Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More (Page 2 of 6)

And that's sort of the marvel of the film.  I saw it twice in one weekend, enjoyed myself both times, and left with a smile on my face.

But the movie, on very simple levels, doesn't make a whole ton of sense.  It works as a standalone reboot better than it does as a sequel to Return of the Jedi.

And, yes, ireactions, I'm sure there's a comic book and a prequel novel that explain everything.   But the movie needs to be able to stand on its own, and The Force Awakens collapses under its own weight when you ask basic questions relating to the film's plot.

I normally enjoy all the Marvel films first viewing, with absolutely zero interest in rewatching.  Few exceptions Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, and Deadpool below those two.  The rest I'd never watch again, there's no substance there.  Ironically I think Rogue One might wind up having far more intriguing characters, but they are one-off of course.

Well, the Marvel films hold up to minimal levels of questioning.  Take Hydra, for example.  There's an explanation for how Hydra could exist in Captain America: the First Avenger and then still exist in Captain America: the Winter Soldier.  Is it a great explanation?  No.  But they tried. 

In Star Wars, they just expect us to substitute "First Order" for "Empire" and "Rebellion" for "Resistance" and just carry on.  But what doesn't make sense is how they got there.  Or why any of the designations were changed in the first place. 

I imagine new designations make it seem like the victories in Return of the Jedi were true victories:

- Luke defeated the Empire
- The Empire is destroyed forever
- The New Republic was formed

And, yeah, I can start connecting some dots.  Someone (Snoke?) took control of the remnants of the Empire and built the First Order in its image.  Even without a leader, the Empire still had an unlimited number of troops/ships with commanders that we'd have to assume have no loyalty to the New Republic.  So even if the New Republic took *some* control of Empire troops, there'd still be, again, unlimited numbers that they wouldn't be able to control.

But, even then, the new designations don't make sense.  The Empire would still be the Empire even if Palpatine died.  The Roman Empire didn't become something different because one Caesar died.  Even if the Romans failed to conquer some random town in France, the emperor wouldn't completely rebrand as something else.  If anything, the "Empire" designation would be more appropriate to show that they never actually lost power.

But let's say that, as PR move, the remnants of the Empire just became the First Order.  Why the Resistance?  Why are they not just the "Army of the New Republic?"  Why is Leia in the Resistance and not the Army of the New Republic?  In fact, why is every member of the former Rebellion now members of the Resistance? 

At the end of the day, it would've been easier to keep things.  The Empire is still around.  There was a power struggle, but someone (Snoke) took over and the Empire never lost much of its power.  The Rebellion is still around and is separate from the New Republic, which is just-about dead and clinging to a single random system.   One reason Luke left is because all the work he did was for nothing.

I think there are some easy explanations.  First of all, many of SQ's questions probably get answered in some of the off-shoot novels, comics, games, etc that accompanied the film.  I don't bother with those though.  As for the Jedi/Empire, the old Expanded Universe pretty well established that ROTJ was not the end of the Empire.  It continued on, and was still very lethal.  Perhaps it will be fleshed out, but clearly it seems the "New Republic" failed in some fashion that hasn't been discussed. 

PS: On Marvel vs. DC fan reactions.....Marvel has never been held to a high standard, because they were an abject disaster for decades prior to Avi Arad's arrival.  DC has history that is constantly being compared to, whether in cinema or on television.  Also I think DC fans are more like Star Trek fans, they are very knowledgeable and picky.

It is being reported that Carrie Fisher has died. Sad news, not just for Star Wars fans.

Yeah, fairly devastating news about Carrie.  What's really taken me by surprise is how unbelievably FUNNY this woman was.  I've been watching old interviews, especially the old Jon Favreau show "Dinner for Five."  She was hilarious.  She was also a highly acclaimed writer, both of scripts and novels, and had a big fanbase just for that.  Episode 8 will I guess be cut as they had intended, but I believe she'll have to be written out in Episode 9 fairly early, which was not the plan.

PS: SQ, so the ending of Rogue One was indeed incredible.  So we know there were a lot of reshoots on this film.  What I believe happened was that this ending was the original concept of director Gareth Edwards.  He has kind of admitted he didn't think Disney would allow it, aka, not being a "happy ending."  So he shot it differently.  However, I suspect after the studio saw it, they were convinced to allow him to shoot it the "right way," thankfully.

The fact Cushing is dead so long I think made it easier, plus his role was not that big.  He spoke what, half dozen times or so?  And he was a character from one film.  Leia is a major character, and it's not like they'll be resurrecting Carrie's 1977 performance/image/voice.  They'd have to also copy her voice, which is not exactly (particularly in old age) the easiest to imitate well.  Also, her family, namely Billie Lourd, would have to sign on, and even then you'd need actors like Mark Hamill to be okay with it.  Lastly, Tarkin was essentially just a repeat of what Cushing did in 1977.  I guess you could "repeat" whatever Carrie's performance is to be in from Episode XIII, but idk, this is really touching on some ethical/artistic grounds that maybe shouldn't be?  You'll be asking a stand in plus a voice actor to perform something truly new, in a new story, and I just don't think that would be right.  I think the audience would hate it.

Firstly the Walker CGI was plain weird, because Paul never really spoke.  And the movie was shot, minus that ending, which was reshot mainly to close his character off from future movies. 

Second, they can't use Carrie's image without approval, and while I can see Billie (who might be given a larger role who knows) giving permission for a short CGI, between her and Carrie's friends like Hamill as well as studio heads, to put a large role in with CGI and a voice actor, that's in poor taste.  You're basically saying the actor was irrelevant, which is unfair.  I cannot see how a valid performance could be gleemed off of old audio recordings.  As someone who podcasts and edits spoken audio quite a bit, it's nearly impossible to do that with anything more than short meaningless phrases.  It's one thing if Carrie did audio for say a Star Wars book, but I don't think she did.

I think people are over complicating the issue. I don't think that there will be any CGI work or a replacement actor, unless they are needed for a brief shot where they need to show the character die.

The easiest solution would be to review whatever they filmed for the next movie and see if there is a way to rework it so that she dies. Any near-miss action sequence would become a sudden death.

If that is not possible, maybe something more like a Joyce Summers death... Leia doesn't report for duty and someone goes to check on her, only to find her dead. It isn't super action hero-y, but most deaths aren't. Her son just killed his father/the love of her life... She is under stress. She could just die.

They will probably need to film additional scenes, but I think it would probably be best to just deal with it in the next movie, rather than leave everyone holding their breath for years.

There is the option to have her go off, the way Luke did, and just leave it all behind. The could use her image to create a hologram, as a throwback to the first movie.

But Disney has to treat this with some care. They can't just go for the toys, because if they piss off the hardcore fans who have been fans since the 70's, there is nobody to buy the toys.

The movies are going to have to change. Whatever their plan was, it can't be anymore. If they cling to it, they will fail. They need to acknowledge that she is gone and respect the fans enough to know that they're aware of this. Even if they just shoot a short film to go with the next movie that has no place in the overall story, but features a proper funeral for the character, fans will go along with it.

The board of directors do not care, I agree with you, but why make a film that fans will revolt again?

That is the delicate position that they find themselves in here. Star Wars fans are pretty loyal to the franchise, but also to the world of Star Wars and the people who bought it to life. They complain about who is playing doids and wookies, even when it makes no difference to the story.
Disney is milking this franchise for all it's worth now. They are churning out movie after movie, and most of them will probably suck. They can get away with that, because the money isn't in good movies, it's in petting the fan base on the head. If they piss off the fan base, their profits will go down. It will not damage one movie, it will potentially damage an entire franchise that Disney paid quite a lot of money for.

They are absolutely all about toys and money. They absolutely don't care about stories or art. But they have to care about the audience.

Of course, it might not even matter. For all we know, she was always going to die in the next movie. The theme here seems to be all about the older generation giving way to the new generation. Star Wars movies usually have the death of an elder figure, right? Well, Han, Leia and Luke are the elder figures now.

Question: How did the CG actors actually look in Rogue One? I saw a news report about the making of those scenes, which showed what looked like the final product, but it didn't really sell me on the idea. It still looked like a computer generated character, not a real actor. If that's how it looked in the movie, was it very distracting?

It could really go either way. But Target laughed off recent calls for boycott and it wound up costing them hundreds of millions of dollars (the last time I checked. I'm sure it's more now). Typically, boycotts don't work unless you enrage a rabid crowd... but the Star Wars crowd is rabid.

To me, it doesn't matter. They're all going to wait for Netflix anyway. Same with Marvel movies. Walt Disney would absolutely hate what has become of his company.

I mean it's simple to say that they can just completely write her out, but what if she's *key* to the emotional finale of the series?  I mean...she's the primary villain's mother.  What if she's the way Kylo Ren is redeemed and turns on Snoke?  They can't just re-write it so that Chewbacca takes her place.

Imagine if Mark Hamill had died in some sort of accident prior to the filming of Return of the Jedi.  Literally everything was pointing to a showdown between Luke and Vader.  Were they going to train Han, someone with no experience with the Force, to fight Vader?  Train Leia?  Introduce a new character?  Just not have Vader fight anyone?  I know Carrie Fisher isn't the star of these films, but she's a *huge* character that they were expecting to be there.  Reshooting is one thing, but this could potentially be a gigantic reshaping of the entire new trilogy.

That's why I expect that they'll stay on track.  They'll get everyone on board and sell it as well as possible.  But even if it's just five minutes....if it's crucial, she'll be there in some form.

I don't think there's any way around the need to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher, but I think it would (a) have to be brief and (b) need to write the character out of any subsequent movies. I don't know how many Rey/Poe/Finn movies Disney had planned beyond three anyway, but ideally, Leia would appear as someone communicating at a distance via hologram, voiced by a soundalike and then appear only in person for some short scene -- maybe Luke and Leia leaving the galaxy behind together.

LucasFilm released a statement today saying that they will not recreate Carrie Fisher digitally.  Which is the right move, although it'll certainly add an extra layer of tragedy.  I'm hoping, like Chekov in the Star Trek movies, that she's able to live somehow.  But it's easier to send Chekov to a different ship than to just have Leia never show up on screen.

Possibly, but what a bummer that would be.  Not only in the story....but in real life because we know she's really dead.  As we saw when Fisher died, Leia means something to people.  And when Fisher was stolen from us, it might mean Leia was stolen from us too.

Movies are generally pretty kind.  Every human being dies, but our heroes don't usually have to.  Christopher Nolan's Batman gets to keep living forever.  Maybe he and Selina get old and have kids and he dies surrounded by grandkids and people that love him.  We can write our own ending, and it can be as happy as we want.  Maybe he finds a Lazarus Pit and lives forever.  We don't have to worry about it.

And when our favorite people die, it usually means something.  Han Solo dying was sad, but it was important.  He was trying to save his son.  He was trying to redeem himself.  He was trying....something.  He knew it was dangerous, and he probably knew, deep down, that it was stupid.  But he didn't care...it was what his heart was telling him to do.

If we open with a funeral, it won't feel like a movie.  It'll feel cheap, and it'll feel.....real.  We don't watch movies for real.  At least, we don't watch Star Wars movies for real.  We know that sometimes people die before their time, but we don't want our heroes to.  Their deaths either don't happen or happen for a reason.

If she dies in her sleep off screen....it's going to be really weird.  I still suspect that Leia was supposed to play a big part in turning Kylo Ren around.  When facing his father, he lashed out.  When facing his mother, he'd turn around. 

And the problem is that, as I've criticized before, Episode 7 wasn't a movie but a pilot for a 3-part TV show.  Every move was a setup for a later move.  I'm guessing Episode 8 is also more about setting up Episode 9 than being a singular movie.  So, as I've been saying, I'm guessing that the choice was between massive rewrites or rolling with a CGI Leia. 

Even if Star Killer Base II blows up Leia's ship during the opening of Episode 9, it's going to feel cheap.  They could set it up like the opening of Star Trek (09), where Leia saves everyone else on board, and it's still going to feel cheap.

Life is cheap.  I don't think (these) movies should be.  I'd love for Leia to live even though Carrie Fisher didn't.  But, as you said, it's a really neat creative challenge.

I think it is impossible to say what should happen without seeing the script for the next movie. We don't know where they left her once Carrie was finished. She could have already died, or there could be an easy out for her at the end of the next movie. For all we know, there is no real problem here.

I still say that whatever they do, they should tag it onto the next movie and not wait a couple of years to tag it onto the third. They should address and resolve it, so Carrie Fisher's ghost isn't haunting the franchise through its end. If this is all people are talking about two years from now, they will have failed in this task.

Looks like they're taking the Slider_Quinn21 approach.

Just watched ROGUE ONE and I think it may have played better for people with a reverent, all-consuming love for STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE. For me, it was a lot of careful and precise callbacks and references to a film I like well enough and respect for its role in history, but I guess I'm not *that* huge a STAR WARS fan. Even stuff like the way the ROGUE ONE ending leads directly into A NEW HOPE didn't give me the same sense of myth and awe as, say, the STAR TREK novel where Kirk in the 24th century says he needs to compare notes with Sisko on time travel someday.

I think the problem is probably that to me, an attempt to pastiche the 1977 film and to understandably do so without Luke, Han and Leia just didn't really connect for me; I'm more into characters than the era or even the cinematic style which, while groundbreaking in 1977, is pretty standard today.

So... Carrie Fisher isn't going to appear in EPISODE IX in any form; not in repurposed outtakes. Not as a digital character. On one level, it really sucks. On another, death always sucks, so if the production can find some way to mine Fisher's absence and make the audience feel it in a way that serves the film as opposed to detracting from it, it could work. Maybe EPISODE IX could be set after a large time gap from EPISODE VIII in which Leia died.

I do think there's a certain courage in refusing to make Episode IX by pretending that Carrie Fisher isn't dead, accepting that reality and trying to work with it?

The CG Tarkin and Leia in Rogue One were necessary for telling the story of the Death Star and leading into A New Hope, but if not for that narrative purpose, they probably wouldn't have done it.

Well, with Anton Yelchin, I think it's an easy fix.  Chekov, the excellent officer he is, got his own command.  He's doing great.  Kirk just had dinner with him right before this new adventure began - he's gonna make admiral soon enough.  Has a wife.  A kid on the way.  Nothing can stop him.

Chekov is part of the family, but nothing is tying him to the Enterprise.  So he can go off and have his own adventures without Anton Yelchin.  We can be happy for him, even as we're saddened by what happened to Anton.

With Leia, I don't think it's that easy.  We don't know, at all, where her character ends up in episode 8.  Maybe there will be a natural breaking point where she can go off and live happily ever after.  But right now?  Sure, her husband's dead.  But her son is a major villain that she desperately wants to save.  Her brother has just been found.  The war isn't close to being over.  If she ran off now, it'd feel just as cheap.

The question is....would Leia be justified to abandon the war if it all just became too much.  Her planet.  Her mother.  Her adoptive parents.  Her husband.  Her brother.  If they all die, would it be okay for Leia to get in a ship and never come back?  Try to find a little happiness after this damned war took everything else from her?

Because that's the only way I could write it.  She did her part.  Lost enough.  And wants to salvage what's left of her life.  Let someone else be the hero for once.

Is there any precedent (EU or otherwise) for a non-Jedi to become a force ghost?

Right, but even if Chekov lives happily ever after, there is no way to address that fact or not address it without it being a huge distraction to the overall plot. It's all any of us will be thinking about.

Leia was a much bigger player, but the problem remains the same. There simply is no good solution. It is a bad situation. People die and they leave a hole in the place they should be standing. No matter what they do and how well it blends into the story, it will still be a hole where she should be standing and we will all be thinking about it every time we watch the movie.

Is Leia a Jedi?  Is it established that she ever trained?

And I was under the impression that becoming a Force Ghost was something that had to be learned.  I guess if Leia trained as a Jedi (between ROTJ and TFA), she might've learned that trick.  But if she was just a general the whole time, would she have learned how to become one?  I thought the deleted scene in Revenge of the Sith implied that Qui-Gon had figured it out after a long time of people not knowing how to do it.

A Force Ghost is a pretty solid way to show that she's still "alive" and "happy" if that's an option.  I just had no idea if that's even something that could be considered.  Because even though she's Force sensitive, it takes a special training to become a Force Ghost, and like you said, even other Jedi in the prequel don't become Force Ghosts.

I actually looked into the Vader thing today, and there's a theory that sorta works on how Vader would've learned how.  He would've seen Obi-Wan disappear and would've been freaked out by it.  A student of the Force, he'd look into how that was possible (much like Qui-Gon did), maybe even following Qui-Gon's footsteps.  He might've studied it, not knowing that it only works for Jedi....or possibly learned it anyway...and then it worked when he redeemed himself.

It's very flimsy, but it's the only theory people seem to have on how Vader could've learned it.

Too close to Snookie.

True. I guess it doesn't matter as much for me, since I've never been able to take the franchise too seriously. I honestly laugh whenever I see Luke get his hand cut off and discover that Vader is his father.

I would do the same. I think it's a mistake to have this hanging over their heads for a couple more years.

Actually, if she and Luke died together, that would be kinda poetic. Twins and all that.