I guess Peter Jackson and James Cameron don't understand how movies are made.
Hacks.
/s
I guess Peter Jackson and James Cameron don't understand how movies are made.
Exactly. The OT not being planned is not relevant to today when they knew it would be a trilogy. No one knew the OT would be a trilogy at the time lolYes.
It was also the first trilogy. The franchise was still new. It didn't have decades of hype and expanded works. Hundreds of books, comics, video games, etc. It didn't have millions and millions of fans who grew up repeatedly consuming the franchise. The OT was an "accidental" cultural phenomenon that not even George Lucas predicted.
The landscape is different now. Star Wars is not a scrappy, revolutionary new media property. Going blind into a new trilogy in the most beloved franchise in the history of cinema is simply negligent.
Yes.
It was also the first trilogy. The franchise was still new. It didn't have decades of Dan hype and expectations. Hundreds of books, comics, video games, etc. The OT was an "accidental" cultural phenomenon that not even George Lucas predicted.
The landscape is different now. Star Wars is not a scrappy, revolutionary new media property. Going blind into a new trilogy in the most beloved franchise in the history of cinema is simply negligent.
It's almost like Star Wars was an unproven IP back then and Lucas had no idea if he would get the chance to make any sequels. The fact that the OT worked so well despite the lack of planning is a stroke of luck, not something Disney should be looking at and saying "yeah let's just wing it again, it worked the first time".
And how is this an argument in favor of doing it like that again for the ST? For the OT Lucas didn't even kJow if the first movie was going to be successful nor had he had to adhere to any logical bounds for the characters or setting since he was effectively building it in those movies. Nothing like that applies anymore for the ST.
The prequels, on the other hand, were planned as a trilogy, and well...Exactly. The OT not being planned is not relevant to today when they knew it would be a trilogy. No one knew the OT would be a trilogy at the time lol
The main reason people were so happy when Lucas sold to Disney.The prequels, on the other hand, were planned as a trilogy, and well...
Yes.
It was also the first trilogy. The franchise was still new. It didn't have decades of hype and expanded works. Hundreds of books, comics, video games, etc. It didn't have millions and millions of fans who grew up repeatedly consuming these works. The OT was an "accidental" cultural phenomenon that not even George Lucas predicted.
The landscape is different now. Star Wars is not a scrappy, revolutionary new media property. Going blind into a new trilogy in the most beloved franchise in the history of cinema is simply negligent.
Exactly. The OT not being planned is not relevant to today when they knew it would be a trilogy. No one knew the OT would be a trilogy at the time lol
I'm curious to k ow what he would have actually done differently in 8 cause, especially in terms of the force users, that movie is a direct and logical continuation of 7. JJ is the one who decided Luke was a depressed hermit, that Rey idolized him, that Kylo was struggling with figuring out who he was and torn between the two sides.
Id also love to know what he would have done differently with Poe and Finn, but I'd wager it wouldn't be much. Just more action yahoo. Especially Poe, who had no arc at all in TFA.
LOTR was planned as a trilogy, and well...The prequels, on the other hand, were planned as a trilogy, and well...
It was a trilogy by that point, but the "saga" was still only 6 years old. It didn't have decades of of hype built up for it alone. Hype for "the craft of moviemaking and pulp adventures and serials" is not the same thing as hype for a singular franchise. Star Wars has 40+ years of baggage at this point. Multiple generations have "grown up with it" now. It's an entirely different animal than it was in 1983.Nah. By the time ROTJ was made, it was a trilogy. And at that point we knew Lucas wanted a 9-part saga. My dad used to talk about it all the time. And we consumed these movies, repeatedly, along with millions and millions of fans. There were also TV movies and cartoons, and a disproportionate amount of toys. The decades of hype that preceded Star Wars were about the craft of moviemaking and pulp adventures and serials that came before. So to say these elements were not there at the time is not accurate.
What is present now that wasn't present then is this: immediate and competitive access to every piece of media ever created by humanity.
When there's so much available, along with a high-pressure yet wide pipeline of NEW material consistently being delivered, it's just so so easy to pick out the few things you like and/or have time for - and deem the rest of it "trash". There is also a competitive and robust market for those looking for media that exists to call other media disposable and of no value. This is the phenomenon that pervades today's zeitgeists.
I'd go on a whim and say Finn being in a coma was just to make sure Rey would leave on her own to meet Luke. So he'd wake up, want to go help, people say no, he goes anyway, and shows up with Rey is mind-battling with Kylo as he lures her to the dark side. Kylo would play on her parents' fate and her sense of loneliness to draw her in, as both are now "alone, without a family" or some such, but Finn showing up makes her realize she has a family now, and rejects Kylo.
Say what differently? That Lucas didn't have everything planned out? That's what I've been saying. A few retcons doesn't change that fact that Lucas' vision is what made Star Wars the cultural juggernaut that is it today. I didn't say that his vision was always for the best or that he didn't make mistakes, just that his vision strengthened the cohesion of the OT.
Going to stop you there. What made the original trilogy work wasn't just Lucas, he had his then wife at the time helping, editors, ect. Helping him and implementing changes to his original vision. Being surounded by yes men while doing the prequels is what caused the majority of the problems with the prequels.
I wonder how J.J.Abrams would have figured out having Rey run Luke around his island as a backpack.
It was a trilogy by that point, but the "saga" was still only 6 years old. It didn't have decades of of hype built up for it alone. Hype for "the craft of moviemaking and pulp adventures and serials" is not the same thing as hype for a singular franchise. Star Wars has 40+ years of baggage at this point. Multiple generations have "grown up with it" now. It's an entirely different animal than it was in 1983.
I read it, came across as the typical dismissiveness I see from people who defend the sequel trilogy. It's not YouTube's fault that this trilogy has no sense of direction.Yes, and I said so in my post. But elements of it were there at the time, and even in 6 "short" years it had cemented itself firmly and substantially into popular culture beyond nearly anything else at the time.
People are entitled to their time and place, of course - multiple generations have grown up with Star Wars in their own way. But as I get older it is easier to see that some things are just not as different as they may seem. Still, I even point out what is different today than back then, you're welcome to read my post again.
I read it, came across as the typical dismissiveness I see from people who defend the sequel trilogy. It's not YouTube's fault that this trilogy has no sense of direction.
The ST needed a competent visionary behind the scenes to keep things on track. The fact that George + company managed to pull it off without that in the early 80's is not relevant to the situation today. Yes, it's true that in only 6 short years Star Wars had cemented itself in pop culture. Add 36 more years of buildup to that and that's where we're at now. It's different. The stuff to brought up only adds additional layers of difficulty on top of an already difficult situation.
JJ Abrams said:
JJ Abrams said:where The Last Jedi ends, it doesn't fundamentally shift the paradigm.
The only time this ever happens is when they filmed Lord of the Rings simultaneously. And even then, there were tons of things that shifted along the way.Write all three scripts before filming the next trilogy please. These are meant to be serial movies, enough of not knowing where to go with them after the first movie.
No he didn't,
The Last Jedi spends the majority of it's runtime on developing character arcs. It's like THE movie to talk about in screenwriting when it comes to establishing an equilibrium and creating a new equilibrium.LOL, TLJ in a nutshell. It's "subversive" but actually accomplishes very little with regard to plot and character.
Because people don't know fucking shit about writing and it's really annoying to see armchair writers constantly say "well you should've done this."The only time this ever happens is when they filmed Lord of the Rings simultaneously. And even then, there were tons of things that shifted along the way.
No one writes three scripts in advance.
People have the dumbest notion of what serialized storytelling entails.
You do have a point. His biggest wins have been on his own side. Han Solo is the only win he has on the good guy side, which is hilarious when you think about it
They need to replace Kennedy with a Feige.You don't need three scripts written in advance. You just need someone at the top with a clear vision and authorial voice who can oversee the development of the trilogy. Lucas didn't write the whole trilogy in advance but it was his vision that kept things consistent when he had different directors do Empire and Jedi.
Replace one of the greatest producers in Hollywood history who's led to 3 out of 4 movies making more than a billion dollars each. I suppose that's just a coincidence and Kennedy doesn't understand what resonates with people. 🤷♂️They need to replace Kennedy with a Feige.
Kennedy is the problem here, not Abrams or Johnson.
There was literally never an intention for one director to do all three, let alone a single director doing two of them. A reminder, JJ was not originally going to direct episode 9 nor did he have a strict outline.
That wasn't the intention but it should have been. Either that or have a singular writer working on all 3. I mean Treverrow got the boot because his stuff was different in a third direction. The only film trilogy in history that I think works/is considered great with different directors helming each movie was SW and that's largely because Lucas was controlling things both in a positive and negative way.There was literally never an intention for one director to do all three, let alone a single director doing two of them. A reminder, JJ was not originally going to direct episode 9 nor did he have a strict outline.
That's never how film making outside of strict adaptationsThat wasn't the intention but it should have been. Either that or have a singular writer working on all 3
It wasn't. The PT went through heavy rewrites in every film.
Is this sarcasm?
James Cameron claims to have had 4 Avatar scripts ready to go before filming the sequels.The only time this ever happens is when they filmed Lord of the Rings simultaneously. And even then, there were tons of things that shifted along the way.
No one writes three scripts in advance.
People have the dumbest notion of what serialized storytelling entails.
The thing is, my focus isn't on Avatar 2. My focus is on Avatar 2, 3, 4, and 5 equally. That's exactly how I'm approaching it. They've all been developed equally. I've just finished the script to Avatar 5. I'm now starting the process of active prep. I'll be working with the actors in the capture volume in August, so I'm booked in production every day between now and then. Our volume is up and running, and everything is designed, and so we're going full-guns right now. I feel like I've been let out of jail, because I've been in the writing cave for the last two years. I'm actually enjoying life. I don't enjoy writing. I wouldn't wish writing on a dog.
I never once claimed that there should be a strict storyline that has to be adhered to. Saying there should be consistent oversight is significantly different than saying there has to be multiple scripts in advance that the director has to adhere to. Whether that oversight is in the form of a basic outline for the trilogy or just having identical people in place, I don't think it particularly matters.That's never how film making outside of strict adaptationsthat go through rewriteshas ever worked. Having a strict storyline that MUST be adhered to is incredible detrimental to storytelling. Every good writer in hollywood can see where a story is going and work from there. EP. 8 is an example of that. It challenges the viewer's perception and expectation not for the sole purpose of subverting expectations but because the best way to follow the thesis of SW is a film that's incredibly retrospective about the franchise's place in cinema. Like, we meme a shit about how George RR Martin hasn't finished the novels but a huge part of that is the fact that he had a planned ending for the series but has so many characters that he has planted seeds that grow into plants organically and it's likely very hard to think about the story's ending since it probably wouldn't work. This is on top of instances where say, the author of Harry Potter regrets the ending as she wrote it long before the actual conclusion of the series and thus it tonally, is completely out of place. Storytelling needs to be organic and audiences shouldn't expect everything to play out as they want it to. Even ROTJ is an example of this as George completely ignored the original outline and rewrote the film in order to have an ending that was as happy as possible for the sake of toy sales.
The thing is that external factors are the reason why ep.9 was challenging, as they could've gone ANYWHERE after ep.8's ending, particularly the part where Carrie Fisher died. The ST is incredibly meta as it spends a lot of it's time through metaphor examining how SW fits into cinema and why it was ever good in the first place. Episode 7 was nostalgic AF with a ton of intentional callbacks to the OT, focusing on Han. Episode 8 was very introspective challenging the audience to self reflect on the concept of SW, focusing on Luke. Ep. 9 was supposed to be Leia's movie.
I continue to hope that IX is good enough to erase the unfortunate mess that is XIII
A basic outline was in place. They just let the directors do what they felt was best for the story. I think the issue is that a lot of people don't get what "a basic outline" means. There is a straight up story group that checks makes sure that everything made is consistent.I never once claimed that there should be a strict storyline that has to be adhered to. Saying there should be consistent oversight is significantly different than saying there has to be multiple scripts in advance that the director has to adhere to. Whether that oversight is in the form of a basic outline for the trilogy or just having identical people in place, I don't think it particularly matters.
People don't understand that the intentional thing with Kylo is that we aren't supposed to be afraid of him like we are with Vader. Luke was a farm boy who had a sheltered life. Rey is a scavenger who lived on a planet shitty enough to warrante her carrying around not just a staff but also a knife that she had no problem threatening people with.I too think unstable super powerful magician warriors with a galactic empire at their disposal aren't a threat.
The only time this ever happens is when they filmed Lord of the Rings simultaneously. And even then, there were tons of things that shifted along the way.
No one writes three scripts in advance.
People have the dumbest notion of what serialized storytelling entails.
I hate the fact that they've made up the overarching story of the sequel trilogy as they went along. It's fucking ridiculous. Particularly given that they have a virtually unlimited budget and resources to sort this stuff out.
In theory that's what the Story Group should be however having a council full of people isn't the same as a singular person overseeing it all. I'm also not sure how much oversight that Story Group is providing:A basic outline was in place. They just let the directors do what they felt was best for the story. I think the issue is that a lot of people don't get what "a basic outline" means. There is a straight up story group that checks makes sure that everything made is consistent.
They make sure that we don't end with stuff like the Force Unleashed. Based on what's been said by the people working with them they simultaneously give artists a lot of freedom while making sure we don't get pink Darth Vader and such, or a gary stu so OP that they managed to not only defeat Darht Vader twice but also remove his helmet in coincidentally the exact same way it was removed in return of the jedi because poetry it rhymes.In theory that's what the Story Group should be however having a council full of people isn't the same as a singular person overseeing it all. I'm also not sure how much oversight that Story Group is providing:
As you said the Story Group is multiple people. Matt Martin is just one person.I'm also not sure how much oversight that Story Group is providing:
I would probably need to see a better example for me to feel their existence is justified as a substitute for someone like Lucas overseeing everything.They make sure that we don't end with stuff like the Force Unleashed. Based on what's been said by the people working with them they simultaneously give artists a lot of freedom while making sure we don't get pink Darth Vader and such.
So a Story Group member worked on the first two movies of the ST and not the final? Or he didn't work on any of the ST in which case how involved are the Story Group in overseeing the ST?As you said the Story Group is multiple people. Matt Martin is just one person.
Read editI would probably need to see a better example for me to feel their existence is justified as a substitute for someone like Lucas overseeing everything.
Again, Matt Martin is just one guy. When Nintendo makes a video game, it's not the whole staff of Nintendo that makes it, right? Some employees might move between different projects, different teams, might go on vacations during such or such periods, etc. The Lucasfilm Story Group is not a singular, monolithic entity. It is also multiple employees just like any group of employees in any company.So a Story Group member worked on the first two movies of the ST and not the final??
I mean by all accounts, Trevorrowwas fired because he was having disagreements with Kennedy in regards to the script, not the Story Group. Some of this is impossible to know without working at Lucasfilm and seeing how much control/freedom there is in terms of individual stories and who talks to who but I'm not exactly convinced that the Story Group has much serious input/say on a lot of these higher level topics.
A better case would be examining individual franchises inside Nintendo and there are definitely singular people that oversee certain franchises. The whole point of this discussion/argument is whether the Story Group is a good replacement for a person like Lucas and I haven't seen much evidence stating that they are. There were a ton of stories of Lucas possibly micromanaging everything SW back in the day. I'm not seeing a lot stating something similar for the Story Group currently.Again, Matt Martin is just one guy. When Nintendo makes a video game, it's not the whole staff of Nintendo that makes it, right? Some employees might move between different projects, different teams, might go on vacations during such or such periods, etc. The Lucasfilm Story Group is not a singular, monolithic entity. It is also multiple employees just like any group of employees in any company.