|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 15, 2020 4:25:16 GMT
Well, what's to say he cannot come back in the inevitable Episode X? There isn't. Except for the fact that Ian McDiarmid is getting up there in years (much like George Lucas), John Williams is now retiring from film scoring... Is this true? Man, 2020 is proving a rough year for the World's Biggest Indiana Jones Fan. (ahem: me) First, initially, Lucas faded into the Force i.e., retirement and then Spielberg recently bailed, now this. Anyways, regarding Palpatine of the ST, something positive could be made of anything negative questionable. Is such a thing of projection or abstract bullshitting? Eh...maybe. But that doesn't mean the discussion can't yield an interesting spin on its own. I don't get from The Rise of Skywalker what Cryo does, though not so much because the storied universe of possibilities has long since sealed otherwise; the intellectual and theoretical potential of Palpatine 2.0 is, or could be, a wellspring. For better or for worse, though, I go by my instincts with these sorta things, and I just can't glean any central, singular or lasting high-conceptual inspiration via the filmmakers at the character's return—at least not to a degree outweighing the premise as a default act of kosher-fandom reduction. At its core the whole thing still rings too much of: "Well, shit, let's just bring Palpatine back. As a clone or whatever." Does that mean Abrams and Terrio were for their own part personally indifferent or creatively dead with the idea? Hell, I dunno, they seemed to have as much 'bonkers' fun with it as they could, playing it to the hilt. The problem is that I've never thought Abrams a particularly deep or interesting filmmaker/storyteller to begin with, not even in the realm of pop-art mythologizing. I'd say he went as far as he could with Star Wars, to his credit. On my end however it came off commonplace in realization, even if-when-and-where the on screen execution was brimming with pomp. At face value there is likewise lot of overblown silliness in, say, Revenge of the Sith ...yet always coming chiefly from the place of a quietly eccentric interloper of mainstream cinema. Abrams? Abrams is the filmmaking equivalent of an E3 Expo showman. That is perhaps a tad too harsh of an analogy, but certainly in orbit of what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 15, 2020 6:20:20 GMT
There isn't. Except for the fact that Ian McDiarmid is getting up there in years (much like George Lucas), John Williams is now retiring from film scoring... Is this true? Man, 2020 is proving a rough year for the World's Biggest Indiana Jones Fan. (ahem: me) First, initially, Lucas faded into the Force i.e., retirement and then Spielberg recently bailed, now this. It's nearly true -- or as good as true. What Williams actually announced (back in 2018) was that TROS would be his final Star Wars musical project: consequenceofsound.net/2018/03/john-williams-to-retire-from-star-wars-films-following-episode-ix/Given John Williams' age, and the fact that Spielberg has now pulled out of the upcoming Indy film, I wouldn't pin too many hopes on him being used on that project, either. Sadly, the "Golden Age" of the blockbuster is effectively at an end. In a way, TROS is actually its swansong. 1977 - 2019 is an appropriate measure of the dominance/wing-span of the big-budget, high-concept format we all know and love (i.e., have a complicated relationship with), and cinema itself is now dying or splitting off into streaming platforms and long-form television projects. This is another reason I'm rather taken with the Sequel Trilogy. In a way, it truly is "the last (piece) of the blockbuster religion". Hey! It's not bullshitting. Kaadushitting, or eeopieshitting, I can live with. Or shaakshitting, at a pinch. It's not total projection. When you project onto Star Wars, it projects onto you. "You mean it controls my actions?" "Partially. But it also obeys your commands." Projection, what I'm saying, is a two-way street. Also, it's nice to occasionally feel a return-response. For instance, I suggested some weeks ago that Palpatine is essentially the godhead of the Sith Eternal, and the term "god-consciousness" is used in the Rae Carson novelisation. That was satisfying to encounter. See what I mean? It's pleasing to get a piece of feedback from an official source that tells me I'm in sync with this thing. More than a fair few fans, it seems, are quite out-of-alignment with the whole deal, and that's a bit sad. But plenty of space for the rest of us. Hold up... It works for me. For all we know, Vader is a clone. All characters could be; especially the "dark" ones. The unmasked Anakin looks tremendously different from prequel Anakin. Did he transfer his essence into a new body? TROS allows one to glance back at the entire preceding saga with a suspicious eye. I love that. I like to think a lot of esoteric things that would ripple down the spine of the saga began in AOTC. I don't just mean cloning. There's a hint in a few places that the characters are literally creating the world in front of them. Pay close attention to Palpatine and Anakin as they begin to stroll down Palpatine's office. The floor snaps into place as they begin to walk off. Later, a similar conceit can be detected in the droid factory. It's an interesting concept. Like the typewriter in "The Shining" that seems to be feeding Jack Nicholson more paper. Nothing in Star Wars should be considered totally finished; let alone normal. "There is something else behind all this, Your Highness." There is definitely a motif you can glean in TROS about things being stitched back together and pressed into service for one final reckoning. Cloned and contraption-assisted Palpatine (echoing his Frankenstein creation: Darth Vader) resonates with digitally reanimated Leia. Both are mentors to Rey in the movie, who is the living image of their hopes and desires. There's the reformed "Anakin" saber. There's Kylo's mended mask. There's even healing of "dead" people. Heck, the very brief discussion of "how" Palpatine was able to reform is neat for this line: "Secrets only the Sith knew." After all, Palpatine tells Anakin that he's free to indulge in learning about the Dark Side, but that it's useless expecting the Jedi to supply him with such knowledge. His pledge in the "reveal" scene now also has deeper meaning: "If one is to understand The Great Mystery, one must study all its aspects..." This is a bit like Christians denying the Gnostic Gospels (General Grievous). The way fans consider this confusing, outrageous, and above all: heretical. Ya know? Abrams is better than he seems ( whatever that means). His movies are a touch on the over-eager side, but by no means a total wash. Granted, I've never cared for what he did with the other "star" franchise, but he understands Star Wars better and gets more mileage out of it. This matters to him, and I think you can actually sense that. The key is Kylo. How he came up with such a character, I'll never know. What seemed somewhat strained and underwhelming in TFA; well, now, I see the brilliance of it, in retrospect. He has given an entirely new dimension to the Force (the centralising metaphor of the entire series) and brought new meaning to the light/dark struggle. The Force Awakens The Rise Of Skywalker. An elegant koan. I know what you mean. The silliness in ROTS is more propellant, singular, and earned -- the metier of Lucas himself. However, everything Abrams has done here is like a remix/ricochet of what Lucas set up. In other words: How can he repeat the formula but put his own spin on it? What about the whole enterprise can feel both utterly familiar and atonally different this time around? What if you started the universe over? Would you get exactly the same result again; or would seem weird digression and unexpected variegation occur? Maybe we're in an episode of "Black Mirror". Coronavirus, midi-chlorians. I can almost believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 15, 2020 21:11:00 GMT
Ingram , ArchdukeOfNaboo You might like this little assessment I just came across under the following: Sargent X 4 hours ago
Just watched this again last night. Moment to moment it's fun and exciting, but the overall story just doesn't gel in a believable way. So many conveniences, unbelievable scenarios, and a lot of angry bickering. The ending gets pretty tiresome too. Bringing Palpatine back stretched believability way too far and feels like a major and unwelcome lane change. Bad story in good clothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Mar 15, 2020 22:13:54 GMT
I'm done with this sequel discussion. It's like trying to dissuade those invested in modern art. I'm out. BTW: The Palpatine actor can be easily replaced. Just like how George Lucas has been replaced.
Long live George Lucas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 15, 2020 22:54:17 GMT
I'm done with this sequel discussion. It's like trying to dissuade those invested in modern art. I'm out. Okay. Good for you. Stick to chanting the beauty of the good, instead of whining and shitposting about things you hate.  Nobody can replace George Lucas. But he passed Star Wars over to new people and entrusted it with them. Going their own way with the property is inevitable. As Lucas himself said when filming of ROTJ was underway back in 1982: "The next trilogy will be all someone else’s vision."www.starwars.com/news/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ixAbrams clearly got this message early on, saying himself back in 2015: "Being the temporary captain of the ship that George built is an honour but the ship is larger than the man who built it. When he created something as powerful as Star Wars, while it began with him, it became the world's."
www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/3ixtu1/the_force_awakens_magazine_scans_from_this_months/ |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Mar 16, 2020 2:04:00 GMT
That's not all the article says though: But two years later while filming Jedi, for many reasons, Lucas was burning out, tired of the whole enterprise: “I’m only doing this because I started it and now I have to finish it,” he adds. “The next trilogy will be all someone else’s vision.”So the partial quote you posted is not the full context of Lucas's mineset. Future Star Wars being someone else's "vision" is not some long standing and set is stone life goal that he was hell bent on obtaining. The quote is merely a representation of Lucas's frustrations, and not because he was actually interested in passing the torch at some point. In fact we can also find more of his quote from an 1982 article: www.nytimes.com/1982/07/11/movies/moviesspecial/secrecy-shrouds-a-star-wars-sequel.htmlEven the author of this article picks up on Lucas's frustration and his thinking is a bi-product of that. So I think it is a gross misrepresentation to try and pass off the Disney sale as a fulfillment of a 35+ year old quote from Lucas that had clearly more to do with his aggravations at that time than a real and true belief of where Star Wars was heading. Especially when he turns around and does the Prequels. ahh yes, that quote... Abrams doing his best Marx interpretation. I wonder how he would feel if I, a member the world, took some of his movies and made them my own for the sake of the world? I have a feeling I would find myself in court being sued by Bad Robot Productions. I do remember this quote being brought up a few times on the TFN forums. It rubbed a lot of us the wrong way back than. Seems some people have warmed up to it. Yet again, I think it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest this is a continuation of the Lucas quote from over 35 years ago as if it was Lucas's life long ambition to pass this on. It clearly wasn't until Lucas felt it was time to retire. That is why it landed into others hands, and not because Lucas was looking to fulfill a life long promise to let others play in his sand box. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 16, 2020 3:42:05 GMT
That's not all the article says though: Fair enough, Mike. But before we go any further, let me remind you of a core reality captured in a sentence above: Going their own way with the property is inevitable.Ah, yes! Sardonic George! Love it, of course... However: Even if frustration was poking through in those remarks and colouring his feelings, you can glimpse a consistent thread running from there to more recent remarks, around the time of Lucas finally selling his companies, about how, in essence, reality bites, and that he wanted to be free of Star Wars, because it was a big commitment that took more from him than he expected. Back during the OT, Lucas evidently wasn't prepared for how tough and painful bringing his vision to the screen would be. He did his level-best not to sell out and compromise, though the temptation was obviously there. Star Wars was good to Lucas, but also became something of a millstone around his neck. I think we, as outsiders looking in (albeit firm fans nonetheless), can't really comprehend and can only really underestimate the toll this property took on its creator. Because Star Wars is a tremendous success story, and Lucas isn't someone (outwardly, at least) with a particularly difficult, dark, or up-down personality. So it's easy to think this all snapped into place perfectly for him. We don't really see all the soul-searching, the tedium, the worry, the despair, and the all-round aggravation. We are consumers enjoying the end-product, as much as we might like to delve into more than just the surface of these movies. I think that's worth keeping in mind. Firstly: Thanks for the article, Mike. I should have dug a little deeper and come up with that myself. In any case, it makes for great reading. Second: Look a little closer and you'll see some quotes that (arguably) shade into Lucas' deeper feelings about the entire endeavour: And then the very next paragraph: Notice the wording Lucas uses at the end of the second paragraph: "I knew I had to finish this particular film, working with these particular actors for the last time."Already, he was attempting to put some distance between himself and his creation (in my opinion, at least), rationalising that he had fallen in love, or taken a vow, and had to finish the slice he started -- leaving the other slices, by definition, up in the air. There are also some remarks he made in this article to consider, just months after the first film had come out and become a sensation: www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/george-lucas-the-wizard-of-star-wars-2-232011/Elaborating when pressed by the interviewer if he'd be bothered about other people doing "the ones in between": He was able to live out a form of that fantasy in the OT by hiring, of course, Irvin Kershner for TESB, and Richard Marquand for ROTJ. But they didn't really have the freedom he was generously suggesting they would in the above extract. Kershner had more than Marquand, but after what happened during the production of TESB, Lucas ended up searching for a more pliable director for the third OT movie, and he spent a good deal more time on-set with the second sequel, breathing down Marquand's neck in a way Kershner probably would not have tolerated. For instance, in a 2004 interview, Kershner was asked why he didn't return for ROTJ, and this is the answer he gave: www.soundandvision.com/content/empire-strikes-back-director-irvin-kershnerStating he "didn't want to be a Lucas[film] employee" is pretty cutting. One was enough for Kershner. He could clearly see the writing on the wall. If we go back to your New York Times article, then we also have this paragraph to throw into the mix: www.nytimes.com/1982/07/11/movies/moviesspecial/secrecy-shrouds-a-star-wars-sequel.htmlOf course, the article is likely edited down, but it's interesting that Lucas makes no apology to Kershner there. He doesn't qualify his remarks. As they are presented, it reads like he is taking a small swipe at his chosen sequel director. This remark hints at the control-freak inside Lucas. When it came time to make the second sequel, it seems Lucas had made it a priority to monitor all stages of the production more closely, learning a hard lesson with TESB. In my estimation, it was this side of him that he wanted to avoid indulging a second time under Disney. Lucas matured between the trilogies -- and, I think, got a lot out of his system on the prequels -- enough to be able to make a firm choice to part with his creation and not interfere with the new direction it ended up going in. You could argue that selling was his way of tricking himself into being free of it. Now he had thrown up a legal force-field around his creation; one that even he couldn't penetrate. Yet, in some small but significant way, he may have contributed to the Sequel Trilogy on its final lap, if you recall some of those earlier media reports about Abrams and Kennedy going to Lucas for inspiration/guidance -- loosely fulfilling his stated intentions in the Rolling Stone article from 1977 about seeing other directors take over "and what their intrepretation of the theme is", and in coming back (sort of) and doing one "twice as good" at the end. And, of course, the entire Sequel Trilogy owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Lucas, because it plainly wouldn't exist without him. This is not the same as vouching for its canonicity, but it's possible to detect Lucas' "broadcast signal" in the sequels, all the same. Yet the Sequel Trilogy is also the work and the vision of other people: "The Force Of Others". An interpretation, an adaptation. This peculiar tension now makes it interesting and worthy to me. You really see how Lucas battled himself from the start. How much Star Wars should he make; how much influence should he exert on each trilogy? Well, now, we have our answer. Bit of a crooked analogy there. Lucas sold his entire creation, car keys 'n' all. If we attempted to use those characters, storylines, and other intellectual material, we might get in trouble, since those things are protected by copyright laws. It's just, instead of it being under Lucas, now it's under Disney. I know why you're saying that, though. JJ's term is a bit self-serving. It's not really "the world's" if it's under copyright. But there are grey areas in things. Superman is a character with vast appeal, and he more or less "belongs" to the world, but the character and his mythos are still owned by a finite number of companies with certain legal protections and entitlements. Sure. I'll own that little insinuation that you've obviously directed at me. I even pillaged an earlier post of mine on TFN when I introduced that quote into my last response. Here it is: boards.theforce.net/threads/pt-discussion-of-future-sw-content-locked-discussion-moved-to-saga-board.50038854/page-70#post-53935508That was November 2016. I went milder on the quote back then. My main focus was on Abrams minting TFA as "the quintessential Star Wars". In retrospect, I was probably a little harsh on him, though I don't regret being animated about what was being said at the time. In September 2015, before the film had come out, I gave him a bit more heat about the same quote, getting my thoughts out nice and quick: boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/page-55#post-52650103Even back then, however, when the quote first came to light, my bone of contention was that Abrams was using evasive, euphemistic language to insinuate that TFA was nothing like the prequels; and that the prequels were a little off the beaten path and implicitly bad (contra TFA: "the quintessential Star Wars"). At the time, when he said "being the temporary captain of the ship that George built is an honour", it sounded disingenuous to me, lumped in with those other remarks, which were clearly trying to quarantine TFA from the PT. However, you're right to suggest I've warmed up to the "temporary captain" remark, because I think Abrams took that responsibility seriously, even if some of what he said -- or the way he chose to say it -- was questionable. It may not have been his lifelong ambition to pass it on, but the germ of that desire was there from an early time, in my opinion. Once he became a father and had completed the prequels, I think he began to take stock of his life again, and gradually began to ready himself for the process of one day relinquishing his baby. And, to his credit, he was able to do this -- though, inevitably, not without some pain and separation anxiety along the way. There's the heroic George Lucas you want. The one that is prepared to let go and accept when it's time to move on, and has wisdom and forbearance enough not to interfere or try and change things once the deed is done. A true Jedi Master. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 16, 2020 5:17:31 GMT
I know I'm practically talking to myself in here, but I just came across this little behind-the-scenes video. Or, more to the point, I was immediately struck by this poignant comment underneath it, which I want to share: TimeandMonotony 20 hours ago
Kylo/Ben's journey was the best and most moving part of TROS and the Sequel Trilogy in general.
The conversation between Ben and Han was far and away my favorite scene in TROS, and one of my favorites in SW as a whole. My dad (who was also a huge SW fan) died when I was 16 when I already had depression and was struggling, and since then (I'm 29 now) I'm still depressed and feel like I haven't accomplished anything with my life. While I miss my dad and wonder what my life would be like if he had lived, part of me is glad he's not here to see what a disappointment I've turned out to be, even if I know, logically, that he would still love me. So the thought of having one last conversation with him, even if it is "just a memory," where he tells me he's proud of me and he loves me and believes in me no matter what, is extremely powerful for me. I almost cried in the theater and I'm tearing up just typing this.
I may have my issues with certain things in TROS, but I will forever be grateful to J.J. for that scene and for showing that it's never too late to become a better person and try to make up for the mistakes you've made. I'm so proud of Ben for having the strength to turn back from the path he was following, and while I'm sad he died, I'm so happy he helped save the galaxy and saved the woman he loved, and finally experienced true happiness and love! ❤
Thank you so much for uploading! |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 19, 2020 0:50:51 GMT
Some neat little behind-the-scenes clips have been appearing on YouTube in recent days, including the following: This is an enjoyable video, but I have a criticism, and it appears I'm not alone: (From the video) 01:06 "We knew that there was going to be a central fight, and we wanted it to be the saber battle of all saber battles. We really started thinking about making it as operatic as possible, and sort of reducing the scene to just them and the elements around them, so that the epic quality of this duel would be matched by the surroundings."Yeah. That already happened. It's called Episodes I, III, and V. Even many of the commenters point out this glaring failure to directly acknowledge how indebted Rey and Kylo's final confrontation is to Anakin and Obi-Wan's duel in ROTS: Isaac Wale
4 hours ago
"We wanted it to be the saber battles of all saber battles"
Episode 3: Sorry, too late.
Vincent Watkins
5 hours ago
“Saber battles of all saber battles” 😂 Nope That goes to Episode 3Luke Kucera
38 minutes ago (edited)
"Saber battle of all saber battles"?? I mean, it was alright. Saber battle of all saber battles is a tie between Anakin vs Obi Wan and the final fight in episode 1 in my opinion.gieSebie
5 hours ago (edited)
"the sabre battle of all sabre battles" uhmmmmmm I think that goes to Anakin vs Obi Wan, the music in this scene was underwhelming and the choreography wasn't anything special and it was hella short, but the visuals and the waves were amazing!!!Cody Hatten
2 hours ago
"The saber battle of all saber battles." Ahh yes, the battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith. I agree 😜 but all jokes aside, this battle was definitely one of my favorites of the saga!Dog Wolf Strawberry
3 hours ago
I like the setting and the idea to fight a battle upon the skeleton of the death star, but I think lightsaber duels lack of harmony in this trilogy. It's like they're slamming the sabers togheter. The duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan was like a dance.zyoh
52 minutes ago
still not better than the mustafar duelBut that annoyance aside, I do like Rey and Kylo's final battle in TROS. The nods to the Mustafar duel are clever and satisfying. Though it really only encompasses the "collector arm" part of its predecessor's elaborate waltz, beginning with a small tango in Palpatine's old throne room. Anyway, the video is amusing for Abrams' initial reaction to the wave test, as well as a pretty hilarious and slightly surreal comment from Adam Driver (about fighting Daisy Ridley in this sequence on his birthday). Nice "Interstellar"-esque music, too. Also, Daisy's London accent really stands out... "War-tah!"They sprayed me with war-tah, guv-nar! |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 19, 2020 0:57:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Mar 19, 2020 2:56:30 GMT
@cryo
They Didn't Retire the old Heroes they treated them like Garbage how is that Respect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 19, 2020 5:51:27 GMT
@cryo They Didn't Retire the old Heroes they treated them like Garbage how is that Respect? The quoted posts are meant to convey an encapsulated sense of my feelings, and are not necessarily intended to start particular arguments. I prefaced the second quote with a little warning that it might "court a little more controversy", but I was only trying to indicate that the opinions expressed in that second quote are more contentious. Clearly, some of the remarks there, as your one-line response attests, are sensitive issues for some segments of the fanbase. Perhaps the person who actually wrote those words wasn't making a statement about the end result, but about the challenge that was inherited in advance. The Sequel Trilogy was obviously a loaded trilogy -- loaded like a mouse trap. Not unlike the PT. The response to the prequels shows that fans have long had a proprietary sense of what constitutes a legitimate backstory, with anything short of that being roundly called out as fake/fraudulent/nonsense/garbage. I think some here have already forgotten how insanely vicious the backlash to the prequels really was. Go back to the Early Noughties and it wasn't a pretty picture. You are cherry-picking from a more general summation of my feelings. I'm not going to go down that road. However, I have said before that the way they handled the OT characters could actually be considered bold and very humanising. People aren't perfect. Even leading lights often have serious flaws. And on top of that, as we're seeing right now, the world isn't a fair place. Nature/the universe/the cosmos often has different plans in mind. Humans can be brought low in a variety of ways, and old ways of doing things can be seriously tested. In the end, I think the ST does give all three of the OT heroes the dignity they deserve. But that can be a topic for another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 19, 2020 21:53:40 GMT
VERSUS
VERSUS
This may seem like a random comparison, or perhaps inopportune at the expense of, say, The ST overall versus Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. But, I dunno, I just revisited King Kong recently (on 4K, rightly) and as a viewing experience, at least, found my thoughts time and again drawing analogies with The Rise of Skywalker. I just felt it that way in the moment, is what I'm saying. Both movies gorge themselves, courtesy in no small part of their directors. It's certainly not identical filmmaking, as the two directors in question exhibit separate idiosyncrasies. Yet while Jackson's remake clocks in quite a bit longer (over 40 minutes to an hour, depending on which cut), Abrams' indulgence with oversized story portions and top-heavy scale in spectacle is no less apparent.
I've always been most critical of 2005 King Kong regarding its obscenely sentimental interpretation of the two main leads, Anne and Kong. The 1933 original from directors Cooper & Schoedsack (and animator Willis O'Brian) colored just outside the lines of Anne as a mere unwanting damsel and Kong as a mere monster, allowing but the impression of the latter's tormented soul upon both his isolation in a prehistoric world and enslavement in a modern one; and moreover the obsession beyond his ape-brain faculties with a blonde-haired pretty little thing that could never fully be realized. Less is more, and it was such proportions in characterization that drew from generations of audiences a lasting empathy for the monster, how we projected onto him a sense of cruel fate and tragedy.
Enter Jackson's spin, which took audiences out of the equation and lopsided the story into a schmaltzy blubberfest of slow-mo lamentations and teary-eyed close ups ad nauseam; of shit like Anne and Kong gazing together into sunsets or going ice skating in snowy Central Park. By the time Kong's irises fade from life and his bulk slides away from Anne's view atop the Empire State Building, all emotionality has long since been bled dry from the proceedings. I feel nothing during that moment but vaguely exhausted by the whole of the movie's overkill; I'm just ready for it to be over. A similarity with The Rise of Skywalker on this point cannot be overstated.
And yet, and yet... King Kong at its best, perhaps ideally entertained in finite segments, is a juggernaut of adventure-fantasy verve. The set-piece that introduces Kong for example -- the Skull Island natives' elaboriate sacrificial ceremony of drums 'n' fire followed by Anne's blood-curdling scream at the sight of Kong's smokey entrance -- is a thing writ epic in presentation and ripe with a showmanship for the jungle-pulpy macabre. That same...energy, at least, for lack of a better word, can be found in The Rise of Skywalker, for it too seizes topnotch production values to enliven across a massive canvas Abrams' vision of a resurrected Emperor and his stormy tomb world or tidal conflicts between Rey and Kylo atop a Death Star corpse.
I cannon say I am entirely a fan of Jackson's King Kong, but I like it in places. I'm not sure how I would rate it next to, just above or just below The Rise of Skywalker—if or where the shared sensibilities are a strength for one a and weakness for the other. I'll leave it right there. Which do you guys prefer? How do you feel overall about one versus the other? Or would you not even rank them together in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Mar 19, 2020 23:57:52 GMT
I believe that there is something profound to be said about seemingly accidental similarities...when they are noticed, that is. That is rare and precious to me as a concept, in general, because it appears to hit the core and cause a chain reaction, destroying the station. I just don't know exactly what it is because there's a most-likely intrinsic element of "continuity error" or "plot hole" or "low fidelity" or "disbelief suspension." Allusion vs. Illusion. The AI yin-yang grappling with its own existence. Like wanting nirvana or something. Two modern blockbusters juxtaposed. THANK GOD. More than motifs. "Different" aspects of "separate" movies (all made within a single giant studio system, duh) can be described in similar words, no? You are in tune with the Living Force, Ingram! "It's an instinct. A feeling. The Force brought us together." ... "We're not alone." King Kong is huge, bold, epic, extravagant - runner up in 2005 to ROTS in those categories? King Kong also trots along for an hour on the boat. Check out how much of TROS actually takes place on Exegol, if you haven't (I'm guessing that you have, though). Unlike me. I know it's a lot looking at the cursor placement on the playback bar once Rey gets there.  The point I'm sputtering around is that they are both SENSATIONAL movies! Not like click-bait news articles. I mean like the Thesaurus means it: Shocking, Overdramatized, Gorgeous. They both have overbearingly perfect aesthetic bravado. But the context of this matters, I think, when compared to a crappy Rom-Com off the shelf. Or basically any movie out of this CASTE. The two films you're pitting against each other are technically masterpieces in the category of...what's it called? Realized Fantasy? Changes were made when compared to the previous installments. Honestly, the overblown aspect (not sentimentality) for me rings more true with the PT than with the ST. Note how the CGI in the PT is an obvious character of the whole piece, whereas in the ST, it's there JUST AS MUCH but doesn't draw attention to itself. Subordinate. Return of the King Kong. Much like Abrams, Jackson says he grew up loving the original! Better remake it. Projected Holograph vs. Retroactive Ghostwriting. "Obvious tugs at the heart strings" overall goes to King Kong, not TROS. TROS is mostly FUNNY. That one scene, though. Oof. Not overkill, not underkill. Juuuuuust right kill. My humble opinion or sense of it. Not entirely logical. King Kong roars. King Kong smashing those dinosaurs is pretty cool. Ben Solo shrugs. Ben Solo smashing those knights is pretty cool. I prefer them both over a lot of other crap. Against each other? Ehhhhhh...TROS. Now what is that weird feeling of pleasurable je ne sais quoi between the two? THE DAWN OF MAN...ape using tools, cut to spaceship.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 20, 2020 3:32:24 GMT
I cannon say I am entirely a fan of Jackson's King Kong, but I like it in places. I'm not sure how I would rate it next to, just above or just below The Rise of Skywalker—if or where the shared sensibilities are a strength for one a and weakness for the other. I'll leave it right there. Which do you guys prefer? How do you feel overall about one versus the other? Or would you not even rank them together in the first place? Well, I fell asleep during "King Kong", when I went to see it at the multiplex, while I was paying rapt attention during "The Rise Of Skywalker", so there's that... I've given the Peter Jackson picture a partial (or a full? -- can't remember) re-watch since, and I find the picture to be extremely heavy-handed, drawn-out, and practically drowning in sentimentality. However, at its best, it is lyrical and engrossing (e.g., the ice skating scene), if always a bit on the showy and the oofy-goofy side of things. After a long and bloated first act, it displays a confidence and a certain blazing sense of "fun" in its middle act; but its in its third and final act that it really hits. Ultimately, despite a lot of wheel-spinning, the PJ film knows where it's going and builds expertly to a resounding sense of fateful poignancy. It is actually a decent call-and-response to George Lucas' Titanic-In-Space masterpiece, "Revenge Of The Sith" -- both pictures were, after all, released the same year. Aesthetically, perhaps it is closer to JJ Abrams' smash-and-grab approach, but there's a mightier sense of tragedy and waste in KK and ROTS. Yet, in all three, you sense the delight of a filmmaker indulging themselves, painting boldly, vividly, and taking no prisoners. But of the three, the one that most "needs" to exist is ROTS, while the others (as I think you're alluding to, Ingram) are simply protracted riffs on earlier outings whose focused, flinty brilliance cannot simply be cracked or thawed out and recaptured in (what is essentially) a rip-roaring "add on" product. In other words, the latter films (KK and TROS) are celebratory tracts: sexed-up odes to simpler times and their Japanese zen garden forebears. But it must also be said that TROS better retains -- in my opinion, anyway -- a more formulaic and minimalist air. I am saying, this is a good thing, something in TROS' favour, yo. It feels sharp, succinct, cut-down... honed. This is (paradoxically) in spite of (or because of) its rushed, impatient, almost-jittery feel. Star Wars with hypertension (or hyperspace skipping). How dare JJ think to skip with the compressor still on! Yet he does; and the results are, if sometimes a little finn, er, thin, and laboured, still astonishingly good. It's like an epic shot of B-12 (or BB-8 with little nitro jets). It's the Red Bull energy drink of the saga, delivered in a nice cup/can, and I'm okay with that. Pyrogenic has previously said (maybe not here, but he's said it) that "The Last Jedi", and I am unashamedly expanding this to the ST as a whole, is a series of interesting choices. If nothing else, the ST gives you a few extra pinballs to play with; it adds a few more letters to the Star Wars alphabet. Perhaps we don't yet know what to make of these extra symbols or sigils. But in time, we might. The passage of time might increase the coolness and viability of the sequels ten-fold. Who can really say? There's an unmarked point in the future, not yet navigable, where all nine of these movies are probably going to seem impossibly quaint; once, that is, people learn to dissolve and let go of their expectations, and see that more goodness was operating here than they were willing to believe. Maybe all this backlash is a dialogue that needed to happen. I certainly played my part. It's like Luke defying Yoda and Obi-Wan. He thinks he can save his friends, and he gets changed along the way, and maybe that was entirely necessary; but he still bucks their calm counsel. And then he sees his hastiness in retrospect. But now he's truly ready (or "as ready as he'll ever be") for the challenge ahead. I wonder how this analogy quite came to you, Ingram? You are the master of thoughtful, one-of-a-kind riffs and A/B comparisons. Was the jungle imagery in both potentially a trigger? I'm wondering. Because now you mention it, I get quite the "Skull Island" vibe in Rey's training sequence. Ajan Kloss is such a plush world. Endor meets Pandora. Well, okay: Endor meets... someplace. Heck, there's quite a "Jumanji" vibe to TROS, I'll admit. Ajan Kloss is unreservedly (again, in my opinion) the best jungle world in Star Wars. It's like those earlier episodes kept trying to go "full jungle", but they weren't quite able to get there. The base was just the base (Hoth was better shown). There were some nice trimmings, but this is the first time the imagery is truly delectable and flowing. Rey's Theme fits beautifully here. Although her theme sounds more innocent than the more fierce and slightly prickly demeanour Rey often exudes. Almost like a contradiction. But that sort of goes back to Anakin and his theme. That's actually what I love about the sequels (especially the JJ features) most of all. It's kind of the one thing that saved TFA for me all along: even with a "retro" agenda strongly in evidence, there's also this warm feeling of renewal. Forests really fit that vibe. And it's often one that JJ captures with remarkable earnestness. Despite the more simplistic environments (vis-a-vis the prequels), the forest motif of the sequels is something that really clicks for me. Star Wars with its bucolic/wholesome tone and a surprisingly understated sense of optimism back in place. There's always this sense that attacks on nature -- or, at least, on trees -- are obscene. The Trade Federation mows down the ancient trees on Naboo, Rey slices several trees when she angrily sets loose her (Anakin/Luke's) saber, trying to get the lead out of her pants (or the Kylo out of her... head... head, I said!). I'm also touched that people seemed to accept this conceit of the sequels (well, in the long-gone happy days of TFA, anyway). They could have rejected it as crummy, hackneyed, cliched, but they didn't. All this imagery, and these specific choices, apparently made sense to them: it landed, it resonated, despite the aggressive sci-fi trappings of the saga, or even the skewed idea that Star Wars is a "Western". That's so cool. But when people stopped loving it after TFA, I carried on loving it when JJ brought it back broad-brush in TROS. Man, the opening act... My head goes up into the clouds when I start thinking about Episode IX. It really works for me. Though I've yet to fully re-watch it start to end. Been going through nice quality HD clips that are now online. Clip bonanza! It's a cool movie. More people should dig it. Even the way it eagerly repurposes TFA (and some TLJ) footage in that "Force Vision" montage that Kylo shows to Rey, as she remains helplessly "stuck" to that tree, is super-clever and really satisfying. The sound design, the editing, the subtle beats! And how Kylo hears a guttural-sounding Luke in his head from TESB: "You killed him." Oh, man. It's like it was made for that moment all along. Kylo's little head-shake moment on Mustafar really makes that montage. Epic juxtaposition between helmet-haired Kylo and helmet-haired Luke. It's really great. TROS might break some rules, or bend things a tad, but it does so with conviction and purpose. And when it gets a little silly, it generally doesn't stray too far from reasonably solid plot mechanics.Yeah, yeah, yeah... It has MacGuffins galore. It's a banquet of MacGuffins. But fuck it. It needed to happen once. When isn't Star Wars paying homage to B-movie tropes in an obvious yet idealised way? In fact, I think TROS is a really sexy machine in general. It has this strange quality that gets me pining to understand and connect with it -- with all of Star Wars -- in a deeper way. I just love all the choices, all the touches. It melds together about as well as it should. Kylo's helmet getting repaired. See? Fine, smashed, repaired. Choose your elixir. A trilogy in four parts. Because the fact that TROS also feels like two movies smashed (or put back together) into one is cool. Yeah. I'm calling that one a fact. See how badass I am? Let's all be badass about these movies. Kylo as Dark Side rude boi, Rey as temperamental tennis champion. It works. A dyad in the Force. They read my posts. Now the universe is a slightly better place. Thanks for the sequels, George! |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 20, 2020 8:07:56 GMT
What drew the analogy, you ask? Impulse firstly. Much of the rampant spectacle King Kong has to offer shares with The Rise of Skywalker an alarm signaling content out of control, a nuclear reactor going into meltdown. Inflation devalues your currency, and Jackson tried to build an epic poem upon what was only ever really a 100-minute 'jungle picture' thriller with too few moving parts for anything more. It at once doesn't work and sorta does, so long as you keep rebooting your viewing experience from one act -- one protracted set-piece -- to the next. Abrams swung for en epic saga finale with one too many disparate parts, all of which carrying the torch for a Sequel Trilogy already suffering an identity crises, and from too much self-reflexivity. It at once doesn't work and sorta does, so long as you keep accessorizing nearly every act or storyline into isolated versions perhaps echoing a singular movie yet each going in different directions. King Kong is holistically stronger as a dramatic through line, yes, while The Rise of Skywalker in its fragmentation is a tad more entertaining from one nifty contraption to the next; "nifty" being the word evermore frequent in expressing my thoughts of that film at its limited best. Neither is lacking in vitality, just for me substance beneath their commonplace sentimentalism, composure beyond or outside their modern method-histrionics and a sense of formalism richer than the (often admittedly dazzling yet short-lived) hyper-stylizations of their respective filmmakers. When Pyro describes the aesthetic of both movies as overbearingly perfect, I might only contend "perfect" substituted for "absolute", which is still in and of itself something to be admired. And I might be slightly more forgiving of King Kong in this respect in that it's ultimately just the same basic story conceit being exercised by a different quack filmmaker for his own sake whereas The Rise of Skywalker assumes the responsibility of, well, something more—pushing forward an ongoing saga and therein upholding a certain standard of pop-myth classicalism over well-oiled chic.
But going back to the impetus of my analogy, how about this: both movies are wild animals. Feral. More so, the clearest correlation is that of the rogue and his ill-fated romance. Is it too silly to liken Kylo Ren as the Kong of his narrative? He's certainly moody and lonely, lashes out, thrashes about, beats his chest to the world and routinely extends in longing an open hand towards his girl. He violently kidnaps Rey, is puzzled by her, then softens to her, then pines for her, then protects her and finally sacrifices himself for her. Both Kong and Kylo are deep feeling romantics conversely stuck fast as monsters of circumstance (which is not to excuse Kylo of bad choices he made, but you get the idea). I am interested, Cryo, to hear your further (re)consideration of the film after an X-number of proper rewatches; say, a half-year from now, give or take. You and Pyro both. For that matter, anyone else here who feels more negatively towards the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 21, 2020 0:43:18 GMT
What drew the analogy, you ask? Impulse firstly. Much of the rampant spectacle King Kong has to offer shares with The Rise of Skywalker an alarm signaling content out of control, a nuclear reactor going into meltdown. Inflation devalues your currency, and Jackson tried to build an epic poem upon what was only ever really a 100-minute 'jungle picture' thriller with too few moving parts for anything more. It at once doesn't work and sorta does, so long as you keep rebooting your viewing experience from one act -- one protracted set-piece -- to the next. Abrams swung for en epic saga finale with one too many disparate parts, all of which carrying the torch for a Sequel Trilogy already suffering an identity crises, and from too much self-reflexivity. Ooh, I like that (see highlighted part): A more "Ingram"-y way of saying, "less is more"? All the feels there. Another form of inflation, oddly enough, gives you the universe. It's true. Ask Alan Guth; and then get Lawrence Krauss to explain it to you. You may have struck a peculiar kind of gold when you suggest one has to "keep rebooting" the experience, from one act (or moment) to the next. "The Matrix Reloaded". Interesting. Are the parts really so disparate if you can discern a unifying framework: an all-encompassing "force" that binds the galaxy together? I sense you still have Dark Rey on your brain. I can feel it. She will come to you, and then you will bring her before me. Does Rey just hate Leia? Is that it? Is JJ mocking the philistinical conceits of his own movie? "Don't be afraid of who you are" (said creepily and sort-of mockingly). Yeah. That dumb holographic Leia and her trite soundbites. Boo! The ghosts of the past just have to gum up the mechanism at some point. Isn't that the main theme of the movie? "The dead speak!" Dark Rey is one form of "dead": the underworld dead. Of course! The dead are constantly speaking. Even Threepio comes back to life and is his immediately babbling and excitable old self. What about dead memes, dead ideas, dead cargo. All capable of being restored to life. Even a shackled form of it. Wow. Kylo and Palpatine. Kylo and Luke: "You killed him." The dead speak. Duh! It's cool. I embrace this movie because it likes to jab you from the start. Maybe it's the vaping form of Star Wars, but that's okay. They needn't all be the same. We don't just want a uniform clone army. Rebellion is part of the tragicomic cosmogenic order. Yes. I sense that's what you really love: An avoidance of conceit, and the folly of chic hipsterism as poor substitute for "Mr. Old Reliable" -- the "pop-myth classicalism" that'll never let you down. Star Wars had an elegant composure (lofty, fun, grounded, regal) before Disney started diddling with it. Then it turned into this kitted-out pinball machine. Or a trendy smartphone app. Annoyingly streamlined with pointless "cool" flash. Not to mention a certain hesitancy at owning some of its gaucher stylings and influences (e.g., Frank Frazetta and slave-bikini Leia). You're not seeing this from The Mouse House: www.icanvas.com/canvas-print/wild-ride-frf16#1PC6-40x26Lucas attempted to make a totalising artwork that gives you everything and the kitchen sink (literally in the opening easter egg of ROTS' galvanic waterfall shot). Then something happened, and Star Wars is no longer the "Jedi" it should be. It became pared-down, filleted, flattened-out. And a false sense of the sexy and the tragic was pumped into it. Like a fake Palpatine. Or a fake Monet. I'm not surprised you feel distanced (intellectually, emotionally) from the new crop of films. They took out some of the "offensive" notes, censored bits of the composition, and dared to pass it off as equal/superior. However: I still love the idea of different filmmakers, writers, artisans, attempting to find something unique within the marble block that Lucas gave to them. That's why the Sequel Trilogy holds appeal to me. When Abrams came back, I think my initial response was one of incredulity, masking contempt. But, actually, it worked out pretty well, and now there's a pleasing duality about the ST. TFA and TROS lock together; and the tonal contrast with TLJ -- a really artistic shit-kicker of a picture -- is all kinds of wild. It actually had to happen this way. The final duel in the Lucas series is all about this mad fight, this whirling contradiction. Abrams and Johnson may not be Lucas (Yoda), but they are like a warring Anakin and Obi-Wan. Both highly competent and motivated in their own way. I also see a strong analogy with Qui-Gon almost getting to have two apprentices at once. In this analogy, Qui-Gon must be the PT, Obi-Wan has to be the OT, and lil' Anakin, a Lilliputian trickster/destroyer/reformer, must be the ST. Yes. I need to give this film a bit of time. Anyway... Neat. I actually made a "King Kong" reference pertaining to Kylo at the end of an earlier post in here: naberriefields.freeforums.net/post/470/threadAnd Rey... Fay W(Rey). There's really something to it. At least you understand the basic beats of Kylo's interest in Rey. I also get a "Phantom Of The Opera" vibe from Kylo. He may not be deformed, as such, but he wears a mask (or many masks), and Rey seems to insult him in his deepest being, fractures a fault-line, when she calls him a "monster". Relevant: Also relevant: Time Index: 07:06
Not only relevant, essential! |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Mar 21, 2020 4:54:30 GMT
What drew the analogy, you ask? Impulse firstly. Much of the rampant spectacle King Kong has to offer shares with The Rise of Skywalker an alarm signaling content out of control, a nuclear reactor going into meltdown. Inflation devalues your currency, and Jackson tried to build an epic poem upon what was only ever really a 100-minute 'jungle picture' thriller with too few moving parts for anything more. It at once doesn't work and sorta does, so long as you keep rebooting your viewing experience from one act -- one protracted set-piece -- to the next. Abrams swung for en epic saga finale with one too many disparate parts, all of which carrying the torch for a Sequel Trilogy already suffering an identity crises, and from too much self-reflexivity. Ooh, I like that (see highlighted part): A more "Ingram"-y way of saying, "less is more"? All the feels there. Another form of inflation, oddly enough, gives you the universe. It's true. Ask Alan Guth; and then get Lawrence Krauss to explain it to you. You may have struck a peculiar kind of gold when you suggest one has to "keep rebooting" the experience, from one act (or moment) to the next. "The Matrix Reloaded". Interesting. Are the parts really so disparate if you can discern a unifying framework: an all-encompassing "force" that binds the galaxy together? I sense you still have Dark Rey on your brain. I can feel it. She will come to you, and then you will bring her before me. Does Rey just hate Leia? Is that it? Is JJ mocking the philistinical conceits of his own movie? "Don't be afraid of who you are" (said creepily and sort-of mockingly). Yeah. That dumb holographic Leia and her trite soundbites. Boo! The ghosts of the past just have to gum up the mechanism at some point. Isn't that the main theme of the movie? "The dead speak!" Dark Rey is one form of "dead": the underworld dead. Of course! The dead are constantly speaking. Even Threepio comes back to life and is his immediately babbling and excitable old self. What about dead memes, dead ideas, dead cargo. All capable of being restored to life. Even a shackled form of it. Wow. Kylo and Palpatine. Kylo and Luke: "You killed him." The dead speak. Duh! It's cool. I embrace this movie because it likes to jab you from the start. Maybe it's the vaping form of Star Wars, but that's okay. They needn't all be the same. We don't just want a uniform clone army. Rebellion is part of the tragicomic cosmogenic order. Yes. I sense that's what you really love: An avoidance of conceit, and the folly of chic hipsterism as poor substitute for "Mr. Old Reliable" -- the "pop-myth classicalism" that'll never let you down. Star Wars had an elegant composure (lofty, fun, grounded, regal) before Disney started diddling with it. Then it turned into this kitted-out pinball machine. Or a trendy smartphone app. Annoyingly streamlined with pointless "cool" flash. Not to mention a certain hesitancy at owning some of its gaucher stylings and influences (e.g., Frank Frazetta and slave-bikini Leia). You're not seeing this from The Mouse House: www.icanvas.com/canvas-print/wild-ride-frf16#1PC6-40x26Lucas attempted to make a totalising artwork that gives you everything and the kitchen sink (literally in the opening easter egg of ROTS' galvanic waterfall shot). Then something happened, and Star Wars is no longer the "Jedi" it should be. It became pared-down, filleted, flattened-out. And a false sense of the sexy and the tragic was pumped into it. Like a fake Palpatine. Or a fake Monet. I'm not surprised you feel distanced (intellectually, emotionally) from the new crop of films. They took out some of the "offensive" notes, censored bits of the composition, and dared to pass it off as equal/superior. However: I still love the idea of different filmmakers, writers, artisans, attempting to find something unique within the marble block that Lucas gave to them. That's why the Sequel Trilogy holds appeal to me. And such is precisely why I don't hate it. I no longer engage much with The Force Awakens, granted, insofar that its quantities are so equally known-and-uninteresting to me that I only ever bother revisiting it in clips or perhaps with the first 20-minutes, give or take, whenever reentering the mindset for a ST venture overall. (short version: the movie is just too boring) But, yeah, on a level both choosy and inquisitive I remain committed to the latter two entries (even where I prefer one conclusively over the other) for being, at minimal, mutations curious and robust. They are pinball machines. And pinball machines can have about them their own glamour. What complicates things for me, though, is how I rank the two spinoffs above the ST while still delineating them to a category of appreciation almost entirely separate from Lucas' saga ...all the while still having to acknowledge that they are by default not quite as ambitious Homerically speaking as the ST ...all the while still enjoying them plainly for being live-action Star Wars. And don't get even me started on the, count 'em, 4th dimension of my fandom concerning the Ewok Adventure movies. There's a lot for me to square here. I have to work some shit out. |
|
rayo1
Ambassador
Posts: 65
|
Post by rayo1 on Mar 26, 2020 22:37:49 GMT
Hello all! I was hoping you guys could check out a community that I've founded recently: r/SweetenedFromCrait. This is an unofficial sister-subreddit to Saltier Than Crait, with the intention of accepting the grim reality that is...the Sequel Trilogy. Much like STC, SFC exists for those critical of the recent new Star Wars revival from Disney, but wish to have constructive and positive critique of it. Together, we brainstorm ideas as to how the franchise can move past the failures of the Sequel Trilogy in an organic and creative manner, and preferably without decanonizing them. All sequel fans and detractors are welcome to contribute. Good luck all, and may the Force be with us all! Now I know how that sounds at first. What with this recent trilogy being a betrayal of everything the original 6 films stood for. And while I do hate the films, I must address my own philosophy when it comes to this dilemma. The current stance faced by many fans of Star Wars is that the franchise is unsalvageable. To many of them, there is literally no way to fix the franchise going forward. When people who remain optimistic despite their shared hatred of the ST voice solutions to fix it, we're either downvoted or heavily scrutinized. I SAY DOWN WITH THE PESSIMISM! Let's offer fans a chance to be constructive! So therefore, this subreddit exists to focus on the same talking points as STC, but instead offers to be less tarnishing of those who worked on it; I wanted to create a place where we put forth a collection of our ideas on how to fix the franchise as it stands, as well as offer respectful and resourceful critique to those in charge of kicking the franchise in its nutsack. Scathing critique of the Sequel Trilogy films would be allowed, but at the same time, any suggestions to go forward with the franchise, be it through prequels like the High Republic or future installments set after the First Order-Resistance War, must be made in a civil and less salty manner. Essentially, STC can be our venting place for respectful discourse about how badly Disney fragged up and why their decisions led to this biblical failure, while the other STC can be more focused into restarting or building the franchise back up, be it through reboots, remakes, or sequels to recontextualize the DT. See, my philosophy is that I'm not in favor of ignoring mistakes, much less retconning them out of existance. They happen. Sometimes for years on end. But what is important to me is how it can be fixed. How can we build from it. Because there are people who like the trilogy, or are still excited for SW even if they didn't like the ST. I want to honor that. I don't like retconning stories out of existence; I know Dragonball did it with GT, but to compare Dragonball to Star Wars is folly because a lot of people as I said are fond of the new movies. Unlike GT, it's not something we can just wish away and decanonize without a massive outcry. Plus, JJ started this dumpster fire with the intent of making audiences forget about the prequels. He made TFA to pander to the PT-Hating crowd, and then used TROS to finish the job and ruin everything. Yet I sincerely believe there's a way to go from TROS, even when it has undone everything I ever cared about in this franchise. I don't want to be like Abrams and only cherry pick what he likes about the franchise. That is a coward's play and I refuse to be that kind of cowardly when writing stories. As a writer myself, I feel the need to take responsibility of the work, no matter how damaged, and make the best of it. I owe it to myself and to everyone to try and not repeat the mistakes JJ made when retconning the prequels. So come if you'd like, suggest your own fourth trilogy, be civil, and put together this think-tank of how to fix Star Wars...or for some of our sequel fans, how to bring it forward for a future trilogy without repeating any mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 4, 2020 0:12:05 GMT
|
|
The point I'm sputtering around is that they are both SENSATIONAL movies! Not like click-bait news articles. I mean like the Thesaurus means it: Shocking, Overdramatized, Gorgeous. They both have overbearingly perfect aesthetic bravado. But the context of this matters, I think, when compared to a crappy Rom-Com off the shelf. Or basically any movie out of this CASTE. The two films you're pitting against each other are technically masterpieces in the category of...what's it called? Realized Fantasy?
