|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 19, 2017 4:42:41 GMT
Since Carrie Fisher passed away, Leia can't live through the current trilogy. In retrospect, do you wish they had killed off Leia instead of Han?
|
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,781
|
Post by shinnickneth on Mar 19, 2017 6:24:21 GMT
No, I'm fine with how things are. Harrison Ford has had a bad attitude about Star Wars for a long time. He sucked it up to get a large paycheck for Episode 7 (I don't blame him...they paid him a lot), but he was done with being a longtime fixture of the series. Carrie, on the other hand, I think would have been a part of the franchise as long as Disney needed her. Sadly that has been altered with her passing. However, I'm hopeful they will give her a good send off with Episode 8. Perhaps if they filmed enough scenes with her for Episode 8, maybe they might even hold some scenes over and put them into Episode 9. Who knows. One could hope.  |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 19, 2017 6:27:04 GMT
i think Han should have survived Episode 7, but surprised everyone getting killed in opening scene of Episode 8
|
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on Mar 19, 2017 6:34:32 GMT
Yes but they can still have her killed off offscreen.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 19, 2017 6:52:36 GMT
Yes but they can still have her killed off offscreen. I'm curious how they will have it play out as well. I'm not a guy who follows production because I prefer to go into movies with as few spoilers as possible. However, I would think at least some footage of Leia had to be already shot if she was going to be in the movie. I really hope they don't do any of that morbid crap where they insert old footage of an actor into a movie posthumously. |
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 19, 2017 7:40:26 GMT
However, I would think at least some footage of Leia had to be already shot if she was going to be in the movie. According to what I have read on various websites, Carrie Fisher completed shooting of all of her scenes for Episode 8. I don't know if she completed any looping or reshoots though. The question is, will Episode 8, be released as it was at the time of her death, or will there be some last minute re-writes. If they do some re-writes, then some of the footage, may be "Deleted" to allow for Leia to "die" or "disappear" in some way. I hope, that footage is released as an extra as a tribute to her. As for Episode 9, as I understand there will be no Leia in the film, even though she was originally supposed to be. I guess she will now die or disappear off screen... |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 20, 2017 14:15:39 GMT
|
|
ryboto
Sophomore
@ryboto
Posts: 776
Likes: 724
|
Post by ryboto on Mar 20, 2017 15:57:16 GMT
Should have had more time with her in the New Republic, give us some exposition around the state of the universe, just a few minutes...then she dies with the New Republic planets. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 20, 2017 19:45:32 GMT
Should have had more time with her in the New Republic, give us some exposition around the state of the universe, just a few minutes...then she dies with the New Republic planets. Oh well. I know you prolly meant this off-handedly, but that actually would've been more interesting and poetic than anything they actually did in TFA -- Leia being a casualty on a planet (or system of them) destroyed by a Death Star-esque superweapon. |
|
ryboto
Sophomore
@ryboto
Posts: 776
Likes: 724
|
Post by ryboto on Mar 21, 2017 0:14:25 GMT
Should have had more time with her in the New Republic, give us some exposition around the state of the universe, just a few minutes...then she dies with the New Republic planets. Oh well. I know you prolly meant this off-handedly, but that actually would've been more interesting and poetic than anything they actually did in TFA -- Leia being a casualty on a planet (or system of them) destroyed by a Death Star-esque superweapon. Would be pretty depressingly poetic, though, I'd have given a shit about it, and her. But you're right, I'm unintentionally brilliant!! |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 21, 2017 1:22:12 GMT
I know you prolly meant this off-handedly, but that actually would've been more interesting and poetic than anything they actually did in TFA -- Leia being a casualty on a planet (or system of them) destroyed by a Death Star-esque superweapon. Would be pretty depressingly poetic, though, I'd have given a shit about it, and her. But you're right, I'm unintentionally brilliant!!  |
|
srb3
Sophomore
@srb3
Posts: 104
Likes: 32
|
Post by srb3 on Mar 23, 2017 18:44:31 GMT
Since Carrie Fisher passed away, Leia can't live through the current trilogy. In retrospect, do you wish they had killed off Leia instead of Han? No. Han was supposed to die in Star Wars ep VI. So Star Wars ep VII is better late than never. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 24, 2017 3:04:38 GMT
Since Carrie Fisher passed away, Leia can't live through the current trilogy. In retrospect, do you wish they had killed off Leia instead of Han? No. Han was supposed to die in Star Wars ep VI. So Star Wars ep VII is better late than never. Why you hate Han? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 16:20:22 GMT
Since Carrie Fisher passed away, Leia can't live through the current trilogy. In retrospect, do you wish they had killed off Leia instead of Han? No. Han was supposed to die in Star Wars ep VI. So Star Wars ep VII is better late than never. You couldn't be more wrong, or understand Star Wars less. He wasn't "supposed" to die in VI. Harrison Ford, being a miserable and ungrateful turd who immediately wanted to abandon the franchise that gave him the notoriety to do roles he preferred such as Indiana Jones like an oblivious dickhead, wanted the Han character to die (initially) during the carbon freeze scene in Empire; he fed Lucas some hamfisted nonsense about Han "sacrificing himself" as the logical conclusion to the Solo character. Lucas rejected it then and again in Jedi, which is why Ford tries to sandbag the movie by totally phoning it in, acting like a smug and disinterested douchebag, and generally giving no fucks whatsoever. Lucas felt Han's death would've been tonally inconsistent with Return of the Jedi and a bummer for fans; he was right. When it came time to do Disney's hot-shotted cash-grab The Force Awakens, a movie they greenlit without even so much as a single syllable of a story outline written (much less a script) and it shows, the House of Mouse desperately wanted Ford because of his cache as a box-office draw. Ford wanted nothing to do with Star Wars, but he was willing to come back: (a) 99% for the shitloads of money they paid him and (b) 1% to definitively kill off the character as a move to personally spite George Lucas, whose iron grip on final creative control of the saga had finally been wrested away, and get his, Ford's, "way" once and for all. Ford, the senile long-past-his-prime hack Larry Kasdan, and a cadre of others ousted by Lucas over the years elbowed their way to the front of the room and were chiefly responsible for the dog-whistle "Fuck You, Lucas" aspects of TFA -- "this will begin to make things right," their use of practical effects to the detriment of the film, trolling Lucas with the inclusion of the "Wolf Man" character, and on and on. (The rest was just paint-by-numbers, Disney princess garbage filler.) So while it would've been totally antithetical to the trilogy Lucas was trying to make, it would've at least made some semblance of sense for the Han character, as Ford somewhat half-correctly points out, to go from being a totally self-centered scumag in IV to a self-sacrificing hero in VI. It made no fucking story sense whatsoever for the Han Solo character to die in Episode VII. If anything, Luke should've died to keep the symmetry of Qui Gon/Obi Wan/Luke -- Jedi mentors in each of the initial installments of the trilogies, etc. Ford, Kasdan, Disney, et. al., arrived at the conclusion that Han Solo should die as a business decision resulting from contract negotiations, Ford's laziness and spitefulness, and the general creative approach of attempting to make TFA a sort of greatest hits tour of galaxy in the Millennium Falcon, with Han and Chewie as our guides. Terrible. |
|
srb3
Sophomore
@srb3
Posts: 104
Likes: 32
|
Post by srb3 on Mar 24, 2017 19:22:40 GMT
No. Han was supposed to die in Star Wars ep VI. So Star Wars ep VII is better late than never. You couldn't be more wrong, or understand Star Wars less. He wasn't "supposed" to die in VI. Harrison Ford, being a miserable and ungrateful turd who immediately wanted to abandon the franchise that gave him the notoriety to do roles he preferred such as Indiana Jones like an oblivious dickhead, wanted the Han character to die (initially) during the carbon freeze scene in Empire; he fed Lucas some hamfisted nonsense about Han "sacrificing himself" as the logical conclusion to the Solo character. Lucas rejected it then and again in Jedi, which is why Ford tries to sandbag the movie by totally phoning it in, acting like a smug and disinterested douchebag, and generally giving no fucks whatsoever. Lucas felt Han's death would've been tonally inconsistent with Return of the Jedi and a bummer for fans; he was right. When it came time to do Disney's hot-shotted cash-grab The Force Awakens, a movie they greenlit without even so much as a single syllable of a story outline written (much less a script) and it shows, the House of Mouse desperately wanted Ford because of his cache as a box-office draw. Ford wanted nothing to do with Star Wars, but he was willing to come back: (a) 99% for the shitloads of money they paid him and (b) 1% to definitively kill off the character as a move to personally spite George Lucas, whose iron grip on final creative control of the saga had finally been wrested away, and get his, Ford's, "way" once and for all; he, the senile long-past-his-prime hack Larry Kasdan, and a cadre of others ousted by Lucas over the years elbowed their way to the front of the room and were chiefly responsible for the dog-whistle "Fuck You, Lucas" aspects of TFA -- "this will begin to make things right," their use of practical effects to the detriment of the film, trolling Lucas with the inclusion of the "Wolf Man" character, and on and on. (The rest was just paint-by-numbers, Disney princess garbage filler.) So while it would've been totally antithetical to the trilogy Lucas was trying to make, it would've at least made some semblance of sense for the Han character, as Ford somewhat half-correctly points out, to go from being a totally self-centered scumag in IV to a self-sacrificing hero in VI. It made no fucking story sense whatsoever for the Han Solo character to die in Episode VII. If anything, Luke should've died to keep the symmetry of Qui Gon/Obi Wan/Luke -- Jedi mentors in each of the initial installments of the trilogies, etc. Ford, Kasdan, Disney, et. al., arrived at the conclusion that Han Solo should die as a business decision resulting from contract negotiations, Ford's laziness and spitefulness, and the general creative approach of attempting to make TFA a sort of greatest hits tour of galaxy in the Millennium Falcon, with Han and Chewie as our guides. Terrible. Actually I understand Star Wars quite well. More than you ever will in fact. You are lying by the way. Han Solo was supposed to die in episode VI. Fact. Regardless of how Harrison Ford felt about the character, Has Solo was to die in episode VI. That was the story Lucas, Kurtz and Kasdan mapped out back when they were mapping out the original trilogy. It was Lucas who made changes to episode VI. Kurtz left, Kasdan followed suit. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 19:31:24 GMT
You couldn't be more wrong, or understand Star Wars less. He wasn't "supposed" to die in VI. Harrison Ford, being a miserable and ungrateful turd who immediately wanted to abandon the franchise that gave him the notoriety to do roles he preferred such as Indiana Jones like an oblivious dickhead, wanted the Han character to die (initially) during the carbon freeze scene in Empire; he fed Lucas some hamfisted nonsense about Han "sacrificing himself" as the logical conclusion to the Solo character. Lucas rejected it then and again in Jedi, which is why Ford tries to sandbag the movie by totally phoning it in, acting like a smug and disinterested douchebag, and generally giving no fucks whatsoever. Lucas felt Han's death would've been tonally inconsistent with Return of the Jedi and a bummer for fans; he was right. When it came time to do Disney's hot-shotted cash-grab The Force Awakens, a movie they greenlit without even so much as a single syllable of a story outline written (much less a script) and it shows, the House of Mouse desperately wanted Ford because of his cache as a box-office draw. Ford wanted nothing to do with Star Wars, but he was willing to come back: (a) 99% for the shitloads of money they paid him and (b) 1% to definitively kill off the character as a move to personally spite George Lucas, whose iron grip on final creative control of the saga had finally been wrested away, and get his, Ford's, "way" once and for all; he, the senile long-past-his-prime hack Larry Kasdan, and a cadre of others ousted by Lucas over the years elbowed their way to the front of the room and were chiefly responsible for the dog-whistle "Fuck You, Lucas" aspects of TFA -- "this will begin to make things right," their use of practical effects to the detriment of the film, trolling Lucas with the inclusion of the "Wolf Man" character, and on and on. (The rest was just paint-by-numbers, Disney princess garbage filler.) So while it would've been totally antithetical to the trilogy Lucas was trying to make, it would've at least made some semblance of sense for the Han character, as Ford somewhat half-correctly points out, to go from being a totally self-centered scumag in IV to a self-sacrificing hero in VI. It made no fucking story sense whatsoever for the Han Solo character to die in Episode VII. If anything, Luke should've died to keep the symmetry of Qui Gon/Obi Wan/Luke -- Jedi mentors in each of the initial installments of the trilogies, etc. Ford, Kasdan, Disney, et. al., arrived at the conclusion that Han Solo should die as a business decision resulting from contract negotiations, Ford's laziness and spitefulness, and the general creative approach of attempting to make TFA a sort of greatest hits tour of galaxy in the Millennium Falcon, with Han and Chewie as our guides. Terrible. Actually I understand Star Wars quite well. More than you ever will in fact. You are lying by the way. Han Solo was supposed to die in episode VI. Fact. Regardless of how Harrison Ford felt about the character, Has Solo was to die in episode VI. That was the story Lucas, Kurtz and Kasdan mapped out back when they were mapping out the original trilogy. It was Lucas who made changes to episode VI. Kurtz left, Kasdan followed suit. Never said the death didn't possibly make it into some incarnations/drafts of the film. At one point, there were also totally different plans for a nine-film series in which Leia wasn't Luke's sister so that's really beside the point and borderline irrelevant. What I said was that (a) Ford was a proponent of killing off Han, and (b) Lucas nixed the idea. None of that is inconsistent with what you've written to supplement my correct recapitulation of events. I am neither lying nor less knowledgeable about any of this than you are. Nice try, though. |
|
shinnickneth
Junior Member
@shinnickneth
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 1,781
|
Post by shinnickneth on Mar 24, 2017 19:53:24 GMT
Actually I understand Star Wars quite well. More than you ever will in fact. You are lying by the way. Han Solo was supposed to die in episode VI. Fact. Regardless of how Harrison Ford felt about the character, Has Solo was to die in episode VI. That was the story Lucas, Kurtz and Kasdan mapped out back when they were mapping out the original trilogy. It was Lucas who made changes to episode VI. Kurtz left, Kasdan followed suit. Actually, the death in Return of the Jedi was not Han. Originally Lando/Nien Nunb were supposed to die blowing up the second Death star - taking the Millennium Falcon with them. There's even a line still in the movie where Han is looking at the Falcon and says something along the lines, "I get the feeling I'm never going to see her again." Leia then reassures him. For whatever reason, George Lucas decided not to kill them. Harrison Ford was the one who kept suggesting George Lucas should kill off Han. He made the suggestion in Episode 5, and then again during the making of Episode 6. Han dying was never in the script for either of those movies. I don't know where you heard that. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 24, 2017 19:55:11 GMT
Actually I understand Star Wars quite well. More than you ever will in fact. You are lying by the way. Han Solo was supposed to die in episode VI. Fact. Regardless of how Harrison Ford felt about the character, Has Solo was to die in episode VI. That was the story Lucas, Kurtz and Kasdan mapped out back when they were mapping out the original trilogy. It was Lucas who made changes to episode VI. Kurtz left, Kasdan followed suit. Actually, the death in Return of the Jedi was not Han. Originally Lando/Nien Nunb were supposed to die blowing up the second Death star. There's even a line still in the movie where Han is looking at the Falcon and says something along the lines, "I get the feeling I'm never going to see her again." Leia then reassures him. For whatever reason, George Lucas decided not to kill them. Harrison Ford was the one who kept suggesting George Lucas should kill off Han. He made the suggestion in Episode 5, and then again during the making of Episode 6. Han dying was never in the script for either of those movies. I don't know where you heard that.  |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 26, 2017 5:01:35 GMT
No. Han was supposed to die in Star Wars ep VI. So Star Wars ep VII is better late than never. trolling Lucas with the inclusion of the "Wolf Man" character, and on and on. (The rest was just paint-by-numbers, Disney princess garbage filler.) What's the wolf man character? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2017 5:20:10 GMT
trolling Lucas with the inclusion of the "Wolf Man" character, and on and on. (The rest was just paint-by-numbers, Disney princess garbage filler.) What's the wolf man character? The one on the left, although there's a little bit on both of them below:  From Wookieepedia:
"Makeup artist Rick Baker decided to use off-the-shelf masks to perform some reshoots of the booths in the cantina scenes. He used two different furry wolfman masks. The first one to appear onscreen would be identified as "Wolfman" during the shooting, and later as Arleil Schous, a Defel.[19] The other mask was called "Hyena-Man" during the production. In 1989, the Expanded Universe gave "Hyena-Man" a more detailed identity as Lak Sivrak, the Shistavanen Wolfman.
Lak Sivrak, the Shistavanen Wolfman, was not mentioned in the novelization of A New Hope, beyond a widely generic mention to "creatures with fur" in the cantina.
In 1997, Sivrak was digitally replaced for the Special Edition of A New Hope. A detailed puppet later known as Ketwol would be seen in his place, leaving Lak's canoncity disputed."
Spiteful little shit that he is, JJ Abrams put the "Wolfman" character in his horrible, piss-poor cantina scene as a subtle and personal jab at George Lucas, one of the few people who would've even noticed his inclusion, to make it clear in no uncertain terms that the intention of Abrams/Kennedy/Disney is the do everything possible to undermine and discredit Lucas's vision for Star Wars; here he is:  |
|
