I feel like you could say that for just about any filmmaker.
I guess if pressed I would say that all of Matthew Vaughn's films possess edgy dark humour, and a really gritty approach to action. None of them possess a tone even remotely similar to Star Wars.
I'll say it once and for all:
Jarjar > C3PO. Your nostalgia is blinding you.
No auteur film-maker for sure
What's his style though? Can you watch 5 minutes of a Matthew Vaughn movie and realize that Matthew Vaughn is directing it? If you watched Stardust for 20 minutes would you intrinsically know that it was Vaughn?
Jar-Jar is bureaucratic corruption personified. Fucker does absolutely nothing but guide two Jedi to Naboo, then is promoted to a general of the Gungan army, then is assigned to be a replacement senator "just because".
Thats THE POINT. Star Wars is Star Wars if somebody comes in and does "there style" its just a dumb movie then. Star Wars has its own style thats what made it special.
We don't want Tim Burton's "take" on Star Wars we want Star Wars
What's his style though? Can you watch 5 minutes of a Matthew Vaughn movie and realize that Matthew Vaughn is directing it? If you watched Stardust for 20 minutes would you intrinsically know that it was Vaughn?
If any film series was ever ill-suited for an "Auteur," it's Star Wars.
Jar-Jar is bureaucratic corruption personified. Fucker does absolutely nothing but guide two Jedi to Naboo, then is promoted to a general of the Gungan army, then is assigned to be a replacement senator "just because".
Thats THE POINT. Star Wars is Star Wars if somebody comes in and does "there style" its just a dumb movie then. Star Wars has its own style thats what made it special.
We don't want Tim Burton's "take" on Star Wars we want Star Wars
It was always going to be either Vaughn or Blomkamp
Yeah, that's kind of my point - I don't think Vaughn has a discernable style as a director. He may be drawn to certain types of stories, true (Kick-Ass, Layer Cake share a same tonality) but those two movies don't overshadow things like Stardust or First Class, neither of which are edgy, dark, or gritty. The "Grittiest" thing about First Class would be either Magneto's knife trick, or Magneto's coin trick. And even those two sequences are cleanly shot and feature REALLY good acting.
Basically - considering almost everyone rates Empire Strikes Back the best, and then Star Wars (which featured smoking, charred corpses within the first half hour after the bad guy breaks someone's neck and throws the body at a pillar) I guess I wanna know what "Star Wars tone" means to you if you think Matthew Vaughn couldn't somehow manage to fit into it.
And then as a senator, wasn't he also one of the individuals that voted to give emergency powers, which makes him more or less directly responsible for the rise of the Empire?
I guess if pressed I would say that all of Matthew Vaughn's films possess edgy dark humour, and a really gritty approach to action. None of them possess a tone even remotely similar to Star Wars.
That doesn't seem to fit, say, Stardust at all well.
I would say that both Stardust and First Class are edgier films than the norm for their genre...I don't know if that's just me, but I don't see First Class and Stardust as so far removed from his other work stylistically that they'd count as evidence of versatility. Matthew Vaughn's most obvious comparison is a cleaner, more commercial friendly Guy Ritchie... and I think a studio knows what kind of approach they can expect when they hire him.
Also, you're asking me to explain aesthetics, which I don't think anyone can really do without bullshitting. Suffice it to say, I have a particular conception of what Star Wars feels like (based off of 6 films), and another of what I expect a Matthew Vaughan film to feel like (based off of 5 films). On the face of it, I don't think those two conceptions would blend particularly well. I could be wrong. Maybe it's just because I'm giving Matthew Vaughn more credit as a director than others ITT. I don't see him as a "workman".
One thing I could say is that the first couple Star Wars films have a stronger emotional through-line than what I've seen from Vaughn. I've never responded emotionally to any of his films, which I value more for their edginess and audacity. I would say something similar of Tarantino.
They should just let George Lucas direct it. The biggest problem people had was the story and script and he's not involved in either anymore.
They should just let George Lucas direct it. The biggest problem people had was the story and script and he's not involved in either anymore.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there.
you deserve to be slapped for this.
I really hope you simply aren't a star wars fan and therefore don't realize how horrible your idea is.
What's worse, guys, George Lucas directing or Lindelof writing?
well I thought you were implying that they should hire a director that has their own unique style which if it was I would disagree with you
the biggest
What's worse, guys, George Lucas directing or Lindelof writing?
I disagree. Despite it's g-rating, I think Stardust is an edgier film than typical fantasy-fare. I'm not surprised Vaughn directed it.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the worst acting in the OT is in the first movie, either.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the worst acting in the OT is in the first movie, either.
It was fine. I hate how people are trying to retroactively change perceptions
I'd disagree with that. Jedi has a Harrison Ford who's completely checked out (his character is neutered and Lucas refuses to kill him off) a Carrie Fisher who is coked out of her mind, and a Billy Dee Williams who is just sorta there.
Ford's problems in Jedi are due to the writing, not really the acting. All he's given are wisecracks. All his scoundrel was used up in the first two movies.
Didn't Lucas end up directing most of ROTJ?
Didn't Lucas end up directing most of ROTJ?
I think that's a weird couple of sentences. Despite a G rating, it's edgier than most fantasy films? Most people's response to Stardust was that, coming off of Layer Cake, they were VERY surprised Vaughn directed it.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the worst acting in the OT is in the first movie, either.
I disagree. Despite it's g-rating, I think Stardust is an edgier film than typical fantasy-fare. I'm not surprised Vaughn directed it. I associate a particular feel with Vaughn the same way I do with someone like Spielberg or Chris Nolan. I know generally what to expect from a Vaughn film.
What's worse, guys, George Lucas directing or Lindelof writing?
Vaughn is a lot fucking better than Favreau or Johnston at least.
Talk about a back-handed compliment.
I actually like Vaughn. I was posting that for you and the haters