1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest, we are running a Photoshop competition with a 32" monitor as the first prize - See here for details.

Star Wars VIII : The Last Jedi [WARNING: SPOILERS]

Discussion in 'Music, Box Office, TV & Books' started by opstrat, Jan 23, 2017.

  1. uncle_rufus

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 14, 2011

    Posts: 3,525

    Have you guys seen the belated media "re-write" of the prequels? Here's the first one (you can find the others if you want)... I really like it as his suggestions make much better use of Maul by keeping him as the antagonist into the later films of the trilogy

     
  2. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland


    Yeah Lucas went totally mental for cg in the prequels, there was some practical stuff but as they got to part 2 and 3 practical things were at a minimum. He seemed to be banking on cg being as big of a hit as the visual effects were in the original movies, though it just backfired on him.
     
  3. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland


    Darth Maul was perhaps the biggest wet fart in the entire prequel series. He was hyped up as being Vader 2.0 by just about everyone yet didn't even survive the first movie, and had incredibly limited screen time to say the least. I know they basically rewrote things so he survived ep 1 and made a holographics appearance in Solo but unless he shows up in episode 9 it seems like a waste of a character that could have been so much more.
     
  4. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 5,702

    Yeah, until all the Phasma hype. I believe she got around three minutes over two films. Another totally wasted character, all while shouting "girl powa". She could have been so much more.
     
  5. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland


    Will likely make an appearance in the next movie for another brief stint for 30 seconds or so. I'm guessing since her armour seems to be the only armour that can take blaster hits she more than likely survived her plummet.
     
  6. Kyo

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 11, 2003

    Posts: 4,318

    May the force stop Ryan Jonson from having anything to do with Star Wars ever again :D
     
  7. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,907

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Unfortunately no. "On November 9, 2017, it was announced that Johnson was writing a new trilogy of Star Wars films, separate from the main story arc of previous films in the franchise, and would direct the first instalment of his trilogy". Three more canisters of petrol, three more match strikes...
     
  8. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland

    Latest word is that has all been canned.
     
  9. Grimley

    Soldato

    Joined: Nov 18, 2007

    Posts: 5,869

    Location: Deepest Darkest Essex!!

    /\/\/\/\ that doesn't surprise me. I think Disney got its fingers burned with Solo & with the haters gonna hate sharpened their knives for Rian Johnson (I'm one of them cos Ep8 is quite easily the worst film I've seen this century). They are sitting tight & waiting to see if JJ can rescue the SW franchise with Ep9.
     
  10. lokiss

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 14, 2008

    Posts: 2,721

    Location: Nottingham

    A new hope...
     
  11. datalol-jack

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 1, 2010

    Posts: 6,142

    He went mental because he was never really happy with how he had to shoe-string the original trilogy. The tech available was always out of step with his vision. As you say, the result was the inverse of his mental map for success.
     
  12. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 5,702

    Interesting video explaining why that should be.



    Basically clearing the decks of Kathleen Kennedy's projects so her replacement doesn't get lumbered with them when she gets fired. They couldn't replace her at the time due to not wanting to upset Disney's share price during the Fox acquisition.
     
  13. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 5,610

    I think also when the prequels were made the technology for all green scree CGI movies had only just reached it's maturity we'd had Sky Captain but little else. I think Lucas was visionary in it's use but his was the harsh lesson that many subsequent directors have learnt from. I think in regards the prequels it was more overreach of a new technology than anything else. Still doesn't explain the dumb plot.
     
  14. uncle_rufus

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 14, 2011

    Posts: 3,525

    The Plinkett reviews talk about this stuff a lot and are pretty much spot on... personally I don't think the CGI was the biggest problem I think it was that George became (not necessarily on purpose) this unapproachable dictator like figure that nobody involved in the production would be willing to criticise or make suggestions to for the sake of the movies (that or they all wanted full responsibility for the success/failure to be on him alone)
     
  15. Grandmaster Fap!

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jan 10, 2004

    Posts: 9,073

    Location: T'Northwest

    Its mind bending to think that StarWars, the IP that was a license to print money has become toxic, we can talk about the younger generation getting in to it but is that really true? I think there are a hell of a lot of 40 somethings that still love SW and are the main cash flow for the films, and after these last two train wrecks have Disney realised they have basically alienated the real money: the old fans?
     
  16. Spit

    Soldato

    Joined: Nov 8, 2003

    Posts: 6,076

    Location: Yorkshire

    It’s crazy we have more bad Star Wars films than good ones :mad:
     
  17. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland

    If Disney weren't intent in killing off the old cast asap so they could have their chosen players in the limelight then we may have had better movies. Killing off arguably the 2 biggest names in their first 2 movies was an insanely retarded move, though to be fair it was surprising that they got Ford to come back for a movie so that may well have been part of his contract.
     
  18. b0rn2sk8

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 3,771

    To flip that on its head, why are you so intent with keeping the old characters alive?

    Lets be realistic, Fisher, Hamill and Ford are not the future of the franchise, Fisher passing away is case and point. Harrison Ford is what 76 and crashed his plane just after they finished filming the Force Awakens, it could have just have easily been him...

    I have absolutely zero issues with them killing off Han and Luke, I fully expect we will see more on top of Leia killed off or written out in the next film (R2D2, C3PO, Chewbacca, Lando etc.).
     
  19. Gerard

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,270

    Location: Ireland


    They obviously have to be "replaced" at some point but having 1 go per movie as it is currently just seems to be Disney wanting to be rid of them as soon as they can. There are other options to entirely killing characters off and potentially writing yourself into a corner in a future movie, leaving options open isn't a bad thing.
     
  20. b0rn2sk8

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 9, 2003

    Posts: 3,771

    One going per movie as apposed to getting rid of them all at once in 3 movies time? I don't get it...

    It's also pretty obvious that although Luke is 'dead' the character is still going to have a significant part in the next film.

    Actors are people at the end of the day and you are not going to get someone like Harrison Ford turning up for a few seconds in a film to keep the character going every 2 years regardless of how much you pay him.