Why make a desperate move and bring back Palpatine, when they had the Knights of Ren. They ere building up the Ren lore in previous movies. After the death of Snoke these knights may have reemerged, challenging Kylo's rule over the First Order, giving more headache to the Resistance.
shareThere was so much they could have written better. I honestly don't know why they didn't. I've read end-of-saga stories just from internet people that have given me goosebumps. The actual film? No so much.
shareIt's because they had no roadmap/plan. They were just making everything up as they went.
The Knights of Ren weren't even in The Last Jedi if I recall. Not even mentioned/referenced either.
There was no build up of the Knights of Ren in Force Awakens either; there was one passing mention of them when Snoke calls Kylo the leader of the Knights of Ren. that is it. When they do show up in TROS they are just there and then do very little and then are killed remarkably easy. About as compelling villains as Phasma was.
share[deleted]
It's obvious the trilogy was meant to have Snoke as the main villain, and Rey to be his daughter, but a ginger asshat screwed up the plan and they had to rewrite it in 5 minutes.
shareIf there was a set plan, then how was Rian Johnson allowed to complete the film and not get fired after he started making such dramatic alterations to the overarching story?
Maybe JJ did intend to have Snoke as the main villain; completely unknown if Rey was to be his daughter but there was clearly no plan with Rey; everything about that character was "a good question, for another time". But even if JJ had some ideas on where the rest of the story should go, Lucasfilms did nothing to have a set story locked down. So they let Rian do as he pleased as long as he met Kathleen Kennedy's agenda.
Well, they fired Trevorrow instead because he kept giving shit to RJ's script LOL.
shareExactly; there was some incredibly bad management at Lucasfilm. They basically had no plan for the trilogy and just let the directors do what they wanted as long as they meet some agenda based criteria and made the right PR statements; like JJ and Rian both praising each others films even though clearly they were slapping the crap out of each other.
One thing we can say is for sure; Kathleen Kennedy did not care about the actual story; she cared about getting her agenda on the screen (the force is female) type stuff. Talk about one huge chip on her shoulder.
there were rumors that JJ was using Palpatine as the main villain, even before TFA came out
that was always his plan
Well, I guess sort of. I remember right after TFA was out, everyone and their mother was "sure" Snoke would be revealed to be Darth Plagueis. As he was the only known Force user to know how to resurrect the dead, it was kind of logical.
Personally I would have far preferred that for TROS. Now the entire 7-9 trilogy feels like a slightly rewritten reboot of episodes 4-6. If Snoke had survived to the end, and was revealed to be Plagueis, it would have been a more interesting arc. Now Snoke is just some "random dude" with no significance. I guess he was possibly to be considered to be a clone of Darth Sidious.
Look on google for "tank of Snokes" lol
shareThis has been debunked; Ian McDiarmid said he was not even contacted by JJ Abrams until after TLJ came out and JJ was reattached as the writer/director, and it was not at all in the Trevorrow planned scritpt. If it was his plan from the start he sure as hell didn't feel the need to share that with literally anyone involved in these films; and the result was disastrous. Not sharing your plans is the same as not having plans
shareno, it hasn't
even in JJ's original plan, Palpatine would not have even been seen until episode 9
and why on earth would Trevorrow be following JJ's plan, after it was discarded by Johnson
that makes no sense at all
Then how come Ian McDiarmid was not even contacted by anyone in regards to reprising the role until after TLJ was out, Trevorrow was fired, and JJ brought back on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBNp8OzN8Wk
Yes it was debunked. No one knew JJ planned on Palpatine returning; maybe it was in his head but not expressed or planned anywhere. That is the same as it not being planned.
how the hell would JJ intend on bringing back Palpatine when after TFA he was not supposed to be involved at all?
One word, Nostalgia. I better summed up in 9 words;hope that exploiting nostalgia would lead to more money.
There was not a story in the sequel trilogy; from what I can tell after Force Awakens came out, there never was a story to tell. So they were just producing a very generic product that they wanted people to not think about but only consume.
You have to think about how these decisions were discussed in a executive meeting. There was no real creativity and the story was not written by a writer that wanted to tell a story. These things were decided in a conference room.
The funny part about that, even with so many people collaborating about what the audience wants and will pay to see, they got nearly every decision along the way wrong reducing the selling power of their brand more and more with each film. My theory on that is that Kathleen Kennedy is a horrible boss with a huge chip on her shoulder. So people at Lucasfilm were working please their boss, and because she had no interest in a story and no creative direction; this is the result.
The main villain should have just been Kylo Ren. He was the only one who could have done it, once they killed Snoke. They still could have had their climax, it just would have had to use the First Order leadership instead of Snoke/Palpatine. No other villain had any build-up through the trilogy.
I agree with you: making the Knights of Ren into a council of evil would have been cool, but they referenced them twice in The Force Awakens as a pathetic teaser, then they didn't bring them up at all in The Last Jedi, and so they had nothing in the third one.
But, I guess "no plan, all sizzle, zero steak" was the foundation they built this on. That's what The Force Awakens started it with. Bad foot forward. Then The Last Jedi countered by deliberately cutting the knees out from under all those set-ups because of its theme and purpose: "subverting expectations". ...okay.
Then they tried to backpedal 70% of the material in The Last Jedi and it just falls flat on its nose.
From the first film; the villains should have been a combination of rebels from Luke's Jedi school teamed up with remnants of Imperial forces (older Admirals and stuff a al Thrawn). The Knights of Ren should have been a group of Jedi students that followed Kylo and wanted to explore the potential of the dark side.
Exactly, if they were like the top members of the first order, the leading council; they might have been an interesting factor; but as you said, there is no set up for them; they are referenced very briefly in TFA and then completely forgotten in TLJ.
Good analogy about Force Awakens being a "bad foot forward" and the rest. Nice way to sum it up. I put a lot of the blame on the bad foot they started out on.
Technically the Force Awakens was the best received film since the original trilogy.
shareYes it was; that is part of my problem with that film. It is by every measure a terribly written film that exploited nostalgia to hide the weaker writing of the characters and its reliance on mystery boxes instead of setting up an actual story for what would come next. Despite this people loved it at least until the retroactively thought about it years later and now more and more and seeing it for the empty soulless cash grab that it is.
Also keep in mind Technically speaking The Phantom Menace was extremely well received when it first came out; in fact the praise it received at the time was about on par with The Force Awakens. It was only after a couple years went by people started realizing that the problems they noticed were larger then they wanted to admit.
The Phantom Menace wasn't well received and not on a par with TFA at all , TFA remains the best of the ST, it could of kicked off a decent story arc but instead Rian Johnson decided to do his own version of a star wars film just to be controversial , it all fell apart with TLJ, everything was in full swing when TFA was released.
shareYou are not remembering clearly or were not around (old enough) in 1999, I remember. TPM was well received; and in personal discussion people were at least as pleased with it as TFA. You are remembering a history that did not happen. There was no real internet culture back then, so there was no social media for people to mass hate or praise something. In REAL life people in fact I think were more please with TPM then they were with TFA; outside the social media bubble that is.
But what Arc does TFA kick of? It is a complete and utter rehash of the original; where we expected to just watch the same Arc over again? Think for a just a minute outside your nostalgic emotional reaction to TFA, what story did it actually set up? Luke was about to be the new Yoda, Snoke was about to be the new Emperor, Kylo = Vader; Rey would be revealed to be somebody important's child (sound familiar). TFA did not set up a decent story, it just set up the same story with a few new character names and genders. Probably the only thing new was a rebel stormtrooper; but even that went nowhere in TFA when they turned him into a clumsy side kick. What story was there: 'Who is Snoke?' "Who are Rey's Parents?' "How did the first order rise?" "why is Luke in hiding?" None of these are story arcs they are open ended questions that JJ had no plan to develop more. hence the disheveled and disjointed mess the Sequel trilogy ended up being.
I was very much around when TPM was released and i was around when the original trilogy was released, and i remember vividly the dissapointment with TPM , it wasnt particularly well received by critics or fans.
You cant blame JJ for not developing the story he created in TFA, blame Kennedy for that, but what he did do is kick off an intreasting story , Snoke could of been very interesting.
I agree with you it has similar beats to ANH but i think thats why most people enjoyed it, nostalgia driven.
The sequel trilogy is a complete mess , a wasted opportunity, however i was relatively satisfied when i first watched TFA, its not great , but it was enjoyable.
Maybe are 'groups' just responded different. The 'praise' TPM got was something like 'it was flawed but I enjoyed it' from just about everyone. That is about the same 'praise' TFA got from almost everyone I know, many of which where old enough to remember the prequels when they came out. It was not until about 2001 to 2002 that the real 'hate' for TPM started. But then, this is an anecdotal sample size; there was not social media culture to get 'mass' opinions. The critics were definitely harsher on TPM than they were on TFA.
At a meta level Kennedy is the most to blame; but JJ did not develop or create a story in TFA; he retold the same story with some name and gender swaps. Snoke was not interesting in his set up; he is just a cardboard stand in for the Emperor. Of course if they developed who he was more in the sequels there might have been potential, but Snoke in TFA is not set up and not interesting. He is a paper tiger at best.
It is not just similar beats it is almost the same story. I am somewhat resentful that people enjoyed such a film; they prove that film studios can make huge amount of money just milking nostalgia and not create anything new; just make the aesthetics pretty. in short, people should not have enjoyed it at least not as much as they did. There was not enough story to actually enjoy it. People where like idiot going 'duh look at the pretty thing on screen, duh'.
TFA is not only not great it is actually a terribly written film; it seriously reduced Star Wars from somethign special with unique mythos and lore to a Transformer/Fast and Furious level series. TFA did this, both the prequels not TLJ.
it would of always been this way , even if Lucas would of written and Directed a new Sequel trilogy, even if he had just written it and got the best director working on it today it still would of got the same level of criticism that TFA would of got, the original trilogy is a anomaly, a freak of nature never to be repeated. i could see what they were trying to do with TFA, please the original fan base and add lots of nostalgia , but on the other hand introduce a new generation of star wars fans, i think they nearly pulled it off but unfortunately it took a downward trajectory when TLJ was released.
The facts are there , 93% critic score on RT, 86% audience score , 7.9 imdb, 80 metacritic , 2 billion box office , it pleased the majority of people that watched it and it pleased them more than TPM and TLJ , so unfortunately for you , your opinion is inaccurate , people would rather watch TFA than TPM which did more damage to the franchise than any other film , well, maybe not as much as TLJ.
What criticism did TFA get; that is what I mean; the film clearily is weaker imitation of ANH and yet seemed to be exempted form criticism for it. I disagree about it being a freak of nature never to be repeated; LOTR captured that magic so did Game of Thrones until the end. I saw what TFA was trying to do and it worked, exploit nostalgia don't tell a new story. There was no need to introduce a new generation; nearly everyone over 10 was still familiar with the OT, and TFA was rated pg-13 so it was not intended for under 10 year old audience.
Are you saying that a majority opinion can't be wrong? Majority is all that matters? My opinion is not based on subjectivity alone, so it is not really an opinion. (and you can't say someone's opinion is wrong anyway, I am entitled to my opinion and it is right for me even if it is not aligned with the majority) (remember there was a time when a vast majority of people thought slavery was an a'okay thing). People are dumb and can often be wrong on a massive level. But my criticism of TFA is based at least 3/4 in objective merit based analysis.
For example, I say that Rey is a poorly written character because she achieves victory too easily and has a personality of being posh, naive, noble, and personable (friendly/trusting) that does not match her given background as a loner scavenger. Is that opinion or fact?
TFA definitely did more damage to the lore and mythos (and OT characters) than TPM did. You don't see untrained force potentials teaching themselves how to do mind tricks in TPM, you don't have the OT characters propped up as pathetic failures needing the 'new' generation to get the job done right. You know what I think, I think you are just a bitter prequel hater than was going to love TFA as long as it was a 'throw back' to the originals. You feel for the image of the star destroyer and marketing and now you refuse to see the truth like so many others, TFA is as bad a film as TPM
At this point i think you are rather unstable and deluded, spitting your dummy out of your mouth because the majority of people dont share the same opinions as you , my views on the prequels? Fantastic story arc , incredible sound track from williams , revenge of the sith is the strongest entry , TPM and AOTC are just not very good and have little rewatch appeal, crap characters, crappy lore, midicloreans!!!!! Anakin built C3P0!!!! Jar Jar !! If you can compare a star wars movie to transformers or fast furious its TPM and AOTC.
I think you need to let it go and move on from star wars and this board, i presented you with the facts and the facts are , critics and audiences very much favour TFA, you dont and you have made your opinion heard time and time again , but dont delude yourself into thinking the majority share your opinion.
Sure why make an argument when you can just hyperbole. I asked a question was my analysis of Rey a fact or opinion?
I agree TMP and AOTC, good overall story and great sound track but bad films.
You presented no facts of quality, what you presented is called an appeal to popularity, that is not a fact it is a fallacy. Popularity and even critical review is not the determination of quality. Critics and audiences can be wrong about a thing.
I have never once deluded myself into thinking a majority share my 'opinion', in fact one of the very things I said is I am resentful of the general audience because the majority like a bad film and are unwilling to admit it (even when they admit the weaknesses they say 'well better than the prequels (which is not true)', or 'well I liked it', or 'star wars was never that great anyway) All of these are deflections from the legitimate merit and quality based criticism of this film (which even the critics seemed to ignore).
More and more are coming around on admitting that TFA was a badly written film that made a bad foot to start the trilogy on, but some are still bitter clingers that hold on to their delusion that the film was great despite its crap writing.
I would not say by every measure. That is an exaggeration. It is a safe nostalgia bait film. Also no I have to disagree with you on that. I remember in full detail how the Phantom Menace was received upon release. I agree it got worse overtime as people sat and thought about it but it was never as highly received as TFA. Why don't we all admit the truth though. Nothing is going to ever measure up to A new Hope or Empire Strikes Back. I do not even think they should try. Star Wars is dead. Much like how Terminator is dead. There is no more to tell the story and lore is complete. It is people's greed on wanting more which has killed it by producers preying on the fact that people will not let go. Too much of anything is bad. The reason Blade Runner 2049 worked was because it was a done by a great director also it did not clone the original and it was not concerned with franchise/sequel baiting. Also there is not a million films of it.
Look at Alien series, and the Terminator series. Same with Star Wars the first two are classics then afterwards every sequel after fails to live up to the first two. Why? Well it is simple their first concern is not how we can do a one off but how can we set up a new film series. The reason I liked Blade Runner 2049 was it did not do that. It told a story in line with the first and that was it. There does not need to be a sequel. There could be another Blade Runner film but the point is it can end there and I am satisfied. Terminator ended I do not even bother to watch any more films in that series same goes for Alien. You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Star Wars is too commercialized for them to ever take a creative risk on it. They will play it safe. Star Wars is not art anymore it is a product, just like Alien and Terminator as well as many other once great film series. Personally I always found Star Wars to be vastly overrated. In my book Blade Runner and many other scifi films are better.
Overall I am excited for the upcoming Dune film. Look elsewhere is my advice you ain't finding any more creativity or originality left in Star Wars.
I might relent and say there are aspects to the film's execution and production that were not terrible. But the writing by every measure I know of was; the characters are poorly written and underdeveloped with backgrounds that did not match their personalities, the dialogue was poorly written (even by Star Wars standards), the plot was a rehash but in such a way it does not at all explain the gap between Return of the Jedi and TFA so the existence of the first order and Snoke became a continuity issue, there is a disjointed disconnect from where our heroes left off in ROTJ, Han is a deadbeat smuggler again, Luke is missing? There was no back story were there needed to be, even in small example like the reappearance of Luke's lost lightsaber, no explanation given it is just there. There was an over reliance on mystery to capture intrigue instead of exposition to set up an actual story. All of this are aspects of writing that failed in TFA.
TPM was well received when it came out. I did not even hear a single complaint about it until about a year before Attack of the Clones came out. Some people maybe said that Anakin was too young and it was too kiddy and the dialogue was cringy. But people still praised it, like with TFA; most people admit it was a safe rehash but still prasied it. TFA and TPM were about equal in terms of reception (both far below what I hear was the reception for ANH which I was not around for). The issue with TFA is people were and are seemingly not coming around as fast and doubling down in their social media bubble reactions to the film.
Star Wars was not dead until the ST, even the PT did not kill it as bad as those films were. TFA by rehashing the same story and then TROS doing almost the same killed all expanded universe potential.
As far as production it was solidly made. Yes I know it cloned A New Hope but aesthetic is one of the big draws to Star Wars. Dialogue being bad in Star Wars is nothing new you by your own words admitted to that. I heard many complaints about that film when I first watched it in theaters. I do admit people were in denial but I specifically remember the naysayers. Everyone thought it was a fluke, then once the Attack of the Clones came out it was apparent it was no accident. Of course it was not as well received as a New Hope as I said no Star Wars film will ever live up to that or Empire. I do not care what you do it is impossible. The pedestal is just too high to meet even if they made it better they will not reach that. Even though I get your point holding that against a Star Wars film is silly. You might as well hang it up right now because nothing will reach that level I promise you that.
Oh no Star Wars was dead after the prequel trilogy. People just do not want to admit it. Nothing will ever top Vader, that was the big bummer we wanted to see how Vader developed and Lucas blew it. The potential of the prequels was great unfortunately that was their chance and it is gone.I knew Star Wars was DOA before the Sequel trilogy came out.
The aesthetics is what gets people to come sure; but they stay for story and characters. Bad dialogue is par the course for Star Wars, but the bad dialogue always felt like it was natural to 'universe'. TFA introduced bad dialogue that felt out of place in Star Wars. Nothing is going to be as well received as ANH was sure, but if a film is poorly written, with underdeveloped characters and plot, is a safe rehash of the original that resets the state of the universe to square one in an asinine nonsensical way with no explanation; then it should not have been as well received as TFA was. And because of how well it was received there was no fire set in Lucasfilm to get their shit together for TLJ; and this is the result; a mess of a sequel trilogy. A star Wars film does not need to reach the level of the OT, but god damn can they at least just make a decent movie with well written characters and a plausible setting/plot?
If Star Wars was dead after the prequels then TFA would not have made over 2 billion dollars and be one of the most successful films ever made. So I disagree, Star Wars was not DOA before the ST; I think it is now.
I am sorry but the bad dialogue which was horrendous began in the prequels. Almost every single line uttered by Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones was awful! So I disagree about TFA being the film to start that trend. You or I do not determine how the general public should receive a film. Could there reasons be rubbish sure but it is up to them to decide how they receive a film. The reception has nothing to do with Disney shaping the film, it has to do with how much money it made. The reception to the latest Jurassic Park films have been bad but the reason they keep on doing the same thing is the films make money. It wouldn't have mattered if TFA did in fact get slammed the film made gobs of money.
As I said Star Wars will always make money. I said it no longer has artistic integrity. The Phantom Menace was the highest grossing film of the prequel trilogy. Once the series was over and went on hiatus for years boom people were hungry again. Same pattern here. Give it a few years people will be ready for another Star Wars film once enough time passes. People are eating up the mandalorian as we speak. So as I originally said I feel the series died artistically after the prequels.
My opinion: "who talk's first, your talk first, I talk first?" "You got a boyfrient, a cute boyfriend?" "Droid please" are far, far worse that "I don't like sand...". Also the dialogue wasn't the problem with HAyden, it was the delivery. In TFA it is the dialogue that is the issue not the delivery; well at least not the delivery with everyone except Daisy who I think delivery was even worse the Hayden's. the general audience is entitled to feel what they feel about the film, the issue is with those that aruge that it is not a bad film (liked film does not equal good film). The reasons given have always been rubbish, but there was always this idea that TLJ was going to answer all the questions and the argument was there was a plan when clearily there wasn't. TFA 'got away' with being bad because it pushed all the weight of its many failures in setting up characters and story unto the next film to sort out. If TFA was released now (somehow retroactively) the reception would look a lot different. It is the reason why the film has gone from a top 100 rated film to below 500. When film is released its 'initial' audience score is massive in numbers and few people go back and change there scores which means the reception score exists mostly in a bubble. That is why TFA is still rated so high.
Star Wars has now officially been losing money. TLJ barely broke even, TROS lost money and so did Solo. My hope is there is a shack up as a result of this and they actually start putting a little damn effort into characters. But then they messed up the Sequels so bad and insulted the originals (Han and Luke character assassination and bringing back the emperor thus undermining the entirety of the OT plot) I am not sure if I want them to succeed now.
Sorry we will have to agree to disagree. While what you say is cheese and bad I could not stomach Hayden Christensen for a second on screen. This was supposed to be a young darth Vader and you have lines such as it's all Obi Wan's fault, it's not fair! That bothered me far worse than the sand line. Honestly while the sand line is bad I do not think it compares to other awful lines in Attack of the Clones.
How about that romance huh? So much chemistry I think Twilight was jealous. You are correct just because you like a film does not mean it is good. However you have a sticky situation here. You are saying that if you consider a film bad then everyone else must feel that same way. I agree that TFA is a cash grab but there are people who honestly think it i a good film. I have come across people who think Blade Runner 2049 is a bad film and give their reasons as to why. Am I not allowed to think it is good because they in their head have logically broken down why it is bad?
No technically The Last Jedi still made money as did TROS. TROS made over a billion. Lets say it's budget was 500 million. That would still make it a profit... Solo is the only Star Wars film that lost money. Good luck man it will not happen as I said. Star Wars is a product it is no longer art. It is time to move on to another franchise.
Don't get me wrong, I hated AOTC as well; Hayden's delivery was painful; but IMO Daisy is far worse. I actually do not have a problem with a young Darth Vader being sorta of a petty whiny 'life's not fair' type of person. That is the sort of person that turns evil to make the world 'better'. And it also makes him similar to Luke (his son). Both are kind of whiny. I think that many people just expected a young Darth Vader to be as awesome and as intimidating as the real thing. But this was a story on how he got there. Yes the dialogue was rough, but 'I never knew there was so much green' is pretty bad too. Both sucked, I just think TFA was worse.
Here is the thing, for most films in arguments people can provide good and bad reasons for why they like or don't like a film. Like our discussion about BR 2049. Most of the time I respect if someone has good reasons to like a film I don't like and even consider adjusting my opinion. TFA is an anomaly; in 5 years I have not seen someone give a single good reason for liking it. it always comes down to, 'i liked it anyway despite its flaws', or 'the prequels are worse' or 'Star wars was never good anyway' type of reasons; which none are justifiable reasons to like TFA or ignore the disastrously bad writing it had.
You have to remember box office wise theaters get about 40% of the ticket sale. So you have to estimate total budget (production plus marketing) than when you take that billion dollar box office immediately cut it in half; that is about what the film actually made. So that means if TLJ and TROS didn't make money; they either lost money or barely broke even. TFA is the only one that made them some serious money.
You mean people havent giving you an answer that you choose ro accept, you act as if your opinion is the truth, ans and anything or anyone else is wrong, it pointless discussing it with you
shareNo, I respond well to good reasons. I have not heard good reasons for liking Force awakens. If someone tries giving reason I provide counter arguments or explain why it is bad reasoning; and then it devolves from there into either trolling, flaming, or really lame ad hominems or other fallacies; or the common 'i liked it anyway' or 'star wars was never that good anyway' cop outs. 5 years of this now man, 5 years of the same exact pattern from all you TFA defenders. You guys are like NPC's man.
shareHeres a reason , i enjoyed TFA when it was released , the end was weak but i enjoyed the action , the characters, i liked Poe, i liked Han , Finn was ok if not a tad goofy , iliked BB8, i liked the organic effects , i was intrigued with the story once it got going , overall a solid 7 out of 10
shareOkay, that is an acceptable reason, that you like it; but I would not say it is a good reason. But I can counter each point;
The action was too faced paced and way too many cuts; it gave me a headache and you could not clearly see what was actually happening. The special effects that were mediocre and are not holding up even 5 years later.
The characters? seriously. Poe was almost an inconsequential character that was supposed to die but then just comes back. he does not have much of a character, he has a character description "cocky competente pilot" that is all the character is in the film. Han? the dead beat dad that undermines his OT growth and becomes loser incompetent smuggler that 'loses' his prized possesion and then gets killed by his punk rebel son like an idiot, that han you liked? Finn the child soldier that acts like his is in a slapstick comedy, and basically is a buffoon played for laughs and to make Rey look good. BB-8? the r2d2 stand in? Organic effects? TPM had more practical effect than TFA. and the special effects look like crap, total over use of CGI to fill in the gaps. Intrigue in the story? you mean the rehashed story of ANH stuffed in with lazy mystery boxes to try to cover the wholes in the plot because the state of the galaxy basically being reset to the beginning of ANH time frame within 30 years post ROTJ.
7 out of 10? yeah maybe purely based on subjectivity. If I was to rate it, objectively 4 or 5 out of 10. There is enough production value that it is not a complete disaster of film making and the choreography and actual camera work is very good. Subjectively I wish I could go below 1 our 10.
I’m still bitterly disappointed overall with this trilogy , that I will say, it’s a complete mess , I cannot accept the fact palpatine was resurrected.
shareYes it was, Palpatine might be the biggest slap in the face to the OT. we are in complete agreement on this trilogy being a disappointing mess.
I will say this, I put a majority of the blame on how this trilogy went on TFA; I could be wrong and might just hate it so much subjectively it obscures my ability to be purely objective; but I view TFA as the film that set off the whole disaster.
Even if you just look at 2 things; one the power and resources of the New Empire and the pathetic defeated state of our heroes (just 30 years after their victory) and also Rey's ability to just use force powers without training or real effort to learn. Edit: both of these things could potentially work, but they would require a satisfying explanation for why and how; when i watched TFA the first time I could tell they had no intention of explaining how or why.
the first issue basically undoes the entire victory and story of the OT. It is like it just set everything back to zero. Rey being so powerful so fast completely destroys the continuity, lore and mythology of the force. And that is not even counting the fact that the entire film is basically just a rehash of the plot and characters of the first film.
Again agree to disagree. I will take Daisey Ridley any day of the week over Hayden Christensen. Being a little whiny is fine but good grief man was he just a spoiled pechulant child. No I again disagree. I did not expect him to be as intimidating as the real thing, after all it is the journey to the destination. The issue is Anakin has not one likable or redeemable trait in Attack of the Clones. A character can be egotistical, arrogant and even whiny but still have likable or redeemable traits. Han Solo despite being a selfish arrogant guy showed signs of nobleness. Tony Stark is a total arrogant self absorbed guy but is a genius and has redeemable traits. The issue is his fall does not work when we do not sympathize with the character whatsoever. Why did he go from this good good little kid to this temperamental brat? Isn't the Jedi training supposed to have the opposite effect? An example of doing a character like this well is Michael Fassbender's Magneto. Watch X-men First Class or X-men Days of Future Past. Ian Mckellen played the old Magneto very well. Fassbender is the younger version of this character. So he is not as intimidating or as wise but there are flashes of him in Fassbender. He is likable not the case with Anakin.
This is where I have an issue. See you are saying that in order for someone to think it is a good film they need your approval. Unless it makes sense to YOU people are not allowed to think it is good.
The Last Jedi is the 14th highest grossing film of all time. I am rather sure it broke even... 44 all time if you adjust for inflation. Even so though okay lets say you are correct. They still made money off of TFA. There were people claiming that it would make less than Solo after that one and um ROS made far more than that film did. Give it a few years Star Wars will always make money. You can take that to the bank.
Okay, this is getting kind of difficult to argue with because your are totally conflating both the way the character is written and how the actor portrays what was written. I think Hayden and Daisey both gave really bad performances but Hayden's emoting I thought was better; it was the dialogue he did bad on. Daisey's emoting was so far off in some scenes I legitimately could not tell what she was trying convey emotion wise. Go back and watch her face on some scene's like when she first meets BB-8 or when Han Solo is describing things of the past to her; her expressions are just so off. One scene outside the falcoln she almost looks like she is aroused by Han; seriously go watch some of those scenes and really look at her. There was no such issue with Hayden, his facial expressions matched what he was conveying; it was all the dialogue that 'ruined' his scenes. Now with redeeming traits; Anakin becomes Darth Vader, one of the most evil men in all of star wars, I am not sure if he is supposed to have that many redeeming traits. But yeah, I agree that they could have Edited Anakin's character a bit to make him more tolerable. But with Rey there is just so much wrong with both the character's personality contrasted against the given background, the unexplained video game like power ups and the odd facial expressions and general behavior that I found nothing redeeming about that character either.
No, they just need to be able to articulate their reasons and it has to be justifiable reasoning. it does not need to 'make' sense to me, but it is up to them to explain it well enough that it 'makes' sense to me or they are making a bad argument. does that 'make sense'? pun intended.
to be continued for box office breakdown...
Again I hear your points but I can not for the life of me begin to agree. A character becoming the most evil character ever does not mean they should not have redeemable traits. Joker from the Dark Knight or Anton from No Country For Old Men are not intended to have a back story. They are what you would call a negative flat character arc. Anakin is a negative arc. A good character eventually turning evil. A perfect example of this is Walter White. Walt became absolutely despicable by the end of Breaking Bad. Thing is though even though he was arrogant Walt was intelligent and you felt for the fact that he got tired of living a mundane life as an every man wasting his potential. The way people treated him made us feel sympathy. If he has no redeemable traits or we do not sympathize with him it takes away any drama to his eventual fall to the dark side.
Read what you just said. You said it does not need to make sense to me, but it is up to them to explain it well enough to ME or they are making a bad argument? How does that make sense? So lets sum it up it needs to make sense to you otherwise they have no right to think it is good. When you are a critic you write your review the best you can, you do not go well this did not convince this person therefore my whole view is invalid. Since when is it anyone's job to convince the world of something? Bottom line is you can not convince everyone.
You see, my disagreement with you comes form this line: "Joker from the Dark Knight or Anton from No Country For Old Men are not intended to have a back story."
Basically you would not have wanted to see ANY backstory for Anakin, so no matter what they did you would not have liked it. I agree with you, they really should not have done it unless they would have made it as a compelling negative arc as Breaking Bad; but WW has no redeemable traits. Breaking Bad is not about how he turns evil; it is about how his true evil self becomes more and more revealed. He is always an unsympathetic character. Vader is not supposed to be the same. I don't take too much issue with what they did with Anakin I just wish it would have been edited and touched up a bit.
What I was saying clearly went over your head; what I am saying if I like something and someone else does not; me liking it doesn't have to make sense to them; but I should be able to explain it well enough that it does make sense. If I can't do that, then I am making a bad argument to justify my opinion. It is my job to make the argument if I stated I have an opinion and then someone disagrees with me; or I have both made a bad argument and have bad reasoning for my opinion. I don't have to convince them that the thing is good as I feel, but my reasoning should well enough articulated that the person is satisfied with my opinion even if they don't share it. I have then made a successful argument. No one, and I mean no one in 5 years has done that for TFA.
Anakin is supposed to be somewhat liked. Him and Obi Wan are supposed to be friends. I am not asking them to make him this great noble guy, but damn come on make at least one likable trait he has. No again I disagree. Who can't feel sympathy for doing a job that is mundane and boring for years when you feel you are too smart for that? I think I can speak for a few people feeling sympathy for him on that. It does not justify his evil or anything but it does invoke a hint of sympathy.
Well you seem rather dead set on TFA being a bad film. Even if I were to try and play the devil's advocate I can't think of how anyone would go about trying to argue for this film. I personally do not even like it, therefore I do not care to argue with people on why it is a soulless cash grab. As I said though I think Star Wars has been dead since the OT.
Anakin's story is actually sympathetic, but people don't want to admit that most of us are Anakin; it is a sign of entitlement and ingratitude to think you are 'too smart' for you job. Often times people are not 'too smart' for thier job they just think they are. Those people are entitled and ungrateful people with delusions of power and grandeur, the type that lead directly into a tyrants arms like Palpatine. Luke Skywalker is a timeless hero, Anakin is a timeless heroes fall (Oedipus Rex type story). Rey is not timeless, total product of modern Hollywood. the PT is actually a good story, but because of some bad dialogue and worse delivery, it ended up falling pretty flat. Rey is not a classic story, it is a modern fantasy where the entitlement and ingratitude leads to power and benevolence. I hate it in every way.
The only way to argue it is to provide a objective based argument for why my analysis of the character or story is wrong (if you are arguing that the film is good). One can say they 'liked' it despite is many flaws, and I would say that is acceptable but not good reasoning. For example one can say i like fast and furious movies because they are dumb fun. but Fast and furious movies don't get more praise then they deserve and everyone admits what they are. TFA no one seems to admit that it reduced star wars to just dumb fun movies with no real connection to deeper archetypes and historical narrative.
I know it is sympathetic that is why it failed so bad. I felt absolutely no sympathy for his character. It is like this a character such as Peter Parker from Raimi's Spider-man is a relatable character. A character like James Bond is a wish fulfillment character. Someone we aspire to be like. Peter Parker is not wish fulfillment he is someone we relate to. Awkward, not much money, beaten down by society etc. Magneto honestly is my example of a character like Anakin done right. Despite there being lackluster films in the X-men series there are some solid entries. X-men First Class, X-men Days of Future Past and Logan were rather good. No one complained about Michael Fassbender's Magneto because he fell right in line with Ian Mckellen's.
See okay then here is an issue I have. I do not view the original Star Wars as high octane art in the vein of something like Schindler's List, There Will Be Blood, Children of Men, Godfather etc. Thing is Star Wars fans will fight me tooth and nail and swear that they are on the same level as those films. I disagree. Is it influential, impactful, as well absolutely. It has some artistic merit, set design effects etc. It however is not as well rounded or complete as the films I just provided. So I think that goes both ways dude. People want to have their cake and eat it also.
True, it did fail but it failed from a problem with delivery and bad dialogue. It is worse when they are clearily trying to make a character sympathetic but it just ends up feeling too forced or actually pathetic. IMO Peter Parker from Raimi's Spider-man is not sympathetic because he is just too pathetic and has almost no personality. He is a caricature of bullied, brooding nerd; it is like wish fulfillment for nerds. At least the real spiderman from the comics had a humour about him; Raimi's Peter Parker was a humourless drag. I don't think 'wish fulfilment' is what we aspire to be like, there is a difference between and aspiring hero and a wish fulfillment. James Bond is wish fulfillment because he is what most men would want to be, including his bad qualities. Superman is more like an aspiring hero. Agreed with your take on Fassbender's Magneto; it is mostly because of him that the x-men origins films were any good at all.
See that is my issue I have with people that argue in defense of TFA and the sequels. One of the none arguments is what you are saying here, "Star Wars was never that good anyway". I disagree; something does have to be as dramatic or emotional as Schindler's List to be high quality art. Star Wars took on some pretty deep archetypes and put them together in a unique setting and told a unique and powerful story with great characters. It might not be on the top 10 best films ever like Godfather, but it is definitely in the top 100 if not top 50 of all time films. Anyone that says otherwise is not being fair to the achievement of the first 2 Star Wars films. Empire Strike back is one of the few examples of a damn near perfect film. Perfectly paced, editing, music, action, characters, performances, plot, tension, powerful moments, memorial scenes, even the dialogue was great for a Star Wars film, the cinematography is legendary, everything about ESB is just about perfect.
Disagree about Raimi's Parker. This is a common misconception about him being humorless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA-FD9zoQWw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKf-CWp9Jew
That is a cute outfit did your husband give it to you?
Cheese!
Hey kiddo let mom and dad talk for a minute will ya?
Here is your change!
So no I could not disagree more there. Fassbender's Magneto is the way you do this type of character. Fassbender is also a great actor. Christensen is not, even though he suffered from bad writing he just is not a good actor in general.
A film such as Godfather, Schindler's List and There Will Be Blood are so much more well rounded then a film like Star Wars is. I am not saying it has no artistic merit, it absolutely does but not on the level of the films I listed. See a film like Fast and the Furious has literally no artistic merit. Nothing about it is exceptional. Star Wars does have great effects, costume, music etc. Thing is There Will Be Blood or Schindler's List have all this plus way better writing and dialogue. Not to mention acting that is just perfection.
The original trilogy never had great acting. I honestly feel the reason the prequels get more picked on for it is because now that the nostalgia wore off people are like look the acting is bad. Now do not get me wrong the acting in the prequels was way worse but in the OT there are several moments of cheese lines or sub par acting. Everyone was just so immersed in the original films that they willingly overlook it. As well as overlook plot issues.
For instance why did they not destroy that ship that the droids were on? No life force sure but in a universe where droids can do everything why wouldn't they do it just to be safe? They end up going to that planet anyway. Second if they wanted to hide Luke better why keep the same last name? The droid that Luke buys just so happens to break down right before leaving so then he takes R2D2. Contrived? Yep. Continued.
Similar to how Rey found BB8 and Finn just so happened to land next to Rey.
How is Luke able to communicate with Leia through telepathy? I thought you had to have force training in order to do this? Luke has Leia has not had any. Luke and Leia were obviously not planned to be brother and sister from the start. Quite obvious considering she full on kisses him. Why did it take Vader this long to figure out about his children. He has direct contact with his daughter and someone as powerful as him can not sense that it was her until Return of the Jedi?
NO that is totally different. BB-8 was sent off randomly with no direction on the planet and was not looking for Rey or anyone even close in proximity to rey. There is no reason that the Village that gets destroyed would be geographically close to were Rey was at when they had no relation or interaction. This is a contrivance and a plot breaking one at that.
Luke communicate too Leia, not vice versa. She doesn't talk back to him. he reaches out to her and she gets a feeling.
Yeah, so Luke and leia were not planned on being sister; it was planned that Clemenza be the betraying family member in part to but Richard Castellano died. Sometimes things change.
MAn you are stretching, vader didn't feel his children because he wasn't looking for them. He thought they were dead, and he was filled with anger and hate. Those emotions cloud judgement. This is not contrived at all. He doesn't even sense his daughter. He only notices it because Luke is thinking about it so deeply; again not contrived at all.
This is petty complaints man. I could do the same thing to godfather. How about why doesn't Michael ever try to go after Frabrizio who killed the woman he was crazy about? I know he does in the book but the movie he doesn't. Why does one conversation with Kay get her to go back with him, again it is much more clear why in the books but not the film? Michael just wondering around italy happens to run into a woman that hits him with the "thunderbolt" and the first shop they stop at just so happens to be run by the girl's father? contrived? How about Sonny getting out of the car after being shot dozens of times and the flinging around like fish when getting shot more? How about the 'plan' behind Carlo's betrayal, what if Connie doesn't freak out at Carlo or what if it is not? Gang ambush, how did they know exactly where he would go though and when?
Those are the examples of humor? man his quips sucked. But the point I was making was not about "spiderman" being humourless, it was about Peter Parker being humorless. Peter Parker is not such a drag even before he becomes spiderman. in Raimi's spiderman films he may have got the 'spiderman' character well enough but the Peter Parker character was a complete pathetic loser that I dreaded seeing, which was a vast majority of Spiderman 2.
I actually do not think Christenen is a bad actor. Watch the films on mute one time; and just watch his body language and facial emoting. It is actually quite good. His problem is he takes really bad roles.
Explain how STar Wars is not a well rounded film? Why because it is not as 'dramatic' as schindler's list, or as deep as Godfather? Star Wars and ESB are perfectly rounded films. You are not giving them enough credit; You are falling into the 'it is just space wizards and laser swords' argument. It is not true, and never was. The only thing I would agree on is that those other films have better dialogue (outside of ESB which has perfectly fine 'Shakespearean' type of dialogue.
What is wrong with the acting in the OT? I would say the acting you get from Hamil/Ford is every bit as good as Caan/Duvall. Sure none of them are as good as Pacino, Brando or Day-Lewis; but common those are 3 of arguably the greatest actors ever. You can't say that Star Wars had worse acting in it because it didn't have Marlon Brando. Shit, even Brando's performance in Superman ain't that good. You're arguments here are just so routed in bias against Star Wars. Like you act like you are supposed to think it is just silly stuff.
what did Vader say "bring me the passengers I want them alive" They were not supposed to be shutting them out of the escape pods, I am pretty sure that would kill them. All the gunner says is 'there goes another one'. then the other guy just says there are no life forms so it doesn't matter. to be cont
I disagree I thought his quips were great. Pater Parker is a loser but guess what that what makes him realistic. Not every character is some smooth suave badass like Bond. I myself had major self esteem issues just like Parker in the Raimi films.
I have never seen his other work but honestly after how bad he was in the prequels I honestly did not want to, nor care to.
I did not say it was not a well rounded film I said it is not as well rounded as the films I listed above. You literally marked a point against Sin City for being style over substance. Why am I getting flak for doing basically a similar thing to Star Wars? If a film does not need to be deeper than another why are we holding that against Sin City?
Hamil/Ford as good as Duvall and Caan? Nope disagree. Ford you have the better argument on than Hamil. Duvall and Caan were both nominated for Oscars for their performances in Godfather. Ford and Hamil while quite good in their roles are not among a list of best performances ever like those two. Also Sigourney Weaver was nominated for an Oscar for Aliens so do not pull the action heroes do not ever get nominations excuse. No Brando was good in Superman even though his screen time was brief
As I said, even if you liked spiderman's quips, Peter Parker was a complete drag, like a pathetic loser beta male. All depressed a sad and love sick. Good I hate that character.
Star Wars is not a style over substance film; the lore mythology, and archtype use of the film touches on some very deep story telling. It has both, the only thing it is lacking is some of the powerful dialogue driven scenes that you see in Godfather or Tarantino films. But I am not sure scenes like that would even work in star Wars. It is not that type of film. But it is perfectly rounded for what it is.
Caan did not Deserve on oscar nom for that role; that is an extremely easy role to play. Character description: not very deeply thinking and gets angry fast. really. and how about that fight scene with Carlos, it is comical it is so bad. Duvall I would say was really good, maybe better than Ford. But as I said just becuase Star Wars didn't have quite the greatest performances in Cinema history doesn't mean the films are not deserving to be considered among the best ever. Hamill's performance in ESB is as good as Weaver's in Aliens, Weaver got the nom because she is a woman and action heroines were ground breaking at that time. if you don't believe then Why didn't Ford get a nom for Bladerunner? Sci fi films always get and got overlooked.
Parker is actually me in high school to be quite Frank. So I do not find him to be a drag at all.
What is so deep about it? Dark side vs the light. There are no gray areas in it. Hell even again let me reference Batman Begins. It was the first superhero film to show that some people steal not because they are evil but because they have to. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Remember that line?
Joe Pesci plays a character like this in Goodfellas. No I would not say Hamil's was as good as Weaver's disagree. Weaver is the main driving force behind that film. Hamil while good is not the driving force of what made Star Wars such a cultural hit. Vader and Han Solo are more of icons than Luke himself is.
Ford in Blade Runner? Again the driving force in Blade Runner is not him. He is good in the role but Rutger Hauer is the standout performance there.
That doesn't surprise me; personally I hated people like you in high school; the like drag down crowd because you were a loser in High school felt that represented you whole life. I hated that mentality; I was a shop (mechanic) and sports guy myself; but also was a bit of a loner because everyone annoyed me.
Archetypes, watch the documentary Empire of Dreams. There are many aspects of classical narrative structures in Star Wars that touches on the history of story telling that is imbeded in our cultures (and he even blended aspects of other cultures into it). The Hinduism nature of the force similarity to the Brahman; Warrior monks, ying and yang (Apollonian/Dionysian) morality? there is so much depth to this, the fact you ridicule it just shows you were not looking past the 'space wizards and laser beams' mentality.
Ah but in another post you said that it was bad that Iron man relied so heavily on RDJ? So which is it, do actors and films get special credit for being the driving force of a film; or is that grounds for criticism. Talk about pick and choosing where you criticism; where is the consistency of your analysis? It is okay that Aliens has weaver as the driving for but bad that iron man has RDJ? Also, you are wrong; Luke is one of the most iconic heroes in film history; maybe not as much as Ellen Ripley or Indiana Jones but he is up there in the top 100 at least.
So why didn't Hauer get an oscar nom then? See my point? If Weaver got one, then Hauer certainly should have but he didn't. Why.
When you are bullied, have little money suffer from severe depression and are made fun of for having a disabled family member how are you supposed to feel? I was a quiet person who kept to himself and did not talk much. After moving to a rougher area I had no friends. So yeah I can relate to Parker and you can take a hike for disliking a person like me. I was not perfect but I never picked a fight or bullied anyone however I received that treatment. My life did change but in high school that was my life. How was I supposed to think things would change being an ignorant teenager?
You can do this with other films as well. Since you like the film now it is time to dissect everything it is trying to achieve or alluding to. X-men opens with the holocaust. Erik/Magneto is a holocaust survivor. Therefore you understand his bitterness to repression. X-men deals with racism,sexism, repression, judgement, and minorities. Even though it deals with this I do not think it is anything close to a film such as Schinder's List. Alluding to something does not mean you achieved that level of depth.
Because RDJ is the only reason it is not considered a paint by numbers Batman Begins clone. RDJ has charisma and whit. So much so sometimes he makes you forget the lackluster rest of the film. Pepper Potts, and Rhode the supporting cast have no function to the plot except for to provide something for RDJ to bounce off of and make jokes. Basically stand in characters. Rachael Dawes investigates Crane so deeply finds herself in the middle of the nightmare. Gordon is fed up with the corruption in his unit. Point is it is almost like every one has their own little short story you can get invested in. With Iron Man RDJ is the only character you give a damn about. Aliens again had a better supporting cast than Iron Man did. Hudson, Burke, bishop and even the little girl do more for the plot than simply be a stand in for the lead to bounce off of. So no my argument is consistent.
To be fair Blade Runner got appreciated later. Point I was as making is Hauer was more standout in the film than Ford. Continued.
Luke is iconic because of the film series he is in. What surrounds him is so iconic he attaches onto it. See with RDJ he is the driving force and what surrounds him is bleh but he is truly iconic and I can not deny that. Therefore RDJ's Iron Man is a more iconic character than Luke.
shareOkay, RDJ gave a more iconic performance, no argument from me. But does that mean that Luke is not iconic as a character? That is Bullshit. Just because he was standing next to darth vader does not mean that he himself was not a iconic performance.
shareLuke was an icon but I truly do not think people would talk nearly as much about Luke if Luke was in a mediocre film series. That is my opinion but I do not care for Luke much there I admit a bias.
shareI don't think Iron man, Batman, superman, or any other iconic hero would be discussed as much if they were in mediocre films.
I don't care much for Luke either; but he is an iconic hero. Personally I much preferred Han over Luke.
I already disproved this. Iron Man is a mediocre film. The lead is so good that it distracts people from the mediocrity of the film. What is exceptional about Iron Man? The cinematography? The effects, the music, the screenplay, the supporting cast? No it is the lead dude. Take him away Iron Man is no better than the Thor film.
Christopher Reeve while great as Clark Kent/Superman is in a much more well rounded film. Look what it pioneered for superhero films. Did Iron Man pioneer anything let me ask that? Superman has iconic music that everyone remembers, so many different sets it had to do. It had to do Krypton, Kansas, Metropolis, the fortress of solitude. Raimi as well as Christopher Nolan cite the Donner films as inspiration for their films. Iron Man while competent did not bring anything new to the table. RDJ even admitted a lot of the script was not even done when filming, they relied on him ad libbing many of his lines.
I don't know, get over it. My parents were abusive alcoholics and drug addicts. Like at home was absolute hell. I didn't give a shit and didn't become a mopey drag loser that thought life was over. I focused on challenging myself and overcoming any obstacles. I gave little shit if I got the approval of my peers. The only 'bad' thing I can say is I developed a bad temper. So got in lots of fights; I didn't have friends (didn't much want them either) but I no one f'd with me. I hated bullies to, I used to pick fights with people that I thought were bullying other kids. But the point I am trying to make, is I cannot relate to people like Peter Parker, that were all mopey about their highschool life and let that attitude carry on into adulthood. I think it is pathetic.
I don't get the point you are trying to make; but it seems you are still just trying to prove your hypocritical bias of "star wars is overrated" and jumping through whatever hoops you can to get there. No matter what you say, Star Wars is NOT overrated and deserves to be in the top 50 of all time films.
I can say the same thing about Batman Begins; the only thing it has going for it is Christian Bale. It is not true but I can say it just as easily.
I liked Iron Man better than BB; at least Ironman doesn't feel like a prequel. But i might be biased because I really was fond of Tim Burton's Batman and especially Jack Nicholson's Joker. So when I watched BB I was underwhelmed. At least I admit my biases though instead of trying to prove my biases are the truth, like some people here.
The point I am making is Sci films get overlooked by the oscars and the only reason Weaver got an nom is because she was a break out female action hero which was 'new' in the 80's.
I am over it. I learned how to cope but everyone copes in their own way. Just because I coped in a different way does not mean my way was wrong. Years of counseling made me realize this. I helped donate to antibullying programs all the time. Do not sit up there and get judgmental. Notice unlike you I never judged the person you were or how you coped.
Your opinion. In my opinion it is overrated I do not care what you say. Remember how you said Parker is a mopey loser I do not care what you say. I will do the same thing to you here. You dug your heels in on it deserving it's rating well I am digging my heels in on thinking it is overrated. Annoying huh?
No you can not. I proved how the supporting cast are not just stand ins with no effect on the plot. You had no retort to this. You also had no retort to how it has a 4 act structure. That is not a setup film by any measure.
Batman Begins is a better film than Batman 1989 is. critics liked it more check Rottentomatoes and metacritic and the public received it better check imdb. Do not say oh well imdb is a popularity contest and people do not adjust their ratings. Blatantly ignorant claim. Avengers was super popular and is not on the top 250 when it used to be. Batman Begins is still safe and secure on that list. Iron Man is nowhere to be found.
Fair point I can give you this one.
Jesus, you needed counseling to get over high school? man just drink a bit or join the military; that will put life into perspective for you faster than counseling. You are not being objective, that is annoying. You have made your subjective opinion and think that can exist simultaneously with reality. That is annoying to. Subjectivity does not trump objectivity. Those that think it does are annoying.
I am not doing a full break down of Batman begins; this is arleady getting wordy enough.
here is another difference between us; I might have a nostalgic foundness of 1989 batman; but I can also admit that Batman begins is a better film even if I didn't enjoy it as much. And what top 250 list are you talking about? Imdb? that list is a joke; there are so many movies that should not be on there, it is 100% based on mass voting from a popular opinion. For example Return of the JEdi is on that list (far above Batman Begins I might add) and it absolutely does not deserve to be.
Um yeah when one of your family members gets teased and you get beaten to the point of going to hospital for trying to defend them, it does things to you... That and the fact that I told the principal and he literally did nothing to the bullies for doing that. Do not pretend to know my life's story. I did not comment or make fun of yours back off bud.
Translation no retort to my points.
I like Superman better than Star Wars. I can admit by the masses Star Wars is considered a better film even though I disagree. I agree there are movies that should not be on there thing is you appealed to popularity first. Imdb is the largest user based voting website for movies ever. Okay then why is Avengers not on there? That is one of the most popular films ever. It had a bigger cultural impact and made way more than Batman Begins did. Explain that.
They needed confirmation they got the plans. They could just shoot everything and hope they got them. They were a little smarter than that, or at least Vader was.
At the time they gave him the name skywalker there was not a plan to have him be in hiding like that. that would be like me saying why is there no mention of Hyman Roth in the first Godfather film, considering what a big player he is in part 2? it wasn't planned yet.
There is a difference between a convenience and a contrivance. it is convenient that the driods ended up with Luke but logistically it is not that much of stretch. Leia was on her way to Obi-wan with those plans. Obi-wan was watching over Luke; they were geographically close and Leia's ship and the escape pod landed geographically close to where Obi-wan was. It makes sense that the Jawa's picked up lost driods and their first stop would be one of the nearest farms. Most of the droids they had were junk anyway; only r2 and c3po were in good condition. yeah a little convenient but not plot breaking.
Seems a bit more ignorant to risk letting it go when the plans could fall into other hands don't you think. I would rather destroy the ship and take my chances. Why not destroy the ship and then go check?
Okay then that is where the prequels messed up. Although fair enough not necessarily a fault of the OT.
That is very convenient in my book. So it breaks down as soon as Luke is about to leave R2D2. Come on.
If you just destroy everything you have no way to confirm if you mission was successful or not. Think like a military strategist. You have to be able to confirm the objective is secured.
Not really that convenient. Not any more convenient than The hit on Sonny in Godfather, the plot is a pretty contrived thing, they had to know Sonny was going to be available when he was, they had to know which road he would be on and when. It was not like it was a drive he did daily. In Star Wars at least you have the convenience that all the characters were geographically close to each other and it was a scarce environment in that area there was not that many people in the first place. As I said no more convenient than the hit on Sonny.
I am rather sure destroying the ship would guarantee those plans were destroyed.
So therefore since there is a convenience in Godfather that takes away the convenience in Star Wars?
The point I am trying to make is if you dissect any film enough you will find flaws. Godfather and Part 2 are in the top 10 all time films; but that does not negate the fact that Star wars and Empire are in the top 50 all time film. If you say they are not you are objectively wrong.
shareI never said Star Wars was not in the top 50 best films ever. I do not think it deserves to be though.
shareYou said 'star wars is overrated". It is not. It is a top 50 best film; and it deserves to be. You are 100% running on hypocritical bias against it. Just like all people that in some way try to defend the Sequel trilogy. You are so unbelievably cliche (like an NPC) the 'TFA is fine movie because Star wars is overrated anyway' crowd. Damn, what a waste of my time you ended up being.
shareIt is not overrated in your opinion, in my opinion it is vastly overrated. I think tfa is a piece of trash. Even though I think Star Wars is overrated I do think it is good but overrated.
shareStar Wars is a top 50 film by every objective measure. To say otherwise is just wrong. Look I can do it, Dances with Wolves I don't like I think it is boring and pretentious. However, it is a great film; arguably one of the best films ever. It IS NOT overrated. An example of an overrated film is Shawshank Redemption, which is a film that gets praised highly because of the way it was pleasing across on spectrum on a very generic and superficial level. It does everything good and therefore gets treated as great, that is overrated. Star Wars does many things great and takes many chances and excels. that is NOT an overrated film neither is the sequel.
shareI never denied this. Again appealing to popularity. No Shawshank Redemption is a better film than Star Wars actually. Mainly with much better acting.
Star Wars does a few things great therefore makes people overlook the mediocre aspects. I already pointed out to you how Leia and Luke being brother and sister was not planned and it is glaringly obvious. It actually makes that kiss scene quite creepy and gross honestly.
I am going to appeal to popularity as well. Shawshank Redemption by every measure is considered one of the best films ever. Nothing you say can change that.
I think you are biased again. The acting in Shawshank is not that great. Andy is a stoic, how hard is that to play. Red kind of is a stoic character too, real tough acting jobs there.
What is mediocre about the first 2 star wars films. You can't judge it retroactively like that; you can't say that because something was ill concieved in the 3rd film that means the 1st 2 are not that great. That would be like saying godfather part 1 and part 2 are overrated because part 3 sucked. That is a joke of an argument man.
Shawshank is number 1 on IMDB; you used the appeal to popularity actually as a fallacy. You did not make an argumetn and then appeal to popularity to support that arugment you just appealed to popularity. This is over. I am not explaining this to you anymore. I have better ways to spend my time. don't reply to me again or this is going to get ugly and then I will add you to my ignore list.
You committed a fallacy first. Put me on ignore I do not care. You are a joke, learn manners next time.
shareProduction for TLJ was estimated at 300 million, marketing at nearly 200 million and the film grossed 1.32 billion; $620.2 million in the United States and Canada, and $712.6 million in other territories. Studios received an average of 53% of the box office gross domestically and 41% of the international gross. so about average was Domestic the studio got 328.706 million plus international 292.166. So, out of a total budget of around 500 million they made back around 600 million at best. That means a estimated profit of 100 million at best. Maybe they did make a profit on TLJ but for star wars it was a gross under performance. each STar Wars film should have cleared Endgame size numbers easily. But the degrading quality caused the normal audience to lose interest.
shareWe are not talking about what it should have made. We are talking about if it made a profit or not. Last Jedi did make a profit. As big of one as expected nope but the point is it made one. This is no different than the prequels. Why are people freaking out so bad? Phantom Menace made more than any of the prequels. Yet once the series went dormant for a few years people showed up in droves to eat up the latest cash grab of Star Wars. History will repeat itself.
shareAt best estimate, it made a profit; barely. After taxes they barely broke even. and the cost to run lucasfilm is not included in the production budget; that means salaries and facilities/expenses. They lost money, period. The film itself may have broken even (or even turned a slight profit) but the studio has only made money on TFA so far; everything else they are losing money on.
Edit: for fun I looked it up. the average salary at Lucas films is $79370 and there was 2000 employees in 2015. This means that on the average year Disney loses $158,740,000 per year just on salaries at lucas films. Yeah, TLJ took 18 months to produce. They lost money dude; the more research I do no this, the more it is confirmed; Disney not only is not seeing an RoE they are also losing money continuously on Star Wars.
The Mandalorian is going over well. Therefore it will make people forgive Disney I think.
shareYeah, that is what I fear; Disney actually won't feel any negative repercussions for making such a terrible trilogy. It might take them an extra 5 years to see their RoE but it will come. One descent show and all is seemingly forgotten. I think that is B.S. and a sign that the modern audience is not really an audience of art, just consumers. Don't think just consume.
shareWelcome to 2020 bud. People just consume they do not care about that stuff anymore. See that is the issue I can even have with the MCU films. No longer is it a director's vision of a hero. It is a producers paradise. Like it is like this. A lot of Marvel films feel like they are made in a factory. Like okay lets go over these beats and put it together do not take a risk because we can play it safe.
When you look at Donner's Superman it had personality to it. It was not about appealing to the masses it was his vision. I prefer an artist to have creative freedom than being put on a producer's tight leash. Films like Superman the movie, Batman 1989, Spider-man 2, Sin City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Logan are example of when a director gets creative freedom. Notice how they stand out and have iconic scenes everyone remembers? Notice how they pioneer certain trends? Notice how it feels original?
The average Marvel film feels like a copy and paste of whatever trends are popular or came before. Sadly that is the direction we are headed.
I have not had too much of a problem with the MCU; it always felt like a show format and not a film. Just a episodic high production series and the Avengers films were like season finales. I enjoyed a majority of the MCU films for what they were, very streamlined entertainment. But the longer it goes on the more devoid of a soul it feels. I think endgame was a good place to end it so I won't see anymore.
With the 'artistic' freedom I found it to be hit or mmiss; Batman 1989, TDK, and Logan loved. Sin City and BB were okay. But I hated spiderman 2. Until TFA came out I said that was the worse big budget movie I have ever seen. Also from the sound of it Rian Johnson had a lot of creative freedom in TLJ, see how that turned out. Creative freedom I think is okay when you are not tied into anything else, or you can divorce the story enough from the source material that the creator is not as restricted. Logan for example had little to do with the rest of the x-men films and can almost stand alone. The Star WArs Sequel was not at all stand alone, they were trying to force it to be part of the saga even if it did not fit.
MCU films have become that in the last 5 years; but I don't think they started out that way.
See and that is my issue. It is designed for people just to consume and not really think about. It is a big budget tv show. It feels like those cartoon shows that had 22 episodes in a season but only like 10 of them move the plot forward. The remaining twelve episodes are filler to just waste time, that do not move the plot forward.
I do not understand how you could think Sin City was simply ok. The thing about Sin City is oozes style. Sometimes something is so lacking of style it hurts it. Sin City literally puts the comic book on the screen, therefore it feels immersive. Most times with a comic book adaption you feel like okay we got that piece of the character but never the whole thing. Like Okay we got a piece of the pie but the rest is not there. Sin City was not a comic book adaption more like a translation. Batman Begins to me is under appreciated.
It is the prime example of a reboot done correctly. It does not recycle anything from past Batman or superhero films. We had never seen Batman's origin on the big screen. It was only ever alluded to in other films we never saw him become Batman. It going back and forth to past and present was also new for a superhero film. Mentor turning villain was also new. Iron Man copied this film almost beat for beat. Spider-man 2 was terrific of course my opinion. The effects were so good it was able to win an Oscar for visuals. Something no superhero movie has done since.
Thing is the creative freedom could have worked, but you needed a more creative mind to start other than Abrams.
Yeah, I get what you are saying; if you go to a movie you want to watch a movie, not an episodic TV series. I get that. I was mostly Okay with MCU because of my expectations. I would never consider any of them great movies but most are okay and entertaining. But most of the criticism of them I agree with.
Okay, to be honest; I do really like Sin City; but it is a style over substance film. I am not familiar with the comic so I am going off the film alone; no characters have an arc. They are who they are and it is really fast stories that happen and are over with. There are entertaining scenes; I especially like Marv and the "Hard Goodbye" story. But let us be honest, the film and characters had no real depth or growth.
I assume you mean BB was a 'reboot done correctly'? Yes, I agree but IMO it was underwhelming but it was a nice set up for the Dark Knight; I like it better in retrospect post DK I liked it less when it came out though. Iron man may have copied the formula but it also produced a more entertaining film. Iron man didn't feel like it was just a set up film, IMO BB does. S-M 2 IMO was one of the most boring films I have ever watched 20 minutes of action almost 2 hours with Peter Parker's patheticness turned up to 11 and him playing with the idea that he didn't want to be spiderman after only a couple of years of doing it. It was like the stupidity of TDKR's batman's body being totally destroyed after just being batman for about 18 months. Visually it was fine; story and character, it was garbage.
True; I think JJ is a competent film maker and good and recreating visuals; but my god keep that guy away from script and story writing.
Yep okay we can agree on this.
Style over substance is not a bad thing. Sometimes the most simple stories make the best films. Burton's Batman films are absolutely style over substance but that is part of the charm. Something does not have to be deep in order to be great. Let me ask this is Mad Max Fury Road deep when you strip it down to just the screenplay? Also no characters do have arcs in Sin City they are simply flat arcs.
Completely disagree about Batman Begins being a setup film. The film has a beginning middle and an end. It could end at Batman Begins without a sequel and it would be fine. The door is open for a sequel but there does not have to be one. Iron Man more entertaining? Seriously? Iron Man has RDJ the film relies so heavily on him it sometimes hinders the film. BB has a much richer screenplay. There are a lot of the cast that have an overall effect on the plot. The cinematography as well as Hans Zimmer's music completely stomp Iron Man. I can give Iron Man overall better lead and better editing beyond that it is a wash and BB beats it. List to me a line in Iron Man as deep or nuanced as this line from BB.
"But I know the rage that drives you. That impossible anger strangling the grief, until the memory of your loved one is just poison in your veins. And one day, you catch yourself wishing the person you loved had never existed so you'd be spared your pain."
Sounds to me like you are fanboying Nolan a little too much. Batman Begins does not stand on its own IMO; it feels just as much as a origins story as Iron Man does. It was as clear that Liam Neeson was the mentor bad guy as much as it was clear Jeff Bridges was; I diagree that one was more obvious then the other. Also They are different. The begining of BB sees a lot of time o fthe mentor and student relationship; Ironman does not see that at all.
Fury Road is not a deep film; but it doesn't need to be; same as Sin City. They are style films not substance films. They are great for what they are but because they are not really exploring any character arcs, they are just mostly spectacle entertainment.
With Spiderman 2, it would be fine if this was like the 4 film in the series and he had actually spent some time as spiderman; the way it comes across is within a couple of years of his uncle dying and him embracing the 'with great power comes great responsibility" mentality he wants to give it up because he is in puppy love with some girl. It is pathetic, no other way to describe it. BTW I don't really like superman 2 all that much either.
I agree both Abrams and Snyder and not struck narrative or character writers. They should stick with directing.
No it has nothing to do with that at all. I do not like anything Nolan has done since Inception. It feels like an origin story because it as an origin story as is Superman the movie, Spider-man etc. Being an origin story does not mean you are not standalone. Also no not true at all. Liam Neeson was cleverly disguised as Ras Al Ghul by calling himself Henri Ducard. When Scarecrow reveals he works for Ras Al Ghul, you question and go but didn't he die in the fire? Then at the mansion the real Ras Al Ghul is revealed to be none other than Liam Neeson himself. The Iron Man twist was nowhere near as thought out as that one. So nope disagree here.
You also provided nothing in terms of the script like I did. No line in Iron Man was as subtle or nuanced as that line from Batman Begins.
See but again this is where you can't have it both ways. You want to argue that Star Wars does not need to be as deep as Godfather or Schindlers list to be considered great. Well same thing goes for Mad Max Fury Road and Sin City if that is the case. See you are drawing a line and your line is well character arcs that are not flat. Flat character arcs are still arcs. If you are allowed to draw that line in the sand I can very easily go okay nope sorry it does not have the depth Schindler's list does nor the dramatic weight therefore it is not in the same league. So which is it?
Also bologna. Why is there a set time to when he can be sick of being Spider-man? He did spend some time as Spider-man a few years you just admitted. A lot of it does have to do with love but that is not the whole reason.
I believe theres a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble. And finally gets us to die with pride. Even though sometimes we have to be steady and give up the thing we want most, even our dreams.
Dunkirk was a far better film than inception. What I mean is that Begins feels like a film that is building to another film. It feels more like a prequel than it does an origins/episode 1 type story. That is just my opinion only though.
Okay so because I didn't pull a script quote proves nothing. I don't even know what you are trying to prove with the quote. You want a comparable quote from Iron man? here:
"Obadiah Stane : [to Stark] You really think that just because you have an idea, it belongs to you? Your father, he helped give us the atomic bomb. Now what kind of world would it be today if he was as selfish as you?"
That is every bit as impactful as Ducard's 'i know the anger that drivers you' quote.
Again as I said in my other post, star wars does not need to be a top 10 of all time films to be great. Godfather and part 2 (and schindlers list) are easily top 10/top 20 of all time. That does not mean star wars can't be in the top 50.
Come on, spiderman 2 Peter parker was portrayed as being pathetic and IDC what you say; maybe you like watching a mopey pathetic loser for 2.5 hours but I don't.
Until about 10 years ago there was no Donner superman "films" there was 1 and it was nowhere near as good as Star Wars. That is why if you look at most 'best of all time' lists star wars is there Superman is not.
Disagree I would put Inception above Dunkirk. No I can't disagree more. Batman Begins feels like an origin story. Batman Begins has a 4 act structure. Act 1 Training with Ras Al Ghuland it shows the story in flashbacks to show us the tragedy of Bruce Wayne. Act 2 Prepares to become Batman, makes allies and prepares to bring down the crime boss Falconi. Act 3 investigates the whole water vaporizing device has run ins with scarecrow and saves his woman that was investigating Crane. Act 4 Realizes who was really pulling the strings and who the real villain mastermind is of the whole thing. Seriously this is a film nothing about it is like a prequel.
You honestly think that is as well written as what I provided? Okay how about this.
We underestimated certain of Gotham Citizens such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal.
I do not give a damn if Star Wars is rated over Superman on an all time list. I am entitled to like it more or even consider it better. Superman is still a highly regarded film. If you want to play the game of appealing to the authority I can just look at the force awakens and say well it is higher received than the prequels by the majority therefore it is better. Lets not go there and do not be a hypocrite okay bud. I easily could drown you out with the reception of Batman Begins and Spider-man 2 also. Notice I did not though.
shareI am getting tired of this; the point I was trying to make is you have a clear biased against star wars and therefore your opinion in this argument has much less wait. You fall right into the "star wars was never great crowd" which is totally false and I am sick of seeing that argument. I never criticised superman. I personally don't like it but never tried saying 'it was never that great anyway' like you did. So if you want to point a source of our conversation breaking down, look at yourself bud.
Spiderman you might like, but he is a pathetic, dorky and mopey hero that I found to be an utter drag to watch. the 3 spiderman films are nowhere near as good or as impactful as the OT Star Wars was, and the OT Star Wars has survived the test of time. Raimi's spiderman are a lukewarm afterthought now. I was not appealing to authority, I was more appealing to popularity (learn your fallacies before casting accusations) they are not the same thing. I have never been a hypocrite, you have been by trying to somehow prove 'star wars was never that great and is overrated' those are your words. But than you try pointing out how superman, spiderman, and Batman begins are all great films. They are not and they have not survived the test of time like star wars. They are not even as good of films by nearly every measure. So you are the hypocrite and now you are doing that thing were you try making it seem like I am when the whole thing started with you using the 'star wars is overrated' fallacy. this is tiresome to say the least.
You did not criticize Superman but you did appeal the the authority by saying Star Wars was better received. Notice I never said anything about Star Wars's reception. I said in my book it is overrated. I personally do not think it is as great as it's reception would have you believe.
A film having more impact does not make it better. Star Wars is more impactful on film than Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings is a better trilogy than Star Wars is. Even go off of reception LOTR stomps on it. Raimi's Spider-man are not lukewarm actually Spider-man 2 critically is right up there with TDK. So wrong again.
Spider-man 2, Batman Begins and Superman are better films than Star Wars in my book. If you want to appeal to the authority then Batman Begins is better than Burton's Batman. Batman Begins beats it in reception at every turn. So if I am not allowed to disagree with the majority neither are you.
Again that is not an appeal to authority, that is called appeal to popularity. And though it is a fallacy in some context it can be used as a support for an argument but not the argument itself (or it becomes a fallacy) what I did I would say was borderline fallacy.
Way to gloss over the other 2 points I made; picking things out of context is a sign you have a weak position. the Raimi Spiderman trilogy is hot garbage compared to star wars. The 3rd was a joke and the 2nd was a dragging mope-feast with a pathetic spiderman. At least the 1st one had William Dafoe or it wouldve been garbage too.
you book sucks and needs to be closed. By every objective measure in terms of characters, writing, pacing, camera work, music, cinematography, acting, is better in Star Wars. You can make an argument ath spiderman 2 had better choregraphy, but you can't say that Superman does. I mean just the scene where Luis and Superman are flying is so comically bad it ruins basically anything else the film offers. Again, it is appeal to popularity, stop getting the fallacy name wrong. Appeal to authority would be bringing up critics' reviews, not general audience reception.
Okay semantics. The point is you are doing the exact same thing the Disney Star Wars defenders do. Not once did I appeal to authority or popularity. You did the fallacy first.
Nope not at all. Spider-man helped get the superhero genre back to being a huge bankable thing. X-men was only a mild success, not since Batman 1989 has there been a superhero film with as much cultural impact. By every objective measurement the second one is considered better. Since you committed a fallacy I will also.
Acting better in Star Wars do not make me laugh. Writing yeah with lines like only a master of evil darth. Cringe! Superman barely has any choreography in it. Lois you mean not Luis. Anyhow that is one of the most memorable scenes in cinema actually. It is like Peter Pan coming to life. Superman did in fact win an Oscar for visual effects.
How is appealing to general audience reception any better than appealing to critical reception? You committed a fallacy either way. Funny how the Disney fans are not allowed to do this but you are.
whatever, I did not really on a fallacy as my argument; it was in support of my argument. that is not semantics because it changes the nature of the reasoning. A fallacy is a fallacy if it takes place instead of reasoning. I never did that. So you don't understand what a fallacy is apparently.
Get the f out of here; spiderman does not get made unless X-men saw the success popularity it saw. Everyone admits that it was X-men that relaunched the superhero genre, Spiderman's success just proved x-men wasn't a fluke.
The acting is great in Star Wars, you are being biased again. It is the dialogue that many find corny/campy. But it is just a Shakespearean type of dialogue, it is supposed to be that way. What is wrong with that line by Obi-wan, certainly no less corny that "with great power comes great responsibility". Cringe. Or how about this gem "go get'em tiger". Seriously could you be any more bias in your opinion.
No i didn't see my explanation above about what makes a fallacy. You are using the term wrong and failing to understand the art of argumentation. it is getting annoying. In fact this is just going to devolve from here. Go talk to your counselor more, ask why you find pathetic characters so compelling and take issue with keeping your subjective opinion in place.
Notice I did not even do it to support my argument. You did which showcases it was weak.
Spider-man is what made the big bucks pal. Technically Blade came before X-men did. So if we are going there wrong again. Spider-man could not have been more different in style and tone from X-men. Superman came before Batman which means it would not have been made either. I said Spider-man did help make the superhero franchise bankable again. This is an objective fact. I never said X-men did not help.
No it isn't it is trash. Go go get'em tiger was awesome straight out of the comic books. Cheese in a good way. Unlike Star Wars which takes itself so seriously when really it is unintentionally cheese. Raimi's film are intentionally cheese.
I love mopey characters. You like badasses like Han Solo which I can not stand. Notice how I never insulted your personal life. You are a low individual. I won't sink to your level.
i was there opening night, and I hated TPM as soon as the credits rolled,
the next day, i returned the toys i had bought (on toy opening night)
Few people hated it opening night. it took years for it to set in. In fact there was not a real 'internet' hate of TPM until Red Letter Media and plinkett's exaggerated bashing of the film.
sharefair enough, i just wanted to point out there were a few of us
shareFair enough, I feel you on that. That is how I feel about TFA now, there were a few like me that hated it on the first viewing.
But it is more frustrating with TFA because by this time people should more universally hate it like they did TPM (which is now rightfully universally disliked). Both are bad films, TFA is clearly worse written in terms of plot and characters. So why is it still relatively praised? It shouldn't be.
my hunch is that will fade over time
shareI wish, but it is more likely the consumer will just move on to the next product. don't think just consume. They are already ready to forgive Star Wars and TLJ and TROS just because of the Mandolirian being a descent show. They have produced 4 crap movies, 1 acceptable movie, and 1 descent show and all is seemingly forgiven and moved on from. Kind of depressing really. Why didn't Lucas receive this much forgiveness?
shareWith film series it is kind of interesting; each failed for different reasons. with Alien there was not much story to tell after Aliens so the problem became every forced sequel actually took away from the impact of the Alien creature and mystery. with Terminator the story until Genysis was going good but the problem was T3 and T Salvation were horribly executed films that had story potential but ended up just painful to watch movies. After those 2 failed they tried the rehash route, and rehash is almost always a death note for a franchise.
Blade Runner 2049 I did not hate and did not find it 'insulted' the original, it didn't try to 'live up' to teh original either but just tried to be its own thing. the only problem I had with it is it was long and kind of boring.
Star Wars was failed from like a combination of all these different problem, including mismanagement from the original Artist himself. But it was not dead until TFA; TLJ and TROS were just walking corpses of the franchise; most say I am wrong and TLJ was what killed it, I disagree because I view TLJ as a result of the poor story development of TFA.
". Personally I always found Star Wars to be vastly overrated"
This is common among people that ended up not hating TFA and the ST; they were never really 'big fans' in the first place.
But yes, Star Wars is done. IMO not even the Madalorian can 'resurrect' this franchise.
I agree with you on the Aliens series but disagree about Terminator slightly. The only good films are Terminator 1 and 2. The only Terminator film that had potential after that was Terminator Salvation. The reason I say that is because that was the only one that did not try to ride on the coat tails of the first two. Terminator 3 is a bad fan fiction remake of part 2. Unfortunately Terminator Salvation was horribly executed. That was the series last chance to be good but again they blew it.
I disagree on Blade Runner 2049 as well. I love the original Blade Runner but dare I say it I think Blade Runner 2049 is better than the original. If the original Blade Runner was so perfect why are there so many cuts of it? I say that and I absolutely adore the original. The second one has a more concrete story as well as a amazing cinematography. This is a film that could have easily went disastrously wrong. Blade Runner did not need a sequel but by damn it got one and it was amazing. Blade Runner 2049 will be considered one of the greatest films of all time.
I agree about why Star Wars is failing but I think it was dead after the prequel trilogy. Of course it will always make money because of the name. However in terms of artistic integrity yeah no.
The Mandalorian has been a pretty big hit with fans. However yeah I am kind of glad Star Wars is dead personally I am quite sick of it.
T3 kind of had to happen to continue the story; T2 left 'judgement day' being prevented and no rise of the machines. So in order to continue the story; there needed to be a story to restore the rise of machines. Unless they were going to do just a pure prequel to Terminator. T3 I actually like what they do with the Timeline despite the movie itself being an almost poor man's T2. Both T3 and TS had potential but just ended up being poorly executed films.
I would probably have to watch 2049 again, but I just mostly remember being very bored while watching it in a way I was not bored watching the original. But yes, the film was not terrible and I would say did not do anything to say it went wrong. It did not need a sequel but the one we got does not detract from the original. So it was not a bad film, despite that I didn't really get blown away by it.
Well in terms of 'artistic integrity' Star Wars died the second George Lucas was not involved. He is the artist so everything he did (whether we like it or not) kept the integrity alive (even if not popular or good). A good artist can make bad art.
I was not sick of Star Wars, I really 'loved' the universe and there was so many potential stories to tell within that universe. The video games like KOTOR and teh Jedi Knight series, the extended universe and beyond, there was so much potential. Now not so much.
That is just it though there should be no sequel to Terminator 2 period! You bringing Arnold back takes away from his emotional sacrifice made at the end of Terminator 2. It should have been a pure prequel to the first 2. That way you could even have a Arnold possibly cameo as being a guy they modeled the t800 after. See and it would not take away his sacrifice. T3 had no potential in my book, I agree on Salvation though. It had potential unfortunately that film as well sucked.
To each his own. I love both Blade Runner and the sequel. The heart breaking thing is it tanked at the box office. This is what truly breaks me in half. Here we have films like TFA, Last Jedi, Captain Marvel among many other films that make gobs of cash. Yet when a director puts true passion into a film it gets no attention. The fact that very little cgi or green screen was used is awesome. He did not water it down or take away from the universe. He added to it with breath taking cinematography, excellent performances and terrific music. It is why I did my best to encourage people to see it, I want more movies like this not the ones I mentioned but you know people...
Disagree here. Yes an artist can make bad art. Thing is sometimes a project going into different hands can indeed help it. How did he keep the integrity alive? By making bad prequels? Lucas can not be the director, he needs help with direction.
I am sick of it. Those movies like a song on the radio have been beaten into my head by so many people that I am exhausted.
I guess what I mean with T3, the idea of Judgment day being inevitable and the rise of the machines coming no matter what is where i saw potential. But in that film there should have been no robots form the future again. It should have been just John leading a fringe group trying to stop a growing military industrial complex produce early model terminator type machines, like they were showing a little bit. No TX and no ARnold. That could have been something, then follow up with Salvation and maybe one more film which ends with Reese getting sent back in time to close the circle. It would have been perfect.
I will say Blade Runner 2049 should have done better, it did not deserve to tank. It is far, far better than TFA, TLJ and Captain Marvel. It is a good point that more people should see films like it instead of the Disney overproduced soulless cash grabs. I agree the music cinematography and performances of 2049 are great. Maybe I will need to watch it again, I might have just been in a bad mood when I saw it and that is why I was so bored. I think my biggest issue was I just never cared about Ryan Gossling's character to invest, that might have been my hang up.
So in your opinion does an editor get artistic credit for a book that is heavily edited. Who's art is it then?
Just gonna through this out there, if you are so sick of it why participate in the discussion? Not trying to sound rude on this but if you are sick of discussing it why continue?
Okay in the case of it just following John Connor I can see but no Arnold and no TX. I honestly though am good with the first two and it ending. Not everything needs to be a franchise. I rather something be short and sweet then eventually dwindle into bland generic trash. Which most often times happens.
You wonder why we do not get more effort put into films well let the box office results show you why. Watch this video analyzing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JP3Rv-x3uI
Meh I have been battling depression since this covid so why not kill a little time.
Yeah I kind of agree; it should have just stayed at 2 films and been left perfect. I was interested in seeing a prequel type film and I don't mind the idea of it as a franchise; but if they were going to do it they should have done it better.
You know, watching that video reminded me a few things that I liked and a few things I didn't like about 2049; one of the things I didn't like about it is for a while the film was trying to make you think that Joe was going to be Rachel and Deckard's child. Clearly that wasn't going to be the case but the fact they made Joe and the audience start to think that was like something out of a bad high school drama or sitcom. I wish they would have removed that completely, the film would have been better IMO.
LOL, it makes sense.
This is what happens when people keep on wanting something to continue. Eventually the creativity gets flushed away.
That is why I liked it personally. It misled you into thinking it was going that route only to break the cliche.
True; something can only go on for so long before it stops feeling unique; like the simpsons show.
I don't know; I didn't like it because it seemed like it was trying to mislead you just to do that. If you picked up on it before the reveal, it kind of makes it seem silly rather than awing. I wish they would have just not even bothered with trying to make you think it was him. We already got the reveal that he was a replicant did we also need the psyche out reveal that he was NOT Deckard's and Rachel's child. It felt almost cliche to try to do the reverse reveal especially since the film was desperately trying to get you to think it was him just so it could 'subvert' it. I don't know maybe I have just seen too many movies so everything feels cliche now. Shutter Island for example didn't fool me one bit; I called exactly what would happen within 10 minutes of the movie.
Yep the Simpsons is a prime example.
See that is just it, just because you can predict something does not mean it is bad. I mean hell in Star Wars the good guy will win. Yep I saw the twist of Shutter Island from a mile away. It is why when people said oh my gosh one of the best twists ever I am like did I miss something?
At least an attempt to subvert expectations is admirable. Rather than just play it safe cough cough TFA.
True, I did not say blade runner or shutter island are bad films. Just that I could not really appreciate them because the twist they were kind of depending on ended up lacking all impact. I think both are goods movies; I just think they would be better if they did not rely on a twist for the story. I wish the twist would be, there is no twist.
I don't like the whole concept of 'subvert expectations' because most of the time subvert becomes undermine. Purposely set the story up one way and then mid way just make something happen purely because it is the one thing no one thought; ie Aria Killing the night king or Kylo killing Snoke. If you tell a story right there is no need to subvert the twists will come naturally; memento is a good film for that; the way the story was told you knew there would be a twist and you knew it would be related to the main character 'condition' so when the twist is revealed you don't feel subverted you feel the story was fulfilled in a satisfying complete manner. This subvert expectations is such a modern gimmick and it is really interfering with the story telling and narrative structure.
I get what you are saying but then it goes to this if you treat it as if everyone is a film fanatic then honestly there would be not many efforts to make twists. I know what you are saying though. See to me Shutter Island relies way more on the twist than Blade Runner 2049 does though. I am with you though I knew the twist of Shutter Island actually right when I saw the trailer.
There is a good way to subvert and a bad way to subvert. Avengers Infinity War, and Empire Strikes Back subvert expectations in the correct way. No one expected that Vader was Luke's father or that he would get beaten by Vader or that Han would get captured, or that it would end on such a cliff hanger.
That is true; shutter island the entire story is kind of depending on the twist; 2049 it is more like just an extra component to give the main character a little more depth and relationship to the narrative.
The only true way to subvert expectations in a satisfying way is to not set it up like you are going to subvert. it has to feel satisfying in a retroactive way, leaving a feeling of "I should have seen that coming" rather then "I saw it coming" or "That was dumb because there was no set up for it". With the Vader reveal the reason it was a good twist was because the story did not prepare you to even think about it coming; but they way they wrote it in made it feel like it fit with the rest of the story naturally (outside Obi-won 'lying' about Luke's father's death). Cliffhangers worked in these cases because the story was still satisfying and the stories were not undermined, although at a meta level you knew all the 'snapped' characters were coming back (Black Panther just made over a billion dollars, there was no way that character was staying dead).
Yeah see that is my point. Shutter Island's entire stick is that it has this mind blowing twist. Therefore it is more of a selling point of the film. Blade Runner 2049 as you said is like just an extra component. If you dislike it it can easily be shrugged off.
That is my point. That is the way you can subvert effectively. Oh yeah I knew Black Panther and basically everyone who died in the snap was not dead.
Yup, it can be. That is why I would say 2049 is a much better film than shutter island. 2049 there are actually multiple components and if any one doesn't 'work for you' there are plenty of other things going on to enjoy. I did like that film, I should watch it again; maybe I just wasn't in a great mood when I watched it the first time.
Yeah I recommend a re-watch. It is my favorite film of the decade personally.
shareAnother point I want to bring up about why TFA was a terribly written film; one of the biggest problems is it is not disconnected enough from the OT to justify the similarities in the status of the universe. The problem is since it is so close to the Timeline and all the OT characters are still 'in play' there has to be a reason given for their lack of success and the state of the Empire basically resetting itself with unlimited resources and 'new' emperor, death star, etc.
These would not be issues if this was like a new 'setting' taking place hundreds of years in the future; you can more get away with the open ended backstories if we did not know the state of the universe just 30 years prior. You can even bring back Luke like they did and say he wanted to die after Han and Leia passed away but he was so strong in the force his life was being extended. And you can almost tell the same exact story minus Han and Leia and it would not have been such a mess of a story.
The Force Awakens kind of reminds me of Superman Returns tell me if you agree?
shareI guess a little bit, but IMO Superman Returns is a better film that stays more true to the original characters.
shareI disagree here as well. Here are some critiques I have against Superman Returns. Fyi I am a huge Superman fan.
Superman Returns is supposed to be a sequel to Superman 2 pretending 3 and 4 never happened. Okay so then why does Clark and Lois look like they are not a day over 20 where in Superman 2 they looked like they were in the late 20's or early 30's?
So they have a 6 year old kid, did Lois get screwed by Superman when she was like 15?
Clark disappears for months same time as Superman does and no one says anything?
I could go on but those are some pretty bad things that defy the original characters.
I compare them because I find their problems similar. They are like a fan fiction version of their counterpart. Difference is Superman Returns brings back all the original characters played by different people lacking the charisma of the original cast. TFA has some of the original cast back in disappointing roles. So I guess that is a difference there.
I am not a fan of superman, FYI; I actually rather despise the character so this one is a bit difficult for me to analyse as I have no familiarity with the source material. Would you say Superman returns was better than Man of Steel? from what I know of superman, MoS was not it.
Okay, that is a complaint about the actors' age and screen appearance, that has nothing really to do with story or the characters. My opinion everyone but Luise Lane matched there Superman 1 and 2 counterparts (in term of personality) rather well.
I think clearily she is suppoed to be in her early 30 in the film but yes, the actress look young; but again that is a complaint on the actors' age not really the characters they portrayed.
okay common, it is always ridiculous that no one calls clark out for never being around at the same time as superman, and only hiding it under glasses. It is always implausible how no one ever suspects clark in the source material and 2 original films anyway.
I think bringing back the OT cast just to humiliate them and degrade them is far worse than just replacing the actors. At least with replacing the actors there is a level of disconnect from the original it would help reduce the feeling authenticity and help reduce the sting of how poorly they where written.
Superman Returns and Man of Steel are both awful films for different reasons. Honestly this is hard. Okay in terms of character assassination Man of Steel is worse. Man of Steel is more dumb entertainment though. Like it is so bad but you can have fun watching it. Superman Returns is so painfully dull. Superman Returns is overall the better film both bad though.
Film is a visual medium. If you are going to make us believe this is the sequel to part 2 the actors need to be in the same ball park as far as age goes. This is not the actors fault but the casting director's and producer's fault.
It is a lame disguise. Thing is okay he was gone for months and he just so happens to show back up when Superman does. The whole world knew this. At least in the Donner films Clark was a regular guy that flew under the radar. I get this is me being petty but still ugh!
Tough to say. Well yeah I guess I get this point. Fair enough.
I agree with this, MoS was more dumb 'entertaining' and that Returns which was a very uninteresting film. Returns is probably objectively a better film.
I guess, I try not to get too hung up on something like that especially since this was like 25 years after the Donner Superman film and they were not bringing any of the original cast back. Then again; I had no real attachment to the Superman films so seeing new actors didn't really bother me.
Well in the movie didn't his excuse be that he was home in Smallville taking care of his mother. I am sure she helped cover for him while he was gone if they called in to check on him. but like I said, the superman/clark kent disguise always stretch believably. At least with Batman he only goes out at night and has the 'eccentric' billionaire cover that works better than a pair of thick BC glasses.
yeah, Superman returns feels like a film that can easily be ignored and not really feel like it is actually part of the series. TFA does not feel the same way; it feels like you are supposed to accept it as cannon even if you hate it.
Yep I agree. Both are bad films Superman Returns is objectively the better film, but honestly I would probably re-watch Man of Steel before it because at least it is stupidly bad rather than boring and bad.
I have no issue with recasting them. Christopher Reeve obviously could not return neither could several of the other cast members but if you are going to recast then do it right. The only actor I felt was cast well in that film was Kevin Spacey. Everyone else felt too young or not up to the job.
The disguise always was a joke it just got unbelievably stupid in that film.
I disagree here also. The last of the Donner universe we saw was Superman Returns and it sucked. If you hate it that bad just watch the OT and leave it at that. I will watch the first 2 Superman movies and leave it at that.
Yeah if like someone was holding gun to my head and said I had to pick one I think I would pick MoS as well. But I really did not enjoy either.
I can agree with that; Spacey was okay (No Gene Hackman) but okay. I didn't like Roth or the actress that played Luise (can't even remember her name). I didn't like the boyfriend and was kind of annoyed that he and Singer did this film instead of X3. And yeah they did look too young, I agree even if it didn't bother me that much when watching it.
I disagree, Superman returns is so disconnected from Superman 1 and 2 that it doesn't even feel like part of the series. Star Wars sequels were 3 movies and they are trying to force the disney stuff as cannon; and they interferre not only with the story after Return of the Jedi, by bringing back Palpatine and making all the OT heroes (played by the original cast) pathetic losers they are forcing a connection that is tough to ignore. I watch Superman 1 I don't even think about Returns; I watch ANH I think about Han being a deadbeat dad that fails runs away and becomes a smuggler again. I see Luke standing up against the emperor and the image of him milking a sea cow enters my mind. I see Vader Redeem himself and pick the emperor over his head and throw him down a elevator shaft (scene that used to give me goosebumps) and I remember oh the emperor is not really dead until Rey comes along and does the job right; pathetic Luke and loser Vader couldn't finish the job, it takes almighty Rey to do it. This would be like the equivalent of in Returns they brought back Terence STamp as Zod and he kicks the crap out of superman but then Supergirl shows up and takes him out right this time. see what I am saying?
I agree I honestly hate both films. I mean it I hate both Superman Returns and MOS. However a gun to my head I would go with MOS. The reason being is at least I can be entertained on a stupid level and laugh at it. It is why personally I like Batman & Robin better than Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice. Both bad movies but would you rather it be funny, stupid and bad or frustrating, dull, dreary and bad?
That is just it every character felt like a poor fan fiction version of their Donner counterparts. It felt literally like a fan made film.
Okay you know what you got me. I totally can feel you when you put it that way. The Terrence Stamp Zod defeat by Supergirl was a terrific painting of that picture. Awful! Like yeah the great characters that I grew up with could not do the job so lets get this lame new person who has put in no work or paid any dues to finish what these great established characters couldn't.
Yeah, I agree with that; if it is going to be bad might as well as be so bad it is funny.
Funny, that is how I feel about the Star Wars sequels; like really bad fan fiction.
I am glad my analogy struck. That is really a good way to compare them; but it is even worse; imagine not only is superman a failure but he is like pathetic and doesn't want to use his powers anymore and decides just to say screw it and goes back to smallville sits around his parents farm house, not even helping just sitting in the basement until supergirl comes and kicks his ass. That is the treatment Han and Luke got in TFA and TLJ.
Yep better to be hilarious and bad than boring.
The sequels are fan fiction just like Superman Returns.
Luke going into hiding is not a bad angle to take, it just was not fleshed out. Had he went off to an island after there was a falling out with his school he taught at that could have worked. Like have a set of his students become the knights of ren or something idk.
True.
True.
It is not a bad angle if there was a good (justifiable) reason for the character to do it. There was not a plan and what they came up with for TLJ was not true to the character. I don't have a problem with him being in hiding, but it needed to be true to Luke (who was a character that never gave up). and they couldn't even keep a sensible plot line going from one film to the next; so Luke both came to the Island to die and to let the jedi end; but he picks the location of the first jedi temple and leaves a map for people to find him? What the hell is that?
That is what I am saying though. See lets say Luke went off into hiding because he was trying to start up a new temple of students because it became too dangerous where he was teaching because of the students who rebelled. He gives the information to Leia on where to guide those who she feels are worthy to be trained in the force.
shareExactly, that would work, he was there for a reason; to learn better teachings and to put students through a tough testing trial just to get to him. Fine enough; but the 2 problems with that is 1st the existence of snoke and the growing power of the first order. Luke just abandoned the galaxy in a state of utter chaos and darkness rising. Luke would not do that. The 'teacher in hiding' thing Luke would do only if there was no immediate threat of evil (or if he was unaware of it). 2nd, That is NOT the explanation the films came up with (and not the explanation that JJ had planned as far as I can tell). The explanation we got was 'he was there because he was a pathetic failure that wanted to die alone'. Seriously that is the explanation. That would be the equivalent of them bitch slapping superman in Superman returns.
shareI think the biggest bummer with the revival of Palpatine was that the original films were just a little sideshow as a result. It was really insulting to the legacy of these pictures to do that.
Ren would have been a better final villain, especially if it ended with his conversion to the Light Side. Imagine if the film ended with Kylo Ren just "coming home" and dismantling the First Order and allowing peace. That would have been the really awesome, powerful, emotional climax to Star Wars.
Plus it would have rounded out the trilogy of trilogies better. Prequels: the corruption of the light (sparking the decades-long conflict). Originals: the light returns (defeating the main antagonists, but the war continues as the First Order is formed). Sequels: the war ends as peace is declared.
I've only seen this film once, but didn't they also have a Snoke clone in a giant vat/incubator on Hexagal when Ren was walking up to confront Frankeltine?
Anywhoo, the movie is nothing but a retread of Return of the Jedi which ended the Sith order and everything it stood for. The next evolutionary step for the Star Wars universe was to end the whole grip of The Force and allow it to flow back into the natural physics of the Star Wars universe. The Force is the only supertnatural/fantasy aspect in contrast to the hyperspace light speed, gravity defying, light sabers, and high powered laser beams.