Star Wars Star Wars Discussion Thread - LET THE PAST D-! Oh, wait, nevermind

[stephen the barbarian]

ok, i've been wondering how to say this for a while, and it never came out right so i'm going to be blunt.

tlj is anti dnc.
look at our "Heros." they act like democrats, and they fail like democrats. the infighting, cattiness, acting at cross purposes, classic democratic party. they're either old hippies or woke dumbasses. every issue in the movie can be summed up "our 'heros' fucked up and no-one else cares about them.

 

[Skallagrim]

Thanks for posting this here. I kept seeing it pop up in my recommendations and I was like "I don't want to see another video about the Sequel Trilogy" but it turns out it actually did have some fresh, hot new insights into it all.

If there's one evidently good thing that came out of the sequels, it's that it caused a huge number of people to really delve into what makes films work or not work. And it led a lot of those people to share their insights. So now, when confronted with a lot of shitty films, people can easily identify -- and articulate -- why they don't enjoy those films at all.

Which makes it increasingly difficult for the 'cancel crowd' to demonise fans who just want something good, and who won't be satisfied with dreck.

 

[Skallagrim]

ok, i've been wondering how to say this for a while, and it never came out right so i'm going to be blunt.

tlj is anti dnc.
look at our "Heros." they act like democrats, and they fail like democrats. the infighting, cattiness, acting at cross purposes, classic democratic party. they're either old hippies or woke dumbasses. every issue in the movie can be summed up "our 'heros' fucked up and no-one else cares about them.

I figure it's got to be accidental, but there was a moment in TLJ where purple-haired Holdo just kept being such a smug, narcissisic and utterly incompetent jerk that I outright thought to myself: "Is this film deliberately trying to shit on the tumblr feminist types?"

...But it turned out that she was supposed to be perceived as being 100% right for the entire film, so Johnson clearly just doesn't know how bad his film makes his supposed 'modern heroes' look.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

I figure it's got to be accidental

completely. but that's the funniest part, they can't even make themselves look good with out fucking it up.

 

[Battlegrinder]

...But it turned out that she was supposed to be perceived as being 100% right for the entire film, so Johnson clearly just doesn't know how bad his film makes his supposed 'modern heroes' look.

I don't think the intent was for Holdo to have always been seen as in the right and Rian just totally botched it. TLJ was in general very good at getting characters to convey the message they were supposed to.

It's just that those messages were often insane or stupid.

 

[Bacle]

Holdo made me wish the Resistance and co were being lead by Borsk Fey'lya; he was more militarily competent than 90% of the people we see in the sequel trilogy.

 

[Skallagrim]

Holdo made me wish the Resistance and co were being lead by Borsk Fey'lya; he was more militarily competent than 90% of the people we see in the sequel trilogy.

At least when he went out with a bang, it was actually a sensible and useful move.

 

[Zyobot]

In fairness, that's something I've picked up on myself, though I suppose Ian's scenery-chewing makes it rather unsurprising.

 

[gral]

I've just found out that Lucas approached Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Robert Zemeckis to direct The Phantom Menace, but each of the three declined, finding the project 'too daunting' and telling him to direct it himself. So, what-if time: What would be an Episode 1 directed by each of these directors like?

 

[Skallagrim]

I've just found out that Lucas approached Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Robert Zemeckis to direct The Phantom Menace, but each of the three declined, finding the project 'too daunting' and telling him to direct it himself. So, what-if time: What would be an Episode 1 directed by each of these directors like?

He also asked James Cameron.


Ron Howard and James Cameron are both really geared towards tight, no-nonsense productions. They can certainly helm big and flashy productions, but they (thankfully) don't have this annoying tendency to show off how very "clever" they are (as people like Rian Johnson very much do, thus ruining their films, by janking many audience members out of the immersion).

A big difference would be that Howard wouldn't ask to be co-writer, while Cameron absolutely would. (I think he's only ever directed one film he didn't have a writing credit on.) TPM as directed by Howard would probably look a bit better than the one we got, but would otherwise be much the same. Directed by Cameron, it'd be a different film. I could see Lucas just giving Cameron his notes and letting Cameron do most of the writing. But I could also see them getting into a big tug-of-war over it, with very different visions for the film, and ultimately ending their friendship over it.


Spielberg is hard to call, since he can visually go in many directions, when it comes to films. Either way, this would mean no The Lost World, no Amistad, and no Saving Private Ryan. At least not released when we saw them. TPM would be the first big film released by DreamWorks (just co-founded by Spielberg), and it may well initiate a lasting LucasFilm/DreamWorks partnership. If we're unlucky, the film ends up being a lot like A.I. Artificial Intelligence. It'll be Haley Joel Osment stepping into the place of Jake Lloyd. If we're lucky, Spielberg manages to channel the impressive adventure spectacle of Jurassic Park with some of the staggering battlefield visuals of Saving Private Ryan (albeit less bloody).


Zemeckis may actually go further in the direction Lucas actually did. This guy was obsessed with the possibilities of CGI at the time. Even more so than Lucas. This led him to eventually create The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol. It took him three films to finally get that the tech wasn't ready, and that the wider public didn't much like dead-eyed 3D models stuck in uncanny valley. With LucasFilm and ILM to back him up in the late '90s, and Lucas totally supporting all leaps into CGI, this could cause Zemeckis to make a pretty poorly-received version of TPM. It wouldn't be "we may have gone to far in a few places" (dixit Lucas in OTL), but rather "we went way too far, and all across the board".

 

[gral]

He also asked James Cameron.


Ron Howard and James Cameron are both really geared towards tight, no-nonsense productions. They can certainly helm big and flashy productions, but they (thankfully) don't have this annoying tendency to show off how very "clever" they are (as people like Rian Johnson very much do, thus ruining their films, by janking many audience members out of the immersion).

A big difference would be that Howard wouldn't ask to be co-writer, while Cameron absolutely would. (I think he's only ever directed one film he didn't have a writing credit on.) TPM as directed by Howard would probably look a bit better than the one we got, but would otherwise be much the same. Directed by Cameron, it'd be a different film. I could see Lucas just giving Cameron his notes and letting Cameron do most of the writing. But I could also see them getting into a big tug-of-war over it, with very different visions for the film, and ultimately ending their friendship over it.


Spielberg is hard to call, since he can visually go in many directions, when it comes to films. Either way, this would mean no The Lost World, no Amistad, and no Saving Private Ryan. At least not released when we saw them. TPM would be the first big film released by DreamWorks (just co-founded by Spielberg), and it may well initiate a lasting LucasFilm/DreamWorks partnership. If we're unlucky, the film ends up being a lot like A.I. Artificial Intelligence. It'll be Haley Joel Osment stepping into the place of Jake Lloyd. If we're lucky, Spielberg manages to channel the impressive adventure spectacle of Jurassic Park with some of the staggering battlefield visuals of Saving Private Ryan (albeit less bloody).


Zemeckis may actually go further in the direction Lucas actually did. This guy was obsessed with the possibilities of CGI at the time. Even more so than Lucas. This led him to eventually create The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol. It took him three films to finally get that the tech wasn't ready, and that the wider public didn't much like dead-eyed 3D models stuck in uncanny valley. With LucasFilm and ILM to back him up in the late '90s, and Lucas totally supporting all leaps into CGI, this could cause Zemeckis to make a pretty poorly-received version of TPM. It wouldn't be "we may have gone to far in a few places" (dixit Lucas in OTL), but rather "we went way too far, and all across the board".

What you're telling me is Howard would be the best(though safe, 'boring', close to what we got) option, while Cameron and Spielberg would be high-risk, high-reward options, and Zemeckis would probably be the worst option.

 

[Zyobot]

 

[Husky_Khan]

What you're telling me is Howard would be the best(though safe, 'boring', close to what we got) option, while Cameron and Spielberg would be high-risk, high-reward options, and Zemeckis would probably be the worst option.

Brian DePalma would be pretty funky for Episodes Two or Three. He was part of George Lucas' circle of friends. Be fun to see him work a scifi film without an R rating too.

 

[Skallagrim]

Brian DePalma would be pretty funky for Episodes Two or Three. He was part of George Lucas' circle of friends. Be fun to see him work a scifi film without an R rating too.

DePalma was also the one who totally didn't get ANH during the early-cut screening, and thought it would bomb. (Spielberg, conversely, thought it would be a hit.) I'm not sure you could get DePalma to do it, since it's really outside his wheelhouse.

Which reminds me of the fact that Pacino was actually in the running for the part of Han Solo for a hot minute, but turned it down because (by his own account!) he just didn't understand the script at all. It was all weird gobbledygook to him.

 

[gral]

DePalma was also the one who totally didn't get ANH during the early-cut screening, and thought it would bomb. (Spielberg, conversely, thought it would be a hit.) I'm not sure you could get DePalma to do it, since it's really outside his wheelhouse.

Which reminds me of the fact that Pacino was actually in the running for the part of Han Solo for a hot minute, but turned it down because (by his own account!) he just didn't understand the script at all. It was all weird gobbledygook to him.

Yeah, DePalma might be an intriguing possibility, but I don't have a single clue of how you might arrange that.

I was talking to a friend about this alternate directors thing, and mentioned Spielberg was one of the few guys Lucas would respect enough to hear should Spielberg disagree with Lucas. My friend said 'Spielberg is the wrong guy for Star Wars. Look at all of Spielberg's scifi movies that were intended for teenagers or children - they're all upbeat, optimistic movies. Star Wars isn't always like this.' He has something of a point.

Pacino as Han Solo would be a rather different character, but I like this possibility.

 

[Zyobot]

That is all.

 

[Skallagrim]

I was talking to a friend about this alternate directors thing, and mentioned Spielberg was one of the few guys Lucas would respect enough to hear should Spielberg disagree with Lucas. My friend said 'Spielberg is the wrong guy for Star Wars. Look at all of Spielberg's scifi movies that were intended for teenagers or children - they're all upbeat, optimistic movies. Star Wars isn't always like this.' He has something of a point.

Lucas's assertion that kids are the main audience is kind of revisionist, though. He didn't intend that with the initial film (which was more of an all-ages adventure), and ESB was more mature and serious. He swerved to a more kid-oriented strain of thinking when he figured out the toys and other merch sold amazingly well. But even in RotJ, where this becomes obvious (Ewoks!), he still balances it with the far more serious throne room sequence.

So if Spielberg directs Episode I, does he direct it as a film for kids, or as an all-ages adventure, much like Jurassic Park?

Pacino as Han Solo would be a rather different character, but I like this possibility.

Other prominent options included Kurt Russell, Nick Nolte and James Caan. I think all of these would have played Solo in a relatively 'straight' manner, giving us much the same type, but they'd probably have been less compelling than Ford.

Burt Reynolds could have been great, and was considered, but he was too old. Casting him would've changed the character's role in the plot by default. (He'd be more an older brother than a romantic rival, so Luke and Leia almost certainly wouldn't be retconned into siblings and would probably end up togeher.)

For more 'out there' options, Al Pacino is joined by Christopher Walken, who was also in the running.

They considered various other actors that were unsuited to the role, and this was quickly determined. These included Jack Nicholson, Sylvester Stallone, Bill Murray, Steve Martin and Chevy Chase. None of them had a real shot at getting the role, I think.

Another real contender was Perry King (who did play Han Solo in the radio plays). He actually looked right for the part, but I'm not sure he acted the way they wanted. I think he lacks Ford's weird, grumpy sort of charm.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

So if Spelberg directs Episode I, does he direct it as a fil for kids, or as an all-ages adventure, much like Jurassic Park?

either way he does a far better job directing jake llyod

 

[gral]

Lucas's assertion that kids are the main audience is kind of revisionist, though. He didn't intend that with the initial film (which was more of an all-ages adventure), and ESB was more mature and serious.

Agreed, but I do think he was focusing more on teenagers/young adults in the beginning(and so my friend's point still is somewhat valid). Also, TPM is rather more childish than those two mentioned - which I think is kind of the point, considering it is, in large part(with regards to Anakin), a child's adventure.

So if Spelberg directs Episode I, does he direct it as a fil for kids, or as an all-ages adventure, much like Jurassic Park?

That's the question, isn't it? I'd say he does it as a more childish movie than Jurassic Park was.

Other prominent options included Kurt Russell, Nick Nolte and James Caan. I think all of these would have played Solo in a relatively 'straight' manner, giving us much the same type, but they'd probably have been less compelling than Ford.

Burt Reynolds could have been great, and was considered, but he was too old. Casting him would've changed the character's role in the plot by default. (He'd be more an older brother than a romantic rival, so Luke and Leia almost certainly wouldn't be retconned into siblings and would probably end up togeher.)

Agree on both points; I'd say Reynolds would play a role(and the role) more as a Lando-like character than what we got with Ford.

For more 'out there' options, Al Pacino is joined by Christopher Walken, who was also in the running.

They considered various other actors that were unsuited to the role, and this was quickly determined. These included Jack Nicholson, Sylvester Stallone, Bill Murray, Steve Martin and Chevy Chase. None of them had a real shot at getting the role, I think.

Another real contender was Perry King (who did play Han Solo in the radio plays). He actually looked right for the part, but I'm not sure he acted the way they wanted. I think he lacks Ford's weird, grumpy sort of charm.

Christopher Walken would be a bit strange for the role, but the other ones(with the exception of King, which I'm not familiar with) would be a poor fit.

either way he does a far better job directing jake llyod

Jake Lloyd... I've seen people crapping on him, and the Making Of documentary shows he got the role in spite of messing up his lines in the final selection. There was another candidate who looked closer to Luke than Lloyd did and got the lines right. I suspect Lucas liked Lloyd's voice - Lucas pays much more attention and holds much more importance to voice tone than what is being said, a big part of why Lucas' dialogue is so... Lucas-esque.

But I'll say this: in spite of whether he succeeded or not, the part in the Making Of documentary where Lucas is best shown coaching an actor is with Lloyd. I'm unsure whether Lucas did well or not directing Lloyd, but however he did, it doesn't seem to be through a lack of effort and patience on his part.

 

[Skallagrim]

I was thinking about The Last Ringbearer in the context of a LotR discussion. And it occurs to me that there's a possible link to Star Wars there. Fo those who don't know: The Last Ringbearer is essentially published fanfic, and of dubious legality in the West. It was published in Russia, where copyright is a mere suggestion. The book aims to be a thorough deconstruction of Tolkien's work, depicting the elves and wizards as evil and manipulative. The humans and hobbits are their gullible stooges. Religion is all false, and a tool used to manipulate the masses. Mordor, meanwhile, is an atheistic paradise of science, progress, rationality and meritocracy. So obviously, the evil reactionaries want to destroy it.

If Robespierre and Marx had teamed up to write a book that tries to invert -- and, yes, subvert -- not only Tolkien's world-building but also his ethical and metaphysical premises... it would be The Last Ringbearer.

Now, given the name, I can make an obvious reference to TLJ here, but that's not what I'm going for. To begin with, even though I very much disagree with everything The Last Ringbearer espouses, it is at least coherent on its own terms. It's a complete alternative reality, which depicts the books we got as false propaganda by the reactionary elves and their servants.

The comparison I want to make here is with Knights of the Old Republic II. Because that is also an actual attempt at ethical and metaphysical desconstruction. (Whereas TLJ is simply the equivalent of smearing shit on a wall.) Specifically, the things depicted as "good" in The Last Ringbearer correspond almost exactly to the goals that Kreia seeks to achieve in Knights of the Old Republic II.

In The Last Ringbearer, the ring itself is actually a meaningless bauble, created by the intelligent scientists of enlightened Mordor to distract the religiously superstitious reactionaries. In the mean-time, Mordor's true plan is to destroy the Palantiri. These are depicted as the magical objects that tie the supernatural realm of the Elves to Middle-Earth. Destroying the Palantiri will force the Elves to leave this world immediately, thus ending their manipulation of mortal events forever. What's more, since it will close all access between the worlds, and since all magic comes from the other world, it will also permanently end magic. Humanity will then be free to throw off all religion and embrace the glory of scientific atheism!

Does this sound at all familiar? To me, it sounds like the exact argument used by Kreia about the Force. She sees it as a malevolent power that has a will of its own and which manipulates the lives of all mortal beings. She seeks to destroy this power forever -- to bar it from the universe -- so that all sentient beings can be free of the supernatural forever.

The difference is that The Last Ringbearer, being a fully separate work, plays only by its own rules. Mordor is depicted as being right about all this. Knights of the Old Republic II, on the other hand, exists within the established setting of Star Wars. As such, Kreia is ultimately depicted as being in the wrong. If she succeeded, the result would be that all living beings would die -- because in reality, the Force is a part of life. It is generated by all living beings, and it binds them together in a spiritual sense. Without it, life could not continue to prosper. (Of course, if we look at the thesis of The Last Ringbearer from the perspective of Tolkien's canonical world-building, much the same holds true.)

In any event, I thought I'd share these observations here. Kreia is often compared to Ayn Rand, and not without justification, but ultimately, I think she most totally represents just one more iteration of what Tolkien called "the spirit of Mordor".

In Star Wars, that's called "the Dark Side". Quite notably, Kreia actually sees what her plan would do to living things at one point... and still decides to go through with it. This demonstrates that she wasn't just misguided. She hated the Force so much that she'd willingly kill all life just to also kill the Force. It can therefore be argued that Kreia was the most ambitious Dark Sider in the setting's history, who most totally embraced the ultimate goal that the Dark Side (or Mordor, or, in plain terms: evil) always pursues:

The utter destruction of all things.