[movie] Star Wars: The Last Jedi

12346»

Comments

  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member edited February 10
    Hmm, good observations. I hadn't considered that the palette was paler, as I always felt SW in general was quite colorful. But yes, I did notice the somber feel. But there's something else stylistically different in its approach that sets it apart from the 6 other movies. It's one thing to want to be different and blaze its own path, but I would think an important goal would be for it to strike to be stylistically similar to what came before it. Maybe that's due to the amount of time between movies though. Sometimes it's the small things...

    Honestly, sometimes I wonder what Lucas' visions for 7-8-9 were.
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    I was put off by the paler visuals when TFA first came out, but I've grown accustomed to it, especially since it fits the mood and core character ages.

    I wonder about the Lucas sequels, too, though over time, I've come to think he wouldn't have stuck the landing on them.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    But wouldn't that let up as the new core group becomes stronger as a whole? Unless I'm misunderstanding you on that. With the older characters mostly gone, the new ones need to rise up and give hope to the galaxy ;)

    I wonder if they'll bring Lando in on the next one. On the other hand, they had a great chance to do so in this one and instead chose to go with a complete waste of a character who ended up turning on them. And not really much came out of that either. Lando would never turn on them, and even then it wouldn't happen so quickly.
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    Well, that's what we'll have to see in the next movie. Really, though, the aging characters may have simply set the visual tone. They have matured, and the universe has done so with them, whether they're still in it or not.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Btw, I realize the reason for Luke being a hermit and thought it was quite well done. It's just that it can just as easily be misinterpreted as it has been by some, to be a simple shrug at the threat. I thought the real reason was quite deep though, which is why on the whole I found the resolution of his arc to be quite satisfying.
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    Agreed. Luke's storyline is the best thing in the movie.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Yeah, on the whole, I found it far more satisfying than what happened to Han. Here's hoping they can give us some closure on Leia in a satisfying manner. Although I feel his last words to Leia were very prescient and touching, in a similar manner to how Robin William's last words as Roosevelt were in the 3rd Night at the Museum.
  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    The biggest difference in my mind is George Lucas being out of the picture, for better or worse. In the interviews I read he was always proud of the cheesiness factor that he deliberately injected into the movies. Just a sample from the first thing I googled:

    https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/13/15288998/george-lucas-star-wars-celebration

    He says it right there, it was made (from his viewpoint) for "12 year olds".

    The problem is exacerbated in that due to the internet and change in times, today's 12 year olds are significantly more sophisticated than 12 year olds of old. My nephew, who I consider to be far more sheltered than many 12 year olds, grew up reading series like The Maze Runner and Hunger Games, etc. and watches many of the same TV shows and movies that I do. My sister even allowed him to see a few questionable R-rated movies like Logan. I don't know how much of it he understands, but the fact is even a movie directed at that age group will inherently be different in tone. I just remembered Star Wars came out over 40 years ago. Yikes.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Well, I'm not so much talking about the tone, but more on the consistency between the rest of the saga. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. They can still maintain the tone if that's what they want, but I think they should strive for better consistency with the saga as a whole. If it were standalone, then I could see more of needing to do that, but the visual consistency also tells a story.

    Let's say you have a series of paintings by some of the masters in a museum, and as a whole they form a series. All but one are straight on the wall. Technically, that one painting is as absolutely amazing as the rest, but you know that there's something off about it. You read the description and find out it's intentional. Somehow, that painting while part of the series doesn't really feel like it belongs in the series.
  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    It's unfortunate they didn't work things out so there was one guy (or team) overseeing the entire trilogy. At minimum the most important plot points for all 3 movies should have been established in advance. The flip flop in this series was probably a mistake, particularly if JJ flips back and tries to "correct" the course back to where he intended it to be. Personally while I really enjoyed TLJ, I do agree it feels like it's the odd man out in the series. I thought I had heard originally that Rian Johnson was going to do both 8 and 9, which also would probably be a better decision than going back to JJ at this point.

    I suspect they won't make the same mistake in the future, as it seems like at least they are giving the entire trilogy to the GoT guys.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Yeah, exactly. And from what I understand, they had a team overseeing the OT and the prequels, and they were pretty stringent about it too, so I wonder what happened with that? I loved what Rian Johnson did with TLJ, and I do wish he'd have been selected to continue and do the next one, because as many problems as it does have, it at least strives to be its own thing rather than JJ's take, which while it did a great job introducing things, it overall wasn't all that exciting to me. I appreciated Rian's overall vision.

    Actually from what I heard about the GoT guys, they're doing a trilogy unrelated to the main saga.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member edited February 16
    I just picked up the Thrawn origin story by Timothy Zahn as I loved the trilogy he did that basically kicked off the original EU. Other than Ren, there's no real satisfying villain in either of the two movies, so far. I really wish Disney would have put Thrawn in these movies as he's a believable villain with some history and would have complimented Kylo Ren pretty well. Currently, I feel the First Order is pretty random, with no real leadership shown, but with Thrawn, it would make it feel more grounded. Would have made so much more sense than having Snoke. Plus, really, let's keep the villains around longer than a single movie. With Vader, it was the buildup over three movies that made him an intereresting character.

    I'd have gone with this:
    Thrawn giving the orders.
    Phasma getting her orders from Thrawn
    And then Kylo Ren.

    Three villains that would then have more purpose in the scheme of the First Order and giving it a sense of order( ahem!) and hierarchy. I get the sense that Kylo Ren doesn't think much of authority, so I think he'd likely clash with Phasma and eventually come to a confrontation and meeting her end that way, which I think would be much more satisfying than what we got. Because the thing about Ren is that he doesn't really have anyone to bounce off of or have anyone to ground him. He just flies off the handle.
Sign In or Register to comment.