Was Finn Wasted in the Disney Sequel Trilogy?

[MaxWylde]

I have a theory that J.J. Abrams has some serious ADHD, or is using Speed.

He can't just have a moment where the audience can take a scene in. I used to think that modern TV shows can't have a shot on one thing longer than a minute, but J.J. just can't seem to keep the camera on anything longer than 10 seconds.

I think Gareth Edwards, at the least, had something of the right idea of how to shoot a Star Wars movie with Rogue One. Not that this film is great, but it's not terrible. He at least lets you see things, to get a sense of what's going on, if even for a short-while longer than what J.J. would do.

[McAvoy]

I have a theory that J.J. Abrams has some serious ADHD, or is using Speed.

He can't just have a moment where the audience can take a scene in. I used to think that modern TV shows can't have a shot on one thing longer than a minute, but J.J. just can't seem to keep the camera on anything longer than 10 seconds.

I think Gareth Edwards, at the least, had something of the right idea of how to shoot a Star Wars movie with Rogue One. Not that this film is great, but it's not terrible. He at least lets you see things, to get a sense of what's going on, if even for a short-while longer than what J.J. would do.

Is it chicken or the egg?

Is the viewer responsible or is it the director?

[MaxWylde]

Is it chicken or the egg?

Is the viewer responsible or is it the director?

Ultimately, the producer. It's her movie. Maybe it is an interpretation of what modern audiences want, but we have no real say in anything about how a movie is to be made. The director just does his thing, and if the producer doesn't like it, he reshoots or is fired (as has happened in other Star Wars outings).

But, I think Hollywood, as in big studio productions, are completely out of touch with audiences. They think they're stupid, and yet, they also think they want big action, big SFX, big splosions, big whatever, and that's not entirely so. All we want is good stories, and as Chris Gore also said, there's no excuse whatsoever for Big Hollywood to make crappy films. They've got all the talent in the world at their disposal along with the budget to go with it, and they're all checking off too many boxes in the hopes of pleasing too many different people.

Back when the first Star Wars was made, before it was called A New Hope, there was only one box George Lucas wanted to check off: Fun. Now, they want so many other things, like diversity for its own sake, rather if whether or not it adds anything good to the story. I'm not opposed to diversity, but we all know it feels forced, no pun intended, and when you deliberately go out of your way to make character only to check off boxes to particular people and their tastes, you end up turning off more people than you hope to take in because it's phony. Audiences aren't stupid. Some people might be, but by and large most aren't, and playing down to them only insults their intelligence.

[McAvoy]

Is it chicken or the egg?

Is the viewer responsible or is it the director?

Ultimately, the producer. It's her movie. Maybe it is an interpretation of what modern audiences want, but we have no real say in anything about how a movie is to be made. The director just does his thing, and if the producer doesn't like it, he reshoots or is fired (as has happened in other Star Wars outings).

But, I think Hollywood, as in big studio productions, are completely out of touch with audiences. They think they're stupid, and yet, they also think they want big action, big SFX, big splosions, big whatever, and that's not entirely so. All we want is good stories, and as Chris Gore also said, there's no excuse whatsoever for Big Hollywood to make crappy films. They've got all the talent in the world at their disposal along with the budget to go with it, and they're all checking off too many boxes in the hopes of pleasing too many different people.

Back when the first Star Wars was made, before it was called A New Hope, there was only one box George Lucas wanted to check off: Fun. Now, they want so many other things, like diversity for its own sake, rather if whether or not it adds anything good to the story. I'm not opposed to diversity, but we all know it feels forced, no pun intended, and when you deliberately go out of your way to make character only to check off boxes to particular people and their tastes, you end up turning off more people than you hope to take in because it's phony. Audiences aren't stupid. Some people might be, but by and large most aren't, and playing down to them only insults their intelligence.

I definitely agree. There was a time not too long ago where scripts woukd have to be written or rewritten because at the time the SFX could not be done or couldn't be done on the existing budget. Then CGI came along and now you can create anything you want.

There was a time where making a simple effect was all that was needed, but you spent alot of time with the non SFX part of it. Not saying every non CGI movie was a masterpiece. Just seems like CGI just allows so much without much thought.

Kathleen Kennedy. She has been discussed to death and many think she is the reason why Rey is so powerful and so Mary Sue.

[MaxWylde]

I definitely agree. There was a time not too long ago where scripts woukd have to be written or rewritten because at the time the SFX could not be done or couldn't be done on the existing budget. Then CGI came along and now you can create anything you want.

There was a time where making a simple effect was all that was needed, but you spent alot of time with the non SFX part of it. Not saying every non CGI movie was a masterpiece. Just seems like CGI just allows so much without much thought.

Kathleen Kennedy. She has been discussed to death and many think she is the reason why Rey is so powerful and so Mary Sue.

Well, she is the reason. It's so glaringly obvious that she can't deny it any longer, though she has tried.

I've said many times, well, not here, but on other shows, that a movie like Dark City could not be made today. Not because it's controversial or anything, but because studio execs would never green-light something like this to be made as it was. Dark City doesn't get enough accolade, in my opinion, but this was definitely a movie that didn't play down to its audience, that it thought the audience would get the themes it was presenting. But, if you were to try to pitch that kind of movie today, studio execs would reject it because it would be seen as too risky in a few ways. It's weird, for one, and it's not diverse, but more importantly, the execs wouldn't get it. They didn't get it then, according to some sources, but they went with it because the producer knew what he was doing and pitched them a good story.

More than 95% of all major Hollywood productions are either remakes, sequels, prequels, reboots, or reimaginings. I shudder, really I shudder, what they're going to do to my beloved Dune. The only reason they're trying to make another is because it was made before. If the David Lynch film hadn't been made, they'd never try to do this, in part because a long section of it in the novel would be considered boring (but I was riveted - I can't get enough of Dune).

As for CGI, yes, it has been abused, but it has also helped make good films (The Matrix, Dark City, The Lord of the Rings). It has to be addressed with care to the story, and, I think, to audience perspective. There are uses of CGI where it will offer a vantage to what's going on that you, as the audience, would never ordinarily be able to see. There's one in Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise, where the aircraft he's flying is doing an unnecessary flip off this platform, and the camera then zooms in and around it in such a way as to see the whole thing in one pan around. This is okay, but it does take me out of the film because it's reminding me I'm watching a movie. It would've been better if they just showed the aircraft flying in passes, and then cutting into the cockpit, so that it doesn't disrupt my suspension of disbelief.

[Winter]

Is it chicken or the egg?

Is the viewer responsible or is it the director?

Ultimately, the producer. It's her movie. Maybe it is an interpretation of what modern audiences want, but we have no real say in anything about how a movie is to be made. The director just does his thing, and if the producer doesn't like it, he reshoots or is fired (as has happened in other Star Wars outings).

But, I think Hollywood, as in big studio productions, are completely out of touch with audiences. They think they're stupid, and yet, they also think they want big action, big SFX, big splosions, big whatever, and that's not entirely so. All we want is good stories, and as Chris Gore also said, there's no excuse whatsoever for Big Hollywood to make crappy films. They've got all the talent in the world at their disposal along with the budget to go with it, and they're all checking off too many boxes in the hopes of pleasing too many different people.

Back when the first Star Wars was made, before it was called A New Hope, there was only one box George Lucas wanted to check off: Fun. Now, they want so many other things, like diversity for its own sake, rather if whether or not it adds anything good to the story. I'm not opposed to diversity, but we all know it feels forced, no pun intended, and when you deliberately go out of your way to make character only to check off boxes to particular people and their tastes, you end up turning off more people than you hope to take in because it's phony. Audiences aren't stupid. Some people might be, but by and large most aren't, and playing down to them only insults their intelligence.

I definitely agree. There was a time not too long ago where scripts woukd have to be written or rewritten because at the time the SFX could not be done or couldn't be done on the existing budget. Then CGI came along and now you can create anything you want.

There was a time where making a simple effect was all that was needed, but you spent alot of time with the non SFX part of it. Not saying every non CGI movie was a masterpiece. Just seems like CGI just allows so much without much thought.

Kathleen Kennedy. She has been discussed to death and many think she is the reason why Rey is so powerful and so Mary Sue.

I don't agree with that because animation is a media has had the least amount of limitations and has given us some amazing stories. As Don Bluth himself has said, in animation Anything is possible.

But Animation is expensive so every shot must count and you need to put in the time and effort to make sure what you're telling is as good especially since many still don't take animation seriously as an art form.

Just as an example a friend of mine just watched The Last Airbender movie and enjoyed it and didn't understand why the film bombed. When I explained that it wasn't as good as the show he didn't get how the show was better, it was animated so it couldn't be as good as something in live action.

To look at a none animation for a moment Stephen Spielberg is often credited as one of the best directors of all time and yet it wasn't until Schindler's List where that talent was recognized by the Academy. Because until that moment he didn't make anything that was "Truly Good" until they saw that talent used in something they saw as worthwhile.

The thing about most films is that most creators have no interest in being recognized and see storytelling as just a job to help make ends meet. And that's fine, some people have know how to make a car you cook a great meal and some know how to film a scene and make a movie. They have passion for it but it's just a thing they enjoy to do and have no interest in being anything beyond just a good creator.

What makes something a classic isn't because of limitations put upon someone but the fear of failure because some people want to their mark.

I've song the praises of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power more then once and I honestly see it as every bit as good as such classics like Star Trek, Star Wars and The Godfather. It is Shakespearean in it's with a simple concept but BRILLIANTLY executed and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/she_r ... s_of_power

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7745956/re ... ef_=tt_urv

https://www.google.com/search?q=she-ra+ ... N5LjJcAAAA

This show was made by people who had something to say and did everything in their power to make that dream come to life and put in the effort to make the best show they could. The number of great stories is at the same number as they've always been it's just there is now more people releasing more stories year round.

[phantom000]

I don't agree with that because animation is a media has had the least amount of limitations and has given us some amazing stories. As Don Bluth himself has said, in animation Anything is possible.

But Animation is expensive so every shot must count and you need to put in the time and effort to make sure what you're telling is as good especially since many still don't take animation seriously as an art form.

Just as an example a friend of mine just watched The Last Airbender movie and enjoyed it and didn't understand why the film bombed. When I explained that it wasn't as good as the show he didn't get how the show was better, it was animated so it couldn't be as good as something in live action.

To look at a none animation for a moment Stephen Spielberg is often credited as one of the best directors of all time and yet it wasn't until Schindler's List where that talent was recognized by the Academy. Because until that moment he didn't make anything that was "Truly Good" until they saw that talent used in something they saw as worthwhile.

The thing about most films is that most creators have no interest in being recognized and see storytelling as just a job to help make ends meet. And that's fine, some people have know how to make a car you cook a great meal and some know how to film a scene and make a movie. They have passion for it but it's just a thing they enjoy to do and have no interest in being anything beyond just a good creator.

What makes something a classic isn't because of limitations put upon someone but the fear of failure because some people want to their mark.

I've song the praises of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power more then once and I honestly see it as every bit as good as such classics like Star Trek, Star Wars and The Godfather. It is Shakespearean in it's with a simple concept but BRILLIANTLY executed and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/she_r ... s_of_power

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7745956/re ... ef_=tt_urv

https://www.google.com/search?q=she-ra+ ... N5LjJcAAAA

This show was made by people who had something to say and did everything in their power to make that dream come to life and put in the effort to make the best show they could. The number of great stories is at the same number as they've always been it's just there is now more people releasing more stories year round.

I think a big part of why She-ra and TLA worked so well is because they were clearly planned out from the beginning. No, they did not write out every single episode but there is a clear sense that the big picture was worked out in advance and all the remained was working out the little details as they went along.

The Legend of Korra while be an excellent series falters at times because it seems they were making up more of it as they went along. The series is still very good because the creators understood what made TLA work and knew how to use it without blatantly copying it. The original SW trilogy, while not being planned out from the beginning, did benefit from being Lucas's vision and so the story has a clear progression from one point to the next, even if it does stumble at times.

It seems like none of this can be said about the sequel trilogy as no one had a clear idea of what they were trying to do aside from another SW trilogy and without enough time to work out any of their plans.

[MaxWylde]

I don't agree with that because animation is a media has had the least amount of limitations and has given us some amazing stories. As Don Bluth himself has said, in animation Anything is possible.

But Animation is expensive so every shot must count and you need to put in the time and effort to make sure what you're telling is as good especially since many still don't take animation seriously as an art form.

Just as an example a friend of mine just watched The Last Airbender movie and enjoyed it and didn't understand why the film bombed. When I explained that it wasn't as good as the show he didn't get how the show was better, it was animated so it couldn't be as good as something in live action.

To look at a none animation for a moment Stephen Spielberg is often credited as one of the best directors of all time and yet it wasn't until Schindler's List where that talent was recognized by the Academy. Because until that moment he didn't make anything that was "Truly Good" until they saw that talent used in something they saw as worthwhile.

The thing about most films is that most creators have no interest in being recognized and see storytelling as just a job to help make ends meet. And that's fine, some people have know how to make a car you cook a great meal and some know how to film a scene and make a movie. They have passion for it but it's just a thing they enjoy to do and have no interest in being anything beyond just a good creator.

What makes something a classic isn't because of limitations put upon someone but the fear of failure because some people want to their mark.

I've song the praises of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power more then once and I honestly see it as every bit as good as such classics like Star Trek, Star Wars and The Godfather. It is Shakespearean in it's with a simple concept but BRILLIANTLY executed and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/she_r ... s_of_power

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7745956/re ... ef_=tt_urv

https://www.google.com/search?q=she-ra+ ... N5LjJcAAAA

This show was made by people who had something to say and did everything in their power to make that dream come to life and put in the effort to make the best show they could. The number of great stories is at the same number as they've always been it's just there is now more people releasing more stories year round.

Fully animated films, by and large, are not the same as films that are shot and then CGI is added for effect. For one, most animated films rarely have to worry about the Uncanny Valley effect. They also require a lot more planning and time to pull off, and often take years to complete (take any Pixar film). One of the advantages of fully animated features is that once the voice-actors are done with their work, you don't have to do reshoots if you didn't like the performance because often the voice-actors do multiple takes anyway of the same dialogue in a scene for the animators and editors to go for, and that makes their job as filmmakers a lot easier on the whole, even if it takes a long time to animate.

Talking about Spielberg, he already proved his chops as a filmmaker long before Schindler's List. Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1941, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, Jurassic Park, not to mention his work as a producer of such films as The Goonies, Back to the Future, Poltergeist (which he secretly also directed, because he couldn't be seen directing two films in the same year on the same location he shot E.T.), and others showed how he brought a particular style of filmmaking and knew how to make good films, by and large.

What we call a Classic film is something that is made that is effectively timeless, that anyone could watch and not only understand but can appeal toward. Casablanca, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Gone With the Wind, Star Wars (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghost Busters (1984) and lots of others are considered classics. You can make a good film and it might not be a "classic" in the same sense for various reasons. As much as I love Airplane!, a lot of the comedy is dated (you don't see people in the airports shaking you down for donations anymore), but it's a great comedy. You could also make a generally good film, decent in production but not "great," and it can be a classic for various other reasons (some of the James Bond films come to mind, particularly the first three Sean Connery outings).

I haven't seen The Last Airbender, so I can't tell you why it didn't do so well. If I had to guess, I think story might've been the main issue. If a story is bad, but the show otherwise looks great, it's not worth watching again, unless it's so bad it's funny. As a Bond fan, myself, there are a lot of Bond films I won't watch again because the story isn't necessarily bad (most of them are rehashes of the same basic plot), but because they're not all that interesting to me, or, the execution of the plot was terrible (I thought Roger Moore should've been replaced after For Your Eyes Only, or even after Moonraker - which I detest - because by A View To a Kill he was showing his age and it was hard to believe he was still a British Secret Agent). For a movie to be a real good success, it has to be something you want to watch again because you enjoy it (but the modern film industry knows, or at least knew, how to hype up a film to get people in the theaters), and a lot of modern films are just not rewatchable. Some are, but most aren't.

When I reach for my collection of films at home, more often than not I'm not picking anything made in the last ten years that isn't a Marvel film, and it most certainly won't be a remake of a good film.