Ive never understood criticism of adapting books or plays to film as somehow uncreative. That's just a standard part of filmmaking. It would be like criticizing a painter for using a model.
Oh and Casablanca was based on an unproduced play.
I would think Casablanca is only
very loosely based on that play, given that the screenwriters were delivering pages not much more than a day in advance and filming was more than half done before they figured out the ending. But I digress.
I don't think adapting books and plays to film is uncreative. It's certainly
less creative - or at least least work - than coming up with something entirely new, but heck, I like to write for fun but the only stories I've ever managed to finish were based on someone else's work. So I'm certainly not throwing stones.
My point is more that Hollywood is about making money, not making art. Hollywood films happen to
be art, and the actors, directors, set designers, and everyone else involved are artists, but that's not why the studio made the film. So the studios have always wanted as much "movie" per dollar as they can get, and adapting or referencing popular culture is a good way to get some extra oomph. I'm not arguing that's bad; my point was merely that it's not
new. It's the way Hollywood has always worked. Heck, it's pretty normal in storytelling in general; most of Shakespeare's plays are adaptations of earlier works and Homer almost certainly was not the original creator of the Illiad.
Therefore, because this sort of referencing is normal in storytelling in general and Hollywood and Star Wars in specific, I'm not concerned that throwing easter eggs into Book of Boba Fett is going to undercut the story. That's all I was really getting at.
