Page 6 of 7

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 12:08am
by Galvatron
Lord Insanity wrote:
2020-01-04 11:47pm
Yoda started teaching Jedi at ~100 years old. If 50 is still "baby" that implies there must be some sort of ridiculous hyper growth spurt at least a few years before Yoda would have started teaching.
Perhaps Yoda's species is uniquely able to instinctively achieve mastery of the Force before they even learn how to speak. Upon reaching their own version of preadolescence and developing communication skills, they may know all they need to know in order to qualify as Jedi Masters and train others.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 12:12am
by Vympel
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-05 12:01am
The problem with Vympel’s post is that with Vader it was a high stress situation. His friends and the entire rebel fleet were in danger, he had a front row seat to the whole thing and THEN Vader taunted him with a fairly tangible threat. Throw in that Vader also maimed him and that everything’s at stake and Luke going apeshit makes sense.

With Kylo he walked into that house (which is weird) and knew the kid from birth.......and yet all it takes is ONE vision for him to draw his sword. That’s kinda odd.

Stuff like that is the problem.
Again, Luke didn't go apeshit in the hut. He instinctively activated his lightsaber and the instinct passed as quickly as it came. And it's absurd to characterise force visions like they're somehow inconsequential things that don't ellicit a strong reaction from the person 'receiving' them.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 12:39am
by Darth Yan
It comes down to taste and personally I felt last Jedi was dogshit. I don’t mind the idea of a Luke who succumbed to despair but I think they went TOO far in how broken he was

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 12:58am
by Vympel
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-05 12:39am
It comes down to taste and personally I felt last Jedi was dogshit. I don’t mind the idea of a Luke who succumbed to despair but I think they went TOO far in how broken he was
If he's not broken then why is he in exile? Unless you can square that circle nothing in the movie is going to work. But yes, it comes down to personal taste. Personally I see absolutely no significance or value in gainsaying about what Luke would or would not "never do". It's not a valuable exercise to me at all. I've never had any interest in Luke as some sort of paragon - that's just a boring movie. Or worse - his dogshit characterisation in TROS, which is easily the worst performance Mark Hamill has ever put in. Just a shameful, embarassing display.

For TLJ, it's where he ends up that's important, not how is he at the start of the film. And TLJ nailed it.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 01:10am
by Darth Yan
People have compared him to Talus from Knightfall. He’s salty but still fighting the good fight. I think that approach would have been better

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 02:31am
by Vympel
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-05 01:10am
People have compared him to Talus from Knightfall. He’s salty but still fighting the good fight. I think that approach would have been better
Then you have to change TFA's plot. That can't work with TFA's premise.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 05:18am
by ray245
Vympel wrote:
2020-01-05 02:31am
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-05 01:10am
People have compared him to Talus from Knightfall. He’s salty but still fighting the good fight. I think that approach would have been better
Then you have to change TFA's plot. That can't work with TFA's premise.
JJ Abrams himself couldn't care less about the plot of TFA.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-05 04:59pm
by Mange
Vympel wrote:
2020-01-05 12:58am
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-05 12:39am
It comes down to taste and personally I felt last Jedi was dogshit. I don’t mind the idea of a Luke who succumbed to despair but I think they went TOO far in how broken he was
If he's not broken then why is he in exile? Unless you can square that circle nothing in the movie is going to work. But yes, it comes down to personal taste. Personally I see absolutely no significance or value in gainsaying about what Luke would or would not "never do". It's not a valuable exercise to me at all. I've never had any interest in Luke as some sort of paragon - that's just a boring movie. Or worse - his dogshit characterisation in TROS, which is easily the worst performance Mark Hamill has ever put in. Just a shameful, embarassing display.

For TLJ, it's where he ends up that's important, not how is he at the start of the film. And TLJ nailed it.
I can't understand how someone who've actually watched the original trilogy can say that "TLJ nailed it". It goes against Luke's hero journey in the OT and fails to build on it further. As I've said, the character of Luke in TLJ is unrecognizable as the character doesn't share A SINGLE ONE of the traits he was shown to have in the OT.

Also, in ROTJ, Luke told Obi-Wan that "I can't kill my own father.", but "Murdering my nephew in cold blood in his sleep." that's ok! Luke also sees Kylo as unredeemable. This was the guy who saw the good in Vader but not in his nephew who clearly is conflicted and has angst (throughout both TFA and TLJ).

There must be a reason for Luke sitting out there on that island for all those years. The front and center being trying to find a way to rectify the situation he had caused by his actions, not merely turning his back on it! Heck, he is the one responsible for Leia being in danger but oh no, you still want him to sit on his hands brooding and milking sea creatures with a smug smirk.

TLJ fails to build up any tension or conflict for the last part of the trilogy. And on a sidenote: All this reminds me of how erroneous the title of Episode VIII really is: Leia clearly is very strong in the Force as the ridiculous Leia Poppins scene showed and TROS showed that she had the confidence to train Rey herself after a year of Jedi training by Luke.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-06 12:47am
by Vympel
Mange wrote:
2020-01-05 04:59pm
I can't understand how someone who've actually watched the original trilogy can say that "TLJ nailed it". It goes against Luke's hero journey in the OT and fails to build on it further. As I've said, the character of Luke in TLJ is unrecognizable as the character doesn't share A SINGLE ONE of the traits he was shown to have in the OT.
Yes, he does. At the end of the film, where it really matters, he appears and saves the Resistance, re-igniting his legend and hope in the galaxy. And he does it in a manner that's fully consistent with how he won in ROTJ - without violence.

(But way too many insipid baby brains were hoping for some MCU cathartics so they didn't think much of that. Should've thrown around some AT-ATs and used some Electric Judgement! WOOOOOO!)
Also, in ROTJ, Luke told Obi-Wan that "I can't kill my own father.", but "Murdering my nephew in cold blood in his sleep." that's ok! Luke also sees Kylo as unredeemable. This was the guy who saw the good in Vader but not in his nephew who clearly is conflicted and has angst (throughout both TFA and TLJ).
The entire reason he is on the island is because he is ashamed of that incident and the failure it symbolises. The assertion that it was ever ok to him to "murder my nephew in cold blood in his sleep" is the most naked, bullshit, bad faith reading of the film imaginable. You have to basically ignore the entire movie, ever line of dialog Luke has about it, and constuct a different, entirely fictional version of the film in your head to maintain that this is something Luke was ever ok with.

Like, the fact that Luke's face looking down at his ignited lightsaber is an exact mirror of his face looking down on it in ROTJ is deliberate. The movie is not at all subtle on this point.
There must be a reason for Luke sitting out there on that island for all those years. The front and center being trying to find a way to rectify the situation he had caused by his actions, not merely turning his back on it! Heck, he is the one responsible for Leia being in danger but oh no, you still want him to sit on his hands brooding and milking sea creatures with a smug smirk.
Yes, I do. Because an arc of actual meaning requires a character to have actual convictions (even wrong ones) that take time to break down so they can do the right thing, so there's actually catharsis when it happens.

I've already pointed this out - anyone who writes a movie so that a character is in exile for deeply personal reasons but is so weak in their convictions that they'll abandon their exile the moment they're asked is an imbecile who has no business writing anything more complicated than a recipe.
TLJ fails to build up any tension or conflict for the last part of the trilogy. And on a sidenote: All this reminds me of how erroneous the title of Episode VIII really is: Leia clearly is very strong in the Force as the ridiculous Leia Poppins scene showed and TROS showed that she had the confidence to train Rey herself after a year of Jedi training by Luke.
That's asinine. Leia isn't a Jedi in either TFA or TLJ, even on TROS version of events. She deliberately gave up being one. As for no tension or conflict, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Movie ends with a tiny Resistance facing off an ascendant enemy power led by Leia's only son, and the movie built up the tension and conflicted feelings of Rey and Ben for its entire run. Guess there's no possible story for the next film with conflict or tension :D

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-06 02:44am
by Galvatron
It's also worth mentioning that neither Obi-Wan or Yoda were chomping at the bit to come out of seclusion and take on the whole Empire with their laser swords either. They weren't broken in quite the same way as Luke, but I see no reason to ignore this when claiming that Luke should have done something differently under such similar circumstances.

Then again, I think Luke's tele-performance on Crait served more or less the same purpose that Obi-Wan's actions on the Death Star did: they both enabled the next generation of heroes to escape the clutches of the bad guys and carry on the good fight.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-06 03:10am
by NecronLord
The difference there is that Snoke is very clearly afraid of them finding Skywalker in VII. Palpatine only cares once Luke has actually recieved Jedi training. This is small but it is important in the narrative framing; Snoke feels Luke is a danger in himself.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-06 05:55pm
by Galvatron
I'd imagine that Snoke regarded Luke as a danger to his life since Luke is apparently the one who left Snoke disfigured in the first place...

Spoiler
Image

But I doubt that Luke posed much of an existential threat to the entire First Order military any more than the old Jedi Order did to the combined forces of the Separatists without the clone army.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-07 03:24am
by Vendetta
Galvatron wrote:
2020-01-06 05:55pm
I'd imagine that Snoke regarded Luke as a danger to his life since Luke is apparently the one who left Snoke disfigured in the first place...
Spoiler
Of course, now we know that Snoke was built that way because we see the Snoke factory on Exegol and there are multiple pre-uggod Snokes.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-07 06:07am
by NecronLord
Galvatron wrote:
2020-01-06 05:55pm
I'd imagine that Snoke regarded Luke as a danger to his life since Luke is apparently the one who left Snoke disfigured in the first place...

But I doubt that Luke posed much of an existential threat to the entire First Order military any more than the old Jedi Order did to the combined forces of the Separatists without the clone army.
Works outwith the films really have no interest to me in this context. The experience offered by the films is what matters in creating audience expectations.
SNOKE (V.O.)
The droid will soon be delivered to the Resistance...
SNOKE
... Leading them to the last Jedi. If Skywalker returns, the new Jedi will rise.
Snoke is very much afraid of the New Jedi arising in SW7, Serkis' performance sells that. He decides to blow up Hosnian immediatley because of this.
GENERAL HUX
Supreme Leader, I take full responsibility for th--

SNOKE
General! Our strategy must now change.

GENERAL HUX
The weapon. It is ready. I believe the time has come to use it. We shall destroy the government thatce, the Republic. Without their friends to protect them, the Resistance will be vulnerable, and we will stop them before they reach Skywalker. Snoke considers. Almost seems to die for a moment.
The baddies' concerns in 7 are almost entirely about stopping them finding Skywalker for fear of the New Jedi. Episode 8 gives us a Skywalker who is on board with not being found in order to prevent new Jedi being trained. For most of 8 Luke wants exactly what Snoke wanted in 7.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-07 06:42am
by Galvatron
I wonder if Snoke thought that Luke was off somewhere training a new class of Jedi in secret. I can't imagine he'd have felt the same sense of urgency if he'd known what Luke was really doing.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-07 02:55pm
by ray245
Some rumours about the Ep 9's production:


Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 10:17am
by mr friendly guy
Well ROS made $1 billion, so its definitely a decent outing. I wouldn't say its brilliant given the high costs it takes to make a Star Wars movie.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 11:01am
by ray245
mr friendly guy wrote:
2020-01-16 10:17am
Well ROS made $1 billion, so its definitely a decent outing. I wouldn't say its brilliant given the high costs it takes to make a Star Wars movie.
The issue is the odds of an audience demand for another ST era film will be extremely low. That's the thing that will worry investors.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 02:56pm
by Gandalf
ray245 wrote:
2020-01-16 11:01am
mr friendly guy wrote:
2020-01-16 10:17am
Well ROS made $1 billion, so its definitely a decent outing. I wouldn't say its brilliant given the high costs it takes to make a Star Wars movie.
The issue is the odds of an audience demand for another ST era film will be extremely low. That's the thing that will worry investors.
So they'll throw out some OT era crap like Rogue One. Problem solved.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 03:04pm
by Galvatron
That's where the money is.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 03:11pm
by Gandalf
Galvatron wrote:
2020-01-16 03:04pm
That's where the money is.
Indeed. It's a pre-existing audience with four decades of nostalgia backing it up. People even overlook RoTJ.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 03:39pm
by ray245
Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-16 02:56pm
So they'll throw out some OT era crap like Rogue One. Problem solved.
Except Solo proved having OT era stuff isn't enough to attract audience.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-16 11:15pm
by Mange
ray245 wrote:
2020-01-16 03:39pm
Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-16 02:56pm
So they'll throw out some OT era crap like Rogue One. Problem solved.
Except Solo proved having OT era stuff isn't enough to attract audience.
My thought at the time was "Why would I want to watch anyone else than Ford playing Han Solo?" After I watched the generic heist movie, the answer was "I wouldn't".

Anyway, the leaked Trevorrow/Connelly draft for Episode IX called "Duel of the Fates" that has been commented on on the web seems to be legit. With some polishing, I would much rather have watched that than the lazy ("hey, let's just stick this gun to an existing CG model") and incoherent mess that we got (Rey being a nobody, no Palpatine other than in holograms and no redemption for Kylo Ren). Another bad call by Kennedy.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-17 12:13am
by Darth Yan
I actually rather liked Solo. And link for the above?

I'm cautiously optimistic if the Old republic era stuff is true. That's an untapped era.

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Posted: 2020-01-17 02:48am
by Mange
Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-17 12:13am
I actually rather liked Solo. And link for the above?

I'm cautiously optimistic if the Old republic era stuff is true. That's an untapped era.
Burnett was the first to mention it: YouTube

Slashfilm "confirmed" it was real:
Slashfilm

I don't think Solo was bad, but I found it generic.