"The Force Awakens" (with SPOILERS)

Batman, I think those reasons are both why it was done that way. I still hate how she survived, but I get why they did it.

 

All I’m saying is it would’ve been easier to give someone else that role in the second half, like Finn, and avoid having to shoehorn another Leia storyline into the next one.

 

Maybe, but I don't see any way they were going to cut out that one scene at the end. (Are we still avoiding spoilers?)

 

The floating Leia scene wasn't great. And they are in a pickle as to how to give Carrie Fisher the proper sendoff in the next movie.

But Fisher deserved to have her full part in her final performance. And she was great.

 

This was all part of why there was too little of Luke in this movie, even with as much as there was, and I why I think it was premature to send him off into the sunset the way they did. There was still so much more he could have done, and many more scenes that could have been had, primarily between him and Kylo Ren, but also potentially with Poe, or even those kids at the end of the movie.

 

"Let the past die. Kill it if you can."

It ain't just a line in the movie. It's a mantra for the direction of the movies. They'll let the Star Wars stories like Rogue One and Solo have the past.

 

I get that, and they can say that, think that, and do that. But, as good as these recent movies have been, the relationships, and story lines have not really been as strong as in the original three movies. They have ridden the coattails of past history and taken the money of past fans, and tried to extend past story lines and family trees/mysteries (for good reason, of course). So I don't think killing off all the original lead characters is the way to go if it's not necessary -- especially in Luke's case, where it clearly seemed premature.

And having C3PO and R2D2 in the movies again, in bit parts, no less, is not the same has having Luke in it. It never will be. But I guess we'll see what happens.

 

I don't disagree. The only reason to do what they did with Luke is a desire to shift the focus to the new generation. It wasn't necessary to the story and I sure doesn't sound like Hamill was against returning for Episode IX and beyond. Maybe they don't know how much longer he wants to act. He is 66 years old and not everybody wants to keep working until they die.

 

Luke could definitely return in a big role in Episode IX. The major conflict seems to be setting up as Rey vs. Kylo, both of whom Luke has a huge connection to. He might not be fighting, but he can still have a major role as a Force ghost influencing both of them. He never did give Rey the third lesson, which would seem to indicate he has some part to play yet.

 

Disney Apparently Expects 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' To Bomb

Lead actor "can't act," source says.
I had 'a bad feeling about this' since they announced it.
Eichenreich is said to be a pet project of Spielberg, as the radioactive LaBeouf once was.

 

Things are very chaotic at Lucasfilm right now.
Forget the whining of the geeks (who will never be pleased with anything) - artistically successful franchises don't have this much turmoil.
Writers and directors getting sacked left and right, replacement directors reshooting most of a movie, troubled production after troubled production.
The division needs a true 'swamp-draining' but it will never get one.

 

Last Jedi is at $1B worldwide and counting, despite being the third Star Wars movie in three years. Rogue One made $1.056B, according to Box Office Mojo. Force Awakens took home $2B, so I'm positive there will be diminishing returns here as we go along, similar to how Marvel movies have had some flattened earnings as the universe expands. But man, I think we're still two or three movies away from that for Star Wars, even if the Han Solo movie flops. (And by "flop," I mean I except it to be a bit of a critical mess but still make $500m+. Those awful Batman v. Superman and Suicide Squad movies still made $750m and $850m.)