DarkBluePhoenix wrote:Well at least I understand that disturbance in the force I felt earlier today.

So, it looks like Episode IX might have a chance to be good without that putz directing.

This like made my day, I hate what Colin Trevorrow did to the Jurassic park franchise with Jurassic World and I never wanted him directing the Star Wars franchise in any form so to hear he's walked out is wonderful.

CT leaving Star Wars is the first time I've been this excited over something about the franchise since the announcement of The Phantom Menace. (Not the watching of the actual movie, obviously. Just its announcement.) And even then I'm still not excited about the future SW movies. I just like it when studio heads seems to actually understand something for once.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:CT leaving Star Wars is the first time I've been this excited over something about the franchise since the announcement of The Phantom Menace. (Not the watching of the actual movie, obviously. Just its announcement.) And even then I'm still not excited about the future SW movies. I just like it when studio heads seems to actually understand something for once.

I believe they all watched The Book of Henry or may be Jurrassic World for the first time and though oh shit I think we made a huge mistake these movies have some real in your face sexism...oh wait this doesn't look good for our lead Rey someone get rid of this director right now. Also if they ever post any of the script that TC has working on I would put money on him pairing Rey with Ren even though he's an abusive violent narcissist or turning Po heterosexual to be her romantic interest while Fin gets forced in to the back ground.

While the slimy sexism in and around the movie Jurassic World is rather blatant and repulsive, I'm willing to bet actual money that it was the performance of The Book of Henry that did CT in. Remember Disney hired CT after Jurassic World made bank. Disney pays marketable lip service to whatever it needs to in order to ensure profits and good PR on a movie they make. If it's CT's "Dinosaurs-Eat-Friendzoners" techniques that make the most money (and it did seem to for a little while there), then that's what Disney will do to make money in their own movies. Disney isn't interested in a director's style beyond profitability until very late in the game. (Remember they hired the directors of 21 Jump Street and The Lego Movie for the Hon Solo solo movie before deciding to go with Ron Howard 3 months into production.) When Henry became a critical and financial flop, then dropped it like a bag of rocks.

I don't understand everyone's enthusiasm over this fella's dismissal. What makes him a bad director? I've never heard of him.

Jurassic World, directed by Colin Trevorrow, was a movie that was surprisingly easy to be disappointed in despite its general audience acclaim. I even felt like I had a good time watching this movie after the credits rolled, and then 20 minutes later I was suddenly bitching about basic failings of the movie at a Wendy's, desperately hoping the fries and frosty combo would make up for the lost time I'd spent watching it.

The first Jurassic Park is no "masterpiece," at least not in the typical sense of the term, but it is far better than most people realize it is. There's a reason why every JP sequel has been disappointing, and that's because there's a narrative complexity and cinematic craftsmanship that is intrinsic to the original JP film that has yet to be matched by its would-be successors. (Even the one directed by the same filmmaker.) Anytime a filmmaker has tried to simplify the JP structure into something more like a "typical summer blockbuster," audiences quickly realize that they probably weren't that interested in dinosaurs anymore anyway and soon forget about it.

So yeah, a generally disappointing film that doesn't do Jurassic Park justice on a franchise level, a genre level, or even on a narrative level. Add to that the fact that Colin Trevorrow was a sexist douchebag throughout the production and his stunningly awful "thriller/suspense" film The Book of Henry, and it's easy to see how people would be happy of his dismissal on both an artistic and on a moral level.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Add to that the fact that Colin Trevorrow was a sexist douchebag throughout the production

Wait explain? This was more then just BDH's character being a uptight business woman stereotype?

Apparently Colin was hitting on the actress who played the Jurassic World employee who was watching the kids as they visited the park. She kept turning him down, so he cut many of her scenes and gave her an over-the-top death scene out of spite.

While cutting down someone's performance in a film and how it relates to actor's contribution to the film will sometimes be a dicey thing to handle, with some actors being cut entirely out of a movie for purely artistic or narrative reasons and the actor retaliating with a lawsuit to get that recognition back, the context in which this happened in JW was overtly a retaliation for a refusal of sexual services during the job.

My personal opinion on Colin Trevorrow is based on Jurassic World and that movie was underwhelming on every single aspect, I don't think the movie is bad, it's just forgettable and the only scene I remember is the one with the lady running on high heels because of how stupid it was.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Apparently Colin was hitting on the actress who played the Jurassic World employee who was watching the kids as they visited the park. She kept turning him down, so he cut many of her scenes and gave her an over-the-top death scene out of spite.

While cutting down someone's performance in a film and how it relates to actor's contribution to the film will sometimes be a dicey thing to handle, with some actors being cut entirely out of a movie for purely artistic or narrative reasons and the actor retaliating with a lawsuit to get that recognition back, the context in which this happened in JW was overtly a retaliation for a refusal of sexual services during the job.

I never knew that and I did wonder why Zara's death is full on torture porn but I thought it was Colin's punishing the character for not being there when the boys ran away but reading this just makes it so much worse.

I dug up some links on Colin which are worth reading please note one was written before Colins was pushed out of Starwars.

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-upwards-failing-of-colin-trevorrow-and-why-it-matters.php
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/aug/24/jurassic-world-colin-trevorrow-criticised-for-saying-women-lack-desire-to-direct-blockbusters

tweet-body

— twitter-user (@username) date

I liked TFA as a soft reboot but I don't think he's the right man for Episode IX.

Agreed. If they were going to go with a familiar director, they should have stuck with Rian Johnson.

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:The first Jurassic Park is no "masterpiece," at least not in the typical sense of the term, but it is far better than most people realize it is.

Jaws is actually Spielberg's masterpiece, imo. There are hints of the "replace guns with walkie talkies in re-releases of ET" Spielberg emerging in Jurassic Park and how it becomes toothless by ignoring all of Crichton's social commentary and wariness of technology.

Oh and by the way Episode IX has been postponed from May 2019 to December 2019.

Of course they'd bring back JJ "paint-by-numbers do whatever the studio tells me" Abrams.

Look I'm not saying Abrams is an untalented director he's clearly paid his dues. But he has no real Vision when put in charge of rebooting the biggest cinematic franchise in the history of the human race. What was his big plan what was the Deep Thematic fresh bold idea he had in mind for the franchise after the prequel era?

Do a paint-by-numbers remake of A New Hope with a girl instead of a boy.

So after episode 9 gives us a slightly darker more thematically relevant story. Episode 10 is going to return to form and be a paint by numbers remake of Return of the Jedi. Only with something in the place of Ewoks.

Everyone is going to go see a Star Wars movie purely on brand name alone so here's a chance to do something fresh with it, something that you couldn't do with any other franchise because of Risk averse investors.

If Star Wars survived the Christmas special, three middling to crappy movies, and two gaps of almost a decade and a half without any new theater releases? It could survive a risky storytelling decision or two.

But with Kathleen Kennedy in charge and Disney having the franchises balls firmly in a vice I doubt were going to get anything like that anytime soon. If ever.

Eh, considering the conflict and negative PR LucasFilm has had with directors on these new Star Wars films, I'm not surprised nor do I blame them with going with a safe choice like JJ. Even Gareth Edwards had to be really flexible with Rogue One regarding the reshoots. However, all things regarding Rian Johnson and Ep XIII have been positive, which is why I hoped for him again. Then again, production on IX is beginning almost immediately after XIII is released, so choosing Rian without giving him a break may burn him out.

Ray wrote:So after episode 9 gives us a slightly darker more thematically relevant story. Episode 10 is going to return to form and be a paint by numbers remake of Return of the Jedi. Only with something in the place of Ewoks.

Porgs, I think he'll use porgs. And then of course, prepare for that lens flare.

Also, this choice doesn't seem all that shocking, Disney certainly likes keeping a small group of directors on hand for its properties, and I feel that JJ is too much of a fanboy to do anything serious or deep with the series.

DarkBluePhoenix wrote:Porgs, I think he'll use porgs. And then of course, prepare for that lens flare.

Also, this choice doesn't seem all that shocking, Disney certainly likes keeping a small group of directors on hand for its properties, and I feel that JJ is too much of a fanboy to do anything serious or deep with the series.

I'd have to agree with that since ST in to darkness was him trying to be bold and dark but it just didn't pan out in my view.

Well, JJ let a bunch of 9/11 Truthers wirte about a franchise of which he was mostly ignorant for Into Darkness. It went about as well as could be expected.

EDIT:

Chuckman wrote:Jaws is actually Spielberg's masterpiece, imo. There are hints of the "replace guns with walkie talkies in re-releases of ET" Spielberg emerging in Jurassic Park and how it becomes toothless by ignoring all of Crichton's social commentary and wariness of technology.

I agree there. As far as Spielberg's monster movies go, Jaws probably the best. It's been a while since I've seen Jaws, so I'll have to watch both and compare.

I wonder if "replace guns with walkie talkies" could be better summed up with the "cut to prairie dogs during murder" in Indy 4.

Also, I wonder if the 4K release for ET will include the original version.

silvermoonlight wrote:I'd have to agree with that since ST in to darkness was him trying to be bold and dark but it just didn't pan out in my view.

It's because he took the best ST film - Wrath of Khan - and made a very visually striking film, but it was too similar to the original (warp drive needs fixing, fighting a federation ship, the Enterprise gets messed up, and Kirk learns that are no win solutions, and someone shouts "KHHHHAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!" really loudly. JJ also left his usual massive plot holes of transwarp beaming open and the super augment blood Khan and his compatriots carry being able to cure deadness and whatnot.

Also, I'm not missing the irony of talking about Star Trek in a Star Wars thread... something, something, disturbance in the force.