[ SECRET POST #3829 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3829 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #548.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Fandom Thread

[(Anonymous)]

^^

Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Any thoughts on the Han Solo movie mess?

I just finished Lords of the Sith; has anyone else read it?

Re: Star Wars

[philstar22]

My thought is that the problem seems pretty clear. Disney wanted a Star Wars movie with some comedy in it. The directors thought they were making a comedy. Since I personally would rather have the former, I'm okay with a new director.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Disney wants directors who can give them consistent average unexceptional Star Wars-type product that all feels the same

that's their prerogative as a company although I personally feel it's a bit of a waste as a fan

Re: Star Wars

[morieris]

Yep. They want them as middling as most of the MCU. Which, eh makes 'em money.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Makes them money and makes coherent movies which are not a standing joke. You hear that Hasbro? Is the money enough to keep letting your properties be a joke? Disney can make megabank on a consistent house style which is coherent from movie to movie; why can't you, Hasbro?

Re: Star Wars

[morieris]

I wholly admit to enjoying the GI Joe movies but yeah...they're not good.....

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I was thinking more of the Transformers movies because I cannot be objective on the GI Joe movies. There is literally nothing that could make me like them.

Wait.

No, there is one thing. They can call them "Action Force" movies. Then I'd let them be bad or good on their own terms.

Re: Star Wars

[philstar22]

That may be true. But I still don't want a Star Wars comedy film. Especially when the movie is about a character as important as Han.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I am so over fans wanting new and edgy. I want a Star Wars movie. I think that's what I'm likely to get now so I am happy. There are plenty of sci-fi movies that play with the genre. We don't need it in Star Wars.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I want good movies, and I want Star Wars movies, and I want the Star Wars movies to be good. I don't think any of that is the same as new and edgy, or needing to be a post-modern deconstruction of the genre, or whatever. And I'm fine with getting Star Wars movies - I absolutely loved TFA and defend it at length, and I think you can reasonably say that it was the fruit of the approach that you're defending here.

I just really don't like the idea of having directors who are trying to make good, interesting movies being hamstrung by Disney. At the end of the day I want the best movies they can make and I don't think insisting on this sort of thing helps achieve that. It has fucking nothing to do with being edgy, for Pete's sake.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

But the reports indicate that the directors weren't making a Star Wars film - they were going for meta and Jim Carry level humor. Just because they're doing their thing doesn't mean that they're right. You can't know that them doing something different was going to make it a good, interesting movie. It should be a Star Wars movie first and foremost, and it's right for the studio to step in if that's not what they're getting. The studio was trying to do something different in hiring them; they are trying to inject something different into the movies. But it's not the place to go extreme. The directors have to toe the line in a franchise because the movies are connected, especially with a legacy character like Han Solo.

Star Wars should feel like Star Wars. You said, "consistent average unexceptional Star Wars-type product that all feels the same" as clearly a bad thing. I think Star Wars movies should be consistent and I don't think that makes them unexceptional. I don't think it's wrong that they hit the same notes. Star Wars has always referenced itself. But they are giving us new things along with that. It's not a straight retread and I don't think they're leaning on nostalgia. I like the new movies and I want them to continue as they have done. Star Wars isn't the place for experimentation.

Re: Star Wars

[morieris]

I've received so much life from the drama. It's made my week.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Not a mess.

Disney wanted Directors that would hit the house tone, directors obviously came onboard agreeing to that but planning to not hit the house tone (doing a Josh Tranks), directors got fired and a more professional director got called in.

Working a franchise is different from working a fresh property. It is more like working on a tv show than a movie set. You would accept a Law and Order episode where everything was Japanese cybernoir or if it was all Midsomer Murder. It would be awesome, but it wouldn't be Law and Order's house tone. That is what some of the directors do not get. It isn't "[Director's Name]'s Han Solo", it is "Disney/Lucasfilm's Han Solo". Same as over on the Marvel brand it was not "Edgar Wright's Ant-man" it was "Marvel's Ant-man". These are not director led properties.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Josh Trank was (by all reports) a huge asshole in ways that had no relation whatsoever to creative vision or anything. Dude is just a dick.

Also

Working a franchise is different from working a fresh property. It is more like working on a tv show than a movie set. You would accept a Law and Order episode where everything was Japanese cybernoir or if it was all Midsomer Murder. It would be awesome, but it wouldn't be Law and Order's house tone. That is what some of the directors do not get. It isn't "[Director's Name]'s Han Solo", it is "Disney/Lucasfilm's Han Solo". Same as over on the Marvel brand it was not "Edgar Wright's Ant-man" it was "Marvel's Ant-man". These are not director led properties.

This is clearly Disney's attitude. That doesn't actually mean that it's correct, or that we as fans have to justify it and believe in it and carry Disney's water for them, or that directors who dislike that approach are wrong.

Re: Star Wars

[philstar22]

But I do think to a certain extent it is right. There definitely needs to be some room to stretch (and Rogue One proves that there can be), but there is a limit to how far you can stretch before it is no longer a Star Wars movie. Heck, you want to make a comedy about characters we've never met before, I'd be okay with that. But with beloved characters like Han you need to make your movie feel Star Wars.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I think you can have a comedy that feels like Star Wars. I guess that would be my reply. I don't see why you can't have a comedy that feels like Star Wars. "Feels like Star Wars" is hard to quantify but it seems to me that it should be able to exist in a lot of different genres.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Disagree. We don't have to agree with it but Disney is absolutely doing the right thing for the brand. The directors were in the wrong, and it's good they were fired.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that they're doing the right thing for the brand. I don't really care about the brand. It's Disney's job as a corporation to care about Star Wars and its branding and everything, which is why they fired them. What I want as a fan is good Star Wars movies. I don't think this makes better Star Wars movies, I think it makes better branded Star Wars movies.

And even if you disagree on that, I still don't think that means the directors were "in the wrong." Creative differences doesn't mean that someone is "in the wrong."

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

Right or wrong it is Disney's prerogative and directors who say they will abide by it and then turn around and try to insert their non-Disney approved stuff into it on franchise badge engineering efforts don't have a leg to stand on when their ass gets fired or 40% of their movie is reshot by someone who would abide by the rights owner's rules.

Frankly, I agree with Disney. I don't want going to a Star Wars movie or a Marvel movie to be a gamble or a lottery in what tone or look it has depending on a director's whims. I want to go in and see Star Wars or Marvel just like I know them. Plenty of other movies for that other stuff.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it's Disney's prerogative. If I were working for them, it's what I would tell them to do. But I don't work for them and I don't really give a shit about the profit margins of one of the largest corporations in the world.

If you think it leads to better movies, fair enough. I really don't agree.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

The article I saw kept using the phrase "Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura" to describe their vision for the Han Solo character. I'll admit I loved the Ace Ventura movies... when I was 13-14. Now I'm just as glad for something with fewer fart jokes.

Re: Star Wars

[(Anonymous)]

That is HORRIFYING. Yay Disney if they were acting to prevent that atrocity!

Guardians of the Galaxy

[philstar22]

I really loved Volume 2, and I've been having all sorts of fandom feels. I really want to find more fics on the pasts of Peter and also Gamora and Nebula.

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy

[(Anonymous)]

The only problem I had with it is that I felt that it did not play up Blue Merle's place as an alternative father figure to Quill enough. His sacrifice, moving as it was, did not quite have the weight they wanted it to have with the "he's not your daddy" angle. I don't know if there was cut scenes, but I felt his role in Peter's childhood was undersold for what they wanted.

Having said that though, the movie was a blast and his scenes and sacrifice in pretty much every other way were spot on. I still haven't managed to get all the references logged. Still finding new stuff in it with every rewatch.