MovieChat Forums > TristanReloaded > Replies
TristanReloaded's Replies
[quote]I personally believe it is possible that Leia reached out to her brother for help. Luke loves Leia dearly , he would have answered her plead.[/quote]
Fine, but if you need to are write the script for them and need speculation to make a script coherent it's not a good sign.
1. But the film suggests otherwise, Leia was surprised to see Luke, and her dialogue suggests she though he would visit her "at the end", she though they would die together - thus she did not call him for help.
Luke: .... I'm sorry.
Leia: I know; I know you are. I'm just glad you're here at the end.
Luke: I come to face him, Leia; and I can't save him.
2. The most logical interpretation would be that after Luke burned down the tree and de facto accepted Rey to be the new Jedi Master (possessing the sacred texts), he decided to help Leia & Co as his last act and to face Kylo to say he was sorry or whatever. It was established in the film that Force projecting can be lethal (silly, but Kylo suggested it to Rey).
And millions of voters disagree with you. Your logical fallacy is anecdotal and personal incredulity.
No film deserves to be the highest rated film. But one logically has to be , why not this one.
Playing the Mozart aria in the yard as a form of cultivated rebellion.
[quote]Luke's primary motivation; saving the people he loves, especially family.[/quote]
"Saving the ones he loves" was the (explicit) primary motivation for Anakin to go dark side and accumulate power (the shaddow of greed). That tempation would make sense for Luke too, only that he rejected it before, and one would assume that his young newphew Ben is amongst those he loves and considers family, thus he would not be tempted to kill him as victim of Snoke.
In the end, every idealistic character can get corrupted, even Luke - you just need to write it in a way that it is plausible.
oh that we can actually agree on, as for the movie I gave it a weighted score of 6.5/10, considerably higher than TFA, but boy are there logic holes, plot redundancies and lore violations in there to dissect.
It's a echo chamber of global proportions, every forum I have been regardless of language or culture - ubiquitous: The hate is strong with this one.
With Kylo we get a bit of backstory, even short flashbacks - it's essentially Anakins story reahashed. Only thing unclear is his motivation to become evil. Kylo is a very silly character, e,g., praying to Vader to protect him from the "light", despite Vader going back to the light, destroying the dark side, and currently existing a light-side Force ghost...
Snoke is a disgrace, he too is just a blatant copy (of the Emeror), but we would need more backstory here. This character does not fit with what came before: A super powerful dark side user heading an Empire clone, where was he during the Empire times - a Sith...no, rule of two. A Jedi...?
I thought Yoda looked a bit "off" too, though it's hard to describe why. In the new TLJ doc they show that they created this puppet from the mold and forms used to create the Empire Yoda, the expression-regulating electronics and mechanics may play a part though.
Better than the Menace Yoda puppet that was later replaced with CGI. I also thought that Ad Akbar looked off compared to his Jedi appearance. It seems hard to recreate puppets faithfully, like with people. It's an encouraging thought actually.
True. He had some form of shimmer-glow around the edges for the first few shots (which made him look like CGI), but then this shimmer disappeared and it was just a puppet like in Empire. Why not translucent is beyond me, maybe for nostalgia. I heard people say "That was the Yoda we knew from Empire"...
LOL, a most impressive cause-and-effect fallacy. Most of the prequel cast you refer to were no-names back then and played cameos or one liner roles or just started their career. Others such as Neeson were character actors but not blockbuster stars yet, at least not on the fame level as A Guiness or P Cushing in ANH.
If you want it to play that way, Harrison Ford starred already in a big hits before ANH (American Graffiti), Hamill stared in TV shows and Carry Fisher was Hollywood royalty and a child star (Shampoo etc).
Thus, Star Wars was always seemingly reliant on blockbuster names, and therefore a weak film and franchise I guess? That's BS of course. SW is one of the few blockbuster IPs that never had to rely on blockbuster names.
[quote]Force Awakens actually follows a tradition.[/quote]
Maybe, but it is still the least original and creative entry doing that; and I can demonstrate that.
1. First, a plot-point for plot-point test like in court; I start with TFA at the beginning.
Crawl
- White Stormtroopers attack civilians to retrieve an item, and brutally defeat them
- Enter their masked, black clad leader. He is a Skywalker and was a former Jedi seduced by a dark side lord, so that he betrayed the Jedi and killed them.
- He questions the civilian leader and then kills him.
- In the meantime a young rebel hides the sought item in an astro-droid who escapes into the desert only to meet a young hero.
- The rebel is captured and tortured
...and so on... There are of course elements from Jedi and even Clones in here (massacre of desert village at night)
2. Now, lets compare character and world building:
- The Resistance was the Rebel Alliance 2.0
- The First Order was the Empire 2.0
- Rey was Luke 2.0 (and the best bits of Han, Leia, R2 and C-3PO for good measure)
- BB-8 was R2-D2 2.0
- Poe Dameron was Han Solo/Wedge 2.0
- Kylo Ren was Darth Vader 2.0
- Supreme Leader Snoke was Emperor Palpatine 2.0
- General Hux was Grand Moff Tarkin 2.0
- Captain Phasma was Boba Fett 2.0
- Maz Kanata was Yoda 2.0
- The Hosnian System was Alderaan 2.0
- Jakku was Tatooine 2.0
- Star Killer was Death Star 3.0
and Luke was be Obi-wan 2.0
Note that this does not even include the spaceships that were essentially repainted stuff from the old movies (Ties/X-Wing/Shuttle/Destroyer/Falcon etc), whereas the previous saga Saga introduced ample of new designs per film.
NOW, if you can present me with any previous Saga movie remotely as similar in plot points (not in broad thematic structure) and characters/world building, my "least original and creative" claim would be debunked.
[quote]Thoughts anyone? [/quote]
You oddly contradict yourself. Star Wars has a tradition of casting the leads with relatively fresh faces, while supporting roles often go to veterans. That happened in the OT, the PT and now in the ST.
[quote]How this this idiot become a warlord? [/quote]
I dunno, but it would explain a lot, he and his minions were constantly defeated by the Marvel heroes. One of his minions was even distracted by a Dance Off (and expressions like "Bitch" and "Turd Blossom") and then killed by a magic stone.
Lol, it's a universe where a purple blob is built up for 18+ movies as ultimate big bad...any further questions?
You're all wrong. It was a cheesy ending but it did not ruin the movie.
SM 1 (7.5/10)
SM2 (7/10)
TASM (6/10)
SM-HC (5/10)
SM 3 (4.5/10)
TASM 2 (4/10)
"...I sort of liken its decline to the old story of a frog not jumping out of the pot as the water begins to boil him to death: at first, it just gets warm and he stays in the water, then it's hotter and he still doesn't move...until final it's boiling and he's cooked. The Walking Dead is now, in terms of quality, cooked."
Lol, worst analogy ever, especially with regard to a show where the dead come back to life. Bring on Zombie Frog.
[quote]trying to make the movie complex rather than just being content with the achievement in film-making.[/quote]
This implies what? That directors should only do shallow but professionally crafted films?
Craft over art? Form over substance? Spoon feeding over allegory?
No thanks. We got enough of that already.
[quote]"it's interesting that a lot of the defence for TFA was 'it will be explained in the sequel' and then a lot of the defence for TLJ is 'well it had to happen that way because of what was written in TFA'. Each one's flaws are pushed onto the others."[/quote]
Here here. If something goes wrong it's always the other sides' fault. And both is correct here.
TFA impossibly set up Luke as a guy who failed to prevent the same betrayal and Jedi immolation happen again. And worse, as a Jedi legend who then did not even try to redeeem and remedy the mess he created (Kylo, Jedi, Snoke) but ran away to "in the meantime" let the FO-Empire rise (to kill billions and destroy what Luke fought for in the OT - who cares?). Why? So he can hide and pout on an unfindable island, but leaving a silly mystery-map puzzle behind (usually coordinated will do in space).
TLJ just added insult to injury by going along with this by depicting Luke as a frustrated, cynical hermit loser refusing to help his family and friends and wanting the Jedi to end. He even tried to kill his young nephew in his sleep because he felt future "evil".
TFA and TLJ both neglegeted to tell us how OT-Luke became such a murderous and cowardly ST-character. So the blame lies with both movies, but IMO more with TFA as I cannot think one way to intelligently explain the absurd set up in TFA.
No. I wish you would familiarize yourself with the writing trope before asking nonsensical questions.