I’d think the director who did Ragnarok could do a fucking fantastic Star Wars film. Ep IV was earnestly earnest BUT with many quite funny parts, and Ragnarok was funny as hell but sometimes earnestly earnest. This could work.
I haven’t seen Boy, but I liked Hunt for the Wilderpeople.
Until this thread, I hadn’t realized how versatile Watiti was. Oddball comedies like Wilderpeople, major franchise movies like Thor: Ragnarok, and whatever the hell Jojo Rabbit was. And everything I’ve seen by him so far I’ve liked. Pretty good for a Jewish Maori.
Jojo Rabbit was a coming of age movie…with an imaginary Adolf Hitler played by a part Maori/part ethnic Jew. I’m sure Der Führer would have been mortally offended, which just makes it that much funnier.
Stranger
2 to 1 that R2D2 will be involved somehow.
I don’t think it really matters who directs the next one. These things have so many people working on them they seem to direct themselves. I think it’s more important to find the correct writers who can make a compelling story.
Rise of Skywalker was competently directed, it was just a convoluted crappy story. Rogue One was competently directed, it was good because it had a good story and screenplay.
I’m not convinced that I’ll see any more Star Wars movies, but Watiti as the director certainly makes it more likely, not less. The man who made Ragnarok certainly has it in him to make a great Star Wars movie.
Maybe they should brag up that they got a good screenwriter first.
Anyone* can direct a well written movie, but hardly anyone can make a good movie out of a poor script.
*almost anyone
Do you actually think that the guy credited with a screenplay is actually the one who wrote it?
Did anybody bother to read the article? Watiti is slated to write and direct.
I think a more humorous SW film would find traction with fans. Most SW films are a bit too serious (although one of the most famous lines in the SW saga is the humorous “I love you”, “I know” - line in Empire). Having a one off or even a series of films that are intentionally lighter may do wonders. There are likely going to be plenty of darker films still in the pipeline after all.
I liken it to Guardians of the Galaxy. While the Marvel Universe always had a bit of lightness and joking in its movies, GotG was intended to be a more humorous sort of Marvel film. And even though it included comic book heroes that weren’t all the well known, it took off because there is a market for those sort of films.
A leaked plot synopsis is that the movie will be set between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, but before Rouge One. It is about a Force positive young boy being raised by a single mother. The boy attends a storm trooper camp and has an imaginary friend of Emperor Palpatine.
Maybe another orphan on a desert planet with a twin sister and their father is a bad guy.
It’s strange because Disney used to be adamantly opposed to this; they wanted to have original stand-alone properties rather than sequels, remakes, and reboots. I remember when it was considered a big deal that they made The Rescuers Down Under because it was a sequel to a previous movie.
But now, they’ve gone hard the opposite way. I just looked at a list of Disney releases and I think the last movie they made that wasn’t based on a previous movie was A Wrinkle in Time - and that was intended to set up a new franchise. If you don’t count that, the last original stand-alone movie Disney made was Moana.
Starring RuPaul as Darth Drag?
They really need to shift time-frames badly. Setting a few stories in the Old Republic days would give them unfettered scope. Not to mention all the new toy designs.
I know I’m in the minority here but I think Waititi was the wrong director for Thor: Ragnarok.
Yes, he made it funny. But it wasn’t a movie that should have been a comedy. It was about a character losing his father, his home, and his hammer. The story was about somebody who had lost everything that he thought was important and how that person was able to look within themselves and create a new reason to live. The movies could have been a great drama instead of a good comedy.
“So, Nemo, do you feel the same way about Jojo Rabbit?” you ask. Okay, you’re probably not asking this. But it’s a valid question, Imaginary Person In My Head. If I felt comedy was not the right tone for a movie about a comic book character, surely I must feel the same is even more true for a movie about the Nazis.
But I don’t. I feel the comedy worked here. I think the difference is that the Nazis were real; the truth of Nazi Germany is too big to be reduced so it can stand up to a comedic tone and still be powerful. The MCU, while a great franchise, is not that big. It’s not strong enough for a movie to hold both comedy and tragedy. When you try, one of them collapses.
And it was a great drama. That’s not inconsistent with being funny.
Watch it with the cussing. We’re Tusken raiders, not cussin’ raiders.
Since we’re talking as much about Jojo Rabbit as anything…
I thought the movie was a kind of “old, white, upper middle class” edgy. But not really edgy. “Hey, this thing makes fun of Hitler!” is not edgy, it’s the safest of safe for a major Hollywood production.
Lamest moment for me, and a pretty good indication of just how “safe” the screenplay really was, was when Jojo asked his mom “what they did” referring to some people hanged in the village square. “What they could,” she said. Eyes rolled out of my sockets. And then the scene with the butterfly, it was like someone had read a translated work by Gabriel Marcia Marquez and wanted to be “so edgy” by drawing inspiration from realismo mágico. The Hitler as imaginary friend B-plot detracts from the actual story in my view and seems to pad runtime more than anything. I don’t care if it was in the novel, there are other, less clunky ways to show the kid is changing over time, and there are better ways to hold national socialism up to derision, too, if you really aren’t worried about being “safe,” but I suppose it lets older audiences feel hip for being “onto the satire” with the shocking imagery (Hitler on screen like a goofy friend!) like the younger crowd with their iPhones, their emoticons, and their lols.
Anyway, the comedy was middle grade (here referring to the category of media meant for middle school students, pre-YA), and the movie was more of the same “racism and bigotry are individual problems that came up a lot in the past” Oscar bait in line with past “great films” that nobody much cares about now that their award season is over, with Green Book perhaps being the poster child for recent years.
I won’t say I don’t understand what people see in it (the appearance of an edge and a slight chuckle every now and then), but overall it was, to me, just straight, bland, and overall “meh.” And since people want to go throwing numbers around as if they’re definitive, the Metacritic score was 58, which seems about right to me. Watchable—barely—but not re-watchable.
Oscar voters love to feel enlightened without having to risk too much by advancing something that’s really controversial (though I am still pleasantly surprised that Parasite won best picture) and viewers choose their movies, not movies their viewers. People pay to see what they think they’ll like, so it’s no shock they tend to like what they see.
“It’s not a good time period to be a Sith fan”
This. I thought the idea was to have the original trilogy, then the prequel trilogy, and finally a dénouement trilogy; then we could start watching other stuff.