Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Rian Johnson, 2017)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#351 Post by RIP Film » Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:55 am

I’m not sure my post deserved that long winded and comprehensive, if pedantic, response. I’m simply saying the movies, particularly the first one, suffer from the JJ Abrams ‘mystery box’ syndrome... whereby the aspects people generally enjoy about going to the movies, such as being able to emphasize with characters and see them develop, is locked away behind some faux-cleverness of the filmmaker. We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.

People act like the third movie will raise the curtain and offer reveals that will correct everything that’s been lacking in this new trilogy; it reminds me of those who thought Revenge of the Sith would be the saving grace to the prequels, when really it was just more of the same.
Mr Sausage wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:48 am
People are demanding unreasonable things of these Star Wars sequels, deliberately I think. There's some need for them to fail, for reasons I don't think I understand. But the need is strong enough that if good reasons aren't there, bad ones will do.
Aside from the alt-right idiocy, I think many people just aren’t satisfied with the direction they are taking, and so, take to criticising the particulars of the story they are telling. Should Star Wars really be so decisive? For me what’s missing is a sense of imagination, wonderment, going to new places, seeing new characters, but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil, and that’s exactly what Disney has been trying to do (Rogue One, Solo, Bobba Fett and Obi-Wan movies). Anyway I’m tired of debating Star Wars, nothing I say will have any effect on the course of this franchise nor do I really care, but I do think something has been lost that Lucas imparted, even in his modern creative senility.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#352 Post by tenia » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:27 am

What's interesting about some people's rebuttal regarding the very recent SW directiion under Disney is some kind of fatigue, but Disney merely is Marvel-ising Star Wars. I suppose people are seeing these new SW movies as less interesting and more quickly fatiguing than the Marvel movies, but as someone who thinks most of the Marvel movies are mediocre at best, it looks like double-standards to me.

As for the unreasonable demands, I'm not sure if it's deliberate, even less because they want it to fail. I don't doubt some people see Disney as a huge Evil that is taking away their Proust madeleine, but I think people have been waiting some time for these new movies, so much that they've had the time to imagine what they focus on, how they would look, the action scenes in it, etc, and no matter what would happen in them, it's different from what they imagined so it must be bad. To me, this is just how human beings are.

I had the issue myself with LOST (no direct link to JJ Abrams intended, though). During the first season, there was this mystery surrounding the light in the trap door. It was fascinating, because they built lots of individual emotional events around it and let you for 2 half seasons imagining what it could be, what it could mean. And in the end, it's just Desmond turning the lights on to go to the loo.
My little brother always asked me "but, what would have satisfied more ? What did you imagine it could be ?"
The truth was : nothing. I had no clue what could be better than this but still be fitting with the whole background story.
I just knew the given answer wasn't as interesting as the build up, and it felt like a let-down.

I believe many people are like this with the new Star Wars movies, and the fact that they aren't especially exceptional movies and are getting released on a much more recurring agenda certainly isn't helping.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#353 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:55 pm

RIP Film wrote:I’m not sure my post deserved that long winded and comprehensive, if pedantic, response.
Maybe it didn't. I know my argument needed it. The pedantry, as you call it, was just the necessity of laying out all the ways that you already implicitly disagree with your premise in order to arrive, I'd hoped, at the idea that maybe you shouldn't be so adamant and confident about it, that maybe there were enough avenues and complexities to get you to reconsider taking such a fixed position. That involved saying a lot of things your premise obviously wasn't addressing, but I needed to drag you along with a bunch of things I didn't expect you to disagree with in order to get you to accept that maybe there were some further ways my principle was true that ought to be considered.

But more importantly, I thought you deserved to be taken seriously and responded to with thought and care. You've been here long enough to've noticed there are a number of members (none currently in this thread) who prefer to make small, dismissive posts that sneer at you and try make you a figure of mockery for not having the right opinion or the right way of saying it (or both). I don't want to be one of those members, and if that occasionally makes me seem long-winded and pedantic, so be it I guess.
RIP Film wrote:I’m simply saying the movies, particularly the first one, suffer from the JJ Abrams ‘mystery box’ syndrome... whereby the aspects people generally enjoy about going to the movies, such as being able to emphasize with characters and see them develop, is locked away behind some faux-cleverness of the filmmaker. We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.
It's at this point I start to get frustrated, because the problem you claim to've found in the film is more an assumption you brought to the material. "JJ Abrams 'mystery box' syndrome" is basic delayed plot revelation, something that's been around for centuries (and I mean that literally). You're attributing it negatively to Abrams because you're carrying around baggage about the filmmaker and not, I assume, because standard delayed plot and character revelations are your hobby horse.

The handling of Rey is a centuries old genre trope. You find its origin in every Romance whose hero grows up in a lowly station unaware of his/her own high parentage and has to reclaim their lost identity over the course of the story. Now in these Romances the audience already knew who the hero was, so it was dramatic irony only. But as the tradition went on and become more sophisticated, that changed, and authors began to surprise readers by revealing this or that unnamed character to've secretly been a hero from legend all the while. You see that in Chretien de Troyes The Knight with the Cart, where the dogged unnamed hero unknown to Gawain is revealed at the end to be Lancelot. Or take the first book of Spenser's The Faerie Queen, in which the unnamed Red Crosse Knight turns out to actually be St. George. If you want a modern example, look how long it takes for J.R.R. Tolkien (the originator of modern SFF and someone who never met a story he thought should stand on its own) to reveal that the mysterious Strider is Aragorn, heir to Gondor and a bunch of other things.

Having a character of uncertain origins whose mystery you plan to pay off later in the narrative is a traditional fantasy/sci fi trope. That's all. And funnily enough, Rian Johnson went on to toss it out the window, so it's hardly worth complaining about.
RIP Film wrote: We knew far more about kid Anakin in the phantom menance than we still do of Rey. And this is definitely not a problem of running time.
This makes no sense to me. The Phantom Menace and the following movies are nothing but explanations for characters we're already familiar with.

A real point of comparison is Luke in Star Wars. What do we learn about him? He's a farm boy, wants to go adventuring with his friends that we never see, his father participated in a war we learn nothing about besides the name (what was that about being self-contained?) and was killed by the villain in circumstances we're never told. And that's it. In fairness, we don't need any more, because Luke isn't really a character, he's a collection of genre attributes meant to involve an audience. He's an audience stand-in, ie. mostly empty. When he stands and looks longingly into the distance in that early scene, we're meant to see our own longings and desires reflected in it. That's good, it's effective, it's what it should be--but it's not real character interiority or anything. It's all surface; it's efficient short-hand.

Rey, conversely, is more a real character, and we learn all we need to know about her in that first film. We learn where she grew up, how she spends her days, how she engages in the community, and how her position makes her feel (lonely and abandoned, enough to befriend lost droids quickly). We found out what stories she treasures, what skills she's developed, and what skills she never knew she had. We also find out what and who she values, and what her primary motivations are. All of that is properly revealed. All we don't know is who her parents are and why she can use the force. Everything after that is character development, watching her change.
RIP Film wrote:but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil,
As I've been at pains to show in this thread: Star Wars has been doing exactly that for forty years. It's a monument to how to successfully wring every last ounce out of long-depleted soil for profit. And now we have more talented filmmakers having a go at it.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#354 Post by MoonlitKnight » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:00 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:06 am
It's to my understanding that Snoke's identity may be elaborated on in future media. I'll concede that that leaves the real formation of The First Order a mystery but I'm unsure if it needs any more explanation than the Empire did in the original six films?
The Empire was a little easier to accept given that it was the beginning of the story (or so we thought at the time), but when something like the First Order suddenly pops up two thirds of the way through what is supposed to be a continuous saga without much explanation, no, it needs to explain itself a little more -- ditto how the New Republic apparently became unraveled so soon... and how they apparently couldn't be bothered to hunt down most of the remaining fierce Imperial loyalists and prosecute them.
RIP Film wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:02 am
DarkImbecile wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:38 am
There is absolutely nothing in the original movies that would give a viewer this shading on that character; the double standards people apply to these films never ceases to amaze me.
He didn’t need it, as I said he was an archetypal image of evil. But Anakin did need such shading in the prequels. These are basically two different characters, their role in each trilogy is dramatically different.
Indeed, people reactively complained about Vader's NOOOOOOOOO!!! moment at the end of ROTS, even though he was still very much Anakin at that point, and had not yet evolved into the bitter, jaded cyborg of the OT who had nothing left to live for but continuing to pursue his quest for power alongside his master. After all, there's roughly a 20-year gap between the end of ROTS and the beginning of ANH (and notice Lucas had nothing of significance happen in that interim that would be considered integral to fully understanding the OT story :| ).
RIP Film wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:34 am
I tend to feel like people are making excuses for the screenwriters when it’s their job to fill in the gaps. The problem, again and again, is that the screenwriters rely on viewer familiarity to fill in the holes without taking the time to flesh out these characters.
And you know if we were led to believe that Lucas had written these scripts, people would almost certainly be all over them just as they were with the prequels. :roll:
RIP Film wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:55 am
Aside from the alt-right idiocy, I think many people just aren’t satisfied with the direction they are taking, and so, take to criticising the particulars of the story they are telling. Should Star Wars really be so decisive? For me what’s missing is a sense of imagination, wonderment, going to new places, seeing new characters, but these films (and the spinoffs by extension) are intent on swirling the drainhole of the past. You can’t build a franchise with depleted soil, and that’s exactly what Disney has been trying to do (Rogue One, Solo, Bobba Fett and Obi-Wan movies). Anyway I’m tired of debating Star Wars, nothing I say will have any effect on the course of this franchise nor do I really care, but I do think something has been lost that Lucas imparted, even in his modern creative senility.
As I've been saying ad nauseum over the last 3 years, the basic story/concepts/design were NOT the core problem with the prequels; rather, the execution of them was. I only wish Lucas had been able to get the legitimate help he needed with the screenwriting and directing them. Then maybe we wouldn't have to keep having these discussions. At the end of the day, the prequels and sequels each have the exact opposite problems. The prequels have great concepts, attempted something new, and attempt to really build the universe, but suffered from Lucas's clunky/overly perfunctory dialog and his directing failing to guide even great actors. But overall, at least Lucas cared about connecting stuff and making the two trilogies align... and, nonetheless, the majority of its issues could've been easily made more palatable by the employ of a more gifted screenwriter and a more actor-friendly (co-?)director. The sequels, while having had directors much better at getting the most out of their actors and far snappier dialog (even if it often abandoned the '30s/'40s movie speak of the first 6 movies for more anachronistically contemporary-sounding lines) have virtually no world building or lore expansion -- they're just a repackaging of old ideas and SJW messages for undertones. The writers of the sequels don't seem to care about the prior two trilogies thematically-- just how they can use it to make money and push their story and not continue the characters' narrative logically, as well as using shock value-style twists. It just seems to me most of the new regime's decisions have been made in direct (over)reaction to the prequels' reception -- except they've ended up over-correcting as a result. Again, Lucas' storyline/ideas themselves were not their main problem; it was the fact that they just needed to be run through some sort of filter. I just wish they'd realized that. Consult with him directly in order to properly hammer it all out, just as Kasdan did on TESB and ROTJ.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#355 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:44 pm

MoonlitKnight wrote:The Empire was a little easier to accept given that it was the beginning of the story (or so we thought at the time), but when something like the First Order suddenly pops up two thirds of the way through what is supposed to be a continuous saga without much explanation, no, it needs to explain itself a little more -- ditto how the New Republic apparently became unraveled so soon... and how they apparently couldn't be bothered to hunt down most of the remaining fierce Imperial loyalists and prosecute them.
What about this needs explanation, tho'? None of the particulars on this point would change the central story. Plus too much background detail in an already packed adventure story is a bad idea, as Brian de Palma rightly shouted at Lucas following a screening of the first cut of Star Wars, prompting Lucas to remove and/or streamline the unnecessary and confusing background detail.

It sounds mostly like you just have a hard time believing the situation, like it stretches credibility and needs to account for itself. I don't see why. This outcome is what you would expect. Toppling an empire leaves a power vacuum, and power vacuums entice formerly small, unknown, or overlooked ideological groups that festered in secret to emerge and jockey for position. Parties in power also fracture, eg. the bolshevik/menshevik split and resulting civil war following the Russian revolution. And then there are loyalist factions who regroup and return to power, eg. the restoration of the monarchy in England following the civil war and interregnum (all of which happened in 11 years). There are a lot of things that can go on. Hearing about any of this at length in an adventure melodrama would be boring, just like the prequel trilogy is boring, droning on and on about trade disputes, senate hearings, and other things that even history books are wary of spending too much time on. It's the type of stuff better left to ancillary tie-in material. Because who cares, really? As long as it's not violating the logic of the universe it's inhabiting, it's incidental.

It's enough to know that a far-right group organized around martial ideals and backed by a strong leader arose in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire and gained enough power to rival the newly reconsituted republic (not surprising: republics are vulnerable, difficult to maintain, and inefficient given that they rely on agreement among nations with often different or competing motivations). Forty years is more than enough to produce the situation we see in the movie. I mean, hell, the rebellion toppled an Empire at the height of its powers in like a year or two.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#356 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:50 am

Image

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#357 Post by R0lf » Wed Jul 04, 2018 5:40 am

For the people complaining that Kylo Ren lacks any character motivation: is it too subtle a point that authoritarian regimes actually don't rely on any common sense or philosophy beyond maintaining power for a limited few and that the people who are indoctrinated into it live in a constant state of having no actual autonomy or self identity?

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#358 Post by MoonlitKnight » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:31 pm

Except, he was acclimated to the Jedi first. (...or was he? Again, this is where some actual backstory would come in handy in this trilogy -- and you shouldn't have to look to supplemental media in order to get it.)

User avatar
R0lf
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#359 Post by R0lf » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:50 am

Maybe watch the movies again. There is that whole exposition between Han and Leia where they discuss that there is too much of Vader in Kylo and that's why he was sent to Luke.

You're basically just ignoring all the dialogue.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#360 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:52 am

Which is typical of the uncharitable and hostile approach these detractors take towards the films

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#361 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:51 pm

tenia wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:41 am
And again, how about not thinking in terms if binary reduction "JJ for old farts who can't let go / Johnson for truly original movies that will ruffle the old farts feathers" and just in terms of generic cinematographic qualities, like storytelling, pace and just expecting not another 2h30 artificially-narrated empty slog that isn't that novel anyway ?
I appreciated your constructive criticism the first time, but 'how about' never telling me how to think about movies or how to politely share those thoughts again. Much appreciated.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#362 Post by tenia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:48 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:51 pm
tenia wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:41 am
And again, how about not thinking in terms if binary reduction "JJ for old farts who can't let go / Johnson for truly original movies that will ruffle the old farts feathers" and just in terms of generic cinematographic qualities, like storytelling, pace and just expecting not another 2h30 artificially-narrated empty slog that isn't that novel anyway ?
I appreciated your constructive criticism the first time, but 'how about' never telling me how to think about movies or how to politely share those thoughts again. Much appreciated.
My original criticism is the same than this one, and prompted by the same reasons : it frustrates me to see on this forum, which I’ve grown to think it is rather exigent in terms of movies’ analysis, such a simplistic take being taken, as if it can only the detractors being too clingy to let go, too old-farty to accept “novelty”, while the opposite side is so much more open to changes. Can’t be the movie having basic movie-making flaws.

This view bothers me a lot because it tosses aside a simpler matter-of-fact analysis, putting aside the possible cinematographic flaws of the movie. I tried and made my points at the time in what I felt was both genuinely sincere and matter-of-fact-y, but also respectful of the other side, and I don’t think I for instance considered that people liking the movie had to be people who weren’t particularly fans of the OT, trying to explain that it’s certainly a more complex situation than just fans being reluctant to the changes and non-fans not caring.

Yet, this binary reduction to a simplistic ad personam keep popping up, which is what prompted me to write this reminder about trying to avoid solely viewing the negative reactions from an ad personam point of view, and looking at the movie on the usual cinematographic merits instead (even though this kind of “clingy detractors”, I’ve been explained and have understood, are probably a specificity of the SW franchise). I suppose however that what prompted me to spontaneously write this reminder in this way is the disdain I seemed to read in your post about those who didn’t like the movie through the simplistic reduction made again, though I certainly admit I could (and probably should) have written it in a more consensual and neutral manner. In any case though, my original points about the possibility to find the movie as being overlong and having a very artificial storytelling still stand, well outside any "novelty reluctancy" considerations.


It’s unfortunate however that you chose to respond solely to how it’s written instead of focusing on the point it wanted to make (again). But echoing what I wrote very recently in the 2001 thread, and what I wrote almost exactly a year ago in the Deetz Nutz discussion (which sadly still is accurately valid), I definitely should have known better and anticipated that focus.

So don’t worry about me telling you whatever in the future, as I’ll simply try and do my best to avoid any confrontation with you by simply avoiding engaging with you altogether. I have absolutely no intent to spend time in this kind of pointless confrontations (I’ve done that way too much in the past), and this should take care of that (and also prevent me fueling some myself).

I guess that should also teach me about sticking to the more technical sections of the forum.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#363 Post by nitin » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:04 am

Thing is tenia, some of just like The Last Jedi and the stuff that bothered you didn’t bother at least me. Now I don’t agree with mfunk’s generalisation either but there has been plenty written even in this forum that does come off as some sort of nostalgic view of the OT even when it has some of the exact same flaws that the new movies have.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#364 Post by tenia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:56 am

The only thing I hoped for was to generate a more open and less clichéd discussion about the field of reasons one can have for disliking the movie. I have absolutely nothing against people liking the movie and finding whatever good entertaining stuff they found in it (story, acting, emotions, adventure, twists, etc), but I certainly think there is more than one reason around to like it. So why not multiple reasons for disliking it, and not just being an old raging fan reluctant to see some changes in its treasured franchise ? I'm also quite sure there are newcomers who disliked the movie, something this dichotomy doesn't take into account either, the same way I'm quite certain some old-timers liked the movie too.

I spent some time trying to make an argumentated case about how the movie can be analysed like any other on its sole cinematographic merits, even without comparing it to any other SW movie, and providing simple movie-making-type reasons for that. Yet, the ad personam continues. It's not the movie, it's the people.

Having disliked the movie myself, it bothers me being reduced this way, on a forum I expect more than just "it's not the movie which is flawed, it's these guys who can't enjoy it", especially this cliché can be expressed in a way that can be perceived as disdainful on top of that.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#365 Post by Lost Highway » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:06 am

I think we’ve heard you loud and clear. At some point you’ll just have to accept that those who like the film disagree with your claims in regard to bad film-making or at least that the film’s merits outshine its flaws. I didn’t like the film because toxic SW fans hated it.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#366 Post by tenia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:31 am

I accepted that some time ago. If some people liked it, we just haven't "seen the same movie". Well, c'est la vie. I understand and respect that, and all the best to them.
What I wish is that some who liked it to accept it goes both ways, and that one can dislike the movie for other reasons that being a clingy fanboy reluctant to change, and stop so often resorting to this ad personam reduction.

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#367 Post by MoonlitKnight » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:44 am

As someone who's on tenia's side on this issue, what annoys me more than anything about this whole thing is how many seem to be so blindly getting on board with this 'toxic SW fans' narrative that the 'establishment' has been perpetuating since TLJ didn't quite meet expectations (and "Solo" definitely didn't)... and how it paints Lucas as being the problem with SW all along, despite the fact he created the universe in the first place. I still maintain that Lucas' ideas/storylines/designs/world-building/etc. were not the core problem with the prequels, but, rather, his shortcomings in the areas of screenwriting and directing actors were -- and it baffles me that so many people are still so oblivious to this. :-s When something isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. And with other people now in charge of writing the final scripts for and directing these new movies, there should've been no reason to throw out most of Lucas' actual VII-IX storyline for this trilogy. I can remember when it was generally considered a flaw in fundamental storytelling to have characters suddenly act in contradiction to their previously-established character arcs (and/or suddenly revert to how they used to be)... and to shrug off a lack of context in terms of potential new story developments from one chapter to the next... and to suddenly change the tone in which the story is being told... and to introduce new characters that are frankly not all that compelling... or to attempt to pander to fans with painfully self-aware callbacks to previous installments...

I suppose this also brings up the debate of how much homage is owed to the universe's creator in a continuous cinematic work like this. Can you imagine the producers of the Harry Potter movies completely shutting J.K. Rowling out of the creative process? Or the Game of Thrones folks telling George R.R. Martin to fuck off with his story ideas once the series caught up to his books? Because that's pretty much what Disney did to Lucas upon him selling them the SW property. As far as I'm concerned, SW without any input from Lucas is like the Muppets without Jim Henson, or Looney Tunes without Chuck Jones and Mel Blanc -- i.e., without the thing(s) still in place that initially made it what it was, it sucks. [-(

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#368 Post by Lost Highway » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:10 am

I have very little investment in the behind-the-scenes machinations of the SW films. The rest are matters of taste which I simply disagree with, not objective flaws of the new films. I find the new characters more compelling than the old ones because they are better written and I don't get all this stuff about "previously established character arcs". People change, people make mistakes, people are not as heroic as one may have thought of when one was younger.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#369 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:19 am

MoonlitKnight and tenia: There is literally no discussion or debate to be had here at this point. As with actual hot button topics like abortion, you're not going to change someone's mind, so stop acting as though all the fans of the new movies are but one lengthy post regurgitating the same complaints away from seeing the light. Trust me, we all know which small handful of users here hate this movie. This is bar nothing the most tedious thread on the entire forum

User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#370 Post by MoonlitKnight » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am

Yeah, I know people change, but usually when they do in a work like this, you're given a bit of insight as to why they do as opposed to just being expected to take it at face value without much context given other than serving the plot. And I still don't see what's so great about these new characters. Rey is a text book Mary Sue. Finn is a stereotypical "black second banana." Poe is an extremely watered down version of Han Solo. BB-8 is, dare I say it, Jar Jar Binks filtered through R2. Rose seems to have wandered in from some anime project. Kylo is a whiny emo bitch who essentially turned to the Dark Side to spite his family. Hux is an incompetent buffoon who can't be taken seriously. Snoke was an extremely watered down version of Palpatine who ultimately proved to be a red herring character.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#371 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:32 am

Imagine writing that, getting the notice that I've already posted before submitting, and taking a moment before deciding, "No, the board needs to hear that I think Kylo Ren is a whiny emo bitch"

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#372 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:44 am

I will never understand the need some people have to tell other people (in excruciating detail) why they should dislike a movie they liked....

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#373 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:37 pm

Tenia:

I can appreciate your strong desire not to be lumped in with the toxic fanboys and have your criticisms of the films dismissed. The thing is: I don't think anyone's doing that. I think everyone's taking for granted that the recent exasperated eye-rolling about certain Star Wars criticisms aren't directed at you and Brian C and your conversation back when the movie came out. You know us all here by now. Have domino, mfunk, me, Lost Highway, etc., ever come across as the kind of people who'd deny there could ever be legitimate criticisms made of a film merely because we disagree? I know I personally disagree with almost every criticism you've made in this thread, but I can respect your positions as legitimate and coming from a good place.

The problem is: every time the toxic fanboy issue comes up, you jump in. So you're inadvertently including your voice along with the other voices who reliably jump in and who come in for exactly the criticisms you don't want applied to you. You're doing yourself no favours. I think you should consider taking it for granted we're not talking about you and just let your and Brian C's earlier discussion stand as it is.

On another note: the only original idea Lucas brought to the prequels was midiclorians. That his unmade sequel trilogy was going to go into even more depth on that tells me everything I need to know about why Disney dropped his ideas and went with something else. Also: the prequels did more ourobourosian fan-service referencing than any of the new films have yet managed.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#374 Post by tenia » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:05 pm

I have come to the same realisation what what you mean. I am for some reasons taking it more "personally" that I seemingly should, hence my hurt reaction, and will leave it indeed at that instead.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Star Wars Franchise (1977-∞)

#375 Post by aox » Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:47 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:37 pm
ourobourosian
That's such a great word.

Post Reply