Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)
- Thread starter Python
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 0
42 minutes! No way, I don't have the stamina for that.
Python
Super Freak
Dialogue hasn't been added yet as it's a rough cut. But the short answer is because he has to work with the core footage mostly and has few other options. Making the movie from scratch would be easier, but obviously that isn't an option. I'm with you in that I thought it was a ridiculous scene, I winced at it when I first saw it. It's funny how different reactions can be...
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 0
okay i watched the first 10 minutes or so and this Gal brings up some great points.
I think how people view the saber tossing scene is a good barometer for how they feel about TLJ and how they view Star Wars in general. Not that that feeling is right or wrong, just that that's how they feel about it.
For me it was the worst scene in any SW movie ever and completely set the tone for TLJ, not that I was enjoying it up to that point, but it sums up the movie for me entirely. I hated TLJ.
Others enjoyed that scene and the many others like it throughout the movie and therefore really loved TLJ.
Rogue One was more on the serious side of Star Wars, which all SW movies have serious tones. TLJ was more on the goofy humor side of Star Wars, which all SW movies have goofy humor tones. I like the mix and balance of these tones in SW.
I enjoyed the more serious R1 over the more goofy TLJ. Others prefer the other way. I suspect that's why there's such a dichotomy for these two movies, TLJ especially.
My two cents.
For me it was the worst scene in any SW movie ever and completely set the tone for TLJ, not that I was enjoying it up to that point, but it sums up the movie for me entirely. I hated TLJ.
Others enjoyed that scene and the many others like it throughout the movie and therefore really loved TLJ.
Rogue One was more on the serious side of Star Wars, which all SW movies have serious tones. TLJ was more on the goofy humor side of Star Wars, which all SW movies have goofy humor tones. I like the mix and balance of these tones in SW.
I enjoyed the more serious R1 over the more goofy TLJ. Others prefer the other way. I suspect that's why there's such a dichotomy for these two movies, TLJ especially.
My two cents.
I respect that you said this. A fantastic way to look at the internet.
I wish it wasn't exactly the opposite for far too many.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
Or not...like it or not Rian Johnson is the architect of Luke's ENTIRE post ROTJ existence...Hamill, who I love, showed up to read the lines...if Hamill had been asked to write and direct TLJ then it would be another story...but Johnson got to do this and once again, he now gets to be the expert. Lucas wrote the first Star Wars by himself (technically though he had a lot of dialogue help)...other than that Johnson is the only writer to have personally written a movie featuring Luke Skywalker from start to finish...
Played the character for three movies along with Lucas. Yep, I'd definitely agree with that. By that time the actors usually know the characters better than the directors do anyways.
Python
Super Freak
I don't entirely follow this. Hamill has made it pretty public in his own understated way that he tried to fight Rian throughout the production regarding the character. Rian clearly wasn't interested and the result was the Cynical and pessimistic Luke we got in TLJ. We saw Luke go from being a whiny farm boy, to an optimistic and controlled Jedi knight in the original trilogy. We all followed that journey with him and it was thrown out of the window in TLJ. What is done is done, we can't change that, but to say that Rian Johnson knows the character of Luke more than Mark Hamil is debatable at best... Probably not even debatable actually, he just doesn't. He has created his own version of course which he knows better. But as Hamill said himself, "That's not my Luke" I guess we'll all have to learn to live with that.
This video is over dramatic and edited, but the first 50 seconds highlights this.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction score
- 0
Using this logic, Robert De Niro had nothing to do with the creation of Travis Bickle? He showed up to "read the lines"? Did Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan solely create Indy and HF showed up to "read the lines"?
I'm not comparing quality of actors (yes, Hamill is no De Niro), or directly comparing characters in terms of complexity or appeal. I'm talking about the process by which a film character is created.
You appear to be saying that if a new writer/director shows up to write a new Indy movie, or a follow-up to Taxi Driver, that HF or De Niro should just show up and say the lines - and bow to the new "expert" on the character; the writer/director hired a year or two earlier by the entertainment conglomerate that recently purchased the rights.
And longtime "Taxi Driver" or Indy fans should just accept this new person hired by the new rights holder as "the" expert, and reject any objection the actor has about the iconic character they are so associated with and the direction it's been taken.
Absolutely excellent posts my friends.
Thete is no arguing that. Jal76s posts seem irrational now.
Theres no recovering from this counterpoint
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
These are all great points...you probably got through to me because Taxi Driver is one of my all time favorite films...and perhaps my initial point about Hamill showing up to read the lines was unfairly dismissive to his contributions...with that said, however, the actor's opinion on his character is one of many facets and I do not feel that they retain any final editorial control over the characters that they play especially when the character was created by a writer. Couple things to remember, Hamill wanted TLJ to be all about Luke fighting his "evil twin" (which is why we love him best in front of versus behind the camera) and if anyone has seen the excellent documentary on the TLJ Blu Ray they can see that Hamill's relationship with Johnson's take on Luke was far more nuanced, and positive, than some of the sound bites suggest.
zeiss
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,119
- Reaction score
- 60
What Hamill says in that clip, before the overly dramatic montage, sums up my irritation for the direction Luke was taken. Johnson came up with a story and molded the characters to fit the story he wanted to tell. He could have created a story that incorporates the characteristics that are at Luke's core but he chose not to. I always hate this excuse that a character acted the way the story demanded as that's crap. There are plenty of ways an interesting story can be told without altering the primary core of a major character. I get the feeling that did not happen here because of stubbornness and ego.
I think ego was also the reason Luke had to die in this movie. There was enough emotional weight with Luke's return to the battle. His death did not add anything significant and seemed to come out of left field. It is as if Johnson wanted to make sure his movie had maximum impact and the final say on Luke Skywalker. This irritates me even more than the character change because it robs us of any other director's vision for the character in future movies. As such, we are stuck with Johnson's version as his last story.
Yeah but come on - he's really not got much going on professionally for decades, and then he gets a call from Disney for an almost-leading role in a sequel to the highest grossing film of all time, that will net him a multi million dollar payday.
"Nuanced" is an understatement.
I mean what a major dilemma: playing a part in the iconic character that has come to define your professional and likely personal life being thrown under the bus (based on his opinions/comments most of last year before his sudden turnaround the week after release) versus all the massive potential pluses he has from the experience of doing it and sticking to the official line.
Honestly, I am AMAZED Hamill said anything negative - at all. What a raging internal battle: knowing that you're heading to your grave as Luke, but having to participate in "destroying" Luke (which seems to have been the gist of what Hamill was saying for some time.) It really wasn't something he could turn down for multiple reasons.
He's been smart - clearly and openly signalling to fans that he strongly disapproves of what was done to Luke, while at the same time sitting alongside Johnson dismissing negative fan reaction - apologizing for his earlier negative comments while snarkily commenting on TLJ briefly, all disguised under the cloak of his often silly, sarcastic manner. Hamill's been pretty shrewd in this playing both sides.
Once this trilogy is finished and all blu ray sales are complete, Hamill will share his true feelings in his memoires.
Yeah, he'd be smart to do an autobiography in a few years. He's emerged as a quite passionate and empathetic figure aware of his place in history.
I watched a few minutes of HF in Six Days Seven Nights (OMFG... what a waste) the other day on TV and also happened to see a CF interview from 1995 where she still looked and sounded great. Really makes you sad to think of the mid 90's Han/Luke/Leia trilogy that might have been, especially given Hamill's very solid performance in TLJ.
Yet Colin Trevorrow*was making a story that would have made the fans happy and that made mark really really excited and happy....
A story that mark was looking forward to making.... actually happy for the fans to see....
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction score
- 0
Not a rant. Alex Becker here offers a very interesting analysis of Lucasfilm's illogical decisions from a business standpoint. It is fascinating.
Basic business sense: "You need to sell to who your customer is. Not who you want them to be."
Similar threads
