****Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker - Official Thread****

Soldato
Joined
5 Jun 2005
Posts
20,772
Location
Southampton
How much says i can go a lifetime and resist? From 1960 to 2010 there is a huge amount of movies and only so much free time. Infact it is easy for you to say prequel was trash but did you see prequel in 4k HDR? No one has! And it will wipe the floor with the modern films in 4k HDR. And i can only watch so many films why from the dates above you can fill a entire video shop.


You may have the perception everyone is ranting and then sneaking off to the movies, Maybe they do but i have already buried it alongside anything with even a remote smell of PC or SJW. As soon as i smell that dung like aroma whatever franchise that risked it pays the price. Now imagine if you all did this like me? Guess what would never of happened to popular movies? Answers on a postcard :p

I would love to see the "sand gets everywhere" scene in 4k
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2006
Posts
5,750
Location
N Ireland
I would love to see the "sand gets everywhere" scene in 4k

Yea i said the guy was wood, But it is watchable and you know why i can watch it? Because the film was not cast with political quotas in mind. At least he somehow made it based on merit.

Ridley got her role because of feminism. Boyega got his role because they need a token black guy and to attract that black panther fanbase. And Tran got her role because there are a billion Chinese people who will be looking thier star wars fix. This is what globalism does to movies you have to divide up all the actors by race just to keep everyone buying the blurays.


It looks dumb, And it degrades the purpose of casting for the right role and once the painfully old original cast can no longer perform it will leave this sorry bunch as the future of star wars. And you will all see how B rate it will look.
 

Raz

Raz

Soldato
Joined
18 Sep 2003
Posts
5,184
Location
Nowhere
Yea i said the guy was wood, But it is watchable and you know why i can watch it? Because the film was not cast with political quotas in mind. At least he somehow made it based on merit.

Ridley got her role because of feminism. Boyega got his role because they need a token black guy and to attract that black panther fanbase. And Tran got her role because there are a billion Chinese people who will be looking thier star wars fix. This is what globalism does to movies you have to divide up all the actors by race just to keep everyone buying the blurays.


It looks dumb, And it degrades the purpose of casting for the right role and once the painfully old original cast can no longer perform it will leave this sorry bunch as the future of star wars. And you will all see how B rate it will look.

Doesn't that simply reflect - to an extent - that the world has moved on since the original films and we live in a more diverse society? How about Lando? Did Lucas and co just add a token black guy?

Whatever the case, I think it's less about the actors and more about the story. It's crap (sequel trilogy). My son loves star wars and would happily watch almost all the films again and again, but he's only seen episode 8 once, and just has no interest in it whatsoever. Episode 7 is fares slightly better.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2007
Posts
15,660
Location
Limbo
Sort of relevant here...

As far as we know, Lucasfilm and Disney have been developing two new trilogies of “Star Wars” films. One by “Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the other by “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” writer-director Rian Johnson.

Now a new piece in THR indicates that with Netflix having locked down Benioff and Weiss for a five-year, $250 million development deal recently

Where's that Nic Cage laughing gif.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/future-star-wars-film-scripting-talk/
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jun 2005
Posts
20,772
Location
Southampton
Yea i said the guy was wood, But it is watchable and you know why i can watch it? Because the film was not cast with political quotas in mind. At least he somehow made it based on merit.

Ridley got her role because of feminism. Boyega got his role because they need a token black guy and to attract that black panther fanbase. And Tran got her role because there are a billion Chinese people who will be looking thier star wars fix. This is what globalism does to movies you have to divide up all the actors by race just to keep everyone buying the blurays.


It looks dumb, And it degrades the purpose of casting for the right role and once the painfully old original cast can no longer perform it will leave this sorry bunch as the future of star wars. And you will all see how B rate it will look.


you could call it globalism ... or inclusion ?

would you prefer it to be like 'friends' 100% white cast and supporting actors ?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,242
Disney have managed to remove everything that made the originals great.

I don’t see how you can blame Disney, given most of the non Disney produced films have been average, then it’s fair to say if you want to blame anyone it should be Lucas Film...

Excellent:
Empire
Jedi


Average
A new hope
TPM
Clones
RotS


But given the standard of blockbuster movies an average one is still pretty entertaining and made to a good standard. It’s takes something pretty special to stand out these days. That’s the main issue, the original trilogy (particularly the last two) very much stood out in the market.These days not so much.

I don’t think the Original trilogy would generate the sort of cult following if the franchise was released today.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2006
Posts
5,750
Location
N Ireland
you could call it globalism ... or inclusion ?

would you prefer it to be like 'friends' 100% white cast and supporting actors ?

I never had an issue with Lando or anyone but the recent racial casting has triggered me. I think 100% white OG star wars would be a bit weird. But it would depend on the Universe chosen if someone who is white does sci fi this can happen. But it was white males who were doing the creating and acting and the truth is also in the pudding in that star wars became infamous as geek scifi. Now you have to argue that geek sci fi was not the realm of the white male nerd because it was that was and is the stereotypical gaming nerd in America and Europe.


So naturally if you build a franchise on the backs of these people, And then globalize the franchise and cast global it is going to alienate the people who were around in the 80's. People can say what they like Disney did this and i find it overpowering. I guess because Ireland does not have an equal quota though of Asians, Blacks and Irish that makes me a veiled racist.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,913
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
would you prefer it to be like 'friends' 100% white cast and supporting actors ?

I'd want it to be good so I couldn't care if they got the CGI cast of "The Lion King" to do it as long as it was a good film.

Also, as a massive "friends fan" - there were lots of non-white side characters all the way through, Ross's girlfriend Charlie being the main one, along with LBGTQ+ with Ross's wife, Transwoman as Chandlers Dad, Ageism with Monica & Tom Selleck etc etc. I was fairly forward thinking for the mid-90's - its 24 years old!!!
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
8,851
It’s 2019 most of us don’t care about if a woman is the lead, after all many of grew up thinking Ripley was brilliant. The problem is when they set out create a “strong, independent, woman” which seems to be code for a perfect, poe faced cipher that lacks weakness, failings or personality.

I’m not put off by a diverse range of races in films. Although they do tend to wooden stereotypes. The problem is shallow pointless characters, especially when they have no growth other than to provide dull background to the dull primary. I mean what role has a Finn really served, I imagined during the first film we’d see some real development but that seems to have died flat.
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2006
Posts
5,750
Location
N Ireland
It’s 2019 most of us don’t care about if a woman is the lead, after all many of grew up thinking Ripley was brilliant. The problem is when they set out create a “strong, independent, woman” which seems to be code for a perfect, poe faced cipher that lacks weakness, failings or personality.

I’m not put off by a diverse range of races in films. Although they do tend to wooden stereotypes. The problem is shallow pointless characters, especially when they have no growth other than to provide dull background to the dull primary. I mean what role has a Finn really served, I imagined during the first film we’d see some real development but that seems to have died flat.

Luke went through a lot of weak moments and immense doubt. But imagine if they went into the film with the opposite sterotype of feminist woman. Why luke just laughs at danger, He put Vader in an armlock then on his own blew up the death star smoking a cigar. It leaves no room for wiggle they are so arrogant they should have made female leads from the ground up and brought in people who can do films without politics.


I mean the director Rian Johnson was an open feminist and called for non white people to direct star wars. And you guys say he will direct the next one? What the hell has his comments got to do with a Universe which is already sort of moulded? Thats right they obviously want to remould things is just stinks to high heaven and all the wrong types of people are running the show. Good comment by the way.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,913
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
IMHO it's a weird situation where in older films (from a less "progressive" time) Lando is a good character 'who happens to be black' or Ripley is a good character 'who happens to be a woman' or Frank N Furter is a good character 'who happens to a transvestite' etc yet modern "progressive" film making seems to reversing that to base the most defining aspect of the character around 'what' they are rather than 'who' they are and the characters themselves and the stories they're trying to tell suffer for it.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Posts
9,315
IMHO it's a weird situation where in older films (from a less "progressive" time) Lando is a good character 'who happens to be black' or Ripley is a good character 'who happens to be a woman' or Frank N Furter is a good character 'who happens to a transvestite' etc yet modern "progressive" film making seems to reversing that to base the most defining aspect of the character around 'what' they are rather than 'who' they are and the characters themselves and the stories they're trying to tell suffer for it.

I'd agree with you. Nowadays there are too many films/tv shows that are all about agenda, virtue signalling and flashy visuals, with character and story left far behind. Alien's Ripley, for instance was not written as a woman. It was only when they cast Weaver in the role that Ripley "became" a female character.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,316
Location
Ireland
Wonder if the "Knights of Ren" will finally make an appearance? Surprised Johnson didn't kill them off in some kind of explosive diarrhea based accident in ep8.

Ed: seems like they will going by this pic with Abrams.

LkbOz2V.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom