Saga Mega thread: Sequels and spinoff films and the overall saga

I don't know if there is such a thing as clever trolling, but yeah I got that impression. I don't know how feminist Kennedy is and I don't think it is relevant to the outcome of the movie.

 

I think it's perfectly acceptable for any creative endeavor. Not sure about "moral obligation" when we don't know the details of the situation, though.

 

ezekiel22x

When I say moral obligation, I mean in terms of doing what is right for the franchise. It's their responsibility to appease the fans, which is where most creative differences stem from (if you read into the Marquand/Kershner/Kurtz/Lucas differences, you'll see that they had different ideas on the right direction to steer the series)z

 

Fair enough. I would think of that as a business obligation rather than a moral one. "Morals" tend to indicate personal standards of ethics, questions of right and wrong, etc.

 

Good point, I guess even pleasing fans stems from the One Ring in the form of green paper.

 

After Episode 9, if the next Star Wars was a totally new story, new planets, new characters, would this hurt the series?

 

I could absolutely see Episodes I-IX being the complete Skywalker Saga and Episode X marking the beginning of a new saga that still belongs to the series.
A series of sagas!

 

Interesting

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2017/06/what-our-sources-are-saying-about-the-star-wars-han-solo-shakeup

 

Han Solo should be a comedic movie imo. Its about a selfish gunslingin', western theivin bastard. A lot of pulp and cheese is what I should expect.

But I'm not sure what is even the entire theme here or what the core movie is all about. It's no surprise really...I knew from that start that these guys wouldn't 100% stay well within Lucasfilm.

Could care less...It either comes out well or not..

 

I'd say Han is more about range. From dry skepticism to a more outright bodily humor that can be boisterous and zany. And vests, of course. I'd be disappointed if he's mostly just a cynical jerk in the spinoff.

 

One thing's for sure, we'll get more of a George Lucas style film with Howard at the helm rather than L&M. Obviously he has a very long history with Lucas & LFL. Also, I wonder what Richard Dreyfuss is referring to with this tweet:

"Finally, the world will get to see the twist George told us he always wanted to tell during Grafitti!"

 

About Howard and TPM.

 

Some more info on that: http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-1-ron-howard

 

The last Howard film I saw as Rush. I enjoyed it very much as I am a formula one fan. The script for that movie fell short of really doing justice to the dramatic real life story it nevertheless followed quite faithfully.

Depending on the script, I anticipate no problems with Howard helming the Solo movie.

As for humour. For me, I see potential in young Han and Lando for something like Harry Lime, Captain Kidd, The Bandit, Robin Hood etc all rolled into one.

 

If only the article didn't start with the same old

I always saw Han Solo as a comedic character, less than droids in terms of extreme silliness but still comedic nonetheless. I always saw him as the cynical guy who acts like only money matters but who still has a heart beyond the tough guy facade and morals (not shooting first in the SE) and his friendship with Chewie.

 

Yeah, that reads more as lazy Lucas bashing than an actual examination of what a Howard-helmed TPM might've looked like. At least I know not to waste my time with that site anymore.

 

He's certainly capable of comedic moments, usually based around cynicism & sarcasm though. There also should be a distinction between him before & after the Battle of Yavin. From that moment he decided to place a greater cause above his own interests. Prior to that he should be more of a hard-nosed mercenary type. IMO anyway.

 

What is it with these wannabe cool websites? Alright, your idea of "hip" is to bash TPM, so you make a point of doing so just to make sure that you can stand within twenty feet of your imaginary in-crowd for yet another week. Welcome to the year 2000.

On topic, yeah, Han has always been comedic in his way and I expect him to be so in this movie, too. Lord and Miller probably made him a bit too "Star-Lordy" for LFL's taste, though.

 

Lots of talk about how Han Solo should be. Funny, but not that type of funny.

But this is YOUNG Han Solo. This is Han pre-Rebellion involvement. Not only did Han not have much growth from RotJ to TFA, he regressed in some aspects. So do we really want the character of Han Solo to show almost no growth from youth to death? That would be tragic for a character as important as Han.

Seeing a more free wheeling Han that possibly has a big enough event in the movie to refine him makes the movie set in a milestone moment of Han's life. Maybe he's been playing Hutts against each other for his benefit. Maybe he's friendly, but more selfish than pre-ANH (he was pretty selfish then). He could be the lovable loser. The first one you invite to your party, but the last one you'd recommend to your boss. Maybe the bounty on his head is what makes him buckle down and grow up.

And it would still match perfectly with wise cracking Han of the OT.

I loved Rogue One. But the movie we saw is not "proof" that the changes made it better. The biggest complaint the first few weeks it was released was how disjointed the beginning was and how it finally found its pacing on Scarif. I disagree with that, but that would mean the complaint is about the changes made with the reshoots/re-edit. Another complaint was character depth. Well, part of the changes was also adding more and sometimes entire new paths for the many characters, obviously taking away from screen time of the main characters (Jyn, Cassian, Krennic). So there is a chance the pre-reshoot dust up cut was actually even better. We will probably never know. But you can't use theatrical release Rogue One as proof these blow ups are making the movies better. That's also disrespectful to Gareth. And perhaps part of the reason L&M were more resistant to letting history repeat itself. Also, what about the integrity of their vision. That's a big part of what a director does.

As far as the reason finger pointing has gone to Kathleen Kennedy. Because she's the one in charge?

 

We haven't seen the footage though. Kasdan & Kennedy have. Clearly they think the tone & characterization is wrong, even for a young version of the character.

 

I love Jar Jar and still find him as funny as the first time I saw the movie. The hatred towards anything too cute or childish and this character in particular still puzzle me to this day. It did calm down a little in the recent years though.