Movies ~*Colin Trevorrow's Star Wars: Episode IX - Duel of the Fates OT*~

[AbsolutSurgen]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

This is definitely true most of the time (Lord of the Rings was based on an existing IP, as one example). But sometimes you can get a ton of money to create a brand new franchise:

 

 

In 2009 dollars, this was much more expensive than any ST Star Wars film.

 

Maybe you just have to create the highest-grossing movie in Titanic to get that kind of dough.  

But he was creating a franchise too....  Even though it has taken forever to get the other movies done!!

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

But he was creating a franchise too....  Even though it has taken forever to get the other movies done!!

 

Ah, okay, I misread what you meant by, "ability to make a franchise," and read it as, "You need an existing IP to have the ability to make a franchise that expensive."

 

But either way, you're right. It's honestly impressive he received that much fucking money to make that movie, especially when you look at its opening weekend gross, which was good but by no means indicative on how much money it was eventually going to make!  

[CitizenVectron]

I saw a good comparison on GAF about bringing Sheev "The Senate" Palpatine back. Basically, imagine if Tolkien had written LOTR 2, and it was revealed that lol, the One Ring wasn't actually that important, and Sauron still lived, and a new team was required to beat him. It would devalue the original books immensely, especially the sacrifices made. That is actually why Tolkien decided against writing sequels...and why the same should have been done with Star Wars. Or at least mainline saga sequels dealing with the Sith! It would have been so easy to introduce other stuff as a threat to galactic peace.

[Greatoneshere]

On 12/4/2019 at 11:47 AM, CitizenVectron said:

Let me rephrase then: I wish JJ had filmed trevorrow's ideas, rather than bring in Chris "Martha" Terrio and himself to write. JJ is a great director, but not a good writer. 

 

Won't disagree with that, but let's not forget that Chris Terrio also wrote Argo. Yes, Justice League was . . . yeah. But that movie had a lot of cooks in that kitchen.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

To make movies that cost as much as Star Wars to make, you really need an existing IP, or the ability to create a franchise.  Otherwise, you can't afford to make them.

Star Wars is already a franchise...

[CitizenVectron]

The Trevorrow news has been debunked by Trevorrow himself! So now we wait to find out what his original plan was, lol.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

The Trevorrow news has been debunked by Trevorrow himself! So now we wait to find out what his original plan was, lol.

 

Trevorrow admits he wasn't skilled enough to actually come up with that plan.  

[skillzdadirecta]

8 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

 

Also, I’m surprised that you’re using critical response as a metric for artistic success because I thought you were fairly clear in previous threads that critics are useless and mean nothing to you. Or is this an opinion you only apply when critics disagree with you?  I asked the question as to what OTHERS use as a metric for successful and including the three metrics that are available to the general public. I know what the answer is FOR ME personally, but on this board people will often deem something as a failure when all available evidence points to the contrary so I ask by what metric are THEY using. No I don't put a lot of stock into what critics think, especially today's critics, but that doesn't mean they aren't a factor in the grand scheme of things. That just means it's MY personal preference. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that everyone thinks like I do or sees things the way I see them. I have my own views on what constitutes a "successful" piece of art both from the perspective of the creator of the work and from it's audience 

 

 

And lastly, I’ve noticed that you sometimes try to minimize opinions you disagree with by saying that only a minority of people feel that way and that mainstream audiences generally disagree. Just because someone has a minority opinion doesn’t mean they’re inherently less valid than those who align with the consensus. Because that’s what you seem to be implying when you make statements like that. How is it minimizing to acknowledge an opinion is in the minority? I have a lot of opinions myself that are minority opinions and I have ZERO problems standing by them or acknowledging that they are INDEED minority opinions. My stance on this board regarding Rogue One for example. Or my opinions about Kojima, or the movie Solo, or Inglorious Basterds and Tarantino's output over the last ten or so years... I have plenty of opinions that would be considered "minority opinions" not just on this board but on the greater collective consciousness of the internet in general and I KNOW they are minority opinions. That doesn't make them any less valid and I stand by them... but I know that most folks don't agree with some of those opinions and I am secure enough as a person to be okay with that. The reason why I bring it up sometimes on this board is because SOME on this board will try to present an opinion that they and a small circle of folks that they encounter or communicate with as being THE OPINION when that is not the case. I point out sometimes that what they think is a general consensus opinion... isn't. I acknowledge the same for myself and have done so on MULTIPLE occasions on this board... see my above examples. My real life friends will tell you I have a whole HOST of opinions about movies and shit that "go against the consensus." The difference is I KNOW they are minority opinions and that's ok 

 

 

 

[CayceG]

13 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

The Trevorrow news has been debunked by Trevorrow himself! So now we wait to find out what his original plan was, lol.

 

That's good because his alleged plot sucked ass too. :P

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

That's good because his alleged plot sucked ass too. :P

Probably why he was so quick to debunk it... "I didn't write this shit!" 

[AbsolutSurgen]

56 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Star Wars is already a franchise...

Then, I guess I don't understand your point about sequels.

[Mercury33]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I saw a good comparison on GAF about bringing Sheev "The Senate" Palpatine back. Basically, imagine if Tolkien had written LOTR 2, and it was revealed that lol, the One Ring wasn't actually that important, and Sauron still lived, and a new team was required to beat him. It would devalue the original books immensely, especially the sacrifices made. That is actually why Tolkien decided against writing sequels...and why the same should have been done with Star Wars. Or at least mainline saga sequels dealing with the Sith! It would have been so easy to introduce other stuff as a threat to galactic peace.

Wait what? This analogy doesn’t make any sense at all. 

[CitizenVectron]

3 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Wait what? This analogy doesn’t make any sense at all. 

 

The end of ROTJ was supposed to put an end to Palpatine (Lucas even created an entire new trilogy around the idea of this being the end result of the Prophecy). Luke accomplished this by throwing away his weapon, and his father then sacrificed his life to save his son. The ST has brought back Palpatine, making Vader's sacrifice pointless and unnecessary. This would be similar to if, after destroying the One Ring and leaving Middle Earth, Frodo and co. later find out that Sauron is back and bigger than ever.

 

Some may disagree that this is a bad thing, narratively, but I don't see how it can be considered to not make sense.

[Mercury33]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The end of ROTJ was supposed to put an end to Palpatine (Lucas even created an entire new trilogy around the idea of this being the end result of the Prophecy). Luke accomplished this by throwing away his weapon, and his father then sacrificed his life to save his son. The ST has brought back Palpatine, making Vader's sacrifice pointless and unnecessary. This would be similar to if, after destroying the One Ring and leaving Middle Earth, Frodo and co. later find out that Sauron is back and bigger than ever.

 

Some may disagree that this is a bad thing, narratively, but I don't see how it can be considered to not make sense.

I just don’t see Sauron and The Emperor as on the same level. The quest wasn’t the same. The stakes weren’t the same. The Emperor is barely even in the OT let alone the central source of conflict like Sauron is. Also the scenario you described is literally the plot of LotR. Sauron has come back from the dead. Also the Emporer isn’t the main evil in the ST either. I mean maybe they reveal him to be behind it all but outside of the PT he’s never front and center the way Sauron is. They’re not the same kind of antagonist. 
 

I’m not saying there’s no chance the Emperors use in the new movie won’t be stupid. Won’t know till it comes out. But I’m not willing to dismiss his mere existence as a terrible story idea without seeing how the story plays out.  

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Then, I guess I don't understand your point about sequels.

Instead of planning out trilogies for Star Wars films from the get go, make sequels to movies when you have a good idea for a sequel. You can make new stories in the Star Wars franchise that aren’t direct sequels to previous entries.

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The end of ROTJ was supposed to put an end to Palpatine. Luke accomplished this by throwing away his weapon, and his father then sacrificed his life to save his son. The ST has brought back Palpatine, making Vader's sacrifice pointless and unnecessary. This would be similar to if, after destroying the One Ring and leaving Middle Earth, Frodo and co. later find out that Sauron is back and bigger than ever.

 

Some may disagree that this is a bad thing, narratively, but I don't see how it can be considered to not make sense.

 

I thought Return of the Jedi was about redeeming Vader hence the title RETURN OF THE JEDI.  It's why the film isn't called "FALL OF THE EMPEROR" or even "REVENGE OF THE JEDI" (it's original title) 

Palpatine coming back doesn't make Vader's sacrifice pointless because his sacrifice was about Luke REDEEMING him.  We haven't seen how or why The Emperor comes back ( and him coming back is not some far fetched thing, he's come back in the extended universe before and even turned Luke to the Dark Side... Star Wars fans LOVE that story arc) but regardless of how he comes back it doesn't invalidate Vader's sacrifice in ROTJ. 

[Greatoneshere]

Bringing Palpatine back could be done well, it just feels lazy to go to that well again. After the terrible fanservice fest of Star Trek Into Darkness I don't know if JJ can do sequels well. We'll see.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

@CitizenVectron

 

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Instead of planning out trilogies for Star Wars films from the get go, make sequels to movies when you have a good idea for a sequel. You can make new stories in the Star Wars franchise that aren’t direct sequels to previous entries.

I think they tried to start making those other movies, and discovered that wasn't what people wanted.  IMHO, the core of the Star Wars franchise is the Skywalker family (and those closely associated with them).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I think they tried to start making those other movies, and discovered that wasn't what people wanted.  IMHO, the core of the Star Wars franchise is the Skywalker family (and those closely associated with them).

Rogue One made a billion dollars, and was viewed overwhelmingly positively. The Mandalorian is one of the most popular TV shows out. You just have to make a good (enough?) movie and people will

show up. Don’t make stories people actively don’t want (Solo) and you’ll probably be fine.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Rogue One made a billion dollars, and was viewed overwhelmingly positively. The Mandalorian is one of the most popular TV shows out. You just have to make a good (enough?) movie and people will

show up. Don’t make stories people actively don’t want (Solo) and you’ll probably be fine.

Rogue one was directly tied into Episode IV (and a good movie)-- which IMHO, is why it was successful.  (Though much less successful than TFA, which made over 2 billion dollars.)

[skillzdadirecta]

33 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

@CitizenVectron

 

 

 

Like I said... "I didn't write this shit." 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Rogue one was directly tied into Episode IV (and a good movie)-- which IMHO, is why it was successful.  (Though much less successful than TFA, which made over 2 billion dollars.)

I’m not sure how this refutes the idea that it was financially successful and people liked it  

[Pikachu]

 

[Guest]

Is @Pikachua bot that just scours YouTube for videos to post in threads 

[Pikachu]

I subscribed to the Star Wars and Walt Disney Studios channels so it pops up on recommendations when I go to youtube.

[Guest]

Just now, Pikachu said:

I subscribed to the Star Wars and Walt Disney Studios channels so it pops up on recommendations when I go to youtube.

Gotcha! I’m just never surprised when a thread updates and it’s a link you’ve posted  

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

6 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I saw a good comparison on GAF about bringing Sheev "The Senate" Palpatine back. Basically, imagine if Tolkien had written LOTR 2, and it was revealed that lol, the One Ring wasn't actually that important, and Sauron still lived, and a new team was required to beat him. It would devalue the original books immensely, especially the sacrifices made. That is actually why Tolkien decided against writing sequels...and why the same should have been done with Star Wars. Or at least mainline saga sequels dealing with the Sith! It would have been so easy to introduce other stuff as a threat to galactic peace.

Yeah, that’s still not a good comparison. 

When Palpatine was killed and Vader redeemed, it was the beginning of the end for the Empire. No longer was the Galaxy under rule of a centralized figure and military. Decades have gone by as a Republic has been able to take hold again. Palpatine may have coming back, but he’ll have to take power back. 
 

Anakin was still redeemed, the Jedi were not all snuffed out, and the Empire lost power and declined. ROTJ  was not made pointless or invalidated. 
 

ROTJ and the OT have been validated repeatedly by the rest of the cannon. No Jedi or even group or Jedi would have been strong enough to defeat Palpatine or Vader, and definitely not them together. No other figure, even from Anakin’s past could have redeemed him. Only his child. 

[sexy_shapiro]

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

 

 

I see where you coming from. I also hold a lot of minority opinions. I tend to have a low opinion on the average filmgoer, to be honest. Few people actually engage with the text like we do. Most people will just like a movie if it kept their attention for 2 hours. Plus, the prequel trilogy proved that anything with the Star Wars name is gonna make a ton of money regardless of money. The financial success alone isn’t as impressive to me as others seem to think it is.

 

Let me reframe the original context. CV simply said that Disney made a mistake by rushing the movies out. The response was that no they didn’t make a mistake, because they were financially successful. Clearly CV wasn’t saying the movies were financial failures. He was criticizing the production schedule, and hell, even Disney agrees because they are changing it up after this movie.

 

My big fear with Disney early on was that releasing a movie a year was gonna significantly kill the hype for future movies. While people on here argued against me, even Disney is seeming to wise up and realize that scarcity is what makes Star Wars movies a big deal. I’m sure Rise of Skywalker will do pretty well,  but it is odd that there seems to be relatively less people talking about this one.

 

Also, the new Star Wars lands at the Disney parks has had a had a much lower attendance than expected. That can’t be a good sign for fan’s general feelings for the franchise.

[Mercury33]

8 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I see where you coming from. I also hold a lot of minority opinions. I tend to have a low opinion on the average filmgoer, to be honest. Few people actually engage with the text like we do. Most people will just like a movie if it kept their attention for 2 hours.

 

Let me reframe the original context. CV simply said that Disney made a mistake by rushing the movies out. The response was that no they didn’t make a mistake, because they were financially successful. Clearly CV wasn’t saying the movies were financial failures. He was criticizing the production schedule, and hell, even Disney agrees because they are changing it up after this movie.

 

My big fear with Disney early on was that releasing a movie a year was gonna significantly kill the hype for future movies. While people on here argued against me, even Disney is seeming to wise up and realize that scarcity is what makes Star Wars movies a big deal.

that was me that said that. And to be fair I said it wasn’t a mistake because it was financially successful AND critically praised AND loved by the general audiences. I feel like when you hit all 3 of those it’s hard to say a mistake was made. 

[skillzdadirecta]

50 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

Let me reframe the original context. CV simply said that Disney made a mistake by rushing the movies out. The response was that no they didn’t make a mistake, because they were financially successful. Clearly CV wasn’t saying the movies were financial failures. He was criticizing the production schedule, and hell, even Disney agrees because they are changing it up after this movie.

 

That wasn't the response. The response was that they were financially successful, critically successful AND popular, so MY question was if none of these are metrics that can be used to determine whether or not a work of art is successful then what is? I still haven't gotten an answer.

 

24 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

that was me that said that. And to be fair I said it wasn’t a mistake because it was financially successful AND critically praised AND loved by the general audiences. I feel like when you hit all 3 of those it’s hard to say a mistake was made

 

I mean that's like the holy grail for any filmmaker 

[sexy_shapiro]

50 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

That wasn't the response. The response was that they were financially successful, critically successful AND popular, so MY question was if none of these are metrics that can be used to determine whether or not a work of art is successful then what is? I still haven't gotten an answer.

 

 

I mean that's like the holy grail for any filmmaker 

There isn’t a clear answer. Art isn’t quantifiable. That was my point. That’s exactly what I said in my post. If you think art can be measure and somehow empirically “proven” to be good, then you miss the point in art altogether.

 

Basically what you’re saying is that anyone who isn’t making a lot of money from their art isn’t successful. That’s a real insult to local artists. Art is so much more than popularity and money.

 

You know what else was successful financially, critically, and popular? Birth of a Nation. The metrics you use to quantify good art are questionable.

[skillzdadirecta]

16 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

There isn’t a clear answer. Art isn’t quantifiable. That was my point. That’s exactly what I said in my post. If you think art can be measure and somehow empirically “proven” to be good, then you miss the point in art altogether.

 

Basically what you’re saying is that anyone who isn’t making a lot of money from their art isn’t successful. That’s a real insult to local artists. Art is so much more than popularity and money.

 

You know what else was successful financially, critically, and popular? Birth of a Nation. The metrics you use to quantify good art are questionable.

 

Dude, I asked a question. I have not even SAID what I personally use to qualify whether or not a work of art is successful because I know what my personal answer is regarding the subject. Not sure what your point about Birth of a Nation is... I assume you're talking about D.W. Griffith's racist film and not the more recent one. Despite its reprehensible subject matter, Birth of a Nation is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made because at the time it was made it employed a lot of cinematic techniques that hadn't been done at the time. His follow up film, Intolerance (which was done as kind of an apology for Birth of of a Nation) is regarded as an even better made film than that, although it wasn't as financially successful because by then, he had been reviled and written off as a klansman and a racist. You know what else is regarded as a great film even though the subject matter is reprehensible...Triumph of The Will, a film who's imagery Lucas used for some scenes of the Empire for Star Wars but that's besides the point. 

 

YOU DON'T KNOW what metrics I use to quantify good art because I haven't said so and it's not something I discuss on this board because I'm content to keep it light and talk about comic book movies and sci-fi films. But if you think my "metrics to quantify good art are questionable" or not up to your standards, please feel free to disregard or ignore anything I say regarding films or anything else. It's cool.

[Mercury33]

9 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

There isn’t a clear answer. Art isn’t quantifiable. That was my point. That’s exactly what I said in my post. If you think art can be measure and somehow empirically “proven” to be good, then you miss the point in art altogether.

 

Basically what you’re saying is that anyone who isn’t making a lot of money from their art isn’t successful. That’s a real insult to local artists. Art is so much more than popularity and money.

 

You know what else was successful financially, critically, and popular? Birth of a Nation. The metrics you use to quantify good art are questionable.

Yo are you fucking kidding me with this shit? I’m getting real tired of your little act man. You’re not even reading what people are saying, just cherry picking what you want to hear then inserting some high and mighty faux bullshit counter point that involves accusing people of being racist or homophobic or like hitler or whatever. Shit is tired my man. 
 

Never, in anything ANYONE in this board has said, has someone said that profitability is THE metric for judging the success of art. NO ONE SAID THAT. It was listed as one of the ways something can be judged as successful. Along with critical acclaim and acclaim from the general public. Those are 3 ways that if combined you could say something is generally successful. Of course everyone has their own personnel take on what is and isn’t good art. No one is belittling that point. 
 

But this shit where every time someone disagrees with you, you jump out and accuse them of thinking like a racist or nazi or whatever is bullshit and needs to stop. Grow up man. Grow. Up. 

[SaysWho?]

20 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

I saw a good comparison on GAF about bringing Sheev "The Senate" Palpatine back. Basically, imagine if Tolkien had written LOTR 2, and it was revealed that lol, the One Ring wasn't actually that important, and Sauron still lived, and a new team was required to beat him. It would devalue the original books immensely, especially the sacrifices made. That is actually why Tolkien decided against writing sequels...and why the same should have been done with Star Wars. Or at least mainline saga sequels dealing with the Sith! It would have been so easy to introduce other stuff as a threat to galactic peace.

 

Yo, the new trilogy isn't really about the Emperor. Regardless as to whether seeing Palpatine is a real treat or if it falls flat, that's on JJ. I've loved the story of the sequels so far.

 

Hell, the minute I read the first sentence of TFA's opening crawl, I knew I was in for a treat. Even the mothafukin' crawls got me excited, especially with no passive, "The taxation of trade routes is in dispute," sentences.