'Star Wars' discussions

[PikeStance]

For me, it may have been Mark in the movie, but the character he was playing might have been someone else. It didn’t seem like the same person to me. It was like a cameo not a reprise.

[Condottiere 40K]

Apparently, there was this Youtuber called Retroblasting who analyzed Abrams irst two Star Trek films, and predicted what the plot of The Force Awakens will be.

Since everyone then knew that Abrams knew nothing about Star Trek and wanted to do a Star Wars movie, an examination shows is that they are about a guy who is really, really angry, in a really big ship, who wants to blow up a planet.

[Gaidin]

Regarding Hamill and The Joker, whether he knows more about that character is irrelevant dude. He IS Luke Skywalker. No one else has played the role; Mark brought the character to life. He absolutely is an authority on the character and is entitled to a sense of ownership of the character.

And all those people spending their careers coordinating and writing that Star Wars lore? Just like we expect DC writers and artists to know more than him about the Joker for his wealth of experience in that role. Don't confuse yourself. In the end Mark Hamill is the actor. He helped bring the role to life, but he didn't create this. He doesn't coordinate this. And the first thing Mark Hamill did after his criticism is apologize. He was cheered because he was Mark Hamill, but it was a breach of etiquette. When others do it they get rode into the god damn ground.

[Condottiere 40K]

The twp most popular Jokers were helmed by Ledger and Hamill. They are probably well informed on their take on the character.

[ggsimmonds]

And all those people spending their careers coordinating and writing that Star Wars lore? Just like we expect DC writers and artists to know more than him about the Joker for his wealth of experience in that role. Don't confuse yourself. In the end Mark Hamill is the actor. He helped bring the role to life, but he didn't create this. He doesn't coordinate this. And the first thing Mark Hamill did after his criticism is apologize. He was cheered because he was Mark Hamill, but it was a breach of etiquette. When others do it they get rode into the god damn ground.

What does a writer complaining about the cover art for his book have to do with Hamill criticizing the writing for his character? Those two are not similar.

"All those people"
That is the key, just how many people have pitched in on the writing of Star Wars? Specifically with this last movie, how many previous SW films did they work on? I don't think any of them have spent their career writing Star Wars lore.

[Gaidin]

What does a writer complaining about the cover art for his book have to do with Hamill criticizing the writing for his character? Those two are not similar.

Hamill isn't there for all the broken up shooting, he's just there for his scenes. And he had the audacity to publicly go "WTF man...WTFF", because no way in 30 years can your character develop in unpredictable ways based on things that can happen amirite? When he saw the full movie and the context he goes "Wow that actually was cool! I'm sorry for what I said!" You CATCHING MY DRIFT YET?!

Same reason an author doesn't go gunning for the artist he has no control over since the author and the artist are handled by two different sections of the publishing company. YOU CATCHING MY DRIFT YET?!

You see here. Mark Hamill gets cheered for his breach of etiquette. The author gets driven into the god damn ground. This is you not knowing how works, sir.

"All those people"
That is the key, just how many people have pitched in on the writing of Star Wars? Specifically with this last movie, how many previous SW films did they work on? I don't think any of them have spent their career writing Star Wars lore.

Take a look at the length of this god damn thread to get an idea of just how much lore there is for Star Wars from both before and after the shift in canon policy to how many authors there are to how many people at Lucas Arts were coordinating the world's timeline. Lucas wasn't running a one man band here, sir.

[ggsimmonds]

Hamill isn't there for all the broken up shooting, he's just there for his scenes. And he had the audacity to publicly go "WTF man...WTFF", because no way in 30 years can your character develop in unpredictable ways based on things that can happen amirite? When he saw the full movie and the context he goes "Wow that actually was cool! I'm sorry for what I said!" You CATCHING MY DRIFT YET?!

Same reason an author doesn't go gunning for the artist he has no control over since the author and the artist are handled by two different sections of the publishing company. YOU CATCHING MY DRIFT YET?!

You see here. Mark Hamill gets cheered for his breach of etiquette. The author gets driven into the god damn ground. This is you not knowing how works, sir.


Take a look at the length of this god damn thread to get an idea of just how much lore there is for Star Wars from both before and after the shift in canon policy to how many authors there are to how many people at Lucas Arts were coordinating the world's timeline. Lucas wasn't running a one man band here, sir.[/I]

Your drift is way off the mark. I don't care whether it was a breach of etiquette. That is not the point here.
The point is whether or not Hamill is an authority figure on the character of Luke Skywalker. He is, and you haven't said anything to discredit that.

We go from that to linking to an author not being happy with his cover art and I don't know how works. Okay man

Of course Lucas wasn't running a one man band here, that was my damn point. Throughout it all there has been one constant -- Mark Hamill.
He is an authority figure on the character.

[Gaidin]

We go from that to linking to an author not being happy with his cover art and I don't know how works. Okay man

Of course Lucas wasn't running a one man band here, that was my damn point. Throughout it all there has been one constant -- Mark Hamill.
He is an authority figure on the character.

I go through all this as analogous examples as how the industry works, and how Hamill is one person in a movie and art machine playing one character by one company where there is a massive amount of lore coordinated by a group of people, put out through at least five different mediums by the way, where he had virtually zero input from 1991 on. He did not write scripts though he could suggest modifications as shooting was happening. This one constant, Mark Hamill is only one small piece of this huge machine that is Star Wars. One. Small. Piece. There is so much information there that he was not informed of that he is in no way an authority on this subject. On the other hand, there are people that spent their careers running it, whether its people like Leland Chee or Pablo Hidalgo. Nevermind the authors that write the story material themselves(be it well written or not) that were more constant fixtures than Mark Hamill given the sheer lack of movies being made.

Point you need to learn: Mark Hamill wasn't coordinating Luke Skywalker's actions. He was busy voice acting, and doing a damn good job at that.

[PikeStance]

We have all of this lore, but somehow, Mark missed it all about his character, because he did voices?

I don't think he made a mia culpa on his opinion.

I regret voicing my doubts & insecurities in public.Creative differences are a common element of any project but usually remain private.

The only thing he regrets is doing it publicly.

[ggsimmonds]

I go through all this as analogous examples as how the industry works, and how Hamill is one person in a movie and art machine playing one character by one company where there is a massive amount of lore coordinated by a group of people, put out through at least five different mediums by the way, where he had virtually zero input from 1991 on. He did not write scripts though he could suggest modifications as shooting was happening. This one constant, Mark Hamill is only one small piece of this huge machine that is Star Wars. One. Small. Piece. There is so much information there that he was not informed of that he is in no way an authority on this subject. On the other hand, there are people that spent their careers running it, whether its people like Leland Chee or Pablo Hidalgo. Nevermind the authors that write the story material themselves(be it well written or not) that were more constant fixtures than Mark Hamill given the sheer lack of movies being made.

Point you need to learn: Mark Hamill wasn't coordinating Luke Skywalker's actions. He was busy voice acting, and doing a damn good job at that.

Don't care about the EU.
He didn't have much input after 1991 because there was no place for his input. The actor that plays Luke Skywalker is not a small piece.

Do I think his "ownership" of the character extends as far as something like Johnny Depp's ownership of Jack Sparrow? No, because Hamill isn't the same caliber actor as Depp. But actors do not simply recite lines in a script. They interpret the script and decide on how to portray the character (with additional guidance from the director). That interpretation and performance, whether we like it or not, becomes the character. Someone other than Hamill played Skywalker, the character changes. So if Hamill says the script is out of character based on how he portrayed the character, then that carries a lot of weight.

I'm done on this topic now. Stop thinking you have any lessons to teach me, or anyone else on this forum.

[Gaidin]

We have all of this lore, but somehow, Mark missed it all about his character, because he did voices?

He wasn't advising Lucas Arts or the people hired to write for Lucas Arts on Luke Skywalker's actions and whims because he was busy pursuing his own career. If you'd like to further strawman my statement all you'll get is a gif. Also, they didn't need his help, don't need his help, and will never need his help as the only people that don't like the Luke Skywalker developments and insist on raging about it every chance they get are Star Wars fanwhores. As even Mark Hamill liked the developments in the end.

[ggsimmonds]

We have all of this lore, but somehow, Mark missed it all about his character, because he did voices?

I don't think he made a mia culpa on his opinion.
The only thing he regrets is doing it publicly.

That is why Gaidin calls it a breach of etiquette.

It is also why it is completely irrelevant. Him breaking etiquette doesn't matter

[Gaidin]

It is also why it is completely irrelevant. Him breaking etiquette doesn't matter

What you are doing:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ggsimmonds]

What you are doing:
<demonstrates he doesn't know what a strawman argument is>

What I said:
"Regarding Hamill and The Joker, whether he knows more about that character is irrelevant dude. He IS Luke Skywalker. No one else has played the role; Mark brought the character to life. He absolutely is an authority on the character and is entitled to a sense of ownership of the character."

Your reply:
"And all those people spending their careers coordinating and writing that Star Wars lore? Just like we expect DC writers and artists to know more than him about the Joker for his wealth of experience in that role. Don't confuse yourself. In the end Mark Hamill is the actor. He helped bring the role to life, but he didn't create this. He doesn't coordinate this. And the first thing Mark Hamill did after his criticism is apologize. He was cheered because he was Mark Hamill, but it was a breach of etiquette. When others do it they get rode into the god damn ground."

The point: Him apologizing for breaking etiquette is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is an authority figure on the character.

[Gaidin]

The point: Him apologizing for breaking etiquette is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is an authority figure on the character.

And admitting he was wrong. Also, everything else I said. But hey. Let that strawman keep going. Showing you don't care is good I guess. I mean, either that or you have a fundamental lack of honesty when you cherry pick parts of my point. I'll let you decide which.

[ggsimmonds]

And admitting he was wrong. Also, everything else I said. But hey. Let that strawman keep going. Showing you don't care is good I guess. I mean, either that or you have a fundamental lack of honesty when you cherry pick parts of my point. I'll let you decide which.

I responded to every "point" you attempted to make.

[PikeStance]

No one is using a strawman argument and using another fallacy (ad naseum) will not make it any truer. The simple fact is MH knows his character. This is something you have not argued successfully.
To say that writers wrote the character and they know more is ridiculous as we pointed out that these "stories" did not exist in a vacuum out of MH's view. It is not as though he lived under a rock for the past years before reprising his role as Luke. Moreover, the movie never explains this radical difference is behavior and attitude. So, Kylo had dark thoughts, and Luke wanted to kill him. It is beyond reason when you consider his past behavior. This has been pointed out by countless SW nerds. A fact you refuse to accept. Then again this typical thing of an Abrams project. Characters simply do things for no reason except to advance the plot.

[Gaidin]

Then again this typical thing of an Abrams project.

Abrams didn't come up with most of this material, not being a writer, producer, or director. But nice try.

Another classic example of not really knowing the roles they're playing for the movie they're working when Abrams is the director of Ep7 and the Exec Producer of Ep8 and not really on set. Keep showing that knowledge.

[Knight of Heaven]

For me, it may have been Mark in the movie, but the character he was playing might have been someone else. It didn’t seem like the same person to me. It was like a cameo not a reprise.

The problem with luke is that , in the previous trilogy he is someone who believes in the good of someone bad. While in this one he believes in the outright bad, of someone who is still good.


I mean think about it. He is about to kill a kid that hasn't done anything as preventive measure. Not only that is not jedi like ( more sith like really, killing him in his sleep kinda thing) Its just isn't luke at its core.

Bad storytelling is bad storytelling. The writers should stay away from writing movies imo.

[PikeStance]

Abrams didn't come up with most of this material, not being a writer, producer, or director. But nice try.

Another classic example of not really knowing the roles they're playing for the movie they're working when Abrams is the director of Ep7 and the Exec Producer of Ep8 and not really on set. Keep showing that knowledge.

Directed a Force Awakens. The movies have his characteristic stink associated with them. The last decent thing he did was Lost and he sort of screwed that up in the end as well. He is a master of not saying things because he doesn't think things through. I was also given the impression in some youtube videos that he had some sort of consulting role with the development of the series.

The problem with luke is that , in the previous trilogy he is someone who believes in the good of someone bad. While in this one he believes in the outright bad, of someone who is still good.
I mean think about it. He is about to kill a kid that hasn't done anything as preventive measure. Not only that is not jedi like ( more sith like really, killing him in his sleep kinda thing) Its just isn't luke at its core.
Bad storytelling is bad storytelling. The writers should stay away from writing movies imo.

Yes, storytelling these days suck in movies. Some of the better movies I liked are historically based; Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The Founder. Anyway, the writer needed Luke to act that way because the plot demanded he acted that way. Like I said previously, It was more like a mark Hamil cameo than a Like Skywalker reprise.

I supposed we could have done better with Abrams. Instead of a discombobulated storyline, we would at least be distracted by the stupidity. Better yet, give us Michael Bey, we would have been so distracted by the explosions and action we wouldn't even remember the dialogue.