51–60 of 64 posts
From the article: “Anything that came out after I was born isn’t that great.” I could not agree more.
I never understood people who liked the prequel trilogy until I realized I was too old for them any more.
Nobody can admit that they actually aren’t good movies. None of them were.
It's one thing to make a bunch of stinkers, but then to pretend that said stinkers were in a completely alternate timeline through some sleight of hand retconning is absolutely bonkers and will fool approximately zero people. Let's hope that this is just what it claims to be: a rumor.
> […] sleight of hand retconning is absolutely bonkers and will fool approximately zero people. Same folks who shitcanned the Expanded Universe: > On April 25, 2014, Lucasfilm rebranded most of the Expanded Universe material with the exception of The Clone Wars as Star Wars Legends and declared it non-canonical to the franchise. The company's focus would be shifted towards a restructured Star Wars canon based on new…
Plus, the actors were too old to portray the existing EU storylines for Luke/Han/Leia at that point anyway etc etc etc
OT, but when did actual plot details of fictional universes become business decisions? I can understand the business side setting constraints for plot writers to include or exclude certain characters (to tie-in with merchandise and promo campaigns) and maintain reputation, family-friendliness, political orientation, etc. But I always assumed that apart from that stuff, the business side would be mostly uninterested i…
Ditching existing canon often kind of sucks for all the reasons you said.
On the other hand, when you have reams and reams and reams of existing canon you kind of write yourself into a corner. Imagine writing a new Batman story and needing to cross-check it against all existing Batman material ever written to make sure you haven't contradicted anything. If every Batman story ever written was canon I'm sure we'd have every second of his life accounted for already! So at some point I think you just have to throw some of it overboard...
Well I don’t know a lot about the reasons, but as a fan who watched the first film in the theater in 1977… I LOVED THE FIRST THREE FILMS. I got turned off by the Britishness of the Kylo Ren and Rey films. The actors had posh British accents; I felt they belonged on a Shakespearean stage. Not on an American popular sci fi film. It was weird. I thought Natalie Portman in the earlier films embraced the American sillines…
I highly doubt this is true. The sources are all scammy-feeling websites.
I still think even now they could print money if they'd just do an honest adaptation of the Thrawn trilogy. Even with all the damage they've done to the brand. It's what they probably should have done from day one. I'm not saying the Thrawn trilogy is like the highest art ever made. It's glorious pop schlock fun, as Star Wars should be. But it reminds me of the way that manga is so often treated as storyboards for th…
But then they would have to negotiate the rights to the books! Disney can't afford to buy the rights to a massive property like that.
Oh, they already own the rights, you say...
Oh.
The only one of the sequels that had any balls was The Last Jedi, and Disney was so frightened by the backlash to some of its elements (like the idea that our hero could be-- gasp --a person of NON-royal lineage!) that it then spent the entire last movie trying to retcon everything that made TLJ potentially interesting.
TLJ was almost great, but clearly needed to see Rey go dark at the end, while Kylo turns away from the dark side, and we get a role-reversed third movie. It was heading there so clearly that I have to think juking and doing the obvious, boring thing was a studio meddling issue. “Ok no you can do a lot but you can’t do that .”
It's one thing to make a bunch of stinkers, but then to pretend that said stinkers were in a completely alternate timeline through some sleight of hand retconning is absolutely bonkers and will fool approximately zero people. Let's hope that this is just what it claims to be: a rumor.
According to the rumour they want to keep Jar-Jar but get rid of the Ewoks.
It's one thing to make a bunch of stinkers, but then to pretend that said stinkers were in a completely alternate timeline through some sleight of hand retconning is absolutely bonkers and will fool approximately zero people. Let's hope that this is just what it claims to be: a rumor.
The Sequel Trilogy were the original 1970's movies, which are arguably not the stinkers you are referring to. According to the rumour they want to keep Jar-Jar but get rid of the Ewoks.
It's one thing to make a bunch of stinkers, but then to pretend that said stinkers were in a completely alternate timeline through some sleight of hand retconning is absolutely bonkers and will fool approximately zero people. Let's hope that this is just what it claims to be: a rumor.
lol. More Star Wars is good.