Rian Johnson to write and direct a new trilogy of films.. (Star Wars Universe)

Re: Rian Johnson to write and director a new trilogy of films..

I find myself conflicted for both hating the pretentious nature of the SWIQ concept and agreeing with every word in this post...

Those are the words I was looking for.

Well, guys, let me see if I can help assuage that conflicted feeling in you. In order to do so, however, I want to make sure I understand just what you mean. What is it exactly that you find pretentious about the nature of the SWIQ concept?

The Wook
 
Mostly I struggle with this being a construct you’ve cooked up and yet you call it absolute as if it were scientific fact agreed upon by everyone, when you’re the only one using it.

But at the same time your criteria makes some sense.
 
@The Wook, I've not only been a Star Wars fan since the age of two-and-a-half, but also spent about my entire conscious life learning whay I liked the stories I liked (books, comics, movies, TV...), what made them good, and how to craft such myself. Over that time, I've read all -- and acquired most -- of the Star Wars ancillary material: novelizations, novels, comics from all sources, Bantha Tracks newsletters -- and, later, Lucasfilm/Star Wars Fan Club Magazines/Star Wars Insiders -- interviews in other magazines, all the art-of-and making-of books, video games, radio dramas, RPGs, and so on. It's to the point for me now that I instinctively and pretty immediately can grok on one axis how good a particular new offering is, and on the other how Star Wars said offering is. There have been good stories that aren't very Star Wars. There have been mediocre stories that are very Star Wars. There have been some that fail at both, and some that succeed brilliantly.

My problems with the Prequels, RotJ, TFA, and R1 have been structural/narrative ones, rather than Star Warsiness. My problem with Tim Zahn's or Kevin Anderson's writing has been a bit of both. Matt Stover is one of the best authors for the old EU, and I wish he'd been able to write more. Good writer and high SWIQ. *heh*

So my resistance comes in as not liking the self-aggrandiznig pretension inherent in the term. Just as we tend to roll or eyes when someone brags about their IQ, or being part of MENSA, or have their IQ rating as a personalized license plate.... We don't want to be "that guy", even when we feel like we have a pretty darn high SWIQ ourselves. If it were a course of study, I'd probably have a Master's degree in Star Wars, going for a double-Doctorate. But I try my damndest not to come across as (too) full of myself. I only argue when I feel the facts are on my side, I only present sweeping conclusions that are derived from objective analyses. I welcome debates and challenges to my assertions. If they stand up, cool. If I'm wrong, I want to know about it, so I can adjust my thinking. And the thing about the IQ-braggarts is that they often are more rigid and stubborn about admitting an outside viewpoint, or that they might be wrong. The rest of my resistance comes not just from not wanting to be perceived that way, but, worse, not wanting to possibly actually be that way -- about having a high SWIQ.

@SethS, @Spyhunter2k, that more or less where you guys are coming from?

--Jonah
 
Last edited:
More or less. I’m also a bit biased against hardcore fandom these days after working on a franchise film and getting tons of hate mail from fanboys telling me I don’t get it— when their own ideas are just fanwank scene ideas with no actual story or structure.

someday I’ll write Lucas an apology letter for the endless fan-ranting I’ve done over the PT.
 
More or less. I’m also a bit biased against hardcore fandom these days after working on a franchise film and getting tons of hate mail from fanboys telling me I don’t get it— when their own ideas are just fanwank scene ideas with no actual story or structure.

Yeah, I started that kind of thinking around 11 or 12, and was pretty much over it by 16.

someday I’ll write Lucas an apology letter for the endless fan-ranting I’ve done over the PT.

Not I. ;) My critical breakdown of the Prequels followed on to my critical breakdown of RotJ, as, in my late teens and early 20s, I was applying what I'd learned to my vague sense of dissatisfaction from when I was 8. It's all based in storytelling and cinematic nuts and bolts, even the really cool moments. You need to give your audience those moments of visceral joy and excitement, but it needs to have a solid and relevant reason. As George Lucas said, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

Out of curiosity, what franchise were you working on, if you can say?

--Jonah
 
Well, guys, let me see if I can help assuage that conflicted feeling in you. In order to do so, however, I want to make sure I understand just what you mean. What is it exactly that you find pretentious about the nature of the SWIQ concept?

The Wook

Mostly I struggle with this being a construct you’ve cooked up and yet you call it absolute as if it were scientific fact agreed upon by everyone, when you’re the only one using it.

But at the same time your criteria makes some sense.

SethS pretty much nailed it, and Peregrinus. When someone single-handedly coins a term for something and begins to use it regularly despite the fact that not all accept the premise upon which it is based makes me reflexively withdraw, if not want to instinctively scream "Stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!"

But now that that you've clarified this is just your name for a concept, that you didn't create the underlying concept, and that your "SWIQ" isn't measured against your personal beliefs, but instead the core concept of just what attributes a SW movie should have, I'm less averse.

Then I find myself wondering if we can't use a less-pretentious sounding term than one that includes "IQ"—perhaps, as was mentioned above, "StarWars-iness." But then I find myself reflecting that this is too long and dorky sounding and that we should be able to come up with a more succinct term that describes the same concept. I don't know, like "Star Wars IQ."

Then I realize what I've done and log off for a while to reflect.
 
Re: Rian Johnson to write and director a new trilogy of films..

Why did clear Coke fail despite it being the exact same formula as regular Coke? It deviated away from the brand. And in that brand, Coke must have color. And it's gotta be that "Coke" brand color. There were even talks by some that the taste was different because there wasn't any coloring.

How did I miss Clear Coke? I've had an idea for that for several years now that I even worked up a logo for. DAMMIT! Personally, I'd love for them to do away with the coloring. If they can keep messing with Coke Zero, they can give me a call and we'll make the colorless Coke work!

I'm still impressed with Mexico for demanding Coca-Cola be made with real sugar instead of artificial sweeteners and high-fructose corn syrup. I treat myself to a real Coke every month or so. Glass bottles and everything.:love
 
So what will make a movie and/ or TV series which doesn't feature Jedi, Sith, Skywalkers, or any of the usual SW trappings anything other than a generic sci fi production featuring aliens, humans, droids and spaceships? I suppose likewise, what is there in the upcoming 'krypton' prequel series that doesn't feature anything 'supermanish' that doesn't make it the same?
 
The problem with "SWIQ", aside from sounding pretentious and exclusive, is that it's entirely subjective. Your opinion on what makes a good star wars movie could entirely differ from the next person. So, if they both know how many t tracks are on each lightsaber hilt, or the names of every known planet in the outer rim, what's the standard for which to measure their so called "SWIQ"?
 
So what will make a movie and/ or TV series which doesn't feature Jedi, Sith, Skywalkers, or any of the usual SW trappings anything other than a generic sci fi production featuring aliens, humans, droids and spaceships?

• using mythic narrative building blocks to tell the story (heroes journey, manifest destinies, good vs evil, etc)
• using science fiction as set dressing and setting, but tropes and archetypes from fantasy and mythology to build characters and plot point from
• tell a story that focuses on the classic and intentionally simplistic act of good vs evil
• frame a story around a relatively simple objective that is continually complicated
• don't draw overly specific allegories to modern politics, but using more general associations and images from those sources is encouraged
• adherence to the basic rules or technology, The Force, and a common shared history as established in other SW films
• striking a good balance between action with consequences with levity
• family friendly
• characters that feel germane to the universe: roguish heroes, robots with quirky personalities, people bound by a code/job that have to manage their desires around said code
• fast paced action through out, but book-ended with impressive FX driven sequences
 
Mostly I struggle with this being a construct you’ve cooked up and yet you call it absolute as if it were scientific fact agreed upon by everyone, when you’re the only one using it.

But at the same time your criteria makes some sense.

I didn't cook it up, though. I've only named it. Whether we have a name for it or not, we still are human beings, who have it in our nature to make judgements about other people's judgements. We do it all the time, consciously and subconsciously. We stack up and measure their judgements against our own, and then form opinions about those people. ALL of us do it. With SWIQ, I am merely saying that the standard of Star Wars' essence and excellence, is defined by the theatrical cuts of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back--and that the extent to which a fan can accurately judge new Star Wars material against that standard, determines his SWIQ.

EVERY Star Wars fan should believe he has a high SWIQ. But, since we don't all agree on the Star Wars-iness of new material being given to us by the rightsholders, that means that some of us do in fact have high SWIQs, and some of us have low SWIQs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In order for someone to embrace the concept of SWIQ, they must believe that absolutes can exist, even in artistic mediums such as film. It all comes down to this question: Is Citizen Kane absolutely a better movie than Transformers 4: Revenge of the Fallen? The key word being, "absolutely". I say Citizen is absolutely a better film than Transformers 4: Revenge of the Fallen. If someone else says, "No, I can't say that absolutely. Because even though I prefer Citizen Kane to T4ROTF, I have a buddy at work who hated Citizen Kane, but loves T4ROTF. And his opinion of the two films is just as valid as mine.".

@The Wook, I've not only been a Star Wars fan since the age of two-and-a-half, but also spent about my entire conscious life learning whay I liked the stories I liked (books, comics, movies, TV...), what made them good, and how to craft such myself. Over that time, I've read all -- and acquired most -- of the Star Wars ancillary material: novelizations, novels, comics from all sources, Bantha Tracks newsletters -- and, later, Lucasfilm/Star Wars Fan Club Magazines/Star Wars Insiders -- interviews in other magazines, all the art-of-and making-of books, video games, radio dramas, RPGs, and so on. It's to the point for me now that I instinctively and pretty immediately can grok on one axis how good a particular new offering is, and on the other how Star Wars said offering is. There have been good stories that aren't very Star Wars. There have been mediocre stories that are very Star Wars. There have been some that fail at both, and some that succeed brilliantly.

My problems with the Prequels, RotJ, TFA, and R1 have been structural/narrative ones, rather than Star Warsiness. My problem with Tim Zahn's or Kevin Anderson's writing has been a bit of both. Matt Stover is one of the best authors for the old EU, and I wish he'd been able to write more. Good writer and high SWIQ. *heh*

So my resistance comes in as not liking the self-aggrandiznig pretension inherent in the term. Just as we tend to roll or eyes when someone brags about their IQ, or being part of MENSA, or have their IQ rating as a personalized license plate.... We don't want to be "that guy", even when we feel like we have a pretty darn high SWIQ ourselves. If it were a course of study, I'd probably have a Master's degree in Star Wars, going for a double-Doctorate. But I try my damndest not to come across as (too) full of myself. I only argue when I feel the facts are on my side, I only present sweeping conclusions that are derived from objective analyses. I welcome debates and challenges to my assertions. If they stand up, cool. If I'm wrong, I want to know about it, so I can adjust my thinking. And the thing about the IQ-braggarts is that they often are more rigid and stubborn about admitting an outside viewpoint, or that they might be wrong. The rest of my resistance comes not just from not wanting to be perceived that way, but, worse, not wanting to possibly actually be that way -- about having a high SWIQ.

@SethS, @Spyhunter2k, that more or less where you guys are coming from?

--Jonah

I agree that someone could use SWIQ to be a braggart or mean to others. But that can happen, with or without SWIQ.

I don't post here that I have a high SWIQ, except in cases where I'm defining what SWIQ is. And I invariably follow it up by saying, "You should also believe you have a high SWIQ.".

I also don't post here, when I disagree with one of y'all, by replying, "Wait, you think Jar Jar is the best character in the franchise?! Your SWIQ is so low, it could milk a pregnant snake!". Sure, I used @Bryancd as an example of a mega-fan who I deem to have a low SWIQ, but that's because I know he has thick skin, and we rib each other all the time about our different takes on what constitutes good Star Wars. (Of course there could be examples of someone ripping on me, where I might give it right back to them with a jab at their SWIQ. But it's all in good fun. I don't hate anybody here--even the few members, like JD, who seem to hate me.)

Now, you will, however, see me call out non-RPFers for having a low SWIQ if they're part of the filmmaking team. Because they're not part of our gang here. Yes, I do reserve the right to post here, "JJ Abrams is a low-SWIQ hack.".

The Wook
 
Stop trying to make fetch happen. :D

Dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
 
I tend to consider any Star Wars film or content through a number of filters.

First and foremost is how it connects with me in relation to the 9 year old me in 1977 seeing it in theaters. In my opinion, all Star Wars films are compared to the first. ANH is the only perfect SW film. ESB is arguably a better constructed and more complex film, but ANH created the magic and has yet to be duplicated. This is likely a function of my age, I think many of me generation hold ANH in the highest regard. It was first, it was complete, and it was perfect.

Next I consider the films broader appeal. If certain aspects aren't landing for me I take a moment to consider who it may be resonating with. I'm considered enough to realize the films aren't all about me and my expectations. A lot of this has been informed by watching my younger siblings grow up with the PT and loving those films (I'm 20 years their senior). Now I have the opportunity to watch my son develops a relationship with Star Wars and appreciate them through his young eyes.

Finally I evaluate the films as commercial products. I have a very small ownership interest in Disney for myself and clients and look at the films critical and public reaction and revenue. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. The films must be financial successes to continue to be viable and relevant.

I think it's impossible for a film to ever be like ANH, ANH changed the world and we can't go back. But I do see ample opportunity to capture a lot of that magic over and over again. I think TFA had moments of it, the first 20min were really special and had that same sense of wonder. It's a big universe with as @SethS said above some specific elements that make it SW.

SWIQ is stupid, it attempts to make the subjective into the objective, and it effectively is a way to say to someone they are "wrong" about what appeals to them.
 
Last edited:
SethS pretty much nailed it, and Peregrinus. When someone single-handedly coins a term for something and begins to use it regularly despite the fact that not all accept the premise upon which it is based makes me reflexively withdraw, if not want to instinctively scream "Stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!"

But now that that you've clarified this is just your name for a concept, that you didn't create the underlying concept, and that your "SWIQ" isn't measured against your personal beliefs, but instead the core concept of just what attributes a SW movie should have, I'm less averse.

Then I find myself wondering if we can't use a less-pretentious sounding term than one that includes "IQ"—perhaps, as was mentioned above, "StarWars-iness." But then I find myself reflecting that this is too long and dorky sounding and that we should be able to come up with a more succinct term that describes the same concept. I don't know, like "Star Wars IQ."

Then I realize what I've done and log off for a while to reflect.

Lmao! You see?! The name just works so well!

SWIQ is stupid, it attempts to make the subjective into the objective

You do not believe absolutes exist in artistic mediums. This is why you reject SWIQ. You're the guy who says, "As long as there is ONE person in the world, who thinks Transformers 4: Revenge of the Fallen is a better movie than Citizen Kane, we CANNOT say that Citizen Kane is absolutely the better film--no matter how much we may personally believe it to be true.". Well, Bryan, I can say Citizen Kane is absolutely a better film than Transformers 4: Revenge of the Fallen. This why I'm able to embrace SWIQ, and you recoil from it.

.,.and it effectively is a way to say to someone they are "wrong" about what appeals to them.

But we do that ALL THE TIME on this forum when debating the merits and demerits of the sequels and prequels. We don't need SWIQ to put someone down about their opinion that something in the prequels or sequels was good or bad. SWIQ is just a way to succinctly express how faithful new Star Wars material, and people's opinions about that new Star Wars material, is to the theatrical ANH/ESB standard of excellence and Star Wars-ness!

The Wook
 
My 12 year old son, who is intelligent, has decent taste, and a big interest in film, would choose Transformers over Citizen Cane every time. There can be no absolutes when you're talking about subjectional material.

Either way though, Revenge of the Fallen was the SECOND transformers movie, not the FOURTH. So your entire argument is now invalid.
 
My 12 year old son, who is intelligent, has decent taste, and a big interest in film, would choose Transformers over Citizen Cane every time. There can be no absolutes when you're talking about subjectional material.

Either way though, Revenge of the Fallen was the SECOND transformers movie, not the FOURTH. So your entire argument is now invalid.

I give kids a pass. They're oftentimes too immature and ignorant to know any better.

But there we have it. You are not capable of embracing SWIQ, because you don't believe absolutes can exist in artistic mediums like film.

The Wook

ps~I stand corrected. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. :lol
 
Hey @Spyhunter2k ! and @JD ! What's wrong with "fetch"? :confused

I've said fetch for as long as I can remember, and at least 4 times this afternoon. Of course I say "frell" over "frak", but that's besides the point. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saying "Fetch" shows your human privilege over our canine equals. Go sit in a corner and think about how much your privilege has gained you things over dogs.
 
Saying "Fetch" shows your human privilege over our canine equals.

Hey @Sluis Van Shipyards ! I'm pretty certain that's an oxymoron. ;)

Fetch is simply a word I was brought up with and I'm comfortable with it. I don't consider canines equals, and I don't consider using fetch in reference to going to get _____ for someone to have a derogatory meaning towards that person inferred while using it. Especially since half of the time I'm talking about myself. It's usually "I'll run and fetch it for you and be right back." Or "Would you fetch me a paper towel please?"

To me it's a quicker reference to the series of actions that are required to acquire said object. It also makes that set of actions seem less arduous. Which makes people more comfortable both in receiving the hospitality you're giving them, and more charitable when asking them for that same favor. It also works well when trying to assuage someone's fears for your safety... "Hey, could you fetch me a Band-Aid?"

Funny, I don't often use it in its other sense (she's very fetching), but I'll have to remember to work that into my Austin Powers impression sometime.

Though it is impressive that dogs can lick themselves clean, cats too for that matter, just remember that they probably just finished doing so... and you probably shouldn't let them lick your face. If it's too late, you better go fetch yourself a Handi Wipe! :lol See how easy it makes that sound?!
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top