- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,856
- 94,732
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Thread starter
- #3,051
You too.Best wishes for the year ahead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
You too.Best wishes for the year ahead.
Always like this guy's take on less popular films:
Just another person comparing TLJ to the originals and forgetting the context on why they work in OT but why they don’t work in the ST.
My comment to that video in that video's comment section....
---------
Rian Johnson's Luke Skywalker is a pig. You can put lipstick on it and dress it up, but it's still a pig. You are so wrong in your commentary about Luke in this video.
Agree there. If you took the attempted spoof humor out of that scene, it would at least resemble the same meaning behind the ROTJ lightsaber throwing down.The one part of the video I hadn't even thought of before was Luke throwing the saber away mirroring his throwing the saber away in ROTJ in a similar refusal to fight. I do think though that RJ leaned way too heavily on the humour, which the video even calls out.
Agree there. If you took the attempted spoof humor out of that scene, it would at least resemble the same meaning behind the ROTJ lightsaber throwing down.
But there's still other problems with the Luke depiction in TLJ. It's not one or two things, there's a number of them.
I think that’s quite fair, I think pretty much every time where he used the moment of weakness quote he ignores context.I don't think that's fair to what he's suggesting. I think it's quite an interesting and compelling argument. I know at the time I didn't have a massive problem with Luke's portrayal in TLJ.
I don't think that's fair to what he's suggesting. I think it's quite an interesting and compelling argument. I know at the time I didn't have a massive problem with Luke's portrayal in TLJ.
Because Kathleen Kennedy is a campaigner.Probably a stupid question but why was the choice made to have three different directors for the new trilogy? Continuity is the first casualty in such an approach. One would think you would want a consistent vision in the "reboot" of the franchise.
Succinct. Accurate. And said with no bias or overly emotive hyperbole.Because Kathleen Kennedy is a campaigner.
Probably a stupid question but why was the choice made to have three different directors for the new trilogy? Continuity is the first casualty in such an approach. One would think you would want a consistent vision in the "reboot" of the franchise.
Probably a stupid question but why was the choice made to have three different directors for the new trilogy? Continuity is the first casualty in such an approach. One would think you would want a consistent vision in the "reboot" of the franchise.
And then allow the second director to ignore the first and go off and do their own thing.
Sheer ******* stupidity.
That's very different, given George Lucas was the prime mover, creator, wrote the story treatments, storyboards, synopsis, and character details, as a unified vision.You know another trilogy that had three different directors? The original Star Wars trilogy.
I do believe there were creative reasons, such as different views offering more creativity, but a key reason is that it’s difficult to get a director to commit up to seven or eight years to one project.
It was completed before filming had finished in TFA, but well after the script for TFA had been written.The script for TLJ being done before TFA is stranger too.
You’re underselling both the screenwriters and the directors there. Of course the guiding voice was Lucas but the details were definitely filled in by others. Here, Lucasfilm was to provide the guiding voice.That's very different, given George Lucas was the prime mover, creator, wrote the story treatments, storyboards, synopsis, and character details, as a unified vision.
Lucasfilm spent most of the time in the ST advising everyone about canon/continuity, what they can and can't do.You’re underselling both the screenwriters and the directors there. Of course the guiding voice was Lucas but the details were definitely filled in by others. Here, Lucasfilm was to provide the guiding voice.
JJ wasn’t hired to write a three part treatment though, he was hired to write the first part only. Interviews with RJ make it clear he was hired with the view to writing his own movie based on what he saw in the first. As far as I’m aware, JJ left a few ideas about where he intended to go, that’s not the same as a full treatment.Lucasfilm spent most of the time in the ST advising everyone about canon/continuity, what they can and can't do.
There's already a ton of documented evidence, interviews with actors, Abrams himself, etc.....where Abrams had a three part treatment set out, which Treverrow was also following, but Rian Johnson had a tanty wanting to do things as he wanted, going against the very script/story-treatment Abrams had established (to be the guiding light).
All blame on Kennedy pulling rank on Abrams and giving Rian the freedom/ok to throw a spanner in that.