Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3521
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1101 Post by tenia » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:27 am

domino harvey wrote:Thank God. Even with the producers' less than stellar reputation of interfering with directors, they could probably get literally anyone they wanted and his choice never made sense
I still don't understand why people get so caught up in thinking the director is so important for a Star Wars movie in 2017. It's so locked by the studio anyway, it's not as if a director could give the movie a very specific visual aspect (though for sure, Jurassic World is so visually bad, I guess a better director would be a nice thing to have).

On top of this, looking back at Ep 7 and Rogue One, their biggest issue certainly wasn't the direction, but rather the writing. I'd be much more reassured by knowing the scripts will be better and tighter than watching another probably meaningless director switcheroo.
swo17 wrote:This must be a fun day for Colin Trevorrow to read about himself on the internet.
The only thing I believe in is karma, and I guess that seeing how Jurassic World was one of the biggest recent hold up in cinema history, I guess this is simply payback.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8444
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1102 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:52 am

I agree with all of the above. Certain franchises have grown so big now that they seem larger than any particular star or director. Perhaps even the content of them isn't important any more when they're perhaps more important in sending you to Universal or Disney theme parks as telling a continuing story. You've got to keep the brand awareness up somehow, so why not with a new film to whet the appetite in between family vacations?

This all rather flies in the face of the 'auteur director' idea mentioned earlier, and even that idea that sometimes gets mentioned in commentaries that you just have to get to a certain stage of production and they'll have to keep you on, at least until control of the film can be wrested away in the editing room (as say happened to Peckinpah over and over), because its expensive to replace a director in mid-shoot. Then there's the possibility of maybe doing a "Director's Cut" later on (which itself is why its very interesting to see the 'Richard Donner cut' of Superman II, while it seems rather unnecessary to have an extra hour of footage added to Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. The latter appears to be done less because of editing room conflicting visions resulting in different takes on the material and more just for extra marketable 'content' for the home video release). Expense seems to be relative thing on big franchise movies though.

What strikes me as strange about this is why all these young up and coming indie directors were hired for big franchise entries anyway if nobody wanted their particular vision? They all had nerd-culture indie cred built up through small scale hits, but that seemed to get steamrolled over and the safe-but-bland Ron Howard and Lawrence Kasdan types brought in after all. That might make sense, in having a crushingly dull blockbuster series in crushingly dull safe hands (as with the majority of the Harry Potters, despite the Cuaron-directed middle one. Though there is that cautionary tale of being too crushingly dull in knowing how the George Lucas directed prequels turned out), but why line up such youthful energy in the first place to just dispose of it? Is it just that every studio were desperate for their own 'hip, young' Joss Weedon or J.J. Abrams type, then suddenly realised that not every other up and coming director were happy to rigidly work within the confines of a particular template? That other directors might be primarily concerned about their particular film than the total direction of the franchise itself?

Also, I know its an entirely different franchise so maybe there's no connection to be made at all, but how much did the 2015 Fantastic Four film having all of its troubles cause a sea change in studio thinking towards that particular generation of directors suddenly helming blockbuster franchise entries?

User avatar
JamesF
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1103 Post by JamesF » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:35 am

Tempting to wonder how Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand would have fared as director choices against modern-day social media scrutiny!

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Posts: 507
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1104 Post by MoonlitKnight » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:52 am

Kershner was a well-regarded strictly for-hire director in the industry, so I doubt much would've been made of him. Marquand, on the other hand, would've likely suffered the same fate as Trevorrow and Lord & Miller, given that it's been fairly well-documented that it was felt his inexperience working on large-scale films showed quite a bit and that Lucas more or less ended up co-directing ROTJ as a result. I'm still not sure how "Eye of the Needle" made him an ideal choice for helming such a project (again, according to several people associated with ROTJ). Maybe they had gone all in on either Lynch or Cronenberg, and, once they spurned them, had no other marquee choices? :-k

Still, I find it strange that Trevorrow got the boot despite pretty much doing exactly with "Jurassic World" that Abrams had done with TFA, i.e. giving people a modernized rehash of the original film of the franchise and seemingly thinking they wouldn't notice. A lot of the sources I've seen seem to cite "The Book of Henry"'s poor box office performance as a significant reason. But, really, I can't imagine that film ever actually being capable of attracting a mass audience. I can't help but think Di$ney is being highly over-cautious. :|

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3521
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1105 Post by tenia » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:23 am

MoonlitKnight wrote:I can't help but think Di$ney is being highly over-cautious. :|
If they were, they would never have hired Trevorrow in the first place.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11769
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1106 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:43 am

Ah yes, noted cinematic outlaw Colin Trevorrow

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28723
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1107 Post by domino harvey » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:42 am



User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28723
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1109 Post by domino harvey » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:51 am

Excellent news!

Cde.
Posts: 586
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:56 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1110 Post by Cde. » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:08 am

Yeah, I enjoyed VII. Might not be as interesting as Rian Johnson would have been (though I'll have to wait until December to get a better idea of that), but it's a big step up from the likes of Trevorrow and Edwards.

User avatar
aox
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1111 Post by aox » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:12 am

Glad Abrams is returning and will wrap up the trilogy

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1112 Post by Big Ben » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:30 am

An absolutely safe choice and one I'm glad they made. I just can't imagine them trying to make it anymore difficult for themselves.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11769
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1113 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:43 am

Looking forward to the studio firing Abrams and replacing him with Morten Tyldum

User avatar
bearcuborg
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1114 Post by bearcuborg » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:52 am

Obviously this isn't the last trilogy, but given what little I know about JJ, hopefully this leaves room for an open ending-Jedi always felt rushed.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1115 Post by Brian C » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:57 am

mfunk9786 wrote:Looking forward to the studio firing Abrams and replacing him with Morten Tyldum
If that doesn't work out, Oscar-nominated prestige director Scott Hicks is probably available!

calculus entrophy
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Star Wars

#1116 Post by calculus entrophy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:02 am

calculus entrophy wrote:Regardless of the name in the credits, all Star Wars activity is clearly done by committee at this point. And it reflects that.
...more

User avatar
Clarence
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:18 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1117 Post by Clarence » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:29 pm


User avatar
bunuelian
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1118 Post by bunuelian » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:33 am

So glad they're staying true to the prequels by putting a bunch of animated, yelling Pokemon on the screen from time to time.

Maybe in the remake of RotJ they can have the giant Gollum sing some death metal tunes. That would be ok.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1119 Post by Big Ben » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:55 am

In fairness Star Wars has always had weird shit screeching on screen. Some are even named. Like fan favorite Salacious D. Crumb.

Image

Although in fairness to Disney I imagine toy sales are always a factor now too.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Posts: 3807
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1120 Post by cdnchris » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am

It's aimed at kids obviously. But I had to laugh when both of mine said that they looked cuter in the trailer than the toy versions at Target, which they both agreed were ugly.

User avatar
bunuelian
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1121 Post by bunuelian » Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:14 pm

What amazes me is the amount of resources, both material and cultural, that are wasted on these intensely, almost deliberately mediocre films (speaking of the prequels and the films since). But I suppose the endless deluge of terrible comic book movies gives them a context where creating banal, feature-length commercials for toys is the height of creativity.

The little creatures in the originals were at least muppets, lending them artifice that lets the imagination do a little lifting and forcing the filmmakers to give them a degree of Bressonian restraint. Whereas CGI creatures can do anything, so (and here's the mediocrity) they do.

My bitterness toward these films is partly fed by the siege mentality that comes from raising small children in a world where their imaginations are driven into violent corporate cul de sacs by Disney and Marvel.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11769
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1122 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:12 pm

bunuelian wrote:What amazes me is the amount of resources, both material and cultural, that are wasted on these intensely, almost deliberately mediocre films (speaking of the prequels and the films since). But I suppose the endless deluge of terrible comic book movies gives them a context where creating banal, feature-length commercials for toys is the height of creativity.

The little creatures in the originals were at least muppets, lending them artifice that lets the imagination do a little lifting and forcing the filmmakers to give them a degree of Bressonian restraint. Whereas CGI creatures can do anything, so (and here's the mediocrity) they do.

My bitterness toward these films is partly fed by the siege mentality that comes from raising small children in a world where their imaginations are driven into violent corporate cul de sacs by Disney and Marvel.
That does it - no more Star Wars for me. Going out to purchase some acclaimed novels straightaway

User avatar
Magic Hate Ball
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1123 Post by Magic Hate Ball » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:57 pm

It looks like a bible movie.

User avatar
Clarence
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:18 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1124 Post by Clarence » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:54 pm


User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11769
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#1125 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:00 pm

Image

Post Reply