Adeptus Doritos wrote: Careful, you'll get sand in your nose if you bury your head that deep.
So, straw man followed by condescending denial and refusal to acknowledge that you misrepresented your own link. You're certainly off to a good start here. Did you think I wouldn't actually read it and would just trust you that JJ Abrams said what you claimed?
It was as I said. And you're working on getting sand in your mouth, now.
Seriously, it's RIGHT THERE. You sure that you have an opinion, because it seems like your opinion has got you. Might have to admit you're wrong here.
What AD claims people say: And if you see problems with it, you're stupid. Or a bigot.
What JJ Abrams said: If you are someone who feels threatened by women and needs to lash out against them, you can probably find an enemy in ‘Star Wars.’
There is a massive difference between "if you see problems with it you're a bigot" and "if you're a bigot you will see problems". Nowhere in there does it say that people who objected to the movie based on pacing issues or not being fans of scifi in general or whatever are stupid or bigots. I know the right-wing outrage machine makes misquoting people a core part of their method, but please be better than this.
There is a massive difference between "if you see problems with it you're a bigot" and "if you're a bigot you will see problems". Nowhere in there does it say that people who objected to the movie based on pacing issues or not being fans of scifi in general or whatever are stupid or bigots. I know the right-wing outrage machine makes misquoting people a core part of their method, but please be better than this.
Yeah, context isn't a thing. If people hated Hancock, and the creators suddenly shifted the conversation to "if you hate black people..."
I mean, if you hate Jews and want to be anti-semetic you might have a problem with my post. Just saying.
Context.
Insinuating critics are "lashing out at women" because they didn't like the movie kind of nails my point on the head.
Yes, context matters. And what is the context of the quote? An interviewer asking him about his opinion on sexist comments about the movie. Sexist comments like this:
“I’m frustrated that feminism and diversity have made their way into this film. This has ruined Star Wars for me as well as my kids. Keep liberalism out of it and stop ruining once good things.”
There is no sudden shift in the conversation, the interviewer directly asked him about it to open the article. Please stop misrepresenting the material you are quoting.
Yes, context matters. And what is the context of the quote? An interviewer asking him about his opinion on sexist comments about the movie. Sexist comments like this:
“I’m frustrated that feminism and diversity have made their way into this film. This has ruined Star Wars for me as well as my kids. Keep liberalism out of it and stop ruining once good things.”
There is no sudden shift in the conversation, the interviewer directly asked him about it to open the article. Please stop misrepresenting the material you are quoting.
Yeah, seeing as how you treat 'right wing' like an insult, not sure what you mean. Where is this quote? Who said this?
I want the politics out, too. I want diverse and solid characters, not purse puppies. Does that count as bigoted?
I'm sure 54% of the critics were woman-hating conservatives.
We have truly reached the point of absurdity. You are demanding sources for a quote from an article you posted, apparently without reading it first. You are posting obvious straw man arguments that nobody here is defending ("I'm sure 54% of the critics were woman-hating conservatives.") and complaining about "denying the truth" when I call you on it. At this point I'm honestly lost on how to even respond to you, as it feels like having an argument with a random text generator.
My first thought when you started responding, TBH.
Point is, if Star Wars didn't have a majority negative review and people posted this, we'd laugh it off. But because most people did not like the movie- gotta shift the narrative.
Evasion and excuses. You posted a straw man argument, misrepresented the article you posted as "proof" that your straw man is actually an argument people are making, and started attacking your own article with demands for sources. And now, rather than provide any evidence that the supposed "and if you see problems with it, you're stupid. Or a bigot" argument is one that any meaningful number of people are making you're just going to double down on the same old right-wing outrage machine nonsense. Straw man arguments, insulting everyone, and insisting that the straw man is obvious truth despite the utter lack of evidence.
Peregrine wrote: Or a bigot" argument is one that any meaningful number of people are making you're just going to double down on the same old right-wing outrage machine nonsense. Straw man arguments, insulting everyone, and insisting that the straw man is obvious truth despite the utter lack of evidence.
"Weepbwicans! In my ceweal! Oooh makes me so mad!"
So is "right wing" a dirty word in your mind? As you can see, there's a reason most people don't want this kind of toxic influence in entertainment.
If you're going to lash out at Jews, then you have a problem. Star Wars is for everyone.
Are you ever going to provide evidence for your claim, or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant insults and nonsense in the hope that everyone forgets you made it?
If you're going to lash out at Jews, then you have a problem.
Peregrine wrote: Are you ever going to provide evidence for your claim, or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant insults and nonsense in the hope that everyone forgets you made it?
If you're going to lash out at Jews, then you have a problem.
Good thing nobody is doing this.
Yeah. You certainly are.
And missing the point. At waist level now.
Muh rite weeng!
Sorry, I deliberately grabbed a left wing resource for you and it wasn't enough. Now you gotta play weasel words.
The only insults I see are from you, using right wing like an ethnic slur. Since you talk about doubling down.
Everyone that doesn't agree with your side must be a Reagan. Way to, you know, prove the point.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Careful, you'll get sand in your nose if you bury your head that deep.
So, straw man followed by condescending denial and refusal to acknowledge that you misrepresented your own link. You're certainly off to a good start here. Did you think I wouldn't actually read it and would just trust you that JJ Abrams said what you claimed?
so what do you think he means when he says this:
Abrams was clear: “Their problem isn’t ‘Star Wars,’ their problem is being threatened.”
Other articles, such as these in The Independent, The Guardian, and Wired, insinuate that anyone not on board is an "alt-right" hater of diversity.
and there's the conclusion, no criticism is valid, if you didn't like it you must be a "hater of diversity" ie bigot.
and let's not forget, the whole line of "we watched the movie wrong" and "we just didn't get it", ie we're stupid
the links are out there, I'm getting bored looking them up again
You will now apologize for your offensive and blatant lying about me "lashing out at Jews". Your post has been reported, hopefully your apology and edit arrives before a moderator sees it.
Sorry, I deliberately grabbed a left wing resource for you and it wasn't enough.
You "grabbed a left wing resource" and misquoted it. It wasn't enough for me because it didn't say what you claimed it said.
The only insults I see are from you, using right wing like an ethnic slur.
JFC that's a stupid argument. No, it isn't like an ethnic slur, at all. Don't pull this kind of ridiculous martyrdom attempt.
Everyone that doesn't agree with your side must be a Reagan.
There you go, making straw man arguments again. Your political affiliations are hardly a secret, and you're following the standard right-wing outrage machine blueprint perfectly. But that doesn't mean that other people who disagree with me fall into that same category.
You will now apologize for your offensive and blatant lying about me "lashing out at Jews". Your post has been reported, hopefully your apology and edit arrives before a moderator sees it.
Easy E wrote: I think the biggest "problem" for me was I wanted simple morality play narratives of good vs. evil and I got Nihilism instead.
In this movie, essentially "Nothing Mattered". It didn;t matter what you did, it just didn't matter.
Spoiler:
Blew up the Dreadnought.... but the enemy fleet is still on your tail!
Search for your parents..... They aren't important.
Killed Leia and Luke.... No you didn't Leia lived and Luke faded away on his own.
Destroyed the resistance.... except they escaped.
Defeated the Empire.... No, they came back
Force was re-balanced.... except it wasn't.
Destroyed the sacred texts.... No, wrong again!
Killed Snoke.... but no one actually cares.
Rescued the animals.... except you really didn't.
Found the master hacker..... except he ended up being unhelpful
Essentially every single element of the movie followed this exact same pattern of something happened! But it doesn't matter because of X.
This movie only succeeded on one level. It was Theatre of the Absurd. If that was the intention, then congrats. You win and I bow to your mastery of creating Star Seinfeld.
In this whole thread, this ^^ was the most insightful comment that I have found so far.
Yeah, there is no need to 'reconsider'.
This movie and its producers are symptoms.
Where is the contemporary Shakespeare, Moliere, or for that matter George Lucas?
Rian Johnson? Kathleen Kennedy?
We live in an inverted world.
The meek haven't inherited the Earth.
It is the mediocre, and they are dumbing everything down because they can't hold two opposing ideas in their heads at the same time.
Conflict - the ability to entertain real, deep, visceral conflict - this is missing in generation snowflake
and the producers of its entertainment.
This movie has all the substance of wet tissue, and deserves a similar fate.
My first thought when you started responding, TBH.
Point is, if Star Wars didn't have a majority negative review and people posted this, we'd laugh it off. But because most people did not like the movie- gotta shift the narrative.
Up to your shoulders already?
On IMDB TLJ has got 7.3/10 on 386K user reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes it's at 2.9/5 on 194.5K user reviews.
If we pro-rate those two percentages against the total number of reviews -- approx. 577K -- we get an overall positive rating of 67.94%.
This is very far from a majority negative.
We won't look at the professional film critic ratings.
On IMDB TLJ has got 7.3/10 on 386K user reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes it's at 2.9/5 on 194.5K user reviews.
If we pro-rate those two percentages against the total number of reviews -- approx. 577K -- we get an overall positive rating of 67.94%.
This is very far from a majority negative.
We won't look at the professional film critic ratings.
Thank you for the insight. I stand corrected on my numbers. But please, let's do ignore professional critics. I find they are out of touch and often a bit biased or they are shills.
My first thought when you started responding, TBH.
Point is, if Star Wars didn't have a majority negative review and people posted this, we'd laugh it off. But because most people did not like the movie- gotta shift the narrative.
Up to your shoulders already?
On IMDB TLJ has got 7.3/10 on 386K user reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes it's at 2.9/5 on 194.5K user reviews.
If we pro-rate those two percentages against the total number of reviews -- approx. 577K -- we get an overall positive rating of 67.94%.
This is very far from a majority negative.
We won't look at the professional film critic ratings.
You will now apologize for your offensive and blatant lying about me "lashing out at Jews". Your post has been reported, hopefully your apology and edit arrives before a moderator sees it.
No.
Where is all this joo hatred?
I see none...
Maybe I missed something,
but Peregrine is not the sort to hate on anyone, well, at least not groups of people anyways.
Abrams was clear: “Their problem isn’t ‘Star Wars,’ their problem is being threatened.”
It means what it says. However, it doesn't mean what you are trying to present it as. The "their" in the quote is, as is clear from the context of it, referring to a specific group of people: anti-feminist s who posted sexist garbage about the movie. It is not referring to everyone who ever said anything bad about it.
Looking back, was any of the criticism fair?
Johnson: No, no.
Well yes, that's certainly a rather narcissistic point of view. But it has nothing to do with the "everyone who didn't like it is a bigot" straw man AD made. The actual claim is that the critics would be saying similarly bad things about the OT movies if social media had been around then. It's probably a bad argument, but it does not at all accuse anyone of bigotry.
An opinion piece (100% coincidentally, one posted on a conservative site) that does nothing to prove its claims and has to resort to talking about "insinuation" rather than direct quotes.
Maybe I missed something,
but Peregrine is not the sort to hate on anyone, well, at least not groups of people anyways.
This all seems like a distraction.
I'm screwing with him. I'm barely Jewish. And it was to point out that lashing out at an individual or their product is not the same as attacking their race or gender.
Oh and he does hate groups. He even lumped me in with his favorite group to hate.
You lied and made an extremely offensive accusation against me. If it were up to me you'd be banned for that.
And it was to point out that lashing out at an individual or their product is not the same as attacking their race or gender.
There you go with the straw man arguments again. Nobody is disputing the idea that you can criticize an individual or product without attacking their race or gender. In fact, given how many times I have criticized TFA/TLJ in this thread, I would think it would be pretty obvious that I agree with this principle.
Abrams was clear: “Their problem isn’t ‘Star Wars,’ their problem is being threatened.”
It means what it says. However, it doesn't mean what you are trying to present it as. The "their" in the quote is, as is clear from the context of it, referring to a specific group of people: anti-feminist s who posted sexist garbage about the movie. It is not referring to everyone who ever said anything bad about it.
You keep talking about people posting sexist garbage, but you've never provide any evidence of anyone doing so. Because there is none, and no one did. That was the narrative that was pushed, lucasfilms, they claimed it was true and slandered everyone who disliked the movie. Not because they have valid reasons to not like the movie, but because they're just posting sexist garbage. That "their" in the quotes is referring to anyone who didn't like the movie and that is what the 3 publications picked up on and ran with.
As the movie was released, most professional critics rated the it highly.
Most (everyone I have heard/known/read) who are not professional critics frankly did not like the movie, at all.
Stylized Transformers in space - just noise and spectacle.
For those of us who have been following this storyline for more than 40 years
(Episode 4 was the first film that I ever saw in a theater and not with my Mom/Grandparents - I was 8)
the discontinuity, while at the same time recycling plot lines with name swaps,
simply the lack of intellectual effort,
simply wrecked everything, all the way back,
and has left such a bad feeling about Disney,
as if we needed any more evidence that it is simply the animation wing of the neo-liberal prog-paganda machine,
and about big entertainment altogether,
that honestly I stopped seeing all movies at the theaters.
I will even be waiting for Deadpool 2 to arrive on the VOD at less than 4bux to see on the home projector,
and am doing the same for Infinity War.
It just stopped being fun to be a fan
when these corporate hotshots decide that
to enjoy the movie,
you need to wear special freak-flag goggles
and then, when you do, it is all warmed lube and rainbows.
You lied and made an extremely offensive accusation against me. If it were up to me you'd be banned for that.
.
Well it isn't up to you. Remember when my answer to your demand for an apology was 'no'? Let me change my answer.
lol no.
Dude, srsly, this anti-semite stuff is garbage.
I have been on the receiving end of stuff like that.
Everyone knows that it is an evil trick meant to disarm and distract from real wrongdoing.
I don't think that you should be banned,
but I think that if you did it again, then you should be, at least for a while - 3 months?
I mean, there are lots of ways to make the point that you say that you were trying to make.
Dumpn all that on someone, well, that is bad form.
You should be ashamed of yourself...
sirlynchmob wrote: You keep talking about people posting sexist garbage, but you've never provide any evidence of anyone doing so.
AD posted the evidence for me, with quotes. I'd post a rather memorable one from dakka, but it was so bad that the moderators deleted it and all quotes from it. But it had an impressive amount of whining and crying about how the female characters weren't hot enough for the author.
That "their" in the quotes is referring to anyone who didn't like the movie and that is what the 3 publications picked up on and ran with.
No it isn't. Seriously, read the article:
Asked by IndieWire about pushback from “Star Wars” fans who decried Rian Johnson’s film for its focus on more female-centric stories (bolstered by the edition of franchise newbies like Laura Dern and Kelly Marie Tran), Abrams was clear: “Their problem isn’t ‘Star Wars,’ their problem is being threatened.”
It explicitly references the s and asks Abrams "what do you think about those s". It is not about critics in general.
Abrams was clear: “Their problem isn’t ‘Star Wars,’ their problem is being threatened.”
It means what it says. However, it doesn't mean what you are trying to present it as. The "their" in the quote is, as is clear from the context of it, referring to a specific group of people: anti-feminist s who posted sexist garbage about the movie. It is not referring to everyone who ever said anything bad about it.
You keep talking about people posting sexist garbage, but you've never provide any evidence of anyone doing so. Because there is none, and no one did. That was the narrative that was pushed, lucasfilms, they claimed it was true and slandered everyone who disliked the movie. Not because they have valid reasons to not like the movie, but because they're just posting sexist garbage. That "their" in the quotes is referring to anyone who didn't like the movie and that is what the 3 publications picked up on and ran with.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I saw in it, too, especially around release when the initial backlash was coming in and the sjw prog-paganda squad went scurrying for cover.
So, they came up with claiming that the movie was great, but it was backwards yokels from flyover country who aren't on the liberal A-train who just can't see the genius in it...
Contrary to this myth, however, the trouble seemd to me that it had nothing to do with sexist/racist/right-wing whatevers, and everything to do with lots and lots of people just not enjoying the movie, at all.
Now, this whole thing has crystallized around the me-too down-with-whites neo-fascism that is honestly groundless in most every instance I have had the chance to review.
It is almost as if TLJ was made to serve as a test of the racism and sexism that is otherwise silent, and deadly, in anyone caucasian, straight, and bottom-up about power structures.
sirlynchmob wrote: You keep talking about people posting sexist garbage, but you've never provide any evidence of anyone doing so. Because there is none, and no one did. That was the narrative that was pushed, lucasfilms, they claimed it was true and slandered everyone who disliked the movie. Not because they have valid reasons to not like the movie, but because they're just posting sexist garbage. That "their" in the quotes is referring to anyone who didn't like the movie and that is what the 3 publications picked up on and ran with.
Let's be real here- you can trawl a comment section and find something sexist. In fact, you can also find someone blasting it for anything in the world. It's easy to find an actual idiot- but since when do these idiots warrant a response? They're in small numbers, and generally they already have a reputation for being an idiot. "Oh, no- David Duke said horrid things about Black Panther!" Well, he would. No shocker.
But when you have to fish that minority of the comments out and hoist it up, it shows. And since there's a LOT of criticism of this movie, they're fishing this out to smokescreen the actual criticism. We've seen it done in comics, games, etc. It's not a new trick at all, and anyone who has been around for a few years can see how transparent and dishonest it is.
jeff white wrote: Dude, srsly, this anti-semite stuff is garbage.
I have been on the receiving end of stuff like that.
Everyone knows that it is an evil trick meant to disarm and distract from real wrongdoing.
As have I. Again, I've got a little Hebrew in the bloodstream. I was trying to make a point, and no- I know full well he wasn't going SS on us. I've caught flak for being what I am, and I've seen people try to use it as a shield to protect themselves and smear someone who did nothing wrong. It sucks all around. You have to understand, I wasn't being serious. I was being satirical.
Isn't it scummy when people try to insinuate that someone is a bigot to shield themselves from criticism? My point hit home harder than I thought, it seems.
again, there are no fans who decried Johnson for it's focus on female centric stories, if there was wouldn't you also see it for the force awakens? except we don't. We'd have seen it in rogue 1, yet we don't.
that was the selling the narrative that there is people like that, not proof.
you can't use 1 guy on dakka as evidence for anything, especially to counter the directors themselves in interviews.
sirlynchmob wrote: again, there are no fans who decried Johnson for it's focus on female centric stories, if there was wouldn't you also see it for the force awakens? except we don't. We'd have seen it in rogue 1, yet we don't.
Kinda weird how a LOT of people loved the female characters in Rebels and Clone Wars, and have always wanted to see more of them... then suddenly all these woman-haters just manifested out of their ranks.
I was actually kinda pleased when I heard the lead would be female. I was flat-out terrified they'd try to do an angsty teen boy as the lead when I first heard they were continuing the series.
sirlynchmob wrote: again, there are no fans who decried Johnson for it's focus on female centric stories, if there was wouldn't you also see it for the force awakens? except we don't. We'd have seen it in rogue 1, yet we don't.
Kinda weird how a LOT of people loved the female characters in Rebels and Clone Wars, and have always wanted to see more of them... then suddenly all these woman-haters just manifested out of their ranks.
I was actually kinda pleased when I heard the lead would be female. I was flat-out terrified they'd try to do an angsty teen boy as the lead when I first heard they were continuing the series.
ya I forgot the clone wars, who doesn't want an Asoka movie? I'd like to see it, a good movie though that does her justice, not some shallow plot & characters like Johnson made.
jeff white wrote: Dude, srsly, this anti-semite stuff is garbage.
I have been on the receiving end of stuff like that.
Everyone knows that it is an evil trick meant to disarm and distract from real wrongdoing.
As have I. Again, I've got a little Hebrew in the bloodstream. I was trying to make a point, and no- I know full well he wasn't going SS on us. I've caught flak for being what I am, and I've seen people try to use it as a shield to protect themselves and smear someone who did nothing wrong. It sucks all around. You have to understand, I wasn't being serious. I was being satirical.
Isn't it scummy when people try to insinuate that someone is a bigot to shield themselves from criticism? My point hit home harder than I thought, it seems.
Ummm... I doubt it.
Ancient "hebrews" were a tribe of Canaan.
Don't know anything about you,
but ...
I was born Jewish, because my mom was.
But, she was Russian.
Most contemporary "jews" - at least the ones tossing around accusations of anti-semitism - are actually Khazars - Kagans.
See, not semites, at all.
So... I doubt that you have any ground to stand on, here.
Bad form, man.
Srsly.
Give people a bad name doing stuff like that.
sirlynchmob wrote: ya I forgot the clone wars, who doesn't want an Asoka movie? I'd like to see it, a good movie though that does her justice, not some shallow plot & characters like Johnson made.
Everyone sitting here either mad about the 'diversity' or praising it, and I'm trying to figure out why out of an entire cast of personalities in a Star Wars movie from 2018 we couldn't add in an alien or two.
Or why at least Maz couldn't have had a bigger role. She was actually one of the few characters I really liked in TFA.
As the movie was released, most professional critics rated the it highly.
True
Most (everyone I have heard/known/read) who are not professional critics frankly did not like the movie, at all.
[Citation needed, I give 25-35% at best. With 40-50% not really caring either way
Stylized Transformers in space - just noise and spectacle.
Plz go watch an atual transformers movie. Or don't It's almost a hate crie to force someone to watch them
For those of us who have been following this storyline for more than 40 years (Episode 4 was the first film that I ever saw in a theater and not with my Mom/Grandparents - I was 8) the discontinuity, while at the same time recycling plot lines with name swaps,
OT is just as guilty of this. It gave us 2 death stars.
simply the lack of intellectual effort,
It's there. But then again it was overflowing in the prequels. Didn't make them any good
simply wrecked everything, all the way back, and has left such a bad feeling about Disney, as if we needed any more evidence that it is simply the animation wing of the neo-liberal prog-paganda machine, and about big entertainment altogether, that honestly I stopped seeing all movies at the theaters.
Plz don't project general dissapointment in an industry on one movie
I will even be waiting for Deadpool 2 to arrive on the VOD at less than 4bux to see on the home projector, and am doing the same for Infinity War.
It just stopped being fun to be a fan when these corporate hotshots decide that to enjoy the movie, you need to wear special freak-flag goggles and then, when you do, it is all warmed lube and rainbows.
As above
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the anti-SJW feedback is but a small nearly meaningless loss. And if Black panther and wonder woman have proven anything going the other way would have been worse.
ALso remember the fringe dude who made a cut with all the women removed and got royally mocked by the cast/ Rian on twitter.
In the interest of a healthy discussion, I would advise Ignoring Dakka's primary salt troll. Live is a lot more stess free without him.
Easy E wrote: I think the biggest "problem" for me was I wanted simple morality play narratives of good vs. evil and I got Nihilism instead.
In this movie, essentially "Nothing Mattered". It didn;t matter what you did, it just didn't matter.
Spoiler:
Blew up the Dreadnought.... but the enemy fleet is still on your tail!
Search for your parents..... They aren't important.
Killed Leia and Luke.... No you didn't Leia lived and Luke faded away on his own.
Destroyed the resistance.... except they escaped.
Defeated the Empire.... No, they came back
Force was re-balanced.... except it wasn't.
Destroyed the sacred texts.... No, wrong again!
Killed Snoke.... but no one actually cares.
Rescued the animals.... except you really didn't.
Found the master hacker..... except he ended up being unhelpful
Essentially every single element of the movie followed this exact same pattern of something happened! But it doesn't matter because of X.
This movie only succeeded on one level. It was Theatre of the Absurd. If that was the intention, then congrats. You win and I bow to your mastery of creating Star Seinfeld.
In this whole thread, this ^^ was the most insightful comment that I have found so far.
Yeah, there is no need to 'reconsider'.
This movie and its producers are symptoms.
Where is the contemporary Shakespeare, Moliere, or for that matter George Lucas?
Rian Johnson? Kathleen Kennedy?
We live in an inverted world.
The meek haven't inherited the Earth.
It is the mediocre, and they are dumbing everything down because they can't hold two opposing ideas in their heads at the same time.
Conflict - the ability to entertain real, deep, visceral conflict - this is missing in generation snowflake
and the producers of its entertainment.
This movie has all the substance of wet tissue, and deserves a similar fate.
This.
All the characters in the new trilogy are annoying, regardless of origin.
Hux is a cretin of dick-dastardly-and-muttley-level incompetence
Holdo is an incredibly bad people-manager
Poe acts like an arrogant tool
Finn see-saws between coward and obssessive
Rose is just a bit creepy.
Rey comes across as a bit of an imbecile who essentially keeps getting swept along by the plot.
Essentially, there is literally no one in the film I actually enjoy watching.
For the record, my disappointment in their mishandling of the story and characters is mostly in the wasted potential. I was very happy when I found out that that a woman would be the lead, and that the cast would include a black man too (and from the start this time). Normally I don't think about these things, race and gender, but this time I thought good. This is good. Then they went and ruined my enthusiasm with mediocre to terrible story telling and poor characterization. It's not the actors fault of course. John and Daisy are great, but they can only do so much with that crappy writing and direction.
Earth127 wrote: In the interest of a healthy discussion, I would advise Ignoring Dakka's primary salt troll. Live is a lot more stess free without him.
I think the anti-SJW feedback is but a small nearly meaningless loss.
I think people really need to get away from throwing the word 'SJW' around. It's become as absurd as calling everyone slightly to the right an 'Alt-Right'. Not everything is an 'SJW conspiracy'. In fact, the ridiculous sort of SJW's are very rare and they're usually internet personalities reaching to get clicks and know they're absurd. But it is, in fact, true that some businesses have learned to capitalize on outrage. I know if I ever became a famous writer and thought my product would be substandards, I'd shoehorn in some diversity and insinuate that people who hated it were bigots. It's a perfect shield and it's been done for years. No 'SJW agenda', just plain old defense tactics. 'Other' the opposition. Make what they are appear to be unpalatable and invalid. Then people are afraid to criticize, because no one wants to be labeled a bigot.
Speaking of which, to drive home my point further, that article does a bit of the work for me:
"In December, an alt-right group claimed responsibility for lowering the film’s Rotten Tomatoes scores..."
That 'Alt-Right' group is called 'Down with Disney's Treatment of Franchises and its Fanboys'. Hardly 'Alt-Right'. A brief look over that will tell you. Kinda one more example of people trying to label critics as some sort of bigot for being a critic. But hey, that's pretty common.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: That 'Alt-Right' group is called 'Down with Disney's Treatment of Franchises and its Fanboys'. Hardly 'Alt-Right'. A brief look over that will tell you.
No, a brief look will tell you that "alt right" seems pretty accurate. Quoted from the article linked in the one you posted, which has an interview with a moderator of the group:
The moderator explained to The Huffington Post that the group is upset with “Star Wars” for “introducing more female characters into the franchise’s universe.” The group is also not happy that Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) has become a “victim of the anti-mansplaining movement” and that characters like Poe and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) are in danger of being “turned gay.” The moderator said men should be “reinstated as rulers of society,” and expressed distaste for the way “The Last Jedi” disrespects the franchise’s history.
...
There was a time we ruled society and I want to see that again. That is why I voted for Donald Trump.”
No, I can't possibly see how anyone could call that "alt-right"...
Ummm... I doubt it...
Give people a bad name doing stuff like that.
What you 'doubt' is irrelevant. Not sure if I was supposed to have a pedigree or something, perhaps some kind of symbol to wear on my lapel?
Family hasn't practiced since... well, like ever. We don't observe any of it, and it's quite diluted. I've more Catholic traditions in the family than Jewish, and we're mostly Atheists if that tells you anything.
Their political leaining may not be alt-right. But calling for the sabotage of every big project a movie studio makes the way they do is very much a tactic reminiscnet of the alt-right.
I would prefer if Disney did not have such a big stake in the entertainment industry but for now it hasn't truly affected the quality of their output. Quite the reverse actually.
The moderator explained to The Huffington Post that the group is upset with “Star Wars” for “introducing more female characters into the franchise’s universe.” The group is also not happy that Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) has become a “victim of the anti-mansplaining movement” and that characters like Poe and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) are in danger of being “turned gay.” The moderator said men should be “reinstated as rulers of society,” and expressed distaste for the way “The Last Jedi” disrespects the franchise’s history.
...
There was a time we ruled society and I want to see that again. That is why I voted for Donald Trump.”
No, I can't possibly see how anyone could call that "alt-right"...
I see nowhere he said that 'we' meant 'white males'. I see a highly edited, and out-of-context quote.
Voting for Trump does not make one 'Alt-Right'. I'm sure in your world of Republican Boogeymen, even that seems absurd.
Earth127 wrote: Their political leaining may not be alt-right. But calling for the sabotage of every big project a movie studio makes the way they do is very much a tactic reminiscnet of the alt-right.
Yeah, sabotaging things like movies or speaking events or projects is a strictly Alt-Right concept.
If you've had your head under a pile of rocks for the last few decades.
As the movie was released, most professional critics rated the it highly.
True
Most (everyone I have heard/known/read) who are not professional critics frankly did not like the movie, at all.
(1)[Citation needed, I give 25-35% at best. With 40-50% not really caring either way
Stylized Transformers in space - just noise and spectacle.
(2) Plz go watch an atual transformers movie. Or don't It's almost a hate crie to force someone to watch them
For those of us who have been following this storyline for more than 40 years
(Episode 4 was the first film that I ever saw in a theater and not with my Mom/Grandparents - I was 8)
the discontinuity, while at the same time recycling plot lines with name swaps,
(3) OT is just as guilty of this. It gave us 2 death stars.
simply the lack of intellectual effort,
(4) It's there. But then again it was overflowing in the prequels. Didn't make them any good
simply wrecked everything, all the way back,
and has left such a bad feeling about Disney,
as if we needed any more evidence that it is simply the animation wing of the neo-liberal prog-paganda machine,
and about big entertainment altogether,
that honestly I stopped seeing all movies at the theaters.
(5) Plz don't project general dissapointment in an industry on one movie
I will even be waiting for Deadpool 2 to arrive on the VOD at less than 4bux to see on the home projector,
and am doing the same for Infinity War.
It just stopped being fun to be a fan
when these corporate hotshots decide that
to enjoy the movie,
you need to wear special freak-flag goggles
and then, when you do, it is all warmed lube and rainbows.
As above
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the anti-SJW feedback is but a small nearly meaningless loss. And if Black panther and wonder woman have proven anything going the other way would have been worse.
ALso remember the fringe dude who made a cut with all the women removed and got royally mocked by the cast/ Rian on twitter.
In the interest of a healthy discussion, I would advise Ignoring Dakka's primary salt troll. Live is a lot more stess free without him.
OK, so look, I have numbered things for you:
1) I don't need to cite this. It happened/happens - sorry you don;t like it, and so can't believe it, but it is fact.
2) I have - don't talk down to me, and insult me, simply because you don't agree with me. Xformers movies are hot trash. So it this new SW flik. Get over it.
3) Ummm... It gave us one and a half, really. Then, there were none.
4) No, it is not. And, yes, they were Saturday serial style westerns in spaaaaaace. meant to be that way. Now, TLJ has no such touchstone - it is just bad, unoriginal, noise.
5) Oh, now... The disappointment has been building for some time. In every 'entertainment' industry arm from the West, there has been a rather rapid decline with some exceptions few and very far between. I mean, in fact, I have not simply given up on movies, music, and television. The culture is corrupted from top to bottom with so little redeeming that there are simply no good stories left to tell. Sooo many lies. So much infighting. So many troubles, wars of aggression, resource and land theft. forced sterilizations you name it... In movies like SW, people generally want escape, not to have reminders that we are all oppressive invaders and 10th generation rapists and plunderers who hate nature thrown in our faces. I mean, I never raped and plundered anyone. I never fired anyone because of their race or sex. I never even had the chance - why should I shoulder that burden? Why is it Rian Johnson's job to tell me that I must, or that I am a bigot and so on...? Nah. You can keep it. Bunch of monkey waste.
Oh wait, there's more. Here's a direct quote from the group's facebook page:
Even though I am indeed a member of the Alt-Right, and your previous life conditioning tells you that I am wrong and should be denounced, how can I truly be wrong if you embraced my view?
In their own words, a member of the alt right. Are you going to concede defeat on this point now?
Peregrine wrote: Oh wait, there's more. Here's a direct quote from the group's facebook page:
Even though I am indeed a member of the Alt-Right, and your previous life conditioning tells you that I am wrong and should be denounced, how can I truly be wrong if you embraced my view?
In their own words, a member of the alt right. Are you going to concede defeat on this point now?
Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
Future War Cultist wrote: For the record, my disappointment in their mishandling of the story and characters is mostly in the wasted potential. I was very happy when I found out that that a woman would be the lead, and that the cast would include a black man too (and from the start this time). Normally I don't think about these things, race and gender, but this time I thought good. This is good. Then they went and ruined my enthusiasm with mediocre to terrible story telling and poor characterization. It's not the actors fault of course. John and Daisy are great, but they can only do so much with that crappy writing and direction.
Earth127 wrote: Plz ignore peregrine and stop this stupid anti-semitism discussion.
Even when he is right he is trolling.
Since you have always been nice, I will respect this wish. I feel as if once he finds something in a thread he dislikes, he keeps going until it closes down. We've all seen this before.
Earth127 wrote: Their political leaining may not be alt-right. But calling for the sabotage of every big project a movie studio makes the way they do is very much a tactic reminiscnet of the alt-right.
Yeah, sabotaging things like movies or speaking events or projects is a strictly Alt-Right concept.
If you've had your head under a pile of rocks for the last few decades.
Really?
Like I dunno, antifa attacking Faith Goldy )not that I know who she even is, but still, makes the point very clear).
How about all the lefties protesting speaking events and conferences on university campuses because they seem unable to hold contrary notions inside their snowflakey heads?
What a bunch of baloney...
jeff white wrote: In every 'entertainment' industry arm from the West, there has been a rather rapid decline with some exceptions few and very far between. I mean, in fact, I have not simply given up on movies, music, and television. The culture is corrupted from top to bottom with so little redeeming that there are simply no good stories left to tell.
“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”
― Socrates
The truth here is not the same old complaints about how culture is in decline, complaints that have been made for literally thousands of years, it's that we have a biased view of the past. When you look back at movies/music/etc from decades ago you only see the good stuff, because that's all anybody bothers to preserve. You see the classic movies that everyone praises and encourages their friends to watch. You hear the best songs that make it onto radio playlists. Etc. You don't see all the mediocre and awful stuff that was mercifully forgotten. And so you forget that back then 90% of movies/music/etc were trash and people were busy complaining about how bad everything is compared to the good old days. Just like people 50 years from now will be nostalgic for 2018 and a time when entertainment didn't suck, while boasting about how they've given up on modern stuff.
Like I dunno, antifa attacking Faith Goldy )not that I know who she even is, but still, makes the point very clear).
How about all the lefties protesting speaking events and conferences on university campuses because they seem unable to hold contrary notions inside their snowflakey heads?
What a bunch of baloney...
...friend, I was being sarcastic. I gotta start adding tags, apparently!
jeff white wrote: How about all the lefties protesting speaking events and conferences on university campuses because they seem unable to hold contrary notions inside their snowflakey heads?
It's amazing how people who claim to be in favor of free speech will get so angry about students using their right to free speech to say "we don't like you, go away".
Peregrine wrote: It's amazing how people who claim to be in favor of free speech will get so angry about students using their right to free speech to say "we don't like you, go away".
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
It's from a person with the ability to post as that group (IOW, a moderator/page owner). It's safe to say the rest of the group doesn't disagree too strongly with the person acting as the voice of the group, otherwise they wouldn't be speaking from that position.
Earth127 wrote: Plz ignore peregrine and stop this stupid anti-semitism discussion.
Even when he is right he is trolling.
Since you have always been nice, I will respect this wish. I feel as if once he finds something in a thread he dislikes, he keeps going until it closes down. We've all seen this before.
Actually, I don't agree with some of Peregrine's politics, for sure - tho not familiar with much, so here say 'some' -
but one thing about him is that he is smart, and can follow a line of reasoning.
His interlocutors - present company included - cannot, or at least cannot seem to demonstrate such an ability in an actual thread of discussion.
This is why threads get closed down, because people lose their way, toss out unfounded claims of antisemitism and such,
and always - to the last - fail to accept that they are likely, or even possibly, mistaken about something.
Same case here, from what I can tell.
Not Peregrine's fault, at all.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
It's from a person with the ability to post as that group (IOW, a moderator/page owner). It's safe to say the rest of the group doesn't disagree too strongly with the person acting as the voice of the group, otherwise they wouldn't be speaking from that position.
Sure, Peregrine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeff white wrote: Actually, I don't agree with some of Peregrine's politics, for sure - tho not familiar with much, so here say 'some' -
Not Peregrine's fault, at all.
I don't really care one way or the other. I'd rather not turn a discussion into the Peregrine Show again and get it shut down. It was a relatively interesting debate back and forth until he zeroed in on something he dislikes.
jeff white wrote: In every 'entertainment' industry arm from the West, there has been a rather rapid decline with some exceptions few and very far between. I mean, in fact, I have not simply given up on movies, music, and television. The culture is corrupted from top to bottom with so little redeeming that there are simply no good stories left to tell.
“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”
― Socrates
The truth here is not the same old complaints about how culture is in decline, complaints that have been made for literally thousands of years, it's that we have a biased view of the past. When you look back at movies/music/etc from decades ago you only see the good stuff, because that's all anybody bothers to preserve. You see the classic movies that everyone praises and encourages their friends to watch. You hear the best songs that make it onto radio playlists. Etc. You don't see all the mediocre and awful stuff that was mercifully forgotten. And so you forget that back then 90% of movies/music/etc were trash and people were busy complaining about how bad everything is compared to the good old days. Just like people 50 years from now will be nostalgic for 2018 and a time when entertainment didn't suck, while boasting about how they've given up on modern stuff.
I exalted the post, cuz you understand, and deeply.
Though I do disagree with your assessment of contemporary culture, I must admit to the trend to which you point.
Things are especially bad now, as Socrates and later especially Aristotle had warned - demagogues and so on, democracy being the worst from of government,
descending rapidly into tyranny...
In the 50s, or better yet prior to the third central bank in the USA and the installation of current unelected overseers of the political economy in the USA for example,
demagogues had less power and influence, due the lack of central control over information.
TOday, of course, 5 or 6 families control 95+% of all corporate media, and this is growing through politics to control of alt media and new media as well...
So, on this concern alone, I will hold my ground.
Under sway of an especially nefarious group who do control this information,
and wag the dogs of war all the way to the bak and home again,
things are much worse now...
I exalted the post, cuz you understand, and deeply.
Though I do disagree with your assessment of contemporary culture, I must admit to the trend to which you point.
Things are especially bad now, as Socrates and later especially Aristotle had warned - demagogues and so on, democracy being the worst from of government,
descending rapidly into tyranny...
In the 50s, or better yet prior to the third central bank in the USA and the installation of current unelected overseers of the political economy in the USA for example,
demagogues had less power and influence, due the lack of central control over information.
TOday, of course, 5 or 6 families control 95+% of all corporate media, and this is growing through politics to control of alt media and new media as well...
So, on this concern alone, I will hold my ground.
Under sway of an especially nefarious group who do control this information,
and wag the dogs of war all the way to the bak and home again,
things are much worse now...
Welp. It just got weird.
Not really, I enjoy a good spooky theory as much as the next guy but unless this can reconnect to 'The Death Star's Destruction was an Inside Job' then I think we've gone too far off the rails.
Because really, a ventilation shaft straight to the core that can be blown up with one torpedo? Someone had a say in that and I think the Bothans are more entrenched in this than we realize.
As the movie was released, most professional critics rated the it highly.
True
Most (everyone I have heard/known/read) who are not professional critics frankly did not like the movie, at all.
[Citation needed, I give 25-35% at best. With 40-50% not really caring either way
Stylized Transformers in space - just noise and spectacle.
Plz go watch an atual transformers movie. Or don't It's almost a hate crie to force someone to watch them
For those of us who have been following this storyline for more than 40 years
(Episode 4 was the first film that I ever saw in a theater and not with my Mom/Grandparents - I was 8)
the discontinuity, while at the same time recycling plot lines with name swaps,
OT is just as guilty of this. It gave us 2 death stars.
simply the lack of intellectual effort,
It's there. But then again it was overflowing in the prequels. Didn't make them any good
simply wrecked everything, all the way back,
and has left such a bad feeling about Disney,
as if we needed any more evidence that it is simply the animation wing of the neo-liberal prog-paganda machine,
and about big entertainment altogether,
that honestly I stopped seeing all movies at the theaters.
Plz don't project general dissapointment in an industry on one movie
I will even be waiting for Deadpool 2 to arrive on the VOD at less than 4bux to see on the home projector,
and am doing the same for Infinity War.
It just stopped being fun to be a fan
when these corporate hotshots decide that
to enjoy the movie,
you need to wear special freak-flag goggles
and then, when you do, it is all warmed lube and rainbows.
As above
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the anti-SJW feedback is but a small nearly meaningless loss. And if Black panther and wonder woman have proven anything going the other way would have been worse.
ALso remember the fringe dude who made a cut with all the women removed and got royally mocked by the cast/ Rian on twitter.
In the interest of a healthy discussion, I would advise Ignoring Dakka's primary salt troll. Live is a lot more stess free without him.
FYI Rian loved it on twitter, so did the cast. Is it really any different than the phantom menace cut which removed jarjar? same principle.
For what it's worth, director Rian Johnson and Mark Hamill weighed in themselves with good humor and relentless ridicule:
Priscilla hits all the major points here but I’ll just add hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha https://t.co/f0bKJ9NeUe — Rian Johnson (@rianjohnson) January 16, 2018
Agreed. But let me add [many laughing faces]
- mh
I actually do believe it’s gotta be a brilliant troll. It’s just too perfect.
— Rian Johnson (@rianjohnson) January 16, 2018
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
It's from a person with the ability to post as that group (IOW, a moderator/page owner). It's safe to say the rest of the group doesn't disagree too strongly with the person acting as the voice of the group, otherwise they wouldn't be speaking from that position.
Oh the fun we could have with that logic if we used it analyze what the mods around here have posted and their political leanings. So you'd say you don't disagree too strongly with anything the moderators have ever said here?
back on topic though
TLJ is a clear example at how to fail at telling a compelling story. There's no point in having a diverse cast if you cast them in sterotypical roles and don't give them depth as a character.
sirlynchmob wrote: TLJ is a clear example at how to fail at telling a compelling story. There's no point in having a diverse cast if you cast them in sterotypical roles and don't give them depth as a character.
I didn't think Finn was stereotypical. He seemed more like the easiest character to identify with, oddly enough. When I first heard there was a 'renegade Stormtrooper' idea floating around, I was afraid they'd take the 'disgruntled, jaded veteran' stereotype out of the box again. "Lemme tell you 'bout war, son..."
As far as 'stereotypes' go, I think the only one was 'Mary Sue'... if that even counts. Maybe 'hotshot fighter pilot'? I don't know. They seemed less like 'stereotypes' and more like... RPG Player Character concepts by people with very little imagination.
He was attacking the movie’s scores, he wrote, to get back at Disney for changes to the “Star Wars” canon (as well as various superhero franchises). It sounded like an ultra-nerdy version of the plot to Stephen King’s “Misery,” and not many paid attention.
But in subsequent posts, the nameless Facebook man added gender politics to his list of “Star Wars” grievances – and suddenly reporters came calling.
“Male leads who aren’t (gay) or colored or both WILL ALWAYS be better than female leads,” he wrote. “They should just stay in the kitchen instead of playing with Lightsabers,” he added.
“I’m sick and tired of men being portrayed as idiots,” he told HuffPost. “There was a time we ruled society and I want to see that again.”
Last week, someone changed the Rose Tico page on the “Star Wars”-oriented Wookieepedia website to feature a character description that can only be described as flat out racist.
The page text has since been changed back to the original character description, but the screenshot below shows the offensive entry, which includes changing the character’s name to “Ching Chong Wing Tong” and referring to her as “stupid, autistic and slowed.”
There are people who criticize TLJ for legit reasons (pacing, just not liking it, whatever). And then there are those who ARE being racist and sexist. Unfortunately, those people have poisoned the well so to speak. You cannot look at that viewer review score without knowing that some unknown % of the dislikes IS from bigots. Is it a big number? Is it small number? Nobody knows and there really isn't a way to know. It doesn't mean the people with legit criticisms should be silenced or lumped in with the bigots, but it also means you cannot deny their existence
Lance845 wrote: There are people who criticize TLJ for legit reasons (pacing, just not liking it, whatever). And then there are those who ARE being racist and sexist. Unfortunately, those people have poisoned the well so to speak. You cannot look at that viewer review score without knowing that some unknown % of the dislikes IS from bigots. Is it a big number? Is it small number? Nobody knows and there really isn't a way to know. It doesn't mean the people with legit criticisms should be silenced or lumped in with the bigots, but it also means you cannot deny their existence.
And I fully agree with you. The problem with poisoning the well is far too common in our society with various criticism of media. Imagine, if you will- if someone came to Dakkadakka and was very selective about whose opinions those chose to represent the forum. Imagine if they found some of the rather 'extreme' 40k fan groups on Facebook and thought that represented the 40k fandom.
Now, imagine if you and I are sitting there and having a game of 40k (you're losing because it's my example, I can do what I want). Someone comes up to us and asks us what we're doing, and after you roll a handful of 1's (my example, again)- you sweep your squad off the table and say, "We're playing a friendly game of 40k." One dude points and says, "Hahaha, you're a bunch of crazy soyboy nerds with Female Space Marine fetishes!" and then another says, "You're the jerks that like Nazi memes!" And here's you and I, finishing a game in turn 2- and we're both insulted because we've been cheapened. We don't get to represent what we love, we've been 'othered'.
As a wise man once said to me, "The village idiots are the first ones people notice when they come to your town."
I just also believe that 'poisoning the well' is often very convenient for some people, especially when that person's income depends on public consumption and negative criticism can hurt their bottom line. "Don't listen to them, they're [Insert Bad Thing]. That's why they hate it." Is a pretty sound defensive tactic for low-information and impressionable people.
These new SW movies very clearly treat male and female characters differently. Male characters often embarassingly fail when trying to do something cool, generally as a moment of comic relief. This happens over and over to male characters but never to the female characters. Male characters are portrayed as blundering compared to female characters, who are generally hyper competent. I would guess the intention is to portray women as strong, whereas in the past women (it is claimed) have been portrayed as needing men to save them. But the unintentional result is, the male characters are better drawn, undergo more character development, and are ultimtely more sympathetic than the female characters, who end up as just boring.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
It's from a person with the ability to post as that group (IOW, a moderator/page owner). It's safe to say the rest of the group doesn't disagree too strongly with the person acting as the voice of the group, otherwise they wouldn't be speaking from that position.
Oh the fun we could have with that logic if we used it analyze what the mods around here have posted and their political leanings. So you'd say you don't disagree too strongly with anything the moderators have ever said here?
back on topic though
TLJ is a clear example at how to fail at telling a compelling story. There's no point in having a diverse cast if you cast them in sterotypical roles and don't give them depth as a character.
I found it compelling. So did my wife and my daughter.
And that’s a large part of the problem. They’re movies for 12 year olds. George Lucas said it himself. However, we look at them now with our adult mentality and we can pick all kinds of holes in all them them, but with our nostalgia glasses on, we give the silliness a get out of jail card
.
Except that not what those paid critics say - "no no no, its a visionary subversion of the universe" - not its a fun flick for kids - there are plenty of those - few get held up some sort of cinematic gem with the plot, pacing and character problems that this pile of gak is rife with.
That’s a pretty strong accusation. Find me one critic who said “it’s a visionary subversion of the universe” and then give me proof they were paid by Lucasfilm to say it.
I certainly wouldn’t say TLJ was a “pile of gak”. As films for 12 year olds go, I quite enjoyed it. But then I, like everyone else who says they enjoyed it, was bribed by Disney to say that.
Unless you are a paid critic I didn't say you were.
I would and do say its a pile of gak and that's being generous. Different strokes and all that.
I have no reason to read any film critics words but a quick browse on RT and get bs like this:
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
Manchu wrote: These new SW movies very clearly treat male and female characters differently. Male characters often embarassingly fail when trying to do something cool, generally as a moment of comic relief. This happens over and over to male characters but never to the female characters. Male characters are portrayed as blundering compared to female characters, who are generally hyper competent. I would guess the intention is to portray women as strong, whereas in the past women (it is claimed) have been portrayed as needing men to save them. But the unintentional result is, the male characters are better drawn, undergo more character development, and are ultimtely more sympathetic than the female characters, who end up as just boring.
Except Poe flies in and in one sweeping spinning long shot shoots a ton of enemy fighters out of the air in TFA and everyone talks about how great a pilot he is. And in TFA it opens with Poe solo flying across a big ass enemy ship stripping it of all it's dorsal defensive turrets. And Luke absolutely killed it with Kylo as a force projection coming in and buying time and saving the day.
Meanwhile Rey tried to turn Kylo and failed miserably. She may be winning fights but shes loosing causes left and right.
I am not saying the writing in these movies has been the best. Because it hasn't been. Again, SW has never had the best writing in my opinion. They are just dumb fun.
But I think it's more that the characters are portrayed more evenly now and everyone is focusing on the negatives that support their argument.
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
...that almost reads like a satire. I'm not kidding. It has to be a joke. That's got to be a troll post.
I stay away from 'professional' critics of anything because I've found they thrive on too much negativity and tend to serve as 'advertisements' more than reviewers... so this could very well be authentic for all I know.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Is that someone from the group, or is that the group's position? Having one 'Alt-RIght' person in a group does not make the group 'alt-right'. Come on, now.
It's from a person with the ability to post as that group (IOW, a moderator/page owner). It's safe to say the rest of the group doesn't disagree too strongly with the person acting as the voice of the group, otherwise they wouldn't be speaking from that position.
Oh the fun we could have with that logic if we used it analyze what the mods around here have posted and their political leanings. So you'd say you don't disagree too strongly with anything the moderators have ever said here?
back on topic though
TLJ is a clear example at how to fail at telling a compelling story. There's no point in having a diverse cast if you cast them in sterotypical roles and don't give them depth as a character.
I found it compelling. So did my wife and my daughter.
and I accept that and take you at your word for it. There's nothing wrong with liking the movie, it's flaws prevented me from doing so. But then again I liked 'dude wheres my car' so tastes do vary wildly
Lance845 wrote: I am not saying the writing in these movies has been the best. Because it hasn't been. Again, SW has never had the best writing in my opinion. They are just dumb fun.
Perfectly valid way of seeing it. I put Star Wars and Transformers in the same little box of movies for when I want to see whiz-bang shiny-woos. If I want deep characters, dynamic storytelling, and gripping plot twists I fire up me some Golden Girls and Mama's Family.
Jokes aside, 'dumb fun movies' aren't bad unless they're pretending to be something else. I have more disdain for someone trying to convince me that Transformers is 'awful' for not being Citizen Kane. WTF you think I bought this movie ticket for- inspiring dialogue? No, I want to see robots beat the piss out of each other and the rest of the movie can be armpit noises and Dorito's ads for all I care.
You can't say that Rey failed to turn Ben. This is an interaction between two characters, not a unilateral issue. Ben has his own mind and is responsible for his own actions. "Failing" to turn to the Light Side should not be pinned on Rey any more than Finn deciding to run from the FO at Maz's castle should be pinned on Rey, who tried to persuade him to stay.
When it comes to unilateral action, Rey succeeds at everything she tries. Finn certainly doesn't. In TFA, Poe doesn't either.In TLJ, both constantly fail. It's not that these male characters never get to do anything cool. The point is that Rey never fails and certainly she is never shown trying to be cool and failing in an embarassng way. The most badass moment in TFA, IMO, is when Finn decides to ignite the lightsaber and face Kylo Ren to protect his friend. The reason this is so badass is precisely because Finn does not stand a chance. That was real courage. Nothing Rey does really requires courage because she will succeed no matter what.
Manchu wrote: You can't say that Rey failed to turn Ben. This is an interaction between two characters, not a unilateral issue. Ben has his own mind and is responsible for his own actions. "Failing" to turn to the Light Side should not be pinned on Rey any more than Finn deciding to run from the FO at Maz's castle should be pinned on Rey, who tried to persuade him to stay.
When it comes to unilateral action, Rey succeeds at everything she tries. Finn certainly doesn't. In TFA, Poe doesn't either. It's not that these male characters never get to do anything cool. The point is that Rey never fails and certainly she is never shown trying to be cool and failing in an embarassng way. The most badass moment in TFA, IMO, is when Finn decides to ignite the lightsaber and face Kylo Ren to protect his friend. The reason this is so badass is precisely because Finn does not stand a chance. That was real courage. Nothing Rey does really requires courage because she will succeed no matter what.
Bull crap. Luke succeeded in turning Vader back from the darkside. Thats the actual climax of RotJ.
If you can say Luke succeeded in that then you can absolutely say Rey failed with Kylo. She went there specifically to do that thing. Not just having a conversation with a person in a bar they happened to both be in. She got herself in a shuttle pod and she went directly to Kylo for that express purpose. She spent half the movie planning for it.
There's a difference between good dumb and bas dumb tough. Pacific rim, marvel , star wars to a lesser extent are good dumb. Transformers, indiana jones IV olympus has fallen are bad dumb.
Making a dumb movie is no excuse for dumb movie making. And I am looking at you Michael Bay.
Bull crap. Luke succeeded in turning Vader back from the darkside. Thats the actual climax of RotJ.
Vader made a choice. At the end of the day, it was Vader that listened to what his son said and considered it and let the better side of him that he'd hidden away win over. He did so out of his own agency.
And he's speaking of 'Unilateral' actions. That's 'doing your own thing by yourself'. A Unilateral action would be like me going to the gym and working out. Otherwise it is a bilateral or multilateral action, like you and I driving to the gym to spot one another while we lift weights.
Manchu wrote: You can't say that Rey failed to turn Ben. This is an interaction between two characters, not a unilateral issue. Ben has his own mind and is responsible for his own actions. "Failing" to turn to the Light Side should not be pinned on Rey any more than Finn deciding to run from the FO at Maz's castle should be pinned on Rey, who tried to persuade him to stay.
When it comes to unilateral action, Rey succeeds at everything she tries. Finn certainly doesn't. In TFA, Poe doesn't either. It's not that these male characters never get to do anything cool. The point is that Rey never fails and certainly she is never shown trying to be cool and failing in an embarassng way. The most badass moment in TFA, IMO, is when Finn decides to ignite the lightsaber and face Kylo Ren to protect his friend. The reason this is so badass is precisely because Finn does not stand a chance. That was real courage. Nothing Rey does really requires courage because she will succeed no matter what.
Bull crap. Luke succeeded in turning Vader back from the darkside. Thats the actual climax of RotJ.
If you can say Luke succeeded in that then you can absolutely say Rey failed with Kylo. She went there specifically to do that thing. Not just having a conversation with a person. She got herself in a shuttle pod and she went directly to Kylo for that express purpose. She spent half the movie planning for it.
I wouldn't say luke succeeded in that, sure he knew vader still had good in him, but letting the emperor try to kill you with lightning is hardly a plan. It's not like luke talked him back, nor had any coherent plan to win him over to the light side. vader choose to kill the emperor to save his son, but does that one action negate all the evil he's done and put him back in the light? If vader had pause another second to think about it luke would have died with vader and the emperor.
Earth127 wrote: There's a difference between good dumb and bas dumb tough. Pacific rim, marvel , star wars to a lesser extent are good dumb. Transformers, indiana jones IV olympus has fallen are bad dumb.
Making a dumb movie is no excuse for dumb movie making. And I am looking at you Michael Bay.
Eh, to each their own. I found the SAW sequels to be 'bad dumb'. I find something like the classic Slasher movies to be 'good dumb'. It's more about me being entertained by what I'm watching, and it's a matter of preference.
Like, Uwe Boll has some real 'bad dumb' movies but there's a couple of them that I'll sit through with pizza on a rainy Sunday just because they're flashy boredom-killers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Vader made his own choice. But Luke suceeded because he wanted vader to make that choice.
The is no sense in which Rey is responsible for Ben Solo being a murderous jerk so his decision not chnage his whole lifepath around because some girl asks is also not her responsibility, not her failure.
By contrast, Luke is Vader's son. He tells R2-D2, I can't kill my own father. Yeah because that, everyone knows, is abominable. There is no "good" way to kil, your own dad. Luke has a responsibility, not for what Vader has done (that's down to Yoda and Obi-Wan) but to himself. Luke's success was not turning Vader (he didn't) but rather not turning to darkness himself, which is what broke through to Vader.
There is nothing like that in TLJ. Two kids who are basically strangers talk online and might hook up but when they meet IRL there is no chemistry.That's it. Can't blame that on Rey.
Just like with the previous thread on TLJ people (me included) are just too polarized to discuss it in a civil manner on the internet.
I dunno, it seems like there is one consistent problem with this thread getting off track over and over again. Better shut the whole thing down though I guess.
Rey isn't responsible for Ben being evil. But she chose to go to the Raddus setting herself the task of turning Kylo ren back into Ben solo and she failed to do so.
I think I have the perfect example to demonstrate the problems with the character(s) we're talking about. I don't know how familiar you are with comics, so I'm not trying to insult your knowledge here, but bare with me.
Two Superheroes, both INSANELY powerful- yet one is a better character than the other, by all standards of criticism. Those characters are Superman and Sentry.
Sentry is a Marvel character that was some guy who thought he could get high on some juice he found in a lab. It turned him into a hero with 'the power of a thousand exploding suns'. He suddenly manifested in the comics out of nowhere. Everyone in the Marvel Universe was like, "Oh yeah, Sentry, that guy" like he'd been there since the beginning and his existence and abilities were just common knowledge. He does have flaws, but they are kind of lame in comparison to what he is (He has some pretty severe mental issues and they are completely invalidated the moment he turns into Sentry). He literally ripped the God of War in half like it was nothing, a God that's give a lot of the most powerful MU characters a run for their money. He manages to show up and be a Deus Ex Machina whenever he is in comics- because Marvel still has a handful of talented writers on board that know he needs to be kept far the hell away from any normal story because he's so godlike that it makes the threat almost pointless. He's pretty much one of the most hated characters in comics, and that's saying something considering the current era. He COULD be really good, but it'd take a LOT of work and development, and quite frankly it's probably too late for that.
Superman is just as powerful. He got his powers because something something something Krypton and Earth's Yellow Sun. If he were introduced later, most of us would loathe him as much as we loathe Sentry. But writers have taken the time over the years to try and smooth him out and make him more relatable (sometimes it sucks, though). He has his flaws now- he sometimes struggles to make the right decision. He sees great potential in humans and is in awe of the things they achieve, and sometimes fears that they might end up like the Kryptonians if they don't change their ways. He struggles between 'inspiration' and 'guiding light' because the latter often makes him feel as if he's stepping too close to being a god or leader and it cheapens mankind's achievements. He had to master not crushing someone's hand, not slapping a bad guy into wet pulp, and not tearing doors off the hinges- which would be like handling a robin's eggshell in a dune buggy while on PCP. He's vulnerable to magic, so even chain-smoking Johnny 'Conjob' Constantine could shut him down with a few words. He may be awe-inspiring as Superman, but a lot of his geeky nerd side as Clark Kent is 100% awkward sheltered farm-boy and it's authentic. He fails- A LOT, in fact he got punked out during No Man's Land because all the super-powers in the world couldn't manage that crisis and literally no one gave a damn that Superman was there, because he couldn't work a water filter or make food grow- they actually ran past Superman to the guy who knew how to work a water pump and fell in line to follow HIM.
In the end, people are going to appreciate a character that struggles. The one that falls on his face. The one that screws up. He can go and splatter a billion bad guys and do awesome stuff but if he's given a proper background to support him and you see the human side- that side that screws up, makes a selfish decision, embarasses himself- but grows from it... then you have a likeable, enjoyable, fun character with enough depth to seem like a bit more than a list of abilities.
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
...that almost reads like a satire. I'm not kidding. It has to be a joke. That's got to be a troll post.
I stay away from 'professional' critics of anything because I've found they thrive on too much negativity and tend to serve as 'advertisements' more than reviewers... so this could very well be authentic for all I know.
Its real :(
here is another that beggars belief in a 2 minute search.
The Last Jedi tackles the bigger questions that the morally sure previous entries did not. The Light and Dark side become shades of grey; good and evil become subjective. It keeps you guessing more than Return of the Jedi ever did, and offers a more convincing argument than Revenge of the Sith. The profits of war is a surprising new theme for the series, giving an intellectual depth rarely seen in blockbuster cinema outside of Nolan
It is the best and most innovative Star Wars film to come along in a long time and you would think that this would inspire celebration in the streets among longtime fans of the franchise.
The Last Jedi" is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that's left the future of the franchise looking bright.
Looks like Disney even told them what hackneyed phrases to spout.
here is another that beggars belief in a 2 minute search.
The Last Jedi tackles the bigger questions that the morally sure previous entries did not. The Light and Dark side become shades of grey; good and evil become subjective. It keeps you guessing more than Return of the Jedi ever did, and offers a more convincing argument than Revenge of the Sith. The profits of war is a surprising new theme for the series, giving an intellectual depth rarely seen in blockbuster cinema outside of Nolan
Except it really didn't... if anything ever did this well, it was KOTOR 2. And the 'war profit' thing... I mean, yeah I guess so but I'm pretty sure in a Galaxy where there's an Authoritarian Fascist regime led by evil Space Wizards making weapons is a pretty crucial thing if you don't want them to be the boss. You can't just hand everyone a squad of Ewoks and say, "Go get 'em, tiger!"
And yeah, some of those lines look repeated. Not that we haven't seen that before...
I think I have the perfect example to demonstrate the problems with the character(s) we're talking about. I don't know how familiar you are with comics, so I'm not trying to insult your knowledge here, but bare with me.
Two Superheroes, both INSANELY powerful- yet one is a better character than the other, by all standards of criticism. Those characters are Superman and Sentry.
Sentry is a Marvel character that was some guy who thought he could get high on some juice he found in a lab. It turned him into a hero with 'the power of a thousand exploding suns'. He suddenly manifested in the comics out of nowhere. Everyone in the Marvel Universe was like, "Oh yeah, Sentry, that guy" like he'd been there since the beginning and his existence and abilities were just common knowledge. He does have flaws, but they are kind of lame in comparison to what he is (He has some pretty severe mental issues and they are completely invalidated the moment he turns into Sentry). He literally ripped the God of War in half like it was nothing, a God that's give a lot of the most powerful MU characters a run for their money. He manages to show up and be a Deus Ex Machina whenever he is in comics- because Marvel still has a handful of talented writers on board that know he needs to be kept far the hell away from any normal story because he's so godlike that it makes the threat almost pointless. He's pretty much one of the most hated characters in comics, and that's saying something considering the current era. He COULD be really good, but it'd take a LOT of work and development, and quite frankly it's probably too late for that.
Superman is just as powerful. He got his powers because something something something Krypton and Earth's Yellow Sun. If he were introduced later, most of us would loathe him as much as we loathe Sentry. But writers have taken the time over the years to try and smooth him out and make him more relatable (sometimes it sucks, though). He has his flaws now- he sometimes struggles to make the right decision. He sees great potential in humans and is in awe of the things they achieve, and sometimes fears that they might end up like the Kryptonians if they don't change their ways. He struggles between 'inspiration' and 'guiding light' because the latter often makes him feel as if he's stepping too close to being a god or leader and it cheapens mankind's achievements. He had to master not crushing someone's hand, not slapping a bad guy into wet pulp, and not tearing doors off the hinges- which would be like handling a robin's eggshell in a dune buggy while on PCP. He's vulnerable to magic, so even chain-smoking Johnny 'Conjob' Constantine could shut him down with a few words. He may be awe-inspiring as Superman, but a lot of his geeky nerd side as Clark Kent is 100% awkward sheltered farm-boy and it's authentic. He fails- A LOT, in fact he got punked out during No Man's Land because all the super-powers in the world couldn't manage that crisis and literally no one gave a damn that Superman was there, because he couldn't work a water filter or make food grow- they actually ran past Superman to the guy who knew how to work a water pump and fell in line to follow HIM.
In the end, people are going to appreciate a character that struggles. The one that falls on his face. The one that screws up. He can go and splatter a billion bad guys and do awesome stuff but if he's given a proper background to support him and you see the human side- that side that screws up, makes a selfish decision, embarasses himself- but grows from it... then you have a likeable, enjoyable, fun character with enough depth to seem like a bit more than a list of abilities.
We have VERY different takes on the Sentry.
Sentry's introduction was a commentary on how things get constantly retconned in the comics. He was retroactively always a part of the Marvel universe in a way that the readers themselves could kind of be a part of. The reason nobody knew about him was some shenanigans with Reed Richards and Dr Strange wiping memories and erasing him from history because of his madness. When he reappeared it was because something triggered his reemergence and that trigger broke the spell/science that kept him forgotten and his powers locked away.
His characters ark is done. There is no Sentry in the comics now and hasn't been since the Siege story line when his other personality went full on berserk (forgot it's name) and everyone had to go full on to stop him at Asgaurd floating over the midwest. It ended the Dark Avengers/Norman Osborn in charge era and kicked off the Heroic Age.
The Sentry I feel is a very well fleshed out character. Much like Deadpool, his conflicts are not about power. Deadpool can ultimately beat anyone because his healing is so extreme that nobody can actually stop him. But thats not important because Deadpools real conflicts are personal. It's man vs himself rather than man vs other. The Sentry is a guy who lives in fear of the sheer power he has. He's never fully utilized it because its so vast. He KIND of starts to when he fought the Hulk at the end of WWHulk. His mental instability along with his fear makes him a prime candidate for man vs himself. And when he shows up in other stories it's often him being manipulated because of his insecurities and fears.
Superman on the other hand had to be fully remade 3 whole times in the comics to adjust his power set and power level because that character is full on out of control. Did you know that until Crisis on Infinite Earths (published in the mid 80s) superman could sneeze and wipe out entire solar systems and from his hand he could spawn a smaller superman with all his powers which could in turn spawn a smaller superman with all his power etc etc like some kind of mad god Russian nesting doll? Superman has had to go through so many iterations over so many years to experience any kind of growth. They keep resetting him and then he just learns the same lessons over and over because once he decides to be a good person hes got nothing else to actually learn. This is MOSTLY a problem of DC rebooting their entire universe every 6 months at this point. But it's not ONLY because of that. Superman is ultimately a kind of boring character. In terms of external conflict he can only be stopped by magic or green rocks. That doesn't provide for very much variety in external villains. And he's not insane or unstable or insecure enough to be manipulated like Sentry is. You would never see classic superman working for Lex Luther because he legit thinks it's the right thing to do but thats exactly what we got out of Sentry with Norman Osborne. Which makes for an interesting conflict for everyone else caught up in the world Norman was building. The most interesting versions of Superman are the non canonical ones like Red Son.
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
...that almost reads like a satire. I'm not kidding. It has to be a joke. That's got to be a troll post.
I stay away from 'professional' critics of anything because I've found they thrive on too much negativity and tend to serve as 'advertisements' more than reviewers... so this could very well be authentic for all I know.
Its real :(
here is another that beggars belief in a 2 minute search.
The Last Jedi tackles the bigger questions that the morally sure previous entries did not. The Light and Dark side become shades of grey; good and evil become subjective. It keeps you guessing more than Return of the Jedi ever did, and offers a more convincing argument than Revenge of the Sith. The profits of war is a surprising new theme for the series, giving an intellectual depth rarely seen in blockbuster cinema outside of Nolan
It is the best and most innovative Star Wars film to come along in a long time and you would think that this would inspire celebration in the streets among longtime fans of the franchise.
The Last Jedi" is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that's left the future of the franchise looking bright.
Looks like Disney even told them what hackneyed phrases to spout.
Funny that Disney didn’t pay the critics to like Solo more then
It’s just laughable that some people can’t accept that their opinion isn’t the definitive truth and that if film critics gave a film they didn’t like a positive review ... well, they must have been bribed. I wonder who bribes the critics to give poor reviews to films I like?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Okay, you're missing the point. This is not about what you like or how many times it's been retconned. This is about developing characters.
I got the point. And I answered it with your example and it's easy to see how you and I view the characters differently. Superman has never been developed through an organic story. He has had his slate wiped clean and rebooted. The Sentry has had to grow and develop with the sheer volume of power that he has.You look at 2 characters with vast amounts of power and pointed towards the one that has developed the least but also in the exactly same way over and over always to the end up in the same place and always to be rewound back to the same starting point, as an example of good character development.
I argued that the Sentry had far superior character development and it wasn't because he was incredibly powerful.
Rey, like Sentry or Superman (but to a vastly smaller degree) is not about her external conflicts. It's not about her in a sword fight. It's not about her doing CGI flips. Rey's interesting conflicts are internal and personal.
Lance845 wrote: Rey's interesting conflicts are internal and personal.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree because it seems we have polar opposite ideas about what 'good' is and I feel like I'm getting nowhere with making you understand.
Funny that Disney didn’t pay the critics to like Solo more then
It’s just laughable that some people can’t accept that their opinion isn’t the definitive truth and that if film critics gave a film they didn’t like a positive review ... well, they must have been bribed. I wonder who bribes the critics to give poor reviews to films I like?
Solo wasn't nearly as big of a turd and didn't need the skids greased. Big difference between a spinoff doing 'meh' and your main continuity saga getting bad reviews.
How the feth did Disney know TLJ was such a load of gak that it would need world-wide illegal bribing of professional critics to shill it to the point of success that all trufans recognised it as turdeverest but in the end it got almost 70% from over half a mill of public reviews including all the turd birds?
Lance845 wrote: Rey's interesting conflicts are internal and personal.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree because it seems we have polar opposite ideas about what 'good' is and I feel like I'm getting nowhere with making you understand.
Appears to be true. There is nothing for you to make me understand. You like characters with failings that have interesting external conflicts. I don't have a problem with characters whos most compelling conflicts are internal. We don't have to like the same things.
Kilkrazy wrote: How the feth did Disney know TLJ was such a load of gak that it would need world-wide illegal bribing of professional critics to shill it to the point of success that all trufans recognised it as turdeverest but in the end it got almost 70% from over half a mill of public reviews including all the turd birds?
A better question is if they didn't- how that could have been possible. I'm not sure how, upon looking at the end product, one couldn't realize that it was a turd.
I don't know, maybe the epiphany struck them somewhere during the editing process.
Also, 'illegal bribe'? Not sure you realize how this professional critic/reviewer gig works. Your job is to review movies- and you must be among the first. Review something too negatively and you lose that next ticket to the early showing. That hurts your livelihood. Or can kill it.
That's why 'professional' critics aren't credible to me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or the whole ‘all positive reviews were shills’ is baseless nonesense?
Mostly because it’s baseless nonsense.
Has it ever occurred to you that different people enjoy different things?
Careful with that Hyperbole Drive.
Yes, people enjoy different things. I'm fully aware of this. At no point did I say 'all positive reviews'. But I am saying critics are less likely to give the movie an honest review. If that's 'baseless nonsense', then I'm not sure what planet you live on but it needs to meet the Death Star before that sort of madness spreads to a planet with decent folks.
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
...that almost reads like a satire. I'm not kidding. It has to be a joke. That's got to be a troll post.
I stay away from 'professional' critics of anything because I've found they thrive on too much negativity and tend to serve as 'advertisements' more than reviewers... so this could very well be authentic for all I know.
Its real :(
here is another that beggars belief in a 2 minute search.
The Last Jedi tackles the bigger questions that the morally sure previous entries did not. The Light and Dark side become shades of grey; good and evil become subjective. It keeps you guessing more than Return of the Jedi ever did, and offers a more convincing argument than Revenge of the Sith. The profits of war is a surprising new theme for the series, giving an intellectual depth rarely seen in blockbuster cinema outside of Nolan
It is the best and most innovative Star Wars film to come along in a long time and you would think that this would inspire celebration in the streets among longtime fans of the franchise.
The Last Jedi" is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that's left the future of the franchise looking bright.
Looks like Disney even told them what hackneyed phrases to spout.
Funny that Disney didn’t pay the critics to like Solo more then
It’s just laughable that some people can’t accept that their opinion isn’t the definitive truth and that if film critics gave a film they didn’t like a positive review ... well, they must have been bribed. I wonder who bribes the critics to give poor reviews to films I like?
Just making sure you all see that because the stupid is very strong in this thread haha.
Maybe... just maybe..... emphasising MAYBE!!!!! they didnt try it this time because it was so obvious last time, kind of a "gak, we got caught out, lets not try that again lads"
Hey, even if you're not an actual 'professional critic'- you have to be careful about how you criticize things. You could end up, say, having a programmer working at a AAA game studio mock you after you die of cancer.
The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.
So given the large disparity it is quite reasonable, nay Expected!! That people would get suspicious of the numbers, what has caused those critic reviews to be so... wrong? For lack of a better word, well some think bribes, others think favours, yet more believe that it’s a by product of the industry and making a living from writing reviews professionally, what is for certain though, the critics are out of touch with the audience IN THIS CASE.
Formosa wrote: So given the large disparity it is quite reasonable, nay Expected!! That people would get suspicious of the numbers, what has caused those critic reviews to be so... wrong? For lack of a better word, well some think bribes, others think favours, yet more believe that it’s a by product of the industry and making a living from writing reviews professionally, what is for certain though, the critics are out of touch with the audience IN THIS CASE.
I lived with a friend who reviewed fishing equipment, he had a site online he wrote for and everything. So, when they had new products- they sent them to him before they went out on the market for the general public. He made his 'clicks' by having this product first, and giving a review for something. And, he got new free stuff. But, if he gave a harsh review- that company wouldn't send him stuff any more... which hurt his clicks. Which hurt his income. So he was constantly struggling for a nice way to say 'this reel sucks'... and many times, couldn't be completely honest. Otherwise, he wouldn't get new shinies and he'd lose his reviewing job.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're upset Holdo didn't share her plans with a reckless pilot recently demoted by Holdo's superior officer? If it had been anyone other than Leia, Poe would've been in the brig or out the airlock.
For what? Leading a successful (if costly) attack on an enemy capital ship that would have wiped out the fleet before it left orbit that they utterly failed to stop by issuing a recall order on the bombers ?
If Poe is a failure for leading the attack from the front, Leia and Ackbar fail by not issuing recall orders... or just skipping off into hyperspace and leaving Poe to face the New Order alone.
That's yet another severe plot hole in this movie - if Poe really was wrong, Leia and Ackbar could easily have overridden his orders. And there's no sign they even tried.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Holdo's plan would have succeeded if it didn't leek to the first order. The transports were cloacked. And untill DJ told the first order to run a scan they didn't.
Holdo's sacrifice had a purpose. It prevented the Raddus's long range guns from continuing to fire on the resistance transports. Rey's fight in the throne room was not involved.
If you wanna critice the movie fine. But don't ignore parts of it to do so.
Then don't ignore the part where DJ was only there BECAUSE Holdo didn't share her plan with Poe. If Poe had been given any hope at all that Holdo actually had a plan, he would not have sent Finn and Rose off in the first place, they never meet DJ, and he can't spill the beans to the New Order.
People like you keep saying this, but honestly the majority of "if you see problems with it you're a bigot" mentions have come from the anti-SJW crowd complaining about "some people" saying it. Many people have accurately pointed out that there has been sexist/racist/etc criticism of the movie, but I haven't seen anyone argue that criticizing it for, say, having poor pacing or plot holes means that you're stupid or a bigot.
Aside from Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Rian Johnson?
Oh, yes, they did indeed go there. It's a big part of WHY the backlash to TLJ has been so severe; this whole 'the movie was brilliant and if you don't like it you're a bigot' originated with their responses to criticism of the movie on social media.
EDIT: Having since read the discussion over 'did he/didn't he' the past few pages... nevermind.
The Last Jedi” is absolutely the “Star Wars” film we deserved and didn’t expect. The prequels, stand alone “story” films and even the animated series considered canon are a frustratingly repetitious and revisionist cycle. “The Last Jedi” is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that’s left the future of the franchise looking bright.
So Subversive and visionary - yep. Do I agree Hell no.
...that almost reads like a satire. I'm not kidding. It has to be a joke. That's got to be a troll post.
I stay away from 'professional' critics of anything because I've found they thrive on too much negativity and tend to serve as 'advertisements' more than reviewers... so this could very well be authentic for all I know.
Its real :(
here is another that beggars belief in a 2 minute search.
The Last Jedi tackles the bigger questions that the morally sure previous entries did not. The Light and Dark side become shades of grey; good and evil become subjective. It keeps you guessing more than Return of the Jedi ever did, and offers a more convincing argument than Revenge of the Sith. The profits of war is a surprising new theme for the series, giving an intellectual depth rarely seen in blockbuster cinema outside of Nolan
It is the best and most innovative Star Wars film to come along in a long time and you would think that this would inspire celebration in the streets among longtime fans of the franchise.
The Last Jedi" is not a crude predictable entry to the series; Rian Johnson has delivered a luminous spark that's left the future of the franchise looking bright.
Looks like Disney even told them what hackneyed phrases to spout.
Funny that Disney didn’t pay the critics to like Solo more then
It’s just laughable that some people can’t accept that their opinion isn’t the definitive truth and that if film critics gave a film they didn’t like a positive review ... well, they must have been bribed. I wonder who bribes the critics to give poor reviews to films I like?
Just making sure you all see that because the stupid is very strong in this thread haha.
Maybe... just maybe..... emphasising MAYBE!!!!! they didnt try it this time because it was so obvious last time, kind of a "gak, we got caught out, lets not try that again lads"
Or, break out the tinfoil hats people, we're going on a ride
They did "bribe" the critics to make sure TLJ got high reviews because they learned after ghostbusters that feminism and SJW politics in films don't sell. So they hype up TLJ but not solo. They want solo to bomb, it was barely advertised, and after it bombs they can go see, nobody cares about these cis white guys in star wars, so let's just concentrate on our female driven story lines, look what great reviews they got. When we see 9's reviews come out, if it's up in the 90's again, this conspiracy theory will gain a lot more traction.
Other movies, the reviews are not as important a good story will draw in the crowds, but when you're selling politics over a story, the story fails and less people want to see it. And as we also saw with ghostbusters, if you have the critics on your side you can blame the movies falure on misogony. Yes TLJ did well raking in the cash, but it could have gotten a lot more with a better story.
there's many ways to ensure good reviews, just ask the LA times what happens when they upset the mouse. They got banned from all disney screenings, thus reminding critics to be nice, or get cut off.
jeff white wrote: In every 'entertainment' industry arm from the West, there has been a rather rapid decline with some exceptions few and very far between. I mean, in fact, I have not simply given up on movies, music, and television. The culture is corrupted from top to bottom with so little redeeming that there are simply no good stories left to tell.
“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”
― Socrates
The truth here is not the same old complaints about how culture is in decline, complaints that have been made for literally thousands of years, it's that we have a biased view of the past. When you look back at movies/music/etc from decades ago you only see the good stuff, because that's all anybody bothers to preserve. You see the classic movies that everyone praises and encourages their friends to watch. You hear the best songs that make it onto radio playlists. Etc. You don't see all the mediocre and awful stuff that was mercifully forgotten. And so you forget that back then 90% of movies/music/etc were trash and people were busy complaining about how bad everything is compared to the good old days. Just like people 50 years from now will be nostalgic for 2018 and a time when entertainment didn't suck, while boasting about how they've given up on modern stuff.
Remember the context of Socrates' statement. It was the height of the Golden Age of Hellenistic culture, and they fell from those heights within the next couple generations, and from then to now they never achieved anything like that cultural height and power again.
America is at the height of it's power, and that very same statement could be made about my generation (GenX) and the millennials. We don't have more than one, maybe two generations to turn things around or we're going to follow the Hellenisti into the scrap-heap of history.
sirlynchmob wrote: TLJ is a clear example at how to fail at telling a compelling story. There's no point in having a diverse cast if you cast them in sterotypical roles and don't give them depth as a character.
I didn't think Finn was stereotypical.
What are you talking about? He's the very essence of the 'comic relief token black guy' we've seen over and over again. He's a walking, talking stereotype and the actor deserves a HECK of a lot better.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're upset Holdo didn't share her plans with a reckless pilot recently demoted by Holdo's superior officer? If it had been anyone other than Leia, Poe would've been in the brig or out the airlock.
For what? Leading a successful (if costly) attack on an enemy capital ship that would have wiped out the fleet before it left orbit that they utterly failed to stop by issuing a recall order on the bombers ?
If Poe is a failure for leading the attack from the front, Leia and Ackbar fail by not issuing recall orders... or just skipping off into hyperspace and leaving Poe to face the New Order alone.
That's yet another severe plot hole in this movie - if Poe really was wrong, Leia and Ackbar could easily have overridden his orders. And there's no sign they even tried.
The Fleet could have left as soon at the last transport reached the fleet. They had plenty of time to leave if Poe had returned. The Dreadnought fired at the base 6:12 minutes in. The last transport reaches the fleet and Leia orders Poe back. But he ignores her and turn off his com. At 7:40 the bombers arrive. At 10:30 the Dreadnought is ready to fire again, but gets blown up.
Seriously did any of you guys actually watch the film?
Of course, if anyone in the FO, was competent, they would have scrambled all their TIE fighters and the cruisers would have been screening the dreadnaught from the start.
Hux ordered Canady not to do that. Hence the "We need to scramble our fighters", "Five bloody minutes ago." Hux didn't want his propaganda vid/ victory parade looking bad. It's quickly adressed in the movie Snoke prefers not to have a too competent general in charge of the first order military because he can manipulate Hux easily.
Professional critics like different things than audiences do. A consequence of seeing so many movies. You start to see the patterns so a movie that toys with them is refreshing. Most proffesional critics had the same criticisms you guys have with the movie tough. Why didn't Holdo share her plan, why is every military leader and engineer in the gallaxy incompetent, why didn't Holdo share her plan, the casino was pointless, the moviue had pacing issues,..
BTW I think all of these are genuine issues. Including Holdo not sharing her plan. But to say that is a worse sin than mutiny? Yeah I disagree.
Also there was a lot of genuinely racist and sexist pushback against TLJ. (and the TFA for that matter). Hence the quote in the earlier interview with JJ Abrams: "If you are used to a position of privilege even equality feels like discrimination." Even tough it only comes from a small minority, it sure is a loud one. Reminds me about something I hear and notice regularly (especially of the internet here in Belgium.). I hear more rightwing complaints about the left complaining than I do the actual left complaints.
J.J. Abrams is one of the most privileged people on this planet. He is a leader in an industry infamous for sordid exploitation, including sexual predation of countless women. There is literally no difference between citing J.J. Abrams or Kathleen Kennedy on equlity and diversity and citing a CGI gecko on how you can save a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico.
The reason studios pay marketing agencies to magnify and rebroadcast absurd racist and misogynistic views, which on their own would be ignored as silly and pathetic, is to shift how people talk about their films. Rather than deal with the product's flaws, they would much rather have the narrative be about how stupid bigots are the ones who don't like their movies. The idea is to connect not liking the film to being a terrible person. This is not a conspiracy. Thanks to the Sony hack, we know this is literally the strategy.
TLJ is a fething disaster of a movie. It has nothing to do with the gender or race of the actors involved, It has everything to do with the horrid script, unimaginative directing, and bland production design. The script features elements clearly inspired by gender politics, however - to the point where at least two major strands of the plot are entirely built around it. Two otherwise unnecessary female characters are invented for the sole purpose of undermining two existing male characters. Once this mission is accomplished, they are either killed off or incapacitated. They literally serve no other purpose.
I'm really worried about the horrible direction Star Wars has taken in merchandising. I haven't seen any plushies of the cat-horses or crystal foxes anywhere.
Funko makes a Vulptex. I suppose all tye crystal is hard to render into plushie form. There are plushie fathiers already, of course. As to why you may not have seen either, TLJ merch hasn't been doing super well apparently.
Manchu wrote: Funko makes a Vulptex. I suppose all tye crystal is hard to render into plushie form. There are plushie fathiers already, of course. As to why you may not have seen either, TLJ merch hasn't been doing super well apparently.
I hate Funko with a frothing, blood-eyed passion. They are an abomination against all that toys should be.
The problem is that a lot of people, some or a lot of them may actuaaly be proffesionally employed to do this, play right into the hand of this marketing. Or take enjoymment in subtly making other people do this. Take this very thread. as an example. We haven't just been discussing the movie. We've been accusing each other of being a feminazi, alt right trolls, SJWs, mass bribery of critics, etc. Internet hyperbole is not conductive to a reasonable discussion.
TLJ has problems, many of them. But there are a few ways criticism can sound very weird or your correct opinion sounds wrong.
IMHO a list of these ways: 1)You say empire is a near perfect movie and never acknowledge how your critique of the TLJ applies juist as much to that movie. Can be expanded to star wars in general 2) You say the prequels are good worldbuilding. (less in this thread but it was a running theme in the last.) 3) You ignore explanations the movie gives you because you did not like them. 4) There is a fourth one but I can't remember it of the top of my head 5)You're being a total donkey-cave in your way of speaking.
Of course the marketing plays up the lack of #metoo schandals in disney lately. I'd do so too.
Bleak tone of failure. Apparant lack of consequence to major loss of bad guys during previous movie.(they only mention the death star once of handedly). are the biggest I can think of right now. Pacing was a big problem throughout the OT. Bland main character (Luke is no less bland than Rey).
These are genuine correct criticisims of TLJ but they were also correct for ESB.
Sorry there are more but my memory is kind of occupied with upcoming exams atm.
This reminds me of every time someone dismisses all BL fiction as "pulp" and insists it's all the same quality: garbage. That is every bit as toxic an attitude as claiming they're all gold. While opinions on what is good and what is bad may vary, it shouldn't be debatable that films can vary in quality, that their flaws can vary in magnitude. And if you truly can't tell the difference in quality between a near-universally beloved film and one that is the Laurel/Yancy of Star Wars, maybe this one time you're the lucky outlier on the sunny side of life.
Just be glad you're not the schmo on the other end of the bell curve who thinks TLJ is terrible and ESB is just as bad.
...I guess I would prefer we just discuss this movie rather than feel the need to tear down the popular girl so that we look not-as-bad in comparison.
ESB does not have pacing problems. Like, at all. This is not some matter of personal opinion.
ESB also does not have a bleak tone of failure. It's A plot features wonder and awe at the Force. It's B plot features romance. The movie built its characters and setting up rather than tearing them down, contra TLJ.
Rey was very interesting in TFA because how this nobody could be so powerful was totally intriguing. TLJ's take on the character, or rather, its steadfast refusal to do anything with the character, is not interesting.
I do not think ESB is a bad movie far from it. But it's held to near godlike status these days. It wasn't upon release. In fact, tough I've only heard this from youtubers (I am not that old) ESB's stauts wouldn't become as great as it is untill a few years after RotJ when its' long term effect on hollywood became apparent. This is not something that will or should be applicable to the last jedi tough.
ESB does have a bleak tone. the romance happy ending for instance is in the next movie. And if you don't think ESB tears Luke, Leia, and Han down quite a bit. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Both ESB and TLJ see the Rebels kicked hard in the teeth and at the end of the film they are retreating, but there are elements of hope too.
Whether you call it bleak or not, it's not their finest hour, but this is only because the good guys need to be thrown down in the second part of the trilogy so they can make a come-back in the third part.
If TLJ is bleaker than ESB, in the sense that the Rebels are in a worse situation, that follows the pattern established in TFA of the new trilogy being a kind of replay of original Star Wars with the amp turned up to 11.
The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.
... ...
The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.
The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.
There's a variance but it's not that large.
Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol
Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity
Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity
IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.
So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.
That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.
The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.
... ...
The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.
The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.
There's a variance but it's not that large.
Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol
Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity
Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity
IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.
So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.
That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.
TBH I haven't looked at metacritic. I didn't actually know it existed, but I'll have a look now when I get a bit of time.
However my calculation of the aggregate of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is correct.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've had a look at Metacritic. It's not possible to integrate the user score here because it's not based on a 1-10 scale like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I spoke too soon. I see a way to integrate the Metacritic score.
It won't make much difference, though, because it's such a minor site compared to the other two. Only 7K ratings compared to over half a million on the other two sites.
I'll do that when I get home. I've got a spreadsheet setup.
Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.
Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.
I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.
I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.
It doesn't even need to be someone with the same taste as you. As long as they write (or speak) articulately and explain their opinion, you can "calibrate" your preferences against theirs accordingly.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.
Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.
I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.
I would ignore any film critic full stop as I don't need to be told what and how to like a film. I think I have misjudged only a very few films from the actual trailer - good enough for me.
The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.
... ...
The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.
The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.
There's a variance but it's not that large.
Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol
Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity
Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity
IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.
So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.
That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.
TBH I haven't looked at metacritic. I didn't actually know it existed, but I'll have a look now when I get a bit of time.
However my calculation of the aggregate of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is correct.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've had a look at Metacritic. It's not possible to integrate the user score here because it's not based on a 1-10 scale like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I spoke too soon. I see a way to integrate the Metacritic score.
It won't make much difference, though, because it's such a minor site compared to the other two. Only 7K ratings compared to over half a million on the other two sites.
I'll do that when I get home. I've got a spreadsheet setup.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.
Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.
I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.
There is a lot of truth in what you say.
The original argument was that the professional critics rated the film much higher than ordinary users. For whatever the ratings are worth on these different sites, they actually show that this isn't true. The critics rated it higher than users but only by something like 81 to 68.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.
Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.
Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.
And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.
You also have inconsistency with star ratings vs out of 10 ratings vs out of 100 ratings. It usually doesn't align well if you just take a star rating and multiple it by 20 to get an out of 100 rating, but that largely depends on what the spread of rating systems turns out to be.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.
Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.
Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.
And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.
The range is 0-10 on Metacritic, 1-10 on IMDB and 1-5 on Rotten Tomatoes.
This may not fit the narrative of Users hated TLJ and Critics are all paid shills as demonstrated by their radically different marks. Those are the marks, though, and that's the factual evidence to measure, otherwise why not just make stuff up?
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.
That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.
That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.
Sorry I dont understand - you are only using the scores above 3.5 to measure if people like a film? How does that work?
only 46% of people rated it better than 3.5? Or am i reading this wrong. / not understanding?
There's another issue with aggregate scoring - organised campaigns, both for and against.
Not lumping anyone on here in with that, it's obvious that there is a genuine 'what is wrong with them?' Hate Mob assembled for TLJ. There's at least one oik admitted to making spambots to dish out low scoring reviews. Then there's the frankly laughable 'I removed all wimmins, because speshul' 'fan' edit.
How many other Sad Oiks did they help deploy to drag a score down?
Is that not more likely behind lower audience appreciation, than Critics being bribed/threatened/cajoled into giving it a good review?
Again, if you didn't like it - fair enough. That's your judgement call. But just look at some of the 'reviews' on RT. They're nothing of the sort. Just a bunch of one line drivel about how 'Star Wars died' etc etc. Other low scoring ones whine on and on about Feminism and politics. Is that someone who genuinely didn't enjoy the movie, or someone with a wider axe to grind that's found an outlet?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.
Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.
Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.
And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.
The range is 0-10 on Metacritic, 1-10 on IMDB and 1-5 on Rotten Tomatoes.
This may not fit the narrative of Users hated TLJ and Critics are all paid shills as demonstrated by their radically different marks. Those are the marks, though, and that's the factual evidence to measure, otherwise why not just make stuff up?
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.
That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.
Dude there is a big flaw in your explanation
"That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%. "
That just means, according to your metric, that only 46% of RT viewers gave it 70%, but 56% didnt give it that, you need to expand on your explanation.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.
What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.
Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.
That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.
Sorry I dont understand - you are only using the scores above 3.5 to measure if people like a film? How does that work?
only 46% of people rated it better than 3.5? Or am i reading this wrong. / not understanding?
On Rotten Tomatoes a user can score a film from 1 to 5 (actually it's 1-10 because you can give half a star.)
The Audience Score "Liked it" rating is everyone who gave it over 3.5 stars as a percentage of everyone who gave it a rating.
This is a measure, but it's an arbitrary measure. RT could have made it 3+ stars, for instance, or 4 stars, and the result obviously would be different.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Is that not more likely behind lower audience appreciation, than Critics being bribed/threatened/cajoled into giving it a good review?
No one has been 'bribed' or 'cajoled'. However, as a movie critic or 'reviewer'- if you give certain studios' movies a bad review, they will stop providing you with advanced tickets. That 'getting to see/use/open/read it first' is a crucial element of a reviewer's career- it's very difficult to provide a review and compete when you're not one of the people getting it prior to a general public release. You NEED to be able to see it before the general public, otherwise- the general public has already read someone else's review and now the general public is giving their own reviews and you're less useful.
As said, Disney has barred publications from their advanced screenings. Polygon/Kotaku was barred from getting advanced copies of one gaming companies. My friend who reviewed fishing equipment would not get samples of line from one company because he gave them a poor review. And it's not just the individual reviewer- it'll be the entire company that employs the reviewer and the entire company that owns the studio will cut them off. It's a career-ender for any critic or reviewer.
Studios use these critics/reviewers in pre-screenings because it generates hype. What, did you think this was a kind gesture? No, it's because it serves to generate hype for a movie. Because opening weekend is the BIGGEST event for a movie, and after that weekend word of mouth from the average moviegoer diminishes the hype.
So a professional critic that gives a review has to be quite kind with it, otherwise he'll not be sitting in the next advanced showing of the film. And this is Disney we're talking about- the company that owns a good chunk of the blockbusters coming out every year. Worth consideration.
If you think 'they hacked the review sites' is an acceptable explaination to why the ratings were lowered, then I can counter- how do we know that he same wasn't done to make the ratings higher than they actually were? Oh, those Russian Hackers! First the Drumpf is hacked into Presidency, now this!
All big budget. All Disney. All having poor reviews.
So much for 'scared of the big boys', eh?
In all fairness, not one of those films has as much riding on them as the Star Wars franchise and the video games industry has been doing it for years, so it’s not much of a stretch to wonder if the movie industry is doing or has done the same thing.
Thing is, short of someone whistle blowing or catching them red handed, how can someone prove it beyond a shadow of doubt ?
And I guess that's why Critics didn't rip into The Lone Ranger. Or John Carter. Or every Pirates film since the third one.
Oh wait....
Yeah. The Lone Ranger cost $250 million to make, according to most estimates. And it probably lost close to $200 million. Plenty of incentive for Disney to engage in shenanigans there.
This discussion shows where we're at as a society. We've become so self-centered and self-sure in our opinions that we invent obviously ridiculous conspiracies to explain why others liked a movie that we didn't. A few more steps and we're in 'Mandela effect' territory, a legitimately breathtaking level of egoism.
And remember there's no middle ground on the interwebs, I've seen critics getting bashed over 7/10 scores despite that being a sign of an above average product, likewise with Meta or RT they may as well have red button green button as 2-9 are largely irrelevant
I still hold that Rey cannot be a "nobody", but the vision that Kylo saw of her parents was a combination of Snoke's manipulation, Rey's biggest fear and the force showing Kylo what he needed/wanted to see.
By making it seem like the truth, RJ can both subvert expectation and leave the TRUE reveal for the final chapter.
I enjoyed TLJ, save for a few minor gripes. Luke's projection lightsaber should have been the green one, Akbar should have made the hyperspace sacrifice, etc. My only real complaint is that several choices were made purely to subvert expectation rather than to truly further the story. However, Ep IX can still turn these choices into something good, if written well. One example is the first part of my post above. Rey NEEDS to be important, not just Kylo's force-balance equal. If Rey does not turn out to be either a Skywalker or Kenobi (or maybe both*) than, yeah I'll change my opinion of TLJ and rank it much lower than all the others.
*If Obi-wan had a secret daughter that was about the same age as Luke, in which Luke found and had a child with, that child could be Rey. That's how Rey can be both a Skywalker and Kenobi. But if they want to do the weird Reylo romance, obviously she can't be a Skywalker (Luke and Leia kissing is enough incest for SW, thank you), but can still be a Kenobi.
Turnip Jedi wrote: And remember there's no middle ground on the interwebs, I've seen critics getting bashed over 7/10 scores despite that being a sign of an above average product, likewise with Meta or RT they may as well have red button green button as 2-9 are largely irrelevant
It would be interesting to plot all of the scores from all of the users and see the distribution. Without having tried this I guess we would find two modal points, one of them around 75% and one of them around 10%.
Turnip Jedi wrote: And remember there's no middle ground on the interwebs, I've seen critics getting bashed over 7/10 scores despite that being a sign of an above average product, likewise with Meta or RT they may as well have red button green button as 2-9 are largely irrelevant
It would be interesting to plot all of the scores from all of the users and see the distribution. Without having tried this I guess we would find two modal points, one of them around 75% and one of them around 10%.
don't forget to factor in our dakka poll where only 49% liked the movie.
Dakka is not a reliable metric. Dakka is a specific forum for a relatively specific audience. It would be intersting to figure out if you could find a line in who did and who didn't like the last jedi.
IMHO the movie is designed to be more divisive than say a marvel movie. (With maybe the lone exception of civil war).
Turnip Jedi wrote: And remember there's no middle ground on the interwebs, I've seen critics getting bashed over 7/10 scores despite that being a sign of an above average product, likewise with Meta or RT they may as well have red button green button as 2-9 are largely irrelevant
It would be interesting to plot all of the scores from all of the users and see the distribution. Without having tried this I guess we would find two modal points, one of them around 75% and one of them around 10%.
don't forget to factor in our dakka poll where only 49% liked the movie.
Dakka poll?
Another self selecting sample of a tiny minority of movie goers. Statistically worthless.
Part of me thinks Star Wars is cursed with some of the worst examples of toxic fandom.
OMG Luke did a thing he’d not done before and there was another thing and nobody explained where that thing came from and there’s too many girls and like everyone knows that girls can’t be better than boys! Worst movie ever! 1 Star! I’m gonna boycott Solo. I love Star Wars so much, I hope it fails!”
Galef wrote: I still hold that Rey cannot be a "nobody", but the vision that Kylo saw of her parents was a combination of Snoke's manipulation, Rey's biggest fear and the force showing Kylo what he needed/wanted to see.
By making it seem like the truth, RJ can both subvert expectation and leave the TRUE reveal for the final chapter.
I enjoyed TLJ, save for a few minor gripes. Luke's projection lightsaber should have been the green one, Akbar should have made the hyperspace sacrifice, etc.
My only real complaint is that several choices were made purely to subvert expectation rather than to truly further the story.
However, Ep IX can still turn these choices into something good, if written well. One example is the first part of my post above. Rey NEEDS to be important, not just Kylo's force-balance equal.
If Rey does not turn out to be either a Skywalker or Kenobi (or maybe both*) than, yeah I'll change my opinion of TLJ and rank it much lower than all the others.
-
To be fair that lightsaber was the last one he saw before doing the projection, and it was his Father's.
Why is Rey's Parentage so important to you? If she turns out to be a Skywalker or Kenobi, doesn't that feel forced? (Pardon the pun)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
If I've learned anything about the internet it is they love to waste a lot of time hate watching stuff.
No Galef backtracking now on who Rey's parents are ,would be bad storytelling and retroactively devalue her confrontation with Kylo Ren. And it would break the mirror characterisation between her and Kylo Ren.
IMHO what the cave meant :Rey does not need her parents, she is her own parents.
Also I think he didn't leave the map as much as people figured out he was at the temple and then didn't know where the temple was.
Why is Rey's Parentage so important to you? If she turns out to be a Skywalker or Kenobi, doesn't that feel forced? (Pardon the pun).
Because this is the Skywalker Saga and the main protagonist should be one. Kylo is decidedly NOT the protagonist and while that is an interesting twist, the real protagonist should be, or at least a Kenobi for "rhyming" purposes. It would also be a better explanation than "the force chose her to be that powerful to balance Kylo". This was clearly how she was set up in TFA. JJ left way too many clues pointing in that direction. RJ throw them out for the sake of "subverting expectations" and that was not the best decision.
Reconnecting the story with Rey being someone of familiar significance would tie up the SKYWALKER sage in a nice tidy bow. Having her be a random nobody is both unsatisfying and kinda spits in the face of Anakin being special at all. Because if anybody can be super special, than why do the Skywalkers matter? Rey being either a Kenobi or a Skywailker has a nice symmetry about it too.
All big budget. All Disney. All having poor reviews.
So much for 'scared of the big boys', eh?
In all fairness, not one of those films has as much riding on them as the Star Wars franchise and the video games industry has been doing it for years, so it’s not much of a stretch to wonder if the movie industry is doing or has done the same thing.
Thing is, short of someone whistle blowing or catching them red handed, how can someone prove it beyond a shadow of doubt ?
Doubt proves innocence not guilt.
You need to prove that they ARE doing something to follow through on that line of thinking. If you can't prove guilt then you should be assuming innocence. At least, thats how fair legal system work that are not built on witch hunts.
Why is Rey's Parentage so important to you? If she turns out to be a Skywalker or Kenobi, doesn't that feel forced? (Pardon the pun).
Because this is the Skywalker Saga and the main protagonist should be one. Kylo is decidedly NOT the protagonist and while that is an interesting twist, the real protagonist should be, or at least a Kenobi for "rhyming" purposes. It would also be a better explanation than "the force chose her to be that powerful to balance Kylo".
This was clearly how she was set up in TFA. JJ left way too many clues pointing in that direction. RJ throw them out for the sake of "subverting expectations" and that was not the best decision.
Reconnecting the story with Rey being someone of familiar significance would tie up the SKYWALKER sage in a nice tidy bow. Having her be a random nobody is both unsatisfying and kinda spits in the face of Anakin being special at all. Because if anybody can be super special, than why do the Skywalkers matter?
Rey being either a Kenobi or a Skywailker has a nice symmetry about it too.
-
I want you to picture the scene.
Rey is arguing with Kylo.
"I had a vision too. I know who your parents were... You are a Kenobi!"
Rey "... Who?"
Rey has no idea who the hell Kenobi is/was. That is a scene that would mean nothing to the people in the film and only something to the viewers. It would be full on terrible.
Crimson Devil wrote: To be fair that lightsaber was the last one he saw before doing the projection, and it was his Father's.
Right...that saber is the symbolic one for a duel with all kinds of symbolic meaning.
Why is Rey's Parentage so important to you? If she turns out to be a Skywalker or Kenobi, doesn't that feel forced? (Pardon the pun)
It'll be very interesting to see where it goes from here, in a series where the directors are empowered to do as they like. I don't think it could be clearer that JJ cast Daisy Ridley with the idea that Rey is some relation to the Skywalkers. She could easily pass for a sister of Natalie Portman or the young Carrie Fisher. But will JJ undo what Rian undid? That seems improbable, although maybe he'll cook up a 'third way' option.
Kilkrazy wrote: If I've learned anything about the internet it is they love to waste a lot of time hate watching stuff.
Yep. And give them a cool trailer and they'll be right back on board anyway.
Second : is there a problem with the lord of the rings being the villain?
The skywalker family has to be important. They don't have to bring the protagonist. The main conflct for the protagonist is sufficient.
It reminds of a rule the writers of Rebels (the animated series ) have: for every known character we introduce we also have to introduce an unknown one. Otherwise you get small galaxy syndrome. 40K has that problem in spades.
I remember the theory going around that Rey was the reincarnation of Anakin. So you’d have the situation were Anakin’s grandchild has went off the rails trying to imitate him, and the son who redeemed Anakin is now training him to redem his grand child, tempering him with the lessons he learned from dealing with him in another life.
Yea but there is also rumours going around about Jar Jar being the true Sith Lord and Snoke being Mace Windu in disguise so I wouldn't give rumours too much credence!
Turnip Jedi wrote: And remember there's no middle ground on the interwebs, I've seen critics getting bashed over 7/10 scores despite that being a sign of an above average product, likewise with Meta or RT they may as well have red button green button as 2-9 are largely irrelevant
It would be interesting to plot all of the scores from all of the users and see the distribution. Without having tried this I guess we would find two modal points, one of them around 75% and one of them around 10%.
don't forget to factor in our dakka poll where only 49% liked the movie.
Dakka poll?
Another self selecting sample of a tiny minority of movie goers. Statistically worthless.
Part of me thinks Star Wars is cursed with some of the worst examples of toxic fandom.
OMG Luke did a thing he’d not done before and there was another thing and nobody explained where that thing came from and there’s too many girls and like everyone knows that girls can’t be better than boys! Worst movie ever! 1 Star! I’m gonna boycott Solo. I love Star Wars so much, I hope it fails!”
I think that’s how it goes
For what it's worth I have met one person IRL that actually enjoyed TLJ (other than me and I don't think it's great) versus several who openly despise it. The hatred for it is likely exaggerated on the internet, but it is certainly not a widely beloved film by any metric.
Lighting the green saber is probably the biggest mistake Luke ever made. It makes a lot of sense for him to not use it again. In a very personal battle between Luke and Kylo, using the Blue saber carries a very different meaning than the Green.
It's also foreshadowing he's not real. If you look closely at the handle he uses Anakin's lightsaber. The one that just got destroyed.
I know more people that like the movie then dislike it. The one I know that hates it the most is mostly because she can't take Kylo serious as a villain.
All big budget. All Disney. All having poor reviews.
So much for 'scared of the big boys', eh?
In all fairness, not one of those films has as much riding on them as the Star Wars franchise and the video games industry has been doing it for years, so it’s not much of a stretch to wonder if the movie industry is doing or has done the same thing.
Thing is, short of someone whistle blowing or catching them red handed, how can someone prove it beyond a shadow of doubt ?
Doubt proves innocence not guilt.
You need to prove that they ARE doing something to follow through on that line of thinking. If you can't prove guilt then you should be assuming innocence. At least, thats how fair legal system work that are not built on witch hunts.
Why is Rey's Parentage so important to you? If she turns out to be a Skywalker or Kenobi, doesn't that feel forced? (Pardon the pun).
Because this is the Skywalker Saga and the main protagonist should be one. Kylo is decidedly NOT the protagonist and while that is an interesting twist, the real protagonist should be, or at least a Kenobi for "rhyming" purposes. It would also be a better explanation than "the force chose her to be that powerful to balance Kylo".
This was clearly how she was set up in TFA. JJ left way too many clues pointing in that direction. RJ throw them out for the sake of "subverting expectations" and that was not the best decision.
Reconnecting the story with Rey being someone of familiar significance would tie up the SKYWALKER sage in a nice tidy bow. Having her be a random nobody is both unsatisfying and kinda spits in the face of Anakin being special at all. Because if anybody can be super special, than why do the Skywalkers matter?
Rey being either a Kenobi or a Skywailker has a nice symmetry about it too.
-
I want you to picture the scene.
Rey is arguing with Kylo.
"I had a vision too. I know who your parents were... You are a Kenobi!"
Rey "... Who?"
Rey has no idea who the hell Kenobi is/was. That is a scene that would mean nothing to the people in the film and only something to the viewers. It would be full on terrible.
No gak Sherlock, that was the whole point of me saying
“Short if someone whistle blowing or catching them red handed, how can someone prove it beyond a shadow of doubt”
Kilkrazy wrote: Kylo Ren is an awesome villain for the millenial generation.
He's the Star Wars villain equivalent of those angsty boy ballad singers who are all over the radio these days.
hehe, and it's a bit of a shame as nearly all the actors are way better than the wobbly characters they portray (apart from Daisy who does that whole David Mitchell with a lightsaber schtick, ie posh and peeved)
LunarSol wrote: Lighting the green saber is probably the biggest mistake Luke ever made. It makes a lot of sense for him to not use it again. In a very personal battle between Luke and Kylo, using the Blue saber carries a very different meaning than the Green.
Indeed an argument could be made that using the green lightsaber carries specific meaning because it was Luke's biggest mistake and one that Kylo would be infuriated more by seeing. Both could have worked, but the fanboy in me wanted to see the green one used in more than a flashback.
With any luck, Rey will have fashioned as new lightsaber in IX using her staff, the blue crystal of Anakin's and maybe, just maybe the green crystal of Luke's (found somewhere on Ach-to). Double bladed blue/green lightsaber FTW!
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
Watched Solo, LOVED IT - I am on board for more SW. TLJ is still a piece of gak, IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Kylo Ren is an awesome villain for the millenial generation.
Totally agree, I love that character and TLJ is at its best when he is on the screen. Wish the same could be said for how the movie deals with Rey, Poe, Finn, and Luke.
Rey being a Kenobi. How does that work exactly? Either she’s a lot older than she looks, Old man Obi Wan got mummy Rey up the duff via force ghost, or it’s kinda Great Uncle Obi. Funny Obi Wan never mentioned having a sibling, but then he didn’t recall ever owning a droid either, so ...
Rey being a Kenobi. How does that work exactly? Either she’s a lot older than she looks, Old man Obi Wan got mummy Rey up the duff via force ghost, or it’s kinda Great Uncle Obi. Funny Obi Wan never mentioned having a sibling, but then he didn’t recall ever owning a droid either, so ...
Obi-wan had a romantic relationship with Satine, a character from the Clone Wars. This is cannon. Rey would not be Kenobi's daughter, but rather his granddaughter. If Satine had a child and hide her from Obi-wan (because he is a jedi and she was a political figure) than it is entirely possible for that child to be Rey's parent. All the better if Luke is the other parent, making Rey BOTH a Kenobi AND a Skywalker. After TLJ, I have very little hope of this being true, but it still could be, presuming Kylo was shown a lie in his vision of Rey.
The point would be to show that Obi-wan and Anakin were destined to meet and their decedents are forever connected by the force as balanced sides of the same coin.
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
Watched Solo, LOVED IT - I am on board for more SW. TLJ is still a piece of gak, IMO.
I’m interested to see Solo. So far the Sequels have been utterly pointless, but I liked Rogue One. I wish Disney would have concentrated more on expanding the SW universe more into other stories set at the time of the OT. I’m not excited at the prospect of an Obi Wan movie or a Boba Fett movie etc. I would be interested in new stories with new characters set around the OT period. However SW continues to act like a galaxy is a really tiny place with only a few people that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also wish they’d do something a bit more radical like making the main character an alien.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: However SW continues to act like a galaxy is a really tiny place with only a few people that matter.
Because creating a story with all new characters and no ties to established ones is a risky prospect that could loose a lot of money. It's sad, but that is the reality of the business.
There are also enough of us out there that want to see our heroes on new adventures that we didn't know about before.
I also wish they’d do something a bit more radical like making the main character an alien.
mesa thinking that nono ganna happenz for some merry bunchin' reasons, least not in live action
There's also the fact that Star wars seems to want more human representation on screen so audiences can apparently empathize with the characters. At least that's what I assume is why we have hardly any alien character at all since TFA dropped. And the biggest alien area we saw was.. Canto Blight, full of villains and slavers.
"I had a vision too. I know who your parents were... You are a Kenobi!"
Rey "... Who?"
Rey has no idea who the hell Kenobi is/was. That is a scene that would mean nothing to the people in the film and only something to the viewers. It would be full on terrible.
Rey knew who han, luke & leia are and their role in the rebellion, she knew about the falcon and the kessel run.
so the reply would have been:
Rey "oh the guy who won the clone wars and trained luke, that you're named after for some reason. We're cousins, good thing we didn't kiss" wink wink knudge knudge
in the kenobi movie, we'll see ben hooking up with kira. to wrap it all up in a pretty bow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
there are many ways to watch it though, sure you can pay and see it in a theater,
you can watch it for free at home.
you can wait for it to show up on Netflix and watch it on your friends account he's letting you share.
you can wait for the wife to buy the dvd because she was upset you took the kids to the theater without her to go see it
or in the case of solo, I wasn't going to go see it opening weekend, but the wife planned to see it with the kids so I tagged along.
Lots of ways to see the movies, not all of them end up with Disney getting a cut.
"I had a vision too. I know who your parents were... You are a Kenobi!"
Rey "... Who?"
Rey has no idea who the hell Kenobi is/was. That is a scene that would mean nothing to the people in the film and only something to the viewers. It would be full on terrible.
Rey knew who han, luke & leia are and their role in the rebellion, she knew about the falcon and the kessel run.
so the reply would have been:
Rey "oh the guy who won the clone wars and trained luke, that you're named after for some reason. We're cousins, good thing we didn't kiss" wink wink knudge knudge
in the kenobi movie, we'll see ben hooking up with kira. to wrap it all up in a pretty bow.
Oh, and the guy she heard say "Rey, these are your first steps" in her first force vision when she touched Luke/Anakin's lightsaber.
It's really not out of the question for Rey to know exactly who Obi-wan Kenobi was.
sirlynchmob wrote: "oh the guy who won the clone wars and trained luke, that you're named after for some reason. We're cousins, good thing we didn't kiss" wink wink knudge knudge
That would be the Clone Wars that happened decades ago and which Palpatine would have had complete control over the official records for? To the point where Luke didn't recognise Kenobi's name, or even hear any mention of Anakin Skywalker taking part? The only reason Leia knew about Obi-Wan is because her father fought in the Clone Wars and knew Kenobi personally.
Why would Rey have any knowledge of those events? She knew of Luke and Han because the Empire falling was within her lifetime, and they were the heroes of that conflict and the government following the war had no reason to hide their involvement. The same cannot be said about Kenobi in the Clone Wars.
TO ME, Rey being an unknown Kenobi is more OMG-Darth-Vader-built-C3PO! pointless connection-making that the franchise doesn't need.
Rey's a Skywalker? Fine, the first six movies were about Skywalkers too. Rey's no one in particular? Also fine because we've had six movies about Skywalkers.
I'm not sure what Rey being a Kenobi or relative of any other big-name Jedi achieves other than 'OMG connections!' and creating more questions that they won't have time to answer.
I agree, Rey being related to OT characters seems pointless.
What needs to happen is some damn exposition. It's the job of the sequel to draw a line between itself and the preceding installment. This isn't something the audience should be expected to read in novels and comic books. TFA really dropped the ball on that one, as far as the wider setting is concerned. But the clear implications was that Ben and Rey would have their stories backfilled in Episode VIII as they got to know one another. Kylo Ren got something here, although it was pretty thin and unconvincing. But Rey just got shrugged off. If TLJ had done its job properly we wouldn't be retreading these same dumb ideas about whose daughter or grandaughter or great grand niece Rey is.
Rey being a nobody is unacceptable "to me" because of all the obvious clues/nods/similarities that JJ put into TFA. If he hadn't set up the 'bait' for RJ to follow up with the 'switch', than Rey being a 100% new character would be fine. But it didn't happen that way. Rey was obviously being set up as having some hidden heritage in TFA that RJ retroactively disregarded. JJ having control over IX means he can "fix" this issue.
So the way I see it, Rey needs to be either: A) Luke's daughter to finish out the "Skywalker" saga. B) Obi-wan's granddaughter to bring Kylo back to the light as a way of succeeding where Obi-wan had failed with Vader. Yes Luke did this, but far too late for Anakin. Rey has a chance to bring Ben back without either dying. C) both A and B
Also, Anakin needs to make a Force ghost appearance, possible to explain the above, or be the final push for Ben Solo to turn back to the light. Again, this would be a very satisfying way to "close out" the Skywalker sage for good so that SW can move on.
'Solo' focusing on the criminal underworld of SW is a good start to expand the universe while still having ties to the familiar
Well Galef I am glad we can at least agree that TLJ fethed up such that JJ needs to do some repair.
If it must be done, let her be Anakin reincarnated. Either literally that, which would be dumb but not as dumb as her being Obi-Wan's granddaughter, or something more Star Wars-y, like she is another "vergence in the Force" like Anakin was.
But since the spin off movies seem to be building to an Obi-Wan stand alone, I would not be surprised if there is a Obi-Wan/Rey connection that is explained in that film, eventually.
Anakin should have been the Force ghost in TLJ. How could Luke not have had long talks with his father and ended up that bitter? Who else was in a better position to recount the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Jedi than Anakin Skywalker? Yoda was one of its principal perpetrators. Given what Luke has to say about the Jedi Order in TLJ, I'd figure he'd look at Yoda like a Nuremberg defendant instead of a wise master.
sirlynchmob wrote: "oh the guy who won the clone wars and trained luke, that you're named after for some reason. We're cousins, good thing we didn't kiss" wink wink knudge knudge
That would be the Clone Wars that happened decades ago and which Palpatine would have had complete control over the official records for? To the point where Luke didn't recognise Kenobi's name, or even hear any mention of Anakin Skywalker taking part? The only reason Leia knew about Obi-Wan is because her father fought in the Clone Wars and knew Kenobi personally.
Why would Rey have any knowledge of those events? She knew of Luke and Han because the Empire falling was within her lifetime, and they were the heroes of that conflict and the government following the war had no reason to hide their involvement. The same cannot be said about Kenobi in the Clone Wars.
There's lots of long lived races around, Chewbacca was pals with yoda after all. A wide sweeping galactic conquest that involved every race, ya people would remember the events.
I think it was more lukes uncle controlling lukes schooling and Kenobi trying to "hide" by just calling himself old ben. He should have just put on glasses. Obi wan was the poster child for the clone wars, so they would remember him and Anakin skywalker before anyone else.
Earth127 wrote: Rey isn't responsible for Ben being evil. But she chose to go to the Raddus setting herself the task of turning Kylo ren back into Ben solo and she failed to do so.
The word "fail" is causing trouble here. You're using it to mean, the result she wanted did not occur for reasons beyond her control. Kylo Ren did not refuse to turn because of anything Rey did or failed to do. By contrast, when I say fail I mean something completely within the control of the person attempting whatever the action is. We are introduced to Finn as a failure of a storm trooper, for example. Poe fails (I guess?) at the beginning of TLJ and is womanberated (kind of like mansplained) at for the rest of the picture. When Finn and Rose get to Canto Bight, Finn cannot even just remark on the splendor of the resort without Rose shooting him down with a lecture about evil rich people.
Future War Cultist wrote: That would have been a great opportunity to get poor hayden christensen back in.
And that's exactly why it didn't happen and they had to use the ageless, generally well-received puppet.
Manchu wrote: I agree, Rey being related to OT characters seems pointless.
What needs to happen is some damn exposition. It's the job of the sequel to draw a line between itself and the preceding installment. This isn't something the audience should be expected to read in novels and comic books. TFA really dropped the ball on that one, as far as the wider setting is concerned. But the clear implications was that Ben and Rey would have their stories backfilled in Episode VIII as they got to know one another. Kylo Ren got something here, although it was pretty thin and unconvincing. But Rey just got shrugged off. If TLJ had done its job properly we wouldn't be retreading these same dumb ideas about whose daughter or grandaughter or great grand niece Rey is.
That's only important if you care who is Rey's grandfather. Lots of people don't.
The original movies don't really have much in the way of exposition either. A lot of the "why's" of Star Wars come initially from the novelizations and eventually the EU. It's something I've always really enjoyed about the series and part of the reason that my least favorite bits of TLJ are the Canto soapboxing segments.
ANH told us a lot about what was going on, without burdening the action. We're introduced to an evil Empire in power and a Rebel Alliance fighting against its tyranny. We know right away that there is an Imperial Senate that will push back on Vader arresting Leia and there might even be sympathy in the Senate for the Rebellion. General Tagge tells us that the Rebellion will continue to gain support in the Senate until Grand Moff Tarkin cuts him off with news that the Emperor has dissolved the Senate and plans to rule through regional governors rather than Old Republic style bureaucracy. We know previously from Obi-Wan's lines that the Old Republic = good times, with Jedi's guarding peace and justice. Tie that in to Vader's connection to the Force ("that ancient religion") and we have everything we need to know about the wider galaxy.
Who are the Resistance? Who are the FO? TFA doesn't bother to explain. It's in some comic book or something. Or it's just more of the same stuff, so who cares I guess. Who is Max von Sydow's character? Who is Snoke? Who is Rey? And on and on and on ...
Nor would I, or whose daughter she is, if it were not for all the clues and similarities laid out in TFA. Even Simon Pegg mentioned that she was intended to have a special heritage when he and JJ were spit-balling story ideas.
TFA hints WAY too hard that she is supposed to be someone of particular significance. TLJ throws that away.
That's a point where we shall have to agree to disagree.
To get back to an earlier question, I've recalculated the average user rating incorporating the Metacritic figures. As I expected, although the score there is lower than IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes, the much smaller sample size makes it relatively unimportant in the final result.
The new average score for TLJ is 67.73% out of 100.
Galef wrote: That is why I care who she really is.
But caring who she is doesn't have to be a matter of her being related to some established character. We have a precedent in Anakin of the Force siring a child. (And I don't care about the [now defunct?] EU backfill on this.)
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
That's honestly becoming a big question for me. Since the special editions in '97 I've seen every cinematic Star Wars on day of release (including the Clone Wars movie). I didn't like the prequels but powered through each of them (never saw them since).
TFA, day of release - bored a bit, could see they were trying to recreate the franchise for a new generation but didn't hold much for me. Never watched it again.
R1, day of release - slow start but enjoyed it by the end. Own it and have watched it 3 times I think since.
TLJ, day of release - utterly baffled that was deemed acceptable to release, worse than any of the prequels for me with a couple of minor saving graces. Fails on every level as a genre film. Haven't bought it, no plans to, would rather not subject myself.
Solo, day of release - meh... it's okay. I can't say I loved it and it has issues. I'm not itching to see it again but I do plan to own a copy and I'm sure I'll watch it at some point, especially if it's launching a bit of a SWCU thing.
So Episode 9... huh. I'll watch it, day of release as usual, though my expectations are so low right now that I'm almost dreading it.
Past that, I don't know. Given TLJ, if the Rian Johnson trilogy goes ahead then I might just skip it entirely. But it depends how the movies pan out, what their focus is etc. I don't believe SW is beyond saving, I just think that the prequel and sequel trilogies are junk (or will be) and a new plan is needed.
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
Not in theaters. The only reason I saw TLJ is because someone else bought the ticket and I did not want to be rude. I went, enjoyed the visual effects, and took the fellow out for a hamburger and fries afterward like a good sport- but he even expressed disappointment and tried to apologize, to which I told him it wasn't necessary. I got to spend time with an old friend, that was the best part of the movie.
The others, I may rent as they come out. But I'm not going to pay theater prices to see anything until I know the writing is moving in a better direction. It's simply not worth spending around $15.00-$20.00 to see. Very few things are, though...
TBH it will work great on your living room TV. While I was watching it in the theater, I thought - you know a SW show like this would actually be really entertaining. But it was so much fun to go to a cinema and see a fun, exciting SW film with likeable characters. I really enjoyed TFA in that way and when I sat down to watch TLJ, I really believed that's what it would be like. But it turned out to be a nightmare.
Kilkrazy wrote: Once you see Han Solo on the little screen you will regret not having watched it on the big screen.
I like having food and a movie. And the theaters near me that offer food- you're paying absurd amounts for it. I can set up my comfortable recliner and watch it on my television. And pause it when I need to pee.
If Rey turns out to be Luke's daughter, who he abandoned on a desert world. And he never recognized her. Then the moral of the entire Star Wars franchise is; Jedi are bad Fathers.
Anakin, Luke and Ben are only Force adepts tied to a specific bloodline.
Particular as Jedi are well against relationships and attachments.
Seriously. Elsewhere in the Lore, you’re either Force Sensitive, or your not, And if you are, there’s various levels (indicated by the concentration of midichlorians in your blood, but not generated by them( of ability.
Outside of the Skywalker bloodline (which was artificial), there are no great blood lines that I can think of.
As Snoke explains, ‘as the Darkness rises (Kylo) so the Light to face it’.
The Force evidentially seeks to keep itself in some form of balance.
This is also seen in the OT. Palpatine thought he has it in the bag. He reckoned Anakin was his clear equal in that respect, and sought from the start to enslave him. It worked. Shame he choked and didn’t see Luke coming. Why not?
Think back to Windu’s statement that the dark side had occluded the Jedi’s ability to see the future. That door likely swung both ways - and Palatine’s arrogance saw to the rest.
Did Palpatine come from a great bloodline of Force Adepts? Nope. Yet nobody is bringing thaf up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rey is an inevitable ‘immune system’ as The Force seeks its own balance. Doesn’t have to be a descendant of Great Jedi or Magnificent Sith. At all. That’s not how The Force works.
So just lay your fan theories down. And FFS stop getting butthurt you were wrong.
Crimson Devil wrote: If Rey turns out to be Luke's daughter, who he abandoned on a desert world. And he never recognized her. Then the moral of the entire Star Wars franchise is; Jedi are bad Fathers.
Or rather how easy it is their children to be hidden from them.
Given how old Ben was in TLJ flashbacks, and how close in age Rey and he seem, it is much less likely for Rey to be Luke's daughter without him knowing.
Which is why my new favorite theory/hope if the Kenobi theory.
Correct. And he looks at least 16 in the flashback. So Rey would be about 6. Luke would have to be a REALLY bad dad/jedi to either not know she existed at that time or to have abandoned her on Jakku. You have to get really in the weeds to explain that away. It can be done, like maybe he knew she existed and thought she died during Ben's revolt. But then Ben would know her and would probably be the one who left her on Jakku. Which leads to some interesting subtext that changes his interactions with her so far. Could work, but doubtful.
Ben leaving her on Jakku's pretty much the only way her being "someone" works for me.
On theories, I think the other interesting possibility with some of the unanswered mystery boxes, is the vision from TFA of Kylo marching on the burning Jedi temple with the Knights of Ren simply hasn't happened yet.
Ouze wrote: That feeling when the studio that released the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time in the US a few months ago is described as "running it into the ground".
3rd Highest Grossing movie of all time doesn't mean a damn thing when movies cost 10x more than they used to (in an age when the dollar is worth even less). I take every claim of "highest grossing" with a huge grain of salt nowadays, considering that movies can have the same viewership but make 10x more.
Correct. And he looks at least 16 in the flashback. So Rey would be about 6. Luke would have to be a REALLY bad dad/jedi to either not know she existed at that time or to have abandoned her on Jakku.
You have to get really in the weeds to explain that away. It can be done, like maybe he knew she existed and thought she died during Ben's revolt. But then Ben would know her and would probably be the one who left her on Jakku. Which leads to some interesting subtext that changes his interactions with her so far.
Could work, but doubtful.
-
maybe he didn't so much abandon her, but hid her there from ben and his supposed knights he has running around. Everyone knows the sith and their minions hate sand so desert planets are the perfect hiding spots
in reconsidering TLJ - I think the only reasonable conclusion that can come from the reconsideration is a complete trashing of 7 and 8 and a rewrite with a single director. We can just look back on these and call them the "fail episodes".
Crimson Devil wrote: If Rey turns out to be Luke's daughter, who he abandoned on a desert world. And he never recognized her. Then the moral of the entire Star Wars franchise is; Jedi are bad Fathers.
And lets no even start on how much Padme sucks.
If JJ wants to revisit the parentage question, maybe a 'third way' would be to come at it from the maternal angle. They could reveal the mother, but leave the father a mystery. And not in a 'there was no father' way.
I believe there were some clickbait articles going around recently about the possibility of Mara Jade being cast, and whether she's Rey's mom. Mara Jade seems like a bad idea on a number of levels, but perhaps some parts of the concept could work. What if her mom had been in Vader's or Palpatine's employ? She'd truly be a mirror of Ben then.
I dunno. The whole thing is a bit of pickle, so JJ will probably let RJ's take on it stand.
So Ben abandons Rey on Jaku? Then forgets she exists - force mind wipes himself? Nope - doesn't work. It's ether impossible or lame.
Disney wants to get away from "divine rights." Shes a slum girl that does everything better than the most powerful force wielders - that's the way it is.
Xenomancers wrote: So Ben abandons Rey on Jaku? Then forgets she exists - force mind wipes himself? Nope - doesn't work. It's ether impossible or lame.
Disney wants to get away from "divine rights." Shes a slum girl that does everything better than the most powerful force wielders - that's the way it is.
I thought it could work post TFA; I'm less convinced now. In TFA Kylo gets notably upset not just that the map escaped in the Falcon, but specifically that some girl from Jakku was involved. The idea would be that you'd have Snoke giving Ben the order to kill the younglings, but in keeping with his "failed Vader" shtick from TFA, he'd be unable to and ends up hiding them around the galaxy instead.
I'm still holding out for Rey being a young student that was trained, but was mind-wiped to protect her from Snoke. I'd be a bit more forgiving if that were shown.
I think it speaks to the quality of TLJ when after I had part of the movie spoilered for me by an NPR interview I grimaced at everything I heard and have never bothered to watch it, making it the only Star Wars movie or TV show to date that I have never seen, and overall I have to say I enjoyed all the others, including the animated Clone Wars movie.
My thought was "Uhk, that sounds worse than the worst parts of the prequels". TFA had me pretty wary already.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm still holding out for Rey being a young student that was trained, but was mind-wiped to protect her from Snoke. I'd be a bit more forgiving if that were shown.
She was abandoned at too young of an age for training to be possible. It would also only be possible with a mutual mind wiping of both Luke and Rey - which is fething lame (which seems Johnsonesq honestly). I think It's possible that Abrams wanted for Rey to be Lukes daughter (she really should be) but Johnson Gaked that up. I think the only possible salvation for a good episode 9 is Rey reads in the the jedi books that "the chosen one" keeps appearing until balanced is achieved or something and Rey is Anakin Reborn.
Kylo sucesfully pulls Rey to the dark side but then he has a change of heart and the fight to the death with reversed rolls.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're upset Holdo didn't share her plans with a reckless pilot recently demoted by Holdo's superior officer? If it had been anyone other than Leia, Poe would've been in the brig or out the airlock.
For what? Leading a successful (if costly) attack on an enemy capital ship that would have wiped out the fleet before it left orbit that they utterly failed to stop by issuing a recall order on the bombers ?
If Poe is a failure for leading the attack from the front, Leia and Ackbar fail by not issuing recall orders... or just skipping off into hyperspace and leaving Poe to face the New Order alone.
That's yet another severe plot hole in this movie - if Poe really was wrong, Leia and Ackbar could easily have overridden his orders. And there's no sign they even tried.
The Fleet could have left as soon at the last transport reached the fleet. They had plenty of time to leave if Poe had returned. The Dreadnought fired at the base 6:12 minutes in. The last transport reaches the fleet and Leia orders Poe back. But he ignores her and turn off his com. At 7:40 the bombers arrive. At 10:30 the Dreadnought is ready to fire again, but gets blown up.
Seriously did any of you guys actually watch the film?
So at any time between 6:12 and 7:40 Leia or Ackbar could have issued a recall order to the bombers... and didn't.
Bleak tone of failure. Apparant lack of consequence to major loss of bad guys during previous movie.(they only mention the death star once of handedly). are the biggest I can think of right now. Pacing was a big problem throughout the OT. Bland main character (Luke is no less bland than Rey).
These are genuine correct criticisims of TLJ but they were also correct for ESB.
Sorry there are more but my memory is kind of occupied with upcoming exams atm.
The major difference being that ESB tells an entertaining story, and TLJ does not. In the end, TLJ loses out as it strives to subvert everything and everyone for no reason other than subversion.
The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.
... ...
The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.
The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.
There's a variance but it's not that large.
Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol
Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity
Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity
IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.
So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.
That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.
TBH I haven't looked at metacritic. I didn't actually know it existed, but I'll have a look now when I get a bit of time.
However my calculation of the aggregate of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is correct.
Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.
The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've had a look at Metacritic. It's not possible to integrate the user score here because it's not based on a 1-10 scale like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually I spoke too soon. I see a way to integrate the Metacritic score.
It won't make much difference, though, because it's such a minor site compared to the other two. Only 7K ratings compared to over half a million on the other two sites.
I'll do that when I get home. I've got a spreadsheet setup.
One should be aware of a little detail about how Rotten Tomatoes comes up with their scores. It's not a true average of all scores, especially the viewer scores.
Rotten Tomatoes discards all scores under a full star. They do this for all movies, of course; that way they don't really turn the screws on a bad movie and alienate the studio.
Unfortunately, this time it leads to people like you drawing a false conclusion from the numbers they calculate. If you pick random samplings of 100 viewer reviews, you find a LOT of half-star and zero-star scores. If you use your spreadsheet to repeatedly calculate the actual average of several random samples, you wind up with a viewer review score in the twenties, not the forties.
IMBd is owned by LucasFilms, yes? I think in this case we can discard their poll as biased. They have a vested interest in not calculating in really negative reviews.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're upset Holdo didn't share her plans with a reckless pilot recently demoted by Holdo's superior officer? If it had been anyone other than Leia, Poe would've been in the brig or out the airlock.
For what? Leading a successful (if costly) attack on an enemy capital ship that would have wiped out the fleet before it left orbit that they utterly failed to stop by issuing a recall order on the bombers ?
If Poe is a failure for leading the attack from the front, Leia and Ackbar fail by not issuing recall orders... or just skipping off into hyperspace and leaving Poe to face the New Order alone.
That's yet another severe plot hole in this movie - if Poe really was wrong, Leia and Ackbar could easily have overridden his orders. And there's no sign they even tried.
So at any time between 6:12 and 7:40 Leia or Ackbar could have issued a recall order to the bombers... and didn't.
The Fleet could have left as soon at the last transport reached the fleet. They had plenty of time to leave if Poe had returned. The Dreadnought fired at the base 6:12 minutes in. The last transport reaches the fleet and Leia orders Poe back. But he ignores her and turn off his com. At 7:40 the bombers arrive. At 10:30 the Dreadnought is ready to fire again, but gets blown up.
Seriously did any of you guys actually watch the film?
Tell me again how it's all Poe's fault.
For that matter, if you're just trying to escape, why even launch the bombers. the rebellion was obviously out gunned, whichever admiral allowed them to launch in the first place is at fault. Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order. because the odds of surviving a frontal assault is 3,720 to 1.
Sure scramble the fighters the keep their fighters off your ships then jump away, attacking them from a weakened position is madness.
Kilkrazy wrote: People who didn't like TLJ, are you going to not watch whatever comes next in the series?
Sideline movies, maybe. Future trilogies not involving JJ and Rian, maybe. TLJ literally killed any further interest I had in the characters created in TFA, alongside any interest in future works of those two directors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: No Galef backtracking now on who Rey's parents are ,would be bad storytelling and retroactively devalue her confrontation with Kylo Ren. And it would break the mirror characterisation between her and Kylo Ren.
IMHO what the cave meant :Rey does not need her parents, she is her own parents.
I wonder if the cave scene means she's a clone. It would fit the imagery if she's just one of many Reys.
"I had a vision too. I know who your parents were... You are a Kenobi!"
Rey "... Who?"
Rey has no idea who the hell Kenobi is/was. That is a scene that would mean nothing to the people in the film and only something to the viewers. It would be full on terrible.
Interesting. Rey could well be Kenobi's grandaughter and still be the child of a couple of nobodies that no one had ever heard of.
Crimson Devil wrote: So you're upset Holdo didn't share her plans with a reckless pilot recently demoted by Holdo's superior officer? If it had been anyone other than Leia, Poe would've been in the brig or out the airlock.
For what? Leading a successful (if costly) attack on an enemy capital ship that would have wiped out the fleet before it left orbit that they utterly failed to stop by issuing a recall order on the bombers ?
If Poe is a failure for leading the attack from the front, Leia and Ackbar fail by not issuing recall orders... or just skipping off into hyperspace and leaving Poe to face the New Order alone.
That's yet another severe plot hole in this movie - if Poe really was wrong, Leia and Ackbar could easily have overridden his orders. And there's no sign they even tried.
So at any time between 6:12 and 7:40 Leia or Ackbar could have issued a recall order to the bombers... and didn't.
The Fleet could have left as soon at the last transport reached the fleet. They had plenty of time to leave if Poe had returned. The Dreadnought fired at the base 6:12 minutes in. The last transport reaches the fleet and Leia orders Poe back. But he ignores her and turn off his com. At 7:40 the bombers arrive. At 10:30 the Dreadnought is ready to fire again, but gets blown up.
Seriously did any of you guys actually watch the film?
Tell me again how it's all Poe's fault.
For that matter, if you're just trying to escape, why even launch the bombers. the rebellion was obviously out gunned, whichever admiral allowed them to launch in the first place is at fault. Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order. because the odds of surviving a frontal assault is 3,720 to 1.
Sure scramble the fighters the keep their fighters off your ships then jump away, attacking them from a weakened position is madness.
You really think Holdo would do something so risky? Nothing about her character portrayal on screen says risk-taker. The set up would implicate Poe since he is in command of the attack, but since we don't see it screen who knows. What we can surmise is once the bombers start their attack run they were not capable of surviving a withdrawal. Hence Leia not ordering them to retreat. Press the attack and make their death's have value.
sirlynchmob wrote: Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order.
Actually it's a brilliant strategy. You trade a few expendable bombers for a massive capital ship, that's a massive victory for the resistance. Who cares if they all die, you still killed way more than the bombers cost. Send in the next wave of bombers against the next capital ship, and repeat until the First Order's fleet is wiped out. The stupidity is people weeping about the fact that people die in war and fighter pilots are expendable munitions (something Poe seems to understand very clearly) instead of building up a lot more bombers and winning the war.
sirlynchmob wrote: Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order.
Actually it's a brilliant strategy. You trade a few expendable bombers for a massive capital ship, that's a massive victory for the resistance. Who cares if they all die, you still killed way more than the bombers cost. Send in the next wave of bombers against the next capital ship, and repeat until the First Order's fleet is wiped out. The stupidity is people weeping about the fact that people die in war and fighter pilots are expendable munitions (something Poe seems to understand very clearly) instead of building up a lot more bombers and winning the war.
Usually yes - if you have any kind of support and logistics, any kind of functioning military structure...
Remember that the entire Republic military were overwhelmed in a day and they apparently have no prospect or resupply or reinforcements - that's the main issue - there is no resistance to speak off, just a bunch of idiots in some clapped out ships.
You really think Holdo would do something so risky? Nothing about her character portrayal on screen says risk-taker. The set up would implicate Poe since he is in cpmmand of the attack, but since we don't see it screen who knows. What we can surmise is once the bombers start their attack run they were not capable of surviving a withdrawal. Hence Leia not ordering them to retreat. Press the attack and make their death's have value.
Like the majority of the film its lazy and weak writing, stuff just gets chucked in to make the next scene vaguely work, no involved really cares to make any form of coherent narrative.
Mr Morden wrote: Remember that the entire Republic military were overwhelmed in a day and they apparently have no prospect or resupply or reinforcements - that's the main issue - there is no resistance to speak off, just a bunch of idiots in some clapped out ships.
Then they fail and die anyway. Might as well go down shooting and take a few enemy ships with them. Still a success.
sirlynchmob wrote: Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order.
Actually it's a brilliant strategy. You trade a few expendable bombers for a massive capital ship, that's a massive victory for the resistance. Who cares if they all die, you still killed way more than the bombers cost. Send in the next wave of bombers against the next capital ship, and repeat until the First Order's fleet is wiped out. The stupidity is people weeping about the fact that people die in war and fighter pilots are expendable munitions (something Poe seems to understand very clearly) instead of building up a lot more bombers and winning the war.
Leia cared.
Sure, if you have infinite resources and manpower, that strategy works. It doesn't work when your ships don't have enough fuel for more than 1 jump, and those funding you and buying the bombers just had their planets & factories blown away, not forgetting your advisory does have infinite resources and manpower.
Losing all your ships and people with only a handful of people escaping on a small freighter is losing the war. the war is over the first order won. The "rebellion" will now be seen like the bundy bunch sitting in a building thinking they're making a difference, while the rest of the universe turns a blind eye towards them because they lost. The bundy's "militia" had more people then the rebellion has and they were only up against 1 country, not the galaxy.
If they had taken the fuel from the bombers the ships could have made a second jump each in different directions, then they'd at least pass for a guerrilla army. But no system in their right mind will join the rebellion now, they just saw the destruction of numerous planets for supporting them, and the rebellion brings nothing to the table to protect any worlds that might join, because they lost everything.
Those bombers; I love them, but not in this era. I said before, that if the clone wars had the likes of those then it would have been both awesome and clever (showing the technology progressing from lumbering carpet bombers to nimble fighter bombers).
They also took out a Dreadnought. Clearly, that's quite the achievement. That shows The First Order aren't all powerful.
Think about it alongside Starkiller Base. Two super weapons, both wrecked by a small group of brave fighters.
And as Leia said, they have allies in the Outer Rim. And we can infer from the hope of 'get to the surface, radio for help', likely enough Allies to give the First Order present at the time a good shoeing.
Now, why did their allies not respond? We don't know for sure at the moment. It could be that with the fall of the New Republic (only a few hours before), there was just too much turmoil to get things organised. Maybe The First Order had them all tied up in terms of resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Those bombers; I love them, but not in this era. I said before, that if the clone wars had the likes of those then it would have been both awesome and clever (showing the technology progressing from lumbering carpet bombers to nimble fighter bombers).
But that shows the limited resources The Resistance had to work with quite nicely. No real high end equipment. Mix of shiny new-ish X-Wings, a single Heavy Cruiser, and a bunch of outdated but still useable ships.
There's lots of cool and dramatic scenes of people doing stupid things and losings wars and battles. Any of the general custers movies come to mind, or more recently infinity wars, so cool and dramatic and the good guys lost there as well. But done so much better than TLJ and with characters that had depth to them.
That's because Leia was an idiot in that scene. Her fleet spent some expendable munitions to destroy a vastly more powerful and expensive target. If you aren't willing to use a weapon then why have it at all? It's pretty clear that Leia is sad because people died, not because she was saving those bombers to spend them on a different target and Poe used up too much of her resources at the wrong time.
Sure, if you have infinite resources and manpower, that strategy works. It doesn't work when your ships don't have enough fuel for more than 1 jump, and those funding you and buying the bombers just had their planets & factories blown away, not forgetting your advisory does have infinite resources and manpower.
Then, again, those ships are useless and there's no point in having them. If you won't use your bombers against the perfect target for them then when will you use them? It's like having a gun but declaring that bullets are precious and you will never use them.
If they had taken the fuel from the bombers the ships could have made a second jump each in different directions, then they'd at least pass for a gorilla army.
You're assuming that a handful of tiny bombers have any meaningful fuel to add to a ship with engines bigger than those bombers. This is almost certainly wrong.
And no, they wouldn't pass for a guerilla army because their leadership is not willing to use their weapons. What target that is more valuable than the dreadnought are you going to engage with your "guerilla army"? Merely having a few small ships still in existence doesn't accomplish anything, and the general population clearly wasn't supporting the resistance and giving it the secure home that a guerilla army requires to function.
And as Leia said, they have allies in the Outer Rim. And we can infer from the hope of 'get to the surface, radio for help', likely enough Allies to give the First Order present at the time a good shoeing.
Leia thought she had allies, but no one answered her call. It's like everyone really, you think you have friends til you call them to help you move. Then like with Leia your "friends" don't answer the phone and don't show up. If they won't even talk to her, they're not likely to join her in some damn fool idealistic crusade.
And as Leia said, they have allies in the Outer Rim. And we can infer from the hope of 'get to the surface, radio for help', likely enough Allies to give the First Order present at the time a good shoeing.
Leia thought she had allies, but no one answered her call. It's like everyone really, you think you have friends til you call them to help you move. Then like with Leia your "friends" don't answer the phone and don't show up. If they won't even talk to her, they're not likely to join her in some damn fool idealistic crusade.
Bit of a leap there fella. There's definitely going to be a reason they didn't show up. Could be cowardice, could be they were up to their necks in their own trouble. Could be anything in between.
That's because Leia was an idiot in that scene. Her fleet spent some expendable munitions to destroy a vastly more powerful and expensive target. If you aren't willing to use a weapon then why have it at all?
Sure, if you have infinite resources and manpower, that strategy works. It doesn't work when your ships don't have enough fuel for more than 1 jump, and those funding you and buying the bombers just had their planets & factories blown away, not forgetting your advisory does have infinite resources and manpower.
Then, again, those ships are useless and there's no point in having them. If you won't use your bombers against the perfect target for them then when will you use them? It's like having a gun but declaring that bullets are precious and you will never use them.
If they had taken the fuel from the bombers the ships could have made a second jump each in different directions, then they'd at least pass for a gorilla army.
You're assuming that a handful of tiny bombers have any meaningful fuel to add to a ship with engines bigger than those bombers. This is almost certainly wrong.
And no, they wouldn't pass for a guerilla army because their leadership is not willing to use their weapons. What target that is more valuable than the dreadnought are you going to engage with your "guerilla army"? Merely having a few small ships still in existence doesn't accomplish anything, and the general population clearly wasn't supporting the resistance and giving it the secure home that a guerilla army requires to function.
The used the bombers against the minions, they didn't even try to get hux & kylo, so whats the point of having bombers just to throw them away at meaningless targets, you might as well not have them.
When you have no more supplies, bullets do become precious, and you shouldn't be wasting them shooting at anything that moves.
3 ships and people in them is magnitudes better than 10 people on one freighter.
right they had no support, so throwing away ships, is just throwing them away for nothing, with nothing gained from doing so.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.
Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.
Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.
And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.
The range is 0-10 on Metacritic, 1-10 on IMDB and 1-5 on Rotten Tomatoes.
This may not fit the narrative of Users hated TLJ and Critics are all paid shills as demonstrated by their radically different marks. Those are the marks, though, and that's the factual evidence to measure, otherwise why not just make stuff up?
.
Personally my criticicism of critics had little to do with alignment with user reviews; my criticism of film critics with TLJ is they failed to be critical.
You can say a movie was personally enjoyable whilst also pointing out it's technical flaws, that's what a critic should be doing otherwise why the feth do we call them critics, might as well just ask some random dude or dudette walking out of the cinema whether they liked it.
I have no problem with a person, whether they be a user or a critic, saying they liked the movie. I think there's lots of reasons to like the movie. But there's also a plethora of technical flaws that should be blatantly obvious to a critic and might lead others to not enjoy the movie.
It's almost as if people take it as an insult when you tell them a movie they liked is bad, people shouldn't take it so personally, there's heaps of movies that I think are bad for whatever reasons or others have pointed out reasons they are bad but I still enjoy them and don't feel the need to defend the movies other than to point out why I still like them in spite of the flaws.
sirlynchmob wrote: The used the bombers against the minions, they didn't even try to get hux & kylo, so whats the point of having bombers just to throw them away at meaningless targets, you might as well not have them.
Hux is symbolic (and probably helps the resistance more by living), the dreadnought is a major capital ship and by far the biggest military threat on the field. That's far from meaningless.
3 ships and people in them is magnitudes better than 10 people on one freighter.
No, it's exactly the same: utterly worthless. Neither will accomplish anything, so why consider that possibility? And remember, when they launched the bomber attack they didn't know they could be tracked through hyperspace or that fuel supplies would be an issue.
There's lots of cool and dramatic scenes of people doing stupid things and losings wars and battles. Any of the general custers movies come to mind, or more recently infinity wars, so cool and dramatic and the good guys lost there as well. But done so much better than TLJ and with characters that had depth to them.
I thought TLJ was done very well and had characters with depth.
Even if the rest of the movie was good (it wasn't) TLJ would still be mired by the most terrible character ever written in starwars (worse than jar jar) - Holdo.
There's lots of cool and dramatic scenes of people doing stupid things and losings wars and battles. Any of the general custers movies come to mind, or more recently infinity wars, so cool and dramatic and the good guys lost there as well. But done so much better than TLJ and with characters that had depth to them.
I thought TLJ was done very well and had characters with depth.
Are you serious? Well done - sure. It had good visual effects. The story is terrible though. The side plot is terrible. I see no character depth - Snoke dies without any real development. Luke develops into something he never would have. Rey gets no backstory - or the story is there is no backstory (stunning). Finn might as well not even be in the movie. Phasma - same deal. Ruby gets some development...but why? Kylo is the only character I see getting meaningful development. Poe - the one new character they made who doesn't suck - half the movie is him fighting with Holdo, a husk of worthlessness - the Resistance would have done better on auto pilot.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
sirlynchmob wrote: The used the bombers against the minions, they didn't even try to get hux & kylo, so whats the point of having bombers just to throw them away at meaningless targets, you might as well not have them.
Hux is symbolic (and probably helps the resistance more by living), the dreadnought is a major capital ship and by far the biggest military threat on the field. That's far from meaningless.
3 ships and people in them is magnitudes better than 10 people on one freighter.
No, it's exactly the same: utterly worthless. Neither will accomplish anything, so why consider that possibility? And remember, when they launched the bomber attack they didn't know they could be tracked through hyperspace or that fuel supplies would be an issue.
trading your fleet for 1 ship is meaningless. Everyone knows you cut the head off the snake to create discord in the ranks and show those on the fence that victory is possible.
Taking out hux & kylo means they would have gotten away and not been tracked directly. Everyone knows you can figure out destinations, like we saw in empire, calculate all known trajectories. Hey there's habitable planet here, let's go check it out. Jump straight to their destination is another failure on the rebellions part. they talked about it on rebels a few times. Not keeping enough fuel on the ship, especially while at your base while it's being financed, is just ridiculous, let alone enough fuel for 2 or 3 jumps. At the start of TFA they had supporters and resources, yet no one thought to refuel the ships. Maybe Holdo was the supply officer, that's why she wasn't good with plans and had no people skills.
But we do agree, as of right now the rebellion is dead and the war is lost. I'd say having a capital ship with bombers and fighters is a lot better then just 1 freighter. Or as you'd put it, having a 9 mil with no bullets.
At least at the end of empire the rebels still had a fleet and ended on a hopeful scene, TLJ didn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think opposite to you on all those points.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
I didn't care about snoke, nor rey parents. I was curious about luke as he was the focus of TFA, and what role he would play in the film but the payoff was Meh at best.
I wanted to be entertained, and about 1/2 way through I was checking my watch wondering how much longer til it was over, because I just didn't enjoy it.
We must have different definitions for "grand space action and drama" because that's what I wanted to see as well.
Then the nerd in me had to wonder, how did R2 get back to the rebellion? how did luke get his xwing to that planet with no droid? is there still a droid on his ship sitting at the bottom of the ocean? who drove R2 home? Then the theme of the movie sunk in, nothing matters, it's all pointless. so in the grand scheme TLJ is pointless and easily skipped in any viewing marathon. there's going to be a big time jump for the last movie, so the whole of 8 could have been summed up on one sentence of the crawl at the beginning of 9. After the destruction of the death moon, the rebellion was crushed and luke died.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
SERIOUSLY stop this BS about "only hard core fans hate TLJ" Its a total Strawman.
I went with three friends:
One is a hard core fan - he hated it
I like me as fun sci-fi flicks - nothing special - I hated it
Another friend who she had seem most of the previously once =- she hated it.
Several teenage sons of a friend went - second Star Wars film - they hated it
A few friends of different ages and interest liked it - lots hated it.
Two of us came to it thinking - hey its Star Wars - should be a bit of fun and found it tedious, irritating with a nonsense narrative and piss poor characters - now you loved it we didn't and no we are not massive star wars films
Again for us it was not a bad Star Wars film it was a bad Film full stop - poor pacing, poor characters, poor plot, etc etc.
Who was Snoke?
Dunno - Director could not be bothered to tell us - seemed vaguely interesting but hey
Where does Rey get her Force powers?
Not bothered - she just does like any space wizard
Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance?
Cos he has become a recluse - that was obvious, now a decent direct might have explored this but not the shambles of a team we were stuck with.
All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
Nope - I had a problem with plot, pace, characters and narrative.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think opposite to you on all those points.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
Starwars is more to a lot of people than an easy breezy space drama. I expect more from it and I expect the people making the movie to know that. What's worse is - ofc they know that - they just don't care. It's readily apparent that they don't care. When you trash every character from the original trilogy - trivialize all their achievements - have them go against their core values...it's just really sad.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think opposite to you on all those points.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
Starwars is more to a lot of people than an easy breezy space drama. ... ...
That probably is the source of the issue.
Take a spy film. Take a Bond film. Take a John le Carre film. Star Wars is the Bond film not the le Carre film.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think opposite to you on all those points.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
Starwars is more to a lot of people than an easy breezy space drama. ... ...
That probably is the source of the issue.
Take a spy film. Take a Bond film. Take a John le Carre film. Star Wars is the Bond film not the le Carre film.
Not to me - bond is just another spy film - especially now that it is actually more like a Bourne film and Mission Impossible resembles a old style Bond film.
Star Wars is just to me a fun sci-fi flick - or it was.....
There are 50 years of Bond films so you can take one or another individually but the core point is true, Bond is dramatic and fun, but it's not intricately plotted like a le Carre or Len Deighton film. The objective is action and spectacle, not exposition of a carefully drawn plot.
Mission Impossible is a good example of this type of spy film.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think opposite to you on all those points.
The interesting thing is why? As far as I can see, everyone who hates TLJ is a deep fan of Star Wars and came to the film with a lot of ideas of what the film should contain.
Who was Snoke? Where does Rey get her Force powers? Why doesn't Luke join the Resistance? All that sort of thing. None of this was resolved, and made you very disappointed.
I had no such expectations. I didn't expect in-depth background references coupled with precise details about this and that. I hoped for an exciting Star Wars film full of easy-breezy grand space action and drama, and that's exactly what I got.
Starwars is more to a lot of people than an easy breezy space drama. ... ...
That probably is the source of the issue.
Take a spy film. Take a Bond film. Take a John le Carre film. Star Wars is the Bond film not the le Carre film.
The new bonds were excellent though - they do the previous bonds justice by being great films. I personally feel that Craig is the best bond.
I can't agree that that is the issue. The issue is that TLJ is trash from every cinematic angle you can take. If the film was good but I didn't like it's conclusions I wouldn't hate on it. If the film was bad but everything happend that I wanted - I probably would treat it something like phantom menace - which is a bad film that I like because it has cool characters and tells an interesting story. I'm forced to hate on it because it's bad in every way to me - there is almost nothing to like about TLJ.
Probably not - its definitely the worst film I have seen for years. Especially when you consider how much money has been thrown at it - its similar with the Prequals in that respect.
I just don't see anything good in it - even the rare flashes of interest such as the relationship between Rey and Ben are squandered or lost in mind numbing tedium of the chase after the Ship of Fools.
I'd give it 1 out of 10. That's probably generous.
Woohoo, I enjoyed TLJ so I'm having badwrongfun! I go out of my way to watch terrible sci-fi and horror movies and I can assure you there are far worse. Of course if people want to talk about Bond films, they should look up the original Casino Royal movie with Woody Allen and Orsin Wells doing magic tricks. Your mind will be blown.
It's one of the worst films I've ever seen. In the past 5 years there are only 2 films I hated as much or more (hard to really judge this level of hate)
The Grey - They take the shells out of the gun and put them on the end of sticks to fight wolves...Why don't they make weapons out of the plane derbies?...wolves are hunting men...50% flashbacks...It's forcing some kind of message at me...I don't care. This is so bad.
Cloud Atlas - The gak did I just watch? What is this guy saying? 7 movies in 1 and they all suck? OMG - give me my life back.
Kilkrazy wrote: OK< so it's worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
I've never seen that - though - you don't compare battleships to destroyers. A christmas movie has lower expectations than a movie theater blockbuster.
Kilkrazy wrote: OK< so it's worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
I've never seen that - though - you don't compare battleships to destroyers. A christmas movie has lower expectations than a movie theater blockbuster.
That's exactly my point.
You're judging TLJ against your prior expectations, not an objective standard of film-making.
Kilkrazy wrote: OK< so it's worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Not seen it - is it recent?
Might be worth listing films that people may have actually seen to compare with it over the last year.
It was even worse than Batman Ninja and that was crap.
What films do you think it was better than recently.
Skaorn wrote: Woohoo, I enjoyed TLJ so I'm having badwrongfun! I go out of my way to watch terrible sci-fi and horror movies and I can assure you there are far worse. Of course if people want to talk about Bond films, they should look up the original Casino Royal movie with Woody Allen and Orsin Wells doing magic tricks. Your mind will be blown.
Nope you should enjoy what you enjoy. The Old Casino Royale was....odd - but then I am not a Woody Allen fan so that probably did not help.
What films did you think Last Jedi was better than in the last six months - I did not watch a worse one.
Just to be clear, when I say someone's judging SW from their subjective angle, so am I. My viewpoint is different, though, hence the different appreciation of the film.
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was released in 1964.
The last several films I've seen at the cinema were SW TLJ, SW Han Solo, SW TFA, Paddington 2, Bridget Jones's Baby, The Wind Rises, Johnny English 2, maybe a couple of others I can't remember. Warm Bodies, for instance.
I thought TLJ was below HS but above TFA. It's hard to compare with the others because they are completely different genres. However if you want to look for points of comparison, Warm Bodies is a genial adaptation of Romeo & Juliet into a ZomRomCom horror flick, so the plot is unoriginal.
TLJ is one of the worst SW films ever made, edging out only TPM and AotC at the bottom of the pile. When you rank SW films against one another the measuring stick, believe it or not, is SW itself.
Looking at TLJ against other non-SW movies in the same budget range out these past few years, it's a completely forgettable nothing. I would say Disney's John Carter is a far better film, and it's also pretty forgettable. More recently, Thor Ragnarok was a much better film. The latest version of ITws a much better film. Blade Runner 2049 was many, many times better a film. I would say TLJ is comparable with the RoboCop remake from a few years back. I think it is a better film than Terminator Genisys, however.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just to be clear, when I say someone's judging SW from their subjective angle, so am I. My viewpoint is different, though, hence the different appreciation of the film.
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was released in 1964.
The last several films I've seen at the cinema were SW TLJ, SW Han Solo, SW TFA, Paddington 2, Bridget Jones's Baby, The Wind Rises, Johnny English 2, maybe a couple of others I can't remember. Warm Bodies, for instance.
I thought TLJ was below HS but above TFA. It's hard to compare with the others because they are completely different genres. However if you want to look for points of comparison, Warm Bodies is a genial adaptation of Romeo & Juliet into a ZomRomCom horror flick, so the plot is unoriginal.
I go with a couple of friends regularly - couple of times a month at most - more on DVD or Sky/Netflix/Amazon. recently watched and enjoyed much much more than TLJ: Rampage, Thor Raganrok Black Panther, Annihilation, Bright, Justice League, Jumanji (the new one), Wonder Woman, I would even say GeoStorm was a far better film than TLJ and that was not....great.
We loved Warm bodies - great film, certainly a million times better than TLJ
TFA two of us thought was good fun - the hardcore SW fan hated it, we had hoped TLJ would be similar, again better than TLJ
Johnny English was quite good fun,
Not seen Solo (will wait till its on Sky) or the Wind Rises
The last six months is a very small window of time and I haven't watched a lot of movies lately. Recent ones include Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Annabell the Creation, Alien Covenant, and Mother! spring to mind.
To be fair with Mother! though my friend and I went to see it wanting a bad horror movie, the trailer made it look like a Rosemary's Baby clone which it wasn't, and I don't think I was supposed to figure out the source material as quickly as I did. As for Annabell, I've seen the real one in person and was planning on going back to the Warren's museum before the movie, only to find it was closed ATM due to zoning issues, so I had to settle for the movie.
I think those should be recent enough without dipping into older gems like the Transformer movies, the SW Prequels, or Battlefield Earth. I also didn't enjoy TFA either and that could still probably fit comfortably in "recent" movies.
Something I've been trying to erase from my memory, also, I was recently forced to watch all 3 Fifty Shades movies. Back to back. I didn't claw out my own eyes.
No, it's the worst star wars film, judging by user reviews, and IMO. it's probably a toss up for worst star wars film between TLJ and phantom. I'd put phantom on top of TLJ because it at least has characters with more depth, and pod racing
And of course I'm not even considering the ewok movies or the holiday special as they don't exist
Manchu wrote: So how do those movies compare to TLJ in your opinion?
Oh, I thought Morden was asking for movies I thought were worse. Better is a lot harder to remember thanks to major depressive disorder, I often completely forget about things I enjoy. By association I can pull up Rogue One, Han Solo, Thor: Ragnarok, Captain America: Civil War, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. All recently seen within the past 18 months maybe. I'd say I liked Wonder Woman but I can't for the life of me remember much about it. The only thing I can recall off the top of my head that doesn't have a direct association is The Things We Do in the Shadows.
Another one I found worse than TLJ I just thought of was Arthur: Legend of the Sword. I mean the bad guy's look was stolen directly off of an 80s heavy metal album cover. Of course I also enjoyed Clive Owen's version of King Arthur as it was the Seven Samurai done with Arthurian legend, if that says something.
Kilkrazy wrote: OK< so it's worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
I've never seen that - though - you don't compare battleships to destroyers. A christmas movie has lower expectations than a movie theater blockbuster.
That's exactly my point.
You're judging TLJ against your prior expectations, not an objective standard of film-making.
Ofc I am using my expectations to judge it. I expect that a 200 million dollar movie is going to have a decent plot that a 7 year old could dissect as being complete trash. I am also judging it against standards of cinema - it misses the mark here big time and that is much more important than my personal opinion. This movie makes you feel like you are having actual time stolen from your life with a useless side plot that has no bearing on the story. It makes up reasons which don't make sense about why the first order doesn't just destroy the fleeing ships with it's fighters (which already inflicted serious damage) and it breaks established star wars history by ramming a ship in hyperspace - making all the previous struggles of the alliance a waste...they could have just destroyed the death star with hyperspace suicide mon calamari.
Plot is the most important part of any movie - TLJ falls so short here is embarrassing for a "professional" director/film team.
Manchu wrote: So how do those movies compare to TLJ in your opinion?
Oh, I thought Morden was asking for movies I thought were worse. Better is a lot harder to remember thanks to major depressive disorder, I often completely forget about things I enjoy. By association I can pull up Rogue One, Han Solo, Thor: Ragnarok, Captain America: Civil War, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. All recently seen within the past 18 months maybe. I'd say I liked Wonder Woman but I can't for the life of me remember much about it. The only thing I can recall off the top of my head that doesn't have a direct association is The Things We Do in the Shadows.
Another one I found worse than TLJ I just thought of was Arthur: Legend of the Sword. I mean the bad guy's look was stolen directly off of an 80s heavy metal album cover. Of course I also enjoyed Clive Owen's version of King Arthur as it was the Seven Samurai done with Arthurian legend, if that says something.
I was indeed - of those listed
Batman vs Superman: despite the truely awful "Loopy Lex" that ruined the film for me, I did enjoy the other characters - esp Wonder Woman - so for me much better than TLJ where I was at best meh about characters.
Suicide Squad: Great first half - loads better than TLJ - some great sequences and fun characters - could have been better but never tedious.
Alien Covenant: David was good, some good action -loads better than TLJ again for me
King Arthur - wierd film but mad fun. Again TLJ was just no fun.
Annabell the Creation, and Mother - not seen either,
Skaorn wrote: The last six months is a very small window of time and I haven't watched a lot of movies lately. Recent ones include Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Annabell the Creation, Alien Covenant, and Mother! spring to mind.
To be fair with Mother! though my friend and I went to see it wanting a bad horror movie, the trailer made it look like a Rosemary's Baby clone which it wasn't, and I don't think I was supposed to figure out the source material as quickly as I did. As for Annabell, I've seen the real one in person and was planning on going back to the Warren's museum before the movie, only to find it was closed ATM due to zoning issues, so I had to settle for the movie.
I think those should be recent enough without dipping into older gems like the Transformer movies, the SW Prequels, or Battlefield Earth. I also didn't enjoy TFA either and that could still probably fit comfortably in "recent" movies.
Something I've been trying to erase from my memory, also, I was recently forced to watch all 3 Fifty Shades movies. Back to back. I didn't claw out my own eyes.
Funny - battlefield earth recently became available on Netflix and I watched it for the second time in my life. I'd give 2.5 stars out of 5. Special effects were bad (even for the time) costume's were pretty bad, and cave men flying harriers was also just a little more than silly. the biggest uh oh is when they produce pressed gold bars instead of gold ore to the obviously untrusting john Travolta alien and hes okay with it...Ultimately - I liked the main character enough to stay interested and I genuinely wanted him to succeed. Not that bad of a film in the end if you care about the main character.
A similar movie "Oblivion" I absolutely loved. 5/5. Not sure why I even mention it. It's just I wish more movies could be at that level.
Skaorn wrote: The last six months is a very small window of time and I haven't watched a lot of movies lately. Recent ones include Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Annabell the Creation, Alien Covenant, and Mother! spring to mind.
To be fair with Mother! though my friend and I went to see it wanting a bad horror movie, the trailer made it look like a Rosemary's Baby clone which it wasn't, and I don't think I was supposed to figure out the source material as quickly as I did. As for Annabell, I've seen the real one in person and was planning on going back to the Warren's museum before the movie, only to find it was closed ATM due to zoning issues, so I had to settle for the movie.
I think those should be recent enough without dipping into older gems like the Transformer movies, the SW Prequels, or Battlefield Earth. I also didn't enjoy TFA either and that could still probably fit comfortably in "recent" movies.
Something I've been trying to erase from my memory, also, I was recently forced to watch all 3 Fifty Shades movies. Back to back. I didn't claw out my own eyes.
Funny - battlefield earth recently became available on Netflix and I watched it for the second time in my life. I'd give 2.5 stars out of 5. Special effects were bad (even for the time) costume's were pretty bad, and cave men flying harriers was also just a little more than silly. the biggest uh oh is when they produce pressed gold bars instead of gold ore to the obviously untrusting john Travolta alien and hes okay with it...Ultimately - I liked the main character enough to stay interested and I genuinely wanted him to succeed. Not that bad of a film in the end if you care about the main character.
A similar movie "Oblivion" I absolutely loved. 5/5. Not sure why I even mention it. It's just I wish more movies could be at that level.
Oblivion is a good movie - enjoyed that alot. Edge of Tomorrow is equally good IMO
Skaorn wrote: The last six months is a very small window of time and I haven't watched a lot of movies lately. Recent ones include Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Annabell the Creation, Alien Covenant, and Mother! spring to mind.
To be fair with Mother! though my friend and I went to see it wanting a bad horror movie, the trailer made it look like a Rosemary's Baby clone which it wasn't, and I don't think I was supposed to figure out the source material as quickly as I did. As for Annabell, I've seen the real one in person and was planning on going back to the Warren's museum before the movie, only to find it was closed ATM due to zoning issues, so I had to settle for the movie.
I think those should be recent enough without dipping into older gems like the Transformer movies, the SW Prequels, or Battlefield Earth. I also didn't enjoy TFA either and that could still probably fit comfortably in "recent" movies.
Something I've been trying to erase from my memory, also, I was recently forced to watch all 3 Fifty Shades movies. Back to back. I didn't claw out my own eyes.
Funny - battlefield earth recently became available on Netflix and I watched it for the second time in my life. I'd give 2.5 stars out of 5. Special effects were bad (even for the time) costume's were pretty bad, and cave men flying harriers was also just a little more than silly. the biggest uh oh is when they produce pressed gold bars instead of gold ore to the obviously untrusting john Travolta alien and hes okay with it...Ultimately - I liked the main character enough to stay interested and I genuinely wanted him to succeed. Not that bad of a film in the end if you care about the main character.
A similar movie "Oblivion" I absolutely loved. 5/5. Not sure why I even mention it. It's just I wish more movies could be at that level.
Oblivion is a good movie - enjoyed that alot. Edge of Tomorrow is equally good IMO
Skaorn wrote: The last six months is a very small window of time and I haven't watched a lot of movies lately. Recent ones include Batman vs Superman, Suicide Squad, Annabell the Creation, Alien Covenant, and Mother! spring to mind.
To be fair with Mother! though my friend and I went to see it wanting a bad horror movie, the trailer made it look like a Rosemary's Baby clone which it wasn't, and I don't think I was supposed to figure out the source material as quickly as I did. As for Annabell, I've seen the real one in person and was planning on going back to the Warren's museum before the movie, only to find it was closed ATM due to zoning issues, so I had to settle for the movie.
I think those should be recent enough without dipping into older gems like the Transformer movies, the SW Prequels, or Battlefield Earth. I also didn't enjoy TFA either and that could still probably fit comfortably in "recent" movies.
Something I've been trying to erase from my memory, also, I was recently forced to watch all 3 Fifty Shades movies. Back to back. I didn't claw out my own eyes.
Funny - battlefield earth recently became available on Netflix and I watched it for the second time in my life. I'd give 2.5 stars out of 5. Special effects were bad (even for the time) costume's were pretty bad, and cave men flying harriers was also just a little more than silly. the biggest uh oh is when they produce pressed gold bars instead of gold ore to the obviously untrusting john Travolta alien and hes okay with it...Ultimately - I liked the main character enough to stay interested and I genuinely wanted him to succeed. Not that bad of a film in the end if you care about the main character.
The book was better, the movie is just the first half of the book, Travolta was great as the bad guy, and did catch that in the book. The movie was poorly received as I recall, but it's still a better story than TLJ.
Edge of Tomorrow was solid, but I really wish it had stuck to the small scale conflict of the original novel instead of going for a full keystone army ending. I was really disappointed with how it ended compared to the original.
Batman vs Superman: despite the truely awful "Loopy Lex" that ruined the film for me, I did enjoy the other characters - esp Wonder Woman - so for me much better than TLJ where I was at best meh about characters.
Suicide Squad: Great first half - loads better than TLJ - some great sequences and fun characters - could have been better but never tedious.
Alien Covenant: David was good, some good action -loads better than TLJ again for me
King Arthur - wierd film but mad fun. Again TLJ was just no fun.
Annabell the Creation, and Mother - not seen either,
And all those are completely valid for, just as it's valid they all made me hope they would hurry up and end while TLJ didn't. Not that TLJ made me hope that there was still more left to go either.
Off Topic:
Spoiler:
Loopy Lex was definitely a take on the character that was a risk that flopped but it was things like the time traveling Flash stuff and both their mom's having the same name.
The Flash was a big "look we might do something with this in a future movie", which is not a real safe bet to do in a movie series. I mean Darth Vader wasn't even Luke's father until a few rewrites into ESB and things can get cut just as easily. There is also the "we could even do Injustice" angle too. In reality you could do an Injustice movie connected with no connections or setup at all beyond the basic premise that the Joker tricked Superman so badly that he snapped and took over. Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Joker are well known enough that they don't really need introductions when you're already running with "what if Superman went bad".
Also, after learning Superman's secret identity, is the guy who's often called the Worlds Greatest Detective is going to be surprised that their moms share the same first name? I'd figure one first step would be to look up known family and associates. Seems like something a character like Batman might do when plotting to murder someone to see who he'd be effecting and decide if he was really making the right choice too, considering the tragic loss in his life.
As for Suicide Squad, I could have gotten a better story watching the Justice League Unlimited episode Task Force X, without any of the connecting episodes to go with it, and gotten it with better animation and under 30 minutes. I mean a team of C and D list super villains with cortex bombs being forced by the government to infiltrate the super heroes' space station to destroy a device that can be used as a space based weapon system sounds way better than the mess that Suicide Squad was.
TPM isn't as much terrible as it is a huge letdown. I've never full decided if RotS is really that much better or if I'd just adapted my standards by the time it came out. AotC is easily the worst theatrical Star Wars film ever made.
LunarSol wrote: TPM isn't as much terrible as it is a huge letdown. I've never full decided if RotS is really that much better or if I'd just adapted my standards by the time it came out. AotC is easily the worst theatrical Star Wars film ever made.
Disagree. All 3 of the prequels are hot garbage. Obi is good in them. But the visuals are long green screen corridors that go nowhere in a sterile city where nobody has anything to do. Everything with the senate is boring. The side characters are just endless piles of nonsense. They kill off every interesting bad guy in the movie they are introduced so we never get any kind of build up of good story with them (Maul Grevus). Duku is a boring old man. The main character is poorly portrayed in every one of the movies. Yoda becomes a horrible CGI flipping whirl which just detracts from the character. They made Samuel L Jackson into the most boring person in the galaxy. Everyone forgets what powers they have.
We literally see Qui Gon and Obi use super speed in the opening of TPM and then when they fight Maul nobody uses super speed to get through video game style opening and closing energy doors. Why?
Outside of MST3K style garbage the prequels are some of the worst movies I have ever seen.
TLJ belongs down at the bottom with TPM and AotC because, like them, it is essentially a parade of stupid that keeps getting dumber as it goes on. It ranks a bit higher because the dialog and acting is at lot less clunky, and it inherited better characters from TFA than any who appear in TPM or AotC.
LunarSol wrote: TPM isn't as much terrible as it is a huge letdown. I've never full decided if RotS is really that much better or if I'd just adapted my standards by the time it came out. AotC is easily the worst theatrical Star Wars film ever made.
Disagree. All 3 of the prequels are hot garbage.
I didn't mean to imply any of them are remotely good.
Manchu wrote: TLJ belongs down at the bottom with TPM and AotC because, like them, it is essentially a parade of stupid that keeps getting dumber as it goes on. It ranks a bit higher because the dialog and acting is at lot less clunky, and it inherited better characters from TFA than any who appear in TPM or AotC.
Natalie P did look fantastic in her white combat outfit.......
The Last Jedi is, if not my favorite, definitely in my top three Star Wars films.
I felt it was a mature take on the series that gave us back the jedi after the terrible damage wrought on them by Lucas in the prequels.
It subverted so many tropes, from the Million To One Shot to the Plucky Young Hero Saving The Day By Bucking Authority. It wiped out the unnecessary mystery boxes JJ Abrams loves to set up but not resolve in favor of moving the narrative forward rather than looking back.
It is a movie that lovingly sent off the main players of the trilogy of my youth while focusing on the players of the new generation of Star Wars fans, and I loved every minute of it.
One of the biggest TLJ fans on DakkaDakka is speculating ITT as to which main cast member Rey is related. Just like back when TFA came out. He loved TLJ but is looking forward to JJ returning to fix Rian's mishandling of Rey. Regardless of whether you agree with that POV, it's a great example of how TLJ did not "wipe out" the mystery boxes - even for people who loved the movie. It sure as hell did not move the narrative forward. If Snoke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Snoke doesn't matter. If Luke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Luke doesn't matter. If Rey's background is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then revealing that Rey has no background doesn't matter.
Mr Morden wrote: Natalie P did look fantastic in her white combat outfit.......
I prefer her leather corset look. You know, the perfect outfit for when you need to squeeze your boobs way up into pronounced cleavage for those special occasions by the fireplace when you tell a guy that he's not getting to second base.
s who posted sexist garbage about the movie. It is not referring to everyone who ever said anything bad about it.
