The "story team" or whatever they're called didn't craft a careful plotline that would thoughtfully and logically continue the story set out in the first Star Wars trilogy. So, they dropped the ball.
that's one of the weird things. only listing I can find for writers is Rian Johnson.
J.J. Abrams then just did what he does best: mystery box nonsense. He wrote a bunch of cheques that the future franchise-makers would have to cash. He set things up poorly, creating a fun, entertaining, vacuous, structure-free romp. He built a shaky foundation (albeit in a fun film) and dropped the ball.
except every single thing he set up could have had interesting cool payoffs. he didn't write mystery box nonsense. all had very easily addressable answers with the tiniest bit of creativity. fan fiction and guesses prior to the films prove that. The first film is pretty well structured... about as much as a new hope. clear characters with clear charicteristics with a clear goal.
Rian Johnson tried to buck the system and decided not to play it safe. He wound up with a wish-wash movie that buggered up what it tried to do. I still give this dude props for at least nutting up and trying to do something, which is harder than complacently churning out formulae. Still, he dropped the ball by serving half-baked gobbledegook that tried to mix it up as a raison d'etre.
he didn't do anything. SUBVERTING EXPECTATIONS IS NOT THE FOUNDATION OF A FILM STYLE. its like basing your entire film around long shots or dutch angles. its a joke
Abrams then dropped the ball again, although I theorize that Disney's production department also have a hand in all three, constantly bowing to fans (too much prequel, we give you the New Hope remix; too formulaic, we give you Episode VIII: Subverts Expectations; hated that? we give you Retcon: the Movie), as well as just bloating the franchise with Solo and Rogue One.
did you even read my post? what was there for Abrams to do? there was nothing in the second film to build on. no continuable story, no threat, no nothing. there was literally zero foundation to build the third film on because everything was about subverting expectations and putting a full stop on any sort of mystery or build up.
please give me even the tiniest bit of direction that JJ or anyone could have gone after Rian film?
its akin to doing improv but the partner just says "no". you are trying to continue momentum and need to create something but your partner just says "no" and halts it every time. Rian put a full halt not only to the characters but the story as well.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9381)
3 years ago
The story group are the Disney team Kathleen Kennedy put together to steer Lucasfilm properties and Star Wars and what kinds of stories they're going to tell. I'm not super-clear on exactly what they do, but I believe it's something like guiding and directing the stories and world of the Star Wars universe. So, no, they wouldn't have a writing credit on the films themselves.
Abrams set up the world poorly. He started us after 30 years of backstory that arbitrarily erased the ending of Episode VI. The Empire are just as powerful as they always were, the Republic is dying, Leia's just some general in the "Resistance" (shouldn't she be Chancellor by now?), and so on. Most galling (to me) was his retconning of every bit of character development Han Solo went through. He went from a devil-may-care, selfish mercenary (IV) to a guy with friends (end of IV) to a guy falling in love who has principles he believes in (V) to a guy who will risk everything on a Hail Mary to save other people and the future of the universe (VI) to a...deadbeat dad who wanders around directionless, hiding from his responsibilities (VII). How? How did he *lose the Falcon*!?
As to mystery boxes, writers inherently bungle if they set things up with no end at least vaguely sensed, especially when they then pass those mysteries off to other writers.
The first film is well-structured in-and-of-itself, which is why I said it was entertaining.
Johnson clearly was trying to introduce more grey areas into a moralistic universe. He was trying to show what heroes can become if they abandon their callings. He was trying to question the past and the future and our values in it. He was trying more than simply "subverting expectations". I think he fell flat on his face, but he had other themes in mind.
Yeah, I read your post, and I disagree with it. I think the ball was dropped long before Episode IX and I don't think Abrams was solely responsible, but I do think he bears responsibility.
reply
share
brucewayne (319)
3 years ago
"The story group are the Disney team Kathleen Kennedy put together to steer Lucasfilm properties and Star Wars and what kinds of stories they're going to tell. I'm not super-clear on exactly what they do, but I believe it's something like guiding and directing the stories and world of the Star Wars universe. So, no, they wouldn't have a writing credit on the films themselves."
have you been under a rock? the whole criticism was there was no story group and they gave Rian Johnson free range...
"Abrams set up the world poorly. He started us after 30 years of backstory that arbitrarily erased the ending of Episode VI. The Empire are just as powerful as they always were, the Republic is dying, Leia's just some general in the "Resistance" (shouldn't she be Chancellor by now?), and so on. Most galling (to me) was his retconning of every bit of character development Han Solo went through. He went from a devil-may-care, selfish mercenary (IV) to a guy with friends (end of IV) to a guy falling in love who has principles he believes in (V) to a guy who will risk everything on a Hail Mary to save other people and the future of the universe (VI) to a...deadbeat dad who wanders around directionless, hiding from his responsibilities (VII). How? How did he *lose the Falcon*!?"
30 year isnt arbitrary. its the new characters at a certain age and the story he wants to tell. by that logic all stories start at arbitrary times. yes the idea that all the thousands and thousands ofsystems would just fall in line under a new republic is so incredibly dumb. why the f would she be chancellor? so you want us to replace one empire with another led by Leia? yes Harrisons character developed.. He didn't become a perfect moral individual. how crazy I like my characters 2 dimensional! LOL the fact that's all you have shows you have nothing. umm we never find out about the falcon cause "SUBVERT EXPECTATIONS!!"
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9381)
3 years ago
If the story group had done their job in the first place, they could have prevented all of this by bringing Abrams in on a clear path and direction. I wasn't criticising the story group for The Last Jedi, but for their handling of the whole series. The original post went after Johnson for bunking it on the sequel trilogy, and my main point is that Johnson alone is not to blame. He bears some of the responsibility, but the blame must be placed on Abrams, Johnson, Kennedy, the story group, et al.
More importantly, my biggest point was that the stories themselves were starting out at a disadvantage because the original trilogy was so tight in its story that further expansions are difficult without feeling superfluous, disconnected, or bungled.
30 years isn't arbitrary, the erasure of the ending is. All stories (well-written ones) start where the plot starts. But here we have pre-existing story. It left me, as a viewer, feeling cheated since I was given an ending and then had somebody fast-forward and go, "Uh, it doesn't count". It's like playing a game with a childhood chum and having them always come up with an excuse why your superhero's powers don't work. "I have an invisible force-field". It's Tolkien writing a sequel to Lord of the Rings and going, "Oh, and Sauron was back and the Ring wasn't really destroyed and Frodo is innocent again."
I'm not saying the Republic couldn't crumble. I think the story of the Empire splitting into factions ala ancient Rome would have been great, but we didn't get that story. The story of Han choking as a father is interesting. We didn't get it. We got aftermath. You can't leave a story in one place (VI) and then pick it up having sandblasted that ending (VII) without showing us what happened and not have it feel cheap.
Han was never a perfect moral individual. His character arc re-shaped him from an amoral scumbag into somebody with personal ties. He was still roguish. But he changed and evolved as the series progressed.
reply
share
brucewayne (319)
3 years ago
"30 years isn't arbitrary, the erasure of the ending is. All stories (well-written ones) start where the plot starts. But here we have pre-existing story. It left me, as a viewer, feeling cheated since I was given an ending and then had somebody fast-forward and go, "Uh, it doesn't count". It's like playing a game with a childhood chum and having them always come up with an excuse why your superhero's powers don't work. "I have an invisible force-field". It's Tolkien writing a sequel to Lord of the Rings and going, "Oh, and Sauron was back and the Ring wasn't really destroyed and Frodo is innocent again." "
you've made all this up in your head.
where does the plot start? the exact fall of the empire? the years of negotiating to reform the republic? Reys birth? Rey being dropped off? Luke starting training the new Jedi? Han abandoning his duties as a father?
you re so blinded by bias you've decided only the part you think is relevant is the good start off point and everything else is bad.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9381)
3 years ago
The plot started over Tattooine with Leia and the droids, who found Luke, and the whole yarn spills out from there. That's the first the world knew of Star Wars. Lucas could have started it anywhere, but that's ultimately where he elected to kick it all off.
If you're firing up a sequel, it has to fit in with what came before. One of the things that annoys me about the prequels is the stuff that fudges around with information we already have, like Obi-Wan being trained by Qui-Gon instead of Yoda (as he says in Empire). They're not all big deals to me, but just by way of example.
The problem with fast-forwarding from VI to VII and erasing the ending of VI is that we viewers invested in a story and it was moved to a certain place. To undo all of that just to start up a soft reboot of the same story is cheap and feels obnoxious. VI ends with the heroes victorious and the implication is certainly the fall of the Empire and the Emperor's grip on the universe. Luke is a fulfilled Jedi who has accomplished his quest; his arc is complete. Han has grown from a selfish jerk to a scoundrel for good. And so on.
When Episode VII marches in and says, "The Empire is fine, and we're regressing Han back to who he was at the start of Episode IV", the reason it feels unfair or cheap to me - the reason I think it's poor storytelling - is because this is exposition. It's tell-don't-show, and worse, it's exposition that overwrites what the story "just" told me. Yeah, thirty years have passed, but without showing me that progression, as a viewer, I feel cheated. What made Han abandon his son and the love of his life? Nothing but the flick of a pen. We don't know why he left, he just did, and it's out of character for Han. He also somehow lost the Millennium Falcon without tracking it. You don't think he'd track down that ship? Completely out of character for Han. But the exposition of VII just makes it happen.
Arbitrarily.
reply
share
brucewayne (319)
3 years ago
"The plot started over Tattooine with Leia and the droids, who found Luke, and the whole yarn spills out from there. That's the first the world knew of Star Wars. Lucas could have started it anywhere, but that's ultimately where he elected to kick it all off."
except it could have started at another arbitrary point. say the rogue one story. that was just as significant. bye troll get attention elsewhere! you are sad
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9381)
3 years ago
It could have but didn't. It was set in 1977 with the release of the first film. The sequel trilogy's re-wiring of that story was then arbitrary in that context.
reply
share