unfair to critique the Death Star repeat
Considering they repeated it already in Return of the Jedishare
Considering they repeated it already in Return of the Jedishare
Plus, this one was bigger.share
Well the original idea Lucas had was for the Death Star to be a threat through all three films, but he had to wrap it up in one movie since he didn’t think there was going to be sequels.
Also one of the biggest criticisms of Jedi was that they brought back the Death Star again instead of coming up with something new. The fact that Force Awakens brought it back a third time doesn’t make it any better or excuse Abrams from copying a copy. Also it’s destroyed in the exact same way and functions basically the same despite being planet-sized. And the mechanics of it don’t make much sense even for a Star Wars movie. This planet gun has its own atmosphere but doesn’t rely on the gravity or sustenance of a sun to sustain it. Also how exactly it sucks up the sun’s energy is a mystery. It’s just a terrible design.
Yeah, just because ROTJ was uninspired doesn't give TFA a free pass. If anything, the filmmakers of TFA should have known better.share
I completely agree. The fact that ROTJ was criticized for it and then you're so devoid of creativity that you decide to bring it back a THIRD time makes it even worse.share
People already criticised Return of the Jedi for that reason. It wasn't as much as they went after this movie, but this movie ripped off a lot more than just that superweapon climactic moment. Jedi didn't repeat the first movie for the rest of its beats.
But all of that is kinda irrelevant since it's perfectly fair to criticise a movie for a flaw (or perceived flaw) in and of itself. Just because another movie has those flaws doesn't make it unfair.
agree... last jedi and rise are better than this movie........share
The Death Star returning in ROTJ was fine because it’s really a Macguffin. It’s a convenient way of bringing the emperor Vader and Luke at the same point and the same time, have it explode and five you some idea of finality.share
I think the real reason Return of the Jedi gets away with it is because the climax of the movie isn't about the Death Star at all.
It's necessary to show the Empire being defeated, so the final battle between the bulk of the Imperial and Rebel fleets is necessary to tie up the story, but more important is Luke's journey from farm boy to hero and now, in Jedi, to saviour. Luke is being tempted by the Dark Side while trying to talk Vader into returning to the Light. The lightsabre fight is a physical extension of that struggle. The Emperor is a weight, dragging them both down, and that's the big climax of Star Wars.
In fact, in A New Hope, it's kinda the same thing. Luke's struggle isn't dogfighting and shooting things, his struggle is to move past his limitations and inhibitions, switch off the computer, and starting being a Jedi.
In fact, in A New Hope, it's kinda the same thing. Luke's struggle isn't dogfighting and shooting things, his struggle is to move past his limitations and inhibitions, switch off the computer, and starting being a Jedi.
Oops. Right. I forgot. Luke's too perfect. He's no different from Rey. I remember now!share
Gods, the fact that people actually believe that and make that argument with complete sincerity really boggles my mind. They have to know that it is bullshit right; they are just saying it because they like TFA, can't defend it rationally, so they just argue in bad faith? At least I hope that is the case and they *don't actually* believe that Luke and Rey are equally Mary Sue, if it is not it means that people really do experience reality differently (based only one how we define the words we use); and that is a scary thought. It means things will only become more fractured, more frustrating and more hostile as time goes on. Relativism is destroying human civilization.share
I think it's because they remember really liking Luke as a character and that Luke has the Force really strongly "with him", and they equate the former with the Mary Sue quality of "everybody likes her" and the latter with "she's stronger than everybody". But they forget that Luke is likeable because we got to know him over three films (in the first film, he starts out whiny, but becomes more likeable), and grows in power. They might also remember that "he wins", but forget that it's only "ultimately".
We don't think about how often the hero loses over the course of a (well-written) movie.
I don't know if they really believe it or not. I think "Mary Sue" doesn't have meaning for a lot of people and they just hurl back that Luke was one, too because they're not sure of the parametres. You see the same thing with people yelling about "hate speech" and they don't realise what a high bar has to be hit for something to qualify (legally) as hate speech (in countries other than the USA, which is one of the few (only?) to have no hate speech legislation AND free speech laws).
"We don't think about how often the hero loses over the course of a (well-written) movie."
that is true; it might be they are just to blinded by the appeal to emotion that they attribute the good feeling they had about Luke's eventual victory and applied it to Rey's victories (feel good moments) and therefore (in their minds) they are equals; because they had the same emotional response to it; facts, set up and logic be damned in the process (it felt good so objectivity didn't matter). Can people really be this blinded by emotion? Can emotion obscure truth to this degree? If so that is basically the same problem as interpreting reality differently and falling into complete relativism. Scary thought.
Hate speech is a tricky one. The U.S. does have laws against speech that is inciting violence (strangely this is not being applied to those advocating for the riots and conflating rights to protest with rioting and looting which are violent acts). But ultimately what counts as hate speech and how do you apply it without directly conflicting with Free speech? Do you not have the right to hate someone (for literally any reason) and say why you hate them? As long as you don't advocate for violence against them or interfere in their freedom. For example, I am not fond of homosexual men (well more accurately not found of their lifestyle, i try to dissociate the person themselves from the lifestyle), not because of some morality but because sodomy absolutely disgusts me (even among heterosexual couples I find it repulsive). Now, do I not have the right to say I find homosexual men repulsive because this is how they couple; and since I would be equally repulsed if I knew of heterosexual couples that also practiced sodomy? As long as I tolerate them, and don't try to incite any harm, am I not allowed to say I think their lifestyle is gross and refuse to condone or celebrate it? Does this constitute as hate speech?
Well, uh, as far as people being blinded by emotion and boiling 99% of their thought process (consciously or subconsciously) down to "my truth is valid"/ moral relativism...yeah. I think that's what people do. I think they do it all the time. I think this mindset is used to justify all kinda of crimes, immoralities, prejudices, and attitudes.
I'm not that big on "people". As Roy from The I.T. Crowd says, "People! What a bunch of bastards!"
And, yes, I'm sure that's why people like Rey: they just watch the movie, respond in the moment, and then entrench. Most people don't come at movies with a terribly critical eye. Honestly, that's fine. I know that I'm a bit of a geek for getting as deep into movies as I do. I like my art meaty and with enough depth to explore, whether film, literature, music, or whatever.
I don't think hate speech is that tricky. But I'm a pretty fundamental free speech absolutist, and I believe in the maximum possible ability to speak and think without legal ramifications. There's a *touch* of grey with "incitement to violence", but that's not airing an opinion or presenting a philosophy, that's leading a crime without getting your hands dirty.
Classifying the demonstrations/protests/riots gets tricky because the edges of where one starts and the other begins is murky.
I think you're allowed to think as you want about "third input" intercourse and find it as repulsive as you want - and express yourself. Others can react accordingly. I know a LOT of people who would call that "hate speech" and want it banned.
Whenever I encounter such a person, I gently steer the conversation around to asking the question, "If we did outlaw hate speech, who should we appoint to arbitrate that?" It usually doesn't take them long to imagine a panel of hate speech lawmakers composed of religious fanatics and McCarthyists who would prosecute every SJW they could find. I have yet to have that question fail to make headway against such ideology.
gonna be brief here, gotta to go to bed.
But yes we agree again; especially about the emotional response people 'entrenched into" that is a good way of putting it.
For me; I am not really going into stuff with a 'critical eye' until it starts bothering me. If the story or characters are bad and interrupting my immersion I start to pick it apart. By the scene when Rey rescues BB-8; a scene that is so egregiously stupid, nonsensical and horribly performed that I nearly burst a brain vessel; I was already pretty checked out of being able to enjoy the film (my wife fell asleep for her first time just after that scene; she fell asleep a total of 4 times during that movie, she didn't enjoy it much either and she loved the OT so it was not just me). This is why I ended up just hating nearly every frame of this film. I don't usually respond to emotional manipulation so the attempts at 'stroking' nostalgia were ineffective. I just wanted a good continuation of the star wars story that picked up 30 years after the last film in a logical and concise manner and created new interesting characters for the 'old heroes' to be mentors to and pace the torch to. That is not asking for a lot, and we got none of it.
I love analysing film when I love it or hate it.
The main reason I dig message boards (the reason I *used* to visit IMDb) is because I love chatting with people and exploring the nuances of thought-evoking (or emotional-evoking, or whatever - "moving") art.
When I love a film, I want to explore the symbolism, the characters, the aesthetic, the world, the whole package. That's what makes a movie memorable and grand. Movies like Lord of the Rings (okay, mostly because of the book), The Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Monty Python's Meaning of Life, or Brazil are all great because I can go for a deep-dive into their philosophies, and the ideas and feelings they bring out in me.
While I feel there's a lot to be learned, creatively, from discussion of bad movies, what I really love is finding movies I dig (or music, or paintings) and then goin' deep into some meaning and Truth there.
I started in on message boards when I started watching a lot of movies that my peers hadn't seen and I wanted to chat with others who had seen them.
Yes, the truely great films you can nearly take apart frame by frame and still come to a conclusion that everything the story, characters, production value, visual/sound design, pacing, and general effect are all great. Those films you mention you can dissect for 50 years and still love every bit of them and they never loss the sense of wonder they gave (personally I don't like 2001, IMO it is Kubrick's worst film but that is a discussion for another board). But I get you meaning and fully agree.
For a general audience, there is not much learning value from a bad film; that more applies to content creators, which I am not. I like to discuss films both the good and bad but do not really have a 'passion' for it. TFA was a special case because it drove/drives me crazy so much of the general audience praised and loved it.
You raise a good point. When you hated or really didn't care for something, but nobody else seems to have noticed how crummy it was, going online can help.
I had this with an episode of The Good Place. Maya Rudolph guest stars a few times and on one of her guest appearances, she does a "comedy" bit where she's waving her arms around and making really weird choices - she looked to me like she was trying too hard. When I went online, I found reviews of the episode praising her great comic performance, so I turned to the message boards to gripe about it. It was a bit cathartic.
There are only two reasons to check out bad movies: learning from them if you're a content creator, and having a Plan 9 From Outer Space style laugh (preferably in a room full of friends all mocking the movie mercilessly). That said, I don't usually seek out bad movies just to chuckle at them these days. I just have too much to do.
Yeah it can be carthartic to 'vent' what you see to be bad quality in something. With TFA though for the last 4 years or so has been frustrating. So many people loved and defended it (with bad/frustrating defenses) only about 10% of us called it for what it was; more and more are coming around but still most put the blame almost entirely on TLJ instead of TFA (which i make an argument does more damage to the franchise, so much so that the damage TLJ does is minor by comparison). And most of the defenses of TFA have not changed (same nonarguments and poor reasoning). It is very frustrating instead of carthartic.
" learning from them if you're a content creator, and having a Plan 9 From Outer Space style laugh "
Ah yes, good point; laughing at a bad movie is a good reason to watch a bad movie outside being a content creator. I didn't think of that.
" That said, I don't usually seek out bad movies just to chuckle at them these days. I just have too much to do."
Same there is enough bad movies (TFA) out there I don't want to waste time with 'so bad its good' stuff.
This is the only reason I watched The Walking Dead for as long as I did. I used to love the old imdb boards after each episode, just to see the discussion on how preposterous it was.
Call it "hate watching" or whatever, but I found great enjoyment in it.
2001 a Space Odyssey is a better film than any Star Wars film is.share
Well maybe the middle section of 2001 is; the beginning and end I don't like at all. Really the only stuff I like is the HAL 9000.
The first 2 star Wars films are nearly perfect space opera action films and I would argue are at least as effetive at being those as is 2001 being a 'pure' sci-fi film.
2001 is a better scifi film; because Star Wars are not really sci-fi, they are more akin to fantasy but they are nearly perfect films, the first 2 anyway.
I don't think 2001 is perfect or even great. I like Kubrik but I argue this is his worst film.
No I think the entire films is better honestly.
The first two Star Wars films are not perfect okay perhaps Empire but a new Hope is not. I thought the chorography for that film was garbage from day one. Everyone lets it slide because they are blinded by nostalgia.
2001 is a great film which influenced film makers as well as a ton of films that came after it. Star Wars even took inspiration from it.
ANH hope had some limitations from budget and available technology. It is nearly perfect space fantasy though. The Choreography is a single effect that that was caused by production technology and budget at the time. You have to judge it for production value by the it is nearly perfect; I think ANH is not perfectly paced and some of the dialogue and delivery is a bit stunted so I give it a 9/10.
2001 I think has bad pacing issues and the plot I take issue with; the middle section film is the only time something interesting is going on and the story has actual tension. The HAL 9000 going crazy sequence is awesome and I wish almost that was the whole film. The story about finding the Obelisks (and the fact that the most interesting thing that happens in the film has nothing to do with the plot) is flawed. Also the characters are poorly fleshed out; there are so many characters but you never get to know any of them (they are all barely cameo roles not even supporting roles really). You never know anyone's motivation or personality. That makes it hard to immerse into the story or care about the outcome.
"influenced film makers as well as a ton of films that came after it."
A film's level of influence does not really have anything to do with it's actual story quality. I say 2001 is poorly written with lazy character development (outside HAL 9000 who is the only 'character' to get fleshed out). Objectively 2001 is a good film maybe a 8/10; but because of the reasons above I didn't like it and contest it is NOT a great film. A great film has to hit ALL categories well, 2001 is lacking in at least 2 writing areas.
That's true. I agree. And yet, I've seen Star Wars way more than 2001...share
Why don't we all be honest here? People who hate the Disney series will not be objective in the slightest to any of the films made by Disney just as no one was objective at all with the prequels. Star Wars has been put on this insurmountable pedestal.share
It's art, is it possible to be objective?
Yeah, there are OT fans who dislike all that follow Return of the Jedi, there are PT fans who like both PT and OT, and there are ST fans who like ST, OT, and sometimes (though not often) PT.
The most vocal fans of each group aren't usually fair with the others.
I try to stay as fair and objective as possible, but part of that is recognising that, at the end of the day, it's all just my personal taste. That taste is the OT. Everybody else, more power to ya', but it's not my cup o' tea.
Star Wars set the bar too high; you're right there. It might be impossible to get up that high in people's minds.
I've disliked the films post-OT for bad writing and for bungling the story, by which I mean they throw the world and universe of Star Wars out of whack.
At the end of the day, conversation is great, arguments aren't, and being fair to everybody is best.
Yes it is possible to be objective. Even if I dislike a film I can openly admit areas where it did decent or even good.
Rogue One and Mandalorian are the only competent things to come out of Star Wars since the OT. Thing is because of people's hatred for the Disney trilogy they will refuse to give any credit to both of those because they are not fair and objective. I do not like the prequels but can give credit to them where it is due.
I was more musing on the subjectivity of art and "there's no accounting for taste". In other words, somebody might very well loathe a perfectly decent film for no reason but that they dislike it. Perhaps that's too philosophical and abstract to be useful.
I haven't seen The Mandalorian; I hear it's great.
Rogue One made me bored. I didn't like it. I prefer The Force Awakens, which I find to be the next most enjoyable Star Wars film after the originals.
By your standards, I think I'm alright. I acknowledge the pros and cons of each film, whether they are to my taste or not. Well...as far as it depends on my personal point-of-view...
I fail to see how TFA was more enjoyable than Rogue One. An unlikable lead that is overpowered, paced way too fast, constant reliance on nostalgia flash backs, Also no risk taken a perfect producer's film. Rogue One was not great but at least it did not break continuity, have an unlikable overpowered lead nor rely nearly as much on nostalgia.share
This is 100% accurate; rogue one while not great was a pretty okay war flick and didn't slap the continuity of the OT in the face unlike the Sequels do.share
For me? Rogue One was boring. I found none of the characters interesting or relatable at all. I thought the plot was dull and routine. The action scenes were by-the-numbers, and all the shabbier because I didn't care about the characters at all. I was bored.
It's a "fine" movie insofar as it was well put-together (edited, directed competently, etc.), but I was just watching it going, "So?" I liked the Darth Vader thing at the end, that was good. I liked the droid. Tudyk's character was the only sort of interesting one. But it was dull.
I also felt like it stomped all over Princess Leia's roll in the proceedings and weakened her character drastically. Then they added the "reason" for the exhaust port which was unnecessary and condescending to the original film, stop-gapping a non-existent "plot hole" because certain sections of the internet said it was one.
TFA is derivative and committee-built. But something Abrams did made it more engaging to me. I think it's paced far better, frankly. It's a re-tread, but it's well put-together. I like Finn. I like Poe. The lightsabre battle at the end felt good and was well-shot. The x-wing attack at Maz's place is thrilling. The cinematography was better - I thought, anyway.
In conclusion: I was bored by one and entertained by the other. I wouldn't call either one a "great movie" either way. And while I'm wrapping up, I must respectfully disagree that Rogue One didn't have an unlikable lead. Rey's a flatline, but so was Jyn, a character so bland that I literally just took thirty seconds to even remember her name.
I can agree that Rogue one was poor on the characterizations and editing. The action was a bit generic but competent.
I don't agree at all that TFA action was better. It was modern generic action choreography the same as Rogue one was only IMO it had worse cinematography. TFA had better editing but was worse on the pacing.
Princess Leia is an after thought in Rogue one, it neither enhances or distracts her character, certainly not in the same way Han, Leia and Luke are all basically bitch slapped in TFA/TLJ.
I agree that the 'point' of Rogue one is unnecessary; there was no need to explain the reason for the port hole, it was never a plot hole. "Exhaust Port" is self explanatory. However their is a story to be told on how the spies got the plans themselves. Which Rogue One does effectively; and ballsy too, to kill all the main characters like that, Star Wars has never done something like that before or since.
I agree on the choreography of TFA's lightsaber battle it is gritty and raw unlike the 'dancing' of the prequels. Despite the outcome of the battle, which was stupid, the fight between Kylo and Rey was well done and they even managed to frame it so you can't tell how awkward Ridley is with choreography and timing (unlike TLJ which put it on full display).
Specifically to my thing with why Leia was railroaded by Rogue One, the fact that she was an afterthought doesn't help.
Prior to Rogue One, my mental picture (headcanon!) was that Leia was working the senate on one side, rocking politics and maneuvering herself into the right circles, and then doing some espionage on the other side. I'm talking hardcore intelligence work: recruiting agents, doubles, and spearheading the team that gathered the plans.
Then, I figure she slipped the plans onto her ship and made her escape, Ocean's Eleven-style.
Subsequently, Vader puts together the pieces of what happened and pursues Leia, opening fire when she pulls the "I'm an Imperial Senator!" thing and refuses to "pull over". Not the baton-pass, super-obvious relay race thing that makes her excuses laughable. Why bother lying at that point? He literally saw it happen.
Not this beat-by-beat, but something similar actually goes down in the NPR audio drama version. Leia and Bail Organa work multiple angles and steal the plans. It's great. Leia's a hero.
In Rogue One, Leia's a heel-dragging grunt, tertiary to the "real heroes", none of whom I care about or like at all.
That's why Rogue One gets under my skin, sticks in my craw, and bugs me.
Fair enough; I am not going to really argue with anything here. I didn't like Rogue one enough to truly want to defend it; it was okay but for me it is more important it didn't actively insult the Themes (lore and mythos), continuity and characters the same way TFA did. So that is why it didn't bother me as much. but it is by no means a great or even good film. I think the writing holds up enough that it is mediocre (at times annoying) but not full out bad like TFA.share
I would put them both in the "mediocre" camp - and yes, at times annoying. Each have plot holes and befuddling aspects.
To me, Leia's reduced role and sidelining was a bit of a slap to the lore and themes. But I'm one of the only people I know who complains of that (although I have one a few converts), so I dig that it doesn't bug everybody.
With Leia in Rogue One I did not so much feel that she was 'sidelined' it was more shoehorned in and totally unnecessary. But IMO Leia was already so damaged by her being a failed incompetent Resistance General in TFA. In Rogue one it was a shoe horned cameo that basically neglected to explore anything else she was doing. Rogue One might have been better served if they would have just recast her and had more scenes of her actively doing things besides just standing and weirdly smiling while saying "HOPE!". I don't see it as 'damaging' to the character; just a badly done shoehorned in cameo.
I could be convinced otherwise though; because I already see a bit of what you mean about Leia not being more of an active element sort of makes it seem like her role in the Rebellion was insignificant going into ANH so I think I get what you mean.
Yeah...TFA really botched up the thirty year gap... I don't mind the idea of Leia (and the other Rebel leaders) losing control of the New Republic and the galaxy falling into disparate system-states all jockeying for power (like the fall of Rome). But if that happens, I need to see it. The story/ writers have to *earn* that. And THEN the story needs to be about LEIA (not new heroes) solving that problem.
Which, PS, is what they absolutely should have done with the prequels. Start them sooner after Return of the Jedi and show us the difficulties of trying to bring peace in a power vacuum. It wouldn't have been a repeat of the PT or OT since the former was about the insidious takeover of a Republic (tilt into fascism), and the latter was about the overthrow of one evil Empire. Struggling against multiple, "grey-area" states would have been cool.
Likewise, I'm okay with Luke failing as a Jedi Master and teacher, but they'd have to earn it by showing me his failure, and then of course letting him be the one to redeem his losses and rise to the new challenge.
And, again: that's what the ST should have been about.
"But if that happens, I need to see it. The story/ writers have to *earn* that."
Exactly; you can't just off screen say the victory of Han, LUke and Leia failed and push them off to the side just so you can retell the same Rebel Vs Empire story; that is such a slap in the face to the OT; and as you said they have to "earn" that.
I agree on this and we can say most of the ideas are work able; it is okay for the OT heroes to fail to stop a new threat and they have to pass the torch to new heroes to continue the good fight. But you have to show why they failed; the filmmakers had to do the heavy lifting and leg work to earn that; and they did not bother. Just lazily pushed their failure off screen and said "it happened, deal with it" not even considering how out of character they all had to be for them to end up like they did. Just lazy and a slap in the face of the OT story Lucas created.
Of course they can fail; they spent LARGE chunks of the OT failing. Luke basically fails his way to victory in Episode IV. He just outright fails at V. He throws himself off a cliff to his death in defiance of Vader, but he survives. He failed that, too. (I'm being a little cheeky here).
When Last Jedi came out, one of the defenses of its fans was that TLJ allowed us to see our heroes in a different, challenging light and let them fail and be flawed and so forth and that if you didn't like that, you were just a nostalgiaboy who didn't want a "real" movie.
That did give me pause. I spent some time thinking about that. On a deep level, I did start questioning and evaluating the movies (and other forms of storytelling) I like and why I like them. I enjoyed diving into the philosophy there.
But the more I thought about it, the more I was like, "No, failure is fine. Heroes letting me down or being flawed is great. But they have to earn it." I got there by recognising the tremendous number of films and books I enjoy with deeply troubled heroes who lose a lot, Star Wars not being an exception (although, they are lighter, sure, but it's kind of a fairy tale story, too, so...)
Last Jedi felt a bit like that clip on the Mike Douglas Show where John Lennon and Chuck Berry are playing old school rock 'n' roll and Yoko keeps making monkey noises into her mic. Avant garde, challenging art is great, but the time to do it is not the (only) time John and Chuck are doing rock 'n' roll. You can't take Star Wars and - eight episodes (plus spinoffs) in - start throwing curve balls. Even if those curve balls were good pitches (TLJ was not a "good pitch").
The biggest slap in the face, I thought, was that they not only failed, but the new heroes had to clean up the "mess" and finish the fight. Boo.
Yeah; one of the things I said is 'you need to start TFA off where people expect the heroes to be before they are defeated and their efforts fail'. And you have to show the efforts fail. Doing it offscreen was a slap in the face. I agree fully with the idea they can fail and it would be a deep and interesting story to watch them fail; but they needed to show it and not just say it happened offscreen in the 30 year gap.
Good analogy about Lennon and Berry/ Yoko. You can't drastically through in elements that are not part of the classic style; you have to slowly and carefully migrate them into the system or you will break it.
YES; the idea of "Luke, Han and Leia were incompetent failures lets get the 'new kids' (mostly Rey) to show them how to get the job done right" was just so insulting and unacceptable in every sense of the words. NO, NO, NO that was BullShit. You call it 100% correct on this one.
Every now and then I wonder to myself why I keep ripping on these films - poking this particular toothache. I think it's because of the wasted potential. They had everything in place (original cast, for instance) to make one of the best films of all-time and they ran it into the ground. It's like it got tagged by a Weeping Angel from Doctor Who and all the potential time of Star Wars just zapped out of existence.share
Yeah, I think I keep coming back to TFA specifically because 1 it seriously 'offended' my intelligence and disrespected Lucas' OT. And combine that with the ridiculous defenses of the film and the fact that most general audience are still blaming TLJ for the sequels being a disaster. It drives me nuts that the lazy nostalgia trip that undermined the OT in everyway still is getting such a pass. and it is even worse because they did have the OT cast ready to be used and wasted it (while humiliating their legacy). I don't take kind to be metaphorically slapped. And I want these movies to be remembered for the horrors of film-making they were.share
Any way, I got to get my kids to bed now; I had my movie chat fun; my wife is getting made at me. lol Have a good one. Catch ya next time.share
Don't piss off the Mrs.
Great chat, yeah.
See you 'round the boards.
I'll try to contact Mod4 and let him know what's up.
I'm not sure if this ban is in response to any particular thing or a new thing or what, but at this point, if I were you, I'd just avoid directly addressing 497. It seems like it isn't worth the headache.
I haven't been able to find how to contact Mod4 directly. Do you have a link to a thread or something like that so I can PM them?
Okay, again, I don't know if you can receive these messages, but here's the situation:
I am told that the ban is related to a lack of perceived willingness to pursue alternate routes in dealing with all the hullabaloo.
The messages I received indicated that the best course of action is to appeal via direct email. It was implied that this would be an uphill battle and the message would at minimum need to demonstrate a willingness to desist from the heretofore condemned actions.
That's what I've got. I hope it's of some use, if you're reading this.
I can see how TFA was more entertaining but it is also more insulting. Jyn might be a bit of a bland bore of a character but she is not spotlight stealing, annoyingly good at everything, the focus of attention, immediately loved/revered by everyone, and most importantly she does not break the continuity and lore of the force (unlike Rey who is not only bland and lacking in personality and development but also guilty of all the above).
Neither is great; but Rey is IMO the worst written character for any big budget film of all time; yes worse than characters like Dominic Torrito from Fast and Furious. There is not one quality of the character I think is redeeming.
Neither is great? Yeah, I'll go with that.
Rey might be worse than Jyn, but I cared more about Rey than I did about Jyn. Make of that what you will. Maybe it's because characters I do like (Han, Leia, Chewie, and to a lesser extent, Finn and Poe) care about Rey, so I "care by proxy". Whereas Jyn is surrounded by...other people I don't care about.
That feeds into the action scenes, too. I don't think much more creativity went into a lot of the action in TFA than RO, but in the former, the x-wings come racing in like the proverbial cavalry to save Han ****ing Solo (!) but in Rogue One, the AT-ATs are firing on...a bunch of guys... some people I have no interest in. So, I think that really helps make the action work.
There's also more internal logic to the plotting of TFA. In the franchise as a whole, it makes little sense (I shake your hand on your points regarding TFA bungling the greater story and lore/mythology), but Rogue One doesn't even make sense internally:
"Let's kill this guy's wife! That'll motivate him to make an impervious battle-station for us!" - Bad Guy Whoever
"I've broken every moral code in the galaxy to fight this fight, but I'm just going to sit here and die now, because I...uh...whatever." - Whoever Forrest Whittaker Was
"Tarkin and Bad Guy are basically the same guy, but that's okay." - The Screenwriter.
There is some truth to what you say about Rogue one having some internal inconsistencies; I will not deny that, but for me it is MORE important it does not have real deep inconsistencies with lore and mythos of the OT.
The Vader scene at the end of Rogue one is a editing nightmare. They did that so wrong from an editing stand point; Vader should have arrived before the 'heroes' died and the plans should have been "beamed' to the Tantive IV not hand passed. That was just stupid how they did that.
But I don't see that so much as a writing issue but an editing one. But the editing of Rogue one is atrocious; you can clearly see which parts were done after the fact by a different director. So bad on that front.
Yeah, that was the second director for sure. "Producers say, "more Vader"!" so he shot the most badass Vader scene he could think of. On it's own, that scene is boss. But mixed in with the movie, it raises up a bunch of question marks and comes off as tonally weird.share
Exactly; the scene on its own is freaking awesome but it was edited in terribly. and it needed to be cut a certain way that Vader doesn't specifically SEE the Tantive IV undocking and flying away. That is just a disaster of editing.share
I felt a similar way to this:
It's cool - especially since it's fan stuff - but all the people in the comments going, "This is canon!" or "They should remaster the movies and put this in!" don't understand editing, pacing, story, tone, or filmmaking on any level.
The Rogue One Vader scene isn't about story, character, or narrative, it's about "look at this!"
I have seen that before. I agree with you sure it looks 'cool' in a video gaming sort of way. But man it does not fit at all with the camera work or tone of the scene at all. It is another example of editing disaster. Sure it was fan made so don't want to judge it too harshly; but that 'cool' look of it was way too much.
I don't mind them trying to find a way to touch up the lightsaber fight between vader and obi-wan for fun but the 'forms' they are using should not change and the tone and motion of the scene should not be so dramatically different from the rest of the sequence. It is story and cinematography sacrificed for a cool fight scene and visuals. This (IMO) is about equal with what JJ did in TFA.
Anyone that says this should canon doesn't understand film making in the slightest and I question how much of a 'fan' of star wars they actually are. From a story telling standpoint and film making stand point the scene is perfect as is (even with the actors and fight choregraphy being a little stiff).
Exactly: it's fan made and they did a great job through that lens. It does what it's supposed to do, and I think that they should keep working and honing their craft. They obviously have skills.
I didn't mind in the Special Edition (for once) when they modified the Obi-Wan/Vader fight effects so Obi-Wan's lightsabre doesn't look like it's turning on and off and "flickering". I don't have a problem with that.
I think they're real fans, just...fans get stupid excited over stuff like this sometimes. They usually burn it off and wake up from their "sweeeeet! coma" and realize it was dumb but fun.
I used to the think the fight choreo was stiff, but then I saw some kendo demonstrations and a LOT of puzzle pieces fell right into place. Look at these guys:
The way they feel out the opponent by barely tapping blades together, sudden, quick action bursts, then back to almost contemplative "ready" stance...the whole thing. These aren't old guys with bad fight choreo, they're zenned-out sword masters who are fighting a dozen duels per second in their heads before making a move their are confident of.
The special editions efforts to touch up the special effect I do not mind either; in fact my 'custom' version of the OT I made includes all the special edition enhancement of these scenes (while trying to cut out the unnecessary CGI monstrosities in the background and the unnecessary 'additional" scenes. So I agree with you there.
Yeah sometimes people get stupid "cool" ideas in their head just to make something look 'badass' without much thought to what that 'cool' visual will interfere with. That 'vader vs Obiwon' enhanced fighting does not fit or work for me at all, despite it looking good.
interesting comparison on that video. It is not flashy and doesn't look 'cool' but man oh man you can tell there is a lot going on. Thanks for sharing that; I will keep it in mind next time I watch ANH hope.
Yeah, most SE outright "enhancements" of existing effects don't bug me. Sure, make the Death Star blow up explodyer than ever. Colour-correct the lightsabres. Stop Obi-Wan's "flickerblade". Erase the black outlines on starships. Fine, fine, fine; all good. Just don't add superfluous padding scenes like "entering Mos Eisley: EXTRA ALIENS!" or add a bunch of crap in the background you don't need (DEWBACKS! ...why?) The worst, of course, are the line-adds (NO!) or scene changes (Jabba in A New Hope, the infamous Greedo shooting thing, Goodbye Sebastian Shaw, etc.)
The other change I don't mind is slapping Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor in Episode V. That's cool by me. He's the Emperor in all the other ones. I think they changed the dialogue, though, which is not cool.
Oh, and while I kinda think "Yub Nub" is alright, I get why people like the new song.
The stupid-cool confusion, in my experience, usually comes around teen years. I had some stuff like that, if I recall correctly, where I thought some stuff was really great as a teen and, in retrospect, it wasn't cool, it was just over-the-top or loud.
Definitely rewatch the Obi-Wan/Vader EpIV fight with kendo in mind...
Yeah, I agree on all of this 100%; I think you would love my custom version of the OT I made. I was able to clean up almost everything take out all that crap you mention; the only one I couldn't do was Mos Eisly arrival scene; there is just no way to do that and not seriously downgrade the video quality; unfortunately.
Yeah; good call on McDiarmid fix in ESB; that one I kept in my version too. That was an OKAY fix in my book along with the special effects fixes.
Yub Nub is not terrible but I just prefer the victory celebration music a little more; it is a bit more epic for the closing scene; IMO.
Yeah; I loved Revenge of the Sith a lot when it came out; it had a lot of that stupid cool stuff; I was in my early 20's when it came out. so I was at that ripe age of being taken in by stupid cool. lol
Oh I will; I am already thinking about it more now and thinking "yeah, their fight style is much more akin to the Kendo" they are masters so good they can't just do the swing swords flashy fighting or they would die too fast; it is careful and calculated attack and defense. Pretty cool actually.
It sounds like I'd dig your custom edit. Hobby of yours?
I fully acknowledge that Yub Nub isn't for everybody; most of my enjoyment of it is probably nostalgia. I don't think that's true of the OT as a whole, but Yub Nub...sure, I might be just biased there.
I'm pretty sure kendo was one of the influences used by the fight masters/ choreographers who invented lightsabre combat. They mixed a bunch of sources. But, since Lucas was basically doing Kurosawa + Flash Gordon, it only makes sense that the lightsabre fights would be more like sword fights from a samurai film.
The samurai connection also, for me, explains The Force. There's that part in Seven Samurai where they test potential allies by hiding behind the door and trying to bash their heads as they come in for an interview. A "true samurai" anticipates the blow. That's the Force. For me, anyway. It's this mystical, undefined thing. That's why I prefer it as somewhere between skill and magic, and why I dislike some of the flashier stuff. Every film kinda made the Force more whizz-bang. Didn't mind the lightning, I guess, but that was "evil magic", so it worked. The best stuff is when they're just chilling out and being wise.
Also another thing you can say of why Rogue one didn't bother me as much is I had already lost emotional investment in the franchise after TFA. In my view TFA was so utterly bad that my expectation where about as low as can be and I almost didn't even care to see Rogue One I reluctantly saw it after people kept praising it; I was like "meh, it was okay; but the franchise is still dead to me". I didn't even see TLJ for almost 2 years before someone finally got me to watch it on streaming. and truth be told I still have not seen solo or Rise of Skywalker. TFA just killed star wars for me. Now I will only watch the OT, and maybe revenge of the sith.share
That'd do it. Low expectations can really help a mediocre property deliver a more acceptable experience.
OT all the way, baby!
I did see Rise of Skywalker. I wouldn't bother if I were you. Although, the way that it spends a large chunk of its runtime retconning The Last Jedi is hilarious, especially since The Last Jedi swept the table clear of The Force Awakens' mystery boxes. It meant that, as an aggregate, the trilogy basically just tabula rasa'd everything every time.
Yes; the only Star WArs that is really worth investing in is the OT; I will just pass on everything else. Which is why despite how much praise it is getting; I just have no interest in seeing the rest of the Mandalorian.
I have heard the EFAP and many other scene by scene analysis of Rise of Skywalker so I am pretty well aware of the obvious retconning it was doing. Such a disaster of a franchise. For each act of the 3 act structure to undermine then retcon what came before it is just an astounding epitome of writing failure.
Have you seen anything of The Mandalorian? You say "rest of". It sounds to me like you've seen it and don't care for it, which I find interesting because everybody else is singing its praises to high Heaven. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
It's nice to talk to an OT fan on these boards. There seem to be a lot of huffy PT fans these days who are really pushing for people to change their opinions on those films. Those who don't do that tend to yell at one for thinking Rey was a Mary Sue or something like that...
The ST's total structure is bad, but Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker also had badly structured scripts in and of themselves. TFA squeaks by because they cribbed the bulk of their plot from Lucas' near-perfectly structured original.
I watched the first 3 episodes drinking with friends; it was okay but not great, I quickly lost interest. IMO from those first 3 episodes it was overrated. There is so much time of him walking around stiffly and the story really doesn't pick up much steam. and I find Baby Yoda to be manipulative nostalgia a very little more than that. But I didn't finish it and don't have much interest to finish it TBH.
IMO the sequels are terrible and worse than the prequels but that DOES NOT make the prequels good. The prequels are an example of good ideas horribly executed. They manage to still fell like star wars but really really bad star wars, if that makes sense.
"TFA squeaks by because they cribbed the bulk of their plot from Lucas' near-perfectly structured original."
I think the combination of undermining the OT worldbuilding in order to 'recycle' Lucas' "near-perfectly structured original" and then not bother to fill in any gaps instead rely on open ended unanswerable mystery boxes is even worse than the poorly structure scripts of TLJ And TROS.
IMO TFA does far more harm to the overall STar WArs lore, continuity and mythos but then TLJ and TROS just continue on the trend of undermining and retconning both the OT and each other. I fell that this was inevitable because of how TFA started the 'new' story. This is why I say that TFA is the worst Star Wars film (even though I can't say that for sure without seeing Solo and TROS).
I haven't seen any Mandalorian. I wasn't planning on it. I barely had enough steam to see Rise of Skywalker. I haven't seen Solo.
I hear you with your evaluation of "really, really bad Star Wars" for the prequels. That's why I don't like them. They're just painful films. While the tone does feel like Star Wars to some extent (Lucas also has about six competing tones per movie, but that's more of "lighthearted adventure vs. slapstick comedy vs. dark drama" than "Star Wars-y"). Can't do it.
IMO, I am with you; I just don't have steam anymore to sit through new star wars. TFA killed it for me; TLJ (even rogue one) just confirmed it was dead to me. I don't have any intention of watching the rest of Mandalorian; from the episodes I saw it is not worth getting invested into; it was not bad but it was just not interesting enough to justify me getting back into new star wars material. if that makes sense.
Yeah; some people that suddenly say "see the prequels were good all along" just because the sequels suck too, kind of annoy me. Just because the prequels were bad does not make the sequels better; and vice versa just because the Sequels are arguably worse does not mean the prequel somehow get any better.
I agree that the Prequels have tonal issues in each film. It just doesn't work well. ROTS for me is a guilty pleasure. I think the pacing (building tension and no time wasted) and the action sequences are very well done and there are a few redeeming qualities to it; some of the visuals were well done, the fight scenes (though more like dances) are a impressive thing to watch; Ian McDiarmid is just awesome as the emperor. and there are some interesting concepts about dogma and corruption leading to rise of tyrants. The sequence of emperor giving the senate speech about the end of the republic while Anakin is wiping out the 'separatist' leadership is a freaking awesome scene by itself.
Oh and the music is freaking great (Williams at his best). Now there is a lot wrong with the film too But IMO it by itself has at least has enough redeeming qualities to be equally "okayish" to Rogue One. Still way below the OT.
100%. Prequels weren't good all along. One look at Jar-Jar Binks and you've got to know these suckers are, at best, a mixed bag. Seeing TFA did make me appreciate the originality of the prequels, if nothing else.
I think about giving Revenge of the Sith a rewatch for one reason, and it's a strange one. Camille Paglia, a really interesting, thoughtful person, compared it to opera and said there wasn't anything else in film (recent film) that came close to the bigness and grandeur of opera. I thought, "Well, that's interesting..." and some day I might revisit it and see what I think. I remember liking the Anakin, Windu, Palpatine confrontation from that film. Darth Vader's first mechanised breath is an ironically breathtaking moment, too. Of course, "NOOO!" kills the moment six seconds later...
Yes! Williams is ALWAYS GREAT! Look, I dislike the prequels as much as...well, I guess not anybody, but most people with sense. But I ain't gonna sit here and pretend like Duel of the Fates isn't a whole other level of epic orchestral music. It's top-notch.
Yeah, true the 'lazy carbon copy' nature of TFA does kind of give a little bit of an appreciation for the attempts at originality of the prequels; but they are just too bad to overlook the massive amounts of flaws.
Yeah, I can see it being like a dramatic opera; over the top imagery and extremely deep expressions of emotions. I would say it is fairly successful at that. I also have a huge amount of respect for the pacing of that film; It is one of the best paced action films that I know of; constant correct building of tension telling everything it needs to effectively and without wasting any time. There might have been performance, delivery, plot and general script issues but it is edited and paced perfect (IMO). Yeah the "NOOOOOO!" was terrible and that scene was going well to; I even liked the vomiting sounds he is making while the room is getting force shredded. It was awesome then, aargh.
I agree that Williams is almost always great. Even when the film is utter garbage if Williams did the music it at least has that. But even with TFL and TLJ I feel like he under-performed. There was not one memorable melody; I blame that on the pacing though; there is no chance ever to let Williams shine; the passing is just fucking so damn frantic when is his music supposed to stand out.
Maybe I'll add RotS to the "second chance" list. I recently had a conversation around these boards that convinced me to take a second gander at Star Trek: Generations. Haven't rewatched it yet, but it's on the list.
Williams is one of the best. I have other film composers I personally prefer (Morricone, for instance), but I can't argue with the mastery of Williams.
I don't know if ROTS is really worth a "second chance". I think its pacing and action (and I agree the "opera" like feel of it are some redeeming qualities) but not enough to make up for the really cringe dialogue; the questionable aspects of the plot, the extreme inconsistancy of character progression for Anakin's tranformation to Vader. (He is good and caring but then moments later he is murdering children? come on you have to do the leg work and show him descending into that.) Then again he does kill women and children in AOTC so maybe I am wrong.share
"People who hate the Disney series will not be objective in the slightest to any of the films made by Disney"
Yes, it couldn't be that we actually call out the bad quality of the films themselves, nope it is because we have a bias against disney. THIS is a fallacy; actually 2 fallacies, one is an appeal to motive and the other is false attribution. This is what I am talking about, you can't defend against criticisms of the film you IMMEDIATELY regress to ad hominems and other fallacies.
"Star Wars has been put on this insurmountable pedestal."
You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. the Mandalorian proves that even if something just slightly good is produced the general audience will positively receive it. So this show proves you wrong on the false motivation you tried using of "disney haters" and alos proves that the pedestal in NOT insurmountable; all they need to do is produce something that doesn't suck.
Sorry if I bite you head of here; but I am sick of seeing fallacies and non-arguments in defense of this film and trilogy. It is annoying.
Which is why I said the same thing about the prequels as well right? Your selective hearing and cherry picking my post showcases blind bias that I am referring to.
TFA was received well by the general audience so using that does not help your case. That was a nostalgia cash grab and people ate it up. Thing is these new wave of haters openly will say Rogue One and Mandalorian were trash. Just as you do about TFA. Which for the record I do not like the main trilogy story-line in the Disney series so do no assume I like these films. I am not big on Star Wars as a whole but can admit the originals were at least competent in story telling.
"TFA was received well by the general audience so using that does not help your case"
I am not cherry picking; I nearly responded to every word of your post. I am not familiar with your opinion past comments or history so I can only go off the fallacies you are currently relying. Like this appeal to popularity, a nonargument when discussing quality.
"Thing is these new wave of haters openly will say Rogue One and Mandalorian was trash"
Objectively they are wrong. Rogue one and Mandalorian are okay at an objective level. Rogue one has some bad editing issues and the characters are not fleshed out great; but it is a solid story with well done action sequencing and a ballesy ending. Mandalorian I have not finished only watched the first 3 episodes. It was okay too; I was not blown away by it, it was a bit stiff but not bad.
" Which for the record I do not like the main trilogy storyline in the Disney series so do no assume I like these film"
Then why defend them with fallacious non arguments?
Why would I say people are not fair to the prequels in the same post? If I left them out and was only referring to the Disney films you would have a case I did no such thing.
Good glad to know you can actually give Rogue and and the Mandalorian credit. Everything else has been a joke. The prequels were not good either though. Perfect example of great ideas and concepts, originality but not executed well. Had the ideas been executed well it could have been really solid. Thing is the Disney trilogy was not that it was executed badly it is that the ideas of the story sucked to begin with. Nothing more than a bad fanfiction. Even if executed better it would still suck.
"Why would I say people are not fair to the prequels in the same post"
Where, I don't see you mention the prequels; only the "disney haters" post.
Yes the prequels were not good; not as bad as the sequels, both IMO and as far as i can tell objectively too, I agree great ideas and concepts executed badly.
The sequels were terrible ideas executed like a mass product instead of a film. It is the equivalent of mcdonald's deciding to try to produce liver sandwiches and then producing them in mass like on an assembly line and pushed out to the lowest common denominator customers. Bad from concept to completion.
I guess you can say my concern with "Hate speech" is taken to the logical conclusion it is anything that offense any person. Which is a ridiculous standard because somewhere someone at some point will find something (anything) offensive. This person there is offended by Christians saying homosexuality is a sin, that christian is offended everytime someone makes fun of god, this other guy is offended by anyone that says Transgenders cannot change their dna at a chromosomal level, this other gal hates jokes about circus people, this one hates jokes about irish culture, this other one is offended by conservatives trying to enforce immigration, this republican is offended by the attempt to open boarders indiscriminately. and on and on it goes until you can't say anything to anyone. Just look at how some people get offended just when you criticize a film they love; imagine what happens when they say you can't criticize films because it hurts people feelings.
Don't believe me, they are already trying to cancel Kindergarten Cop because it is offensive. Seriously; this hate speech stuff cannot be applied in any kind of objective way. The application of what fits the definition will change with the times; that is not a standard, it is the opposite of a standard.
Since time immemorial people have tried to force others to think and speak as they want them to. We're a bit better at fighting it now than we used to be. Greco-Roman democracy, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the U.S. - we've been slowly getting better and better at it.
But there will always be that impulse to curtail speech. I think some of this is from a bad or evil place (I want to control those people! I hate them!) and some of it is from a good or compassionate place - just a misguided version of compassion (I don't want people to be mean to each other! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all...) It comes to the same thing: censorship and thought crime.
Cancel culture is awful. If we're doing "two steps forward, one step back" with free expression, cancel culture is a BIG step backward. Worse: I see more and more articles denying or pushing back, saying things like, "To those in privilege, equal voices feels like being 'cancelled'," and it's always trying to subtly discredit advocates of free speech.
I think we are in complete agreement her. Free speech (and comedy) is by nature offensive. If you try to stifle 'offensive' speech and conflate it with violence speech then you no longer support free speech. cancel culture is literally an attack on free speech.share
Salman Rushdie referred to it as the "But Brigade". "Freedom of speech is good, but..." and that's it.
It all must be on the table.
Cancel culture is one of the worst movements I've ever seen. It is an attack on free speech. It aspires to thought policing. It's fascism. It's communism. It's the Borg. It's bad.
Yup; if something someone says is deemed bad we can discuss it; people can agree or disagree. People shouldn't be afraid to voice their thoughts, because if they don't voice them they can never be discussed; that doesn't make the problem or 'wrong thinking' go away, they just hold it in and it ends up coming out in their behavior or actions.
I agree cancel culture seems to be a form of fascism/marxism. the thought police is Orwellian in Nature. This is the type of stuff the communist government of the soviet union, China, North Korea do to insure their population is always misinformed about what is going on. You are not even allowed to openly discuss the things that are wrong. That is a scary thought that many in the West (free nations) want to instill these type of policies and are willing to sacrifice their own individual rights; well at least as long as THEIR beliefs aren't being challenged.
100%. "You shouldn't say things like that, here's why..." for politeness, etiquette, taste, or philosophical reasons is all fine. That's just disagreement. But the current ideology is "You shouldn't say things like that. I shouldn't do the "unpaid labour" to tell you why; look it up yourself. Oh, and I'm going to "call you out". You're about to be as big a social pariah as I can possibly make you. If I have my way, your career and life are over!"
It's chilling and sickening. Worse, that chill floats over everything like a miasma and does stifle people from speaking out against the movement. It's grotesque, self-replicating, disgusting, and disturbing.
Politics are kinda circular, aren't they? Travel far enough right, and it's "Hello Nazis/fascists!", go left and it's, "Hi, Comrades!" But if you hop one step further from the Fascists or the Communists, you're in the other camp. They operate almost identically, on a practical, if not rhetorical level.
I hope more people start pushing back soon - and hard. I think this is happening. I'd just like to see the free speech group pump the gas a little more.
Most aggravating is that people like Trump use this type of thing to galvanize voters into siding with him and his ilk. I think Trump is a cruel, tyrannical clown, but I understand why somebody might pull the lever if they think the other side will shut down free speech and kowtow to the SJW/Woke crowd. I mean, it's a false choice because Trump doesn't seem interested in free speech, either, but still...that's what's so aggravating.
This is getting a little too political for my tastes; but you make a point about Trump being a response to a left that has gone too far. The Obama worship drove me crazy during those years. The Trump worship and simultaneous Trump Derangement syndrome of the current time is driving me even more up the walls. But yes Trump is clearly a response to the radical left and increase communist/marxist/socialist movement (revolution) that is taking place. And the fact that the media is like 90% on the side of the democrats and the 10% of the media that is not are sycophants basically makes it so the a good chunk of the population feel like voting for Trump is a vote to stop the flood of social/cultural revolution.
Why oh why can't the libertarian party get their shit together and be an actual contender? But currently I guess if they did all that would do is split the republican vote. The Democrats seem to be pretty damn set, rigid and unified and fully willing to embrace the radical fringe elements of their side.
Scary times we live in for sure. I don't like Trump at all, I find him buffoonish, obnoxious, petty and narcissistic. But the left and Biden have me so terrified of what the current Democratic party would do if they got full power again that either I vote Trump or start making plans to move back to Germany (I have dual citizenship); but from what I hear from my family back home Germany is not doing much better and if things continue on the current path it might become "little Russia".
All that sounds pretty sensible. The criticisms of Trump from the left are legitimate, but they seem determined to find people who are worse.share
Yeah pretty much; I hate the fact that I am likely going to vote for Trump; but the left's calls to defund the police, advocating for Rioting and looting, and at the same time trying to take away the right to own firearms to protect your family, is just insane and unreasonable. there is no way in hell I am voting for Biden, the guy is clearly a closet racist and can barely put 2 words together.
The Dems pushed out the reasonable/sensible condensers (Klobuchar and Gabbard) and instead embraced either fringe socialist lunatics or establishment borderline racist Gaffe machine that is Joe Biden. I would have likely voted for Gabbard over Trump; she was the only one on any national stage that didn't sound like a lunatic. and look how fast she was pushed out by the Dems.
Well, I think libertarians, if they became a viable option, would probably syphon off as many Dems as GOPs. They're surprisingly similar in policy. Listen to any rhetoric from any other country but the USA, they're under the impression that the USA has (basically) two parties that are more-or-less the same.
Germany's pretty Left right now, from what I've heard, yeah.
I don't know; the Dems seem more unified and more willing to embrace radical policies than the right. This is why the sensible/reasonable DNC nomination contenders Gabbard and Klobuchar could not gain any momentum in the primary.
With the RNC in 2016 it was Damn close between very different Politician (Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Bush). Many of the people that voted for Trump I think would vote for a viable Libertarian instead; I know I would.
Well, I'm with Carlin. "If you were born on Earth, you got tickets to the freak show. If you're in the USA, you got a front-row seat."share
As the others said, just to reinforce. Return of the Jedi was already heavily criticized for recycling the death star (it is one of the 3 major complaints of that film). Redoing it again for the start of the sequel trilogy is far more egregious.
Also, there is a plot specific reason for redoing it in Return; the empire had resources were in control of the government and trying to most effectively eliminate any chance of dissension. The death star would fulfill that goal even if the first one was destroyed (this is like the same idea as the U.S. building Atomic bombs).
The First order was not in control of the government; and have no clear way of having the resources to produce such a thing. This would be like the equivalent Taliban building a super trident missile. They couldn't do it and even if they tried the government military would intercept them and stop it.
The Death Star was always the best techno MacGuffin of Star Wars, nothing else came close. The Death Star aspect is the main reason I tuned into Star Wars in the first place, I didn't and don't really give a damn about the Force and Jedi or any crap like that - Star Wars is and always has been about the Death Star to me. The Death Star, Coruscant, Super Star Destroyers and REALLY. BIG. FUCKING. TECH. That's what made Star Wars stand out and appeal to me in the first place, the sheer SCALE of all of these places and vehicles.
IMO; Star Wars is far beyond the tech, ships and explosions. There are deep archetypes and themes; along with interesting lore and mythos/mysticism. Every Space sci-fi has tech and ships (star trek, battlestar galactica, 2001, Planet of the apes etc). But it is the lore, themes, characters and mysticism that puts star wars on another level. The aesthetics are a 'cool' element that make the action and visuals fun; but the story is what really matters and places it special among sci-fi films.
Star Wars IS more than that, but I was talking as a child :)
Ah, that makes sense; for me what got me more than anything was Vader and Obi-won and the force; this energy field that gave them such power to influence minds and choke people across the room. The ships, blasters, death star were icing on a cake for me.share
Vader and the lightsabers are cool, but to be honest, the Stormtroopers always confused me. The white plasticky armour is just plain silly-looking, and from the beginning, I thought the people inside were zombified or conditioned in some way, not just willing but trained, too. That's my earliest memory of them.
I never minded the storm troopers; there opening scene in ANH was always quite effective for demonstrating them as both 'dehumanized' yet efficient. But as I said, for me it was not the costumes or visuals that hooked me; it was the characters, mysticism and lore.share
"Also, there is a plot specific reason for redoing it in Return; the empire had resources were in control of the government and trying to most effectively eliminate any chance of dissension."
I've seen YT videos of Expanded Universe material describing how the galactic populace in general were OUTRAGED by the destruction of Alderaan and how many thousands, if not millions, flocked to the Rebel Alliance banner in response. Looks like the Empire had more to quell than they could handle.
That is true; with their super weapon that they planned on using to instill fear in the galaxy was destroyed they needed to get it back fast. And they were building relatively the same design so it would not have been a completely from scratch effort.
The star killer base however is not even close to the same design and does not operate at all the same (not a space station but a gutted out planet, sucks up a start to fire some kind of heat energy beam that can somehow target multiple planets lightyears away). I mean the damn thing is not only a piss poor imitation, it is a mind numbingly asinine affront to logic and physics.
Yeah, and think about this: Starkiller Base arrives at the local star system where the Resistance are hiding out, proceeds to suck up the star... and then where does the light come from then for the planets of that system? The lack of energy alone would kill all life on the orbiting planets and do other damage... and when Starkiller Base is destroyed, it turns into a massive fireball that is... basically, the star reborn?? In another location??? WTAF??!?!!?
Abrams is well-known for his utter lack of knowledge or care for at least a semblance of logical physics, nor how space works, and to have him helm a sci-fi franchise SET IN SPACE??? He is easily the WORST director in Hollywood today, even more so than the Michael Bays and Uwe Bolls of the world.
Oh yeah, the complete lack of anything resembling even the most basic of physics this thing adheres to is actually mentally painful if you start to think about it too much. I mean this is NOT the same as having sound in space (for dramatic effect) this is like changing even the most basic of logic to make a visual emotion pay off happen with no thought or concern given to the details. The lack of attention to details is just so egregious in this damn thing.
I agree, he is the worst director I have ever seen produce a film; yes that is worst than Ed Wood or Rian Johnson. How this guy keeps failing up just shows what the situation in Hollywood is really like.
It was an uninspired move in an uninspired movie.share
While I agree it's not that big of a deal, Return of the Jedi's second Death Star was a bit of a curve ball since going through the events of ESB kinda made people forget about the first Death Star. And to make it unfinished and stuck in orbit was a clever addition as well.
Though I prefer Awakens' Death Planet over the space station in Phantom Menace.
ROTJ did have some original subplots. Didn't see many in this one.share