Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I like the idea of doing a standalone Luke Skywalker film, especially since they have the perfect actor in Sebastian Stan--

hamill_stan.jpg
 
ok that's a good match. a standalone set when? after return in the mandalorian "timeline" like they said?
 
That's what the rumours are. I actually felt Rise of Skywalker was the 'best' of the three new movies, even though it's a mess and very rushed. It felt the most like a real Star Wars film. Force Awakens was okay but seemed more like a TV movie. Last Jedi is the best directed of the films and has some standout moments I like more than anything in the other two films, but one major plotline is a giant waste of time, and what it ends up doing to the character of Luke is unsatisfying.
 
hmm maybe i should check them out. i was a little traumatized by what jj did to my han/leia happily ever after and wary that episodes 8 and 9 would further ruin my childhood

the impression i get is that they didn't have a story arc worked out for the trilogy. which is no way to tell a story
 
ahalpert said:
hmm maybe i should check them out. i was a little traumatized by what jj did to my han/leia happily ever after and wary that episodes 8 and 9 would further ruin my childhood

the impression i get is that they didn't have a story arc worked out for the trilogy. which is no way to tell a story
Click to expand...

No, they didn't have a story arc, which Rise of Skywalker made very clear. It made about 70 percent of the first two movies pointless and disposable.
 
Batutta said:
No, they didn't have a story arc, which Rise of Skywalker made very clear. It made about 70 percent of the first two movies pointless and disposable.
Click to expand...

yeah see you just don't DO that. argh! i feel like that's JJ Abrams' M.O. - he puts together this 'mystery box' that has a great build-up and mood and no idea where it's going.

and in the case of his reboots, he's a genius at figuring out what audiences want to see - reuniting the old characters and spaceships, etc - and he just stripmines the source material without any regard for the future of the story. it works for the initial reboot. usually he's not around to see it crash and burn like he was directing episode 9
 
I love the original trilogy, some of my favorite movies of all time.
I hate everything about the prequels.
I hate the final trilogy. But I would pick them over the prequels because at least they look nice, have decent acting, and decent dialog (well, better than the prequels, at least).

The prequels have one thing over the final trilogy, and that is the faint spirit of George Lucas --- although it is heavily diluted and altered. George changed, somewhere in the mid 80s. In the 70s he was cool and indie and edgy. Then he got rich and fat and fatherly and what would the children think? (Don't get me wrong, I actually do care about child audiences. I just don't think Han shooting Greedo first is one of the [many] things in movies that can scar a child.) I think George became too rich and isolated, and his weirdness was not properly tempered by more-grounded voices around him, like it was in the original trilogy. George is now 76! I suppose he has a few working years left in him. After all, Ridley Scott is 82. But I just don't know if he will be better or worse than he was with the prequels.

I have resigned myself to the idea that nothing, no matter who does it, will feel like the original trilogy. To relive all the feelings of the original trilogy, you would have to not only keep the look (as the final trilogy, Rogue One, and Mandelorian do) but also bring back Mark Hammill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fischer, James Earl Jones, Alec Guinness, and Anthony Daniels. I believe an actor puts a unique mark on a picture --- as every individual is a unique soul. You could find other actors that would certainly work, and work well, but it would feel different. (Batutta, I had never seen Sebastian Stan before [so you know I don't watch all the Marvel movies] but wow, he does look like Mark Hammill! He even acts and sounds like him, at least in an interview I just skimmed on Youtube.)

Not only the actors, you would have to bring back 1977. Star Wars felt like Star Wars in the context of the late 70s and early 80s, when really good special effects like that were rare. It also needs the context of me being young. If I was 45 in 1977, it would not have left so great a mark. I say this not just for me but because I believe it to be true for most of the Star Wars fans who are waiting for Hollywood to match what happened for them. It's just impossible, even if Hollywood executed perfectly.

But I already have internally retconned the prequels and final trilogy as uncanonical, like they are weird dreams or similar-sounding stories but ultimately in another universe.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I hate everything about the prequels.
Click to expand...

The prequels were not good movies per se, but I thought the broader story arc tied in decently to the main trilogy and sort of held together.

Also, I appreciate the new worlds and vehicles. Lucas had a pattern of a new world or 2 per film and some specific vehicles to go with. They sort of dropped that in the new films. I still remember fondly some chase scene on coruscant. Some pretty lights space battles. The shot of Vader's mask emerging. But yeah - crappy movies.
I have resigned myself to the idea that nothing, no matter who does it, will feel like the original trilogy.
Click to expand...
This is probably true, but I dont think it's a foregone conclusion. I think it is THEORETICALLY possible for someone to continue or build upon the original trilogy in a fashion true to its spirit.

But, of course, part of the issue is that the original was made by a scrappy youngster with something to prove and no billions-dollar franchise to protect. Aside from the fact that the US may have become a more corporate and conservative culture in some ways, Star Wars as an entity has been transformed by it's own success.

And that happens to so many TV shows, for example. It's not the same experience or process to make them once they get famous.

But I don't think it's impossible and I dont think you'd need all the original actors. But it's unlikely for someone to come at it the same way Lucas originally did.

And I think it's a fool's errand to do the exact same thing over. I loved the first 5 episodes of the new show Star Trek: Discovery (and then the writing got bad). But the tone and style was markedly different from all the other shows (cynical and moody).

But it was GOOD! It was fresh! It made me happy, and it still fit in the canon. That example was spearheaded by a showrunner who is a Trek fan and had written for several Trek series before.

But I already have internally retconned the prequels and final trilogy as uncanonical, like they are weird dreams or similar-sounding stories but ultimately in another universe.
Click to expand...

LOL. I got one step ahead of you and never watched episodes 8-9 in the first place. (I can't unlearn that Han/Leia had a crappy marriage and he didnt stick around, though. So much for "I love you - I know" and the power of love to change a man.) I keep thinking about giving them a watch, but I've held off.

I haven't seen rogue one yet but everyone says it's good. That and the Mandalorian. What do you guys think - are those good?
 
Rogue One wasn't too bad (thread). And my wife and I have enjoyed The Mandalorian (thread). I'm not saying such things shouldn't be attempted. While they will never equal my original experience, they can be good. If done well, they feel like they at least have a chance of touching the same universe.

One good thing that came out of the failure of The Phantom Menace and The Last Jedi --- which would not have been possible otherwise --- is a smattering of excellent analyses on Youtube (e.g., MauLer, Red Letter Media, and Robot Head). Having movies that I simultaneously cared about so much and was disappointed by so much, so thoroughly, intelligently, and articulately roasted, is a rare pleasure. I felt not only vindicated but also learned something about screenwriting from these unknowns.

Aside: Why Every Star Wars Film Has the Wrong Title
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I haven't seen rogue one yet but everyone says it's good. That and the Mandalorian. What do you guys think - are those good?
Click to expand...

Rogue One fundamentally works as a movie. It's got a solid story, isn't bogged down with the mythos and is well made. It probably has the best third act space battle and ground action of the new movies. I find some of the main characters a bit dry and uninspiring, especially the two leads. From what I understand they didn't have a solid script and it was heavily rewritten and reshot by Tony Gilroy at the last hour which might explain some of that.

https://theplaylist.net/tony-gilroy-rogue-one-podcast-20180405/

I didn't care for The Mandalorian in the early going. It seemed very thinly written and the lead character not that captivating. Some of the later episodes they started to fill him out, and in the last two episodes the main plot finally got interesting. This might have been more of a problem because I watched the show on a weekly basis as the episodes dropped. Binge watching it all at once might be a different experience. But I wasn't as bowled over by it as a lot of people. I wanted something richer, not something that played like a live action Saturday morning cartoon.
 
Batutta said:
. I wanted something richer, not something that played like a live action Saturday morning cartoon.
Click to expand...

I wonder if our problem is that these stories are written for a younger, less sophisticated audience...

BTW you might hit a paywall but did you guys read this op-ed "We Can't See Star Wars Anymore" - it touches on some of the cultural and business transformations that have essentially destroyed what it once was: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/opinion/star-wars-movie.amp.html
 
ahalpert said:
I wonder if our problem is that these stories are written for a younger, less sophisticated audience...
Click to expand...

The problem is that 'The Mandalorian' has the veneer of something that should be edgier and more sophisticated, without actually being so. If it wasn't such a promising milieu for more complex and layered storytelling it wouldn't be so bothersome. For me, if you're going to do a television drama it's so you can explore themes, characters and concepts in a deeper, more detailed way just by virtue of having more time to explore than you do in a two hour action movie. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Well, you sound like you have a more similar degree of criticality to me. Most people enjoy things that I think are crap. (Although I enjoy criticizing the crap.)

But in any case - I'll happily watch Mandalorian as long as it doesn't screw with my enjoyment of the original trilogy. (Does it?) I watched Solo and while I didn't think it was a great movie, it was diverting and still Star Wars-y. And most importantly, it didn't impact my appreciation of the originals.
 
Batutta said:
The problem is that 'The Mandalorian' has the veneer of something that should be edgier and more sophisticated, without actually being so. If it wasn't such a promising milieu for more complex and layered storytelling it wouldn't be so bothersome. For me, if you're going to do a television drama it's so you can explore themes, characters and concepts in a deeper, more detailed way just by virtue of having more time to explore than you do in a two hour action movie. Otherwise, what's the point?
Click to expand...

I don't think the Mandalorian had a goal of being complex and sophisticated. They were trying to create a world based on Lucas's original influences, sci-fi serials and westerns, which had simple stories of good and evil which generally wrapped up by the end of the episode. It was supposed to have more of that episodic TV feel.

On top of that, the lead is supposed to be that western trope of the quiet, skilled, wanderer. And because he was so quiet, with such little dialogue, and his entire head enclosed by a helmet, you're forced to respond to the subtle movements of the actor to imagine the complexity going on inside him.

I personally thought it was super effective at what it set out to do. I enjoyed it more than the sequel trilogy and possibly more than Rogue One.
 
Joshua Cadmium said:
I don't think the Mandalorian had a goal of being complex and sophisticated. They were trying to create a world based on Lucas's original influences, sci-fi serials and westerns, which had simple stories of good and evil which generally wrapped up by the end of the episode. It was supposed to have more of that episodic TV feel.

On top of that, the lead is supposed to be that western trope of the quiet, skilled, wanderer. And because he was so quiet, with such little dialogue, and his entire head enclosed by a helmet, you're forced to respond to the subtle movements of the actor to imagine the complexity going on inside him.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they had that goal, but the character and the world had the potential for it. It's a spaghetti western in space, and the spaghetti westerns aren't about clear cut good and evil. They traffic in antiheroes and moral ambiguity and shades of grey. They ended up making the Mandalorian a clear cut hero. Yes, the character is an archetype like Eastwood's man with no name, but you can get away with a quiet, skilled wanderer with little dialogue when you can see his face and eyes to make a connection with him. With his head in a helmet, it puts further distance from the viewer. The movements of the actor did not convey enough for me. This would have been fine if the characters around him and his interactions with them were interesting, but for the first three episodes it was mostly him wandering the desert alone. It wasn't until Episode four, when he started having real relationships with other characters did I think he became relatable and interesting. As for it being an episodic TV show, there were only two standalone episodes, 4 and 6. The rest were just pieces of one story, which makes me think this started as a 2 hour movie which they padded out with a couple more episodes to make it a series.
 
Well, it started as Favreau's passion project. He wrote the first few episodes and took them to Disney and said they're doing it his way or not at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top