CopperRevan

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yeah Romans is definitely in the ole wish list. But I'm going back and forth between a static, and an FX.

I love both. Probably because I grew up with the Prequels and seeing toying toy versions, and seeing it on the box art, and the Visual Dictionary and all, but that ROTS, Obi-Wan.....whew. But the ANH Obi-Wan is really good too. Yeah I love both.

The Yuma/Hero has always been my favorite. But the V2 is up there. There's just something about a prop that's so uniquely weathered, and had such a history. It's kinda of interesting that only in recent years that the Hero has become THE Luke Skywalker lightsaber. In the 90's and early 2000s, the V3 was the Luke's saber. Hasbro had a toy, it was in the Visual Dictionary, and all the games used that version. Though the DICE/EA Battlefronts use the V2 version, looks like a Master Replicas.

Yeah, Kyo's saber is probably my favorite prop out of the Sequels. I love the more medieval look. Of course his whole vibe is that of a dark knight or dark prince. His armor takes strong ques from a doublet. I love how practical the folding saber is. A saber staff should really be carried in a sheath as opposed to covertec or ring. Having a 11 inch piece of metal swing on a belt is scary enough. :lol: I like too, that they Rey's staff for her saber. There's this little element of Heroine's Journey, where the heroine brings tools from her "perfect world" to help her. So her staff fills that part of the story. (Side note, the Heroine's Journey is really cool. Rey's story follows beat for beat Victoria Lynn Schmidt's version. Like The Force Awakens literally takes it name from one of the stages.)
Roman's is awesome and YES!!! The Yuma is my favorite too. I've done this hilt 4 times, yet had to sell everyone of them. That book in the background was my first star wars book as a kid. The Yuma is what Luke is holding. That is why i like it and the hilt is so unique.
1653395035981.png
 

batguy

Sr Member
I've always wondered why the saber blade in that ROTJ book cover shot was crooked (in relation to the handle). Was it a stunt blade that got bent crooked during shooting?

The green glow is probably an airbrush job in the publicity pic but that doesn't really explain it. If only the added glow was crooked then you would partially see the stunt blade sticking out behind it. And it doesn't make any sense to erase the stunt blade first before adding a crooked glowing blade over it.


437.jpg
 
Last edited:

Joek3rr

Master Member
So, I heard about the Vanity Fair article interview with Kathleen Kennedy apparently stating the reason why Solo failed at the box office was because they didn't use Deep Fake to make Han look like the classic Han we all know. Hearing this was confusing to me, as I was like, "She's kidding, right?" Now, keep in mind, I still haven't seen Solo (the SW film, not to be confused with the Mario Van Peebles film), but I've heard that the film is generally mixed in it's reception. But hearing her say the film didn't do well at the box office because they didn't use Deep Fake tech to make Han look like his old self? That doesn't make any sense.

Has anyone read the article to confirm that's what she said?
Just curious why haven't you seen it?

From my experience reading people online before the movie. Most people just didn't care about a Han Solo movie. For those that disliked TLJ that feeling was probably made worse. But most, except the 'see it all' fans didn't care for this movie from the beginning. Perhaps there was some disconnect between the intended audience and the fact that Han didn't look like....Han. I mean look how people react seeing Luke in The Mandalorian.
 

Psab keel

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I skimmed the article and if that is indeed what Kennedy said then heres a few thoughts. I also skipped Solo too but I read all about the troubled production.

There's a few reasons Solo tanked, and the decision to not use deep fake tech is certainly not one of them. It came on the heels of TLJ which, to date, is still the most divisive story in the series. Second the concept of an origin story for Han Solo was totally unnecessary. An early adventure with Han and Chewie would have likely been more widely accepted because it wouldn't amount to a check list of facts we all knew about the character by watching ANH. Third, the actor needed coaching after filming began, which didn't bode well. Though the most important reason?

The original directors were fired after shooting 80% of the movie, only to be replaced and have the movie almost entirely reshot by Ron Howard. That decision lays squarely on Kennedy's shoulders. You can hem and haw about it, but that was her choice and it completely changed the trajectory of the film.

Deep fake tech barely works now in short scenes. Using it back in 2017 to digitally replace the lead actor in a theatrical film just wasn't viable. Recasting was the only option and yes, a lot of fans didn't like the idea, but to honestly believe that was the main reason for the movie under performing, misses the point entirely.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that excuse would be used to mask the real reasons for Solo losing money and not being a hit with fans. It's nothing new for Kennedy or her directors to make up reasons for why some of the new material isn't as well received.

All that said, whether you love or hate the movie you can only dismiss facts for so long before reality sets in. The people running Lucasfilm can live in their delusions by creating excuses that take the pressure off of them for making bad choices. It would just be nice for them to own up to it every once in a while and acknowledge that maybe they messed up sometimes. They're human, just like us.

We're not arguing life or death here. It's just an acknowledgement of reality. If the Lucasfilm team doesn't want to do that then they're going to keep wondering why fans won't respond the way they want to some of the material they produce. You can blame the customer, you can blame technology that wasn't even capable back in 2017, but it doesn't address poor decision making on their part.
 

Riceball

Master Member
For some reason, the big studios are deaf to the argument that a previous bad movie in a franchise might hurt the sales of the next movie. Their brains just won't process the concept. They will jump through all kinds of hoops trying to rationalize the outcomes in some other way. They make this mistake over and over again with many franchises. Batman, X-Men, Star Wars, etc.
This is because a subjectively bad movie can still make money and in the eyes of the studio execs if it makes money, then it's not bad movie, despite what the fans might think. You have to remember, there's much more to the movie going public than just the hard core fans of a given franchise that you'd find here and on other similar forums. And people here, and elsewhere, are really just a vocal minority and just because fans are critical of some of these movies, that doesn't mean that the rest of the movie watching public didn't enjoy them.
 

Psab keel

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
It also amounts to studios only caring about the here and now. What is going to keep profits rolling in for this quarter? **** all for the brand, as long as this movie or show makes money, then the future doesn't matter. They'll worry about that when they get there.
 

CopperRevan

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I've always wondered why the saber blade in that ROTJ book cover shot was crooked (in relation to the handle). Was it a stunt blade that got bent crooked during shooting?

The green glow is probably an airbrush job in the publicity pic but that doesn't really explain it. If only the added glow was crooked then you would partially see the stunt blade sticking out behind it. And it doesn't make any sense to erase the stunt blade first before adding a crooked glowing blade over it.


View attachment 1578678
they used a black rod ...i believe what you are seeing is just the edit over the blade. The blade was short so Hamill could swing it without whacking anyone.
 

CB2001

Master Member
The looks of the guy they picked was the least of the movie's problems.
It's a somewhat watchable heist/adventure movie, just sucks as an entry in the Star Wars universe.
Well, I don't think I've ever had a time where I've watched a Ron Howard film and it not be somewhat enjoyable. I'll see if I can find it to watch.

Just curious why haven't you seen it?

From my experience reading people online before the movie. Most people just didn't care about a Han Solo movie. For those that disliked TLJ that feeling was probably made worse. But most, except the 'see it all' fans didn't care for this movie from the beginning. Perhaps there was some disconnect between the intended audience and the fact that Han didn't look like....Han. I mean look how people react seeing Luke in The Mandalorian.
Real life has gotten in the way. The chance I did have to see it previously, it got pulled from Netflix by Disney. Then I've been busy with everything else in between since then that I just forgot about it until recently. I know, it's a lame explanation, but everyone knows how real life has the tendency to get in the way of things we want to do.
 

HeartBlade

Sr Member
This is the Kennedy article

Main points are:
  • they need to move beyond the Skywalker saga (good point)
  • They are going hiatus on Star Wars films
  • They develop the new star wars stories by setting up some "guard rails" on "what makes something Star Wars," then let the directors go ham
  • Kennedy believes that since Star Wars is one unified story, they cant do reboots/declare something is non-canon (thereby torpedoing wishes to decanonize ST)
  • Kennedy MAYBE thinks you need original actors to reclaim the feeling. She isnt completely against recasting but thinks Solo's failure was due to recasting Harrison Ford
  • Apparently RJ is the one that torpedoed Rey being a Kenobi and Kennedy backs that up saying its against the code for jedi to have kids so they dont want to mess with that (but Sidious having kids is ok?)
  • Patty Jenkins Rogue Squadron was "pushed to the side" because it doesnt fit the Star Wars roadmap. Needs rework
  • RJ is "incredibly busy with Knives Out and Netflix movies" so he isnt with Star Wars which needs a 3-5 year commitment (lol seriously?)
The comments regarding Solo's failure are vague as well as the future direction but it seems like Star Wars is heavily invested in tv and streaming for now. If there are any movies, its coming from Feige, not Kennedy.
 

Joek3rr

Master Member
This is the Kennedy article

Main points are:
  • they need to move beyond the Skywalker saga (good point)
  • They are going hiatus on Star Wars films
  • They develop the new star wars stories by setting up some "guard rails" on "what makes something Star Wars," then let the directors go ham
  • Kennedy believes that since Star Wars is one unified story, they cant do reboots/declare something is non-canon (thereby torpedoing wishes to decanonize ST)
  • Kennedy MAYBE thinks you need original actors to reclaim the feeling. She isnt completely against recasting but thinks Solo's failure was due to recasting Harrison Ford
  • Apparently RJ is the one that torpedoed Rey being a Kenobi and Kennedy backs that up saying its against the code for jedi to have kids so they dont want to mess with that (but Sidious having kids is ok?)
Why wouldn't a Sith be able to have kids?

  • Patty Jenkins Rogue Squadron was "pushed to the side" because it doesnt fit the Star Wars roadmap. Needs rework
  • RJ is "incredibly busy with Knives Out and Netflix movies" so he isnt with Star Wars which needs a 3-5 year commitment (lol seriously?)
About 3 years is what each of the Sequel films had.
And also, you've missed the bit about Rian being a part of their brain trust, considering the direction the entire franchise goes. It seems he still remains Lucasfilm's favorite filmmaker to work with.

The comments regarding Solo's failure are vague as well as the future direction but it seems like Star Wars is heavily invested in tv and streaming for now. If there are any movies, its coming from Feige, not Kennedy.
 

HeartBlade

Sr Member
Why wouldn't a Sith be able to have kids?
Based on lore, Sith are Jedi that have chosen to follow the Dark side. We dont know much about the Sith and their rules to be fair (we barely know much about the jedi) but given that Sith are focused on power and desire to hold it for themselves (hence the rule of two, one to hold the power and the apprentice that desires it). They also are strongly committed to learning the force to master it and bend it to their will, hence why Sith apprentices tend to be stronger than jedi apprentices and even some knights.

We also have met previous Sith and dark siders whom never had children (Bane, Plaguis, Maul, Krayt). So why can they suddenly have kids now but its still a strong taboo for jedi that they dont want to mess with? Given the fact that you cant clone jedi according to episode 2, you would think there would be Sith having kids to get powerful force-potential babies to train as new Sith (yes its immoral but its the Sith) but we dont hear that.

Also, in terms of jedi having kids, Bastila Shan had a kid with Revan (two jedi knights) so the taboo of Jedi having kids has been broken already with KOTOR (assuming KOTOR is canon but even if it wasnt, it would have been removed before publication by LucasArts if it was that taboo). Nevermind the now legends Jacen Solo, Ben Skywalker, etc.

About 3 years is what each of the Sequel films had.
And also, you've missed the bit about Rian being a part of their brain trust, considering the direction the entire franchise goes. It seems he still remains Lucasfilm's favorite filmmaker to work with.
Lol, not that it matters since Star Wars is out of the film business right now according to Kennedy.
Given that the policy is to just set some guard rails on what is needed for something "to be Star Wars" and letting the director do what they want, the brain trust's effectiveness depends on how high those guard rails are.

They are right that they need to move past the Skywalker era (although given that Star Wars is described as a family drama by Lucas himself that is also difficult), but given their showing with stuff outside the era, not confident. Also not confident in the new Indiana Jones five tbh.

Also found it funny that the beginning of the article fluffs up Kennedy by citing movies she has worked on by name dropping some and they are all pre-2000.
 

batguy

Sr Member
they used a black rod ...i believe what you are seeing is just the edit over the blade. The blade was short so Hamill could swing it without whacking anyone.

Lay a ruler over the hilt handle and look at where a stunt blade would be sticking up.

The green airbrushed blade is too far off to hide it. The airbrushed one probably couldn't even hide the top of a shortened stunt blade. I think the explanation has to be something else.
 

batguy

Sr Member
This is because a subjectively bad movie can still make money and in the eyes of the studio execs if it makes money, then it's not bad movie, despite what the fans might think. You have to remember, there's much more to the movie going public than just the hard core fans of a given franchise that you'd find here and on other similar forums. And people here, and elsewhere, are really just a vocal minority and just because fans are critical of some of these movies, that doesn't mean that the rest of the movie watching public didn't enjoy them.

I agree about the public having a variety of attitudes. But I don't think that explains it all.

Warner Bros was surprised by how much (and how quickly) 'The Dark Knight' made money. That's because their expectations were set by 'Batman Begins.' The didn't seem to recognize that 'Begins' had gotten its box office dragged down by the 1990s Schumacher movies. They see weak previous movies as a marketing issue, but they don't accept that it will hurt the box office of the next one no matter what.

Remember 'X-Men: First Class'? That one was liked by everybody I knew who saw it. But it's remembered as a dud because of the box office. The studio didn't pursue it with sequels. No recognition of the fact that X-Men#3 (the previous X-Men movie) had been weak despite making a lot of money, and 'First Class' suffered for it.

If the 'Terminator' franchise was not dead right now, I'm sure the studios would be thinking the last one was the weakest (post-T2) sequel of all, even though it was arguably the best one. It made the least money therefore it must have been the worst, right?


We see the principle with 'Solo' right now. You can find tons of examples of SW fans or movie reviewers (or average people) saying 'Solo' might have been hurt by TLJ. But nobody at Disney/LFL itself can see that. They will get really creative trying to blame it on all sorts of other stuff, but not that. Never that.
 

blewis17

Master Member
I know this probably SHOULD go in the costume section, but as a blast from the past I thought I would post it here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, may I present... the ORIGINAL non-licensed stormtrooper armor. Before there was Gerardo Fallano, before the Wookiee Cantina/Galaxy Trading and "white sunblock", there was... MARCO!

marco.jpg
 

Solo4114

Master Member
Translation: It's deepfakes all the way from now on.
Anthony Ingruber must be THRILLED.
Ugghh. I might be alone in this, but I think this is a huge mistake. If the lesson Lucasfilm took away from Solo's lackluster performance was that it was all because of a recasting, they're severely misunderstanding the bigger reasons it was a failure. Its release proximity to the controversial The Last Jedi, its budget blowing up due to reshooting 70% of the film, poor marketing & drama surrounding the production, and releasing it against serious competition from Deadpool 2 and Avengers: Infinity War are much more significant reasons it underperformed at the box office.

The deepfake technology they're experimenting with is neat and definitely in spirit of ILM always pushing things forward, but in my opinion it’s harmful for the future of the franchise if they limit themselves to not recasting important characters like Luke or Han. I get that Mark Hamill feels a lot of ownership and responsibility for the character, but limiting it to ONLY him playing the role is a mistake. Lucasfilm and the fans should be open to allowing other actors the chance to give their take on characters we know and love.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather see a real human on screen than some strange AI-generated robot-person.
I was initially very skeptical of Alden, but by the end of the movie, I was excited to see more of his iteration of Han. I came to believe that it didn't need to be a Harrison Ford Act-a-Like contest, but rather that he needed to (and did) capture the spirit of the character at that point in his life.

It's like the George Lazenby thing. Lazenby's Bond film is, I would argue, one of THE best Bond stories on screen, and Lazenby is a perfectly fine Bond. But because he wasn't Sean Connery, the producers decided "Oh, THAT was the problem" and brought Sean back for the pretty-terrible Diamonds Are Forever, which I'd argue is his worst outing, including Never Say Never Again (which at least has the benefit of being a terrific story). Everything about Diamonds Are Forever feels like a tired, old, wheezing attempt at recapturing the (then) glory days of the franchise.

Alden wasn't the problem. I think, as you accurately describe, the problems were more complicated. Expensive reshoots due to a DISASTROUS decision in selecting the creative team, setting it up to fail against mega-franchise competitors, and, yes, even though I love the film, following hot on the heels of the admittedly controversial TLJ when people were trying to "make a statement." For me, the reason I didn't see it in theaters was simply that I didn't really care about a Han Solo prequel story, and I wanted new, daring, interesting films that took more risks.

When I finally saw it, I wound up loving it, though, precisely because it did exactly what I wanted: it expanded the scope of the Star Wars universe and introduced a whole ton of stuff that still could prove amazingly fertile ground for future storytelling. Also, Donald Glover's Lando was F***ING AMAZING and I want to watch a whole series of films with him in that role.

Rian Johnson’s Star Wars Trilogy Has Been Delayed at Lucasfilm


View attachment 1576420
A few observations:

1. ScreenRant isn't exactly what I'd consider an especially reliable source. Go to the source that they're quoting, which is the Vanity Fair article. All ScreenRant does is apply their own gloss to someone else's work. The Vanity Fair article is pretty interesting, though.

2. Johnson is pretty busy these days. I gather he has some Netflix deals, plus the Knives Out films (the first one was fantastic, by the way -- don't sleep on it if you haven't seen it yet). So, actually getting him to film it seems pretty difficult under the circumstances.

3. Compare the description of Johnson's films (that they've been "backburnered") to what we've seen about the supposed Benioff & Weiss (GoT showrunning-into-the-ground team), which was (last I heard) affirmatively cancelled. I suspect we haven't seen the last of Johnson because he gets what Kennedy states in the article: that Star Wars has to expand and move on from the Skywalkers and into other eras and other concepts. Not simply in terms of the timeline, but also in terms of the subject matter and types of stories they tell, AND in how they tell them. More on that below.
Sigh... Another plot point that'll get explained in a book:

Rey's parentage is not a plot point.

It's a meaningless distraction, which is exactly why it isn't addressed in the films. It has zip to do with her story. It was just JJ's "mystery box" stuff at work and is entirely meta-textual. So, yeah, this deserves to be addressed in a side novel of little consequence, because it's a background detail of, ultimately, little consequence.

I skimmed the article and if that is indeed what Kennedy said then heres a few thoughts. I also skipped Solo too but I read all about the troubled production.

Honestly, you should give it a chance. It's a really fun film if you go in with the right frame of mind. I was skeptical, too, and figured "Meh, what the hell. I'll watch it" when it hit streaming, but I really, really enjoyed it. It showcases a bunch of other neat stuff, it has some great heist action, it's very "underbelly of the galaxy" oriented, and it pretty much never leaves that realm. And Donald Glover is amazing. If you just watch it as a fun Star Wars adventure film in the seedy criminal underbelly of the galaxy, it's great. The Han Solo aspect, honestly, for me was secondary. I didn't care so much about "But how'd all that background story stuff happen to Han?" I was much more interested in the adventure they showed just for its own sake.

There's a few reasons Solo tanked, and the decision to not use deep fake tech is certainly not one of them. It came on the heels of TLJ which, to date, is still the most divisive story in the series. Second the concept of an origin story for Han Solo was totally unnecessary. An early adventure with Han and Chewie would have likely been more widely accepted because it wouldn't amount to a check list of facts we all knew about the character by watching ANH. Third, the actor needed coaching after filming began, which didn't bode well. Though the most important reason?

The original directors were fired after shooting 80% of the movie, only to be replaced and have the movie almost entirely reshot by Ron Howard. That decision lays squarely on Kennedy's shoulders. You can hem and haw about it, but that was her choice and it completely changed the trajectory of the film.
Absolutely. She made, at once, one of the biggest mistakes in the entire franchise (and I include Jar Jar in that), AND one of the best and smartest saves when she hired Ron Howard. I'd absolutely watch more Ron Howard Star Wars, but she really stepped on a rake with her original selection for directors and that is 100% on her.
Deep fake tech barely works now in short scenes. Using it back in 2017 to digitally replace the lead actor in a theatrical film just wasn't viable. Recasting was the only option and yes, a lot of fans didn't like the idea, but to honestly believe that was the main reason for the movie under performing, misses the point entirely.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that excuse would be used to mask the real reasons for Solo losing money and not being a hit with fans. It's nothing new for Kennedy or her directors to make up reasons for why some of the new material isn't as well received.
To be fair, the article doesn't really get into the other stuff, and we don't know what else Kennedy actually said. I've been interviewed for articles before (within my professional area, that is), and the quotes of what I say usually only cover about 10-30% of what I actually discussed in the interview. The rest paraphrases what I said, and doesn't always provide the full context of my comments. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Kennedy believed there was a lot more to Solo's failure than the lack of deepfake technology, but that was a juicy bit the interviewer could focus on. And the recasting decision did hurt the film, it's just not the only thing that hurt the film. But if you think back on the discussions pre-release here, people could not stop crapping on Ehrenreich and how awful a choice he was as a recasting (and that recasting the film was a bad idea, as was the entire concept of the film from top to bottom because who cares about Solo's backstory. I know I made those arguments, myself, even.).
All that said, whether you love or hate the movie you can only dismiss facts for so long before reality sets in. The people running Lucasfilm can live in their delusions by creating excuses that take the pressure off of them for making bad choices. It would just be nice for them to own up to it every once in a while and acknowledge that maybe they messed up sometimes. They're human, just like us.

We're not arguing life or death here. It's just an acknowledgement of reality. If the Lucasfilm team doesn't want to do that then they're going to keep wondering why fans won't respond the way they want to some of the material they produce. You can blame the customer, you can blame technology that wasn't even capable back in 2017, but it doesn't address poor decision making on their part.
I think the fans are responding positively, though. Most reaction that I've seen to the TV shows has been uniformly positive overall. Sure, some episodes are slow, or whathaveyou, but on the whole people seem to really enjoy the direction the franchise has headed. I constantly see "THIS IS WHAT I WANTED FROM MY LUKE" when people talk about that bit in The Mandalorian with the deepfake stuff. (Which, again, is not about the deepfake tech, but is about seeing their hero at his absolute prime just straight up kicking ass -- which raises issues with why doing that in the sequels would've been a f***ing disaster, but that's a whole other discussion I'm happy to have).
Well, I don't think I've ever had a time where I've watched a Ron Howard film and it not be somewhat enjoyable. I'll see if I can find it to watch.


Real life has gotten in the way. The chance I did have to see it previously, it got pulled from Netflix by Disney. Then I've been busy with everything else in between since then that I just forgot about it until recently. I know, it's a lame explanation, but everyone knows how real life has the tendency to get in the way of things we want to do.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, especially if you go in without any serious expectations of it being good. I mean, that's not to say it isn't good, but rather, just go in with the attitude of "Eh, whatever. I'm hoping for a fun action romp, and that's about it." For me, the worldbuilding was the most enjoyable part.
This is the Kennedy article

Main points are:
  • they need to move beyond the Skywalker saga (good point)

They absolutely do. They need to get past Skywalkers and all of that. I mean, I'd be totally happy if they showed Rey and what becomes of her, but that's precisely because I don't see her as a "Skywalker" in spite of the end of the last film.
  • They are going hiatus on Star Wars films
This is, in my opinion, the smartest move they could make. That and moving away from "trilogies."

Film is a very specific style of storytelling in that it has to be, by its nature, bounded in the scope of what it tells and how it tells that story. You have around 90-150 minutes to play with, and that is not an easy task. Maintaining pacing, while also telling a full, compelling story with believable characters in that amount of time is difficult to do, which is why we forget so many mediocre films that we see (and why we remember the classics we love and the bad films we hate). Trilogies suffer from the same "bounded storytelling" problems. You're hemmed in by the format itself.

By contrast, television and longer-form storytelling generally allows for much richer, more detailed, more developed stories, worlds, and characters to be presented to an audience, and I for one am LOVING the Star Wars transition to television. It's the best thing that's happened to the franchise in probably 30 years.
  • They develop the new star wars stories by setting up some "guard rails" on "what makes something Star Wars," then let the directors go ham
  • Kennedy believes that since Star Wars is one unified story, they cant do reboots/declare something is non-canon (thereby torpedoing wishes to decanonize ST)
Yeah, there needs to be a "house style" in terms of the kinds of stories that get told and how they get told. That's nothing special. That's smart, even. It recognizes that Star Wars is its own thing, and needs to adhere to the core of what that "thing" is. I think Dave Filioni and Jon Favreau "get" what that is, and have done a great job maintaining the "Star Warsiness" of it all. I think this isn't that different from Marvel having its own "house style" but also letting directors play within that style, which allows for the Russo Brothers to do The Winter Soldier, but also Taika Waititti and James Gunn to do their style of films. But then compare Gunn's Guardians films against his Suicide Squad and you start to see that, yeah, he really is coloring within the "Marvel style guide" lines. If that's the approach that Star Wars takes, I'm all for it.

Also, de-canoninzing films is just dumb. I don't know anyone who seriously believed that would ever happen.
  • Kennedy MAYBE thinks you need original actors to reclaim the feeling. She isnt completely against recasting but thinks Solo's failure was due to recasting Harrison Ford
As noted above, I don't take that away from the article. It's what the article focused on, but not necessarily what Kennedy herself believes or said. Or, rather, not the only thing she believes/said.
  • Apparently RJ is the one that torpedoed Rey being a Kenobi and Kennedy backs that up saying its against the code for jedi to have kids so they dont want to mess with that (but Sidious having kids is ok?)
  • Patty Jenkins Rogue Squadron was "pushed to the side" because it doesnt fit the Star Wars roadmap. Needs rework
  • RJ is "incredibly busy with Knives Out and Netflix movies" so he isnt with Star Wars which needs a 3-5 year commitment (lol seriously?)
The comments regarding Solo's failure are vague as well as the future direction but it seems like Star Wars is heavily invested in tv and streaming for now. If there are any movies, its coming from Feige, not Kennedy.
I think RJ's decision to not have Rey be a Kenobi was incredibly smart. I think the decision to have her be a Palpatine who then says she's a Skywalker is one of the dumbest aspects of ROTS. As for Sidious having kids...honestly....whatever. That whole thing is just incredibly short-sighted and slapped together. I can't explain it, and I don't care to excuse it, but I also don't care about it because it's just one of the many things wrong with that jumble of a film.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top