Movies: Star Wars: Episode VIII THE LAST JEDI (NO SPOILERS - Use the other thread for spoilers)
- Thread starter Jumptheshark
- Start date
Oh this is gonna induce some rage.
Personally I'm interested to see how he handles a project that isn't designed to reinvigorate interest in Star Wars by delving into the familiar. I gave him a pass on some of the more derivative elements of TFA because I felt it was smart to be safe and I enjoyed the film. I wouldn't be so forgiving if Abrams made another nostalgia passion project.
Also wasn't too hard to see this coming. Abrams immediately expressed regret that he couldn't direct episode 8. And like BonMorrison said, it's better than the potential turd that Trevorrow might have generated.
Personally I'm interested to see how he handles a project that isn't designed to reinvigorate interest in Star Wars by delving into the familiar. I gave him a pass on some of the more derivative elements of TFA because I felt it was smart to be safe and I enjoyed the film. I wouldn't be so forgiving if Abrams made another nostalgia passion project.
Also wasn't too hard to see this coming. Abrams immediately expressed regret that he couldn't direct episode 8. And like BonMorrison said, it's better than the potential turd that Trevorrow might have generated.
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 20,963
- 17,845
Terrible news.
The best Abrams can do is mediocre.
Expect Episode 9 to be a completely derivitive fan service **** filled with calls backs to the OT.
His movies have a strange way of being shallow where they're passable on the first viewing and fall apart after that.
The best Abrams can do is mediocre.
Expect Episode 9 to be a completely derivitive fan service **** filled with calls backs to the OT.
His movies have a strange way of being shallow where they're passable on the first viewing and fall apart after that.
In fairness we don't know if JJ necessarily wanted to do a Wrath of Khan remake and he was tasked with further handling characters that weren't his to begin with. The characters of Rey, Finn, Poe, Hux, Snoke, Kylo are still partially his creation and I don't see him doing a retread of Return of the Jedi.
We'll see how it goes. I'd agree that there were better choices out there.
They are doubling down on a questionable decision by forcing this movie to come out on a truncated timetable. May instead of December, probably because of Frozen 2. To hell with quality. Script is starting over from zero with Terrio (lol).
This isn't how you set up a franchise for success. This is WB style behavior.
Rian passed despite being offered it, 99% sure because the schedule would have been insane to get a May 2019 release, given his TLJ duties. The decision to stick to the date results in "we need a director who can deliver something distributable, fast" which means the first phone call is to JJ. There's no consideration for the talent involved re: the quality of the movie or writing. It becomes a bad decision because the root cause is the absurd schedule, which I bet they will end up changing anyways after being more realistic.
A lot of people - myself included - want to see an actual auteur get their hands on Star Wars. Rian is the closest thing we've gotten to that. That's pretty sad. But it's ultimately very Disney.
Finlandia WOAT
No blocks, No slappers
- May 23, 2010
- 24,415
- 24,690
I'm fine if it's the same dynamic, my issue is we have a rehash of ANH after 20 years or so (I forget) and they don't stop and explain why.
The Empire was defeated in 6. Ok, why are they still around with enough money and material to build a yuge Death Star and no one notices?
The Rebels should be on the side of the Republic, why are they still presented as an underfunded and undermanned dark resistance group?
etc.
I'm not saying these things are unrealistic, I'm simply saying the film doesn't answer them.
Last edited:
It didn't build out the universe. TFA is completely useless as a standalone movie. I recommend anyone that liked it watch it again with that in mind. Pretend that the previous movies don't exist. How well do they really explain what is going on? They basically don't. The movie falls off the rails when Han shows up, which is not coincidentally the moment they start leaning heavily into prior knowledge and nostalgia. It's excellent up until that point, if a bit jokey. Then it all goes wrong.
TFA is well made and casted as ****. JJ is good at that. But man is it ever a giant waste of lore potential.
RobBrown4PM
Pringles?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 8,925
- 2,845
My new pet theory is that Disney has no interest in allowing any creativity in these movies, as they see it as being to risky.
I imagine Disney has crafted a very neat and polished guide to how these movies will be made, this is why we keep seeing so many directors getting axed.
I imagine Disney has crafted a very neat and polished guide to how these movies will be made, this is why we keep seeing so many directors getting axed.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
I'm fine with him directing another. He does have a tendency to be much, much better with the first entries/pilots of series, but I loved TFA so I'm down with this.
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 20,963
- 17,845
JJ is the CEO of Bad Robot; the production company that did the film. There's no way the TWOK remake happens unless it was something JJ wanted to do. He had so much control over the film that he even got to control the marketing. The entire premise of remaking Wrath of Khan and marketing Khan's identity as a "mystery" is very much a JJ's MO.
I'm not saying Episode 9 is going to be a ROTJ remake the way ID was to TWOK, but everything JJ has directed is derivative.
The saving grace is that in directing Star Wars JJ doesn't have as much control as when directing Trek. He has a lot of stupid ideas that Kennedy and Disney will keep in check.
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 20,963
- 17,845
Because they wanted to setup the same dynamic as the OT. The good guys are a small rag tag group fighting a big massive opposing force that has TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, Storm Troopers and a big mega weapon.
ArGarBarGar
What do we want!? Unfair!
- Sep 8, 2008
- 44,074
- 11,863
I'm sure this isn't too far from the truth.
I'm curious what percentage of Disney's profit will come from merchandising and toys.
I disagree to the extent that it falls off the rails (cause I still enjoy the film) but pondering what you said, I agree that it takes on a significantly different tone once Han shows up. I hadn't really paid much attention to that before.
I guess all we can do is hope he doesn't chock it full of call backs.
Trap Jesus
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2012
- 28,686
- 13,458
How much creative control do these directors actually have on the overall story arc? Because if they have a lot (which I doubt is the case considering Disney's investment), that's a super-weird dynamic coming back if Johnson made significant changes in the 2nd movie. It would be hilarious if Johnson takes things off the beaten path with some interesting twists and then JJ just finds ways to reverse it in the third movie to make it cookie-cutter again.
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
Nothing they've done suggests this isn't the case. All new Stars Wars post-sale to Disney has been risk-adverse.
South Park mocked J J Abrams heavily but I don't see the problem with him. "But TFA was basically Star Wars Episode 4 rehashed" 
No it wasn't
No it wasn'tI heard that in regards to Trevorrow, the directors actually have quite a bit of creative license. The quote I remember reading...somewhere was "(the directors) have a huge room to work in, they just have to stay inside the room."
It seems Disney/Lucas has a framework they want this trilogy to remain under but give creative license as to how that framework is met. Maybe that's just P.R. posturing but if true...they could make bolder choices with more artistic and creative writers/directors without ending up with a Trevorrow who apparently was an impossible to work with diva who wanted to destroy the framework of the planned core story.
I think if Abrams can get past his own predilections and make the best work he's done yet and break his own mold, he could deliver.
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
South Park mocked J J Abrams heavily but I don't see the problem with him. "But TFA was basically Star Wars Episode 4 rehashed"
yeah it totally had a different
Finlandia WOAT
No blocks, No slappers
- May 23, 2010
- 24,415
- 24,690
South Park mocked J J Abrams heavily but I don't see the problem with him. "But TFA was basically Star Wars Episode 4 rehashed"
Abrams knows what to do, in technical terms, to make the audience feel what he wants them to feel, in any given scene, and hence throughout the film.
The problem is his failure to have it meaningfully connect to the narrative.
A good example, in Into Darkness, the eye candy chick's father is killed, and she's cries about it. So sad.
But...then she's perfectly fine 5 minutes later, and that scene is never mentioned again. It has no impact over the narrative, Abrams just used it for a sad scene.
Or with Cumberbatch's line: "My name is....KHAN". Intimidating scene! Close up, Cumbabatch with the base turned to 11, and he's wrested complete control of the situation from Kirk despite being locked in a prison cell. But...why should his name matter to Kirk? It should get a Starlord response (which I think that scene was intentionally satirizing btw), but Kirk treats it in all serious. Again, the narrative is ignored because Abrams has the momentary effect he wants, and that's all he needs.
My experience with Into Darkness was someone only vaguely aware of who Khan was- that he was some sort of badass that killed Spock at some point. I'm not a Trekie. So the film actually worked for me, since Abrams missing what made the character threatening didn't matter, and I suspect the film was made with the presumption that most of the audience shared my disposition.
So yeah, if you're doing a reboot and want to get something off the ground, Abrams is a fine choice. Then let someone else come in and build into a narrative. But for wrapping up your series? I don't see this ending well. I really don't.
This seems a giant YMMV. I've talked to people who simply don't care that nothing is explained. Good for Disney and Abrams, they bet the house that they could make bank doing so, and boy did they make bank.
....OK?....
If it's similar to Marvel, which it (probably) is, directors are allowed to do anything they want as long as it can be easily retconned out of existence- which is to say, nothing they can do will really matter. It's a brilliant formula, you let good directors do what they want, then ignore any character development in the next installment.
This is why Tony Stark pinballs between daddy issues to learning to be a team player to literal PTSD to guilt over his actions to mommy issues to daddy issues (but this time I'm the dad!).
Central PA Hawk Fan
Registered User
South Park mocked J J Abrams heavily but I don't see the problem with him. "But TFA was basically Star Wars Episode 4 rehashed"
It was derivative in a lot of ways, but to me I loved that it was closely tied to the original and played off that original dynamic. That's what Star Wars is, its an old fashioned simple story set in a great universe. I do hope they take the story in a new direction over the next two films while remaining patently Star Wars. But I was perfectly fine establishing that this is an ode to the original trilogy after the dreck we had to endure with the prequels.
