Originally Posted by :
The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed the long-gestating rumors that Billy Dee Williams will return to that galaxy far, far away and will reprise his role of Lando Calrissian for next year’s Star Wars: Episode IX!
Williams made his debut as the gambling scoundrel in Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, reprising in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, and in countless other Star Wars shows like Star Wars Rebels and games like Star Wars: Jedi Knight II – Jedi Outcast. He even voiced the character in various Robot Chicken and Family Guy episodes dedicated solely to Star Wars as well as The LEGO Movie. Donald Glover stepped into the role earlier this year to play a younger Lando in Solo: A Star Wars Story.
In Episode IX, Williams joins returning franchise stars Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, and Adam Driver, plus newcomer (and frequent J.J. Abrams collabroator) Keri Russell.
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
Jar Jar IS the main antagonist in the prequels. He is the foil to Yoda. A character that is made to look foolish only to be the most powerful SITH LORD in the galaxy.
He was just so annoying that Lucas wrote him out.
Jar Jar influences a lot of things by acting stupid, mind control on the queen, force jumps, etc. You just have to look for it.
Originally Posted by :
A major UK cinema chain has received a Digital Cinema Package (DCP) from Disney this morning called TT1-SW9, (Teaser Trailer 1 Star Wars 9). It’s encrypted with a KDM (Key Delivery Message) so they can’t view the contents until they get the key.
No news on when they’ll get the key, but they had the Aladdin trailer DCP for two weeks before it came out on Monday…therefore, Friday might be the day, but that’s pure speculation.
Originally Posted by :
sources say that the teaser is a real tear jerker. I’m not sure if its because of the content of the trailer or because of what it means
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
It's quite simple; I like SW for specific reasons related to story and character. Those reasons have been replaced with disposable, pop-culture garbage that will be forgotten quickly. End of story.
And like others have said, Marvel is proving my hypothesis correct with each passing movie. They know how to present a hero and villain. They don't waste time murking about in "shades of gray", and doing it in a piss-poor fashion like Rian Johnson.
Simple. No great math required here at all.
Hell, the original Star Wars story and characters were cookie cutter but they worked well. It was a tale of good and evil. Now they are trying this gray Jedi baloney. Keep Star Wars simple. The mythology is built upon that. It is not Shakespeare. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
I did. Hence, the "white-hot hate". You have to understand; this isn't fun for me. Watching SW tank and suck is not like watching PMII come riding on to the field of battle, laying waste to every dumbassed comment, theory, and idiotic statement ever made about "risky" 1st round QB's and team-building from the O-line outwards, it's a shameful disgrace to a once-brilliant mans' legacy that has endured every single test that time could throw at it.
When I was a young youngster, I was a veracious reader of the classic Greek heroes and mythology literature. Within those works lies the foundation of what Lucas tapped in to, and what so many children like myself and for years to come would appreciate, learn from, and revel in; classic heroes doing classic things( adventures, feats of honor, courage, chivalry, and valor etc. ).
Works that stood for thousands of years.
So when George tapped in to that and combined it with my other great youngster passion, the stars and heavens( astronomy ), it was like hitting the children's developmental jackpot! I and millions of other young boys and girls were transformed in to instant, life-long fans. And the reason it stayed with us was not just an adult's sentimental reflection on childhood, but because like the classic tales, Star Wars was something that could remind us from time to time to regard and keep under guard/protect our better selves, the "hero" we all set out to be when we began our further journey in to life.
So in my eyes, Star Wars will never be antiquated because like it's classical predecessors, it stood the test of time. It's something that young parents of my generation enjoyed taking their own children to see in the late 1990's when they re-released prior to commencing the Prequels. And many other parents before and after that who shared the movies with their kids on VHS, Laser Disc, and finally DVD/Blue Ray.
So for Disney to turn SW in to a "trend", in to the "latest thing/ideology" is what I find TRULY insulting. Not even the bad scripts, weak stories, shitty directors, flat characters, and **** all else offend me the same way THAT does. It's like turning Medusa in to a "poor, misunderstood strong woman who was wronged by a male God-figure for her beauty and independent ways".
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
And I refuse to monetarily support such nonsense.
100% correct.
Amazing post, sir.
Star Wars was updated Greek and medieval mythology.
But the SJW agenda hates the Western classics. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Carr4MVP:
Hell, the original Star Wars story and characters were cookie cutter but they worked well. It was a tale of good and evil. Now they are trying this gray Jedi baloney. Keep Star Wars simple. The mythology is built upon that. It is not Shakespeare.
You can't just tell the same story again.
That's why a lot of us loved TLJ. It took the OT and turned it on it's ear.
Now we are answering the question: what if Vader had overthrown the Emperor?
After IX I'm pretty sure we are going to be answering the question: what if Vader wasn't the bad guy? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Great Expectations:
By turning Captain America into a girl and making her extroidanarily powerful?
I didnt read the comics, maybe that actually happened?:-)
Marvel has done a ton of stupid shit in their books in recent years. Enough stupid that they've lost a ton of circulation. If not for the movies, they would likely have gone under. [Reply]