General star wars talk/discussion/complaining

[Paul Farquhar]

Not going into the trilogy with a plan for the entire three-movie story, in the MCU era, was a remarkable and nigh inconceivable lack of foresight.

“When you came in, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?!”

 

[chuckdee]

The problem with Solo is that it was three stories jammed into one movie. We have Story One: childhood and imperial service, Story Two: the disastrous train job, and Story Three The Kessel Run. Of these, only story three was good and properly developed. You could, for example, have built an entire movie about Han's misadventures as an Imperial pilot, and that would have been much more interesting than the mostly cut and crammed in narrative in Solo. Beckett's crew didn't get enough screen time for us to care about those character deaths.

The blaster is a non-issue. Did we need to see where Han got his blaster? No. Did it's inclusion harm the movie? No.

Both could be true though. I gave the blaster as an example. When you pile them all up - yes, I'd say they harmed the movie. Too much time taken on too many insignificant things when they already had a packed movie.

 

[chuckdee]

Not going into the trilogy with a plan for the entire three-movie story, in the MCU era, was a remarkable and nigh inconceivable lack of foresight.

From what I heard, they did hava a plan. But it was the director's plan and vision. And thus came the horrible counterpoint to the incredible Duel of the Fates; the Duel of the Directors' Vision.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From what I heard, they did hava a plan. But it was the director's plan and vision. And thus came the horrible counterpoint to the incredible Duel of the Fates; the Duel of the Directors' Vision.

Which could have worked if there was one director for all three. Even then, it would have been a better idea I think for the vision to come from the IP holder.

 

[Reynard]

I am excited to dive into the Darth Maul series. It sounds like they really nailed it.

 

[chuckdee]

Which could have worked if there was one director for all three. Even then, it would have been a better idea I think for the vision to come from the IP holder.

Exactly... that's what I meant Duel of the Directors. It's pretty obvious that Rey was supposed to be someone. Then Rian decided... nah. Than JJ said, yeah. And that push and pull killed any cohesion in the whole thing, IMO.

 

[gnarlygninja]

Which could have worked if there was one director for all three. Even then, it would have been a better idea I think for the vision to come from the IP holder.

If you care about getting good movies you absolutely do not want the IP holder to be in control of the vision.

 

[chuckdee]

If you care about getting good movies you absolutely do not want the IP holder to be in control of the vision.

Hard agree. Though this is not the first (and I'm sure not the last) time that this will make this a problem... see Justice League for another example of this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you care about getting good movies you absolutely do not want the IP holder to be in control of the vision.

The general idea of a multi-film series? I want coherence, yes. That's more important than exactly where in the franchise it comes from.

 

[chuckdee]

The general idea of a multi-film series? I want coherence, yes. That's more important than exactly where in the franchise it comes from.

You can have coherence. But you don't want it coming from corporate. You want to hire a director for the entire series and someone to oversee that part and then have someone over the entire franchise that puts all of those parts together and doles them in bits to the directors. The problem is when the directors can't live up to their contracts for very real-life reasons. That's what happened in both of these cases. And the other director was given the notes, but chose a different direction. I'm not sure of the solution to these edge cases, but it's not to remove directorial intent.