ST Diversity in the Sequel Trilogy (see warning on page 11)

Better yet, not only a diverse list, but a quality list.

 

Ha yeah for all the people that like to say, "jUsT gO wItH tHe BeSt OpTiOnS" Well there you have it

 

It would be interesting to see what small groups of board members could come up with if they took on the simulated role of the LFL Story Group responsible for the setting in place the bones of the trilogy based on the ending of TFA through to IX.

As the LFSG, they would have to power to jettison saber toss, creature milking, low speed space chase, force skyping, marooned Luke, etc and create the long term arcs for both the legacy and new heroes/villains (casting as you see fit). World building; making Achto more mystical perhaps or Canto Bight less of a pit stop, include original worlds whatever.

 

The LFSG are fans though. Each group would come up with something different which would subsequently be unsatisfactory to other fans. The story group also don't have control over stuff like arcs, and what scenes to get rid of etc.

 

And that was part of the problem. The circle story method, especially in the hands of someone as radical as RJ created a pretty disjointed product. Fans or not, a group of professionals charged with coming up with a consistent arc for the trilogy would be better than each director going it alone. This may have had the effect of narrowing JJ's focus in leaving so many threads for Rian, and Rian's focus in developing numerous side plots and creating what LK predicted would be 'some weird thing'. It may also have also led to eliminating the abrupt change in personalities the heroes had in the short span of time between the TFA and TLJ.

 

It probably would have even good for JJ, LK or RJ to create a blueprint, but not the story group.

 

That would make it less of a story circle and give it much higher potential for continuity, but you probably want people like Pablo who is very knowledgeable about the universe involved so that weird non-star wars like things are at least discussed before they are green lit.

 

That's their job at the moment, and I feel like they've done it fairly well. But they don't tell the story makers how to world build or what scenes to include, etc. Ultimately there should be a unified vision, but it should be from one individual (or a couple), and from the highest quality of storyteller. While the storygroup are storytellers in their own right, aren't in the same league as people like RJ and JJ (at least in terms of film storytelling).

 

We definitely disagree with the quality of some some of the writing done so far, but yes, screenwriters write, however some boundaries should have been in place because this world, built over 30 years by GL isn't a blank canvas to do strange things unchecked. Apparently the story group had no influence and the screenwriters didn't collaborate anywhere near enough. Regardless of what it's called, a group of people higly knowledgeable with this universe who can speak to JJ or RJ about concerns to the saga as a whole would have been a very good thing.

 

That is what they do. Where have these new films broken any established boundaries?

 

I'm not aware of any boundaries established for the ST. And as far as collaboration, there's definitely something wrong when the second director/writer is telling Oscar Isaac (who spent x months portraying Poe in TFA), he's portraying his character wrong.

I just noticed this was posted in the wrong thread. The whole convo was supposed to posted in the st critic thread.

 

That’s my nightmare. It’s exactly the kind of odd, slightly grotesque things, like the space cow, set on a familiar but still alien setting, that give Star Wars its flavor. Honestly, I think Ahch-to would have been a much lesser setting without those creatures, and Luke’s connection to the planet less grounded. Thank God LFL doesn’t employ the SG as a means of stripping out the world’s color and personality.

 

You think that alien resembled a cow?

 

Someone needed to be a hands on executive producer and impose a vision. Nobody's doing that, apparently. The story group isn't going to tell the boss's fave directors that they're doing it wrong. That's the boss's job. You need someone like the Marvel guy or a TV style showrunner - someone whose word is law for creative things. Kennedy and Iger signing off on things because it makes sense from a business perspective or they got feels from an idea (Iger loving Han being named by the Imperials because he doesn't have any "people") isn't the same as someone saying "the trilogy needs to accomplish these things."

I'd put them all in one group but we're not supposed to be unkind to the "creators" so...

 

@godisawesome I've moved the discussion to the ST criticism thread.

 

I didn't reply to this earlier, but I wasn't trying to say their personalities are the same. I was instead zeroing in on the ways in which they have similar personalities, and I think that's intentional because the filmmakers wanted their "Han Solo" like characters, which could even be more of a gestalt of Han/smuggler/scoundrel-type (though really Finn is not scoundrel-like IMO - to borrow your adjective, he is too noble to be a scoundrel). I think I pretty much agree with your contrasting between Han and Finn, though I'd say Finn actually does have a huge potential for leadership (or has all the qualities), but he doesn't I suppose automatically assert himself as leader as frequently as Han does. Han automatically defaults to being in charge a lot, which was how the back-and-forth relationship with Leia began in the first place (a conflict between two people who think they should be in charge).

Anyway, my point about Finn was that I think the character was slurred from this original concept of the Han/smuggler/rogue character type to a defecting stormtrooper, and the end character retains many qualities of the initial concept. It's done in a way in which I try to buy the Finn background story, but I suppose the snag is that it's not dark enough in a lot of ways, and Finn in a lot of ways sometimes doesn't seem like someone who was put through the FO brainwashing ringer. I just feel there was more opportunity for depth there. But like I probably said, I also know that he is supposed to be a character who kind of never fit in with the FO and so he developed the ability to act as though he's with them. He went through the motions, but didn't ever become "one of them." And maybe there's nothing wrong with that kind of character set up as expressed even in TFA.

 

Who they needed was George Lucas.

 

I thought TLJ tried too hard to accommodate TFA, to be honest. So I can't help but feel I want less of an overarching/ restrictive vision, than more of one. That said, a much longer-term coherent vision, like that the Game of Thrones showrunners enjoyed from the beginning, could be very helpful. If it's not used to squash creativity among directors, that is.

 

What I mean is that the TFA style seemed to overwhelm Rian’s very distinct style and vision as a director. I was looking forward to a very Rian Johnson film. And instead I got what I describe as a “JJ film with the rug pulled out from under it.”

 

Ha. I like your first line. The truth is that unlike most fans (and critics here) I mostly judge films by their cinematic qualities, so I place much greater emphasis on visual film-making style (is it verite vs. pulpy, subtle vs. bombastic, etc), and narrative tone (emphasis on realism or not), and a little less on characterization (though that's obviously quite important to me as well). And having enjoyed the style of RJ's Brick and Looper, I hoped to see something that felt like that, but in the GFFA. That could've been ground-breakingly cool, and on the cinematic level of Villeneuve's Blade Runner sequel. Instead, the film looked and felt like an Abrams joint, but with decidedly more angst, less tonal consistency and an awkward structure. It was like taking a very simple Abrams film and making it...less fun, more confusing and somehow, less subtle, in its signposting of themes and messages by characters. To me, that was the greatest issue with TLJ. So much potential in a director like RJ, but he was too tied to the JJ interpretation of Star Wars. And so when trying to be himself, it felt awkward and out of place, rather than coherent. So IMO, a more fully Johnson-esque TLJ would have been a much better film.

Doesn't mean an overarching plan wouldn't improve things. It certainly could. But I'd want it to be a broad plan that doesn't interfere with a director's creativity.