The JJ Abrams Rise of Skywalker cut? (Spoilers)

[WebLurker]

But it kind of debunks the myth of why people become fans in the first place. ie people get divorces because their partner changes or they fall out of love. fans are passionate because they fall in love with a franchise and can't handle what are obviously bad changes, one best example is the complete character assignation of Luke in last jedi or how the force in this ST trilogy has become more like basic magic. at this point you can give jedis wands and magic staffs.

What's that got to do with people liking different things and living and let living?

its a new hope remake, can't argue with that when JJ himself has said so.

"I can understand that someone might say, 'Oh, it's a complete rip-off! What was important for me was introducing brand new characters using relationships that were embracing the history that we know to tell a story that is new — to go backwards to go forwards." - J.J. Abrams

Yeah, not so much.

profit is not the same as disappointment.

Yeah, the former is the bottom line for the film industry, the latter is subjective consumer response.

Kennedy has messed up so much, from the leaks, even Disney wanted her to scale down on the so called woke agenda. rumours are flying that Jon Favreau will now become the main man behind the star wars franchise.

Right, just like Paul is dead, the Moon landing was a hoax, and Trump had a perfect phone call with Ukraine. Moving on...

as for Fiege, I don't think he is a good call, his work with marvel is sort of meh compared to the source material, also marvel is nothing really like star wars so feige won't be able to use his formula there including the light humor stuff that was one of the pains of last Jedi.

Maybe, but he has proven to be able to get good talent to together to make the movies he produces, so it's a good gamble, on paper, at least.

I still think JJ Abrams would be better for star wars if star wars was owned by paramount and he made star wars films with paramount

Would he even want to?

I don't know who Phil or Chairs are but I don't see Colin Trevorrow returning. he probably feels he dodge a bullet after leaving the director's chair of ROS.

They were the original directors for Solo before being replaced with Ron Howard. So far as I know, the only thing that Trevorrow has said about TROS is being grateful that he was credited as contributing to the story, since some of his ideas were used in the final production.

Palpatine will remembered more badly, most don't even talk about into darkness anymore. ROS will be talked about negatively for years to come. the white washing issue is different to poor story telling.

We'll see.

except Rey's back story has imploded, it exposed further that Kennedy never had a plan.

As the alleged SJW Droid put it, it works.

Rian and JJ will forever have a professional grudge against the other.

What the frak?

her entire story arc is even more bizzare as she now takes the name of skywalker and takes all of luke's possession with no logical explanation why.

We don't know what she did with the X-Wing and she buried the sabers at the end, keeping nothing herself. As far as Rey taking Luke and Leia's last name as her own, that was logically set up in the movie. Not sure where you getting the idea otherwise.

Well you might want to stop saying disgruntled fans as I don't see myself as one, see my earlier comments when I said one of the worst part about this new films is how they treat the force.

"Disgruntled: angry or dissatisfied." Seemed like a simple one-word way to say "Fans unhappy with the new movies." Sorry if that was offending. (R.E. the Force, don't see too much that we haven't seen before.)

I dont think so. the leaks are making JJ look good that some people out there who hate jj are saying it is nothing but a bad robot (his own production company) positive spin to help him

Uh huh.

I have done so many times, tired of repeating myself but at this point, I think it is now almost universal accepted that rey is a mary sue, along with Wesley Crusher and Bella Sawn even Wikipedia Mary sue now has a section of rey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

The Wikipedia article, just notes the back and forth r.e. the character, not that she is factually one. As far as Rey being a Mary Sue, my point stands that that is a fallacy, due to not fitting the information established in the films. I'm tired of having to repeat the same points on how the Mary Sue thing is factually false. (Don't like the character if that's your opinion, but give the devil his due.)

DOFP was about one character wasn't it? Rogue. The DOFP rogue cut was just a treat for fans and for Bryan Singer to brag about his film making talents, fans were already okay with the original movie, This ROS cut is more about people wanting some kind of justice and trying to make what is a bad film look better.

You're missing the point; I'm sure there are deleted scenes that could be used to make a longer version of TROS if the Powers That Be wanted to. However, there is no J.J. Cut of a radically different TROS.

The one give away clue that I buy the cut exist was the film editor admitting, post production was a nightmare. this is the same thing with Justice League and a cut of the movie does exist. its cool that you want to believe its all fabricated but there is a 90% chance it is not.

Circumstantial evidence is not "valid." A troubled production does not prove the company is sitting on an alternate version. There is no good reason to believe that every "bad" movie has some holy grail cut in the can just because Zack Snyder is sitting on discarded footage from his time working on the Justice League movie.

Lot's of films have cut scenes...and most are cut with good reason. There's still little to suggest this was some nefarious take over that drastically altered the film.

Thank you!

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The issue with DCs is that they can fundamentally change the story too which becomes problematic in a lynch pin piece of media. Which version is the 'real' one, the DC or the theatre version?

The thing with Director's Cuts is that the concept is misunderstood and the word is totally abused:
-- As per the rules negotiated by the DGA in the 70s, every director on a major production is allowed right to "first cut". Before any producer or distributor or anyone else can have input, the director must be allowed to put together the first cut all by himself or herself, or themselves. Now to most people making movies, the director's cut is synonymous with the first cut. But that's different from the "director's cut" editions that show up on DVD because.
-- The "first cut" is not in any senses of the term intended to be the final theatrical version even for film-makers like Spielberg, Scorsese, Cameron and others who have "final cut" privilege in their contracts. Because nobody gets a movie right on the first attempt at an edit. But it's valuable because it allows the director to present their vision of the film to producers and others, and they can sense at least where the directors are coming from and how they see the film. Before DGA President Robert Aldrich negotiated this, directors on major studio productions, as a rule, weren't even allowed into the editing room, now on any major production with a DGA member, directors are in the "room where it happens" so-to-speak, excepting of course they recuse themselves before completing a certain percentage of production (SOLO-lord and miller), or they quit (Zack Snyder-JL).
-- In the majority of cases, after screening the "first cut", directors and producers and studio heads agree on a consensus and the director is given feedback which they can either incorporate or battle it out and haggle over, with further compromises and so on. If no compromise is agreed upon, the movie gets taken out of the director's hands and there's nothing they can do about it. But usually, directors to maintain some professionalism and remain employable on big studio releases, agree to the edits.
-- As such the theatrical release that comes out is always a compromise. The producers and studio chiefs agree with the director on some stuff, directors have to meet the bosses halfway, and usually directors try their best to make the edits and cuts themselves out of a belief that any other editor and other hand, would make a bigger mess, and it's about choosing the lesser evil.
-- In very rare instances only, do you find a true director's cut i.e. a fully cut, edited, and spliced version of the film made on the editing table, printed on film stock or digital, that is ready to be screened, but was then buried and shelved and the studio made a fresh edit on top of it. For many people a "director's cut" is synonymous to this but that's not really the case. A good example of a True Director's Cut, is Terry Gilliam's Brazil which was fully done before producer Sid Sheinberg made a rival edit.
-- In the case of Blade Runner, the version advertised as the "director's cut" in the 90s is based on an earlier version and was produced without Ridley Scott's involvement at the time (albeit he had some input). It's closer to Scott's intent, but it's not a real True Director's Cut. Ridley Scott later put out a "Final Cut" version in The Oughties, and this one was overseen by him, but again this is something Scott edited and oversaw decades after the original film, it's not organic to the original production process of the '80s film.
-- Most "Director's Cuts" on DVD and others...are essentially after-the-fact edited productions...they are functionally no different from George Lucas' Special Editions or Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now Redux, which are second versions of the original films that were originally released per the director's intentions. Or you know the Extended Editions of LOTR by Peter Jackson which he made clear are merely for the hardcore fans on Home Video because the original theatrical releases as per him, are his final intended versions of the film.


In the case of Disney and Star Wars...the question is did JJ Abrams have a fully made edit and cut version of TROS ready? The answer is most likely, no. Because modern VFX movies are such that the effects are only added in late into production when everything else is agreed and hashed out. Would Disney allow Abrams to come back and take the footage and make a new version for Home Video? The answer is again, most likely no.

Disney does allow extended versions of animated movies for anniversaries, like I think the Lion King movie and Beauty and the Beast had some new songs. But in general, they don't do any of that.

[motherofpearl1]

I wonder how well this will do on dvd/blu ray?

[Beaddle]

I wonder how well this will do on dvd/blu ray?

it will definitely do well. Disney should thank fans, they will still buy anything with star wars even if they claim to hate it. I bet you the haters of last jedi still have the film on blueray/dvd

[WillieMorgan]

I wonder how well this will do on dvd/blu ray?

It'll do well, it's Star Wars. Thing is, the franchise's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are mirroring the direction that the overall Star Wars license seems to be heading down commercially. It's one of increasing levels of under performance bolstered by the fact that it's still doing strong enough for many to not get too concerned about it. It's an under performing franchise but still successful by default as it's Star Wars basically. These are the DVD and Blu-Ray sales figures from the US for the four Disney SW films taken from The Numbers website:

TFW - $190,678,025
Rogue One - $84,950,754
TLJ - $87,991,062
Solo - $55,476,214

Solo is obviously a bit of an anomaly there, TROS will certainly outperform those numbers. It's also true that DVD and Blu-Ray sales are in decline overall, not just for Star Wars. That's still a steep drop though regardless of any of those facts. Disney Star Wars fans may be comfortable with the fact that SW is still performing well enough not to panic, despite the very steep levels of attrition. Disney executives will feel very different though. This franchise should be turning over much more cash than it currently is. That's just focusing on the film side of things also.

[motherofpearl1]

Funny thing is, I actually liked Solo.

[David Walton]

Funny thing is, I actually liked Solo.

SOLO is great! Saw it twice in theaters and still love it.

[motherofpearl1]

SOLO is great! Saw it twice in theaters and still love it.

Still chuckle over the shower scene.

[Powerboy]

Funny thing is, I actually liked Solo.

I really don't get why it flopped, relatively speaking. It was a good, rollicking Star Wars movie.

[David Walton]

I really don't get why it flopped, relatively speaking. It was a good, rollicking Star Wars movie.

I don't think it was marketed really well and had strong competition at the box office. Also think it was tainted by the pre-packaged narrative that SOLO's box office numbers were an indictment of STAR WARS new direction post-TLJ. Which made little sense given that SOLO was pretty much everything that fans nostalgic for the OT could have wanted in a prequel.

In general, I'm skeptical of getting too specific with mythological moments, because it rarely lives up to what fans imagine in their head. But SOLO's take on Han winning the Millenium Falcon was glorious (and the hug where Han stole the card was a nice reversal of their meeting in ESB).

[Joker]

Lot's of films have cut scenes...and most are cut with good reason. There's still little to suggest this was some nefarious take over that drastically altered the film.

And all movies go through the editing process. Usually starting with a huge running time consisting of pretty much everything. Like the 4 hour version of Rogue One. It doesn't exist. They just shoot a lot of film when making movies.

[PwrdOn]

I really don't get why it flopped, relatively speaking. It was a good, rollicking Star Wars movie.

The lead actor just didn't have that je ne sais quoi that separated Harrison Ford's portrayal of Han from every other cocky gunslinger action hero, nor it is really reasonable to expect anyone to be able to fill those shoes properly given how iconic that performance has become in the past 40 years. Everyone else was mostly fine, but alas, the movie was called Solo.

[Username taken]

Solo had everything going against it, creative issues, budget over runs, viewer apathy (I honestly don’t think there was great interest in a Solo movie at all)

That being said, the production problems were the primary issue because lest we forget the first trailer for Solo came out mere WEEKS before its release. In today’s climate it’s difficult to build buzz when people have no idea what the movie even looks like.

Funny enough, Solo was a good albeit unnecessary movie. Seriously, we didn’t need to know that Solo isn’t his real name or the Kessel run and all that, those weren’t questions that needed answering.

[BeastieRunner]

Solo could have been all about Lando and not much would've changed. Just the weak first act really. Which might have improved it.

I also like Howard's take on Star Wars, glad we're getting more of him with S2 of Mando (he's doing 2-3 episodes) and Kenobi (he's doing 1-3 episodes).

I really wished it got the December delay Ron wanted because he was planning on getting Billy Dee and Harrison to come in and frame the movie as them one-upping each other in a game of Sabacc at Canto with stories of how they met.

We already had 4 Solo movies, he was the least needed character for a solo movie. And I like the movie because it felt like an EU story come to life, which aren't the best stories TBH.

I really wanted a Lando movie with Glover ...

[Username taken]

Solo could have been all about Lando and not much would've changed.

I really wanted a Lando movie with Glover ...

Yep.

A Lando movie with Donald Glover actually sounds more interesting to be honest.