• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Wars Episode 7 - Thread of Pre-Production

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.

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.
 
I'll say it once and for all:

Jarjar > C3PO. Your nostalgia is blinding you.

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".
 
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?

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
 

luso

Member
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".

This is the most crushing and accurate analysis of Jar-Jar character I ever seen.
 
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

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there.
 
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".

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?
 
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

I was just going to post something like this.

I want great director's making their movies, not giant corporate behemoths where the power is mostly out of their hands.
 
It was always going to be either Vaughn or Blomkamp

I was also pulling for Cuaron and Del Toro - an unlikely proposition yet not completely implausible, I mean Cuaron did direct a Harry Potter movie - but I'm kinda relieved they didn't take the detour. They're all producing interesting, original work and I'd like to see that continue.
 

Daft_Cat

Member
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.

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.
 

Daft_Cat

Member
That doesn't seem to fit, say, Stardust at all well.

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.

You guys are trying to nitpick apart his filmography to show that he doesn't have a style...which is a really weird thing to do. I could easily pick something out of anyone's filmography and prove the same thing.
 
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.


Didn't you have an emotional reaction though at that scene in First Class where
Xavier helps Magneto move that huge satellite dish
? I thought that was a very involving scene emotionally, loved it!
 
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.

innUdN1KGsf2I.gif
 

pel1300

Member
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.

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.
 

pel1300

Member
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

and you don't see a problem with Geoge Lucas's direction?

You don't understand that the acting in the prequels was just as big a problem as the story?

You don't understand that this is because despite the great cast, Lucas is NOT an actor's director?
 
The directing was one of the worst parts of the prequels. Lucas just doesn't know how to direct actors.

What's worse, guys, George Lucas directing or Lindelof writing?

INT. JEDI CHAMBER
JAR-JAR sits with legs crossed, eyes closed--MEDITATING, but sexily so.

JEDI JAR-JAR
Meesa feel grave disturbance in force.

What the--JESUS CHRIST--a SITH LORD is in the chamber with him!
 
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 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 guess I'm also curious as to why Star Wars needs to have all its crusts cut off. Again, considering the two Star Wars films people universally consider "Good" are rougher movies (not necessarily dark/gritty as we understand the term now, but definitely rougher than the other 4) I'm unsure as to why Vaughn's ability to handle "edge" is a negative in this case.

Further to that point: Why would anyone want Star Wars to feel more like Jedi/Sith/Clones/Phantom Menace than they would Empire/Star Wars? The majority of the movies that cement what people seem to refer to as "Star Wars Style" are antiseptic, boring, poorly acted/written eye-candy. Where's the benefit in pursuing that particular style?

It's not so much I'm trying to downplay Vaughn's stylistic tendencies (although I don't believe he really has all that many) I'm more trying to show he's versatile. A director with versatility, who is able to combine a bunch of different collaborators' opinions/advice into a cohesive whole is a good fit for a Star Wars movie. Look what Kershner did on Empire, or Lucas on Star Wars. A director who is able to synthesize all those suggestions into something entertaining is definitely a director to value, and across Vaughn's filmography, there's definitely evidence of his ability to do that. It reads more to me like you had him pigeonholed as "Guy Ritchie-Lite" and left it at that.

Again - I'm not arguing that there aren't choices I'd like better. I just don't see how this choice is a BAD one. If indeed it's the case.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the worst acting in the OT is in the first movie, either.

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. Hamill is trying pretty hard, but even he is just sorta sleepwalking through everything until the final duel.

Probably the only two actors who give a solid performance in Jedi are Ian McDiarmid, and Frank Oz.
 
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.
 
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.

Not disagreeing on how the script sidelines him, but he's definitely not feeling what he's doing. Looking at his career now, you can see a lot of similarities between his later "I'm cashing the check" performances and his Han in Jedi.

He smirks some, he bugs his eyes out a little, shrugs his shoulders, and ambles to the end of the movie.
 
Didn't Lucas end up directing most of ROTJ?

I'm not sure, I think he was more involved than in ESB, but that would explain why it's the weakest of the OT. That's when started being able to get his vision of Star Wars.

Lucas has said the prequels are Star Wars as he wanted to make it. Good thing he had restrictions or people questioning him in the first two movies.
 
Didn't Lucas end up directing most of ROTJ?

He did a lot of second unit, and was on set way more than Empire (he really felt burnt by the overages on Empire) but if it was a situation like Tobe Hooper/Steven Spielberg on Poltergeist, nobody's really said so in the decades since.
 

Daft_Cat

Member
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.

Is oddball a better word, then? I'm not saying Layer Cake and Stardust are similar films..my argument is that I see a similar directorial approach to the material in all of Vaughn's films. I'm not saying the material is at all similar. That said, there are specific elements (the stuff on Shakespeare's ship in particular) that definitely feel like Matthew Vaughn. Also, at this point I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore. I guess I'm backhandedly defending Matthew Vaughn as a filmmaker, and you're backhandedly criticizing him.

I think were just talking past each other, since you're misconstruing nearly everything I say.

Obviously I don't want the "crusts cut off Star Wars". Do you honestly think anybody would argue that?
 
I don't think it's a coincidence that the worst acting in the OT is in the first movie, either.

I thought VI had the worst acting. Fisher was terrible in it but I liked her in IV.

Anyway, totally cool if Vaughn directs. I thought much of First Class had a sort of Star Wars feel, especially some of the using the Force to bend satellite dishes and raise submarines out of the ocean :p
 

Anth0ny

Member
I didn't love First Class or Kick Ass

but they were 10000000000x better than the prequels

and Vaughn is 100000000000000000000x better a director than Lucas

so I'm looking forward to it
 
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.

Just out of interest... have you read the Gaiman novel that Stardust is based on?

A bit of edginess (I mean, we're hardly talking Guy Ritchie levels here) is to be expected from the source material.
 

Anoregon

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Honestly, I'd be fine with any competent director who is capable of getting good performances out of good actors. Lucas' total inability to direct actors is the primary reasont the prequels are so underwhelming. The reason you see folks like Ewan Mcgregor and Natalie Portman give mediocre performances when they are clearly capable of much more is very often the fault of the director. Vaughn doesn't have that problem.
 
Top Bottom