cboath
Master Member
Great...then they failed miserably in the execution of all of it.
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
cboath
Master Member
They killed han and luke. No chance they weren't killing her too. That seems to be a goal of this trilogy - getting them out of the picture for good.
Joek3rr
Master Member
So? I fail to see how that is a bad thing. Having heroes giving their lives willingly for somthing or someone else.
Then why do you care if some of us hate what they've done with it?
Joek3rr
Master Member
So with James Bond I'm fine with it but then I look at Indiana Jones, whose movies are modeled after Bond, and I'm totally against the idea of anyone but Ford as Indy and anyone but Spielberg directing. But why? What's different about the Raiders franchise for me? Is it nostalgia talking? If I had been around for the original Sean Connery run of Bond, would I have also been against the proposition of someone else in the role? I suppose it comes down to Bond being first introduced in books which leaves open the possibility for different actors to play him whereas Indy being born in cinema intrinsically ties the image and persona of the character to the first actor that played him.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
the thing is Lucas wanted to delve into the force in his version of the sequel trilogy.
Given that the PT Jedi were also a flawed order and thus their downfall, I wouldn’t be surprised if midi lotions was walked back, they are an indicator of force sensitivity or whatever.
Furthermore, anyone being able to access the force is nothing new. The PT Jedi live a near solitary life and it’s implied that relations are discouraged (hence why Anakin’s love and marriage to Padme was taboo). The PT Jedi order also bolstered ranks by finding force sensitive children and taking them from their parents so these children are definitely the children of nobodies.
I see the force sensitivity as a talent. You don’t need to have mathematicians for parents to be born with a talent for mathematics but you need to go to a specialized school to foster your gift.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
there are bond fans who still think Clooney is the one and only Bond. I think it can be near impossible to replace a preexisting franchise but remastering it to satisfy the current audience and bring in new is possible.
I feel it requires 2 things:
1) adhering to the rules of the franchise
2) adhering to the themes of the franchise
1 is essential to a successful reboot. I think the recent Dr Who fiasco proves this (The Doctor actually has infinite regenerations that fans did not know about which completely upends the Doctor’s history and killed fan interest).
2 is likely more important for the reboot to be liked by the fans. The Christian Bale Batman is still different from the animation or Keaton batman but was loved because Bale’s batman still kept the themes of Batman struggling not to kill and focus on self-sacrifice.
Joek3rr
Master Member
We are! Thanks for asking. Walmart pick up is awesome. Lol
It's only the early 2000's that Craig's casting was seen as major failure, mainly because of his hair and eye colour, so we don't have to look as far back as Lazenby replacing Connery for an example.
I think the Bond series has certain quirks to it, that despite the franchise being a cinematic oldie, it still has a uniqueness to it, that does stem from the source material that it does its best to play into. I feel the way Bond actors sort of took on being indicative of eras for people, so as new ones come and go, people seem to take those actors as "their bond" (not always).
My uncle to this days says as much as he liked Jackson's LOTR series, Orlando Bloom will never be "his" Legolas, but Anthony Daniels always will be.
I can't comment on Bond or Dr. Who because I never followed either of them but as far as Indy being rebooted and the sequel in production I have some ideas on that.
First I'm not sure Ford could be replaced in the role the same way Bond was recast given that the role of Indy was born of cinema and not on an existing series of adventure novels in the way Bond was born from spies novels and adapted for the big screen. Harrison is intrinsically tied to the role and while many argue that the character was written for Tom Selleck, I find that point to be moot because he went on to finish out his contract for Magnum P.I. I know he did an episode where he essentially played Indy, but c'mon, can we all agree to put that part of the argument to rest once and for all? It's beyond irrelevant now. Harrison IS Indiana Jones. There are a lot of great leading men but nowhere near the level of classic Hollywood charisma as Ford.
As he says, "I earned that hat!" Just like he put character into that fedora, so Ford made the character his own by allowing him some vulnerability. Indy takes a beating like no other action hero. He's human. It's a huge part of why we love him.
Two. I think what they missed in Crystal Skull is the key element of Indy that sets him apart from every single action adventure hero in movies since. Indy gets in over his head to the point of death and at the last second does something out of pure desperation and fate steps in to help him escape. It's what keeps us on the edge of our seats because there is no way anyone else would survive that, but Indy has luck on his side. And he gets the crap kicked out of him in the process!
As far as Star Wars goes consider the fact that even George himself couldn't recapture that magic despite nearly unlimited resources at his disposal. That says a lot.
Plus I think the way the new filmmakers perceive Star Wars is often colored either by too much nostalgia that hinders actual story progression or wholesale butchery that negates it's magic altogether in favor of ego.
What often happens is more an unbalanced adherence to formula where style overrules substance when ideally it should be an equal mix of both. Or a total disregard of what came before.
JJ is so desperate for fan approval that he lacks originality. Which is why many say he is all style and no substance. He knows how to imitate his influences but not how to give that imitation the same grounding that his heroes were able to manage.
Rian is contrarian and reductionist. Happy to subvert what we know in order to force people to think about a subject. Those qualities themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, but they have to be used carefully if you are approaching a well established property that depends on specific rules. Star Wars was already drawn on simple premises that worked because George was smart enough make them broad for the audience to interpret them in different ways which is part of what makes myths timeless. Rian stripping the story of those elements and changing their meaning to create his narrative, only to revert back to where we started by the film's end, ensures that no progress was made thematically.
I think Christopher Nolan would have struck that necessary balance had he done this Star Wars trilogy.
But here we are.
I'm just so happy to have 4k77 and 4k83 and I can't wait for 4k80!! That's the only Star Wars for me.
First I'm not sure Ford could be replaced in the role the same way Bond was recast given that the role of Indy was born of cinema and not on an existing series of adventure novels in the way Bond was born from spies novels and adapted for the big screen. Harrison is intrinsically tied to the role and while many argue that the character was written for Tom Selleck, I find that point to be moot because he went on to finish out his contract for Magnum P.I. I know he did an episode where he essentially played Indy, but c'mon, can we all agree to put that part of the argument to rest once and for all? It's beyond irrelevant now. Harrison IS Indiana Jones. There are a lot of great leading men but nowhere near the level of classic Hollywood charisma as Ford.
As he says, "I earned that hat!" Just like he put character into that fedora, so Ford made the character his own by allowing him some vulnerability. Indy takes a beating like no other action hero. He's human. It's a huge part of why we love him.
Two. I think what they missed in Crystal Skull is the key element of Indy that sets him apart from every single action adventure hero in movies since. Indy gets in over his head to the point of death and at the last second does something out of pure desperation and fate steps in to help him escape. It's what keeps us on the edge of our seats because there is no way anyone else would survive that, but Indy has luck on his side. And he gets the crap kicked out of him in the process!
As far as Star Wars goes consider the fact that even George himself couldn't recapture that magic despite nearly unlimited resources at his disposal. That says a lot.
Plus I think the way the new filmmakers perceive Star Wars is often colored either by too much nostalgia that hinders actual story progression or wholesale butchery that negates it's magic altogether in favor of ego.
What often happens is more an unbalanced adherence to formula where style overrules substance when ideally it should be an equal mix of both. Or a total disregard of what came before.
JJ is so desperate for fan approval that he lacks originality. Which is why many say he is all style and no substance. He knows how to imitate his influences but not how to give that imitation the same grounding that his heroes were able to manage.
Rian is contrarian and reductionist. Happy to subvert what we know in order to force people to think about a subject. Those qualities themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, but they have to be used carefully if you are approaching a well established property that depends on specific rules. Star Wars was already drawn on simple premises that worked because George was smart enough make them broad for the audience to interpret them in different ways which is part of what makes myths timeless. Rian stripping the story of those elements and changing their meaning to create his narrative, only to revert back to where we started by the film's end, ensures that no progress was made thematically.
I think Christopher Nolan would have struck that necessary balance had he done this Star Wars trilogy.
But here we are.
I'm just so happy to have 4k77 and 4k83 and I can't wait for 4k80!! That's the only Star Wars for me.
Last edited:
Bigdaddy
Master Member
I for one thought replacing Clooney with Paul Reubens was a stretch, but he nailed the fight on the beach in the opening scene!
Frogfreak
Sr Member
Heck yeah it is!
cboath
Master Member
The only real reason they died (apart from ford wanting it) was to get them out of the way so as not to overshadow the new characters - and that is simply wrong.
Joek3rr
Master Member
And? Our heroes of old became mentor figures. And traditionally the mentor(s) die. Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Gandalf, Aslan.
Joek3rr
Master Member
True. His physical form still died though.Point of order: Gandalf is immortal, so can't die.
Actually I just realized that all the characters I mentioned. Their bodies die, but their spirits live on allowing them to return in some form or another.
Similar threads
