Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker **Spoilers from post 2076**

eviltimeban

Spon Farmer wrote: »

That business with the fleet confounded me - sure Lando would be quite capable of inspiring people to action but it is ridiculous that he could succeed where Leia failed.

And why would allies rally to battle when they are told that the tyrant they thought was dead was so powerful that he came back with a fleet of few hundred or a few thousand planet killing ships but few Star Destroyers lead by a Darth Vader tribute act casuals then to lose hope?

I don't think Lando personally got all the ships - they had put a call out, essentially putting a post on the Galactic internet - and those ships responded to it and showed up.

Why now? Well, I see it that they finally saw the threat - the Emperor was back, and that was much more of a threat than the First Order / Kylo.

Foxtrol

eviltimeban wrote: »

I don't think Lando personally got all the ships - they had put a call out, essentially putting a post on the Galactic internet - and those ships responded to it and showed up.

Why now? Well, I see it that they finally saw the threat - the Emperor was back, and that was much more of a threat than the First Order / Kylo.

Rehashing the call for help and it working this time really craps all over the power of Leia and Luke's sacrifice.

Have it in the crawl that a group of the Rebellion were still traveling around using Luke's death to try to gather support (even use Rose if they were planning to basically cut her out of the movie) and then send Lando off go get that group. It somewhat ties the two movies together and makes it much more believable that it was an ongoing thing rather than everyone dropping tools and joining the fight because Lando asked.

CalamariFritti

Watched it last night and I thought it was just as terrible as the two before that.

The 3 prequels were bad enough but Disney really ****ed up with 7,8,9. Nothing from the original Star Wars magic has survived. It smells like a design committee product all the way. Trying to tick all the boxes and missing all of them. Looks like just one big high energy trailer trying for every shot to be the most spectacular shot ever with literally everything in it and the result is 2.5 hours of high energy boredom.

At least I can officially disregard anything but the original three now. Shame but I guess it’s hard to keep it up over a 40 years time span.

Spon Farmer

eviltimeban wrote: »

I don't think Lando personally got all the ships - they had put a call out, essentially putting a post on the Galactic internet - and those ships responded to it and showed up.

Why now? Well, I see it that they finally saw the threat - the Emperor was back, and that was much more of a threat than the First Order / Kylo.

Yes I didn’t think he’d visited people individually . He contacted old friends directly or put out a broadcast and it got passed around or something.

It was stated clearly though by Leia in TLJ that people had “lost hope”. It was not that they had considered the First Order a mere nuisance - the First Order has clearly taken away hope and he will to fight.

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

Rehashing the call for help and it working this time really craps all over the power of Leia and Luke's sacrifice.

Have it in the crawl that a group of the Rebellion were still traveling around using Luke's death to try to gather support (even use Rose if they were planning to basically cut her out of the movie) and then send Lando off go get that group. It somewhat ties the two movies together and makes it much more believable that it was an ongoing thing rather than everyone dropping tools and joining the fight because Lando asked.

That would have been a great use of Rose and a good story.

A couple of scenes of her, Connix and Leia on different worlds talking to people or groups about the Battle of Crait & Luke and then troopers turn up and she heads to the next world. We know it was going to have a big space battle so there was no point in having it be “surprise”.

Obviously there would have to be a lot of off camera, hologram etc for Leia but better than hanging around in the trees.

Foxtrol

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Watched it last night and I thought it was just as terrible as the two before that.

The 3 prequels were bad enough but Disney really ****ed up with 7,8,9. Nothing from the original Star Wars magic has survived. It smells like a design committee product all the way. Trying to tick all the boxes and missing all of them. Looks like just one big high energy trailer trying for every shot to be the most spectacular shot ever with literally everything in it and the result is 2.5 hours of high energy boredom.

At least I can officially disregard anything but the original three now. Shame but I guess it’s hard to keep it up over a 40 years time span.

I don't get the 'design committee' takes on the trilogy, it seems like a lazy go to generic complaint about anything people don't like.

If anything, Disney gave the directors too much room to do their own thing with these movies.

eviltimeban

Spon Farmer wrote: »

That would have been a great use of Rose and a good story.

A couple of scenes of her, Connix and Leia on different worlds talking to people or groups about the Battle of Crait & Luke and then troopers turn up and she heads to the next world. We know it was going to have a big space battle so there was no point in having it be “surprise”.

Obviously there would have to be a lot of off camera, hologram etc for Leia but better than hanging around in the trees.

Impossible to achieve as Carrie Fisher was dead before they started shooting.

Foxtrol

eviltimeban wrote: »

Impossible to achieve as Carrie Fisher was dead before they started shooting.

We don't know what other film they have of her. It isn't crazy to think that they have enough to splice together a hologram message that the other characters could carry in that situation, even if they ended up using cgi and her voice.

The fact they could finish this movie with what they'd filmed, and not kill her pre-crawl, is enough evidence that they could likely make it work.

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't get the 'design committee' takes on the trilogy, it seems like a lazy go to generic complaint about anything people don't like.

If anything, Disney gave the directors too much room to do their own thing with these movies.

I had not heard the committee complaint before.

I know there is a story group but as they first director it was Abrams who decided on the style, design, etc.

He had designers and such but he made the choices.

And since the three movies are so disjointed it is clear that there was no committee looking over it.

Spon Farmer

eviltimeban wrote: »

Impossible to achieve as Carrie Fisher was dead before they started shooting.

No it wasted.

Terrio claims there was scenes with Rose and Leia abandoned because they could get the footage of Leia to work in them. Perhaps that footage would work in a much different scene.

However please note what I actually said in my post - off camera, holograms, etc - and include in that shots from a distance or different angle.

Fisher wouldn’t actually have been needed to do a speech to a large crowd that people pass on as a hologram or something. Some use of CGI to be able to include brief shots of her face.

Spon Farmer

Foxtrol wrote: »

We don't know what other film they have of her. It isn't crazy to think that they have enough to splice together a hologram message that the other characters could carry in that situation, even if they ended up using cgi and her voice.

The fact they could finish this movie with what they'd filmed, and not kill her pre-crawl, is enough evidence that they could likely make it work.

If Rose’s involvement in the story was intended to be significant (as Terrio seems to claim and Abrams thanks to Johnson for casting Tran suggest then there must be quite a bit of footage.

Foxtrol

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I had not heard the committee complaint before.

I know there is a story group but as they first director it was Abrams who decided on the style, design, etc.

He had designers and such but he made the choices.

And since the three movies are so disjointed it is clear that there was no committee looking over it.

The committee complaint gets trotted out at this stage for any movie connected to Disney (or most big studios) that people have any issues with, whether it makes sense or not. To be fair it is a lot easier to throw blame at the evil mouse.

Tony EH

"Committee" is just shorthand for a lack of focus, due to too many cooks. And in the case of Diswars and other heavy blockbuster franchises, it's pretty apt.

These days, those kind of tentpole movies are all producer driven, studio, exercises, with journeymen directors and writers churning out a corporate product rather than a film.

In one of these movies, there's usually a producer list as long as your arm and the actual director is the second fiddle now. He's just a guy/gal that's hired/fired on a relative whim.

This is why the likes of JJ does well in that atmosphere. He talks the corporate jargom and "gets on board". He's that kind of snake that can rattle off a word salad in interviews and say absolutely nothing. It's all mechanical and has no soul. He doesn't rock any boats, makes safe and bland output and then walks away.

In the case of Johnson, it's remarkable that he got the perceived leeway that he did, although I say that certain story beats had to be hit by him and were ordered from upon high The "committee" as it were. He nodded and said "yes" and then was able to add his own touches to 'The Last Jedi'.

However, I also think that TPTB were running around in a tizzy putting in place damage control measures for the disaster that was 'Solo'. So, there just wasn't as much time for the "committee" to interfere.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

"Committee" is just shorthand for a lack of focus, due to too many cooks. And in the case of Diswars and other heavy blockbuster franchises, it's pretty apt.

These days, those kind of tentpole movies are all producer driven, studio, exercises, with journeymen directors and writers churning out a corporate product rather than a film.

In one of these movies, there's usually a producer list as long as your arm and the actual director is the second fiddle now. He's just a guy/gal that's hired/fired on a relative whim.

This is why the likes of JJ does well in that atmosphere. He talks the corporate jargom and "gets on board". He's that kind of snake that can rattle off a word salad in interviews and say absolutely nothing. It's all mechanical and has no soul. He doesn't rock any boats, makes safe and bland output and then walks away.

In the case of Johnson, it's remarkable that he got the perceived leeway that he did, although I say that certain story beats had to be hit by him and were ordered from upon high The "committee" as it were. He nodded and said "yes" and then was able to add his own touches to 'The Last Jedi'.

However, I also think that TPTB were running around in a tizzy putting in place damage control measures for the disaster that was 'Solo'. So, there just wasn't as much time for the "committee" to interfere.

You say the 'committee' here caused a lack of focus whereas it is regularly trotted out to complain about Disney with the MCU for the complete opposite, when the movies are too focused on fitting into a larger universe.

The term has become a catch-all and lazy cliche for whenever people want to complain about a blockbuster and want to point their finger at the studio instead of anyone else involved.

In the case of this trilogy, unless there was a different committee for each movie, the directors look like they are to blame for most of the issues.

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

"Committee" is just shorthand for a lack of focus, due to too many cooks. And in the case of Diswars and other heavy blockbuster franchises, it's pretty apt.

These days, those kind of tentpole movies are all producer driven, studio, exercises, with journeymen directors and writers churning out a corporate product rather than a film.

In one of these movies, there's usually a producer list as long as your arm and the actual director is the second fiddle now. He's just a guy/gal that's hired/fired on a relative whim.

This is why the likes of JJ does well in that atmosphere. He talks the corporate jargom and "gets on board". He's that kind of snake that can rattle off a word salad in interviews and say absolutely nothing. It's all mechanical and has no soul. He doesn't rock any boats, makes safe and bland output and then walks away.

In the case of Johnson, it's remarkable that he got the perceived leeway that he did, although I say that certain story beats had to be hit by him and were ordered from upon high The "committee" as it were. He nodded and said "yes" and then was able to add his own touches to 'The Last Jedi'.

However, I also think that TPTB were running around in a tizzy putting in place damage control measures for the disaster that was 'Solo'. So, there just wasn't as much time for the "committee" to interfere.

Are you saying that “the committee” isn’t an actual group or that it is?

What is Diswars? Someone posted it earlier too.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

You say the 'committee' here caused a lack of focus whereas it is regularly trotted out to complain about Disney with the MCU for the complete opposite, when the movies are too focused on fitting into a larger universe.

You're kind of talking about two different entities here. The folks responsible for the MCU aren't the producers responsible for Diswars. Just because they're under the umbrella of Disney, it doesn't mean they are all run exactly the same.

While I think the MCU movies are all bland, safe, "product", there's a better focus going on. Is that all down to Kevin Feige? Maybe. Who knows.

However, it's clear that that same focus, whether intended or by sheer luck was completely missing from the producing team that was responsible for Star Wars, which has led to the catastrophic mess that was the sequels.

In any case, that "team" will very shortly be moved on and there will be new people involved, I have no doubt.

Foxtrol wrote: »

The term has become a catch-all and lazy cliche for whenever people want to complain about a blockbuster and want to point their finger at the studio instead of anyone else involved.

Perhaps. Most shorthand is lazy. I wouldn't getting too het up about it though.

Foxtrol wrote: »

In the case of this trilogy, unless there was a different committee for each movie, the directors look like they are to blame for most of the issues.

The directors have to pass everything by the producing team on these films. Nothing gets done without the nod from them. These movies aren't made like usual films are, where the director has his say and is able to put their own unique stamp on things.

So, if it looks like JJ was shitting on Rian's movie, that was sanctioned by the...ahem..."committee".

Tony EH

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Are you saying that “the committee” isn’t an actual group or that it is?

What is Diswars? Done one posted it earlier too.

"Committee” is just a shorthand way of saying Kathleen Kennedy and the army of studio execs that handle the decision making at Lucasfilm. That's all.

As I said, these movies aren't made the old fashioned way, where you had a director who ran the film and a producer who facilitated the running of the film, which largely meant getting more money. Nowadays, there are a huge number of studio executives who interfere at every stage during the film making process, often to the detriment of the film itself.

Diswars = Disney Star Wars.

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

"Committee” is just a shorthand way of saying Kathleen Kennedy and the army of studio execs that handle the decision making at Lucasfilm. That's all.

As I said, these movies aren't made the old fashioned way, where you had a director who ran the film and a producer who facilitated the running of the film, which largely meant getting more money. Nowadays, there are a huge number of studio executives who interfere at every stage during the film making process, often to the detriment of the film itself.

Diswars = Disney Star Wars.

That is not “shorthand”. That is an actual committee

Diswars - I first saw it earlier used in a remark about Boyega. I think I assumed the Dis was some “hip” modern slang.:)3

Mic 1972

El Duda wrote: »

They've always looked awful. They just look even more awful now.



I watched Alien in 4K recently and it holds up perfectly. Completely timeless. That was made in the late seventies.

I agree, the thing with VFX is that sometime they do age "gracefully" like certain sci-fi films from the late 70s and 80s with excellent practical effects that look still amazing
The Star Wars prequels, like most films of the same era that were heavy on CGI have aged really badly, some of the backgrounds look so flat that it feels like watching PowerPoint animated slides with actors badly over-imposed on them

Tony EH

Spon Farmer wrote: »

That is not “shorthand”. That is an actual committee

Yes, but saying "committee", rather than listing every name involved in the executive group(s) is the shorthand.

The Megaphone

Runaway hit highest gross beating The force Awakens

Back to plot holes!

Spon Farmer

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but saying "committee", rather than listing every name involved in the executive group(s) is the shorthand.

Well isn’t it called committee so you don’t have to name them all

A

loyatemu

people saying the prequels told a good story are getting carried away. They told a story we'd already heard in the original trilogy, stretched out to mind-numbing length, and filled with plot holes (Anakin building C3PO; "hiding" Vadar's son on his home planet with his own relatives etc). The main problem with the prequels was we knew exactly where they were going (well, and the acting, directing, dialogue and effects).

cdgalwegian

loyatemu wrote: »

people saying the prequels told a good story are getting carried away. They told a story we'd already heard in the original trilogy, stretched out to mind-numbing length, and filled with plot holes (Anakin building C3PO; "hiding" Vadar's son on his home planet with his own relatives etc). The main problem with the prequels was we knew exactly where they were going (well, and the acting, directing, dialogue and effects).

I remember reading somewhere also that Lucas had the midichlorian concept in one of the original drafts of A New Hope (or maybe TESB or RoTJ), but there was no room for it; Phantom Menace was his way of getting the chance to introduce it, using the internal chronology of the narrative, but after the first trilogy was shown.

CalamariFritti

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't get the 'design committee' takes on the trilogy, it seems like a lazy go to generic complaint about anything people don't like.

If anything, Disney gave the directors too much room to do their own thing with these movies.

Its just my personal perception, not sure if the observation is accurate. Its not something I'm parroting so I dont get the lazy generic jibe. If anything that sounds a bit lazy to me; accusing someone of trotting out a generic complaint that seems en vogue at the moment. I didn't know it was but if it was said before it wouldn't be a surprise to me.

It feels manufactured, flashy bits cobbled together with no coherent story, no spark. It feels like another Marvel movie from the conveyor belt..

I dont expect anyone to agree or disagree, it's just how it felt to me.

Foxtrol

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its just my personal perception, not sure if the observation is accurate. Its not something I'm parroting so I dont get the lazy generic jibe. If anything that sounds a bit lazy to me; accusing someone of trotting out a generic complaint that seems en vogue at the moment. I didn't know it was but if it was said before it wouldn't be a surprise to me.

It feels manufactured, flashy bits cobbled together with no coherent story, no spark. It feels like another Marvel movie from the conveyor belt..

I dont expect anyone to agree or disagree, it's just how it felt to me.

I understand many complaints people have about Marvel but this is the first time I've ever seen someone imply that their movies don't have a coherent story. They managed to string together a coherent story across 23 movies over a decade.

You're free to have your own perception but when you try to shoehorn those sort of complaints about this movie against another Disney property it comes across as either lazy or not knowing what you're talking about. I'll leave it there

CalamariFritti

I compare them to Marvel in that the plot is so thin its hardly there but no one notices because all its about is chasing from one crazy overloaded action scene to the next.

silverharp

not likely to beat Rogue One, a fairly forgettable side movie

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/01/11/box-office-star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-drops-64-on-friday/#d1210a13b53e

At worst, it’ll use the Martin Luther King J. weekend to give it a push past $500 million domestic and $1 billion worldwide. It’s still probably doomed to earn less domestically than Rogue One ($532 million)

Greyfox

Runaway hit highest gross beating The force Awakens

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I compare them to Marvel in that the plot is so thin its hardly there but no one notices because all its about is chasing from one crazy overloaded action scene to the next.

Often a thin plot can be forgiven if they get the other things right like great action scenes. Like many I thought it was a very good film, nothing amazing but like some of the marvel films its a film that you'd enjoy more on a big screen.

Brock Turnpike

Disappointing box office take less than a billion

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but saying "committee", rather than listing every name involved in the executive group(s) is the shorthand.

What's your background in movies?