Movie Rian Johnson Star Wars Trilogy

[Exe Gesis]

It just makes you more cautious of future projects

sorry thats what i meant. future projects.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Really love this guy's analysis for everything. here he discusses the announced future disney movies, and what it means for RJ, Marvel, etc etc

 

[Tuco]

Missed some good movies then.

As in movies he's already made?

I think I've seen most of them anyway. Pretty mediocre really. Looper gets praise, but it was pretty flawed for mind.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Question now is do they announce this is cancelled when Black Widow trailer comes out or when The Eternals trailer comes out?

 

[Coolangatta]

Here's how I'd do a new trilogy.

Set it for 2022-2024-2026. Hire one or two of the best screenwriters in Hollywood going around to write a trilogy. They've got plenty of time to put something together that's funny, clever, creative, coherent, and exciting.

Get a guy like Alfonso Cuaron to direct the opening episode, Guillermo del Toro the second episode, and Alfonso the last. Or, you could use different directors for each film. I wouldn't use the same one for all three because it'd be exhausting to make three major Star Wars films in that timeframe, but I'd use the same screenwriter/s. Get something that flows.

Lastly, set it in the Old Republic timeline.

 

[mighty_sainters]

Prequels of the prequels please.

Darth maul, Yoda, etc etc

 

[Coolangatta]

Apparently the Game of Thrones guys have been dropped from Star Wars.

Good.

 

[JackOutback]

Question now is do they announce this is cancelled when Black Widow trailer comes out or when The Eternals trailer comes out?

I was expecting some people to wish it was this one being cancelled RJ is the most stable thing about Star Wars right now, though.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

It's days from 2 years since this was announced and it hasn't even entered preproduction. It's not going to happen.

 

[JackOutback]

It's days from 2 years since this was announced and it hasn't even entered preproduction. It's not going happen.

Possibly, but it was never going to go into production before TROS came out anyway. The failure of Solo also meant they pushed everything back so there’s been no push to go into production. Thing is, they’ve announced a 2022 movie and he’s the only director currently on board.

 

[edgie]

They've doubled and tripled down on RJ. They won't dump him. They may attempt to force his hand by continuing to delay this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan]

Eat my arse.

 

[King Elvis]

He almost destroyed the franchise with a single movie.

With 3 movies, he's going to murder it, set it on fire and then rape the corpse.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

He almost destroyed the franchise with a single movie.

With 3 movies, he's going to murder it, set it on fire and then rape the corpse.

As long as its set in such a removed point of time from the Skywalker saga that he can't * up anything in the lore or charachters, then i'm happy for him to have his own trilogy. He can make it subvert as many expectations as he wants. Just dont * up Luke Skywalker

 

[atlas1]

I want to be interested in the possibility of him making something with a blank slate, but he comes across as so unlikeable.

 

[edgie]

He can't subvert expectations if there are none!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JackOutback]

Knives Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 84% on Metacritic. He’s a good filmmaker. I don’t think a lot of Star Wars fans expected someone to make ‘cinema’ out of their blockbuster, to paraphrase Scorcese.

 

[King Elvis]

Knives Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 84% on Metacritic. He’s a good filmmaker. I don’t think a lot of Star Wars fans expected someone to make ‘cinema’ out of their blockbuster, to paraphrase Scorcese.

The fact that you're still acting as though Last Jedi is some kind of high art, instead of a disjointed piece of s**t that doesn't fit into the galaxy it is set in - or even the movie before it - it's crazily impressive.

 

[atlas1]

Knives Out has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 84% on Metacritic. He’s a good filmmaker. I don’t think a lot of Star Wars fans expected someone to make ‘cinema’ out of their blockbuster, to paraphrase Scorcese.

Both are very flawed metrics which you put way too much stock into.

 

[edgie]

Because Empire Strikes Back is a theme park

 

[JackOutback]

Both are very flawed metrics which you put way too much stock into.

It’s a metric, not the be-all-and-end-all. Metacritic is reasonably sound. The problem is, people used to accept critical appraisal, even if they didn’t always agree with it. Now, people don’t like hearing opinions they disagree with, they live in their bubble, so if something challenges their views, it’s dismissed as fake. Don’t like TLJ? Critics must be on the take or afraid to criticise Disney. It’s silly.

As for how much stock I put in it, the answer is not that much, I like the movies I like, simple as that. But I can accept critical acclaim for what it is, usually the sign of a well made movie, regardless of whether I like the movie myself.

 

[edgie]

It’s a metric, not the be-all-and-end-all. Metacritic is reasonably sound. The problem is, people used to accept critical appraisal, even if they didn’t always agree with it. Now, people don’t like hearing opinions they disagree with, they live in their bubble, so if something challenges their views, it’s dismissed as fake. Don’t like TLJ? Critics must be on the take or afraid to criticise Disney. It’s silly.

As for how much stock I put in it, the answer is not that much, I like the movies I like, simple as that. But I can accept critical acclaim for what it is, usually the sign of a well made movie, regardless of whether I like the movie myself.

Yes, well made is an objective measure that doesn't take in to account the creative side of things.

That was TLJ's greatest fail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atlas1]

Metacritic is reasonably sound.

• They only use reviews from select sources, largely based in the US. Not all reviews of something are included in their scores.
• It's unclear how they select the sources that are actually used - mostly subjective means such as reputation, review quality
• Different sources have different weightings, and they don't reveal this weighting distribution
• Metacritic staff assign scores to reviews that don't have scores (e.g. 4 stars, A-F scale) - this score assignment could vary from person to person

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry you're lumping everything into an us and them scenario.

And then I also found these (there are more that can't be quoted):

It's 71 per cent on RT and 62 per cent on Metacritic, which are generally positive. The derision beforehand came about because of debacles behind the scenes, including firing the directors and reshooting 70 per cent of the film. Definitely the drama may have contributed to it performing poorly at the box office but it wasn't targeted.

Mortal Kombat is at 38% on RT (58% on Metacritic), so it's an opinion shared by a few.

The highest rated video game adaptation is Rampage at 52%

I think you're confusing the internet playground with the rest of the world. It's still at 91% on RT and 85% on Metacritic. To the average filmgoer, it's not even a matter for discussion. It's fair to say it divided a rather passionate fan base. But to paraphrase RJ, it's better to be divided and have half the audience love it than to be the PT, for example, and have the vast majority in agreement that they hate it

It’s 54% on Metacritic and 66% on Rotten Tomatoes. Far from inspiring.

 

[Thrawn]

He almost destroyed the franchise with a single movie.

With 3 movies, he's going to murder it, set it on fire and then rape the corpse.

Almost?

 

[JackOutback]

• They only use reviews from select sources, largely based in the US. Not all reviews of something are included in their scores.
• It's unclear how they select the sources that are actually used - mostly subjective means such as reputation, review quality
• Different sources have different weightings, and they don't reveal this weighting distribution
• Metacritic staff assign scores to reviews that don't have scores (e.g. 4 stars, A-F scale) - this score assignment could vary from person to person

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry you're lumping everything into an us and them scenario.

And then I also found these (there are more that can't be quoted):

As I said, it’s a metric. If you want a collation of what mainstream critics think of as movie, it’s as good a site as any (in fact, your first two criticisms should be compliments. Of course it should select sources; I’m more interested in the views of people who watch a broad variety of movies and understand story and filmmaking, than some YouTuber who watches one genre religiously and doesn’t know his mis-en-scene from his miso soup). I guess the real question is are you interested in what mainstream critics think?

I am, in the context of what I like i.e. I’m not going to go to a critic to decide if I watch a Fast and Furious movie, or see some weepy Oscar bait because it’s a well crafted film. Mainstream critics are relatively consistent and are hardly out to ruin everyone’s cinema-going experience.They regularly praise Marvel, Pixar, correctly spot s**t movies. You’re never going to agree completely with everyone but the idea of the critic as the anti-filmgoer isn’t that accurate.

It’s like this one film broke some people; if a critic likes Roma but the viewer doesn’t, no one bats an eyelid. But if they like TLJ, they and all critics aren’t to be trusted again.