Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Aug 26, 2013 - 5:27 PM   
 By:   Sarge   (Member)

Lucas wasn't sure Ford would come back for RETURN OF THE JEDI. Unlike the other actors, he didn't sign a three-picture contract, and after RAIDERS he was a star in his own right.

So Lucas left the door open to kill Han Solo - both as a negotiating tool and to prepare the audience, if need be.

It's that simple. It wasn't a creative decision, it was a very prudent, practical decision.

Whedon is being a bit coy... I'm sure he knows this.

 
 Posted:   Aug 26, 2013 - 6:14 PM   
 By:   Justin Boggan   (Member)


The problem with Serenity is that its obviously four TV seasons worth of story crammed into 100 minutes.

Actually, I think I recall whedon saying that it brought us up to the end of season two. Obviusly he had more plans for the series that we'll never really know.



And yes -- "Serenity" had no end, as in the kind of end Whedon wanted for Star Wars. All "Serenity" did was expand upon River, solve her insanity problem (at least we assume it did perminently -- you can never know with Whedon), but leave her now a character with no purpose.

All Mal did was put a thorn in the claw of the Alliance. Before all this, he was simply an annoyance and River & Simon Tam were whom the Alliance were after. Now the whole crew is an active target, from, as the end lines of the film indicate, people who are not forgiving. Even River warns it will get far worse.


Our characters are not better off, two of them are dead now, they'll have more operatives after them, an Alliance looking to destroy them, most if not all of their allies are dead, and they keep having to further go out into space to avoid detection, which reduces work. Yay.

And only one character had any real developement, River.

Some glorious end to the 'verse.

For the movie, I find the whole thing personally satisfying. But if you put it under the Whedonscope used on Star Wars, it doesn't hold up.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 26, 2013 - 6:42 PM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

I think Whedon thought or hoped that Serenity would be the first movie in a series like the Star Trek movies. I guess he forgot what happened to Firefly. The ending of Serenity held possibilities for at least one sequel if not more, but the movie did poorly at the box office, so a possible sequel was doomed. Too bad because I enjoyed the movie and the characters.

 
 Posted:   Aug 26, 2013 - 7:06 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The ending of Serenity held possibilities for at least one sequel if not more, but the movie did poorly at the box office, so a possible sequel was doomed.

It would've helped if Whedon hadn't packed his premiere with Firefly fans by giving away free tickets. wink

 
 Posted:   Aug 26, 2013 - 7:56 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

No different than a Game Of Thrones episode, or 24.


Except you don't have to wait THREE YEARS for a new episode of 24 or Game Of Thrones, and pay another few dollars to see it.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 12:41 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

I don't even know who Joss Whedon is....but I agree with him on this.

 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 5:35 AM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

No different than a Game Of Thrones episode, or 24.


Except you don't have to wait THREE YEARS for a new episode of 24 or Game Of Thrones, and pay another few dollars to see it.


Nope, true. One year is still a long time though (I watch these on disc media, not broadcast).

I don`t recall anyone seeing Empire and complaining about the open ending. Everyone was simply utterly thrilled that such a high quality entry had followed Star Wars.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 5:56 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Avengers was extremely overrated.

Some of the effects were downright terrible.
Those aliens at the end on those air craft are not convincing at all.

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 6:17 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

No different than a Game Of Thrones episode, or 24.


Except you don't have to wait THREE YEARS for a new episode of 24 or Game Of Thrones, and pay another few dollars to see it.


Nope, true. One year is still a long time though (I watch these on disc media, not broadcast).

I don`t recall anyone seeing Empire and complaining about the open ending. Everyone was simply utterly thrilled that such a high quality entry had followed Star Wars.


I actually do remember people talking about "not getting an ending" back in the day, with some being miffed about it, but still "getting it"; I specifically recall adults comparing it to the old serials that helped inspire the series, with the big difference that one would have to wait three years for the resolution instead of a week.

There were definitely people who felt they were left "hanging," but my overall impression is that they didn't mind all that much; they still enjoyed the movie even then. And time has been quite kind to it, of course.

 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 6:34 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Justin said "For the movie, I find the whole thing personally satisfying. But if you put it under the Whedonscope used on Star Wars, it doesn't hold up."

And this is the impression I get from a lot of the negative comments on Serenity in this thread. Whedon is so full of himself right now he is acting like a pompous ass. So now we need to tear up Serenity to put him in his place. It's sour grapes.

Well Whedon is acting like a pompous ass, and he deserves to get reamed for it. Rightly so. Tearing apart a fine film is the wrong approach. I have never heard much in the way of bellyaching about Serenity until now. It was one of those movies where either people loved it or they hated it. Fair enough.

Tear up the man who deserves it. Don't tear up the film, cause it doesn't deserve it.

 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 9:10 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

And this is the impression I get from a lot of the negative comments on Serenity in this thread. Whedon is so full of himself right now he is acting like a pompous ass. So now we need to tear up Serenity to put him in his place. It's sour grapes.

Actually, I was long ahead of that curve by several years, so leave me out of that generalization, thank you.

 
 Posted:   Aug 27, 2013 - 9:26 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

FireFly/Serenity was Battle Beyond the Stars redux. At least Lucas did a credible job masquerading Star Wars as a western in space.

 
 Posted:   Aug 31, 2013 - 6:28 PM   
 By:   welwynfilmstudios   (Member)

OK, so 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' isn't everyone's favourite, but is it really a sign of the decline of modern culture?

'Avengers' helmsman Joss Whedon thinks so, and he's taken issue with one scene in particular.

“A movie has to be complete within itself; it can't just build off the first one or play variations,” he told Entertainment Weekly.

“You know that thing in 'Temple of Doom' where they revisit the shooting trick? That's what you don't want. And I feel that's what all of culture is becoming - it's becoming that moment.”

Oof. Sorry, Mr Spielberg.

The set piece that so upset Whedon is the one in which Indy is confronted with two sword-wielding men, and reaches for his gun.

But finding it's not there – and with a wry grin - he has to use his good old fists instead

It references the now classic scene in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' in which Indy faces off with a rather threatening chap in the Cairo bazaar, who proceeds to brandish his sword in a rather showy fashion.

Following the display, and bored with hand-to-hand fighting, he pulls his gun and shoots him.

Perhaps confusingly, 'Temple of Doom' was a prequel to 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', meaning that Indiana hadn't yet shot the man in the market, so wouldn't have appreciated the coincidence.

But that's another issue.

Was it just a knowing joke? Or is it a sign of cultural decline? The latter sounds a bit harsh...

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/temple-of-doom-gun-scene-is-sign-of-cultural-decline--says-whedon-100042338.html

 
 
 Posted:   Aug 31, 2013 - 8:03 PM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

While I disagree with Whedon on both this gag in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and the ending to Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, I have to say I think the article writer(s) and most of the posters here are making a big deal about nothing. It's not as though he said he hated the whole movies, and even if he had, so what? They're both among my favorites, but I don't need every other filmmaker to like them too.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.