST, it's an empty canvas. The periods between triologies whilst unexplored are limited by the events of the triologies that follow and the current slate suggests that there won't be any decent exploration.

We're going to be getting small factions of rebels versus small factions of the empire/first order or similar for the next 5/10 years without either side winning because they can't because they're hampered by the trilogies. And if they try to actually explore and tell a different story maybe I'll tune in but I can't see it happening.

Again you seem to have double standards when you look at Star Trek, just like when you were comparing it to the new LOTR show.

Firstly, I'd hope that the universe in Star Trek seems bigger, they have around 23 times the live action screen time than Star Wars (~ 25 hours vs ~570 hours).

Add to that goals of Star Trek is exploration, which led to most of the franchise being 'planet of the week' which understandably would make the universe seem bigger. There were a lot of grumbling in the Mandalorian thread about them taking that approach when he planet jumped a few episodes.

Then we get onto your issues with Star Wars character cross overs ignoring how littered the Star Trek content is with them. They pop up all over the place from characters moving from one show to another and becoming key recurring characters (e.g., Worf and the O'Briens from TNG to DS9) to key characters having relationships with others we've been introduced to in previous content (e.g., Burnham being Spock's sister), to movies/shows/episodes that are pure 'memberberries' (e.g., Generations/Picard/Trials and Tribble-ations) to never ending one/multi-episode cameos to content that have the same characters just in a different timeline. That isn't even getting into overlap of or leveraging places, technology, weapons, races, events, ship names (FFS) throughout every show.

You're entitled to your opinion but again I see absolutely no consistency in your feelings when you compare Star Wars to other content that you believe does this better. At this stage we might as well leave it here as we simply don't appear to be working off the same grounding so continuing in facts so we won't get anywhere.

Foxtrol

FunLover18 wrote: »

I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who criticises Disney's approach to SW is just a selfish cry baby, with that attitude anyone who criticises anything is just being selfish. Disney are being lazy and they're pandering to an older generation of fan by giving them shows about the characters they know and love and in a time period they're familiar with.

I never said people are selfish for criticising Disney's approach, I've criticised plenty about it myself.

What I'm calling a selfish mindset is the appearance of some that they should, or are entitled, to be catered to more than other fans with other opinions. In the last 24 hours we have 3 types of with a different focus on what period they have a preference towards exploring - 1. Distant past/place, 2. Imperial times, 3. Post Imperial.

All 3 are being catered for to different extents, to pretend otherwise is ignoring reality. There is a big difference between saying I wish they'd do more of x than claiming either x isn't happening when it blatantly is or that everything that isn't x is terrible.

Falthyron

Foxtrol wrote: »

I never said people are selfish for criticising Disney's approach, I've criticised plenty about it myself.

What I'm calling a selfish mindset is the appearance of some that they should, or are entitled, to be catered to more than other fans with other opinions. In the last 24 hours we have 3 types of with a different focus on what period they have a preference towards exploring - 1. Distant past/place, 2. Imperial times, 3. Post Imperial.

All 3 are being catered for to different extents, to pretend otherwise is ignoring reality. There is a big difference between saying I wish they'd do more of x than claiming either x isn't happening when it blatantly is or that everything that isn't x is terrible.

There is nothing coming out that is at least 50 years before Phantom Menace, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'All 3 are being catered for'. Far removed from the Skywalker era means: hundreds if not thousands of years before the Republic we know in the Prequels.

David75 would have loved you, by the way. A shame you didn't get a chance to join him in the Disney debates in the past few years.

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

There is nothing coming out that is at least 50 years before Phantom Menace, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say 'All 3 are being catered for'. Far removed from the Skywalker era means: hundreds if not thousands of years before the Republic we know in the Prequels.

David75 would have loved you, by the way. A shame you didn't get a chance to join him in the Disney debates in the past few years.

The Acolyte is likely set anywhere from 70 to 100 years before the Phantom Menace, in a period that has never been explored before and given how nearly all characters age it is very unlikely we'll have any major crossovers.

I'll put my hands up now, I only just realised that there are two posters with names beginning in F that have the most extreme double standards when it comes to SW, I thought I was talking to just one.

I don't know any other IP that had a new show and moved back or forward in time 70 to 100 years from the furthest we've ever seen and still have fans moaning 'that isn't far enough'. It mightn't be far enough for you but going back several generations in time is removing something from a given era.

Agent Coulson

‘Loki’ Exec Producer Michael Waldron Tapped To Write Kevin Feige’s ‘Star Wars’ Movie As Part Of New Deal With Disney

After penning Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness and serving as head writer and exec producer on the upcoming Disney Plus series Loki, Michael Waldron is looking to stay in business with Walt Disney Studios in a big way. Sources tell Deadline Waldron has been set to write a new Star Wars feature film that Kevin Feige, President, Marvel Studios and Chief Creative Officer, Marvel, will develop and produce for Lucasfilm and Disney. This just one part of the recent deal Waldron signed with the studios that will keep him in business with Disney for some time......

https://deadline.com/2021/01/loki-michael-waldron-kevin-feiges-star-wars-movie-as-part-of-newoverall-deal-with-disney-1234665495/

Wedwood

I’ve been watching Star Wars since 1977, I’ve seen enough Skywalkers, Kenobis, Solos, Death Stars etc at this stage.

I’d prefer the next movies are set after Episode 9, not another load of prequels (of whatever era), where they make god knows how many movies over endless years just to arrive back to Episode 1.

PS, the only worthwhile prequels were the Apes movies because audiences were interested in how the Apes came to rule.

Agent Coulson

Rian Johnson’s Star Wars Trilogy is Still in Development

Now in a recent interview with USA Today’s Sariah Wilson, the Oscar-nominated filmmaker has confirmed that his untitled Star Wars trilogy is still moving forward at Lucasfilm. He also admitted that the project currently has no dates or timelines attached to it due to his busy schedule with other non-Star Wars related projects.

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1163799-rian-johnson-star-wars-trilogy-still-in-development

breezy1985

Wedwood wrote: »

I’ve been watching Star Wars since 1977, I’ve seen enough Skywalkers, Kenobis, Solos, Death Stars etc at this stage.

I’d prefer the next movies are set after Episode 9, not another load of prequels (of whatever era), where they make god knows how many movies over endless years just to arrive back to Episode 1.

PS, the only worthwhile prequels were the Apes movies because audiences were interested in how the Apes came to rule.

Conquest was always my favourite Apes movie

Varik

Johnson trying to save face, his trilogy will be in development for ever. He'll be on his death bed still claiming it's coming.

Anything else will just be an admittance of fault on how disney ****ed up one of the biggest franchises.

pixelburp

I don't disagree that Johnson's projects are probably stuck in development hell, but of all the directors to have worked on the new material, Johnson had the most flourish, creativity and verve of the lot. Not all of it landed - thinking here of the comedy for one - but I'd love for him to get another crack at the whip.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't disagree that Johnson's projects are probably stuck in development hell, but of all the directors to have worked on the new material, Johnson had the most flourish, creativity and verve of the lot. Not all of it landed - thinking here of the comedy for one - but I'd love for him to get another crack at the whip.

If there's one thing I'd put money on not happening, it would be that.

Dades

I think I'd also like to see him get another crack. The Last Jedi (for me) was let down by being the middle movie of a horribly disjointed trilogy. The space-chase story was lame, but I loved the Jedi stuff.

As long as whoever gets this gig ensures there is joined up thinking for a story arc over a number of movies.

Relikk

No thanks. It doesn't matter how talented he is outside of Star Wars, he's just not a good fit for it in a lot of peoples eyes as he doesn't understand the universe, its characters, or respect what came before well enough to be given free reign, and I believe Disney would be crazy to let him anywhere near it again. The damage is done.

johnny_ultimate

Johnson is the only writer / director who has managed to actually understand what Star Wars is about. Everything else has been a surface level emulation, to varying degrees of success. The Last Jedi on the other hand fully explores what the characters and ideas of the series actually represent beyond mere empty fan service. He understood it far, far better than the vast majority of 'fans' as well, many of whom seem to think the jedi should be nothing more than generic badasses with cool laser swords.

I'd still love to see what he'd do with the series when not tied down to existing characters and story, but given how wonderful Knives Out is I'd be more than happy if he just works away on original projects instead.

pixelburp

Johnson tried to unshackle the Star Wars mythology from its obsession with icons and Skywalkers. That final shot with the kid & the broom? Spine-tingling as to its possibilities - and that's speaking as someone who hates the Jedi. He latched into that seed that made Star Wars so seductive growing up: that we could be the heroes of our own story, bringing it back to the Joseph Campbell theory.

Cue the fans doing their best Vader NOOOOoooooo...! So Abrams doubled-down on the Fan Service and making it all about the Skywalkers and Palpatines. I'll say it right now - Abrams ruined Star Wars, not Johnson. Even the Mandalorian couldn't resist bringing it back to that damned family - though it's also doing its best to tell more stories in the universe.

Tony EH

Relikk wrote: »

No thanks. It doesn't matter how talented he is outside of Star Wars, he's just not a good fit for it in a lot of peoples eyes as he doesn't understand the universe, its characters, or respect what came before well enough to be given free reign, and I believe Disney would be crazy to let him anywhere near it again. The damage is done.

While this is certainly true of Johnson's 'The Last Jedi', he isn't alone in doing the damage. That was already set in motion by Abrams.

I can't imagine that he'll be let anywhere near Star Wars again. Certainly not from a writing perspective anyway. Outside of Star Wars, his best thing was 'Knives Out', which was the best picture of 2019 as far as I'm concerned. But his grasp of what made Star Wars tick was practically non-existent.

However, I don't believe that he had total control of every element of his script. For instance, if rumours are to be believed, it was Kennedy who insisted on giving Leia her moment, which resulted in that woeful space walk nonsense. And I have no doubt that the interference wasn't just limited to that.

In any case, Disney know that the the VAST majority of fans prefer course corrective stuff like 'The Mandalorian' (flaws and all), to the irreparable destruction that 'The Last Jedi' wrought on the franchise. So there'll be no eagerness to repeat that.

mikhail

I can understand both positions. I hated parts of that movie, but I loved others. For example, Yoda telling Luke that they're just books felt right in a way that almost nothing else since Return of the Jedi has. Knives Out restored my opinion of him as a filmmaker, and if I remain pessimistic about his trilogy (if indeed it ever gets made) it's not on account of his role.

pixelburp

It's kinda weird to say, but one of the things that pleased me about Knives Out was that it was clear Star Wars hadn't "broken" Johnson. He wouldn't have been the first had it been true.

I was a little worried going into it that his time on a divisive blockbuster, one where his creative choices were effectively hanged in public, had cowed him into making a safe, bland film. Thankfully that wasn't the case, Knives Out being a genuinely fantastic film, one that still had the zip and energy I had enjoyed from Johnson's prior work.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

It's kinda weird to say, but one of the things that pleased me about Knives Out was that it was clear Star Wars hadn't "broken" Johnson. He wouldn't have been the first had it been true.

I was a little worried going into it that his time on a divisive blockbuster, one where his creative choices were effectively hanged in public, had cowed him into making a safe, bland film. Thankfully that wasn't the case, Knives Out being a genuinely fantastic film, one that still had the zip and energy I had enjoyed from Johnson's prior work.

TBH, if Johnson has any sense, he wouldn't want to return to Star Wars at all. He's much better off doing his own thing.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Johnson is the only writer / director who has managed to actually understand what Star Wars is about. Everything else has been a surface level emulation, to varying degrees of success. The Last Jedi on the other hand fully explores what the characters and ideas of the series actually represent beyond mere empty fan service. He understood it far, far better than the vast majority of 'fans' as well, many of whom seem to think the jedi should be nothing more than generic badasses with cool laser swords.

I'd still love to see what he'd do with the series when not tied down to existing characters and story, but given how wonderful Knives Out is I'd be more than happy if he just works away on original projects instead.

Yep think it and Rogue One were the best of the new lot of films. The Rise of Skywalker ended up the worst, just a disjointed mess.

Dades

Rogue One was so spot on from a SW universe perspective, so it's a pity Gareth Edwards isn't in the picture anymore.

pixelburp

Dades wrote: »

Rogue One was so spot on from a SW universe perspective, so it's a pity Gareth Edwards isn't in the picture anymore.

He hasn't been back because apparently there were loads of reshoots, not helmed by Edwards. I can't remember specifics and too lazy to search but IIRC Disney weren't happy he overran or somesuch, basically getting someone else to helm reshoots. I think you can see it in the trailers, which feature a lot of material not seen in the final film.

Now, the film I want to see, and I know it "exists" in some way shape or form 'cos Ron Howard supposedly reshot ~80% of it ... is the Lord & Miller cut of Solo.

If the Synder Cut can happen, then release the Lord and Miller cut Disney, you cowards lol

johnny_ultimate

I'm still amazed the

Darth Vader

scene at the end of Rogue One was well-regarded - that was so obviously tacked on as a bit of cheap fan service, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie at all. Felt the same about a

certain cameo

in the Mandalorian, although that at least had a bit of tension and build-up to it even when the big reveal was ruined by iffy CGI :pac:

silliussoddius

pixelburp wrote: »

He hasn't been back because apparently there were loads of reshoots, not helmed by Edwards. I can't remember specifics and too lazy to search but IIRC Disney weren't happy he overran or somesuch, basically getting someone else to helm reshoots. I think you can see it in the trailers, which feature a lot of material not seen in the final film.

Now, the film I want to see, and I know it "exists" in some way shape or form 'cos Ron Howard supposedly reshot ~80% of it ... is the Lord & Miller cut of Solo.

If the Synder Cut can happen, then release the Lord and Miller cut Disney, you cowards lol

Tony Gilroy wasn't it, and apparently he didn't have good things to say. In this scenario can the blame be placed on Edwards or is it the fault of the writers/story supervisors?

Dades

Given the splendid film we got, and Disney's subsequent record of owning the SW universe, I know who I think deserves most of the credit.

breezy1985

mikhail wrote: »

I can understand both positions. I hated parts of that movie, but I loved others. For example, Yoda telling Luke that they're just books felt right in a way that almost nothing else since Return of the Jedi has. Knives Out restored my opinion of him as a filmmaker, and if I remain pessimistic about his trilogy (if indeed it ever gets made) it's not on account of his role.

I feel like that about all 3 movies. Ide love a Rey and Kylo supercut that takes out all the space chases and camel thingy chases and all the side show Finn and Po stuff in Rise.

Rey being no one was the best part of all 3 movies and as much as I love Palpatine her being one was the biggest failing of the 3 movies

Tony EH

Dades wrote: »

Rogue One was so spot on from a SW universe perspective, so it's a pity Gareth Edwards isn't in the picture anymore.

For my money Edwards is the only Disney hired director that got what made the original films so popular in the first place.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

He hasn't been back because apparently there were loads of reshoots, not helmed by Edwards. I can't remember specifics and too lazy to search but IIRC Disney weren't happy he overran or somesuch, basically getting someone else to helm reshoots. I think you can see it in the trailers, which feature a lot of material not seen in the final film.

My understanding of it is he got shunted to the effects dept. to oversee the space battle, while Tony Gilroy basically reshot what happened on land. Edwards' vision for the land battle was more akin to a 'Saving Private Ryan' scenario, where everyone dies on the beach and much of it was shot handheld.

The execs at Disney weren't too enamoured with that. So some reshoots were worked out. There was also some added "humour", more than likely in the shape of the robot making funny remarks.

In the end, the audience probably got the best of both worlds, because 'Rogue One' remains the best Star Wars film since the 80's and will probably stay that way for a while.

I hope Edwards' career hasn't been too damaged by his experience with Disney and looking at the haphazard way that Disney's approach is to directors, I'm surprised that anyone would sign up to do a picture with them.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm still amazed the

Darth Vader

scene at the end of Rogue One was well-regarded - that was so obviously tacked on as a bit of cheap fan service, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie at all. Felt the same about a

certain cameo

in the Mandalorian, although that at least had a bit of tension and build-up to it even when the big reveal was ruined by iffy CGI :pac:

Well, there's good fan service and bad fan service. I would say that the

Vader scene at the end of 'Rogue One'

was good fan service, as it demonstrated just why

Vader was so feared by people in the Rebellion

.

A bad fan service example from the same film would be the main characters

bumping into walrus man and his mate from the 1977 movie, who just happen to be on the same planet that our heroes are at that particular time.

breezy1985

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, there's good fan service and bad fan service. I would say that the

Vader scene at the end of 'Rogue One'

was good fan service, as it demonstrated just why

Vader was so feared by people in the Rebellion

.

A bad fan service example from the same film would be the main characters

bumping into walrus man and his mate from the 1977 movie, who just happen to be on the same planet that our heroes are at that particular time.

Ya but what you call the bad one is a throw away moment that I forgot almost immediately where as the "good" one has far more potential to be a lingering annoyance and worst of all was the other bits from that scene

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm still amazed the

Darth Vader

scene at the end of Rogue One was well-regarded - that was so obviously tacked on as a bit of cheap fan service, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie at all. Felt the same about a

certain cameo

in the Mandalorian, although that at least had a bit of tension and build-up to it even when the big reveal was ruined by iffy CGI :pac:

I feel the complete opposite, I'm constantly amazed at how much even minimal effort to connect movies annoys certain people.

You're right that this scene didn't fit exactly with the rest of the movie but it was never supposed to. It was there to bridge Rogue and the start of the original trilogy and to me they did a great job at it - adding a lot of impact by how quickly their sacrifice sparked the events that flowed through the OT.

Tony EH

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ya but what you call the bad one is a throw away moment that I forgot almost immediately where as the "good" one has far more potential to be a lingering annoyance and worst of all was the other bits from that scene

Can't say I experienced any "lingering annoyance" with that scene at all and I have a very short area of forgiveness where fan service is concerned. The scene made sense, even if it was there to give fans some

Vader action

.

Also, why are we censoring this anyway, there can't be many people left who don't know about it. :pac:

In any case, I dislike most of all, the cheapness of a fan service moment. But I don't feel that way about the

Vader hallway scene

. Whereas the fan service moments that were delivered in 'The Rise of Skywalker' broke the meter.

chrislad

Tony EH wrote: »

Can't say I experienced any "lingering annoyance" with that scene at all and I have a very short area of forgiveness where fan service is concerned. The scene made sense, even if it was there to give fans some

Vader action

.

Also, why are we censoring this anyway, there can't be many people left who don't know about it. :pac:

In any case, I dislike most of all, the cheapness of a fan service moment. But I don't feel that way about the

Vader hallway scene

. Whereas the fan service moments that were delivered in 'The Rise of Skywalker' broke the meter.

What?! So Chewie finally getting his medal didn't reduce you to bits, and fill that gaping hole inside you!?!?!?! :pac:

What a pile of bantha poodoo Rise of Skywalker was.

Sad Professor

You can get away with things at the end of a movie that you can't get away with at any other point. Provided of course that the viewer was on board with everything that preceded it. Blatant fan service though that scene in Rogue One may be, I think that's why it works. Same for that other scene at the end of season 2 of The Mandalorian.

mikhail

I think they get away with that scene because it is a great moment for the character. They took

a villain who had been somewhat overexposed in everything from the prequels to pop culture and let us see him again from the perspective of a regular character, and he's terrifying.

Is it fan service? Yes. Does it matter? Not a jot if it works in terms of plot and character, and this did.

I, too, am looking forward to seeing what Edwards does next, even if I am forever mixing him up with Gareth Evans.

homerun_homer

Why are people spoiler tagging Rogue One when it has been out for years?

I remember hearing during the production how there was going to be a bit of Vader where he does some "bad-ass" stuff we've not seen from him in the previous movies. After the film came out they then said this was last minute addition which was strange as I'd heard leaks about it midway through production.

I still think Rogue One is not a great movie, but solid action in the final act is what gets me through it. The re-shot stuff sticks out like a sore thumb to me, did from the very first time I saw it, and for such a simple plot they really trip over themselves. A little niggle of mine is how much they constantly say the new character names. Saw Guerrera, Galen Erso, Jin Erso... they must say each about twenty times. I'm amazed they don't have John Boyega come in shouting the names after them in each scene.

Sorry for the rant

Tony EH wrote: »

I hope Edwards' career hasn't been too damaged by his experience with Disney and looking at the haphazard way that Disney's approach is to directors, I'm surprised that anyone would sign up to do a picture with them.

During the promotional tours for the film Gareth looked happy out every time. Compared to JJ on RoS who looked like he couldn't care less at that stage and barely mustered up any enthusiasm. Maybe Gareth might have other feelings kept inside but I'd say he would work with them again if they wanted him. If all he is good for is creating the battles then I'd like to see him get involved in making more of them while someone else directs the movie.

Dades

If you didn't get a kick out of Vader mowing down a bunch of rebels you were never a 8 year in awe at the most bas-ass guy in movies.

I also unashamedly got a kick out of recognising Walrus-guy. :pac:

breezy1985

Dades wrote: »

If you didn't get a kick out of Vader mowing down a bunch of rebels you were never a 8 year in awe at the most bas-ass guy in movies.

I also unashamedly got a kick out of recognising Walrus-guy. :pac:

I never found Vader all that scary or badass. Palpatine and Tarkin seemed much more creepy and evil

Agent Coulson

The Obi-Wan has started filming Joel Edgerton, Bonnie Piesse, Moses Ingram, Kumail Nanjiani, Indira Varma, Rupert Friend, O’Shea Jackson Jr., Sung Kang, Simone Kessell and Benny Safdie have all joined the cast.

Uncle Ben is back.

Wedwood

Simone Kessell had to be in Star Wars with that surname.

homerun_homer

You gotta love the hype for a new show when they announce the cast like this, then you see the show and half of them will be lucky to have more than two lines.

pixelburp

Bonnie Piese's headshot makes her look like Amy Poehler; while Nanjiani's in high demand ATM, I'd take a guess his will be a voice role, for either a droid or CGI alien.

Still utterly apathetic about this, Solo[*] and the prequels completely blew out any interest I have for an Obi-Wan prequel.


[*] #releasethelordandmillercut

Agent Coulson

The Bad Batch.