|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 8, 2017 17:50:23 GMT
TFA and Rogue One were successful both financially and critically. Bahahahahahahahahaha. What a load of shit. The first two movies were criticized from the get-go. The one where people change their mind years later was episode three. This is why nobody takes you prequel fans seriously. I think you're remembering it incorrectly. ah he's just trolling hard to get our attention. Just like the old caged monkey flinging his excrements at you, he's not evil but bored and terribly frustrated. Be nice.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 8, 2017 18:14:08 GMT
How is it scapegoating when you just admitted that most of Kennedy's initial choices for directors are bad choices?Oh no you don't! You don't get off that easy! You don't post a stupid meme and avoid answering the question. Its a good question and IMO he got you there. So... answer the question!
How is it scapegoating when you just admitted that most of Kennedy's initial choices for directors are bad choices? Contradict yourself much?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 8, 2017 18:40:29 GMT
What problems would those be?! Havent you been reading?! Gareth Edwards was ghost directed by another guy on Rogue One... Trank was fired on the Boba Fett movie... Miller and Lord were fired on the Han solo movie... Trevorrow was fired on Star Wars 9... There have been serious issues with 4 out of 6 directors and they're only 2 movies in! If that's not symptomatic of problems I don't know what is!
Both of the newly released movies were a success critically and financially. The prequels can't even say that. These "problems" are really hindering the franchise, eh? The franchise in it's best shape since the original trilogy. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all these decisions are bad. That Kennedy (it's not just her btw, Kasdan is also a major player) is always wrong. Trank is garbage, I am glad he was fired and you should be too. And as much as I liked 21, 22 Jump Street, and The Lego Movie, those guys were an awful choice. You're just scapegoating. ALSO... I think you're under a misunderstanding about my meaning. Let me explain... Trank is garbage: He probably is, but he's only made two movies. One was good and one was bad, so at best you can only say its 50/50 with him. Miller and Lord were the wrong directors in the first place? Agreed. I've said so before on several posts in these forums. Trevorrow would have made a mediocre Episode 9? Most likely. I enjoyed Jurassic World but not because it was great. I only enjoyed it because I like movies with dinosaurs eating people. They should make more. Aside from that it was average IMO. So was I thrilled that he was gong to direct SW9? No, not really. I thought at the very least he wont totally fuck it up. He would've made a passable Episode 9, it would have made tons of money even though it was just OK, and cest la vie.
Is the franchise doing well? As far as the two movies we've seen so far are concerned, and as far as how much money they've made... Agreed. Absolutely.
But none of that is what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that she hired these people, so she must have some idea of what they are capable of. You don't hire a director blind. First you're exposed to their work (the movies they've already made) and you like them. Then you meet and there's several meetings, during which you discuss your vision and what you hope to achieve with your contribution, and what you expect from one another. Then there's business meetings and agreements that are met. And finally you're offered the job.
AFTER all that she fires three sets of directors? WTF? If after all that you still don't know what you're getting into, so much so that you have to fire the person, then maybe you shouldn't have hired them in the first place, or shouldn't be in charge of hiring. And lets not forget that she had Gareth Edwards ghost directed by another guy too. That's kinda insulting.
Again I ask, how far afield were their creative decisions that they had to be fired outright? Or maybe a better question is how narrow is her vision of what SW is or should be? Like I said before, I used to defend her, but now with this many firings, I gotta wonder...
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 8, 2017 19:59:09 GMT
Both of the newly released movies were a success critically and financially. The prequels can't even say that. These "problems" are really hindering the franchise, eh? The franchise in it's best shape since the original trilogy. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all these decisions are bad. That Kennedy (it's not just her btw, Kasdan is also a major player) is always wrong. Trank is garbage, I am glad he was fired and you should be too. And as much as I liked 21, 22 Jump Street, and The Lego Movie, those guys were an awful choice. You're just scapegoating. ALSO... I think you're under a misunderstanding about my meaning. Let me explain... Trank is garbage: He probably is, but he's only made two movies. One was good and one was bad, so at best you can only say its 50/50 with him. Miller and Lord were the wrong directors in the first place? Agreed. I've said so before on several posts in these forums. Trevorrow would have made a mediocre Episode 9? Most likely. I enjoyed Jurassic World but not because it was great. I only enjoyed it because I like movies with dinosaurs eating people. They should make more. Aside from that it was average IMO. So was I thrilled that he was gong to direct SW9? No, not really. I thought at the very least he wont totally fuck it up. He would've made a passable Episode 9, it would have made tons of money even though it was just OK, and cest la vie.
Is the franchise doing well? As far as the two movies we've seen so far are concerned, and as far as how much money they've made... Agreed. Absolutely.
But none of that is what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that she hired these people, so she must have some idea of what they are capable of. You don't hire a director blind. First you're exposed to their work (the movies they've already made) and you like them. Then you meet and there's several meetings, during which you discuss your vision and what you hope to achieve with your contribution, and what you expect from one another. Then there's business meetings and agreements that are met. And finally you're offered the job.
AFTER all that she fires three sets of directors? WTF? If after all that you still don't know what you're getting into, so much so that you have to fire the person, then maybe you shouldn't have hired them in the first place, or shouldn't be in charge of hiring. And lets not forget that she had Gareth Edwards ghost directed by another guy too. That's kinda insulting.
Again I ask, how far afield were their creative decisions that they had to be fired outright? Or maybe a better question is how narrow is her vision of what SW is or should be? Like I said before, I used to defend her, but now with this many firings, I gotta wonder...
Get the fuck out here with that ridiculousness. Anyone reserves the right to change their mind at any time; especially if the facts reveal something that was not apparent during the initial situation. Stop pretending like hiring a candidate for a job guarantees their success. Candidate versus employee can be two very different things. I don’t have a problem with you. You’re not like these other idiot prequel lovers/sequel haters. I think you are a better poster than that, so stop being so obtuse. Two out of five is not what normal people call the definition of the word most.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 8, 2017 20:39:32 GMT
ALSO... I think you're under a misunderstanding about my meaning. Let me explain... Trank is garbage: He probably is, but he's only made two movies. One was good and one was bad, so at best you can only say its 50/50 with him. Miller and Lord were the wrong directors in the first place? Agreed. I've said so before on several posts in these forums. Trevorrow would have made a mediocre Episode 9? Most likely. I enjoyed Jurassic World but not because it was great. I only enjoyed it because I like movies with dinosaurs eating people. They should make more. Aside from that it was average IMO. So was I thrilled that he was gong to direct SW9? No, not really. I thought at the very least he wont totally fuck it up. He would've made a passable Episode 9, it would have made tons of money even though it was just OK, and cest la vie.
Is the franchise doing well? As far as the two movies we've seen so far are concerned, and as far as how much money they've made... Agreed. Absolutely.
But none of that is what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that she hired these people, so she must have some idea of what they are capable of. You don't hire a director blind. First you're exposed to their work (the movies they've already made) and you like them. Then you meet and there's several meetings, during which you discuss your vision and what you hope to achieve with your contribution, and what you expect from one another. Then there's business meetings and agreements that are met. And finally you're offered the job.
AFTER all that she fires three sets of directors? WTF? If after all that you still don't know what you're getting into, so much so that you have to fire the person, then maybe you shouldn't have hired them in the first place, or shouldn't be in charge of hiring. And lets not forget that she had Gareth Edwards ghost directed by another guy too. That's kinda insulting.
Again I ask, how far afield were their creative decisions that they had to be fired outright? Or maybe a better question is how narrow is her vision of what SW is or should be? Like I said before, I used to defend her, but now with this many firings, I gotta wonder...
Get the fuck out here with that ridiculousness. Anyone reserves the right to change their mind at any time; especially if the facts reveal something that was not apparent during the initial situation. Stop pretending like hiring a candidate for a job guarantees their success. Candidate versus employee can be two very different things. I don’t have a problem with you. You’re not like these other idiot prequel lovers/sequel haters. I think you are a better poster than that, so stop being so obtuse. Two out of five is not what normal people call the definition of the word most. I'm not getting the fuck out of anywhere. LOL! Of course anyone reserves the right to change their mind, but this has now gone beyond the pale. Candidate versus employee may be two very different things but two of those guys hadn't even started making their movies before they were fired (Trank and Trevorow) and the other two were second guessed so much during their work that Edwards was ghost directed and Miller/Lord were fired outright! That outlines it as simply as I can. The argument is easy to follow so I'm not really sure what you're referring to as obtuse.
And on the second issue.... Gareth Edwards was ghost directed by someone else (that's 1) Trank was fired (that's 2) Lord and Miller were fired (that's 3) Trevorrow was fired (that's 4) If you include Abrams and Johnson that's 6 4 out of 6 is most. And enough to set up a pattern. If you still don't see it, then I wonder who's really being obtuse.
p.s. I don’t have a problem with you either. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Sept 8, 2017 21:38:24 GMT
I already know you consider the prequels full of production problems. But the prequels were a huge success financially! They were on the top 10 all time box office list at the times of their releases. And they had modest critic success. (If you go back and research you will see that is true. Much of the critic commentary that painted the prequels as being universally awful or damaging to the franchise came after the Plinkett reviews). So you're somewhat contradicting yourself by even bringing up the prequels. TFA and Rogue One were successful both financially and critically. Bahahahahahahahahaha. What a load of shit. The first two movies were criticized from the get-go. The one where people change their mind years later was episode three. This is why nobody takes you prequel fans seriously. Just below is a website article that covers the early movie critic reviews of The Phantom Menace. Click on the link and read the entire article: link
Now, you were saying...
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Sept 8, 2017 21:46:17 GMT
Well it's not like Treverrow has a large body of work to judge to begin with. And that's exactly part of my point. Why does Kathleen Kennedy keep hiring the wrong director to begin with every time? For instance I knew Lord and Miller was a bad choice from day one and I don't even work in the business. I agree. I know there's quite a bit of turmoil and poor management going on. I'm just extremely happy Treverow is gone because I did not want to see him do to Star Wars what he did to Jurassic Park. I can't argue that. While there were some things I liked about Jurassic World there was a long list of problems I had with it. And I wouldn't want to see those issues pop up in SW either.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 9, 2017 17:12:48 GMT
I agree. I know there's quite a bit of turmoil and poor management going on. I'm just extremely happy Treverow is gone because I did not want to see him do to Star Wars what he did to Jurassic Park. I can't argue that. While there were some things I liked about Jurassic World there was a long list of problems I had with it. And I wouldn't want to see those issues pop up in SW either. too late, alas. JJ Abrams already did to Star Wars what Treverow did to Jurassic World AND some more: a soft reboot rehash on fanfic writing level.
|
|
pete8680
Sophomore
Yo!
@pete8680
Posts: 464
Likes: 448
|
Post by pete8680 on Sept 9, 2017 21:02:05 GMT
I think Han Solo: Pet Detective wood of bin interesting. Guess will now get Han Solo: The Art Of The Deal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 13:03:09 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 16:55:50 GMT
Good. He was a bad choice anyway. As for Kennedy (and everyone else...it's not just Kennedy you know), my conclusions will always be based on final product. Some may disagree, but I thought TFA was excellent. Some may disagree, but I thought Rogue One was disappointing. Who does what running up to the final product isn't even worth analyzing. If Ep. IX is awesome, she can fire 100 directors for all I care.
|
|
ryboto
Sophomore
@ryboto
Posts: 776
Likes: 724
|
Post by ryboto on Sept 11, 2017 19:14:10 GMT
Good. He was a bad choice anyway. As for Kennedy (and everyone else...it's not just Kennedy you know), my conclusions will always be based on final product. Some may disagree, but I thought TFA was excellent. Some may disagree, but I thought Rogue One was disappointing. Who does what running up to the final product isn't even worth analyzing. If Ep. IX is awesome, she can fire 100 directors for all I care. Really hard to take this guy seriously. BUT, I agree. he was a bad choice. JJ was still worse. Can't wait for Porgs! SO fresh!
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Sept 11, 2017 19:56:21 GMT
Good. He was a bad choice anyway. As for Kennedy (and everyone else...it's not just Kennedy you know), my conclusions will always be based on final product. Some may disagree, but I thought TFA was excellent. Some may disagree, but I thought Rogue One was disappointing. Who does what running up to the final product isn't even worth analyzing. If Ep. IX is awesome, she can fire 100 directors for all I care. The only real reason I wanted him to direct is was so he could have both a Jurassic park movie AND Star wars movie in his filmography. Also so it could say in his IMDB trivia that his movie Safety Not Guaranteed referenced Star Wars and he eventually directed Star Wars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 20:09:27 GMT
Good. He was a bad choice anyway. As for Kennedy (and everyone else...it's not just Kennedy you know), my conclusions will always be based on final product. Some may disagree, but I thought TFA was excellent. Some may disagree, but I thought Rogue One was disappointing. Who does what running up to the final product isn't even worth analyzing. If Ep. IX is awesome, she can fire 100 directors for all I care. Really hard to take this guy seriously. BUT, I agree. he was a bad choice. JJ was still worse. Can't wait for Porgs! SO fresh! Awww, not sure what's cuter: the porg or the fact your feelings are still hurt from getting set straight about the nature of the Force. It's funny, though. I thought of you whilst reading Empire's End over the weekend because there were several references to light and dark sides being separate things, however, the dogma being preached at the Church of the Force seemed more in-tune with your bad interpretation of how the Force works. And then I thought about your Lucas quotes, how interpretations of the Force were like religious denominations: people always misunderstanding it and arguing about it. I found it funny that "the church" misunderstood it also and that they added this facet to canon almost as if to address what Lucas was talking about.
|
|
ryboto
Sophomore
@ryboto
Posts: 776
Likes: 724
|
Post by ryboto on Sept 12, 2017 13:03:26 GMT
Really hard to take this guy seriously. BUT, I agree. he was a bad choice. JJ was still worse. Can't wait for Porgs! SO fresh! Awww, not sure what's cuter: the porg or the fact your feelings are still hurt from getting set straight about the nature of the Force. It's funny, though. I thought of you whilst reading Empire's End over the weekend because there were several references to light and dark sides being separate things, however, the dogma being preached at the Church of the Force seemed more in-tune with your bad interpretation of how the Force works. And then I thought about your Lucas quotes, how interpretations of the Force were like religious denominations: people always misunderstanding it and arguing about it. I found it funny that "the church" misunderstood it also and that they added this facet to canon almost as if to address what Lucas was talking about. This guy is obsessed!! someone help him! Holy shit it's a grey area! In Sidious, I trust. If the shit you quote is EU, and the shit I quote is EU, and it's all character interpretations and beliefs, then both arguments are fucked.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Sept 12, 2017 15:01:35 GMT
The problem is not that Trevorrow is out,the problem is that JJ is in!
|
|