Last Jedi first trailer.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still, I wish that their were... one prominent director of SF films who still knew how to combine spectacle with a solid plot. The lack of that is frustrating, and while I don't think its fair to single TFA or Abrams out for it, because it is ubiquitous and they are by no means the worst offenders, it is to the overall detriment of the genre, I think. I put up with it, because otherwise I couldn't see any new SF films. But its frustrating.

[Ender]

Still, I wish that their were... one prominent director of SF films who still knew how to combine spectacle with a solid plot. The lack of that is frustrating, and while I don't think its fair to single TFA or Abrams out for it, because it is ubiquitous and they are by no means the worst offenders, it is to the overall detriment of the genre, I think. I put up with it, because otherwise I couldn't see any new SF films. But its frustrating.

Guillermo del Toro?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, maybe. Been a while since I've seen any of his films. I should correct that, I suppose.

[Ender]

Hmm, maybe. Been a while since I've seen any of his films. I should correct that, I suppose.

Pan's Labyrinth is the kind of blurring fantasy and the profane to go over the horrors of fascism that is Star Wars. Though dream picking here, I'd like to see him do a Devil's Backbone type Star Wars, dealing with people who aren't rebels and aren't imperials, trying to hold it together under the regime and the way the supernatural still slips in even as the evil government ascending and driving out the mystic elements of people's lives, kinda like what Avin Manshadi did with Under the Shadow.

Alternatively he could go the Pacific Rim route of being dumb as hell but super fun to watch.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, maybe. Been a while since I've seen any of his films. I should correct that, I suppose.

Pan's Labyrinth is the kind of blurring fantasy and the profane to go over the horrors of fascism that is Star Wars. Though dream picking here, I'd like to see him do a Devil's Backbone type Star Wars, dealing with people who aren't rebels and aren't imperials, trying to hold it together under the regime and the way the supernatural still slips in even as the evil government ascending and driving out the mystic elements of people's lives, kinda like what Avin Manshadi did with Under the Shadow.

Alternatively he could go the Pacific Rim route of being dumb as hell but super fun to watch.

Surprised that you didn't mention Hellboy in their. It seems perhaps the closest stylistically to a Star Wars film (though I haven't seen Pacific Rim).

[Abacus]

I keep hoping to give Joss Whedon some money and have him make a Firefly SW version. I think that covers most of what Ender mentioned.

[Q99]

Hmm, maybe. Been a while since I've seen any of his films. I should correct that, I suppose.

Pan's Labyrinth is the kind of blurring fantasy and the profane to go over the horrors of fascism that is Star Wars. Though dream picking here, I'd like to see him do a Devil's Backbone type Star Wars, dealing with people who aren't rebels and aren't imperials, trying to hold it together under the regime and the way the supernatural still slips in even as the evil government ascending and driving out the mystic elements of people's lives, kinda like what Avin Manshadi did with Under the Shadow.

Alternatively he could go the Pacific Rim route of being dumb as hell but super fun to watch.

There's a solid argument for Pacific Rim being smarter than it seems.

Anyway, I agree Guillermo's a great director who could be used in SW in a number of ways.

[The Romulan Republic]

I keep hoping to give Joss Whedon some money and have him make a Firefly SW version. I think that covers most of what Ender mentioned.

I think Whedon's star is falling, personally. He had, and perhaps still does have, a talent for witty banter and shocking plot twists, but like many directors, he has a very noticeable tendency to reuse a lot of the same tropes and techniques (some of them quite sexist, I think, despite his reputation as a feminist), and his last big project (Age of Ultron) got very mixed reception. He's also gotten caught up in the culture wars in a rather compromising way (particularly considering that he built his reputation in part on being a feminist), between the allegations (though I personally think they were overstated) of sexism in AoU, and the recent claims by his ex-wife that he frequently cheated on her with young (adult) women who worked for him, while using his reputation as a feminist to protect his image. In short, he's been at least partially reclassified from "feminist" to "fake feminist" in the public's perception.

Weather one feels that he deserves to be blacklisted for that is debatable. However, I think he'd potentially bring in more backlash and criticism than fans, right now, from a purely pragmatic perspective. And from a creative perspective, I don't think he's done anything really innovative or brilliant since Serenity, over ten years ago.

I still have very high regard for certain aspects of some of his older work (namely Serenity and certain episodes of "Buffy"), and I'd be an idiot to deny his influence on contemporary SF and fandom, but I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that Whedon was never as bright a star as his reputation made him out to be, and that in any case he is likely past his prime.

[Abacus]

I'll say the same thing that I said to others: infidelity is not the same as sexism or sexual assault. It is a character flaw, but not really that damning these days. Divorce rates have been skyrocketing for years, so it's old news. Women cheat just as much as men; "according to psychologist and author Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil, more than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates."

As for his supposed feminist failures in AoU, I feel like many of them are either unjustified (some characters and events that happen are a result of comic lore and history, not because of Whedon) or trumped up. That's not to say it's perfect, especially since I'm a big fan of Linda Cardellini and Cobie Smulders and don't feel like their characters have been utilized well or enough. Elizabeth Olsen's character also didn't get quite as much as I'd want. But then you're trying to juggle not a single movie, but rather an entire franchise within the Marvel movies -- so some expectations have to be lowered, since they will inevitably be trying to set up the next movie.

But complaining about how Natalie Portman or Gwyneth Paltrow didn't appear (when Thor and Stark were trying to out-do the other by talking up their SO's) is ridiculous -- they didn't have contracts or were busy with other obligations and a movie production isn't going to be held up just to include one actor or actress, for one scene, for one day. That's just not how it works.

So, observation/rant, over on that front.

He still makes good movies and is capable of witty banter, and does have a decent track record (not perfect, because let's face it -- no one does) on female representation in movies. Give him a chance, I say. Harrumph.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll say the same thing that I said to others: infidelity is not the same as sexism or sexual assault. It is a character flaw, but not really that damning these days. Divorce rates have been skyrocketing for years, so it's old news. Women cheat just as much as men; "according to psychologist and author Dr. Bonnie Eaker Weil, more than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates."

Its not the same, no. Nor did I say that it was, if you bother to read what I said rather than responding with knee-jerk rage.

But it is a pretty scummy thing to do, and it does put one in a compromised position in the public eye, especially if one has built a reputation as a feminist, and then is accused of using said reputation to protect ones' habit of cheating on ones' wife with young women one is in a position of power over.

Whedon ain't Roy Moore or Harvey Weinstein, but this does, deservedly I think, damage his reputation and credibility.

As for his supposed feminist failures in AoU, I feel like many of them are either unjustified (some characters and events that happen are a result of comic lore and history, not because of Whedon) or trumped up. That's not to say it's perfect, especially since I'm a big fan of Linda Cardellini and Cobie Smulders and don't feel like their characters have been utilized well or enough. Elizabeth Olsen's character also didn't get quite as much as I'd want. But then you're trying to juggle not a single movie, but rather an entire franchise within the Marvel movies -- so some expectations have to be lowered, since they will inevitably be trying to set up the next movie.

But complaining about how Natalie Portman or Gwyneth Paltrow didn't appear (when Thor and Stark were trying to out-do the other by talking up their SO's) is ridiculous -- they didn't have contracts or were busy with other obligations and a movie production isn't going to be held up just to include one actor or actress, for one scene, for one day. That's just not how it works.

So, observation/rant, over on that front.

Well, I wasn't referring primarily to who was or was not included in the cast: he had, as you say, to juggle a lot of elements, and IIRC he reportedly wanted a larger number of female characters than made it into the final film.

I was referring to the whole Black Widow pregnancy subplot. Although as I said, I feel the criticism was somewhat excessive, myself.

He still makes good movies and is capable of witty banter, and does have a decent track record (not perfect, because let's face it -- no one does) on female representation in movies. Give him a chance, I say. Harrumph.

He includes more female characters and female leads, and ones developed with greater complexity, than many directors.

At the same time, Whedon seems like less the only game in town these days, and that's a very good thing. Off the top of my head, I'd say that Fury Road was Whedon done better than Whedon, and both of the prior Disney Star Wars films managed a female protagonist who was, if not a terribly deep or complex character, at least allowed to be a protagonist like any other without either beating the audience around the head with "SHE's A WOMAN, AREN'T WE PROGRESSIVE?" or being gratuitously sexualized (which Whedon's female characters often are, in my opinion).

[Abacus]

TRR, none of that was "rage" or anything (notice a lack of all CAPS), more than for the benefit of whatever audience it is that reads our discussions. Just FYI.

Also, concerning Black Widow, that was entirely misunderstood imho. I'll post up, for the benefit of others and not directed as you TRR, what I wrote in another thread regarding that issue.


Spoiler

I wanted to address (belatedly) the “controversy” surrounding the Avengers: Age of Ultron line that the character Natasha Romanov said that got so many people angry and hating on Joss Whedon – believing, erroneously, that he was making some sort of statement about women who cannot have children somehow being “monsters.”

Both Bruce and Natasha share with each other the fact that neither of them are physically able to have children. In a terribly raw, open, and emotional (super rare) moment between the two of them. They bare all. Bruce fears that he might lose control, killing Natasha -- and, further, hates himself for not being able to deliver on the one primary thing that any male of a species is suppose to do: continue the species. Bruce's self worth is built as shoddily as a sand castle, having endured losing everything he once held dear and becoming little better than a beast. Even though he begins to assert a manner of control over his Green Side, he still cannot trust the one person that anyone should be able to trust: himself. Fear, anger, and disgust with himself all cause Bruce to reject Natasha.

Natasha herself reflects back on the place where she was trained, describing it as the "Red Room," how they trained her to be an assassin; up even to the point of physically removing the one thing that could trump their soul-crushing, emotion-devouring training: her ability to have a child (which she herself agrees with and says). Both are equally distraught, each thinking about their own inadequacies in regards to being unable to fully support any potential love partner. So when Natasha says: "They have a graduation ceremony. They sterilize you. It's efficient. One less thing to worry about. The one thing that might matter more than a mission. Makes everything easier...[she visibly tears up and her throat catches] even killing. [Pauses a moment for composure] Still think you're the only monster on the team?"; it's not about her being unable to have a child. She isn't calling herself a monster because of the fact that she cannot give birth. She's calling herself a monster because she lived a long time as a cold-blooded assassin who faced no moral qualms in her actions up until she was saved by Hawkeye and Nick Fury. The fact that she can't give birth is simply something which she negatively views as a personal defect, further making her think she is unworthy of a potential lover – until she met Bruce and decided she'd “run with it.”

So when people, especially a lot of Neo-Feminist folk, read into that single out of context line and decided to attack Joss Whedon for it, they completely misunderstood the entirety of what was said. The characters, Bruce and Natasha, are both suffering from near identical situations – veritable identity crises – that both draws them together and pushes them apart. Natasha however is the stronger of the pair, pushing beyond her personal pain and past to try and reach something brighter and better. She's “running with it.” It's Bruce, the 'man,' who isn't brave enough or (ironically) strong enough to push past his own issues, his own fears and worries, to accept even the bare semblance of normality that might come with “running with it.”

I find that anyone who wishes to continue believing that Joss Whedon is somehow a closet woman-hater or woman-basher because they saw “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and took one line out of complete context and failed to understand it...is really not worth my time. Which is ironic considering how much time I took writing the above.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I agree that you can easily interpret that scene in a non-misogynist manner, and I think what you describe is probably closer to Whedon's actual intent. As I said, I feel that the charges of sexism are overstated. I do think that having one of only two major females characters in the film describe themselves as a monster right after saying that they can't have children, and essentially making a connection between those two points, was... rather poorly constructed/worded, and I can easily see how people took it as misogyny, but I don't know if that was Whedon's fault or something that got mangled by executives/in the editing stage. And in any case, it comes off as more "While trying to make his actual point, he didn't think carefully enough about the implications/how it would sound to people", rather than any deliberate malice or attempt to convey a sexist message.

Edit: Regardless, however, the point stands that it is one of several things which has noticeably chipped away at his reputation and the strength of his fan-base in recent years. It may not be deserved, but I don't think Whedon would get as warm a response now than "Whedon to direct Star Wars film" would have got five or ten years ago.

[Ender]

I keep hoping to give Joss Whedon some money and have him make a Firefly SW version. I think that covers most of what Ender mentioned.

I don't much care for him. He can't frame a shot to save his life, he doesn't have remotely the creative visual flair for Star Wars, and his characters just spout snappy one-liners rather than really interact and grow. Honestly his style of writing seems really of an age of the early Bush years. You see it a lot in books from that era (Scalzi immediately springs to mind) and in the way blogs would cover things as well. Everything is a quick burn.

If you are cribbing from the Marvel movies, Kenneth Branaugh might be an interesting choice. And obviously the Russo brothers and James Gunn are top tier - GotG vol 1 was the best Star Wars movie since Empire Strikes Back.

[Abacus]

He can't frame a shot to save his life, he doesn't have remotely the creative visual flair for Star Wars...

You did see The Avengers (2012), yes?

[The Romulan Republic]

I keep hoping to give Joss Whedon some money and have him make a Firefly SW version. I think that covers most of what Ender mentioned.

I don't much care for him. He can't frame a shot to save his life, he doesn't have remotely the creative visual flair for Star Wars, and his characters just spout snappy one-liners rather than really interact and grow. Honestly his style of writing seems really of an age of the early Bush years. You see it a lot in books from that era (Scalzi immediately springs to mind) and in the way blogs would cover things as well. Everything is a quick burn.

If you are cribbing from the Marvel movies, Kenneth Branaugh might be an interesting choice. And obviously the Russo brothers and James Gunn are top tier - GotG vol 1 was the best Star Wars movie since Empire Strikes Back.

Despite my earlier criticism of Whedon, I think you're being a bit harsh. He does have talent as a writer and director, more than I think you're giving him credit for.

Out of curiosity, what Whedon films or shows have you seen? They do admittedly vary a great deal in quality. If I only knew him from Avengers, for example, I'd probably be inclined to rate him as a competent but fairly mediocre and hum-drum director, and perhaps hold a view of him as a writer similar to yours'.

I think his talents (and weaknesses) at character development shine more in a long-running series (ie, Buffy), than in a film.

[PhoenixKnig]

The Last Jedi in < 2 weeks

[The Romulan Republic]

I've got it tentatively slated for Boxing Day (the day after Christmas in Canada). Going to a movie is a sort-of tradition for boxing day for me.

[PhoenixKnig]

I've got it tentatively slated for Boxing Day (the day after Christmas in Canada). Going to a movie is a sort-of tradition for boxing day for me.

What is Boxing Day about

[PhoenixKnig]

Who's going to see it on opening night

[The Romulan Republic]

I've got it tentatively slated for Boxing Day (the day after Christmas in Canada). Going to a movie is a sort-of tradition for boxing day for me.

What is Boxing Day about

It has its origins in British classism. From Google:

"A 'Christmas Box' in Britain is a name for a Christmas present. Boxing Day was traditionally a day off for servants and the day when they received a 'Christmas Box' from the master. The servants would also go home on Boxing Day to give 'Christmas Boxes' to their families."

Nowadays, I expect, its pretty much a day to sit around and eat leftover Turkey for most people.

As to opening day... that can be a fun atmosphere, I guess, but probably also loud, crowded, and not nessiarily convenient when you're busy with pre-Christmas stuff. So I'll probably pass.

I don't think I've ever done an opening night show for something like this. Closest would be going to the special screening of the Doctor Who 50th. Anniversary.

[Crazedwraith]

I've got it tentatively slated for Boxing Day (the day after Christmas in Canada). Going to a movie is a sort-of tradition for boxing day for me.

What is Boxing Day about

Huh. Didn't realise it wasn't universal.

It's a UK holiday that's basically like black friday.

[Rogue 9]

Boxing Day is marked on most American calendars, but we don't really celebrate it as such.

[PhoenixKnig]

I've got it tentatively slated for Boxing Day (the day after Christmas in Canada). Going to a movie is a sort-of tradition for boxing day for me.

What is Boxing Day about

Huh. Didn't realise it wasn't universal.

It's a UK holiday that's basically like black friday.

was news at least to me. Cool thanks

[Vympel]

Someone has leaked the whole Visual Dictionary online. There's some great stuff in there.

[Ender]

He can't frame a shot to save his life, he doesn't have remotely the creative visual flair for Star Wars...

You did see The Avengers (2012), yes?

Yeah. That's exactly what I was thinking of when I was listing why he was bad. Compare the shots of Man of Steel with Avengers. For his multitude other faults, Snyder can do the basic composition that Wheldon cannot