All Things Star Wars

[r16]

so , have not seen Obi Wan and whatever . Didn't see Phantom Menace in theater , Attack of the Clones was a good movie but for the cringeworthy affair thing which somehow dulls the entire episode . Yes , you people have to understand 9/11 was not always limited to New York / Washington DC and the fourth or the fifth might have gone for the West Coast . For the devils who were creating a new fake religion or whatever . Ask the ClA if you can . Especially after the Jewess lead was announced . (Ugh, what did r16 just say now? Move along , move along , there is nothing to see here ...) Revenge of the Sith was a terrific movie ; you can jump out of the window now - if you are going to insist otherwise . Made even greater by the Yoda/Palpatine fight . Which is an absolutely nice thing . Because balance to the Force practically means Yoda killing Palpatine means Anakin winning . Becoming the top Sith at a time the Jedi are like down to one . And there are no guarantees that Yoda will do it . Because as his fingernails scratch the senatorial pod as the shock of discovery makes him weak enough to lose balance and fall , the Force has shown the future to the greatest ever Jedimaster ... That the fight will go on , by fresh blood .

the sequels indeed promise so much and deliver so little . Personally would have no issues with a little girl beating a galaxy wide empire practically on her own . If a green spacefrog like Yoda (who is nothing but some revamped Kermit the Muppet) did so much , why can't the glorious face ? (Rey Skywalker to you folks ...) But having a coherent story which would have been easily and totally accepted by practically half the world annuls the Disney formula . Where some girl defies laws of everything and does everything and old guys cry like babies in shame . If the sequels were what they could have been , the people would expect SENSE in the next Disney movie . And ugh , ı like have seen some really strong women and like am not afraid of them , unlike so many on this planet . Accordingly it is a team effort by Team Abrams , them two directors , to ruin Star Wars and fans . Every move is a calculated assault . Battle of Yavin and the 20 to 30 Rebel starfighters lost is stupid and unnecessary ... Only if Luke could talk as smugly as Poe . 25 000 years of galactic history and equally long combat experience is stupid because they couldn't simply imagine crashing some starship into stuff at hyperspace speeds . Spoiler alert , it happens in Episode 8 ONLY because of the extra powerful tractor beams . Which would have been easily reversed or anything if Snoke had not been cut in half in a coup and yeah , there is no need for initiative or anything in imperial managements , add Knights of Ren into the mix , to choose which parts of the "White" Supremacy gets destroyed by Admiral Partydress ! If still in doubt watch the scene in Rouge One where this Hammerhead bumps into Vaders' , while the shields are on ... That no supporting literature has said that ? Who cares , ı have made so many promises already anyhow ...

and in other franchises it apparently gets even better . Have not seen any of this newest Star Trek Discovery something but supposedly instead of using Dilithium , some guy supposedly eats some mushrooms and off they are across the galaxy . CFC might not accept the veracity of the claims that there is some conspiracy that hides behind the truly immense sufferings of "other" races , cultures and sexual preferences and whatnot to re-distribute power and whatever . Which might even involve creating a sister with a man's name for Spock because anyone foolish enough to be a fan of Staf Trek over decades should automatically accept whatever is delivered on screen . All supposedly because ı haven't seen anything of it .

 

[Buster's Uncle]

...Worth mentioning that the "Jewess lead" was pretty awesome in the part...

 

[Takhisis]

I need to go through this post…

It's because all the hardcore Star Wars fans (who are saying that the prequels were actually good) have watched all the supplementary material that fleshes out the story a lot better. In that greater context and all that extra character development, the quality of the prequels does improve a bit.. I can't deny that.. But I also think it's ridiculous that we're supposed to rely on supplementary materials to make a movie good.

OK, so, you need a bit of punctuation changes. You seem to be saying that unless I have watched all the supplementary material I am not a hardcore SW fan. I and a lot of other people who haven't watched such material are still intense.
Also, your post might be construed as stating that hardcore fans, by definition, think that the prequels are ‘actually good’. I disagree, sir. Keyboards at dawn.

Anyway, I agree that, as I've already stated myself, you cannot use a shareware model where you give people a film and keep half the story hidden and leave the parts shown as a mess. It failed with the Terminator Genisys film and it failed here.

The difference between the prequel trilogy and the sequel trilogy.. The prequel trilogy actually had a sort of for the most part logically consistent plot you could follow - a character's rise to evilness. The main problem w/ it was that the dialogue was horrible, the character development non-existent, and the whole thing basically felt like you were watching a historical documentary. There were some cool action scenes but overall they were not very good movies. So yeah, I can understand how a hardcore fan would enjoy these movies more, if the background for some of these characters and subplots was properly explored in supplementary material.. It's not a bad story! It was just not written or imagined/filmed very well.. Supplementary materials make the whole setting richer in context and you are actually able to pull out more meaning out of it all, due to the extra information you've pulled out of the cartoons. This is NOT how movies should be judged (i.e. they should be judged on their own merits), but I can understand why fans would like the PT more with that extra content that now exists. It was a good story, it just was told upside-down with jam in your ears. With extra material helping build context for the story, it makes the prequel trilogy more enjoyable as a result.

The sequel trilogy on the other hand is an incoherent mess. There's no logical path from the beginning of episode 7 to the end of episode 9. PT has "A rise of a character to evilness". What's the ST's tagline? What is the whole trilogy about? It looks like they winged it from start to finish, focusing on flashy action scenes that they thought would look cool.. and not really focusing on the overall story. Was there even one? There were absolutely zero hints of Palpatine being the star of the whole trilogy in the first 2 movies.. then he came out of nowhere at the beginning of ep 9 in the most pathetic way. I could go on and on.

I won't be surprised if Disney release all sorts of supplementary material that fleshes out these 3 movies.. and wouldn't be surprised if people in 20 years say "they were actually good".. but IMO there is a big difference between the prequel trilogy and the sequel trilogy. Both contain bad movies, but the PT at least has a coherent story you can sort of follow. The ST is a whole bunch of flashy filler until we run into Palpatine at the end of ep 9.. i.e. A whole bunch of filler + an ending that makes you groan and roll your eyes. Not an ideal combo

If you don't know how to make a trilogy.. make standalone movies instead.. Solo & Rogue One were pretty good.

As for "Why don't Jedi fly through space without spaceships?", it's probably because it takes a lot of effort.. they would be limited to whatever solar system they're in (no hyperdrive).. if somebody attacks them they are a lot more vulnerable as well. IMO it's the same reason why they carry around laser swords. You could argue that a Jedi knight wouldn't even need a weapon..

And yes, I further agree –– that the difference is that the prequel trilogy is a good –if standard– basic story, just badly told, while the Disney sequels are just a bunch of ideas strung together without much coherence, plot, or even the same hand behind them.
Anakin falls to darkness because his love is twisted into fear and manipulated into hate, but Rey… what? And suddenly Palpatine shows up? And Snoke was pointless? And you build a rapport with any character which will immediately be written off or, in Rogue One, just kill the entire cast? What is Babu Frik but a sort of Ewok stand-in for a minute of cutesiness and where do half the characters fit in? Why are they even there?

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Jewess lead
...
choose which parts of the "White" Supremacy gets destroyed by Admiral Partydress
...
CFC might not accept the veracity of the claims that there is some conspiracy that hides behind the truly immense sufferings of "other" races , cultures and sexual preferences and whatnot to re-distribute power and whatever

If you have something to say, just say it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I didn't know that Portman was jewish.
I am not sure if she has much of a career left, or if the star wars role was a good move (now she is in a far more ridiculous superhero movie).

Then again I could only name two films where she had a major role, that were important/hits, and one of those is ancient (Leon).

 

[Kyriakos]

If emperor Palpatine can force raise tens of imperial Destroyers from under the waves (or something like that), why did he ever need a noob like Vader who clearly can't even handle two small freighters?

 

[Synobun]

Looks better than expected, though I notice a distinct lack of aliens. Maybe this won't be a major disappointment like Obi-Wan was.

 

[Kyriakos]

Would it be still recognizable as Star Wars if there wasn't a conspicuous shot of a Destroyer in the first seconds?
It does have a couple of known actors, but I don't see what gap in the storyline this is supposed to be filling.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Would it be still recognizable as Star Wars if there wasn't a conspicuous shot of a Destroyer in the first seconds?
It does have a couple of known actors, but I don't see what gap in the storyline this is supposed to be filling.

I haven't watched this new trailer, but from the first trailer, it looked to me like Andor is about the formation of the Rebel Alliance. Sometime after Obi-Wan and before Rogue One. In the first Andor trailer, it looked like Mon Mothma is going to be a main character.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

One second of Anton Lesser gets me irrationally hype.

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

I just started watching Light & Magic and it is off to a good start. A lot of this ground has been covered over the years in things like Empire of Dreams and From Star Wars to Jedi, but it's nice to learn more of the story from the people who were there. There's a good deal of not just photos but also film which brings the story vividly to life. There's also a real focus on the human side of the story, where we get a background on the effects artists themselves for a change. I wasn't surprised to see that Lawrence Kasden directed this and conducted the interviews. I'm sure by the final episode it'll degenerate into glorious propaganda for our Mouse and Savior but so far so good.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I heard on a podcast that Andor will not be using the fancy-shmancy new digital tech that Boba Fett and Obi-Wan used, and everyone seemed to be celebrating the fact. It seemed like they felt the new tech was part of the reason for those shows' failures. I didn't even know those shows were using something new, but neither of them could hold my attention beyond a couple of episodes. It's hard to say there was something about the visuals that put me off - I just found both of them kinda boring - but maybe the new tech crimped their style somehow.

The visuals in the Andor trailers were one of the things that caught my attention. I couldn't have told you what it was, but maybe going 'old school' is the difference. My two favorite action films of this year - Top Gun: Maverick and Prey - both used a ton of practical effects, on-location filming, stuntwork, props, and costuming, and even though it's just two movies, I feel like it's not a coincidence. (Doctor Strange certainly used a ton of CGI; I'm not sure where the practical SFX ended and the CGI began in The Batman, but I feel like there was a mix in that movie.) Supposedly Maverick went so far as to put the actors in real cockpits of real fighter-planes, getting shoved around by real G-forces. In an interview, Amber Midthunder noted with (what I thought sounded like) palpable relief that the Predator was a stuntman in a suit, and she "didn't have to do scenes with a tennis-ball on a stick."

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but it really seems like practical SFX are still superior to CGI, even when the CGI starts to become really amazing, and even in sci-fi and fantasy stories, which would seem to naturally benefit the most from CGI. Ironically, some of the best uses of CGI might be in the places where it goes unnoticed: Period-pieces that use it to enhance a real environment around the actors (e.g. digitally remove power-lines*; add vintage cars to the background of street scenes; add or remove city landmarks that did or didn't used to exist). Also CGI can be used to digitally remove elements of practical effects, such as wires and springboards. In the famous "hallway fight" in season 1 of Daredevil, CGI was used to delete the track on the ceiling that the camera was hanging from; everything else was real (I'm assuming the microwave oven was a cardboard mockup and not a real microwave ). John Krasinski used CGI to make the opening scene of A Quiet Place II appear to be all one shot.

So, anyway, that's one reason I'm looking forward to Andor, even though I could barely keep my eyes open during Boba Fett and Obi-Wan. That, and I'm a sucker, I guess.


* On thing I remember about Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) was that the production actually arranged to remove rooftop antennas and whatnot from across the city of Cairo while they were filming there, because the movie's set in 1936, then put them back when they were done. It sounds like a ridiculous undertaking, but I suppose by that point in their careers, Spielberg & Lucas could move mountains.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but it really seems like practical SFX are still superior to CGI, even when the CGI starts to become really amazing, and even in sci-fi and fantasy stories, which would seem to naturally benefit the most from CGI.

Reject crunch; return to union.

The article isn't specifically related to what you've said, but it mentions that the 'virtual set' approach pioneered by The Mandalorian is a godsend to VFX teams in helping them with consistency. It's pretty perverse that despite taking greater and greater shares of a film's production, the CGI department is yet treated as the bottom rung of the process. As several insiders say, wherever the effects slip up is where the studio either didn't want to pay up, or ordered last-minute changes.

 

[JohannaK]

I mean SFX are always preferrable because they are, you know, REAL. CGI is there for what cannot feasibly be done, but it also has become a crutch where big studios just defer everything to them and it shows, because when there is a mistake, and they happen because these people are often under crunch conditions to meet release deadlines, it just ruins things.

 

[Synobun]

The new tech is great, but those using it have treated it like a replacement and not a supplement. More practical effects force directors and staging crews to find a respectable blend rather than submitting a nebulous work order to an independent studio to "do the thing."

They desperately need a director and crew that grew up with this kind of groundbreaking tech (not the tech specifically, of course, because it's new, but the fundamentals of it) and specifically learned how to utilize it.

Also, less tampering from executives. All these nightmare shows that have ended up being disappointing usually all have at least one tale of Kathleen Kennedy wreaking havoc on the creative team because of shareholders or some arbitrary focus group. Right off the top of my head, Obi-Wan had its team canned and then the story rewritten to make it "less dark." What a surprise that the dark parts of the show were the only things worth seeing, and all the lighthearted stuff was ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Takhisis]

One second of Anton Lesser gets me irrationally hype.

I know him from Endeavour, he's great!

 

[EgonSpengler]

Rogue One is going to be re-released in theaters on August 26 as part of the promotion for Andor.

 

[tjs282]

Rogue One is going to be re-released in theaters on August 26 as part of the promotion for Andor.

While I enjoyed Rogue One very much more than Eps.VII-IX, this seems kind of a weird way to promote the series.

"Here's this cool new character-set and settings — but oh, by the way

Spoiler :

the lead is gunna die soon"

 

[EgonSpengler]

While I enjoyed Rogue One very much more than Eps.VII-IX, this seems kind of a weird way to promote the series.

"Here's this cool new character-set and settings — but oh, by the way

Spoiler :

the lead is gunna die soon"

It makes some sense to me, given that Cassian Andor was maybe the least-memorable character in the whole movie. When they announced Andor, I thought it was probably the weirdest/worst character to pin a series on, but for the fact that he's the only one who came into Rogue One already a part of the Rebel Alliance. If they wanted to make a series about the founding of the Rebel Alliance, and wanted an existing character to be the face of it, there aren't a lot of choices. Most of Star Wars has been about various people getting drawn into the rebellion for the first time. You've got Leia, Andor, and Mon Mothma. I can see the allure of casting a young Leia*, but I think the pitfalls there are enormous and the juice may not be worth the squeeze. Mon Mothma appears to be a big part of Andor, which I like, and I suppose she's not really any more of a draw for the casual viewer than Cassian Andor is, so maybe that was a toss-up.

There aren't a lot of levers to pull to promote this series. It's Star Wars, of course, that's its biggest selling point. If this was a new IP, or a dramatization about a historical rebellion, I doubt it would do much business. Diego Luna and Genevieve O'Reilly are both accomplished actors, but I don't think either one is a star, unless Luna has some big following I'm unaware of (which is totally possible). They've put Stellan Skarsgaard and Forest Whitaker in the trailers, because they're well-known 'character actors', even though they're not stars. Gives the impression of having a deep cast.

So I think re-releasing Rogue One is smart, from a promotional perspective. I think it was also the best-received Star Wars film lately, and there are probably people who didn't see it in theaters the first time, but saw it or heard about it later. Looking now, I'm surprised to see how well it did in theaters: $532m, ahead of Finding Dory and Captain America: Civil War. I wouldn't have guessed it did better box office than Civil War. That's certainly the power of the Star Wars franchise. If Rogue One had just been a straight remake of The Dirty Dozen, I doubt it would have done as well.


* Very young. It's almost hard to believe now, but some may not realize that Carrie Fisher was 19 years old in Star Wars. Fisher was the same age in Star Wars as Iman Vellani was in Ms. Marvel.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

So, if you read the transcript to Sunday's Darths & Droids, you'll find a link to a little Easter egg...